College Football Team Seeks to Form a Labor Union (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok so the athletes do get plenty value from the schools - and that's not valid. Because that negates the argument that they have not been compensated.

And the fact that - unlike Curt Flood - they are perfectly free to go elsewhere to get paid for their talents is not valid for this discussion. Because that negates the fact their freedom has been curtailed.

That still leaves the fact that schools do not meet their own academic standards, that the NCAA does not enforce its own standards (20 hours max per week on sports supposedly, sure), and the fact that athletes - like Grambling this year - can walk out on any program any time they like and seek compensation, even without this ruling, nothing stops them now, yesterday, last year or tomorrow from going on strike.

I do agree that the issue of whether they can have outside income is a different issue from whether they can seek to get paid by the school.

 

[Dexter]

South Park nails it again.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/387407/stu-dent-ath-o-leets

 

[Mile High]

I'm going to put this in the "Be careful what you wish for" column

 

[Dexter]

I'm going to put this in the "Be careful what you wish for" column

Stupid people wanting to be paid for the services they provide.

 

[Guest]

How does Europe/the rest of the world handle soccer? Isn't it a bunch of club teams?

 

[Spartans Rule]

How does Europe/the rest of the world handle soccer? Isn't it a bunch of club teams?

Club teams with a league pyramid structure going all the way down to YMCA-level leagues.

Most countries have an age restriction on signing a pro contract, you have to be 16 or 17, but beyond that you can play at the highest level whenever you're ready.

The lack of parity in the top soccer leagues kinda sucks, but from a labor perspective it's a much better and fairer system.

 

[jonessed]

I'm going to put this in the "Be careful what you wish for" column

I suspect this would lead to a lot fewer athletic scholarships overall as the big sports subsidize a lot of the smaller ones. At least for many mid-size schools.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I'm going to put this in the "Be careful what you wish for" column

I suspect this would lead to a lot fewer athletic scholarships overall as the big sports subsidize a lot of the smaller ones. At least for many mid-size schools.

Personally I'm fine with this. College sports that don't generate revenue or fan interest don't really need to exist.

 

[Premier]

I'm going to put this in the "Be careful what you wish for" column

I suspect this would lead to a lot fewer athletic scholarships overall as the big sports subsidize a lot of the smaller ones. At least for many mid-size schools.

Personally I'm fine with this. College sports that don't generate revenue or fan interest don't really need to exist.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Lots of young people get a chance to go to school and pursue a sport they love playing.

There's a middle ground here that exists somewhere. Guys like Winston and Manziel should get a cut of the pie, and ADs don't need to be getting a 20k bonus because one of their wrestlers won an NCAA title. Hopefully the NCAA can be burned to the ground and smart people can figure it out.

 

[Da Guru]

So does this now mean that football players are eligible to collect at least minimum wage for their time spent on football? Seems that with these long practice schedules, overnight trips, etc...this could actually get pricey.

If they're NOT eligible, then why? This opens up so many holes...

Pay them minimum wage but no scholarships for their education. My oldest daughter played volleyball out of state. At the low end her education the cost was $140,000 grand. Plus she always had a couple hundred left over every month. Pretty fair wage for a 18-22 year old. That is not including that she has at least 20 pair of Nike everything.

Of course she did not piss away her meal money on a car with 22s.

 

[Mile High]

So does this now mean that football players are eligible to collect at least minimum wage for their time spent on football? Seems that with these long practice schedules, overnight trips, etc...this could actually get pricey.

If they're NOT eligible, then why? This opens up so many holes...

Pay them minimum wage but no scholarships for their education. My oldest daughter played volleyball out of state. At the low end her education the cost was $140,000 grand. Plus she always had a couple hundred left over every month. Pretty fair wage for a 18-22 year old. That is not including that she has at least 20 pair of Nike everything.

Of course she did not piss away her meal money on a car with 22s.

I agree. But their money where their mouth is. Pay them a wage to play but no scholarship or scholarship but no wage.

 

[Slapdash]

As soon as you introduce outside money and differential pay, you basically give unfair advantages in recruiting to the schools with the biggest boosters. You'll perennially have the same schools as national powerhouses.

