Just a few days after an impressive 32 point, 9 assist performance against Chauncey Billups and the Nuggets, Brandon Jennings dropped an insane stat line. 55 points on 21/34 from the field (62%), 7/8 from 3pt range (88%), 5 rebounds and 5 assists with 4 turnovers. What makes his 55 point performance even more impressive is that he failed to score a point in the first quarter, went for 29 in the third, and most important of all, led his team to a victory.

Jennings’ difficult time in Europe has been well documented. From getting kicked out of practice for not working hard enough, to meager playing time and scoring output, many skeptics deemed his choice a failure very early on. However, Jennings apparently learned a great deal in his year abroad. While his flashy style and controversial public comments have painted one picture of Jennings, his actions and performance in the NBA have displayed something very different thus far.

When top scorer Michael Redd went down with yet another knee injury, many said “here we go again” for the woeful Bucks. However, Jennings apparently was not one of them. He has picked up the scoring load, shown poise and leadership, helping to guide his team to a 5-2 record with a 4 game win streak. He is also leading his team in points (25.6) and assists (5.1). Jennings is also adding over 4 rebounds a game, 1 steal and shooting nearly 50% from the floor and 57% on 3pt.

There is no question that we surely will see players choose the path of Brandon Jennings by going to Europe as opposed to their requisite year of college. There also certainly will be those who are not fit to make that jump. Hopefully we do not see a rash of “advisors” steering players who should be playing college basketball, towards the overseas payday for their own monetary gain; however, it may in fact be a good move for some players.

Maybe it takes a year of sitting on a bench in Europe, getting treated like any other professional player and having to work hard, rather than walking around a college campus like a celebrity for a year. Maybe it is too stressful for some to be labeled the next Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, etc. every night on ESPN during March Madness. Maybe, for some, this really is a successful path to choose.

While it is still too early to grade the Jennings experiment a complete success, I would venture to say that he is off to an exceptional start and proving a lot of doubters wrong. Somewhere Sonny Vaccaro is smiling.

You have heard of Brandon Jennings.  He had problems attaining the requisite scores to go to a D1 school and decided to play his first year out of high school overseas.  His struggles were documented, but he was still a lottery pick of the Milwaukee Bucks.  There were many doubters.  He has shut them up thus far.  Through five games, Jennings is leading the Bucks in points-per-game (18.4), assists-per-game (4.4), and minutes-per-game (31.6).  Doubters have become believers, and it has made the NCAA nervous that young players will read up on the Brandon Jennings Experiment, deciding to play overseas for a year, pocket that money, and then hopefully be a lottery pick in a future draft.  Not so fast..

While Brandon Jennings may have “cheated the system”, there are those that believe he will be a rare exception.  They look at someone like Jeremy Tyler, who has not yet tested his luck in the NBA or its draft, but has been struggling mightily overseas in Israel.  Tyler left the states a year younger than when Jennings left; he left before he completed his senior year of high school.  His coach in Haifa is not too fond of him thus far, calling him lazy, out of shape, naïve, and immature. I find it interesting that after only two games, Pete Thamel of the New York Times can already confidently say,

The Milwaukee Bucks rookie Brandon Jennings skipped college and had rocky moments while playing last season in Rome. But they were nothing compared with Tyler’s.

What does this tell us?  Not much, yet.  Tyler still has a lot of time to prove himself overseas.  And let us not forget how much criticism Jennings received before becoming a solid player in the NBA.  It seems like some of our memories are very short.  I think it is way too early to call Tyler a bust.  However, if Tyler is unable to thrive in Israel and does not pan out in the NBA, then perhaps Jennings will be looked at as a fluke success story, and Tyler’s story may dissuade others from following his path.

One thing that is certain is that there are a lot of important people paying particular attention to how Tyler fairs in the long run.  Those entities include advisors like Sonny Vaccaro, agencies like Wasserman Media Group, executives within the NCAA, David Stern, shoe companies, and many others.  Personally, I hope that Tyler wakes up and gets his mind right, because as an agent, I love having more options for potential clients.  If a future Jennings or Tyler came to me asking for guidance on what to do, I’d like to have confidence that playing overseas instead of NCAA basketball will not kill his future.

The NCAA’s agenda in certain situations involving schools and athletes is certainly questionable.

Grassroots basketball enthusiast Sonny Vaccaro made some interesting points recently in an interview with Henry Abbot here.

On the topic of Derrick Rose and the wins vacated from Memphis, it is possible the NCAA came down hard on the Tigers because the school is not a traditional powerhouse Bowl Championship Series school. Vaccaro feels that some other schools in the BCS generally are let off easy because of the revenue the schools generate for the giant entertainment conglomerate that has become the NCAA.

The specific case of Reggie Bush is cited, pointing out that while Memphis was quickly penalized, the University of Southern California has yet to be sentenced for the school’s actions from 2006 with Bush, which Vaccaro finds “interesting.”

Vaccaro then goes on to make a huge point against the NBA’s age limit rule. The reason for the supposed beneficial rule is to force talented young athletes to go to college and become more well-rounded individuals. But in many cases, the main justification coaches give to recruits on reasons to come to the school is because the coach can get them to the NBA.

Would Tyreke Evans, DeMar DeRozan, or Jrue Holiday have needed any help getting to the NBA if there was no rule? Doubtful. Brandon Jennings definitely did not and still managed to be a lottery pick.

So why are many coaches using the lure of the NBA to recruit players when the supposed reason for the age rule is the lure of college? It’s probably because college doesn’t seem as sexy when you are earning absolutely nothing. But having these NBA-ready talent forced to go to college makes a lot of money for the NCAA.

Does the NCAA really want these kids to get an education? The association can’t believe that most of these players will be staying for more than one, or even two, years. Free labor, though, for the collegiate entertainment industry is very beneficial for the NCAA.

