What implications for college baseball?

IMO this would be terrible for most of the other sports.  Football and basketball at the big schools generate the money and typically fund all of the other sports.  These players knew what the deal was when they signed up.  They are getting paid and its not a small sum.I know that if this goes thru I will stop donating to the university to support these athletes.  I'll direct my money to the other sports.  This is a very slippery slope.

I don't know enough to have a fully formed opinion, but this feels right. This paragraph jumped out at me:

 

The lawsuit Kessler filed is broader in scope. It makes no claim on specific revenues, only that athletes should be treated like other students, who are not subject to educational or financial compensation caps by agreement among universities. High-value students in areas like physics receive whatever the market will bear, in some cases a full scholarship plus cash.

There's no reason that a kid shouldn't get money from sales of his own jersey, or likeness.

Sorry, I can't support this. The $100,000+ that they get in free education is more than enough.  The problem is, most of the players who are pushing for this have NO DESIRE to get an education...so they don't feel like they're really getting anything.  They are there to GET TO THE PRO's....so why do they care if they are getting a free education??   My daugher is a freshman at a major D1 university here in OH-IO.  She was number 1 in her HS class with a 4.0 since the day she started 1st grade... got a 32 on her ACT and that earned her a whopping $5,000/year in academic scholarship money.  You have football players who were lucky to finish HS, don't go to class, leave after 2 or 3 years and never graduate who get a full ride and yet think they deserve more?? Sorry, but I'll never agree with them.

None of this would've happened if the schools hadn't milked things for all there worth once the kids had LEFT school.Thats the genesis of the whole problem.Education or not no one should have to give up their college likeness and everything that goes with it forever. 

The absence of education as a reason to attend college; what you have is "semi-pro" or just plain apprentice sports. I can just see colleges "admitting" or should I just say hiring a player for 1-4 years. What do they get; education if they want it (no different then now) and compensation which can come in all types of forms from room and board all the way to pure compensation.

 

The question would then be would academic requirements play a roll in "recruiting" athletes or would they be strictly hired gun's brought in to "entertain" and make money for a university?

 

Would we need academic qualifiers if athletes are hired to do a job?

Your daughter has the right to start a side business, do consulting, sell her likeness, get a music contract, or even create the next Facebook.  She can make unlimited income while in college.

The point of this lawsuit is that "enough" should be defined by the market, not capped by an arbitrary limit.  The value of a star player to a college sports enterprise is unrelated to the cost of attendance.  Why should the university have the right to link the former to the latter? Is the player at a state school worth more than a player at a private school?  Why should his compensation be capped at a lower value?

The entire premise of amateur athletics, and long standing rule for maintaining amateur status has been, " no pay for play".  Why should that change?

 

If colleges cannot market and profit from its sports, the college athletics we have today become a thing of the past.  The money the student athletes receive now via scholarship is more than enough, and certainly as much, if not more than other college students receive.

 

Why do we want to manage / dictate how the colleges market, and profit?  These athletes are not captive, they can choose to not play amateur sports, and start a side job, and make as much money as they want.  If they want to accept the GIFT of attending college on scholarship, they also choose to allow the school to subsidize their investments however they see fit, and not be forced to redistribute the profits.  If the colleges are FORCED to share profits, then be ready for the scholarship $ to be drastically reduced.  There is no money tree that can be used to fund both.

 

Again, it's totally up to the athlete, he or she is not forced to attend any school, just like any of us are not forced to accept any job that we do not want.  There just isn't enough money to have it both ways....of course unless everyone is willing to pay $500 per ticket, $50 to park, and $20 for a hot dog.

