| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/09/14 12:52 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
Something to consider is that although athletes can have jobs, it's not easy, especially during season because they have 20 hours of practice, travel, school, study hall, film, games, etc., so it's not as easy to get a job as a person who just has school.
But also athletes tend to eat more, so while they make eat dinner, it may not be a meal that gets them full or last them through the night. And student-athletes are not allowed to accept free food from friends who work in the student union, or student store or dining hall because it's an NCAA violation, so while other kids who can't afford food can make friends with people and get hooked up with free food, athletes can't. I mean they can, but if the NCAA were to find out about it they and the school would get some kind of sanction.
Earlier this year it was announced players for the Oklahoma football team had to pay a fine of $3.83 to maintain their eligibility for eating more than the allotted pasta at a banquet.
http://stormininnorman.com/2014/02/19/pastagate-gabe-ikard-austin-woods-violate-ncaa-pasta-eating-rule/
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7845
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 8:54 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
Something to consider is that although athletes can have jobs, it's not easy, especially during season because they have 20 hours of practice, travel, school, study hall, film, games, etc., so it's not as easy to get a job as a person who just has school.
But also athletes tend to eat more, so while they make eat dinner, it may not be a meal that gets them full or last them through the night. And student-athletes are not allowed to accept free food from friends who work in the student union, or student store or dining hall because it's an NCAA violation, so while other kids who can't afford food can make friends with people and get hooked up with free food, athletes can't. I mean they can, but if the NCAA were to find out about it they and the school would get some kind of sanction.
Earlier this year it was announced players for the Oklahoma football team had to pay a fine of $3.83 to maintain their eligibility for eating more than the allotted pasta at a banquet.
http://stormininnorman.com/2014/02/19/pastagate-gabe-ikard-austin-woods-violate-ncaa-pasta-eating-rule/ |
That is the sort of craziness that leads me to refer to it as the NCAMA, or National Collegiate Athletic Micromanagement Association. These are some BIG kids, and it stands to reason their appetites are also very large. Pasta allotments? Really, NCAA?
There was a situation at Tennessee where a football player lost his eligibility and was dismissed for accepting a small amount of money "under the table". He later confessed that yes, he did it, but it was to feed his family (fiancee and child) who were with him in Knoxville. They could not, because of his financial situation due to the scholarship, afford to marry, but wanted to stay together. She was not able to make enough money to support them either and eventually had to return home to her parents. So by trying to "do the right thing" he did the wrong thing and knew it was wrong at the time.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 8:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| There are rules in every league, there are rules in every job. Don't like the rules? Quit. It's your choice. |
The problem being that the NCAA is a cartel. The football factories have conspired to fix compensation in their industry in clear violation of several dozen anti-trust laws. The NCAA, unlike many professional sports leagues, does not have an anti-trust exemption. |
Except that's not the law.
I suggest reading the Supreme Court's Oklahoma and Tarkanian decisions. |
The NCAA lost one of those cases. The other dealt specifically with employees of member institutions (which the NCAA claims "student athletes" are not) and had nothing to do with compensation. It's hard to see how either of them apply.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5361
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 10:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Although the NCAA in principle is a non-profit, charitable organization, it can make profits as long as the way it makes profits is not a direct result of their non-profit endeavor but of related activities.
| Quote: |
Making a Profit From Related Activities
Let's take as an example a group called Friends of the Library Inc. It's a 501(c)(3) nonprofit (that means it has a federal tax exemption) organized to encourage literary appreciation in the community and to raise money for the support and improvement of the public library. It can make a profit from its lecture series featuring famous authors and from its annual sale of donated books. |
http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14703.html
There are more aspects to this than just scholarships being considered as enough compensation for student athletes. These athletes are asked to shill for the NCAA and school sponsors without compensation (walking advertisments). Public appearances are in a lot of cases mandatory. Because the word "student" is placed before athlete, does this mean they have to take what they get and be silent no matter how the schools and governing bodies benefit from them? Because they have the "student" in the term student-athlete, what they do can't be considered a job but other than that everything else that pertains to it would be considered a job without that in the title. Its akin to a salaried position in that you have a set amount of compensation for an undetermined amount of work which may end up being 1 1/2 to 2 times as much as a regular work week. And you may find yourself having to do stuff your original job description didn't include. Unless you have the dreaded "other duties as needed" clause. I don't call that fair. Especially if the compensation is way lacking.
So the students should up and quit huh? The school doesn't need them, huh? BS. Its because the NCAA and its members schools have such a chokehold on how student athletes ply their athletic trade that makes them have to deal with the school but without the notoriety of the success of athletic teams the schools would find it harder to secure funding and the NCAA coffers would dwindle. If an industry sprang up that hired, trained and compensated kids out of high schools to participate in sports, the NCAA would take a tremendous hit and would quickly move to offer compensation, I betcha. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 1:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| There are rules in every league, there are rules in every job. Don't like the rules? Quit. It's your choice. |
The problem being that the NCAA is a cartel. The football factories have conspired to fix compensation in their industry in clear violation of several dozen anti-trust laws. The NCAA, unlike many professional sports leagues, does not have an anti-trust exemption. |
Except that's not the law.
