Northwestern Football Players attempting to become a union

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

If he went straight to the NFL (for example) in 3 years he would not get the PT and subsequent recognition he did in college. That is the fallacy in the argument IMHO, its not the stars that lose out. On the contrary the benefit nicely in the increased early media exposure and endorsement opportunities. Its the run of the mill guys who get ground up spit out and never make a dime.

I agree with that, that the guys who really miss out the most are the local sports heroes that don't have next-level talent. Like a Gerry McNamara at Syracuse. He had the opportunity to get local endorsements after he was done, and he parlayed his playing career into an assistant coaching job, but it just seems odd that the one time he's not allowed to receive any financial benefit is his prime when he's actually playing. The guy still got a great deal, a scholarship, the chance to play basketball games on TV, and a shot to play college basketball overseas. I'm not saying the guy was like a 1930s coal miner or anything. I just don't think it would have been the end of the world if he was allowed to pursue some degree of financial benefit while still in school, and more importantly, I don't think there's any valid reason that justifies taking that away from him. The real reason he didn't have it is just greed and lack of organization, all these other reasons are just window dressing excuses to keep the all money going to the right places.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Neither do private companies..

They have owners who are generating the profits for themselves. Same principle. Has nothing in common with an athletic department.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The fallacy is this idea that future earnings should allow for price fixing.

It's saying that Kristen Stewart shouldn't be paid for her role in the Twilight movies because it's good publicity and she'll get money down the line as the series makes her popular.

We all would laugh at that concept in every other industry. But when it comes to college sports you have to do a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify it.

What about those evil elementary schools that exploited her? Some even charged admission to their holiday plays.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They have owners who are generating the profits for themselves. Same principle. Has nothing in common with an athletic department.

To be fair a lot of my comments are devil's advocate but...

Many colleges are for profit entities...even the state supported ones.
What about the Math dept. They have 1,500 students and only 10 professors what about the profit they turn?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

What about those evil elementary schools that exploited her? Some even charged admission to their holiday plays.

Seriously? Your "arguments" (and to a lesser extent Chief Rum's) over the last page or so have been really poor. They don't even make sense, never mind a reasonable point.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

What about those evil elementary schools that exploited her? Some even charged admission to their holiday plays.

This would be a passable analogy if those holiday plays were part of a $5 billion business that made everyone except the actors rich, and if she was required to participate in them if she was going to have any real chance at acting after elementary school. That would result in 60 Minutes investigative journalism type stuff if that happened.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Seriously? Your "arguments" (and to a lesser extent Chief Rum's) over the last page or so have been really poor. They don't even make sense, never mind a reasonable point.

That's your contribution to this thread? Go back to sleep, Blackadar.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

This would be a passable analogy if those holiday plays were part of a $5 billion business that made everyone except the actors rich, and if she was required to participate in them if she was going to have any real chance at acting after elementary school. That would result in 60 Minutes investigative journalism type stuff if that happened.

Ok...just so I understand your point.

If a PTO makes $500 its ok, but if a college makes $5 million its bad.

So you are not opposed to the concept of exploitation, its the magnitude?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Seriously? Your "arguments" (and to a lesser extent Chief Rum's) over the last page or so have been really poor. They don't even make sense, never mind a reasonable point.

Yawn.
Typical Blackadar post.
No substance but insult someone.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Ok...just so I understand your point.

If a PTO makes $500 its ok, but if a college makes $5 million its bad.

So you are not opposed to the concept of exploitation, its the magnitude?

I guess it's the magnitude that puts it on my radar. But it's hard to compare it to anything else because there really is nothing else like it in any other business or even any student/school arrangement. But ya, if there were a national organization that all elementary schools belonged to, and by attending any elementary school, you had to give the school permission to make as much money as they could off of your likeness and talents, and you weren't allowed to make any money off of your own likeness in any other out-of-school context, then I wouldn't be a fan of that either, regardless of how much money they made.

[digamma]

I can't believe these fucking assholes at Michigan are preventing their research assistants from unionizing and sharing in their BILLION PLUS in grant money.

SHARE MY OUTRAGE.

[RainMaker]

I also want to add that I think some of you are falling for scare tactics thrown out by people who have huge salaries at stake in this. I really don't think anything bad would happen. In fact, I think a lot of it would be good.

