Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit earns a key ruling, but at what cost

Late Monday evening, a Supreme Court judge denied the NCAA's motion to dismiss the lawsuit that former UCLA Bruin Ed O'Bannon filed last summer regarding the NCAA's use of the likeness of former players.

In short, the issue is that the NCAA is profiting off of former players -- via video games, selling clips of memorable plays (Christian Laettner's jumper, Bryce Drew's buzzer-beater, etc.), old jersey sales, television rebroadcasts -- without giving a time to the players involved. O'Bannon's argument is based around the thought that signing on for an athletic scholarship does not allow the NCAA to use his likeness in perpetuity.

And he's right.

This is a significant ruling for all parties. For the first time, the estimated $4 billion in NCAA licensing deals will be exposed.

“The key to this order is that it opens the door to the discovery process, and we soon can begin collecting evidence from the NCAA [and its member schools and conferences], taking depositions, and uncovering everything that it wanted to hide and keep from the public’s and athletes’ view,” said Jon King, partner at Hausfeld LLP, one of the firms handling the class-action suit.

“This is a truly historic day – to our knowledge, no one has ever gotten behind the scenes to examine how student-athletes’ current and future rights in their images are divided up and sold,” King said.

But that's not the only issue that the NCAA is facing with this lawsuit. Pete Thamel explains:

Michael McCann, a professor at Vermont Law School who specializes in sports law, called Monday’s ruling a “setback” for the N.C.A.A. He said that the case would probably be followed closely by members of Congress who were interested in the N.C.A.A.’s tax-exempt status.

“I think it’s an important case because it gets at the core of the student-athlete mission and the issue that new players have in terms of waving away potential benefits they may enjoy when they’re out of college,” McCann said.

While there is no doubt this is a landmark ruling, and one that anyone who believes in the rights of student-athletes should follow closely, it could not have come at a worse time for college basketball.

According to USA Today, fewer than two dozen DI programs have financially self-sufficient athletic departments. Some $800 million in subsidies, provided by taxpayers and students fees, keeps the rest of the programs afloat. While there's no doubt that any ruling will not be for some time, the threat of a large initial payout and the subsequent revenue share that the NCAA is facing only heightens their money issues.

Which means they need to bring in more money.

One way is to switch to a tournament format for football, which is a good thing.

Another?

Expand to a 96 team NCAA Tournament. Its simple really. More game played = more ticket sales = more advertising revenue = more money for the NCAA.

I'm not saying you shouldn't applaud O'Bannon or support his cause. He is sticking his neck out to fight for former athletes that have been screwed over by the NCAA. He is opening himself up to personal attacks. He is putting his legacy on the line. And while he is doing it for a cause I believe is right, keep in mind what the collateral damage could be.

The NCAA Tournament we know and love is on life support right now.

Monday's ruling may have pulled the plug.