I suggest reading the Supreme Court's Oklahoma and Tarkanian decisions. |
The NCAA lost one of those cases. The other dealt specifically with employees of member institutions (which the NCAA claims "student athletes" are not) and had nothing to do with compensation. It's hard to see how either of them apply. |
Yes, the NCAA lost the OU case to the extent that it dealt with who owned TV rights and the market for TV rights. But the Supreme Ct was explicit in stating that NCAA rules relating to eligibility and amateurism of the athletes themselves are PRO-competitive and thus are not violative of the anti-trust laws.
And there is a long string of cases since then upholding against anti-trust attack various rules relating to those NCAA rules. Justice Stevens wrote in the OU case:
"What the NCAA and its member institutions market in this case is competition itself -- contests between competing institutions. Of course, this would be completely ineffective if there were no rules on which the competitors agreed to create and define the competition to be marketed. A myriad of rules affecting such matters as the size of the field, the number of players on a team, and the extent to which physical violence is to be encouraged or proscribed, all must be agreed upon, and all restrain the manner in which institutions compete. Moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football -- college football. The identification of this "product" with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the "product," athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like. And the integrity of the "product" cannot be preserved except by mutual agreement; if an institution adopted such restrictions unilaterally, its effectiveness as a competitor on the playing field might soon be destroyed. Thus, the NCAA plays a vital role in enabling college football to preserve its character, and as a result enables a product to be marketed which might otherwise be unavailable. In performing this role, its actions widen consumer choice -- not only the choices available to sports fans but also those available to athletes -- and hence can be viewed as procompetitive."
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 1:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
So the students should up and quit huh? The school doesn't need them, huh? BS. Its because the NCAA and its members schools have such a chokehold on how student athletes ply their athletic trade that makes them have to deal with the school but without the notoriety of the success of athletic teams the schools would find it harder to secure funding and the NCAA coffers would dwindle. If an industry sprang up that hired, trained and compensated kids out of high schools to participate in sports, the NCAA would take a tremendous hit and would quickly move to offer compensation, I betcha. |
Really? For a long time that very system existed. From Moses Malone in 1974 until the 2005 collective bargaining agreement, basketball players were free to go directly from HS to the NBA. Labron, Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, Amar'e Stoudemire, Tracy McGrady, and a whole host of others did exactly that. Did college basketball wither and die? Of course it didn't. To the contrary, the TV market and exposure for college basketball exploded during that very same period, and NCAA tournament grew in popularity (and the price CBS paid for it went through the roof).
Plus the reality is that the very system you say would ruin college sports has always existed in baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, track, and other sports, yet sports like college hockey and baseball have continued to grow and are more popular today than ever. Even as the free choice to go directly to the pros has existed in baseball and hockey, more players today choose to go the college route without pay than did 10 or 20 years ago. So they have the choice, have always had the choice, and yet many choose to play with all the NCAA rules rather than sign a pro contract right out of HS. Explain that for us. Explain how that squares with your assertion that such a system would destroy the NCAA.
Your "betcha" has already been disproven in actual practice.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 1:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
So the students should up and quit huh? The school doesn't need them, huh? BS. Its because the NCAA and its members schools have such a chokehold on how student athletes ply their athletic trade that makes them have to deal with the school but without the notoriety of the success of athletic teams the schools would find it harder to secure funding and the NCAA coffers would dwindle. If an industry sprang up that hired, trained and compensated kids out of high schools to participate in sports, the NCAA would take a tremendous hit and would quickly move to offer compensation, I betcha. |
Really? For a long time that very system existed. From Moses Malone in 1974 until the 2005 collective bargaining agreement, basketball players were free to go directly from HS to the NBA. Labron, Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, Amar'e Stoudemire, Tracy McGrady, and a whole host of others did exactly that. Did college basketball wither and die? Of course it didn't. To the contrary, the TV market and exposure for college basketball exploded during that very same period, and NCAA tournament grew in popularity (and the price CBS paid for it went through the roof).
Plus the reality is that the very system you say would ruin college sports has always existed in baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, track, and other sports, yet sports like college hockey and baseball have continued to grow and are more popular today than ever. Even as the free choice to go directly to the pros has existed in baseball and hockey, more players today choose to go the college route without pay than did 10 or 20 years ago. So they have the choice, have always had the choice, and yet many choose to play with all the NCAA rules rather than sign a pro contract right out of HS. Explain that for us. Explain how that squares with your assertion that such a system would destroy the NCAA.