Same as day one, guy

 

[technicaldifficulties]

Guarantee a scholarship for one degree, give them healthcare if they get hurt in sports, and let them get their own endorsements in their free time.

 

[The Commish]

This is dumb and a bad idea.

That is all.

Why? Scared your Saturdays watching young men playing a game making universities rich will go away?

Oh, how do I count the ways.

I don't think it will ever go away, the great mawp of tv demands the games be played.

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement.

They are students, not employees.

And if you say they are not students really then I ask, why doesn't someone just start a minor league and sign any player of any age who will want a paycheck. Now they would be employees.

As the laws sit today, it's silly for the NFL to go make a "minor league", pay to support it etc when CFB is doing it for free. That's why they haven't done it. Going down this path, that might all change. Who knows.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I hope there is a (good) lawyer out there who is taking the next step with this ruling, and filing a lawsuit against the NCAA, seeking a declaratory judgment that the NCAA cannot enforce its "amateur" status rules.

I have not followed this case, so I don't know how involved, if at all, the NCAA was - but by declaring that the players are employees, it could open the door to claim that since all scholarship athletes are now de facto professionals, and are getting "paid" solely by virtue of their athletic abilities - the NCAA cannot prohibit any athlete from being paid, by any source, due to the restriction on "amateur" status.

The NCAA really hurt themselves, by continuing to hold onto the notion that its athletes must not be paid by outside money. Ultimately, they should have let the market forces work, and those players deserving of money would have been paid - without using university funds, and not putting the university in the position of having to "pay" scholarship athletes at all, or in non-revenue generating sports.

 

[The Commish]

In the big picture, it's completely disingenuous to say these kids are either students OR employees. In general, they're both. Obviously there are some who are more employee than student.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm going to put this in the "Be careful what you wish for" column

I suspect this would lead to a lot fewer athletic scholarships overall as the big sports subsidize a lot of the smaller ones. At least for many mid-size schools.

Personally I'm fine with this. College sports that don't generate revenue or fan interest don't really need to exist.

College sports that do generate fan interest and revenue don't really need to exist either. Somehow hundreds of universities manage to keep their doors open without them.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Again - this does not need to be a major impact on any sport - if the NCAA would simply allow athletes to be paid by sources outside the colleges. Those that merit outside money will get it, and those that do not, will not. Colleges don't need to increase budgets, or cut non-revenue generating teams - just allow market forces to determine who gets paid, and how much - that is what every other college student is entitled to receive.

 

[RUSF18]

Again - this does not need to be a major impact on any sport - if the NCAA would simply allow athletes to be paid by sources outside the colleges. Those that merit outside money will get it, and those that do not, will not. Colleges don't need to increase budgets, or cut non-revenue generating teams - just allow market forces to determine who gets paid, and how much - that is what every other college student is entitled to receive.

I find it funny when people think a guy like Phil Knight is going to start funding millions in "autograph session" payments so that Oregon's roster will be stocked with 5* kids throughout.

 

[roadkill1292]

I hope there is a (good) lawyer out there who is taking the next step with this ruling, and filing a lawsuit against the NCAA, seeking a declaratory judgment that the NCAA cannot enforce its "amateur" status rules.

I have not followed this case, so I don't know how involved, if at all, the NCAA was - but by declaring that the players are employees, it could open the door to claim that since all scholarship athletes are now de facto professionals, and are getting "paid" solely by virtue of their athletic abilities - the NCAA cannot prohibit any athlete from being paid, by any source, due to the restriction on "amateur" status.

The NCAA really hurt themselves, by continuing to hold onto the notion that its athletes must not be paid by outside money. Ultimately, they should have let the market forces work, and those players deserving of money would have been paid - without using university funds, and not putting the university in the position of having to "pay" scholarship athletes at all, or in non-revenue generating sports.

There are actually three lawsuits working their way through the system right now. The O'Bannon suit focusing on players' likenesses (triggered by the EA games) will go to trial first, in June.