Sure, try to find time for that while maintaining a 4.0 GPA taking Honors classes in Nursing/PT???  Not a likely scenario.   She could work all she wants and never come close to the $100,000 that the football guys who may not go to class, not graduate and generally don't care about a free education.  Sorry, you're not gonna convince me.   Funny thing is, the only "athletes" who've been mentioned so far in these lawsuits are guys who have for whatever reason found a way to not graduate.  So essentially they want paid to get an education...and paid to play...but blow off the education portion.  The guys who are on pace to graduate will never complain becausae they took advantage of the free education to earn a degree and have a job lined up....which is the premise of the scholarship in the first place.  You don't hear guys like Aaron Craft (with his 3.9 gpa) jumping in on these things....because he stayed in school and will have a job, whether it's the NBA or in his chose profession. 

Would you call the players students or employees? Seems to me if players just want to play and have no real reason to be at school then there would need to be another venue.Do we have minor league sports?  We have some. Lets give the scholarships to the ones that go to class. Let the others go try to get paid.   .. well that's not realistic. Dang!

 

I graduated with honors from undergrad and have a Master's Degree from Georgetown University, while setting records pitching in college. I also served on 3 advisory committees, took part in community service activities on campus, and had two minors. I spent 10 1/2 months rehabbing from an injury that was caused by playing and didn't do any internships while I was in school because I spent my summers playing in collegiate summer leagues. 

 

Next subject, please.

 

The NCAA, and the concept of "amateurism," is a complete farce. It's only a matter of time until the ship with all of this economic ridiculousness gets righted. 

 

They essentially are. If every corporation in another given industry colluded to limit on how much employees would make, making rules that one couldn't work for a year if an employee wanted to switch employers, limiting the amount of time one could work in the field, and other prohibitive rules, there would literally be violence if there wasn't antitrust action taken. Here, it's par for the course.

I think this is a really good point.  Athletes are far more restricted than the general student population.  I can help out a neighbor kid with tuition and expenses but only if he's not an athlete - that's absurd.  The NCAA puts these restrictions in place so that richer schools can't use their wealth to lure the best talent.  So to maintain competitive balance they sc*** the student athlete.  They need to find another way to maintain competitive balance.

Just curious....who paid for that Georgetown education? 

What I see occurring is a heated debate on whether certain student-athletes are genuinely student-athletes or athletes creating revenue for a university. We can't throw a blanket over all football and basketball players. Some get their degrees. But some of them have no business being in college.

 

I dont want to see student-athletes get paid like employees. What I don't mind is giving them a few hundred a month as an allowance. Some of these kids don't have any money to live like a college kid. 

 

What I don't like is colleges or businesses making money off a student-athlete's image in a video game or a jersey with his name on it. There could be a trust where the kid gets a check IF he graduates or goes pro in good academic standing after at least three years.

"Wow, you have a very impressive skillset. You've obviously worked very hard to get where you are. We'd like to hire you, but we're not going to pay you what you're worth, because we're going to keep all the profits. And if you try to profit off of your abilities outside of this institution, you will be disciplined. There are no other outlets by which you are able to utilize your skills, so this is your only option. Take it or leave it."

 

…imagine that conversation happening between H.R. and a prospective doctor seeking employment at a hospital...

 

 

I did - or should I say, I am. I'd offer you my hat or jersey or something but I'm not allowed to, or else the big bad NCAA would impose sanctions because I sold my own clothing.

 

 

That's a ridiculous argument....because that DOCTOR has completed 8 years of college....likely mostly at his own expense.  Comparing that to a 20 year old kid thinking he should be getting paid for playing a sport ON TOP of $100,000 in education is ridiculous.

What I don't think anyone is getting here, is that there just isn't the money to do both.  Most schools run at a deficit when it comes to sports, where does the money come from if you have to pay the athletes?

 

Amateur athletes are not employees, they are given the choice to play, go to school and not play, or get a job....does not sound like a captive situation to me, and certainly not in need of picketing, and unions.  If you can provide financial reports of huge profits AFTER ALL sports are funded, both male, and female, then we can talk about income redistribution.  Until then, I don't see it happening.

 

 

Aaron Craft will not become an NBA player. Give him a few years. It will be Dr Aaron Craft.

Is it redistribution if it's going to the very people who are providing the labor?

