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

[The Commish]

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.

Isn't the university part of (at the very least) the image of the players?

 

[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".

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.

Why not? I think the scholarship can be one component of the compensation. It has a tangible value. The first step is to allow players to get paid for their likeness. I think the NCAA can slow this down by allowing that. But they've decided to go a different direction, i.e. no more NCAA Football for xbox/ps.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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.

I don't get that at all. The universities put them in those uniforms. The universities are also receiving compensation (in the form of licensing fees) for the inclusion of their teams in these video games.

I personally am not at all sure that any athlete (or anyone else) should have a cognizable property right in their likeness or image, so I find the O'Bannon case problematic to the extent I find all right to publicity cases problematic. But I don't see any argument that the Universities haven't received the economic benefit of having these athletes play for them. They got the TV money.

 

[roadkill1292]

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.

I think Godsbrother is being sarcastic.

 

[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.

Why not? I think the scholarship can be one component of the compensation. It has a tangible value. The first step is to allow players to get paid for their likeness. I think the NCAA can slow this down by allowing that. But they've decided to go a different direction, i.e. no more NCAA Football for xbox/ps.

It could be, but I don't see why a school would offer it to them if they have other means of making money to play. It doesn't make business sense. It's akin to "If you don't like my offer, feel free to go find a better one".

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Oh, I think the scholarship model will absolutely be retained somehow. It's literally the most any university would offer most college athletes (those outside the two major revenue sports).

Let's say we do away with NCAA rules right now. We don't know if most players would want to join a union. And we don't know what those unions would look like. I'm sure women's field hockey athletes would like to be in a bargaining unit with Div. I football players, but I doubt the feeling is mutual. But I could easily see a system where compensation for most athletes would still be effectively capped at a scholarship. There would be no rule that the university couldn't offer a great high school swimmer or wrestler more than the value of scholarship, but I imagine most universities would have little economic incentive to do so. So without free market pressure to increase wages, those wages would stagnate.

Even if the wrestlers and swimmers and gymnasts all form a union and collectively bargain together, they'd still have little bargaining power, so I'm not sure how effective the move would be.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Kain Colter was talking about the big issue being the inclusion of medical expenses, which are not 100% covered by the university if a player gets hurt.

He was also talking about how they "steered" athletes away from science and engineering programs because of the workload of those tracks. Ridiculous, especially at a place like Northwestern.

By some coincidence a guy I went to high school with was a football player at Northwestern. He somehow got a degree (cheating) and then called Northwestern years after he graduated to ask them what he could do with his degree. He sells real estate and deals drugs now I believe, must have been an econ major.

 

[roadkill1292]

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.

Why not? I think the scholarship can be one component of the compensation. It has a tangible value. The first step is to allow players to get paid for their likeness. I think the NCAA can slow this down by allowing that. But they've decided to go a different direction, i.e. no more NCAA Football for xbox/ps.

It could be, but I don't see why a school would offer it to them if they have other means of making money to play. It doesn't make business sense. It's akin to "If you don't like my offer, feel free to go find a better one".

Goodness, competition for players ratchets way upwards if the lawsuits bust up the amateurism rules. Scholarships are a relatively cheap way for schools to pitch in on getting good players. It's a little like a restaurant offering its employees food as part of their compensation.

One thing we haven't talked about much in these discussions is the possibility of the transfer restrictions getting lifted along with the outside payment rules. If they are, then schools will have to work just as hard keeping good players as they will recruiting them in the first place. Win the Heisman as a freshman? Sweet offers will be coming in from everywhere. Chaos.

 

[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".

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.

Why not? I think the scholarship can be one component of the compensation. It has a tangible value. The first step is to allow players to get paid for their likeness. I think the NCAA can slow this down by allowing that. But they've decided to go a different direction, i.e. no more NCAA Football for xbox/ps.

It could be, but I don't see why a school would offer it to them if they have other means of making money to play. It doesn't make business sense. It's akin to "If you don't like my offer, feel free to go find a better one".

