The Lawsuit That Could Bring Down the NCAA (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Game On. NCAA Denied

The NCAA has not only separated itself from EA and (I think) College Licensing Co. but is also suing both essentially for allowing them (the NCAA) to get into this mess. But it still wanted to participate in settlement discussions between EA, CLC and the plaintiffs. To my nonlegal mind, that seems a little rich.

I wish I could find that story detailing how the NCAA is marshaling its forces for the trial this summer. Essentially, they are rounding up coaches and athletic directors to "testify" that fans will desert college sports if players are allowed to make outside income. There is no evidence that this will happen (beyond a few polls, which are notoriously unreliable in these matters); in fact the evidence points to exactly the opposite, every sport which has transitioned from "amateur" to professional has thrived.

They really are going to use the "we're special" defense. smh

I've heard this. Emmert is a real moron...if it were true why wouldn't he get the actual fans to speak on their own behalf rather than the "well, I have these guys here to testify about what someone else would do" approach....completely laughable.

 

[roadkill1292]

So far it seems that the NCAA's case has been so shaky that it has had to ask the court not to apply an injunction against its amateur requirements prior to the case being heard. Plaintiffs have said that there has been no compelling evidence offered by the NCAA as to why said injunction shouldn't be granted. The evidence offered by the NCAA so far has been a bunch of AD's and conference commissioners submitting written statements that they're sure what they're saying is true.

If the NCAA doesn't come up with anything more concrete (or start really bending some arms on Capitol Hill), an increasingly unsympathetic Judge Wilkin, who has already ruled that anti-trust can indeed be applied to "amateur" sports, could open the floodgates to the boosters before the even bigger TV money question is settled.

Legal types here should check my work, though.

 

[The Commish]

Was suggested that I bring the topic of CFB Unions to this thread.

 

[roadkill1292]

What if the Northwestern guys were joined by the counterparts at Stanford, Vanderbilt and Duke and got the school's amateurism rules overturned? Wouldn't that put pressure on the state factories as well?

 

[The Commish]

What if the Northwestern guys were joined by the counterparts at Stanford, Vanderbilt and Duke and got the school's amateurism rules overturned? Wouldn't that put pressure on the state factories as well?

I think it would certainly call into question this myth of "not for profit" schools.

 

[roadkill1292]

What if the Northwestern guys were joined by the counterparts at Stanford, Vanderbilt and Duke and got the school's amateurism rules overturned? Wouldn't that put pressure on the state factories as well?

I think it would certainly call into question this myth of "not for profit" schools.

My thought processes went like this: athletes at the four abovementioned schools unionize and then go on to win the right to earn outside income, which means money from Booster Bob's Used Cars. At that point, the rest of the big NCAA schools have to begin dealing with four prominent members court-ordered to play by different rules. Even though booster participation at those schools might be fairly modest (conjecture on my part -- those schools have lots and lots of rich alumni), maybe they relax their academic standards a little bit and the elite athletes start finding their way to them because of the perks now allowed.

In that scenario, what do the state schools do? Expel 'em or join 'em?

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's great that it takes the NCAA a matter of hours to fire back at this claiming they stand for "all student athletes," but literally months and months to determine the fates of those "student athletes" whose interests they say they stand for if they happen to take in a couple hundred bucks' worth of benefits.

 

[The Commish]

What if the Northwestern guys were joined by the counterparts at Stanford, Vanderbilt and Duke and got the school's amateurism rules overturned? Wouldn't that put pressure on the state factories as well?

I think it would certainly call into question this myth of "not for profit" schools.

My thought processes went like this: athletes at the four abovementioned schools unionize and then go on to win the right to earn outside income, which means money from Booster Bob's Used Cars. At that point, the rest of the big NCAA schools have to begin dealing with four prominent members court-ordered to play by different rules. Even though booster participation at those schools might be fairly modest (conjecture on my part -- those schools have lots and lots of rich alumni), maybe they relax their academic standards a little bit and the elite athletes start finding their way to them because of the perks now allowed.

