ADVERTISEMENT

Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (The Modern Scholarship Reform Act)

Originally posted by FrancoBevo:
Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:


Originally posted by FrancoBevo:

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:



Originally posted by FrancoBevo:
Some of you guys are throwing WAY too much logic and reason into this....you need to be more emotional and focus on "fairness", whatever it is that means to you.
What people like you need to realize is that what the NCAA does is anti-capitalist and anti-free market. What you guys call "whining" is actually the players trying to exercising their economic liberty. When companies collude to take that away, which the schools do through the NCAA, every right-winger should cry foul (and the courts are about to). But we don't here because it might hurt our precious football, and because they use the word "union". It's simply laughable that anyone thinks being in favor of the players having negotiating power is a left wing position.
Well, the way most people exercise economic liberty is by finding another "employer" who will pay them what they think they are worth - what the players are doing is using the courts to extort "their fair share" even though, prior to their arrival on campus, did not one thing to contribute to the investment of the stadium, the practice facilities, the classrooms, the cafeterias, libraries, weight rooms, lounges and the BRAND - which again, is the absolute only reason why a single dollar, donated or used to purchase a ticket, goes into the system.

Forget the fact that they are not actually employees and were not coerced in any way shape or form into the agreement they entered into whey they signed their LOI.

I've said it before, if they feel, and Ketch agrees, that they are the life blood of the billions, then they can find some rich guys to loan them the money so they can start their own league, build their own facilities, market their product, negotiate thier own TV deals and on and on.....I wish them well but I can assure you, I will not be watching.
All the employers have already gotten together and decided what they would pay, which is antithetical to free markets. Which is why the courts are going to shut it down, because its clearly in violation of anti-trust law. You guys only look at what the players are doing, and decide that's whining, rather than assessing the colleges' behavior for what it obviously is, which is anti-competitive behavior.
You're not arguing for the "employers" to be forced to engaged in free markets, you're arguing that the courts simply force the "fixed price" to increase - in a true free market, each school could bid whatever compensation level and in whatever form it chose to attract the best "employees" to their team. Nice try, I guess, but your argument, under the discussed proposal, is simply wrong. The proposal Ketch and the rest of the "fair share" crowd put forth doesn't change the "price fixing" it just moves the needle up, while keeping the fix in place.
Actually I want the schools to be able to bid. Simply increasing the fixed price is Ketch's thing. I prefer his arrangement to the current system so long as its collectively bargained for though, especially if endorsement income is allowable.

But regardless, my primary point here is about the anti-pay movement generally because I find it ironic that so many right wingers support such a clearly anti-competitive arrangement.
 
Originally posted by PCHorn:
Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by PCHorn:
Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by PCHorn:
Ketch you may be arguing for the end of NCAA football and the beginning of a minor league pro football system, I am sure that will be to the benefit of the players.
The NCAA already is a minor league football system. It just doesn't share or treat its athletes the way they should.
Well except for the fact that the NCAA gets very little revenue from football. My limited understanding is that the vast majority of the revenue the NCAA receives is from the college basketball tourney. The NFL is the beneficiary of college football, they don't however contribute anything to their farm system. I actually asked Patterson if college football would ever ask for money, he dodged the question.
You want to inspect those TV contracts and get back with me again...
Ok I did.

CBS/Turner mens basketball tournament contract $681mm
D1 Tournament tickets $82.3mm
Non D1 basketball tournaments $24.5mm
Other TV marketing $21mm
D1 Basketball other $6mm
Contributions, Facilities $7mm

Source: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/03/27/ncaa-approaching-billion-per-year-amid-challenges-players/6973767/
Ok, now what about football... and the other TV contracs
 
Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SouthAustinHorn:
I think you are a little lost here. If you want to take the position that players should be able to secure endorsements freely just like anyone else in our society, that is a perfectly defensible position. But pretending that you could let them get some level of endorsements but then somehow regulate the endorsements to make sure that they were legit and not just payola from boosters is pure fantasy. Its either going to be a free market or it isn't. Stated another way, in our society we have no way of valuing what an endorsement ought to be worth other than what the free market will bear. Neither the NCAA nor anyone else will be in a position to say that some contracts are legit and others aren't. And I'm not sure why you would possibly want them to try.
Is it a fantasy like Clearinghouse? That kind of fantasy?