Your "betcha" has already been disproven in actual practice. |
I was just going to respond with a reference to baseball, but you covered the ground very well. The changes in NBA rules were not done to benefit the NCAA, which was doing just fine. I'd even say the NCAA was doing better, as players stayed longer and were more recognizable. In a lot of respects, a system that had real minor leagues for all of the major sports might be an improvement all around.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
So the students should up and quit huh? The school doesn't need them, huh? BS. Its because the NCAA and its members schools have such a chokehold on how student athletes ply their athletic trade that makes them have to deal with the school but without the notoriety of the success of athletic teams the schools would find it harder to secure funding and the NCAA coffers would dwindle. If an industry sprang up that hired, trained and compensated kids out of high schools to participate in sports, the NCAA would take a tremendous hit and would quickly move to offer compensation, I betcha. |
Really? For a long time that very system existed. From Moses Malone in 1974 until the 2005 collective bargaining agreement, basketball players were free to go directly from HS to the NBA. Labron, Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, Amar'e Stoudemire, Tracy McGrady, and a whole host of others did exactly that. Did college basketball wither and die? Of course it didn't. To the contrary, the TV market and exposure for college basketball exploded during that very same period, and NCAA tournament grew in popularity (and the price CBS paid for it went through the roof).
Plus the reality is that the very system you say would ruin college sports has always existed in baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, track, and other sports, yet sports like college hockey and baseball have continued to grow and are more popular today than ever. Even as the free choice to go directly to the pros has existed in baseball and hockey, more players today choose to go the college route without pay than did 10 or 20 years ago. So they have the choice, have always had the choice, and yet many choose to play with all the NCAA rules rather than sign a pro contract right out of HS. Explain that for us. Explain how that squares with your assertion that such a system would destroy the NCAA.
Your "betcha" has already been disproven in actual practice. |
I was just going to respond with a reference to baseball, but you covered the ground very well. The changes in NBA rules were not done to benefit the NCAA, which was doing just fine. I'd even say the NCAA was doing better, as players stayed longer and were more recognizable. In a lot of respects, a system that had real minor leagues for all of the major sports might be an improvement all around. |
Hockey may be an even better example than baseball. Yes, the number of players choosing college baseball over the minor leagues has risen significantly, but it's nothing like hockey. College hockey has exploded. More schools offer it. New arenas have been built all over. The NCAA tournament has become a big deal. The Big 10 has added it as a sport this year. And 20 years ago very few players from college hockey made the NHL. Today it's commonplace. If you watch any of the major college hockey teams, they have multiple players who have already been drafted by NHL teams.
Last edited by ArtBest23 on 04/09/14 2:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
So the students should up and quit huh? The school doesn't need them, huh? BS. Its because the NCAA and its members schools have such a chokehold on how student athletes ply their athletic trade that makes them have to deal with the school but without the notoriety of the success of athletic teams the schools would find it harder to secure funding and the NCAA coffers would dwindle. If an industry sprang up that hired, trained and compensated kids out of high schools to participate in sports, the NCAA would take a tremendous hit and would quickly move to offer compensation, I betcha. |
Really? For a long time that very system existed. From Moses Malone in 1974 until the 2005 collective bargaining agreement, basketball players were free to go directly from HS to the NBA. Labron, Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, Amar'e Stoudemire, Tracy McGrady, and a whole host of others did exactly that. Did college basketball wither and die? Of course it didn't. To the contrary, the TV market and exposure for college basketball exploded during that very same period, and NCAA tournament grew in popularity (and the price CBS paid for it went through the roof).
Plus the reality is that the very system you say would ruin college sports has always existed in baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, track, and other sports, yet sports like college hockey and baseball have continued to grow and are more popular today than ever. Even as the free choice to go directly to the pros has existed in baseball and hockey, more players today choose to go the college route without pay than did 10 or 20 years ago. So they have the choice, have always had the choice, and yet many choose to play with all the NCAA rules rather than sign a pro contract right out of HS. Explain that for us. Explain how that squares with your assertion that such a system would destroy the NCAA.
Your "betcha" has already been disproven in actual practice. |
I was just going to respond with a reference to baseball, but you covered the ground very well. The changes in NBA rules were not done to benefit the NCAA, which was doing just fine. I'd even say the NCAA was doing better, as players stayed longer and were more recognizable. In a lot of respects, a system that had real minor leagues for all of the major sports might be an improvement all around. |
Yep...I'm pretty sure the NCAA would gladly give up this "one and done" crap that exists today. That was a David Stern thing that was pretty much slammed down the throats of the NCAA and was not of their doing.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
Yep...I'm pretty sure the NCAA would gladly give up this "one and done" crap that exists today. That was a David Stern thing that was pretty much slammed down the throats of the NCAA and was not of their doing. |
I don't think anyone asked the NCAA. And the players union objected but had it crammed down their throat by the owners. I don't think the owners wanted to deal with any more Kwame Browns who had never been more than 20 miles from home in their life and were socially completely unprepared for living alone and going on the road.