For instance, I don't see schools doling out a ton of money. Most players are not worth much more than a scholarship, even at major schools. There are a handful of stars that are, but the RG for NC State isn't generating a 6-figure payday. The big schools with big revenues will be able to offer up an additional stipend for their players, and more for top recruits/players, but I don't think it's what most of you think it would be.

The money would primarily come from endorsements and boosters. Which I don't see why anyone would have an issue with. Who gives a shit if Jabari Parker gets paid to be in a Gatorade commercial? Or Johnny Manziel makes a few bucks signing footballs? And if some booster slips a player some money or wants to lease them a car, what skin is it off your back?

In fact, I think it makes college athletics better. Players wouldn't feel the need to jump to the pros early as much. If you've locked in a couple endorsements, you're better off staying an extra year and increasing your draft stock. You've basically made non-March basketball watchable again and increased the talent pool throughout football overnight.

And for all the cries about parity, I think this actually might help it. It gives non-traditional powers a chance to compete.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Who gives a shit if Jabari Parker gets paid to be in a Gatorade commercial?

So, this is actually a really interesting example. In basketball, there is nothing preventing a high school senior from playing in Europe or the D-League or anywhere else. A big name like Wiggins or Parker could easily ink a deal with a sponsor in that year.

We've seen a few kids try this route, but we've seen most choose to take a scholarship and the terms and conditions that go with it.

[chadritt]

Imagine if Maurice Clarett could have done endorsements. I wonder if his life turns out differently if he's got some money in his pockets.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

That's your contribution to this thread? Go back to sleep, Blackadar.

Sorry Rum, but those are the facts. Let's look at some of the comments over the last page:

I believe athletes receive enough for what they do through the scholarship system, along with room, board and food, for that to be an acceptable payment for being allowed to play on the college sports squad.

It's nice that YOU believe it, but that's not really relevant, is it? You don't get to determine everyone else's wages and compensation.

I would love to see adjustments to the system that don't involve pay which would settle matters such as injury issues or giving a voice to players.

Translation: We'll let you in the restaurant, but you'll have to beg for scraps at the back door and give you whatever we want.

But only if you want big time college sports as we know it to say goodbye. No more March Madness. No more BCS. No College World Series. Nothing that requires extensive travel or year round support.

You've claimed it multiple times without any substantiation. You've also failed to address how D2 and D3 schools have the same sports without the massive revenue streams. You seem to be claiming there's not enough money to go around, when there apparently is. Go look up how much some of these big schools make off of football and basketball. Those revenues are rarely poured back into the college general funds.


And let's look at some head-shaking comments by CU Tiger:

Actually he has already been paid in advance by his agent...

Only because he LEFT school.

If he went straight to the NFL (for example) in 3 years he would not get the PT and subsequent recognition he did in college.

Lebron James would beg to differ. We've had that experiment with NBA players. They made huge money without colleges. In fact, the highest NBA players ever didn't go to college.

Neither do private companies..

Ever heard of a C-Corp? In fact, most small companies have shareholders. I should know, I see their books.

What about those evil elementary schools that exploited her? Some even charged admission to their holiday plays.

*facepalm*

Want to be a Devil's Advocate? Then post something that makes logical sense.


I'm not a big fan of an outright free market solution for these players. That's what the pro leagues are for. But at the same time the NCAA is a corrupt monopolistic corporation that is milking these kids for all they're worth in collusion with the pro leagues (rules that they can't go pro) and the big schools. Massive amounts of revenue is being generated and these kids don't really see much of it at all. They can't go pro, can't freely transfer, can't take a part-time job, can't sell their autograph, can't license their image...they can't make a fucking dime while billions are being made off of them. It's akin to sharecropping or involuntary servitude.

The argument "they don't have to play" doesn't work either. There are many careers that require a college degree - yet none beyond these big sports have these kind of restrictive rules while generating huge revenues off the backs of their labor.

It seems to me the only argument for this system being made boils down to "I don't want to lose my precious football games so it's all right to continue to fuck over these kids".

[Crapshoot]

Great start. Anything that causes the disgusting fucking institution known as the NCAA to tremble is a good thing; as with the BS'ers who think college athletes alone should be fucked over while everyone else is allowed to get rich of them.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And if college sports die, either figuratively or literally, the major professional leagues will establish something like baseball's minor league system, wherein players can be paid as they pursue playing at the highest level.