I have no issues with just letting the kids make what they can make. Let's not pretend like half-ass regulation hasn't ruled the entire college athletics scene for decades.

Originally posted by SouthAustinHorn:

A couple other thoughts: you mentioned that the law a poster wants might be illegal. The only way that a new federal statute would be illegal is if it was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure that there is no constitutional right for college football players to get paid.
If a judge sides with these players on any front that they deserve more of the pie... we're splitting hairs if you have an issue with the word illegal. lol.


Originally posted by SouthAustinHorn:
Second, you talk about a court finding that a certain amount of money would be required. I'm not sure that makes sense. If the players continue to win the day and the NLRB regional ruling becomes the law, this will mean that the players are employees. They would thus be protected by all the statutes that apply to employer/employee relationships. They would thus be entitled to minimum wage. But there is no law that requires them to be provided a "fair" amount of the revenue that they generate. What we would have in that situation is just a free market. It would remain to be seen what the players could negotiate. But it wouldn't be a court ordering some outcome.
You're not sure it makes sense that a judge could rule that the players are entitled to a certain amount of money?

You are mixing up the various court cases. Forget about the union deal for a second because that's just one arm/layer of the discussion. The O'Bannon case and others are designed for a major/sport altering cash grab

The NCAA needs to make a deal and cut all of this off at the pass.

This isn't that hard to understand if you try.
You are trying too hard, especially given that we fundamentally agree on these issues. We just disagree about what the posture is legally.

1. The clearinghouse performs nothing resembling what you are saying the NCAA could somehow magically do (decide which endorsement contracts are legit and which aren't against no legal backdrop whatsoever in a country that is fundamentally based on a free market). If you want players to be able to get endorsements without regulation, fair enough. But drop the pretense.

2 and 3. I think you have some misconceptions about the nature of our laws and society. Judges don't decide what is fair in the abstract. They decide whether a party has violated a contract or violated some law. It is true that the O'Bannon plaintiffs are seeking damages for past anti-trust violations (the damages would be for past conduct only), but on the whole if these lawsuits succeed it would mean that the NCAA was not allowed to continue conducting itself in the same manner going forward. It would then be up to the players (and their unions, if any) to negotiate what things look like going forward. No judge is going to say that players are hereby entitled to X percent of total revenues in the abstract. That is not how our society works.

On the whole, though, you are correct that big changes are coming and the NCAA would be wise to play ball sooner rather than later.

This post was edited on 4/1 3:06 PM by SouthAustinHorn
 
Originally posted by FrancoBevo:
Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:


Originally posted by FrancoBevo:

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:



Originally posted by FrancoBevo:
Some of you guys are throwing WAY too much logic and reason into this....you need to be more emotional and focus on "fairness", whatever it is that means to you.
What people like you need to realize is that what the NCAA does is anti-capitalist and anti-free market. What you guys call "whining" is actually the players trying to exercising their economic liberty. When companies collude to take that away, which the schools do through the NCAA, every right-winger should cry foul (and the courts are about to). But we don't here because it might hurt our precious football, and because they use the word "union". It's simply laughable that anyone thinks being in favor of the players having negotiating power is a left wing position.
Well, the way most people exercise economic liberty is by finding another "employer" who will pay them what they think they are worth - what the players are doing is using the courts to extort "their fair share" even though, prior to their arrival on campus, did not one thing to contribute to the investment of the stadium, the practice facilities, the classrooms, the cafeterias, libraries, weight rooms, lounges and the BRAND - which again, is the absolute only reason why a single dollar, donated or used to purchase a ticket, goes into the system.

Forget the fact that they are not actually employees and were not coerced in any way shape or form into the agreement they entered into whey they signed their LOI.