Second is the Shawne Alston (former WVU RB) suit recently brought by heavyweight sports litigator Jeffrey Kessler against the five power conferences. That one seeks an injunction against the schools limiting athletes' compensation, labeling it "price fixing."

A third one has recently been filed by four former college athletes against the NCAA and its power conferences, alleging pretty much the same thing that the Alston/Kessler suit does. These last two really strike at the heart of the "amateurism" model.

 

[roadkill1292]

Again - this does not need to be a major impact on any sport - if the NCAA would simply allow athletes to be paid by sources outside the colleges. Those that merit outside money will get it, and those that do not, will not. Colleges don't need to increase budgets, or cut non-revenue generating teams - just allow market forces to determine who gets paid, and how much - that is what every other college student is entitled to receive.

I find it funny when people think a guy like Phil Knight is going to start funding millions in "autograph session" payments so that Oregon's roster will be stocked with 5* kids throughout.

Why do you think this won't happen? I have no idea which boosters intend to give what but Mr. Knight recently gave the school $30 million for a lavish new locker room. That would pay for 12 years of $30,000 annual stipends for every football player on scholarship.

If these lawsuits win, he won't have to call them "autograph sessions" either. He can write the players checks for any damn reason he chooses.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Again - this does not need to be a major impact on any sport - if the NCAA would simply allow athletes to be paid by sources outside the colleges. Those that merit outside money will get it, and those that do not, will not. Colleges don't need to increase budgets, or cut non-revenue generating teams - just allow market forces to determine who gets paid, and how much - that is what every other college student is entitled to receive.

I find it funny when people think a guy like Phil Knight is going to start funding millions in "autograph session" payments so that Oregon's roster will be stocked with 5* kids throughout.

Why do you think this won't happen? I have no idea which boosters intend to give what but Mr. Knight recently gave the school $30 million for a lavish new locker room. That would pay for 12 years of $30,000 annual stipends for every football player on scholarship.

If these lawsuits win, he won't have to call them "autograph sessions" either. He can write the players checks for any damn reason he chooses.

So what if it does happen?

Why is that a bad thing?

 

[RUSF18]

Again - this does not need to be a major impact on any sport - if the NCAA would simply allow athletes to be paid by sources outside the colleges. Those that merit outside money will get it, and those that do not, will not. Colleges don't need to increase budgets, or cut non-revenue generating teams - just allow market forces to determine who gets paid, and how much - that is what every other college student is entitled to receive.

I find it funny when people think a guy like Phil Knight is going to start funding millions in "autograph session" payments so that Oregon's roster will be stocked with 5* kids throughout.

Why do you think this won't happen? I have no idea which boosters intend to give what but Mr. Knight recently gave the school $30 million for a lavish new locker room. That would pay for 12 years of $30,000 annual stipends for every football player on scholarship.

If these lawsuits win, he won't have to call them "autograph sessions" either. He can write the players checks for any damn reason he chooses.

1. This won't be tax deductible.

2. There is an extremely different connotation to giving money to build a beautiful facility that bears your name, and directly giving cash to a bunch of football players so they will help your favorite team win more games. Knight is the Chairman of a multi-billion dollar company; those guys care about their reputation.

3. There is still only one champion a year. There are teams stacked with top recruits that struggle every year, and buying players won't guarantee anything. How many times is a booster going to be willing to drop a pile of money on recruiting kids before they realize it's only having a marginal effect on the team's performance?

Look, I'm not saying this could never happen. A lot of players could justify earning big money, and deservedly so for what they bring in for their schools. I just think when issues like this come up, people tend to carry them out to the most extreme scenarios, and I don't think we need to worry about interior linemen and reserves swimming in cash.

 

[gump]

The 17 major football-playing schools are now in an interesting position. For about two and a half million dollars a year they could afford $30,000 stipends for their football players. They might get kicked out of the crumbling NCAA for a while but they'd also dominate recruiting. Who gets the stud recruits and the TV money that comes with the highest level of play then -- Southern Cal and Miami with their well-paid stars or Alabama with their 3-star guys and that lucrative Birmingham TV market to go with it?