 

The most basic principle of economic profit involves supply and demand. The supply for highly talented collegiate athletes is very low, and the demand is very high. Similarly, the supply of doctors is low and the demand is high. Doctors benefit economically from their skills, but college athletes do not.

 

The doctor's prior education and expenses have nothing to do with his or her abilities to profit off of his or her current skillset. Nor does it have anything to do with the athlete's.

 

Matt,

 

it's redistribution if all athletes get paid....I don't see a scenario where only male football, and basketball players in schools that operate in the black get paid .  So, yes it will be redistribution.

Which is exactly my point.  You can go to college on a scholarship, take care of your educational business, be a great athlete on successful teams and end up with a great degree and a good job.  It's not those guys who are whining that they "need paid"...it's guys who don't see the value of what they're getting...and just think they should have more....yet they won't end up with a degree....due to nobody's fault but their own.

JH:  college athletes profit greatly...they get to play a game , attend school at a highly reduced rate, and given an education.  

And they aren't allowed to expand their profits beyond that, while other entities are allowed to expand their respective profits using the talents of those students.

Wait....your last post was about an HR guy interviewing a potential doctor.... You're  the doctor's education and the expenses they incurred to get to where they are has nothing to do with his ability to make more money?  So every graduate of every medical school is equal?   Do you think that a doctor will end up with the same skillset regardless of where they attended medical school?  Are the top medical schools the same cost as lesser quality medical schools?  

Matt,

 

capitalism at it's best

This applies to a minority of athletes. Scholarship money is rather limited in the majority of collegiate sports. Also, no one is "given" an education, class is hard work. I understand what you're saying and I'm mostly nitpicking there, so I apologize for that. This topic strikes a nerve with me.

 

I owe just under $100,000 in debt for my student loans. I worked very hard for my education and my collegiate baseball experience. However minimal my economic benefits would be, I'd like to have the opportunity to benefit from my skillset. I wasn't accepted into college on a "favor," my grades were good enough. I didn't receive any athletic scholarship money. 

 

 

 

And a pitcher with a 95 mph fastball would be more highly recruited than one with an 80 mph fastball. A 7'2" basketball player vs. a 6'2" basketball player. A linebacker running a 4.5 40 vs. a 5.0 40. These are all skillsets that could translate into profits, if the NCAA allowed it. The doctor's education is the foundation for a skillset by which he or she can profit. I'm sorry if you don't see the similarities.

 

JH:  I understand where you are coming from, and have always respected your posts .  I also don't think you believe your school benefited from your likeness, or from you playing baseball.  This is true for most college athletes.  A very few are in the category of being profited from.  Problem is you can't just pay those, and there is not enough to pay all.  Thanks for the banter.  Certainly appreciate your posts, and contribution!

 

Edit:  meant to say your college likely did not PROFIT from you playing baseball.  Certainly it was a benefit having you.

JH....you're the perfect example of a guy who should hate this thing.  The fact that you're supporting it based on what you've posted here is confusing.

 

College baseball players will see ZERO money if something like this goes thru...unless you're at LSU or Alabama where games routinely draw 10,000+.  The guys complaining are primarily major college football or basketball players...that are already on A FULL SCHOLARSHIP!!!   The $100,000 in loans you have is non-existent for those guys...because they don't have any.  As I said earlier, it's not the guys like you who went to class, worked hard and got a degree that are pushing for this...it certainly seems geared toward guys who don't take care of their educational issues, don't graduate and don't have any realworld job possibilities when they finish (or leave) school.  Why would you want to go to school....pay for your own education and get a degree and sit next to a kid getting a full ride PLUS money...who is barely passing the same classes  as you?  

 

I appreciate the sentiment, and I completely agree with you. But, I am also a believer in capitalism. I am well aware that my likeness, as a baseball player at a small school, is far different than that of, say, Johnny Manziel. But, why should Manziel not be able to benefit from his likeness, just because I can't? That's the thrust of my argument, simplified.