Just like in any other job I think it'd be different for every player. Someone like Reggie Bush would break the bank but the back up LG might only merit a scholarship, medical insurance, and a small stipend. The bigger issue is going to be worker's compensation insurance. Every school will need to take out comp insurance. In fact, if I was NW or any other school for that matter I'd take out WC insurance for this season.

 

[aesclepius]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

 

[Fat Nick]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

 

[shake zula]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

I'd argue that this cuts in favor of all of the players who will never play in the NFL. You can't have the NCAA without the backups and middle of the road players who although not NFL caliber allow the games to be played.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

I'd argue that this cuts in favor of all of the players who will never play in the NFL. You can't have the NCAA without the backups and middle of the road players who although not NFL caliber allow the games to be played.

When those guys start getting paid, then the wrestling team, swimming team, and every other athlete on scholarship will want to be paid. Then schools are going to start dropping all these sports. And whatever they pay these guys will never be enough for the 1%, who will still take money illegally on the side and claim he can't even eat dinner for half the week.

In the end I do not really care if they get paid or not. I think there will be a ton of unintended consequences as a result of paying the football players though.

 

[Fat Nick]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

I'd argue that this cuts in favor of all of the players who will never play in the NFL. You can't have the NCAA without the backups and middle of the road players who although not NFL caliber allow the games to be played.

And a lot less people would choose to play in these minor leagues if it was that OR go to college. Many of the guys who are the back-ups and role players play while they are in college because they can, knowing full well they're not NFL caliber. They get a good degree while they're there, and the go on to benefit society in other ways. These guys won't forgo college for a minor-league NFL they know they have no shot at. Not saying everyone who sucks knows it, but...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Many of the guys who are the back-ups and role players play while they are in college because they can, knowing full well they're not NFL caliber. They get a good degree while they're there,

Not really.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Many of the guys who are the back-ups and role players play while they are in college because they can, knowing full well they're not NFL caliber. They get a good degree while they're there,

Not really.

what part do you disagree with? A terrible team like the Gophers had (in 2012) 84 scholarships. How many of those players are close to good enough to play in the NFL?

 

[Guest]

24-32 team "college" football league made up of the schools willing to pay their players. Split into conferences and divisions. I think we have a model for this.

The schools that don't want to pay can still offer scholarships for "amateur" football. A kid could still get a shot at the next level just like some do from very small schools now.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Many of the guys who are the back-ups and role players play while they are in college because they can, knowing full well they're not NFL caliber. They get a good degree while they're there,

Not really.

what part do you disagree with? A terrible team like the Gophers had (in 2012) 84 scholarships. How many of those players are close to good enough to play in the NFL?

The degree part I imagine. I think the graduation rate creeps around 50% So you guys are probably quibbling over what qualifies as "many."

 

[The Commish]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

Those other systems haven't HAD to work though....they have college after all. I truly believe they'd figure out a way to make it work if they were forced to.

 

[Premier]

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.

What's not to understand? I don't paint my face garnet and gold but I had the time of my life there and have a lot of love for my school.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

24-32 team "college" football league made up of the schools willing to pay their players. Split into conferences and divisions. I think we have a model for this.

The schools that don't want to pay can still offer scholarships for "amateur" football. A kid could still get a shot at the next level just like some do from very small schools now.

I don't see how that's a solution to these legal issues (unless the statutes are changed).

Because if those schools that will only offer a scholarship end up appointing some body that would enforce that rule against them, they're still wage fixing (unless that's collectively bargained with a union representing the players). It doesn't matter if there's another set of teams that aren't agreeing to fix wages. At least, not legally.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

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.

What's not to understand? I don't paint my face garnet and gold but I had the time of my life there and have a lot of love for my school.

Weird, I always took you for a face painter.

 

[Guest]

24-32 team "college" football league made up of the schools willing to pay their players. Split into conferences and divisions. I think we have a model for this.

The schools that don't want to pay can still offer scholarships for "amateur" football. A kid could still get a shot at the next level just like some do from very small schools now.

I don't see how that's a solution to these legal issues (unless the statutes are changed).