In that scenario, what do the state schools do? Expel 'em or join 'em?

I'd have to go with "join 'em" in this case. They won't let their cash cow go for the NCAA. I suppose the NCAA could kick those select schools out of their "party" putting the conferences in an awkward position, but i suspect if they had to choose between the NCAA and the they are taking the

 

[roadkill1292]

Michael McCann, who writes on sports legal matters for SI.com, said that where this situation gets really interesting in in the tv rights negotiations. The successful establishment of unions means that there are now new groups entitled to sit in on them.

McCann also noted that this could put the unions at each school at odds with each other because of Title IX -- there's an inherent conflict between the goals of Title IX and the differing earning potentials of the men's unions vs women's unions.

 

[The Commish]

Michael McCann, who writes on sports legal matters for SI.com, said that where this situation gets really interesting in in the tv rights negotiations. The successful establishment of unions means that there are now new groups entitled to sit in on them.

McCann also noted that this could put the unions at each school at odds with each other because of Title IX -- there's an inherent conflict between the goals of Title IX and the differing earning potentials of the men's unions vs women's unions.

These "smaller" schools would need a few larger schools to join them. There's nothing really stopping the conferences from just kicking them out. There'd have to be some sort of settlement between the schools and the conference, but I can't imagine it would be harder to do that than bring all these other groups in for TV negotiations.

 

[roadkill1292]

Michael McCann, who writes on sports legal matters for SI.com, said that where this situation gets really interesting in in the tv rights negotiations. The successful establishment of unions means that there are now new groups entitled to sit in on them.

McCann also noted that this could put the unions at each school at odds with each other because of Title IX -- there's an inherent conflict between the goals of Title IX and the differing earning potentials of the men's unions vs women's unions.

These "smaller" schools would need a few larger schools to join them. There's nothing really stopping the conferences from just kicking them out. There'd have to be some sort of settlement between the schools and the conference, but I can't imagine it would be harder to do that than bring all these other groups in for TV negotiations.

Define "smaller" schools. Northwestern, Stanford, Vandy, Duke? I guess, if the unions won the right not only to exist but also to earn outside income, it may well indeed be in the interests of their conference brethren to give them the boot. Maybe that wouldn't even be a big deal to those schools, who have a slightly different athletic/academic relationship anyway.

OTOH, they could get pissed, rally the alumni to open up the checkbooks and buy a whole bunch of 5-stars who could earn $50k a year making Vandy a powerhouse instead of Bama, who won't pay anything beyond the scholarship. That would be really funny to see.

 

[The Commish]

Michael McCann, who writes on sports legal matters for SI.com, said that where this situation gets really interesting in in the tv rights negotiations. The successful establishment of unions means that there are now new groups entitled to sit in on them.

McCann also noted that this could put the unions at each school at odds with each other because of Title IX -- there's an inherent conflict between the goals of Title IX and the differing earning potentials of the men's unions vs women's unions.

These "smaller" schools would need a few larger schools to join them. There's nothing really stopping the conferences from just kicking them out. There'd have to be some sort of settlement between the schools and the conference, but I can't imagine it would be harder to do that than bring all these other groups in for TV negotiations.

Define "smaller" schools. Northwestern, Stanford, Vandy, Duke? I guess, if the unions won the right not only to exist but also to earn outside income, it may well indeed be in the interests of their conference brethren to give them the boot. Maybe that wouldn't even be a big deal to those schools, who have a slightly different athletic/academic relationship anyway.

OTOH, they could get pissed, rally the alumni to open up the checkbooks and buy a whole bunch of 5-stars who could earn $50k a year making Vandy a powerhouse instead of Bama, who won't pay anything beyond the scholarship. That would be really funny to see.

I meant smaller in the sense of their impacts to the national scene. It could be argued that Stanford doesn't fit that definition, but the other do when looking at it through the football lens.

 

[The Commish]

NCAA fighting back!!!

This union-backed attempt to turn student-athletes into employees undermines the purpose of college: an education. Student-athletes are not employees, and their participation in college sports is voluntary. We stand for all student-athletes, not just those the unions want to professionalize.