The sturm und drang from those not directly involved over the death of college athletics boils down to I'M ENTITLED TO SEE MY FAVORITE COLLEGE FIELD A TEAM IN THE SPORT OF MY CHOICE AND THESE WHINY KIDS ARE RUINING IT

It has nothing to do with what's actually good for either the schools or the athletes.

"". This, a 1000x this. Its the "WHY WONT THEY PLAY FOR THE LOVE OF THE SPORT I AM SHIT I WOULD DO SO" philosophy.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

"". This, a 1000x this. Its the "WHY WONT THEY PLAY FOR THE LOVE OF THE SPORT I AM SHIT I WOULD DO SO" philosophy.

I agree. Sack pretty much nails it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

So, this is actually a really interesting example. In basketball, there is nothing preventing a high school senior from playing in Europe or the D-League or anywhere else. A big name like Wiggins or Parker could easily ink a deal with a sponsor in that year.

We've seen a few kids try this route, but we've seen most choose to take a scholarship and the terms and conditions that go with it.

Europe isn't really looking to sign kids to 1-year deals too often. I don't think it's really a viable option for a top player. And outside of the Spanish league, the leagues aren't the same level you'd find in D1 college basketball.

It'll be interesting to see if it happens more though as those other leagues get better. And as more players have success. Brandon Jennings did it and it turned out alright. Jeremy Tyler is in the league too.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Only because he LEFT school.



Lebron James would beg to differ. We've had that experiment with NBA players. They made huge money without colleges. In fact, the highest NBA players ever didn't go to college.

Right. Isn't this the point? The college players have a right to leave school. It's their choice. It's also their choice to enter school.

The argument "they don't have to play" doesn't work either. There are many careers that require a college degree - yet none beyond these big sports have these kind of restrictive rules while generating huge revenues off the backs of their labor.

OK, you lost me here. Sure, I can sit for the bar exam and pass it in a lot of states, but I'm sure not going to get hired by a big law firm and make a decent salary on getting my law license. Instead, I have to go to law school, generating huge revenues for schools, in order to be marketable to a law firm. Same for medicine, probably accounting and others.

How is that so different from athletics?

Further, if I can afford it, I can pay my way to college. Then I can get a job on the side and have a lot more leeway. See Wilson, Russell.

It seems to me the only argument for this system being made boils down to "I don't want to lose my precious football games so it's all right to continue to fuck over these kids".

Well that and the fact that some of the people saying that are actually paying for the programs through contributions, tickets or sweatshirts. If that goes away, so does the ability to give scholarships or pay a stipend or possibly field a team. Not stockholders, but certainly stakeholders. And I have to keep my stakeholders happy if I want to keep my organization running.

[digamma]

Dola

And I'm only half joking about the research stuff above. Michigan gets over 1 billion a year in research grants. That's a hell of a lot more than the 170 million their athletic department generates in revenue.

I have seen several contracts for various roles in universities over the years, and they pretty much all require the employee to assign rights to inventions or other work product generated during the research to the university. Now, some may be able to negotiate around this or do things on the side, and maybe that's a freedom athletes don't have, but the point is, the athletics department isn't quite as unique as people think.

[molson]

Originally Posted by digamma

R

OK, you lost me here. Sure, I can sit for the bar exam and pass it in a lot of states, but I'm sure not going to get hired by a big law firm and make a decent salary on getting my law license. Instead, I have to go to law school, generating huge revenues for schools, in order to be marketable to a law firm. Same for medicine, probably accounting and others.

How is that so different from athletics?

For one thing, when I was in law school, I made money working full-time both summers with entities that had nothing to do with the school.

[cuervo72]

I'm still rooting for free market. If Kentucky wanted to pay LeBron James $10M to play there, let them. If Auburn wants to pay Cam Newton $1M, let them.

Only a few special players are really going to be able to demand very much. The others are still going to be landing at the best program they can for free (scholarship). I mean, take those 4th string linemen like CU Tiger. If they make a demand for much more than a scholarship, a coach tells him to shove off - and moves on to the other couple of hundred players vying for that spot. Schools still have to fill out their rosters, and that's still a better option for the vast majority of players than not playing anywhere (or playing for Eastern Western Nebraska A&T or Temple). I doubt even Texas or Oregon or T Boone U are going to pay for players who will never see the field. Will there be competition for top recruits? Ayup. But not for everybody.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by molson

For one thing, when I was in law school, I made money working full-time both summers with entities that had nothing to do with the school.