Because if those schools that will only offer a scholarship end up appointing some body that would enforce that rule against them, they're still wage fixing (unless that's collectively bargained with a union representing the players). It doesn't matter if there's another set of teams that aren't agreeing to fix wages. At least, not legally.

True. Still thinking club teams will be the future. Maybe loosely associated with a school. WTF do I know?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

Those other systems haven't HAD to work though....they have college after all. I truly believe they'd figure out a way to make it work if they were forced to.

How many teams could you populate with players that aren't interested in college? Let's say you could get to 10. Which 10 cities are you putting those teams in? Alabama fan isn't going to be tossing money around to support the Memphis franchise in that minor league. It would have no shot to work.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Many of the guys who are the back-ups and role players play while they are in college because they can, knowing full well they're not NFL caliber. They get a good degree while they're there,

Not really.

what part do you disagree with? A terrible team like the Gophers had (in 2012) 84 scholarships. How many of those players are close to good enough to play in the NFL?

The degree part I imagine. I think the graduation rate creeps around 50% So you guys are probably quibbling over what qualifies as "many."

Right, graduation rates are low for most Division I football players, and even those that actually do get a degree often don't get a "good" degree -- they get low grades in an easy major.

Yeah, there are some exceptions. But lots of these guys start college far less prepared to do the academics than the average student, and then they have to deal with the enormous time commitments of football. Those are not easy impediments to overcome.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I wonder how much a player would need to get paid to offset the 60K they are currently being "paid" as that will no doubt be considered taxable income if this plays out.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

True. Still thinking club teams will be the future. Maybe loosely associated with a school.

Yeah, this has always been my preference, but big college supporters never seem to like it. Football players do not need to be enrolled in the school. If they want, the schools can offer future scholarships as part of the player's compensation. When the player finishes his four years playing for the football team, then he can choose whether to enroll in the university.

 

[Mile High]

Yeah your not going to get enough players to support many teams if they aren't supported by the schools. Unless the NFL throws in lots of money to support a minor league system and pays wages. Even then that's a hard sell.

 

[shake zula]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

I'd argue that this cuts in favor of all of the players who will never play in the NFL. You can't have the NCAA without the backups and middle of the road players who although not NFL caliber allow the games to be played.

When those guys start getting paid, then the wrestling team, swimming team, and every other athlete on scholarship will want to be paid. Then schools are going to start dropping all these sports. And whatever they pay these guys will never be enough for the 1%, who will still take money illegally on the side and claim he can't even eat dinner for half the week.

In the end I do not really care if they get paid or not. I think there will be a ton of unintended consequences as a result of paying the football players though.

Maybe. But why shouldn't those sports, i.e. wrestling, swimming, etc., be intramural or dropped altogether? Or alternatively the player can fund raise like they do in high school.

 

[Mile High]

I wonder how much a player would need to get paid to offset the 60K they are currently being "paid" as that will no doubt be considered taxable income if this plays out.

There was a lawyer last night saying these scholarships would most likely fall into taxable income.

 

[shake zula]

I wonder how much a player would need to get paid to offset the 60K they are currently being "paid" as that will no doubt be considered taxable income if this plays out.

Scholarships aren't income and that wouldn't change under the current tax code. The kid with the full ride to MIT doesn't pay taxes on his scholarship just because he has a gig as a TA that pays $10 an hour.

 

[shake zula]

I wonder how much a player would need to get paid to offset the 60K they are currently being "paid" as that will no doubt be considered taxable income if this plays out.

There was a lawyer last night saying these scholarships would most likely fall into taxable income.

I don't see how but I'd like to hear the argument.

 

[Mile High]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

I'd argue that this cuts in favor of all of the players who will never play in the NFL. You can't have the NCAA without the backups and middle of the road players who although not NFL caliber allow the games to be played.

When those guys start getting paid, then the wrestling team, swimming team, and every other athlete on scholarship will want to be paid. Then schools are going to start dropping all these sports. And whatever they pay these guys will never be enough for the 1%, who will still take money illegally on the side and claim he can't even eat dinner for half the week.