Many student athletes are provided scholarships and many other benefits for their participation. There is no employment relationship between the NCAA, its affiliated institutions or student-athletes.

Student-athletes are not employees within any definition of the National Labor Relations Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act. We are confident the National Labor Relations Board will find in our favor, as there is no right to organize student-athletes.

What about the professional, back in school to get an MBA etc? Are all students to be "amateurs"??

 

[Politician Spock]

NCAA fighting back!!!

This union-backed attempt to turn student-athletes into employees undermines the purpose of college: an education. Student-athletes are not employees, and their participation in college sports is voluntary. We stand for all student-athletes, not just those the unions want to professionalize.

Many student athletes are provided scholarships and many other benefits for their participation. There is no employment relationship between the NCAA, its affiliated institutions or student-athletes.

Student-athletes are not employees within any definition of the National Labor Relations Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act. We are confident the National Labor Relations Board will find in our favor, as there is no right to organize student-athletes.

What about the professional, back in school to get an MBA etc? Are all students to be "amateurs"??

Their argument is weak. When the schools won their case in the Supreme Court against the NCAA in 1983, giving the schools the right to pursue their own streams of revenue, it was only a matter of time that the athletes would win their right to collectively bargain and negotiate for their fare share of that revenue. The fact that most of these kids' families are borderline poverty isn't going to help the schools keep the money from them.

 

[gump]

The groups outlined goals:

1. Minimize college athletes' brain trauma risks.

2. Raise the scholarship amount.

3. Prevent players from being stuck paying sports-related medical expenses.

4. Increase graduation rates.

5. Protect educational opportunities for student-athletes in good standing.

6. Prohibit universities from using a permanent injury suffered during athletics as a reason to reduce/eliminate a scholarship.

7. Establish and enforce uniform safety guidelines in all sports to help prevent serious injuries and avoidable deaths.

8. Eliminate restrictions on legitimate employment and players ability to directly benefit from commercial opportunities.

9. Prohibit the punishment of college athletes that have not committed a violation.

10. Guarantee that college athletes are granted an athletic release from their university if they wish to transfer schools.

11. Allow college athletes of all sports the ability to transfer schools one time without punishment.

 

[roadkill1292]

An amusing thought that occurs to me is that the athletes have found a ***** in the colleges' armor by targeting the private schools, where federal labor law prevails. At state universities, state labor law prevails and a lot of current powerhouses are located in right to work states where unionizing would not be possible. So we have the humorous future possibility of a private school like Miami, which wouldn't flinch at allowing boosters to pay football players healthy stipends, or Stanford or Notre Dame or Duke or Vandy losing to the unions and forced to allow highly compensated athletes on their rosters while Alabama and Texas couldn't match them because of their state labor laws. Where do the 5-stars go in that universe?

Math shortcut, 85 scholarship players at $30,000 stipends costs $2.55 million annually. That's not chicken feed but it's about half the cost of a big name coach these days and easily affordable by a school with Northwestern's wealthy alumni base. Could the Wildcats "fail" to stop the union organizers yet find themselves contending for a national championship because of it?

 

[roadkill1292]

Even if the union is not successful in its attempt to be certified, it will raise the issues of compensation and control with the courts. If athletes are already compensated with a scholarship, they will argue, what right does the school have to limit any other types of professional income they may earn if they're not employees? And how much control over an athlete's time may a school have before said athlete is considered an employee?

I think they only have a 50-50 chance of winning but might win even by losing. If the courts say that they aren't employees, then they may also reach the conclusion that, because they're not, the colleges don't have the right to exercise the kind of controls they have been accustomed to. And that scholarship athletes will have to have the same economic freedoms as any other enrolled student.

 

[The Commish]

Even if the union is not successful in its attempt to be certified, it will raise the issues of compensation and control with the courts. If athletes are already compensated with a scholarship, they will argue, what right does the school have to limit any other types of professional income they may earn if they're not employees? And how much control over an athlete's time may a school have before said athlete is considered an employee?