The Wizards ended up having to assign a manager to take care of Brown. Essentially baby sit him. He had millions of dollars, but after weeks in Washington was living in an apartment with nothing but a mattress on the floor and a TV because he didn't know how to buy furniture, was eating nothing but fast food because he didn't know how to make a simple meal, and was buying clothes, wearing them once, and throwing them on a pile in the corner because he didn't know how to get them laundered. So the owners decided to foist the "break in" period for these kids off on the colleges. You get them prepared for us, and after a year we'll take them.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
Yep...I'm pretty sure the NCAA would gladly give up this "one and done" crap that exists today. That was a David Stern thing that was pretty much slammed down the throats of the NCAA and was not of their doing. |
I don't think anyone asked the NCAA. And the players union objected but had it crammed down their throat by the owners. I don't think the owners wanted to deal with any more Kwame Browns who had never been more than 20 miles from home in their life and were socially completely unprepared for living alone and going on the road.
The Wizards ended up having to assign a manager to take care of Brown. Essentially baby sit him. He had millions of dollars, but after weeks in Washington was living in an apartment with nothing but a mattress on the floor and a TV because he didn't know how to buy furniture, was eating nothing but fast food because he didn't know how to make a simple meal, and was buying clothes, wearing them once, and throwing them on a pile in the corner because he didn't know how to get them laundered. So the owners decided to foist the "break in" period for these kids off on the colleges. You get them prepared for us, and after a year we'll take them. |
Exactly. I hate the one & done crap but there really isn't a whole lot the NCAA can do about it.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5361
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Really? For a long time that very system existed. From Moses Malone in 1974 until the 2005 collective bargaining agreement, basketball players were free to go directly from HS to the NBA. Labron, Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, Amar'e Stoudemire, Tracy McGrady, and a whole host of others did exactly that. Did college basketball wither and die? Of course it didn't. To the contrary, the TV market and exposure for college basketball exploded during that very same period, and NCAA tournament grew in popularity (and the price CBS paid for it went through the roof).
Plus the reality is that the very system you say would ruin college sports has always existed in baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, track, and other sports, yet sports like college hockey and baseball have continued to grow and are more popular today than ever. Even as the free choice to go directly to the pros has existed in baseball and hockey, more players today choose to go the college route without pay than did 10 or 20 years ago. So they have the choice, have always had the choice, and yet many choose to play with all the NCAA rules rather than sign a pro contract right out of HS. Explain that for us. Explain how that squares with your assertion that such a system would destroy the NCAA.
Your "betcha" has already been disproven in actual practice. |
Nowhere in my post did I say destroy. My opinion was that it "would find it harder to secure funding and the NCAA coffers would dwindle". That's not destroy but significantly less successful. As far as the minor leagues drafting out of high school. I was unaware they still did that. So you have me there. As far as the few guys that were drafted out of high school for the NBA, its a really small number compared to the ones that pass through college. Many players in college have little chance of making it pro but are milked by the system for as long as they can be used. Let me ask you a question, is there a disparity in the "revenue" between colleges that have major sports programs and those that don't? If so, where does the extra "revenue" come from?
For me its about fairness, if the universities and NCAA get to double down on what they get, why shouldn't the student-athletes benefit also. Putting student in front shouldn't make their position any less valid than the institutions they are performing for. What do professional players do that collegiate players don't besides getting paid more? Even minor leagues recognize the need to play the people they draft because they are doing a job. But put "student" in front of the job description, the bosses get to pick and choose how they players are compensated. So are you saying competing in sport is the bonus to their generous scholarship and they should just stop complaining huh? |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| Nowhere in my post did I say destroy. My opinion was that it "would find it harder to secure funding and the NCAA coffers would dwindle". That's not destroy but significantly less successful. |
Both baseball and hockey argue against this claim, as did the situation in basketball before the one and done rule was adopted by the NBA. People root for the jerseys, as they say.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 2:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Really? For a long time that very system existed. From Moses Malone in 1974 until the 2005 collective bargaining agreement, basketball players were free to go directly from HS to the NBA. Labron, Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, Amar'e Stoudemire, Tracy McGrady, and a whole host of others did exactly that. Did college basketball wither and die? Of course it didn't. To the contrary, the TV market and exposure for college basketball exploded during that very same period, and NCAA tournament grew in popularity (and the price CBS paid for it went through the roof).
Plus the reality is that the very system you say would ruin college sports has always existed in baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, track, and other sports, yet sports like college hockey and baseball have continued to grow and are more popular today than ever. Even as the free choice to go directly to the pros has existed in baseball and hockey, more players today choose to go the college route without pay than did 10 or 20 years ago. So they have the choice, have always had the choice, and yet many choose to play with all the NCAA rules rather than sign a pro contract right out of HS. Explain that for us. Explain how that squares with your assertion that such a system would destroy the NCAA.
Your "betcha" has already been disproven in actual practice. |
Nowhere in my post did I say destroy. My opinion was that it "would find it harder to secure funding and the NCAA coffers would dwindle". That's not destroy but significantly less successful. As far as the minor leagues drafting out of high school. I was unaware they still did that. So you have me there. As far as the few guys that were drafted out of high school for the NBA, its a really small number compared to the ones that pass through college. Many players in college have little chance of making it pro but are milked by the system for as long as they can be used. Let me ask you a question, is there a disparity in the "revenue" between colleges that have major sports programs and those that don't? If so, where does the extra "revenue" come from?