In the end I do not really care if they get paid or not. I think there will be a ton of unintended consequences as a result of paying the football players though.

Maybe. But why shouldn't those sports, i.e. wrestling, swimming, etc., be intramural or dropped altogether? Or alternatively the player can fund raise like they do in high school.

Football isn't a cash cow at lots of schools. Most likely football will be dropped and the other sports continued.We will end up with less then 60 schools playing football.

 

[Koya]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Athletics can play a big role in bonding. No one said it had to be commercially driven athletics.

And PAH-LEASE - you think the endowment and donations that go to Harvard and Princeton are due to Athletics? Or the god knows how much Coca-Cola gave / gives to Emory? Or small schools such as the one I went to (Pomona College) which has a huge endowment for a school its size?

It feels like those who are fans of the big programs want to keep their little semi-monopoly on the chance to win, the spotlight and the money, while ignoring the fact that having an economically institutionalized athletics program non only has nothing to do with education (you can get it from, well, actual true sport, not a business ya know) and in fact is often diametrically opposed to the stated intent of institutions of higher "education"

 

[The Commish]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

Those other systems haven't HAD to work though....they have college after all. I truly believe they'd figure out a way to make it work if they were forced to.

How many teams could you populate with players that aren't interested in college? Let's say you could get to 10. Which 10 cities are you putting those teams in? Alabama fan isn't going to be tossing money around to support the Memphis franchise in that minor league. It would have no shot to work.

I don't really understand where you're going here. Seems like you're talking about something different. My point is, if colleges drop CFB and it's not an option any longer, I think the NFL would figure out how to bridge the gap. It doesn't really have a basis on whether they are interested in college or not. It's whether they are interested in playing football after high school.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

Those other systems haven't HAD to work though....they have college after all. I truly believe they'd figure out a way to make it work if they were forced to.

How many teams could you populate with players that aren't interested in college? Let's say you could get to 10. Which 10 cities are you putting those teams in? Alabama fan isn't going to be tossing money around to support the Memphis franchise in that minor league. It would have no shot to work.

I don't really understand where you're going here. Seems like you're talking about something different. My point is, if colleges drop CFB and it's not an option any longer, I think the NFL would figure out how to bridge the gap. It doesn't really have a basis on whether they are interested in college or not. It's whether they are interested in playing football after high school.

Who is going to fund these teams? Right now, they are funded by boosters. And TV contracts because boosters boost TV ratings. No one is watching a bunch of 18-21 year olds in a 10 team minor league system. Just like no one watches the D-League basketball games.

The NFL has tried to create a minor league. They put it in Europe because no one here gives a crap about that football. No one in Europe did either.

 

[roadkill1292]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

Those other systems haven't HAD to work though....they have college after all. I truly believe they'd figure out a way to make it work if they were forced to.

How many teams could you populate with players that aren't interested in college? Let's say you could get to 10. Which 10 cities are you putting those teams in? Alabama fan isn't going to be tossing money around to support the Memphis franchise in that minor league. It would have no shot to work.

I don't really understand where you're going here. Seems like you're talking about something different. My point is, if colleges drop CFB and it's not an option any longer, I think the NFL would figure out how to bridge the gap. It doesn't really have a basis on whether they are interested in college or not. It's whether they are interested in playing football after high school.

Academies. Academies are cost centers, long-term investments, not money-makers on their own. If Mr. Goodell is truly on his way to $25 billion in revenues, the leeg can afford academies.

 

[The Commish]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

Those other systems haven't HAD to work though....they have college after all. I truly believe they'd figure out a way to make it work if they were forced to.

How many teams could you populate with players that aren't interested in college? Let's say you could get to 10. Which 10 cities are you putting those teams in? Alabama fan isn't going to be tossing money around to support the Memphis franchise in that minor league. It would have no shot to work.

I don't really understand where you're going here. Seems like you're talking about something different. My point is, if colleges drop CFB and it's not an option any longer, I think the NFL would figure out how to bridge the gap. It doesn't really have a basis on whether they are interested in college or not. It's whether they are interested in playing football after high school.