I've said it before, if they feel, and Ketch agrees, that they are the life blood of the billions, then they can find some rich guys to loan them the money so they can start their own league, build their own facilities, market their product, negotiate thier own TV deals and on and on.....I wish them well but I can assure you, I will not be watching.
All the employers have already gotten together and decided what they would pay, which is antithetical to free markets. Which is why the courts are going to shut it down, because its clearly in violation of anti-trust law. You guys only look at what the players are doing, and decide that's whining, rather than assessing the colleges' behavior for what it obviously is, which is anti-competitive behavior.
You're not arguing for the "employers" to be forced to engaged in free markets, you're arguing that the courts simply force the "fixed price" to increase - in a true free market, each school could bid whatever compensation level and in whatever form it chose to attract the best "employees" to their team. Nice try, I guess, but your argument, under the discussed proposal, is simply wrong. The proposal Ketch and the rest of the "fair share" crowd put forth doesn't change the "price fixing" it just moves the needle up, while keeping the fix in place.
And to that extent, Ketch is wrong. See above.
 
Originally posted by BattleshipTexas:
Can you legally exclude the Tom, Dick and Harry's?
You mean can schools that have been leeching on the system for years be let out if they can't find a way to make it work? I don't know why it wouldn't be legal to exclude them. The free ride is over, so to speak.



Originally posted by BattleshipTexas:
By that name, do you mean the marginal college programs in the NCAA, the weak athletic departments?
Yes, if that's what it comes to.


Originally posted by BattleshipTexas:
Or do you mean the weak sports in the average athletic departments?
That's not what I mean. I would include language in any deal that precludes those from participating that are cutting programs to get in. Again, if this goes to court and the NCAA lets a judge decide this stuff... my deal potentially loos ore and more like a steal.



Originally posted by BattleshipTexas:
Is it worth excluding marginal sports to pay players?
I don't know the legality of what excluding marginal sports would mean. That's why I have included them all, but if it's legal to do so, then the non-revenue sports would have different deals. Regardless, the basic rights and the changes that should take place.



Originally posted by BattleshipTexas:
Don't those sports matter? Is it worth excluding the marginal schools just so we can pay players?
Depends on the context of the conversation. Yes, they matter. From a financial standpoint and the viability of various schools, they matter less. Of course, their mattering doesn't mean that those in revenue sports should continue to be exploited because of their uncertainty.



Originally posted by BattleshipTexas:
Doesn't every school matter?
Doesn't every revenue sport athlete matter?



Originally posted by BattleshipTexas:
No matter how you frame your new classificiation, you are killing off the scholarship available at some minor school in some minor sport just so Johnny Football gets cash to spend on 6th street.
That really doesn't have anything to do with whether the process that is established is fair to the student athletes. You are simply throwing more of a burden onto the backs of the athletes for the sake of trying to keep the current rigged status. It is not the responsibility of Johnny Football to carry the weight of an entire athletic department, simply because that's the way the current system has been designed to work.

Also, it's none of our business what Johnny Football does with his stipend. He might very well help his grandmother pay rent with it.
 
Originally posted by mcw1946:

Ketch:

I'm not sure I agree with your notion that athletes (football and men's basketball players) deserve a $10,000 stipend. But if one accepts that premise, one must consider the impact on college athletics. There are about 100 men's scholarships involved in those two sports. You must also assume that Title IX litigation will end up requiring the respective universities to pay a like number of female athletes. They haven't lost a court case yet! The math totals $2,000,000 for these athletes.

Your readers may not know but I'm sure you know that on average, only about 15 - 20 schools generate enough funds from their athletic department to cover the cost of their athletic programs. Those schools will have no problem coming up with the $2,000,000 to meet pay these athletes. There are probably another 35 - 40 schools who can't fully fund their athletic programs but are paying their combined coaching staffs nearly $10,000,000 every year. i.e. (football $4,500,000/m bb $2,500,000+) (all others $3,000,000). Between trimming the salaries and cutting travel costs for non-revenue sports they should all be able to come up with the $2,000,000. These (maybe 60) programs need to form a Division 1A for football at least.