 

The problem is that colleges are wanting to have their cake and eat it too.  What SHOULD happen is colleges stop skirting their own admissions policies.  Admit only legitimate STUDENT athletes.  No pay... scholarships only. "The market" would then compensate with minor league football and basketball leagues, and players with no business in college in the first place could sign contracts straight out of HS...ie professional/college baseball model... But no money in that, comparatively.  This won't come to pass any time soon of course... way too much money at stake.  That's why to me the answer is for colleges to privatize their money sports... Create a fully formed minor league... And perhaps sell it off to the highest bidder (NFL, NBA).  That's the way to pull the billions out while getting out from under the mounting litigation.  Just wait until the class action concussion suits get going and take hold.

 

Interesting point. As I mentioned in my reply to Back foot slider above, I believe in true market capitalism. In essence, the NCAA is all but eliminating EVERY bit of that. Would I benefit directly from a change in the system? No, probably not. But someone will. If I had a skillset that is profitable, I would want to be compensated for that skillset.

 

I have absolutely no problem with paying college athletes be it with a stipend, allowing them to market their image or a flat out salary negotiated at sining. However if schools go to that I think it should come with a few changes in the current system.

1. No lowering of acedimic standards.
2. If the athlete does not graduate all scholarship money must be paid back.
3. Athletes must pay for use of that multimillion dollar facility they get to use for free.
4. Athletes must pay for the trainers, doctors, nutritionalists, physical theripist, and so forth that they currently have FREE access to.
5. They should be subject to fines.

The problem I see with the current argument is they seem to want all the benifits the regular student gets but none of the down side of it. If they want to be regular students fine. If they want to be employees fine but treat them completely like one.

My education was paid for by football. My job was obtained by my degree. All my possessions were paid for by my job. To me that is a pretty fair trade with the school I attended for playing football for them. The problem isn't playing football for a free education the problem is the athletes that are allowed into an institution of higher education that have no buisness in being there because they don't have the capacity to gain success from that alone.

infielddad:  see what you started?

 

 

My last post in this....the profitable skillsets if this thing happens will be football players and basketball players....likely no one else...and only at major colleges.  Those guys are already profitting....they are getting a FREE education.

 

I guess I should add something to this....as I've already mentioned my daughter who is currently in college and her accomplishments so far.

 

My son is a HS junior...and is hearing from some D1 schools for baseball.  Assuming he goes to a state school, the 25% minimum that he'll get will likely get him the same scholly money or more than what my daughter is getting?  Is that fair?  Not a chance....he PLAYS baseball...gets decent grades (nowhere close to her)...and will likely choose a college based on where he can play baseball, though I'm sure he'll graduate and get a degree.  The fact that he can earn the same amount of scholarship money as she did....just because he can play a sport is great...but no matter how much time he's put in, I don't feel he's "earned" a scholarship any more than she did....and certainly wouldn't expect him to be PAID to play a sport. 

 

If that's its best...

 

 

Maybe the best paragraph I have ever read on this site....

The players do not have value as minor league athletes. Their value is their ability to promote tribal loyalty to the university brand.

There isn't a market demand for several hundred minor league basketball and football teams, but there are several hundred schools who value what the athletes can do for them.

For all the people insisting that compensation should be capped at cost of attendance while also bemoaning how many college athletes are not qualified students:  if you know most of these students won't make money in the pros and won't earn degrees that will launch them on careers, how can you possibly justify capping their compensation at the one time in their life they have economic value AND insist on paying them in a currency they do not value?

They are in COLLEGE.....they are not at the school to PLAY FOOTBALL!!!!  What part of this do people not understand?  You can't say pay them to play...and yet allow them to disregard their educational responsibilities.  If you don't want to go to college, you're free to go get a job the day you graduate from HS.....but you can't go to college without having to at least MAKE AN EFFORT to attend classes and get an education.  College sports only exist because there are colleges....not the other way around. 

Sure you can (unfortunately). One and done basketball players essentially don't need to attend a single class.

 

 

Back Door and others who make good points opposed to this: Isn't this just the law of unintended consequences coming home to roost?