I think they only have a 50-50 chance of winning but might win even by losing. If the courts say that they aren't employees, then they may also reach the conclusion that, because they're not, the colleges don't have the right to exercise the kind of controls they have been accustomed to. And that scholarship athletes will have to have the same economic freedoms as any other enrolled student.

This has always seemed like the catch 22 to me and quite frankly I don't understand how the NCAA/schools have gotten away with it for this long. Is it because those other students aren't "part" of the NCAA since they aren't playing sports?

 

[roadkill1292]

College football has, in the wake of exploding revenues, essentially told the people whose services it has sold that they'll get what it decides to give them and like it. Those days are coming to an end. The talent will eventually call most of the shots, like it does most everywhere else; if the existing power structure wants the money to keep flowing in, it will have to deal with the talent on a reasonable basis. The courts will give no alternative for the schools, they will not be allowed to continue running college football as they have in the past.

 

[The Commish]

If you don't follow Jay Bilas on twitter you should. He's been pretty funny with the NCAA all the while making some pretty good points. His latest attack was this notion that the athletes were athletes voluntarily. Well, voluntarily until they had to go to mandatory practices, study halls, meetings etc.

 

[Christo]

If you don't follow Jay Bilas on twitter you should. He's been pretty funny with the NCAA all the while making some pretty good points. His latest attack was this notion that the athletes were athletes voluntarily. Well, voluntarily until they had to go to mandatory practices, study halls, meetings etc.

I don't get it. Those things are only "mandatory" to the extent the athlete wants them to be "mandatory." They have the ability to walk. I have a friend who volunteers for Big Brothers and Big Sisters. They have rules volunteers have to follow and all volunteers have to go through mandatory background checks, interviews and an orientation. Him going through all of that didn't turn him into an employee or conflict with him being a volunteer.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Loving this..... burn the NCAA down as fast as possible.

HAving said that, this is a double edged sword for the athletes though. If they unionize and someone their participation is considered work, then there are going to be income tax consequences for that I would think. Still, it's the right thing to do with men's basketball and football. None of the other sports deserve even a small acknowledgment of existence in this talk. It's time to obliterate the NCAA and figure out a way to make sure Title IX doesn't stop AJ Green from going to lunch with Deion Sanders because some woman's breakstroke swimmer doesn't get the same lunch from ................................ I don't know some female swimmer..... Greg Louganis. Does that count?

 

[The Commish]

If you don't follow Jay Bilas on twitter you should. He's been pretty funny with the NCAA all the while making some pretty good points. His latest attack was this notion that the athletes were athletes voluntarily. Well, voluntarily until they had to go to mandatory practices, study halls, meetings etc.

I don't get it. Those things are only "mandatory" to the extent the athlete wants them to be "mandatory." They have the ability to walk. I have a friend who volunteers for Big Brothers and Big Sisters. They have rules volunteers have to follow and all volunteers have to go through mandatory background checks, interviews and an orientation. Him going through all of that didn't turn him into an employee or conflict with him being a volunteer.

Once you're in your scholarship, you can walk, but the school doesn't have to let you out of the scholarship. There seems to be many differences between the situation you describe and the situation you quoted, but that's one of the main ones I see.

 

[Christo]

If you don't follow Jay Bilas on twitter you should. He's been pretty funny with the NCAA all the while making some pretty good points. His latest attack was this notion that the athletes were athletes voluntarily. Well, voluntarily until they had to go to mandatory practices, study halls, meetings etc.

I don't get it. Those things are only "mandatory" to the extent the athlete wants them to be "mandatory." They have the ability to walk. I have a friend who volunteers for Big Brothers and Big Sisters. They have rules volunteers have to follow and all volunteers have to go through mandatory background checks, interviews and an orientation. Him going through all of that didn't turn him into an employee or conflict with him being a volunteer.

Once you're in your scholarship, you can walk, but the school doesn't have to let you out of the scholarship. There seems to be many differences between the situation you describe and the situation you quoted, but that's one of the main ones I see.

What does that have to do with Bilas' point?