The rest of the Division 1 schools will probably not be able to raise the $2,000,000 without asking tax-payers to pay the additional funds. I feel these universities should simply drop football or form a Division 1B to compete in. People aren't paying good money to purchase the jerseys because of the players at SMU or New Mexico anyway. What jerseys and caps are sold are simply to support the school.

I'm not necessarily against such a reorganization. If it forces the "super schools" to schedule other "super schools" in it's non conference schedule we might end up with a home schedule that is worth the price of a season ticket. Hmmm, I'm beginning to warm to your crusade after all. Workers Unite! Hey, hey, "watcha" say, we won't play unless you pay. I like it.
This post was edited on 4/1 12:20 PM by mcw1946
Pleeeeeeeease.

This idea that the system will crumble if the schools have to take on additional costs of a few million is a farce.

The TV partners alone would likely swoop in and offer more money, so that their reality TV programming isn't threatened.

Stop the scare rhetoric. There are tens and hundreds of millions... and in some cases billions of dollars in play. You think 2-5 million can't be found to be able to stick around for the cake party.

Silliness.
 
Originally posted by PCHorn:
Just to look at this a different way (reality). If you give up the amateurism then you become an employee. If you are an employee at the University of Texas then the education, the room and board, the books, the tutoring, the medical care, the stipend, all of it becomes taxable (and it will be taxed).

At UT, the tax bill for lets say $60,000 a year (50 in stuff, 10 in cash) is going to be greater then the cash portion.
Look at this way....

****************

Not to put too fine a point on it, but college sports amateurism is dead. Undead, actually. A zombie shambling across America's campuses, gorging on television money and athletes' economic rights, awaiting a final bullet to the head. In ruling last week that Northwestern University football players qualify as school employees and can unionize, the Chicago district of the National Labor Relations Board essentially cocked the trigger, beginning the end of the system as we know it.


And that's true even if players don't end up unionizing.


For decades, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and its member schools have conspired to fix the price of athletic talent at the value of a college scholarship, and not a dollar -- or extra plate of pasta -- more. No booster money. No shoe contracts. No negotiating for the best possible deal. No acting in the manner of a coach or administrator, basically. Unlike other cartels, the NCAA has gotten away with its collusion, enjoying a perpetual Get Out of Jail Free card from both the federal judiciary and the public at large. Why? Blame amateurism, the hallowed American principle of thou shall not be allowed to be paid thy worth, provided thou art an athlete with a textbook in thy backpack, the philosophical bedrock of a campus financial order rooted in a baldfaced desire to avoid paying worker's compensation two largely untested assumptions:


1. Despite the fact that there is a multibillion-dollar market for college football and basketball players, said players are not actually working during the Fiesta Bowl and the Big East Tournament and every day before and after, and therefore are not entitled to the same basic economic rights and protections as the rest of us;


2. College sports cannot be considered work because they are first and foremost educational activities populated by non-employee "student-athletes," for whom the holding of a paid campus job catching footballs would be fatally antithetical to simultaneously taking classes on said campus, because of Athenian values or something, again unlike everyone else in the entire world.


No matter what ends up happening with the Northwestern unionization bid -- it could fail on appeal; it could end up before the Supreme Court; it could take years to resolve -- the true significance of NLRB regional director Peter Sung Ohr's ruling isn't just that he determined big-time college football players to be employees under the common law definition of the term. It's that in order to make his ruling, he had to test amateurism's underlying assumptions -- both of which he found utterly lacking, in specific, unassailable detail, the way anyone unaddled by a century of college sports romanticism, propaganda and semantic Jedi mind-tricking would.


This bodes poorly for the NCAA's future.


Start with work. Spoiler alert: Big-time college football qualifies. Here's the common law definition of an employee: a person who performs services for another under a contract of hire, subject to the other's control or right of control, and in return for payment. Services. Contract. Control. Payment. That's the list. Four criteria. Not particularly complicated. All apply to Northwestern football players. Do they provide services for their school? Absolutely. According to Ohr, Northwestern's football team generated revenues of approximately $235 million between 2003 and 2012, plus the "immeasurable positive impact to Northwestern's reputation a winning football team may have on alumni giving and increase in number of applicants for enrollment at the University." (Actually, some of that positive impact is measurable). Was that money gifted to Northwestern by television networks and ticket-buying fans as an act of selfless, education-first charity? Nope. It was forked over for football, stoked by the desire to be entertained by a group of skilled performers.