For me its about fairness, if the universities and NCAA get to double down on what they get, why shouldn't the student-athletes benefit also. Putting student in front shouldn't make their position any less valid than the institutions they are performing for. What do professional players do that collegiate players don't besides getting paid more? Even minor leagues recognize the need to play the people they draft because they are doing a job. But put "student" in front of the job description, the bosses get to pick and choose how they players are compensated. So are you saying competing in sport is the bonus to their generous scholarship and they should just stop complaining huh? |
Well, if the players weren't good enough that anyone was willing to offer them a contract to be paid to play, then how are they being denied anything by not being paid to play? So for 30 years basketball players were free to go get paid to play anytime they wanted to, but either they weren't good enough that anyone would pay them, or they chose to get an education instead. No one was making them do anything. Either way, I'm having a hard time figuring out how they were being "exploited' when a free $200,00 education, plus free coaching, training, workout facilities, and exposure, was the best offer they had.
Some of them, based on the training and coaching they get in college, were later able to get a paying job. Most of them instead got a free education and could get a job doing something other than playing sports. Yeah, they got totally screwed all right.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 3:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Either way, I'm having a hard time figuring out how they were being "exploited' when a free $200,00 education, plus free coaching, training, workout facilities, and exposure, was the best offer they had. |
It was the best offer because the schools conspired to limit what offers would be available. Absent collusion by the universities, the offer(s) might have been much better for many players.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 3:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Either way, I'm having a hard time figuring out how they were being "exploited' when a free $200,00 education, plus free coaching, training, workout facilities, and exposure, was the best offer they had. |
It was the best offer because the schools conspired to limit what offers would be available. Absent collusion by the universities, the offer(s) might have been much better for many players. |
And, as I pointed out above, the Supreme Court has recognized that those very rules ensuring a level playing field are essential to the character of college sports. You really think a system would work where a few schools could buy all the best players? That's what you want?
Heck, even pro leagues have rookie salary scales and veteran salary caps. Absent those, the offer might be better for some pros as well. But the product on the field would suffer. And those limits are legal too.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 3:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Either way, I'm having a hard time figuring out how they were being "exploited' when a free $200,00 education, plus free coaching, training, workout facilities, and exposure, was the best offer they had. |
It was the best offer because the schools conspired to limit what offers would be available. Absent collusion by the universities, the offer(s) might have been much better for many players. |
And, as I pointed out above, the Supreme Court has recognized that those very rules ensuring a level playing field are essential to the character of college sports. You really think a system would work where a few schools could buy all the best players? That's what you want?
Heck, even pro leagues have rookie salary scales and veteran salary caps. Absent those, the offer might be better for some pros as well. But the product on the field would suffer. And those limits are legal too. |
Being legal doesn't mean it's not exploitation. Your arguing out of both sides of your mouth.
Pro leagues have salary scales and caps that are collectively bargained. That's the objective of the unionization movement. The players are seeking a voice in determining their compensation.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 4:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Let's take a closer look at college hockey. Should colleges have to pay college hockey players over and above their scholarship, and if so, why?
There are currently 200 players on college hockey teams who have already been drafted by the NHL but have chosen to play college hockey instead of going to the farm system teams for development. They could have signed a contract and be getting paid to play, but instead chose to attend US colleges on scholarship. http://collegehockeyinc.com/pages/nhl-draft-picks-playing-college-hockey
So why should they get paid? The free market offered them a choice of (1) sign a pro contract and start getting paid now while developing their game, or (2) go to college on scholarship, NOT get paid, get good coaching and development, and get a free college education.
They had two offers. They had options. Many chose #2. So why should anyone step in and tell the colleges "your offer is not fair, you need to pay them more." Why? No one forced those players to take that offer. They chose to take it. They don't have any "right" to get more for playing. So where is there any duty on the part of colleges to sweeten their offer?
I think this illustrates that the problem does not lie with the colleges. The problem in truth is limited to two sports - football and basketball - and arises from conduct of those who deny athletes the choice of playing pro ball when they choose to and are ready to do so. The colleges have no ability to force the NFL/NFLPA, NBA/NBAPA, and WNBA/WNBAPA to take kids right out of HS. The players could go play in the CFL, or they could go play basketball in Europe or China or Israel, or the men could play in the NBADL. But it's not the colleges' fault or choice that the major pro leagues refuse to offer contracts to kids for some period after their HS graduation. But why is that the colleges' fault, and why should that mean that the colleges have to up what they are willing to offer?
So, to get back to the question, colleges sell tickets, sell jerseys, get TV money, and generate donations, from their college hockey teams. They offer players a scholarship. Those players could go pro instead. Some have offers, some don't, but all are free to try and get a paying job playing hockey. They choose to take the scholarship instead. So will someone please explain why colleges have any duty to offer more than they choose to offer today?