Who is going to fund these teams? Right now, they are funded by boosters. And TV contracts because boosters boost TV ratings. No one is watching a bunch of 18-21 year olds in a 10 team minor league system. Just like no one watches the D-League basketball games.

The NFL has tried to create a minor league. They put it in Europe because no one here gives a crap about that football. No one in Europe did either.

We're going in circles here....using examples of what happened while CFB was still around is a strawman IMO. If you don't think there wouldn't be a niche left were CFB be taken away completely, we really have nothing to discuss. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Fat Nick]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Athletics can play a big role in bonding. No one said it had to be commercially driven athletics.

And PAH-LEASE - you think the endowment and donations that go to Harvard and Princeton are due to Athletics? Or the god knows how much Coca-Cola gave / gives to Emory? Or small schools such as the one I went to (Pomona College) which has a huge endowment for a school its size?

It feels like those who are fans of the big programs want to keep their little semi-monopoly on the chance to win, the spotlight and the money, while ignoring the fact that having an economically institutionalized athletics program non only has nothing to do with education (you can get it from, well, actual true sport, not a business ya know) and in fact is often diametrically opposed to the stated intent of institutions of higher "education"

I'm not trying to offend people from schools without sports programs, or people who aren't fans of sports in general (of which there are many, although probably not on this forum for obvious reasons). I'm simply saying that a blanket statement that collegiate athletics has nothing to do with higher education is to ignore that higher education is about much more than just grades and a diploma to many.

Further, it's ignoring the 2nd level impacts of athletics. College football revenues give the schools funding to build bigger and better EDUCATIONAL facilities. So the school finds a way to profit from athletics. Good for them...they can then use that profit to build better science labs, offer more academic scholarships, attract top educators, etc.

It's a blanket statement to say that college sports have no impact on "the purpose of a university," and I think there are a lot of overlooked impacts in that statement.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I wonder how much a player would need to get paid to offset the 60K they are currently being "paid" as that will no doubt be considered taxable income if this plays out.

There was a lawyer last night saying these scholarships would most likely fall into taxable income.

I don't see how but I'd like to hear the argument.

I don't know the legalities of it. I was just throwing out the possibilities. I'm thinking they aren't taxed now because the kids aren't employees of the entity providing the education.....except now they are.

 

[Koya]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Athletics can play a big role in bonding. No one said it had to be commercially driven athletics.

And PAH-LEASE - you think the endowment and donations that go to Harvard and Princeton are due to Athletics? Or the god knows how much Coca-Cola gave / gives to Emory? Or small schools such as the one I went to (Pomona College) which has a huge endowment for a school its size?

It feels like those who are fans of the big programs want to keep their little semi-monopoly on the chance to win, the spotlight and the money, while ignoring the fact that having an economically institutionalized athletics program non only has nothing to do with education (you can get it from, well, actual true sport, not a business ya know) and in fact is often diametrically opposed to the stated intent of institutions of higher "education"

I'm not trying to offend people from schools without sports programs, or people who aren't fans of sports in general (of which there are many, although probably not on this forum for obvious reasons). I'm simply saying that a blanket statement that collegiate athletics has nothing to do with higher education is to ignore that higher education is about much more than just grades and a diploma to many.

Further, it's ignoring the 2nd level impacts of athletics. College football revenues give the schools funding to build bigger and better EDUCATIONAL facilities. So the school finds a way to profit from athletics. Good for them...they can then use that profit to build better science labs, offer more academic scholarships, attract top educators, etc.

It's a blanket statement to say that college sports have no impact on "the purpose of a university," and I think there are a lot of overlooked impacts in that statement.

All fair points. But we have to look at this holistically... and from that perspective, while sport may be intertwined with the collegiate experience, the institutionalized commercialization of big business college sports does not have to be... and additional dollars or not, you can certainly make an argument that it has a net negative effect overall rather than a net positive.

My point is that sports is important but big biz sports is hardly essential, and possibly (possibly) not in the interest of the schools, the students nor higher education in general.