Can you expand on this a little? I'm trying to understand why people keep specifically using Alabama as an example of a school that would not be able to pay like others. UA had $36M in football ticket sales and $35M in donor contributions to the Ath Dept in '12. Why would a small private school like Miami be in the conversation? Seems to me they'd be the first to disappear.

 

[roadkill1292]

Again - this does not need to be a major impact on any sport - if the NCAA would simply allow athletes to be paid by sources outside the colleges. Those that merit outside money will get it, and those that do not, will not. Colleges don't need to increase budgets, or cut non-revenue generating teams - just allow market forces to determine who gets paid, and how much - that is what every other college student is entitled to receive.

I find it funny when people think a guy like Phil Knight is going to start funding millions in "autograph session" payments so that Oregon's roster will be stocked with 5* kids throughout.

Why do you think this won't happen? I have no idea which boosters intend to give what but Mr. Knight recently gave the school $30 million for a lavish new locker room. That would pay for 12 years of $30,000 annual stipends for every football player on scholarship.

If these lawsuits win, he won't have to call them "autograph sessions" either. He can write the players checks for any damn reason he chooses.

1. This won't be tax deductible.

2. There is an extremely different connotation to giving money to build a beautiful facility that bears your name, and directly giving cash to a bunch of football players so they will help your favorite team win more games. Knight is the Chairman of a multi-billion dollar company; those guys care about their reputation.

3. There is still only one champion a year. There are teams stacked with top recruits that struggle every year, and buying players won't guarantee anything. How many times is a booster going to be willing to drop a pile of money on recruiting kids before they realize it's only having a marginal effect on the team's performance?

Look, I'm not saying this could never happen. A lot of players could justify earning big money, and deservedly so for what they bring in for their schools. I just think when issues like this come up, people tend to carry them out to the most extreme scenarios, and I don't think we need to worry about interior linemen and reserves swimming in cash.

We could have an entirely new thread devoted just to arguing about how much boosters are going to actually pay top recruits and which schools will benefit the most. That's not a very interesting topic to me personally, I just want boosters to have the freedom to give kids whatever they want and for the kids to have the freedom to accept without hurting their eligibility.

The going prices for Reggie Bush and Cam Newton were reportedly in the six figure range, though, and that was before it wasn't against the rules.

It's an interesting argument that boosters like Knight would rather have a lavish locker room with their name on it than a bunch of 5 star recruits who can help them beat USC. I always thought that Nike was all about identifying itself with the most successful athletes in the world but, again, I don't care much about who gets what.

 

[The Commish]

What about the students playing sports who aren't on scholarship. What happens to them in all this? Seems like a major sticking point. By definition, they've basically said "I'll play for free".

 

[Boston]

The NCAA is a fraud organization and I would love to see them take a hit...that being said this has all the makings of "unintended consequences" that do more harm than good...no clue what that will be but this is not going to end well...

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

This and Title 9 will effectively destroy college sports as we know them

 

[Sinn Fein]

What about the students playing sports who aren't on scholarship. What happens to them in all this? Seems like a major sticking point. By definition, they've basically said "I'll play for free".

The whole concept should be to allow athletes to get what they can get - if they can get money and still want to play for free, thats fine too.

Most athletes won't get much, if anything at all, some will get a ton. Some will be overpaid, some will be underpaid. Just like in real life in every other job.

 

[Sinn Fein]

This and Title 9 will effectively destroy college sports as we know them

how?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The 17 major football-playing schools are now in an interesting position. For about two and a half million dollars a year they could afford $30,000 stipends for their football players. They might get kicked out of the crumbling NCAA for a while but they'd also dominate recruiting. Who gets the stud recruits and the TV money that comes with the highest level of play then -- Southern Cal and Miami with their well-paid stars or Alabama with their 3-star guys and that lucrative Birmingham TV market to go with it?

Can you expand on this a little? I'm trying to understand why people keep specifically using Alabama as an example of a school that would not be able to pay like others. UA had $36M in football ticket sales and $35M in donor contributions to the Ath Dept in '12. Why would a small private school like Miami be in the conversation? Seems to me they'd be the first to disappear.

roadkill accidentally left the word "private" out of his first sentence. He's talking about the possibility that private schools could pay players and public schools couldn't. Alabama is a state school, Miami is a private school.