Performers whose day jobs, quite frankly, are far more demanding than mine. And probably yours, too.


During August training camp, Ohr reports, Northwestern football players spend 50 to 60 hours a week on football-related activities. That number drops to 40-50 hours a week during the season and before bowl games, and to 20-25 hours a week during spring football and summer workouts. In other words: college football is mostly a full-time job, and one that involves lots of overtime. It's also physically demanding, requiring daily running, near-daily weightlifting sessions, frequent travel, after-hours study, a not insignificant amount of getting hit in the head and early-morning physical therapy sessions to treat workplace injuries that come from getting hit everywhere else.


Here's Ohr on a typical day at training camp:


...the athletic training room was open from 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. so the players could receive medical treatment and rehabilitate any lingering injuries. Because of the physical nature of football, many players were in the training room during these hours. At the same time, the players had breakfast made available to them at the N Club. From 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., any players who missed a summer workout (discussed below) or who were otherwise deemed unfit by the coaches were required to complete a fitness test.

The players were then separated by position and required to attend position meetings from 8:30 am. to 11:00 a.m. so that they could begin to install their plays and work on basic football fundamentals. The players were also required to watch film of their prior practices at this time. Following these meetings, the players had a walk-thru from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at which time they scripted and ran football plays. The players then had a one-hour lunch during which time they could go to the athletic training room, if they needed medical treatment. From 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., the players had additional meetings that they were required to attend. Afterwards, at 4:00 p.m., they practiced until team dinner, which was held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the N Club. The team then had additional position and team meetings for a couple of more hours. At 10:30 p.m., the players were expected to be in bed ("lights out") since they had a full day of football activities and meetings throughout each day of training camp...

Does that sound like summer camp? Or does it sound like a job? Another example: In order to play a 2012 away game against the University of Michigan, Ohr, writes, Northwestern's players boarded team buses early Friday morning and didn't return to their campus until late Saturday night -- a 24-hour-plus period that contained team meals, walkthroughs, position meetings, warm-ups and actual game play, yet only counted as 4.8 hours of "countably athletic related activity" per NCAA guidelines that are intended to limit time spent on sports. (In Ohr's report, said association guidelines are both loophole-ridden and routinely ignored, the equivalent of overtime laws at many workplaces).


Let's move on to control. This one is indisputable. Coaches run players' lives, both at and away from the office. Unlike other students, football players are required to live in on-campus dorms as underclassmen; upperclassmen may live off campus, but only if head coach Pat Fitzgerald reviews and approves their leases. Players are prohibited from swearing. Prohibited from denying coach "friend" requests on social media, so that coaches can monitor their personal communications. They are subject to drug testing.

They have to give their coaches detailed information about the cars that they drive. They can't get outside jobs or speak to the media without athletic department approval. They're not allowed to profit from their image or reputation -- for example: selling autographs and gear, and/or trading them for tattoos -- but are required to sign a release that allows both Northwestern and the Big Ten to use their names, likenesses and images for any purpose. During the regular season, the players must wear a suit to home games and team-issued travel sweats to away games, and also stay within a six-hour radius of campus prior to all games. They're even forced to give their flight itineraries to their position coaches when flying home to visit family.


Understand: none of this is informal. It's written out in a handbook. Also put in writing? The contract athletes sign with Northwestern in order to receive their scholarships:


...when Head Coach Fitzgerald makes a scholarship offer to a recruit, he provides the individual both a National Letter of Intent and a four-year scholarship offer that is referred to as a "tender". Both documents must be signed by the recruit and the "tender" describes the terms and conditions of the offer. More specifically, it explains to the recruit that, under NCAA's rules, the scholarship can be reduced or canceled during the term of the award if the player: (1) renders himself ineligible from intercollegiate competition; (2) engages in serious misconduct warranting substantial disciplinary action; (3) engages in conduct resulting in criminal charges; (4) abuses team rules as determined by the coach or athletic administration; (5) voluntarily withdraws from the sport at any time for any reason; (6) accepts compensation for participating in an athletic contest in his sport; or (7) agrees to be represented by an agent. The "tender" further explains to the recruit that the scholarship cannot be reduced during the period of the award on the basis of his athletic ability or an injury. By July 1 of each year, the Employer has to inform its players, in writing, if their scholarships will not be renewed...