 

[roadkill1292]

That's not one of Bilas' best points but he's still an extremely valuable fellow in favor of the good guys. High visibility and credibility.

I'm not sure that being an employee is in the athletes' best interests, as I've stated before. I think the end goal here is to lift the restrictions on non-university income, which is the bare ####### minimum they should have anyway.

 

[The Commish]

If you don't follow Jay Bilas on twitter you should. He's been pretty funny with the NCAA all the while making some pretty good points. His latest attack was this notion that the athletes were athletes voluntarily. Well, voluntarily until they had to go to mandatory practices, study halls, meetings etc.

I don't get it. Those things are only "mandatory" to the extent the athlete wants them to be "mandatory." They have the ability to walk. I have a friend who volunteers for Big Brothers and Big Sisters. They have rules volunteers have to follow and all volunteers have to go through mandatory background checks, interviews and an orientation. Him going through all of that didn't turn him into an employee or conflict with him being a volunteer.

Once you're in your scholarship, you can walk, but the school doesn't have to let you out of the scholarship. There seems to be many differences between the situation you describe and the situation you quoted, but that's one of the main ones I see.

What does that have to do with Bilas' point?

Seems to me, Bilas' point is these volunteer athletes are anything but volunteers once they are locked into scholarships. To answer your question specifically, my reply to you has as much to do with his point as your initial reply. I'm not seeing much of a point at either stage.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think whether student-athletes qualify as employees under federal or state labor laws might be really fascinating issue. In the employee vs. independent contractor tests, they are pretty clearly employees. But not everybody is an employee or an independent contractor. Some people are just club members or hobbyists or whatever. I mean, intramural football players are pretty obviously non-employees.

The difference, it seems to me, is that intramural football players are not playing on behalf of a business entity: the school is not collecting gate or television revenues. Intramural players are just playing for their own enjoyment, not for the benefit of a money-making venture.

A varsity football player for Ohio State, on the other hand, is performing for the benefit of the school, and the school is making money off of the performance. Given that the player is directed to show up at certain times, perform specific services dictated by the coaches, and so on, I think there's a pretty good case for treating the players as employees under relevant labor laws.

I don't think that's a big deal in terms of minimum wage laws. Scholarships are worth more than minimum wage -- although the structure of the compensation may have to change. (The school may have to pay the players in cash, which the players can then use to pay tuition. The players would have to pay taxes on that cash, as well.)

But in terms of collective bargaining laws, it could make a huge difference. If players had the ability to go on strike, they could probably negotiate way more compensation than the value of a scholarship. At least at the top football schools that make a lot of money from football.

I don't know where that leaves non-scholarship programs. Do Division III schools have to start paying minimum wage to their athletes? (Football programs at D-III schools are already losing money in most cases, I think. Will they be required to lose a bunch more?) And what happens to Title IX? (If Ohio State revokes scholarships for football players and instead pays cash, that might actually make compliance with Title IX easier rather than harder.)

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't think that's a big deal in terms of minimum wage laws. Scholarships are worth more than minimum wage -- although the structure of the compensation may have to change. (The school may have to pay the players in cash, which the players can then use to pay tuition.

Could the players be forced to spend the cash on tuition, or could they decide just to play on the football team and spend their earnings on something better, like a hovercraft?

 

[roadkill1292]

What are Big Brother's annual tv revenues and does the organization conspire with its competitors to enforce the same rules on their volunteers?

eta lol at hovercraft

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think that's a big deal in terms of minimum wage laws. Scholarships are worth more than minimum wage -- although the structure of the compensation may have to change. (The school may have to pay the players in cash, which the players can then use to pay tuition.

Could the players be forced to spend the cash on tuition, or could they decide just to play on the football team and spend their earnings on something better, like a hovercraft?

I think the NCAA would still be able to have a rule that Ohio State players must be full-time students at Ohio State. So Ohio State would discriminate in its football-player-hiring practices based on enrollment. The players' compensation wouldn't necessarily have to be earmarked for tuition, but they'd have to enroll somehow.