And frankly, once you answer that question for hockey, I don't understand why, from the schools' standpoint, the answer is any different for any other sport. So if you want to explain why it is, please do so.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 4:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
So, to get back to the question, colleges sell tickets, sell jerseys, get TV money, and generate donations, from their college hockey teams. They offer players a scholarship. Those players could go pro instead. Some have offers, some don't, but all are free to try and get a paying job playing hockey. They choose to take the scholarship instead. So will someone please explain why colleges have any duty to offer more than they choose to offer today?
And frankly, once you answer that question for hockey, I don't understand why, from the schools' standpoint, the answer is any different for any other sport. So if you want to explain why it is, please do so. |
I think you are obfuscating the issue by bringing in these other leagues and "options" that an athlete-student has.
The only question that matters is whether or not these people are employees. And I find it hard to find a metric under which they are not. They are required to provide their resources to an institution who uses these resources to generate significant revenue. In return they are offered compensation. If they fail to provide what is required of them, they lose this compensation. I don't know how you classify them as anything other than an employee. If it quacks like a duck...
And the labor board agreed.
As soon as you determine they are employees, they are automatically provided a specific set of rights, and that includes the ability to unionize and participate in collective bargaining. This isn't to say that they are inherently entitled to any more compensation then they are currently afforded, but it does mean that they should have some input and have some recourse by which to be listened to, rather than having to simply accept whatever the NCAA tells them. This is their right by law.
As I noted before, this is much bigger than simply being paid beyond their scholarship. It's about ancillary income and other restrictions too. The NCAA has some draconian eligibility rules that are questionable. for instance, when I was an undergrad I went on a sizable academic scholarship. While I was on that scholarship I wrote a novel that was eventually published, and which I made a decent amount of money on. The school not only accepted that I did this, but they also encouraged me in my endeavor and made certain resources available to me. However, had I been on an athletic scholarship I would have lost it along with my eligibility because I published under my own name. According to the NCAA, they alone own the name and likeness of their athletes. These are the type of things that unionization would be able to protect these kids from.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 5:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
So, to get back to the question, colleges sell tickets, sell jerseys, get TV money, and generate donations, from their college hockey teams. They offer players a scholarship. Those players could go pro instead. Some have offers, some don't, but all are free to try and get a paying job playing hockey. They choose to take the scholarship instead. So will someone please explain why colleges have any duty to offer more than they choose to offer today?
And frankly, once you answer that question for hockey, I don't understand why, from the schools' standpoint, the answer is any different for any other sport. So if you want to explain why it is, please do so. |
I think you are obfuscating the issue by bringing in these other leagues and "options" that an athlete-student has.
The only question that matters is whether or not these people are employees. And I find it hard to find a metric under which they are not. They are required to provide their resources to an institution who uses these resources to generate significant revenue. In return they are offered compensation. If they fail to provide what is required of them, they lose this compensation. I don't know how you classify them as anything other than an employee. If it quacks like a duck...
And the labor board agreed.
As soon as you determine they are employees, they are automatically provided a specific set of rights, and that includes the ability to unionize and participate in collective bargaining. This isn't to say that they are inherently entitled to any more compensation then they are currently afforded, but it does mean that they should have some input and have some recourse by which to be listened to, rather than having to simply accept whatever the NCAA tells them. This is their right by law.
As I noted before, this is much bigger than simply being paid beyond their scholarship. It's about ancillary income and other restrictions too. The NCAA has some draconian eligibility rules that are questionable. for instance, when I was an undergrad I went on a sizable academic scholarship. While I was on that scholarship I wrote a novel that was eventually published, and which I made a decent amount of money on. The school not only accepted that I did this, but they also encouraged me in my endeavor and made certain resources available to me. However, had I been on an athletic scholarship I would have lost it along with my eligibility because I published under my own name. According to the NCAA, they alone own the name and likeness of their athletes. These are the type of things that unionization would be able to protect these kids from. |
I don't see how allowing college athletes to form a union will destroy the NCAA. It would just be a mechanism to balance the power structure a little bit ...
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 5:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
I think you are obfuscating the issue by bringing in these other leagues and "options" that an athlete-student has. |
So in other words, when asked to address actual real-world facts, you decline.
| justintyme wrote: |
The only question that matters is whether or not these people are employees. And I find it hard to find a metric under whichanything other than an employee. If it quacks like a duck... they are not. They are required to provide their resources to an institution who uses these resources to generate significant revenue. In return they are offered compensation. If they fail to provide what is required of them, they lose this compensation. I don't know how you classify them as
And the labor board agreed.
|
No, actually the "labor board" didn't agree with anything. One regional director agreed, which has happened before, and, as before, this one is likely to be overruled by the NLRB again. And if not, then the courts will overrule the NLRB. The likelihood of this decision prevailing is remote.
And in any event, even in the unlikely event that students were found to be "employees" (which Congress would likely intervene to overrule in the events the courts didn't) that wouldn't lead to compensation anyhow. It just means they could form a union and bargain. That doesn't require the schools to agree to anything. So let the students go on strike. I assume that since they would be striking as "employees" that the schools would also be free to lock them out of classes and stop providing them room and board. Hmmm. Wonder how long that strike would last. I'd also laugh when the IRS came calling since their scholarships would now be taxable compensation. And of course, none of this even touches the vast majority of athletes who attend state universities that are by law exempt from the NLRA.