Contrary to what seems to be popular belief -- just Google "NCAA athletes free education" -- there is absolutely… More»

As Ohr writes, the "tender" serves as an employment contract, spelling out the terms and conditions under which signees will receive payment. Make no mistake: price-fixed or not, college athletes are paid. They do not receive a "free" education. Northwestern football players are not given scholarships for tuition, room and board worth as much as $76,000 a year because Fitzgerald is in a Santa Claus state of mind. They're given scholarships in exchange for services rendered. Football services. Item No. 5 above makes this plain: quit the team, no more scholarship.

Oh, and why are Northwestern's football players on campus in the first place? Ohr explains:


...the record makes clear that the Employer's scholarship players are identified and recruited in the first instance because of their football prowess and not because of their academic achievement in high school. Only after the Employer's football program becomes interested in a high school player based on the potential benefit he might add to the Employer's football program does the potential candidate get vetted through the Employer's recruiting and admissions process...

Add it up, and there's no denying the obvious. Football is work. Northwestern's players meet the common law criteria to be considered employees -- and unless the situation is vastly different at places like Stanford and Vanderbilt, so do the nation's other private school scholarship athletes. (For that matter, public school scholarship athletes also qualify as employees, though their potential unionization is matter of state law and varies accordingly). Of course, this idea -- correction: this reality -- is anathema to the NCAA, which has built an entire gold-plated economy on the foundational lie that college athletes are not and cannot be employees, because they are not and cannot be compensated for athletic labor. Not when they're amateur "student-athletes," a bunch of plucky, adorable kids who just happen to be playing sports as part of their wonderful (and free!) educations.


Problem: Ohr's ruling makes it pretty clear that student and athlete are two different things. That football and school have nothing to do with each other. Coaches are not professors. (Hell, they're not even adjuncts). Players do not receive academic credit for games, film study, weight training or anything else related to football. Regardless of major, they are not required to play football to obtain a degree. They may learn life lessons in character, dedication, teamwork, and so on -- life lessons that also can be learned via, you know, living -- but as Ohr makes clear, none of that shows that "their relationship with the employer is primarily an academic one."


To the contrary, playing football -- that is, working at a intense, draining, full-time and then some job -- is arguably detrimental to classroom learning. How so? Simple. Time, effort and focus devoted to football means less time, effort and focus devoted elsewhere. And if football is the currency that pays for your schooling -- like a job at a campus bookstore, only with ACL tears -- well, then, something's gotta give.


Kain Colter, the former Northwestern quarterback leading the unionization movement, testified that he entered the university hoping to go to medical school. During his sophomore year, he tried to take a required chemistry class. He says both his coaches and his academic advisors discouraged him from enrolling, because it conflicted with morning football practices. He later took the class during a summer session, falling behind other pre-med majors, and ultimately switched his major to psychology because it was less demanding. None of this was unusual: Colter also testified that scholarship players were: (a) not allowed to miss football practice during the regular season if they had a class conflict; (b) told by their coaches and advisors that they could not take any classes that started before 11:00 a.m., because they would conflict with practice; (c) only allowed to enroll in summer session classes that were six weeks long, because eight-week classes conflicted with the start of training camp.