 

The NCAA intends to promote purity. Fine. Problem is, they also want to profit off of athletes. Not so fine.

 

Athletes want to pursue their dreams and make a lot of money. Fine. Problem is, if they're football or basketball players, the NCAA is the only legit funnel to their dreams.

 

Baseball, ironically, has a third way. That seems like the solution -- and it's easy to understand why a baseball player should suck it up: He had a choice.

 

His buds who play football or basketball? Not so much.

I truly feel that majority of kids transitioning into the college world of athletics do not have reality in perspective. I posted in another topic that only about 1% of college athletes make it to the professional level. Less than that actually makes a living at it (meaning playing that sport is their only source of income). I feel that everyone should never give up on their dreams of playing professional sports... UNTIL it's time to start dreaming another dream. College is NOT for everyone. That statement includes athletes. So what is the institution pockets millions and millions of dollars on athletics? That is the business plan that they, NCAA and institutions, have developed. I feel the same people who argue that college athletes need to start getting paid because they have nothing are the same people who argue that professional athletes make too much money.

I see no relationship between the two at all.

Neither do I.  I support giving elite revenue-generating college athletes the opportunity to negotiate compensation related to the value they provide their schools, and I have no objection to professional athletes earning whatever the market will pay them.  

 

NBA and NFL players often get paid far less than what the market dictates, due to salary cap limitations. MLB is a bit different - with no salary cap, but with pre-planned arbitration dates, slotted allotments and free agent clauses, there are below market payments there as well. I feel quite contrary to what you're saying...

 

2. If the athlete does not graduate all scholarship money must be paid back.
3. Athletes must pay for use of that multimillion dollar facility they get to use for free.
4. Athletes must pay for the trainers, doctors, nutritionalists, physical theripist, and so forth that they currently have FREE access to.

The NCAA received $11 billion for just the NCAA mens basketball tourney rights over 14 years. That's approx. $1 million per player per year.

The players are the 'content' for what is essentially a reality TV show.  They are obviously worth $1 million per year.

You've got it wrong - money is not the issue for the schools.  This is about total control over the student athletes.  That's why the athletes can't sell their own autographs.

I don't either, however, in conversations, I have heard same people make those two arguments... Yes, different people during different conversations have said these things to me. That's what lead me to believe "the same people who feel college athletes..."

I feel you should not be able to pick and choose. All college athletes put in multiple hours a day to continue and develop their skill set. I feel it needs to be all or no one, not just the  "elite revenue-generating college athletes". Now, should pay be equal? I'm not saying that either...

I agree with what you are saying. Please refer back to my comment to jp24.

 

Smitty - I agree with you.   The root of this issue is someone else making decisions on behalf of student/athletes, profiting from it, and having no rights whatsoever with the process.  The NCAA and some College Presidents have seized control over the whole system.  The balance of power is out of whack, and changes are needed.

I agree, and I believe that change will have to start by a few dozen major institutions banding together and breaking away from the NCAA. It's a very scary thought but I feel it may be the only way at this point.

I still say that everyone is missing this from a pure financial / economics standpoint.

 

Point #1:  you can't just pay the revenue generating sports, or athletes...you have to figure a way to pay every athlete.  Remember Title IX.......

 

Point #2:  if you agree with point #1, there just is not enough money to pay everyone, and I don't believe you will see any scale based on value, to spread the money.

 

Those who say this is not a money issue, can let me know how you can either get by with just paying those who are profited from, or find enough money to pay everyone.  Trust me...control is nice, but money drives the world.

Of course there's enough money.  TV contracts are in the $B, and the NCAA wants to keep it that way.  The richest schools have plenty, many at the bottom of the chain do not.  Hence the need for the NCAA to put restrictions in place to maintain competitive balance.  Without competition the system breaks down and the money flow stops.  The athletes are the easiest group in the system to manipulate to keep the engine running.

really??? enough money for whom?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports...ge/schools/finances/

 

Remember total revenue is before expenses....take a look at the expenses column to see how much is left, and it's a very select few that have any coffers to speak of.  We going to redistribute their money too?

Buckeye, no offense and kudos to your daughter, but I wouldn't set my Saturday aside to watch her take a test.  System is definitely corrupt, but follow the money to understand it.

To answer the post title question. I believe it would be horrible for baseball. I wouldn't be shocked if there were less than 50 baseball programs still around if they did this. Too many people see billion dollar tv deals and think billion dollar net profits. That's not how it works. A very small amout of schools make money off of athletecs. When schools have to make the decision between paying football or basketball players or having a baseball program, I believe baseball will lose almost every time. 

It will be very sad for baseball.

Well, there's plenty of money for about 25 football programs on that list.  That's really my point.  If those 25 were free to pay then there would be a flow of the best players to those schools and it would shift (maybe destroy) the competitive balance.  By the way, I think competitive balance is essential for viability so I'm not arguing that point.  My point is that the NCAA has gone to absurd lengths to protect this and the kids are holding the bag.  Sure, there are a few that take advantage of the system, but in D1 football alone there are some 120+ schools with ~10,000 players, with less than 250 getting drafted by the NFL - so for the vast majority of athletes it is not about skating through school and get rich in the pros.

 

Actually, I'm not advocating paying them either.  But if they can sell autographed pictures, run clinics, do photo shoots etc and get paid (by customers, not the schools) what is wrong with that?  Any other non-athlete student can do the same without penalty.  Yes, I get that the 3rd string water polo player probably won't sell as much as an SEC quarterback, but that's life and the way things are sometimes.

Mark Cuban makes the argument for potential NBA players to completely pass on college. He feels like D-league could work out much like a minor league system… http://www.cbssports.com/nba/e...than-ncaa-basketball

The schools don't have to pay anything.  Just loosen the restrictions on what the athletes can make from 3rd parties.

Miami football boosters are giggling...

About thirty college football programs make money. I'll guess there's more in basketball since the cost of running the program are lower. If athletes were paid there would be a super football conference of thirty teams. They would be hording all the best talent because they could pay them. The remaining D1 football programs would become as relevant as mid majors. Non revenue generating sports would be at a huge risk of being dropped. Where do you think the money to pay football and basketball players will come from. Any sport, like baseball that extends past the end of the school year (which generates more expense) would be at the top of the target list to be dropped.

 

Do the athletes deserve more than the situation they're in? Yes. Do they deserve salaries? No. If you think about it the idea of letting academically inept people into a college because they can play a sport is absurd. College is for education. Sports were a side bar attraction that became a major business. Look what those guys at Rutgers caused when they told some Princeton guys in a bar they could beat them in football. Cable tv came along and really corrupted the picture with money. It's why I worry about high school sports as more sports cable channels are created and looking for content.

HEY !! We don't have nearly the deep pockets those big state schools have!

 

We have to be far more selective in who we pay under the table.

Several years ago I read We Own This Game: The Adult World Of Youth Football. It was about Pop Warner football in Florida. I came to understand why Florida, Florida State and Miami football players expect to be paid under the table. It starts in Pop Warner down there.

Touche. Alabama boosters would also beg to differ with my Miami comment.

Yes it does. Sad really.  There were a bunch of arrests made a couple of years ago that broke up a bookmaking operation that handled thousands of dollars a week worth of bets on youth football.  There were even some coaches involved. Kids get recruited from one program to another with cash payoffs. It's the Wild West.

I think people are missing the bigger picture.  That is the NFL and NBA being in cahoots with the NCAA.  If a kid has the talent and wants to play in the NFL or NBA coming out of HS, they can't.  Then next best place for them is a year or two at a "big time" college program.  The professional ranks use it as their minor league system.  Baseball at least has its own system which competes for talent. 

 

My earlier post was basically one owner's opinion of how the NBA should maybe look at transforming the D league into the NBA minor leagues, of sorts. Football, on the other hand, is a tougher beast simply because the average NFL player shelf life is 3 years. They look at the NCAA as their minor leagues.