If it wasn't for ESPN fanning the fires, this would be a total non-story.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 5:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Really? For a long time that very system existed. From Moses Malone in 1974 until the 2005 collective bargaining agreement, basketball players were free to go directly from HS to the NBA. Labron, Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, Amar'e Stoudemire, Tracy McGrady, and a whole host of others did exactly that. Did college basketball wither and die? Of course it didn't. To the contrary, the TV market and exposure for college basketball exploded during that very same period, and NCAA tournament grew in popularity (and the price CBS paid for it went through the roof).
Plus the reality is that the very system you say would ruin college sports has always existed in baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, track, and other sports, yet sports like college hockey and baseball have continued to grow and are more popular today than ever. Even as the free choice to go directly to the pros has existed in baseball and hockey, more players today choose to go the college route without pay than did 10 or 20 years ago. So they have the choice, have always had the choice, and yet many choose to play with all the NCAA rules rather than sign a pro contract right out of HS. Explain that for us. Explain how that squares with your assertion that such a system would destroy the NCAA.
Your "betcha" has already been disproven in actual practice. |
Nowhere in my post did I say destroy. My opinion was that it "would find it harder to secure funding and the NCAA coffers would dwindle". That's not destroy but significantly less successful. As far as the minor leagues drafting out of high school. I was unaware they still did that. So you have me there. As far as the few guys that were drafted out of high school for the NBA, its a really small number compared to the ones that pass through college. Many players in college have little chance of making it pro but are milked by the system for as long as they can be used. Let me ask you a question, is there a disparity in the "revenue" between colleges that have major sports programs and those that don't? If so, where does the extra "revenue" come from?
For me its about fairness, if the universities and NCAA get to double down on what they get, why shouldn't the student-athletes benefit also. Putting student in front shouldn't make their position any less valid than the institutions they are performing for. What do professional players do that collegiate players don't besides getting paid more? Even minor leagues recognize the need to play the people they draft because they are doing a job. But put "student" in front of the job description, the bosses get to pick and choose how they players are compensated. So are you saying competing in sport is the bonus to their generous scholarship and they should just stop complaining huh? |
I can understand what you are trying to say, but the NCAA is not going to ever be fair to all student-athletes in the way you speak of. There are basically different levels of schools and some change depending on the sport, but overall not all schools are equal so if the NCAA were to make it about being "fair" shouldn't athletes at Cal State Fullerton be given the same as athletes from UCLA, if that were the case Cal State Fullerton athletics would cease to exist because there is no way Cal State Fullerton could afford it since they don't have as many sports, sponsors and revenue coming in as UCLA or any other big time program. If it's about being fair, how would you make it fair?
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 8:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
So in other words, when asked to address actual real-world facts, you decline. |
Not at all. It's just that I want to focus on the question that actually matters. Issues like the choice to play for the school or go pro, or even the net profits of the NCAA are irrelevant to the underlying issue. Also irrelevant is the effect it would have--for good or for bad--on college sports as a whole. None of that has any impact on whether or not a college football or basketball player is an employee of the university.
The important question is whether or not they are actually employees or if they are something else. This is important because if they are employees they are entitled to very specific rights, including the right of unionization.
You will have to explain to me how someone who produces work-product for compensation which is then sold to generate revenue is not an employee. The function and the expectation which is placed upon the athlete-student makes it clear that they have an employer/employee relationship with their school. The school pays the athlete by giving scholarships, which have a real monetary value, and that payment is conditioned upon the athlete continuing to fulfill specific obligations of time and work. And if that athlete does not fulfill these obligations, the payment/scholarship ends. I don't know what else this sort of a relationship would be called other than employment.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ]No, actually the "labor board" didn't agree with anything. One regional director agreed, which has happened before, and, as before, this one is likely to be overruled by the NLRB again. And if not, then the courts will overrule the NLRB. The likelihood of this decision prevailing is remote. |
This is actually very unlikely to be overturned, for the reasons I just highlighted. The labor board is focused upon one single question, and really there is no other conclusion to be reached. Athletes are clearly de facto employees, and that when the relationship is broken down to its base components and all the ancillary issues are stripped away, it mirrors the relationship between any employee and their employer.
The courts would have no standing upon which to overturn a ruling by the NLRB. It doesn't matter how compelling of a reason the NCAA has to maintain the status quo, if athletes are employees they automatically get specific rights which cannot be taken away.