 

[roadkill1292]

Loving this..... burn the NCAA down as fast as possible.

HAving said that, this is a double edged sword for the athletes though. If they unionize and someone their participation is considered work, then there are going to be income tax consequences for that I would think. Still, it's the right thing to do with men's basketball and football. None of the other sports deserve even a small acknowledgment of existence in this talk. It's time to obliterate the NCAA and figure out a way to make sure Title IX doesn't stop AJ Green from going to lunch with Deion Sanders because some woman's breakstroke swimmer doesn't get the same lunch from ................................ I don't know some female swimmer..... Greg Louganis. Does that count?

What if football players didn't win the right to be recognized as employees and unionize but did, via litigation, overturn the restrictions on earnings. Could the scholarship be non-taxable income while the money from Booster Bob be taxable?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Loving this..... burn the NCAA down as fast as possible.

HAving said that, this is a double edged sword for the athletes though. If they unionize and someone their participation is considered work, then there are going to be income tax consequences for that I would think. Still, it's the right thing to do with men's basketball and football. None of the other sports deserve even a small acknowledgment of existence in this talk. It's time to obliterate the NCAA and figure out a way to make sure Title IX doesn't stop AJ Green from going to lunch with Deion Sanders because some woman's breakstroke swimmer doesn't get the same lunch from ................................ I don't know some female swimmer..... Greg Louganis. Does that count?

What if football players didn't win the right to be recognized as employees and unionize but did, via litigation, overturn the restrictions on earnings. Could the scholarship be non-taxable income while the money from Booster Bob be taxable?

I'm not a tax attorney, so I am way way out of my comfort zone on this, but I think that is how it would work - the scholarship and education are not taxable, but anything income they get from booster bobs car sales company or gifts would be like they would be for anyone else.

Look, the solution for the NCAA to stay alive is simple. Keep the current scholarship system in place like it is that makes them all their money. And then simply relax the rules on student athletes making money, getting gifts or being taken to lunch, from private individuals while they are in school. If I am a law student and a supreme court judge takes me to lunch and pays - great for me. If I am a WR and Deion Sanders does the same - great for me. If I am going to school for aerospace engineering, and Boeing reps come to my house and drop a Lambougini in my driveway to make me like them prior to graduation - great for me. If I am a QB and Booster Bob from Oklahoma wants to hand me an envelope with $200,000 in it - great for me.

This is not hard, this is not a problem, and this will not change college football at all on the field, and it sure as hell won't change the "education" aspect of the NCAA which is such a joke that anyone that ever uses the "student-athlete" portion of the argument should lose their right to vote and speak. Because at the end of the day, the fact that someone bought Reggie Bush a house means absolutely nothing. At all. To USC, to the world, to football, to anyone. It's some idiot who wants to be a hanger on and spends money to do it - god bless the people that can benefit off of it. And stopping them from doing it for some ridiculous competative balance argument in college football where there is no balance of any kind is a joke.

 

[Politician Spock]

Even if the union is not successful in its attempt to be certified, it will raise the issues of compensation and control with the courts. If athletes are already compensated with a scholarship, they will argue, what right does the school have to limit any other types of professional income they may earn if they're not employees? And how much control over an athlete's time may a school have before said athlete is considered an employee?

I think they only have a 50-50 chance of winning but might win even by losing. If the courts say that they aren't employees, then they may also reach the conclusion that, because they're not, the colleges don't have the right to exercise the kind of controls they have been accustomed to. And that scholarship athletes will have to have the same economic freedoms as any other enrolled student.

This has always seemed like the catch 22 to me and quite frankly I don't understand how the NCAA/schools have gotten away with it for this long. Is it because those other students aren't "part" of the NCAA since they aren't playing sports?

It has nothing to do with differentiating the student athlete from the student. The rules are essentially a salary cap, so all schools can compete for the talent pool when recruiting. Granted, a scholarship at one school is worth more than a scholarship at another school, But it would punish the better schools, who have higher tuition, if the cap was placed on the value of the scholarship. The more expensive schools would have fewer players than the cheaper schools. So the salary cap has been excepted to be one scholarship per player, and the same number of scholarships for each school per year. And as collage football revenue has skyrocketed, the salary cap has never moved with it. In fact, years ago they reduced the number of scholarships per school. That's a lowering of the salary cap, while revenues skyrocketed.