 

[roadkill1292]

The 17 major football-playing schools are now in an interesting position. For about two and a half million dollars a year they could afford $30,000 stipends for their football players. They might get kicked out of the crumbling NCAA for a while but they'd also dominate recruiting. Who gets the stud recruits and the TV money that comes with the highest level of play then -- Southern Cal and Miami with their well-paid stars or Alabama with their 3-star guys and that lucrative Birmingham TV market to go with it?

Can you expand on this a little? I'm trying to understand why people keep specifically using Alabama as an example of a school that would not be able to pay like others. UA had $36M in football ticket sales and $35M in donor contributions to the Ath Dept in '12. Why would a small private school like Miami be in the conversation? Seems to me they'd be the first to disappear.

I'm not picking on Alabama, they're just a useful example because of the type of school they represent.

If all the pay for play rules come tumbling down, then sure, the big state schools (or at least the ones with the wealthiest and most generous boosters) will be right back at their dominant places of power. I'm just speculating on what happens if the private schools are forced by their unions to allow players to get paid while Georgia and LSU, states which don't even have unions, continue to play by the existing rules. Does a stud recruit go to Bama and be adulated by the good people of that state or does he choose Miami and its nice $30,000 annual stipend?

I'm probably doing a poor job of speculating on what kind of weird things might happen if the unions take hold in only a subgroup of the schools, namely the private ones. What's most likely is that once the unions negotiate some nice perks from the private schools, the state schools will be quick to follow suit so as not to suffer any competitive disadvantage.

BTW, while those are nice numbers the Alabama football program rings up, let's all acknowledge that it's not really T. Boone Pickens money, now is it?

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

This and Title 9 will effectively destroy college sports as we know them

how?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't discount the argument that rulings challenging amateurism in college sports will have unforeseen consequences, but those consequences can be solved. All of these legal issues, including the Title IX issue, are just the application of statutes. If interpreting the statutes as written creates a mess, than lobby Congress to fix the statutes.

 

[roadkill1292]

This and Title 9 will effectively destroy college sports as we know them

how?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx

Maybe colleges can't afford to offer sports and we should rethink the whole system.

Then again, if you cut the pay in half of the head coach, assistant football coaches and AD, you could afford some pretty nice stipends at a bunch of schools with the difference.

 

[BassNBrew]

Feds saying Northwestern players can form a union.

So will they get paid as much as Auburn players currently do?

Northwestern says they will drop FBS football if this goes through.

They'll walk away from all the cash they get from football and basketball? Sure they will.

Do you know how much money they make from football and basketball? It's not nearly as much as you think.

When you include the impact of Title 9 I suspect most schools would be better off closing their athletic programs.

 

[The Commish]

This and Title 9 will effectively destroy college sports as we know them

how?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx

Maybe colleges can't afford to offer sports and we should rethink the whole system.

Then again, if you cut the pay in half of the head coach, assistant football coaches and AD, you could afford some pretty nice stipends at a bunch of schools with the difference.

The institutions aren't the ones making out like bandits in most cases. It's the people/groups running the institutions. Take that kid from OSU for example. He's a wrestler, earned three national titles. For each title, the AD received $18,000. That's a microcosm of what we're dealing with here.

 

[Sinn Fein]

This and Title 9 will effectively destroy college sports as we know them

how?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx

Whats your point? Athletic programs cost money? In case you did not know, water is wet.

They cost money yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If universities did not see value in having sports programs, they should drop them. But, sports programs add to the overall image of a university that attracts students, faculty, and donors alike.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

This and Title 9 will effectively destroy college sports as we know them

how?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx

Whats your point? Athletic programs cost money? In case you did not know, water is wet.

They cost money yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If universities did not see value in having sports programs, they should drop them. But, sports programs add to the overall image of a university that attracts students, faculty, and donors alike.