And like I said, if I want to pay my own way, I can do that as a college athlete too. I can even do it on scholarship with some restrictions. Same thing as with an academic scholarship. There are terms and conditions which I choose to accept if I want the scholarship.

[molson]

Originally Posted by digamma

And like I said, if I want to pay my own way, I can do that as a college athlete too. I can even do it on scholarship with some restrictions. Same thing as with an academic scholarship. There are terms and conditions which I choose to accept if I want the scholarship.

Wouldn't working for the local dealership and making licensing deals with Nike make a player ineligible to play, regardless of who's paying the tuition?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

OK, you lost me here. Sure, I can sit for the bar exam and pass it in a lot of states, but I'm sure not going to get hired by a big law firm and make a decent salary on getting my law license. Instead, I have to go to law school, generating huge revenues for schools, in order to be marketable to a law firm. Same for medicine, probably accounting and others.

How is that so different from athletics?

Those people can get jobs, can earn money from outside sources, can have someone lease them a car, can have a faculty member buy them a cup of coffee, and a whole slew of other stuff prohibited by the NCAA.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by molson

Wouldn't working for the local dealership and making licensing deals with Nike make a player ineligible to play, regardless of who's paying the tuition?

I think it depends, and shockingly the NCAA is not very consistent here. On the one hand, they've allowed a lot of leeway with two sport athletes--guys who play minor league baseball, for instance, and still play football or basketball. They also allow a lot of professional internships with no real inquiry--hell they herald those Morgan Stanley interns.

On the other hand, they took away Jeremy Bloom's eligibility at Colorado because they said he was taking advantage of his situation and branding himself.

So, sure there would still be some rules, but you have a much wider berth.

[chadritt]

It just seems like the eventual solution almost has to be: Full scholarships guaranteed, IN WRITING, in case of injury, ability to have outside jobs, and ability to get an endorsement if offered. I could see endorsement opportunities being restricted a bit so a 19 year old is not endorsing beer or something but still it seems like a fairly basic compromise.

Edit: maybe even have to split the endorsement money with the school or the NCAA somehow but I'm not super into that idea.

[molson]

Originally Posted by digamma

I think it depends, and shockingly the NCAA is not very consistent here. On the one hand, they've allowed a lot of leeway with two sport athletes--guys who play minor league baseball, for instance, and still play football or basketball. They also allow a lot of professional internships with no real inquiry--hell they herald those Morgan Stanley interns.

On the other hand, they took away Jeremy Bloom's eligibility at Colorado because they said he was taking advantage of his situation and branding himself.

So, sure there would still be some rules, but you have a much wider berth.

So why doesn't a law school make it a term of any financial aid award that you can't receive unauthorized financial benefits when at school? I mean, nobody's forcing you to go to law school, so they can put whatever they want in there as long as they can attract a full class. The reason is obvious - that has no value to them. The NCAA of course, can make money off your likeness, and they can make more if that right to do so is exclusive. That's the only reason. So I understand why THEY want the status quo, I just don't understand why there's so much public support for them to keep it, and to prevent the students from even attempting to procure better terms, whether they be monetary or not. "Nobody's forcing you to." I mean, I'm a financially conservative, pro-business guy, but that phrase still gives me the creeps when it comes to management. You can use it try to justify any abuse or exploitation of any employee or student. No labor law survives if "nobody's forcing you" is a persuasive argument.

[ISiddiqui]

You know, I'm glad that this is happening. I mean, I don't think it'll do all that much in the long run, but I do think some of the nonsensical stuff, such as not being able to have a separate job, etc., will get looked at and reversed. I think the players having an organization to be able to make their cases on these issues is a good thing.

[molson]

I think the idea that the entire billion-dollar college athletic complex will die over this is preposterous, but one possible extreme outcome way down the line that I would love is to take the "student" out of the student/athlete equation at the big schools. It makes no sense that these guys have to go class, it's not why they're there. They should be paid employees first. If part of the compensation includes discounted or free course credits for those who actually qualify for admission academically, then great. Or guys could work a couple of years as a player and then attend another school that they can actually get into.

Edit: And I think it was someone on this board from another country that once expressed his bewilderment that academics and athletics in the U.S. is so intertwined. Every since then, I've seen the same thing. It really makes no sense. Guys who can barely read are sitting in college classrooms all over the country because they're good at a sport. It's crazy when you think about it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Great start. Anything that causes the disgusting fucking institution known as the NCAA to tremble is a good thing; as with the BS'ers who think college athletes alone should be fucked over while everyone else is allowed to get rich of them.