 

[roadkill1292]

Everybody who still thinks this is about forcing schools to pay players should be reading Yankee's post. Schools will probably never be forced to pay players. But they won't be able to stop anybody else who wants to from paying players.

Booster Bob's inane need to have the nation's best football team is the issue here. BB wants to give athletes money to come to his school, a perfectly legitimate business relationship in the eyes of the law, and the only reason he can't do it is because coaches and athletic directors don't want him to. It'll wreck their personal power bases if the kids have options after they take the scholarship. Freedom to transfer without sitting out is gonna be the thing they shoot for after that because that swings the power even more in their direction. Bed check? Eff that, my buddy at Enormous State told me the coach there doesn't do bed checks and there's a guy in the oil bidness there who would pick up the same tab I'm getting from my local guy here.

Back in the sixties Bill Veeck warned his fellow MLB owners to get out in front of dumping the reserve clause and control the transition to free agency. The other owners played the 2014 NCAA game, though, and dug their heels in because free agency would "ruin baseball for all time." Baseball went through the transition with some bumps and bruises but smart guy Marvin Miller pretty much got his way and baseball has never been financially healthier. The schools should be taking a lesson from that. They can't hold this off for much longer. The plaintiffs or players just need one big win and it all comes tumbling down. Schools should be controlling the transition now instead of letting it get dictated to them by the courts later on.

 

[RUSF18]

Your last paragraph is an excellent point.

 

[Christo]

If you don't follow Jay Bilas on twitter you should. He's been pretty funny with the NCAA all the while making some pretty good points. His latest attack was this notion that the athletes were athletes voluntarily. Well, voluntarily until they had to go to mandatory practices, study halls, meetings etc.

I don't get it. Those things are only "mandatory" to the extent the athlete wants them to be "mandatory." They have the ability to walk. I have a friend who volunteers for Big Brothers and Big Sisters. They have rules volunteers have to follow and all volunteers have to go through mandatory background checks, interviews and an orientation. Him going through all of that didn't turn him into an employee or conflict with him being a volunteer.

Once you're in your scholarship, you can walk, but the school doesn't have to let you out of the scholarship. There seems to be many differences between the situation you describe and the situation you quoted, but that's one of the main ones I see.

What does that have to do with Bilas' point?

Seems to me, Bilas' point is these volunteer athletes are anything but volunteers once they are locked into scholarships. To answer your question specifically, my reply to you has as much to do with his point as your initial reply. I'm not seeing much of a point at either stage.

Other than the fact that Bilas (and apparently you) don't understand what it means to do something voluntarily.

 

[Politician Spock]

Everybody who still thinks this is about forcing schools to pay players should be reading Yankee's post. Schools will probably never be forced to pay players. But they won't be able to stop anybody else who wants to from paying players.

I think it's about a lot of things. But I don't think it will ever result in forcing schools to pay players. A conference of Division III schools that are barely breaking even on expenses the way things are won't be forced to pay football players. What you will likely see is each conference has it's own unique collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA will reflect what the players' fair share of the revenue the conference schools are making goes to the players. Players in the SEC CBA will make a lot. Players in the Eastern Collegiate Football Conference CBA probably won't make a dime. In fact they probably won't even waste the time and effort to collectively bargain in the Eastern Collegiate Football Conference. Just give the student athletes the right to collectively bargain, and it will natuarally occur where it needs to occur, and it won't occur where it doesn't. You won't see the game and teams change much at al as a result. You will see Women's Feild Hockey and other non-revenue sports fold up shop though, or else those players will need to pony up and pay to play. The revenue making sports won't be able to fund them.

 

[roadkill1292]

Good Lord, if the SEC CBA gets a big piece of the SEC's tv money for the players AND they gain the inevitable right to booster income, that would be some serious scratch for the next Cam Newton rolling through the leeg. Don't forget the kid's signing bonus, either.