You have fantastic foresight

 

[gump]

The 17 major football-playing schools are now in an interesting position. For about two and a half million dollars a year they could afford $30,000 stipends for their football players. They might get kicked out of the crumbling NCAA for a while but they'd also dominate recruiting. Who gets the stud recruits and the TV money that comes with the highest level of play then -- Southern Cal and Miami with their well-paid stars or Alabama with their 3-star guys and that lucrative Birmingham TV market to go with it?

Can you expand on this a little? I'm trying to understand why people keep specifically using Alabama as an example of a school that would not be able to pay like others. UA had $36M in football ticket sales and $35M in donor contributions to the Ath Dept in '12. Why would a small private school like Miami be in the conversation? Seems to me they'd be the first to disappear.

I'm not picking on Alabama, they're just a useful example because of the type of school they represent.

If all the pay for play rules come tumbling down, then sure, the big state schools (or at least the ones with the wealthiest and most generous boosters) will be right back at their dominant places of power. I'm just speculating on what happens if the private schools are forced by their unions to allow players to get paid while Georgia and LSU, states which don't even have unions, continue to play by the existing rules. Does a stud recruit go to Bama and be adulated by the good people of that state or does he choose Miami and its nice $30,000 annual stipend?

I'm probably doing a poor job of speculating on what kind of weird things might happen if the unions take hold in only a subgroup of the schools, namely the private ones. What's most likely is that once the unions negotiate some nice perks from the private schools, the state schools will be quick to follow suit so as not to suffer any competitive disadvantage.

BTW, while those are nice numbers the Alabama football program rings up, let's all acknowledge that it's not really T. Boone Pickens money, now is it?

I got you. Alabama is the public football school example A, albeit one of the most profitable. Agree that it's a scenario that won't happen.

Alabama averages about $35M every year. Back to the Phil Knight conversation...does a T Boone pony up a big sum every year? A one-time $500M gift? Who knows.

But there are only a few Knights and Pickens. Does Walton do the same for Arky? What does a school like FSU do?

 

[Godsbrother]

A bunch of spoiled athletes. If you don't want to play football for a free education and room & board then no one is forcing you to. Pay for your education like the rest of us do.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I'll just lob in my broken record comment that there's no reason education and sports need to be linked together, at any level, and indeed this structure is extremely counterproductive and a breeding ground for corruption and abuse. While I understand sports and schools will never be un-linked in this country in our lifetimes, the fact is that all of these issues and controversies we discuss involving college sports, the NCAA and the like would all instantly go away if we had sports clubs that were separate from our educational institutions.

 

[Abraham]

A bunch of spoiled athletes. If you don't want to play football for a free education and room & board then no one is forcing you to. Pay for your education like the rest of us do.

This is pretty much where I am. Yes, athletes are making the NCAA a bunch of money. And ? I imagine there are plenty of kids that would like a free education from northwestern in exchange for four years of playing mediocre football.

 

[roadkill1292]

The 17 major football-playing schools are now in an interesting position. For about two and a half million dollars a year they could afford $30,000 stipends for their football players. They might get kicked out of the crumbling NCAA for a while but they'd also dominate recruiting. Who gets the stud recruits and the TV money that comes with the highest level of play then -- Southern Cal and Miami with their well-paid stars or Alabama with their 3-star guys and that lucrative Birmingham TV market to go with it?

Can you expand on this a little? I'm trying to understand why people keep specifically using Alabama as an example of a school that would not be able to pay like others. UA had $36M in football ticket sales and $35M in donor contributions to the Ath Dept in '12. Why would a small private school like Miami be in the conversation? Seems to me they'd be the first to disappear.

I'm not picking on Alabama, they're just a useful example because of the type of school they represent.

If all the pay for play rules come tumbling down, then sure, the big state schools (or at least the ones with the wealthiest and most generous boosters) will be right back at their dominant places of power. I'm just speculating on what happens if the private schools are forced by their unions to allow players to get paid while Georgia and LSU, states which don't even have unions, continue to play by the existing rules. Does a stud recruit go to Bama and be adulated by the good people of that state or does he choose Miami and its nice $30,000 annual stipend?