Agreed.

If it means the end of college athletics as we know it, so be it.

There's no constitutional right to college athletics last I checked.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

Wouldn't working for the local dealership and making licensing deals with Nike make a player ineligible to play, regardless of who's paying the tuition?

A scholarship athlete can have a job and be paid for said job. He just has to be paid a wage consistent with what everyone else makes. And the employer better not only employ athletes.

I think Ive told the story before. I had a gig while playing football washing cars for a local used car dealer. We all got paid in envelopes each day worked. We got regular payroll checks with taxes deducted and everything....allegedly if you were good (cough, Trevor Pryce, cough) there may be 10-15 100s in your envelope as well...and he employed lots of not athletes who were students as well...in fact he found very attractive young females to help us wash cars on weekend out of season...

Wait you think 30 guys to wash 4 cars and it takes them 8 hours is absurd...have you ever seen how distracting coeds can be?

[EagleFan]

If athletes get paid, scholarships go up and the rest of the student body suffers through student loan debt for an even longer time period hoping to make up the money lost... if they can even afford to go to college to begin with.

Hell, why stop at college? What about those high school athletes too? Look at the money Little League makes from the LLWS, maybe those kids should get paid too.

Let's just teach our kids to only do something for money, not for the love of doing it.

The world continues to go to hell in a handbag...

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I agree, the pro sports will do that, because they have to. Not sure what point you're trying to make there with that. We're not talking about paid minor leagues, we're talking about the current system of college athletics.

And the argument being made is that paying players in the revenue sports will destroy the support system for athletes in non-revenue sports. What makes non-revenue athletes so special that they deserve a subsidy on the backs of the revenue-generating athletes?

The argument about amateurism was dead and buried the minute the schools and NCAA accepted sponsorship deals with Nike/Adidas, licensing fees to have their logos/fight songs appear in video games, broadcast fees for their events, etc.

There is nothing so inherently pure about college athletes - even/especially those in "non-revenue" sports - that it justifies a system where players are indentured servants - their room and board is covered, as long as the program thinks that player is the best they can do. The player has no recourse if the coach he committed to playing for leaves, but the school can pull his scholarship at any time, so even that benefit he's supposed to be thrilled to get in exchange for his athletic talents is at the coach's pleasure.

Is it okay if I disagree with you, because I get the sense from your posts that I am evil and an oppressive person if I do?

You're welcome to disagree. You're not an "evil and oppressive person" unless your take on the matter is, and I'm paraphrasing, that any effort by the athletes or any other entity on behalf of the athletes to secure compensation is an act of the devil.

The system, as set up, is effectively indentured servitude, and people who scream about "makers/takers" in a taxation environment are often the first to line up to defend the college athletics system as it exists. It's hypocrisy that redounds right back to, as I said, the idea that said defendant feels entitled to watch college football with a six-pack on Saturday afternoons.

Considering that the big money college athletics brings in supports thousands of student athletes who don't generate a penny for their schools, net total, I think the current system does tremendous good for those student athletes and those schools.

It's good for the schools. It's good for the non-revenue student athletes. It's not good for the revenue-generating athletes. You're making a utilitarian argument there, that the revenue athletes should just suck it up because the fact that they make other people money is good for a larger group of people than if they were able to make money for themselves.

And that's on top of the advertising/promotion they receive as schools which directly leads to a huge application levels at these schools from potential non-athlete students around the country.

And again, it benefits the schools. Great. That does absolutely zero to justify why the revenue-generating athletes should be happy with, and continue to go along with, the system as it currently exists. It's an argument that those athletes should STFD and STFU because the schools are happy with the way things are.

Which is bullshit.

And you and I will, I suppose, just not see eye to eye when I state I believe that sizable scholarships, room and board, and food stipends are plenty to pay for those athletes to represent their teams on the field. I certainly would have traded spots with any one of them, rather than having to work nearly a fulltime job to get myself through college.

And if you had, maybe you'd be on the other side of that argument. Again, remember, those scholarships/room-and-board are at the pleasure of the coach. The rule currently mandates that scholarships are annual, and must be renewed. That means a player can attend a school, play for that school under the conditions you suggest he should be happy to play for, and the next year be told "Yeah, thanks, but if you want to stay, you need to come up with $20,000+/year for your tuition and other expenses, and oh-by-the-way, you're still under the same restrictions your fellow athletes are in terms of making money to pay for this."