Here's Ohr again, this time on the academically-enriching experience of an away game:


...the football team's handbook states that "when we travel, we are traveling for one reason: to WIN a football game. We will focus all of our energy on winning the game." However, the players are permitted to spend two or three hours studying for their classes while traveling to a game as long as they, in the words of Head Coach Fitzgerald "get their mind right to get ready to play"...
None of this makes the NCAA and its member schools wholly nefarious. It just makes them dishonest, hypocritical, exploitative and cheap. (Oh, and also in almost certain violation of the Sherman Act.) Like the National Football League with regards to football-induced brain damage, the association refuses to call something that quacks and waddles and wears a shirt with no pants a duck, because admitting the truth means paying market rates, and why do that when you can get an amateur discount? Instead, Emmert and company keep doubling down, lying and spinning and projecting a reality distortion field, counting on the courts and the public alike to continue thinking about March Madness without, you know, thinking about March Madness. Consider the NCAA's response to Ohr's ruling, which was as laughable as it was typical:


…the NCAA is disappointed that the NLRB Region 13 determined the Northwestern football team may vote to be considered university employees. We strongly disagree with the notion that student-athletes are employees.

We frequently hear from student-athletes, across all sports, that they participate to enhance their overall college experience and for the love of their sport, not to be paid.

Over the last three years, our member colleges and universities have worked to re-evaluate the current rules. While improvements need to be made, we do not need to completely throw away a system that has helped literally millions of students over the past decade alone attend college. We want student-athletes -- 99 percent of whom will never make it to the professional leagues -- focused on what matters most -- finding success in the classroom, on the field and in life...

Um, NCAA lawyers and public relations writers? The NLRB didn't decide that the Northwestern players can vote to be "considered" employees. It found that they are. It's not a "notion." It's a matter of fact, based on evidence and clear, open eyes. Ohr saw through amateurism. He saw through the association's bulls--t. And if the NCAA's only real response is a retreat into airy sentimentalism -- love of the sport and what matters most and the tired, discredited legal fiction of the student-athlete -- then how long before the rest of us do the same?
 
Originally posted by PCHorn:
Just to look at this a different way (reality). If you give up the amateurism then you become an employee. If you are an employee at the University of Texas then the education, the room and board, the books, the tutoring, the medical care, the stipend, all of it becomes taxable (and it will be taxed).

At UT, the tax bill for lets say $60,000 a year (50 in stuff, 10 in cash) is going to be greater then the cash portion.
Seems you're more hopeful, than concerned, that it will be a problem.
 
A few of the many problems with any payment to players is who decides how much does each player deserve? Once you start paying them doesn't that make them "professionals" and now have the right to quit their current "job" if they choose and go elsewhere? What prevents a lawsuit to increase their alloted amounts? They are kids that are going to school. A school that is offering them a free education in return for their athletic services. And when was the last time you went to the CEO or owner of the company you work for and demanded a raise based on the fact the he was making too much money? Freaking ridiculous.
 
A few of the many problems with any payment to players is who decides how much does each player deserve? ?Once you start paying them doesn't that make them "professionals" and now have the right to quit their current "job" if they choose and go elsewhere? ?What prevents a lawsuit to increase their alloted amounts? ?They are kids that are going to school. ?A school that is offering them a free education in return for their athletic services. ?And when was the last time you went to the CEO or owner of the company you work for and demanded a raise based on the fact the he was making too much money? ?Freaking ridiculous.?
 
Originally posted by tony5468:
A few of the many problems with any payment to players is who decides how much does each player deserve? ?Once you start paying them doesn't that make them "professionals" and now have the right to quit their current "job" if they choose and go elsewhere? ?What prevents a lawsuit to increase their alloted amounts? ?They are kids that are going to school. ?A school that is offering them a free education in return for their athletic services. ?And when was the last time you went to the CEO or owner of the company you work for and demanded a raise based on the fact the he was making too much money? ?Freaking ridiculous.?
The NCAA loves you. Things should never change, right?
 
You still don't address the most important element in the impending court rulings. If the courts take control of the TV revenue away from the evil empire (NCAA), they will almost assuredly revert that power back to the individual schools. At that point why would Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, USC (or any of the 50 -60 schools that drive the TV contracts dollars) share their pot of gold with their poor neighbors? That would be admirable but unlikely.

I know that anyone who questions your infinite wisdom is just silly so please explain how SMU or North Texas funds their current shortfalls along with the inevitable widening of that gap.

Signed,
Silly Head

Power to the People
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT