Ed O'Bannon is back and better than ever......

Ed O'Bannon, is suing the NCAA over its use of athletes' images and names for video games, jerseys, DVD's, etc. You can read the Associated Press story on ESPN. He is so far the only plaintiff in what he and his attorneys hope to make a class action suit.

(For those who don't remember, Ed and his brother Charles lead UCLA to an NCAA basketball title in 1995, and promptly became irrelevant.)

I say it is about time.

I'm surprised it has taken this long for this issue to finally be raised.

I think student-athletes should be compensated for the use of their names and images. Some people say that this is paying student-athletes to play. I say it is not. It is paying them for using their likeness. Those same people might say that student-athletes are already given enough to play, especially athletes in big time sports like football or basketball. I will agree, student-athletes are given a lot. For example, the University of Virginia, the school in my hometown, estimates the total cost for an out-of-state student in the 2009-2010 academic year to be just over $40,000 (facts taken from UVA website.) Over four years that adds up to over $160,000. Some of these athletes are also given a small stipend for personal expenses. Most big time sports at D-I schools are now year-round because of camps, training, film studying, etc, so the students either can't work or aren't allowed to work. Because of this many student-athletes can't afford to buy a jersey that bears their name. But, that is the deal that has been established. The student performs on the field, the school gives them an education.

Unfortunately schools in the NCAA make athletes sign away the right to use their name and image. That should not be part of the deal.

Another thing I think athletes should be able to do is appear in local ads or as spokespeople, and get paid for it. If Happy Harold's House of Hammocks in Gainesville wants to use Tim Tebow in a print ad, why should I care? If Tebow makes a little scratch and Harold sells a few more hammocks, everyone wins.

These are both part of the larger issue of the NCAA being hung-up on making sure their athletes stay amateur. I'm fine with that. I'm not arguing for student-athletes to get paid to play their sport. I'm arguing that they get paid for the use of the image or name. Athletics seems to be the only area where this is an issue. As an example, my wife has a degree in art. While in college she sold original pieces and was paid for photography work and no one said a thing. If she had been in school on a full art scholarship no one would have said at thing. She would have been encouraged. If a student studying business on a full academic scholarship starts her own website or other business venture, and succeeds, and makes money, no one cares. In fact, people would be even more impressed because they were "only college students."

The next issue then is how much do the students-athletes get? How do you divide it up? How much do you give a superstar, who will appear in other media more often, and how much does the third string DB get?

That last question is easy to answer. You can either device a royalty system, (Hollywood figured that decades ago, it's called scale.) Or you can give everyone the same amount, just like with scholarships.

The issue of how much the student-athletes should get paid is one that needs to be decided by the NCAA, the schools, the Collegiate Licensing Company, and their for-profit business partners. But they need to come up with a number. They are all making huge amounts of money on the backs of these students. It's about time the students got their piece.