Rose isn’t the first and won’t be the last player the NCAA has used to dictate how it wants business conducted.

In a sport like baseball, you can get high school player information from sites like Baseball America’s Prospect Plus Scouting Service (for a small fee).  If a high school athlete is on Facebook, you can usually pull his contact information by becoming his friend.  It would be shady if a college coach friended a high school recruit on Facebook, but schools have very large University Athletic Associations.  I think that an intern in the UAA might be able to friend a recruit under the radar.

But what if there is a top basketball talent that a coach just cannot get information on?  That’s when these tournament organizers can make a killing.  As Isenberg notes, some coaches refuse to spend a dime in this information.  Others spend ruthlessly.  And coaches are not the only people spending money on this information.

Contact information is also worth a lot of money to sports agents.  The earlier that an agent can connect with a top talent, the better chance he/she has at forging a strong relationship with that player and eventually serving as the player’s agent/advisor.  Tournament organizers most certainly find strong clients in agents, who want that information before their competitors gain access to it.  Is it illegal?  Not unless the tournament organizer promises not to sell players’ contact information.  Is it unethical?  You be the judge.

First up: Samuel Michael Keller v. Electronic Arts, Inc., NCAA, Collegiate Licensing Company.  The complaint was filed on May 5, 2009 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California.

Electronic Arts has created a long line of profitable games under the EA Sports umbrella.  For its games based on professional sports, it can use players’ names and their likeness by bargaining with the players’ association.  For instance, if EA Sports wants to put player names on Madden 2010, the NFLPA can assign those rights to Electronic Arts (for roughly $35 million per year, according to the lawsuit).  EA pays the NFLPA a fee, and all is said and done.  So, can’t Electronic Arts make a similar deal with the NCAA to use college athletes’ likenesses on games like NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball, and NCAA March Madness?  Keller is arguing that such a deal is illegal.

The claim being made is that NCAA bylaws (Bylaw 12.5), contracts, and licensing agreements (between Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company) prohibit outside entities from using NCAA players’ names, pictures, and likenesses; however, the NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Company are doing absolutely nothing to deter Electronic Arts from using those names and likenesses.  In fact, Keller argues that the NCAA encourages the violation of its own bylaws, contracts, and licensing agreements, because in the end, the NCAA benefits from increased royalties.  In defense of EA, players do not have names attached when a consumer purchases the original game.  However, Keller claims that EA does not do enough to prevent gamers from uploading new rosters that include player names.  This sounds like a claim of vicarious liability that I believe will be hard for Keller to prevail on.

Keller wants to make it a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all NCAA athletes who have had their names and likenesses used without permission.  If your height or weight is not the same (or very close to the same) on the game as it is in real life, then sorry, but you’re left out of the suit.

Is EA’s replication of an athlete’s jersey number, height, weight, build, skin tone, hair color, hair style, and accessories (like wristband, headband, facemask, and/or visor) a replication of that player’s likeness?  That’s for the court to decide.  When you hit the sticks for a rivalry match between the Gators and Seminoles, can you easily tell that the starting Quarterback for the Gators is Tim Tebow based on his image alone?  Or are you only confirmed of that based on your prior knowledge that he is the QB for the National Champions?

Players’ names are left off of jerseys on purpose in an effort to avoid this type of litigation.  The NCAA and CLC may point to that and show just how many gamers go through the process of downloading the rosters so that the names are then revealed.  I do not believe that EA is contributorily liable for the actions of the consumers who download the rosters, because I cannot see how EA encourages the downloading of those rosters by any specific act.  However, perhaps EA is found to be vicariously liable.  It’s hard to say that EA does not have constructive knowledge that its consumers are actively downloading rosters.  But does EA directly or indirectly benefit from the action?  I would say that people are going to buy the games whether or not they can download the rosters.

The amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.  One would think that maybe the NCAA, CLC, and EA would take interest in this case.

Case #2: Edward C. O’Bannon, Jr. v. NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Company. The complaint was filed on July 21, 2009 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California.

The NCAA and CLC might take interest in this one too.  Electronic Arts breaths a sigh of relief…unless Keller’s suit is joined to O’Bannon’s.

Edward C. O’Bannon, Jr., also known as Ed O’Bannon, also does not like not getting paid when his likeness is used.  Like Keller, he has decided to file suit in Federal Court, and made it a class-action suit on behalf of all of his collegiate athlete brethren.  O’Bannon has a lot more fish to fry than Keller, though.  Not only is he upset with the NCAA for allowing the usage of his likeness on video games, but also on DVDs, TV, photos, memorabilia, and advertising in general.

O’Bannon is not only claiming that current student athletes have a right to royalty payments when their likeness is assigned or used by the NCAA.  He is also claimimg that former players control the right to use their likeness and former likeness, and that the NCAA should be prohibited from earning profits on players’ likenesses once they leave campus.  Additionally, O’Bannon claims that athletes transfer their name/likeness rights to the NCAA upon accepting a scholarship because they have absolutely no choice and are never told to attain outside legal advice before making the transfer.

O’Bannon believes that the NCAA has restrained trade in an effort to exploit former collegiate athletes and reap profits without making any type of royalty payment to those athletes.  This lawsuit has a little Antitrust zing that the Keller complaint seems to lack.

A little FYI – the Collegiate Licensing Company is a subdivision of IMG.  IMG is a conglomerate with a large sports representation practice in golf and tennis.

Another FYI – O’Bannon has some big guns on his side: Attorneys with solid track records in popular cases and Sonny Vaccaro.

At least these cases won’t prevent the release of future versions for Bulls vs. Blazers or Tecmo Super Bowl.  Yeah…like the Bulls and Blazers will ever be in the Finals again, anyway!