It's indentured servitude without the benefit of a safety net if the school to whom they're "apprenticed" decides they are no longer in need of the player's services.

You want the conditions under which I'd be willing to accept athletes not getting paid?

1) Give them the same free agency (or lack thereof) as the coaches. If a coach can leave at any time without restrictions on his movement, permit that to the players as well. Don't allow coaches to say "you can't transfer within the conference," don't require them to sit out a year. The only thing that does is hurt the ability of the player to try to improve his lot for a post-college playing career. Sure, the argument is that if you allow players to change schools, that major programs will start paying players to transfer, but let's be honest: does anybody making that argument seriously think that cash handshakes don't already happen in other facets of the system?

2) Give them the leeway to work outside jobs, or else a stipend that will allow them to participate in a social life with their peers. Require, if you must, a paper trail to document that work. Require their employers to sign an agreement that they will provide accurate documentation in order for the player to work that job. If said employer reneges or falsifies documents, you've got them for breach of contract and possibly fraud. Let the NCAA drop on them like a ton of bricks.

3) Athletic scholarships in revenue sports become full rides. You can drop a player from the team if you want to bring in another recruit, but that former players has the right to continue to pursue their education on the school's dime so long as they remain academically eligible. Count some portion of that scholarship against the limit to prevent coaches from just rotating players out. If the player has two years of eligibility left, he counts as a half-scholarship against the limit. Three years, 3/4 of a scholarship. One year, 1/4 of a scholarship. For the benefit of incoming student athletes, round down at 1/2 and up at 3/4. If a team has an 80-scholarship limit and 65.5 scholarships between current players and former players still at the school, then they have 15 scholarships to hand out. If they're at 65.75, they can hand out 14. No more "at the pleasure of the coach" on scholarships. Give the players a safety net so that if they're injured or the coach just decides "I don't want you anymore," they can finish that paid-for education that's supposed to mean so much.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

If athletes get paid, scholarships go up and the rest of the student body suffers through student loan debt for an even longer time period hoping to make up the money lost... if they can even afford to go to college to begin with.

But I thought having a kickass football team meant people flocked to those schools? Anyway, if a school such as that becomes too expensive (even under the assumption that they would be paying for player salaries, which I don't think you can assume), then students have the option to go to cheaper schools. There are many, many public schools in PA for example that don't have D-I football teams.

Hell, why stop at college? What about those high school athletes too?

You mean besides academies who already pick players from far and wide to go to their fine learning institutions?

Look at the money Little League makes from the LLWS, maybe those kids should get paid too.

Let's just teach our kids to only do something for money, not for the love of doing it.

The world continues to go to hell in a handbag...

Yes. Little League is totally comparable. One year (13) where a few of how many teams make it far enough to be on TV?

Again, kids play at D3 for the love of the sport. And I think plenty of kids do play for money already. Top prospects go to schools they think can help their draft status. Kids leave school early. Because THEY WANT MONEY. NOW.

And yeah, this is totally the thing that is going to send the pristine world of college sports to hell.

[Groundhog]

I love college basketball. But........

Before this season, Wiggins was considered a can't-miss, all-world NBA prospect. Because he can't declare for the draft due to the fact that he's American, he's lost out on a #1 pick's salary. Sure, he'll still be a high selection, but his star is certainly shining less brightly now than 6 months ago.

Imagine if, instead of being forced to pretend to be a student/athlete, he'd been drafted 12 months ago, and spent the year playing in some kind of Development league that is geared towards developing young talent without the distraction of university, playing with other young players under close supervision of a team of professional coaches and guardians.

As an outsider, I think that's one possible future that makes a lot of sense for both professional teams and the athletes themselves.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

If athletes get paid, scholarships go up and the rest of the student body suffers through student loan debt for an even longer time period hoping to make up the money lost... if they can even afford to go to college to begin with.

Schools aren't required to pay the athletes. They just have the option if they want to. Í'm sure they can snag some money from the head coach salary, athletic director salary, and maybe not building $50 million training facilities for one sport.

It's no different than how it is now. Each school has their athletic budget and they figure out how they want to distribute that money.

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Let's just teach our kids to only do something for money, not for the love of doing it.