Which leaves congress, and there is no way that congress passes a law like that. People who voted for it would lose their jobs come the next election cycle. Not to mention the sure presidential veto. Passing a law would be tantamount to saying "Yes, you are employees, but your employer can do whatever they want and you just have to take it". That is just bad politics.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ...that wouldn't lead to compensation anyhow. It just means they could form a union and bargain. That doesn't require the schools to agree to anything. So let the students go on strike. I assume that since they would be striking as "employees" that the schools would also be free to lock them out of classes and stop providing them room and board. |
The question isn't about additional compensation. It's about the fundamentals of the relationship. It's about getting a seat at the table. The ability to collectively bargain. This doesn't mean they have huge amounts of leverage to turn into huge paychecks on top of everything else, but rather additional benefits. Schools aren't going to want to risk everything over reasonable additions like guaranteed scholarships.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 9:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| I think this is a bit oversimplified. On a certain level, the amount of gross revenue generated is irrelevant. (I remember from Microeconomics 101 the point that you should stop being in business if revenues don't cover fixed costs, for instance.) Net revenue tells you if you're paying too much to people in the aggregate. Neither, however, tells you what you should pay individual workers. |
This is what I mean about a red herring. The argument is whether or not players are employees, not how much they should or should not get paid. Amounts and benefits and all of that can be worked out at the negotiating table. The argument from me and others is that students should have a right to sit at that table instead of having to simply accept whatever it is the NCAA decides. And the shear amount of revenue created by their work product makes it clear they are employees of the school.
Perhaps compensation comes from 5 year guaranteed scholarships which are not dependent upon continued participation in the sport (ie: I don't lose my scholarship if I get injured). Or perhaps it is a stipend of some amount since their time commitments preclude other jobs, or perhaps it's allowing the students to profit from their own name. Or maybe lifetime medical coverage for any sport related issue. Whatever it is, because they are de facto employees not just some people participating in an extra-curricular activity, they should have the right to have some say in the matter. |
I haven't figured out exactly how I feel about these issues, other than to be very concerned about the impact on sports other than football and men's basketball, but when you said that net profits were a red herring and that gross profits were more important, that was simply wrong. Net profits obviously are relevant to compensation. If I take in a billion dollars and spend two billion, I'm not going to be inclined to give my employees more compensation. I'm more likely to try to lay people off or cut their compensation.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/14 9:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
So in other words, when asked to address actual real-world facts, you decline. |
Not at all. It's just that I want to focus on the question that actually matters. Issues like the choice to play for the school or go pro, or even the net profits of the NCAA are irrelevant to the underlying issue. Also irrelevant is the effect it would have--for good or for bad--on college sports as a whole. None of that has any impact on whether or not a college football or basketball player is an employee of the university.
The important question is whether or not they are actually employees or if they are something else. This is important because if they are employees they are entitled to very specific rights, including the right of unionization.
You will have to explain to me how someone who produces work-product for compensation which is then sold to generate revenue is not an employee. The function and the expectation which is placed upon the athlete-student makes it clear that they have an employer/employee relationship with their school. The school pays the athlete by giving scholarships, which have a real monetary value, and that payment is conditioned upon the athlete continuing to fulfill specific obligations of time and work. And if that athlete does not fulfill these obligations, the payment/scholarship ends. I don't know what else this sort of a relationship would be called other than employment.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ]No, actually the "labor board" didn't agree with anything. One regional director agreed, which has happened before, and, as before, this one is likely to be overruled by the NLRB again. And if not, then the courts will overrule the NLRB. The likelihood of this decision prevailing is remote. |
This is actually very unlikely to be overturned, for the reasons I just highlighted. The labor board is focused upon one single question, and really there is no other conclusion to be reached. Athletes are clearly de facto employees, and that when the relationship is broken down to its base components and all the ancillary issues are stripped away, it mirrors the relationship between any employee and their employer.
The courts would have no standing upon which to overturn a ruling by the NLRB. It doesn't matter how compelling of a reason the NCAA has to maintain the status quo, if athletes are employees they automatically get specific rights which cannot be taken away.
Which leaves congress, and there is no way that congress passes a law like that. People who voted for it would lose their jobs come the next election cycle. Not to mention the sure presidential veto. Passing a law would be tantamount to saying "Yes, you are employees, but your employer can do whatever they want and you just have to take it". That is just bad politics.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ...that wouldn't lead to compensation anyhow. It just means they could form a union and bargain. That doesn't require the schools to agree to anything. So let the students go on strike. I assume that since they would be striking as "employees" that the schools would also be free to lock them out of classes and stop providing them room and board. |
The question isn't about additional compensation. It's about the fundamentals of the relationship. It's about getting a seat at the table. The ability to collectively bargain. This doesn't mean they have huge amounts of leverage to turn into huge paychecks on top of everything else, but rather additional benefits. Schools aren't going to want to risk everything over reasonable additions like guaranteed scholarships. |
You're not a lawyer, are you. What you wrote is wrong in so many parts on so many levels I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you.
This isn't a question of first impression, and regardless of what you think should be the law, what you wrote isn't. An employee isn't what you think it is, it's only what is defined as an employee in the NLRA as interpreted by the courts. And where did you ever get the notion that a decision one way or the other by the NLRB won't be subject to judicial review? Of course it will be reviewed and ultimately decided by the courts.
No one is going to allow one private college in negotiations with one group of players to rewrite the rules applicable to every other college or to play by different rules than everyone else. Not going to happen. The NLRA doesn't even apply to state schools. This whole thing is a fantasy.
|
|
|
|