I'd go further to suggest that our general view of higher education is becoming anachronistic as well. Going back 50 years, it MEANT something to go to college, including getting a liberal arts degree. Today, it's either a right of passage, something that a kid "has" to or is "expected" to do or a reason to party on your parents dime. For many, the college degree that is viewed as "essential" doesn't add anything except "allow" you to be hired by many companies. It doesn't actually give you the tools you need to succeed.

We should, as a nation, be looking at more vocational schools and options for kids for whom, traditional college academics is not the best path to a successful career. Now, don't want to totally sidetrack the conversation, but if we are talking about the status of big business higher education, then we have to consider how that structure itself may change over the next 50 years as we also discuss the role of big time athletics.

 

[CBusAlex]

When those guys start getting paid, then the wrestling team, swimming team, and every other athlete on scholarship will want to be paid. Then schools are going to start dropping all these sports.

There won't be any rules that say all athletes have to be paid the same. (In fact, that's the kind of illegal wage fixing the players are trying to do away with.) Wrestlers and swimmers might want to be paid, but if those programs don't make any money and the market for their services is $0, then there's no reason the universities will have to pay them.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Football, however entertaining, has nothing to do with the purpose of the university.

Do away with it and have the NFL run minor leagues.

People with this mindset often didn't go to schools with strong sports programs. While not vital to the EDUCATION of students, athletics can play a big role in bonding to the school and forming good memories and great friends. It's this kind of stuff that promotes donation to the schools. You rarely meet someone who donates to a school they attended based 100% on academics. You donate because you have fond memories of the place...and athletics can greatly influence this.

Not just this but 99% of college football players have no shot at playing in the NFL and actually do go to school for the scholarship and education. The 1% who don't can't support a minor league system. No other minor league system has ever worked such as USFL or NFL-Europe or anything else.

Those other systems haven't HAD to work though....they have college after all. I truly believe they'd figure out a way to make it work if they were forced to.

How many teams could you populate with players that aren't interested in college? Let's say you could get to 10. Which 10 cities are you putting those teams in? Alabama fan isn't going to be tossing money around to support the Memphis franchise in that minor league. It would have no shot to work.

I don't really understand where you're going here. Seems like you're talking about something different. My point is, if colleges drop CFB and it's not an option any longer, I think the NFL would figure out how to bridge the gap. It doesn't really have a basis on whether they are interested in college or not. It's whether they are interested in playing football after high school.

Who is going to fund these teams? Right now, they are funded by boosters. And TV contracts because boosters boost TV ratings. No one is watching a bunch of 18-21 year olds in a 10 team minor league system. Just like no one watches the D-League basketball games.

The NFL has tried to create a minor league. They put it in Europe because no one here gives a crap about that football. No one in Europe did either.

We're going in circles here....using examples of what happened while CFB was still around is a strawman IMO. If you don't think there wouldn't be a niche left were CFB be taken away completely, we really have nothing to discuss. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Do you ever answer a question or just tell people that they make up stuff? Can you just answer two questions?

What cities would support a minor league football system?

Who would fund that system?

 

[Fat Nick]

I'm not trying to offend people from schools without sports programs, or people who aren't fans of sports in general (of which there are many, although probably not on this forum for obvious reasons). I'm simply saying that a blanket statement that collegiate athletics has nothing to do with higher education is to ignore that higher education is about much more than just grades and a diploma to many.

Further, it's ignoring the 2nd level impacts of athletics. College football revenues give the schools funding to build bigger and better EDUCATIONAL facilities. So the school finds a way to profit from athletics. Good for them...they can then use that profit to build better science labs, offer more academic scholarships, attract top educators, etc.

It's a blanket statement to say that college sports have no impact on "the purpose of a university," and I think there are a lot of overlooked impacts in that statement.

All fair points. But we have to look at this holistically... and from that perspective, while sport may be intertwined with the collegiate experience, the institutionalized commercialization of big business college sports does not have to be... and additional dollars or not, you can certainly make an argument that it has a net negative effect overall rather than a net positive.

My point is that sports is important but big biz sports is hardly essential, and possibly (possibly) not in the interest of the schools, the students nor higher education in general.