 

[RUSF18]

Good Lord, if the SEC CBA gets a big piece of the SEC's tv money for the players AND they gain the inevitable right to booster income, that would be some serious scratch for the next Cam Newton rolling through the leeg. Don't forget the kid's signing bonus, either.

It would be interesting to see if that sort of thing became public (because it's allowed), what would happen when a "sure fire stud" ends up being a bust at the college level. How would that affect the next kid that comes along and said booster's willingness to pay up?

 

[The Commish]

FWIW

 

[The Commish]

Other than the fact that Bilas (and apparently you) don't understand what it means to do something voluntarily.

I think it's cute you think "do what I say or lose everything" is voluntary.

 

[Christo]

Other than the fact that Bilas (and apparently you) don't understand what it means to do something voluntarily.

I think it's cute you think "do what I say or lose everything" is voluntary.

Volunteer: a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.

 

[Politician Spock]

Good Lord, if the SEC CBA gets a big piece of the SEC's tv money for the players AND they gain the inevitable right to booster income, that would be some serious scratch for the next Cam Newton rolling through the leeg. Don't forget the kid's signing bonus, either.

It would be fair though. The way it works now, Cam Newton's fair share of what he produced for Auburn paid the expenses of Auburn's Field Hockey team.... and probably a dozen other Aubrun sports.

 

[roadkill1292]

Good Lord, if the SEC CBA gets a big piece of the SEC's tv money for the players AND they gain the inevitable right to booster income, that would be some serious scratch for the next Cam Newton rolling through the leeg. Don't forget the kid's signing bonus, either.

It would be interesting to see if that sort of thing became public (because it's allowed), what would happen when a "sure fire stud" ends up being a bust at the college level. How would that affect the next kid that comes along and said booster's willingness to pay up?

First, as a private transaction, I'm not sure that the details of a kid's income from boosters would have to be made public.

Second, as Spock noted above, that's how markets operate. They're messy and few things in life are less exact than evaluating football talent when projecting to the next level. Coaches recruit kids who bust now but then sometimes they hit an unexpected home run with a kid who's a late bloomer. Boosters will get burned sometimes no matter where they get their information from.

I said in past threads that the winners in the future world of college football won't necessarily be the schools with the richest boosters but the schools whose talent procurement and coaching processes are the most efficient. The best ones will have boosters working smoothly with athletic departments. The ones who come up short will have boosters who want to run things like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.

 

[The Commish]

Other than the fact that Bilas (and apparently you) don't understand what it means to do something voluntarily.

I think it's cute you think "do what I say or lose everything" is voluntary.

Volunteer: a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.

Sorry I thought we were talking about what it meant to do something voluntarily not what a volunteer was.

 

[Christo]

Other than the fact that Bilas (and apparently you) don't understand what it means to do something voluntarily.

I think it's cute you think "do what I say or lose everything" is voluntary.

Volunteer: a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.

Sorry I thought we were talking about what it meant to do something voluntarily not what a volunteer was.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Other than the fact that Bilas (and apparently you) don't understand what it means to do something voluntarily.

I think it's cute you think "do what I say or lose everything" is voluntary.

Volunteer: a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.

Sorry I thought we were talking about what it meant to do something voluntarily not what a volunteer was.

"I want to play football, but I don't want to do any of the things that are required to play football." That about sum up how you think it should be?

 

[roadkill1292]

College football players aren't volunteers. They've entered into a contractual agreement and the issue is that the terms of the contract are illegal.

Listening to an ESPN podcast with Ivan Maisel, Andy Katz and Dana O'Neil discussing this topic and not once have they raised the issue of outside income. Which is what is gonna happen.

 

[Christo]

College football players aren't volunteers.

Of course they are. You think someone is forcing them to join the teams?

 

[roadkill1292]

College football players aren't volunteers.

Of course they are. You think someone is forcing them to join the teams?

That's a strange perspective. They're recruited with financial incentives. The Red Cross doesn't do that.