Yeah go tell your boss tomorrow that he doesn't need to pay you this year. It's not about the money. For the kids after all.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

A scholarship athlete can have a job and be paid for said job. He just has to be paid a wage consistent with what everyone else makes. And the employer better not only employ athletes.

Why do you give a shit how much an employer chooses to pay his employee? Why is it any of your business?

And why is this salary police only for college athletes? Why not make sure the business major isn't getting a cushy job from his Uncle that pays him more than the average person?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

I think the idea that the entire billion-dollar college athletic complex will die over this is preposterous, but one possible extreme outcome way down the line that I would love is to take the "student" out of the student/athlete equation at the big schools. It makes no sense that these guys have to go class, it's not why they're there. They should be paid employees first. If part of the compensation includes discounted or free course credits for those who actually qualify for admission academically, then great. Or guys could work a couple of years as a player and then attend another school that they can actually get into.

Edit: And I think it was someone on this board from another country that once expressed his bewilderment that academics and athletics in the U.S. is so intertwined. Every since then, I've seen the same thing. It really makes no sense. Guys who can barely read are sitting in college classrooms all over the country because they're good at a sport. It's crazy when you think about it.

As pointed out by someone upthread, the irony is that the push for college athlete union is due to professional league unions keeping younger players out. Then again, the professional leagues are all too willing to go along with that - after all, college football stars are going to make the NFL a lot more money than a Football Minor League star in marketing.

And you are right, companies ALWAYS say that a union is going to destroy the industry. It hardly ever happens, but they always have to hyperbole that way (it'd be a lot better if they made reasonable arguments).

[RainMaker]

I don't know why it's ironic. Unions look out for their members, not for other unions.

[ISiddiqui]

The irony being that they aren't being screwed by companies as much as by other workers.

[molson]

This may be way deeper than anyone wants to go into this, but if you're up for a interesting skim, this is a law review article that makes the argument that many "student-athletes" qualify as employees under the NLRA, and thus have the right to collectively bargain. The NCAA created, and required the use of, the term "student-athlete" to get around this designation, and somehow, it's worked so far.

http://digital.law.washington.edu/ds...washlrev71.pdf

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Originally Posted by digamma

Dola

And I'm only half joking about the research stuff above. Michigan gets over 1 billion a year in research grants. That's a hell of a lot more than the 170 million their athletic department generates in revenue.

I have seen several contracts for various roles in universities over the years, and they pretty much all require the employee to assign rights to inventions or other work product generated during the research to the university. Now, some may be able to negotiate around this or do things on the side, and maybe that's a freedom athletes don't have, but the point is, the athletics department isn't quite as unique as people think.

Those grad students can go work in biotech and get paid fair market value. They trade a smaller salary because they want to be in academia and possibly get their own lab one day.

So, I guess your comparison would make sense if college football and basketball players were able to enter a competing marketplace (NFL, NBA) but that has been restricted from them.

[JPhillips]

NCAA athletics could be radically changed with one simple rule change; make them independent of the university general budget. If they had to balance the books without subsidies and student fees things would be greatly different for most schools. The big boys, not including the SEC, mostly work that way currently, but the bulk of NCAA schools would have to radically alter their athletic departments.

[Logan]

Northwestern University football players cannot form a union, the National Labor Relations Board ruled, overturning a March 2014 decision and ending the players’ bid to change the college sports landscape.

In its unanimous decision, the labor board skirted the issue of whether the players are employees and left open the door to other college athletes winning the right to unionize.

The board cited the unique nature of college sports in saying it would foster instability to permit Northwestern football players to form a union while players elsewhere in the National Collegiate Athletic Association are not.

Northwestern Football Players Cannot Form Union, NLRB Rules - Bloomberg Business

[Dutch]

If we make inroads towards unions and shit like that, just ban college sports and make farm leagues. Or, make them truly what they are supposed to be, fun extra-curricular activities. No more TV, no more championship games....just local teams having fun playing against regional rivals.

We, the consumer will save BILLIONS of dollars that we could use elsewhere anyway.

[BillJasper]

This would seem to kill college sports video games as companies like EA will have no one to negotiate with on the athlete side of the equation.

[miami_fan]

I don't want to derail the coaching hiring thread with this story. An interesting piece in light of recent events and the role or lack thereof that a coach should or should not play in them.

Log In - The New York Times