I'd go further to suggest that our general view of higher education is becoming anachronistic as well. Going back 50 years, it MEANT something to go to college, including getting a liberal arts degree. Today, it's either a right of passage, something that a kid "has" to or is "expected" to do or a reason to party on your parents dime. For many, the college degree that is viewed as "essential" doesn't add anything except "allow" you to be hired by many companies. It doesn't actually give you the tools you need to succeed.

We should, as a nation, be looking at more vocational schools and options for kids for whom, traditional college academics is not the best path to a successful career. Now, don't want to totally sidetrack the conversation, but if we are talking about the status of big business higher education, then we have to consider how that structure itself may change over the next 50 years as we also discuss the role of big time athletics.

Whole-heartedly agree with your last 2 paragraphs, especially the part about vocational education being more of a widely considered option for some. For me, college was very little about learned, applicable skills. I'm sure that varies depending on the profession you ultimately choose, but my economics degree has done very little for me in my real-world job, but without that "Bachelors Degree" stamp on my resume, I'd have never been considered for my current job. It had ZERO to do with my ability to do the hard skills required for the job. Again, I'm sure some professions rely more on learned skills.

I guess I see educational institutions as places who will continue to be primarily educators. If they find another way to make money that can help them ultimately enhance their ability to educate, even if that "way" is ancillary to the end cause, I don't know that I have as much of an issue with it.

Stretch analogy - Look at the former GMAC. GMAC was founded by GM. GM's main goal was to make cars. Founding GMAC didn't make cars, but it helped the company sell more cars by allowing financing options. No different than big sports. Giant State University educates students. Giant State has a huge, powerful football organization that makes millions for the university. Some of those millions go to educating more students in a better way.

I guess a big part of this depends on what you view as the mark of a "good educational institution." The Harvards and Princetons of the world stay smaller, and develop a high-quality education for a select few. Is that favorable FOR THE INSTITUTION over an Ohio State, who enrolls ~60,000 students, and probably graduates more students annually than Princeton has enrolled freshman through post-grad studies? The financial structures are probably very different between these two, and depending on what you choose, you could probably postulate that the best education institutions either are or are not athletic-reliant.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

When those guys start getting paid, then the wrestling team, swimming team, and every other athlete on scholarship will want to be paid. Then schools are going to start dropping all these sports.

There won't be any rules that say all athletes have to be paid the same. (In fact, that's the kind of illegal wage fixing the players are trying to do away with.) Wrestlers and swimmers might want to be paid, but if those programs don't make any money and the market for their services is $0, then there's no reason the universities will have to pay them.

I won't pretend to know how a union works but I thought their wages were basically set by the union. So if the union becomes just football players that's one thing but if it becomes all scholarship athletes that's another. Did the courts rule scholarship athletes are employees or just football players?

 

[GroveDiesel]

Two questions that may or may not have already been answered:

1) would minimum wage laws apply?

2) would Title IX come into play forcing schools to pay female athletes the same amounts as the male athletes?

 

[Mile High]

In the OP it said just football and basketball right now but could be expanded to other sports.

 

[Cjw_55106]

When those guys start getting paid, then the wrestling team, swimming team, and every other athlete on scholarship will want to be paid. Then schools are going to start dropping all these sports.

There won't be any rules that say all athletes have to be paid the same. (In fact, that's the kind of illegal wage fixing the players are trying to do away with.) Wrestlers and swimmers might want to be paid, but if those programs don't make any money and the market for their services is $0, then there's no reason the universities will have to pay them.

I won't pretend to know how a union works but I thought their wages were basically set by the union. So if the union becomes just football players that's one thing but if it becomes all scholarship athletes that's another. Did the courts rule scholarship athletes are employees or just football players?

typically unions have wage scales. While all employees aren't paid exactly the same, it is very close and based on number of years. All players in the union would be basically equal. If athletes other than football players were in the union, they could probably be in a different pay grade.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I guess I wasn't very clear. All football players would be paid roughly the same, but other sports could be paid less is what I was getting at.