I'm probably doing a poor job of speculating on what kind of weird things might happen if the unions take hold in only a subgroup of the schools, namely the private ones. What's most likely is that once the unions negotiate some nice perks from the private schools, the state schools will be quick to follow suit so as not to suffer any competitive disadvantage.

BTW, while those are nice numbers the Alabama football program rings up, let's all acknowledge that it's not really T. Boone Pickens money, now is it?

I got you. Alabama is the public football school example A, albeit one of the most profitable. Agree that it's a scenario that won't happen.

Alabama averages about $35M every year. Back to the Phil Knight conversation...does a T Boone pony up a big sum every year? A one-time $500M gift? Who knows.

But there are only a few Knights and Pickens. Does Walton do the same for Arky? What does a school like FSU do?

Well, like I said, that's kind of a whole different topic. In fact, we had a fun little thread a couple of years ago where we debated which schools would emerge on top if all the booster restraints were eliminated. Maybe I'll do a search for it later on today. Obviously, I'm not a guy who sees gloom and doom if the whole amateurism system crashes but there's no doubt that there will be negative ramifications. I'm hoping a lot of schools re-evaluate where football fits into their core missions.

I have no insight into the mind of somebody who wants their school to win so badly that they'll give thousands or even millions to the athletic programs. Enticing recruits is liable to be even more of a wild wild west environment, though the solicitations of the aforementioned Bush and Newton give some foresight into what may happen (as does Eric Dickerson and all the other poor Texas kids driving nice new cars before that when they signed up at SMU).

 

[Premier]

Al I know is, when I went to FSU for undergrad, I saw Lavernous Coles driving around in the nicest car I had ever seen, and I spent the two years prior working as a clerk at a very profitable and big-time law firm.

Let's just get it all out in the open and play ball.

 

[Guest]

I hope Title IX doesn't go away soon. I have a daughter that may be in line for a scholarship because of that.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'll just lob in my broken record comment that there's no reason education and sports need to be linked together, at any level, and indeed this structure is extremely counterproductive and a breeding ground for corruption and abuse. While I understand sports and schools will never be un-linked in this country in our lifetimes, the fact is that all of these issues and controversies we discuss involving college sports, the NCAA and the like would all instantly go away if we had sports clubs that were separate from our educational institutions.

I think it's hard to dispute this, but certain structures are just going to be retained by accident of history. It's like when I talk about wishing American sports leagues had promotion and relegation. I know I might as well be describing Martian sports leagues. There's no way it will ever happen.

To a certain extent, I don't get the passion of college fandom. I went to an FCS football and mediocre sub-mid major basketball school. I enjoy it when my alma mater gets to the tourney, but I don't quite understand people who like FSU the way Cappy likes FSU or Duke the way tdoss likes Duke or UNC the way Tobias likes UNC. But I recognize I'm in the minority and I think that if people really think these types of rulings will "topple" college athletics, then they'll get together and figure out a way to keep them in some form. Seems a pretty easy way to get re-elected in SEC country at least.

 

[shake zula]

What about the students playing sports who aren't on scholarship. What happens to them in all this? Seems like a major sticking point. By definition, they've basically said "I'll play for free".

They can do intramurals like everyone else.

 

[The Commish]

What about the students playing sports who aren't on scholarship. What happens to them in all this? Seems like a major sticking point. By definition, they've basically said "I'll play for free".

The whole concept should be to allow athletes to get what they can get - if they can get money and still want to play for free, thats fine too.

Most athletes won't get much, if anything at all, some will get a ton. Some will be overpaid, some will be underpaid. Just like in real life in every other job.

I suspect if they're included in the union, it doesn't much matter if they are on scholarship or not. I don't see how the scholarship model survives with unions being introduced.

 

[Sinn Fein]

If I were the NCAA/Universities I would flip the argument on the athletes - I would tell the athletes to prove how much their likeness/image etc. is worth without the university.

Reggie Bush at USC or Ed O'Bannon at UCLA is worth a lot more than Reggie Bush at Sam Houston State, or Ed O'Bannon at Mercer. So the athletes should be paying the universities a percentage of any revenue they get as a result of being an athlete at said university.