Some thoughts from a former professor of mine that touch a bit on specified courses of study that are impacted by the current process.

 

http://www.wbal.com/article/10...thletes-getting-paid

I played college football and enjoyed a 4 year, full ride, all paid, plus $15 per month for laundry. All guaranteed from day one.   When the NCAA changed scholarships to one year renewables, they changed the game.  They gave the colleges the ability to cut costs by axing players that don't pan out for whatever reason, leaving said player out in the cold to pay for the rest of their college education. It's hard not to sympathize with the athletes as they're just playing the "money game", partly as a result of them being played by the NCAA.

 

   If the NCAA wants the high ground, go back to guaranteed scholarships-as it is now, there is no guarantee of a college education-put the 4 year guarantee back in and then they can claim they're providing the education. As the commercials say, most athletes DO NOT go pro in sports.   Mandate a little loyalty to the players from the schools and it's easier to get away from the "pay me" claim....and let's have some real player oriented reforms-let players transfer or void their NLI's when coaches leave, increase the "laundry money" to a reasonable monthly stipend for a college student that has all meals already provided, perhaps $150 per month, let players hire agents to advise them whenever they want  (why do we restrict them from getting professional advice?), and put some percentage of revenues from jersey sales into a fund that assists disabled former athletes.   The NCAA should try-perhaps for the first time ever-to act like it really gives a hoot about the welfare of the athletes.

They already get paid.  A free college education, housing, food, free apparel, free tutoring, free use of facilities etc. etc.  also where do you propose the money come from?  non revenue sports will start being canceled at record pace.  If a player doesn't think enough is offered in a scholarship don't go to school.  

       
       


There is a vast difference between getting paid and receiving a discount, even a 100% discount, on the purchase of overpriced goods and services.

First I am not nor never will be in the camp of paying.If the post about the rule chande is correct how can anyone argue the point of "their getting a free education"?Sounds like they get one year free education depending.How would any of us like to be in a situation like that.Forget the paying.Lets say a honest person were to show up at your house to talk with one of your own.This honest person tells you and your child we would like you to attend our university But,depending on how things go we will reevaluate our universities committmint to your child  on a year to year basis.Wouldn't most of us treat the person nice then hope you never see them again after they leave?I can still remember the first time I realized how screwed up/corrupt the ncaa really is.Back when northwestern made their first run at having a good football team(the year usc blew them out in rose bowl)They had a very good "college" running back.There was a huge uproar over that kid getting a part in some 'B" movie and it being a PAID deal.Nothing to do with football.His major was in the dept. that many,many famous actors have graduated from.(Forget the exact name of dept. I don't think its NW world famous journalism school but maybe) The point is this kid was involved with his major had made a couple of bucks from it and now the ncaa says that by doing that he is now not a amature anymore.If our kids play a sport where money could be involved but need 3-4 years of maturing getting better before theres any money theres no other place to go but a college.Yes its the percentages are small with those playing after college.But if things were looked into I would bet the % of the kids getting the shaft are higher than most of us realize.I don't know how many of you have heard of ed ? bannoin(probably not spelled rite) he went to ucla I am pretty sure they won a championship in basketball.He had a average or slightly less time spent in the nba.He had retired and was settling into life.He buys a ncaa game cartridge for nephew bday.They start playing his nephew tells him hey your on here (ucla team) now this guy been out of school for over ten years.We should all have a problem with this type of behavior.

The NCAA doesn't exist for the protection of the athletes.  It exists to protect colleges from each other and themselves.

Overpriced goods and services? Does that happen because professors like Senator Warren are paid 375K per year to teach one course?

When Steve Alford, UCLA coach was playing at Indiana he was suspended for four games for allowing his face to be used for a Men of Indiana calendar where all the proceeds went to charity. That's absurd!

My question is if/when college athletes start getting paid to play, how quickly will that same argument trickle down to high school?

Actually, it was one game.  But still incredibly stupid by the NCAA. 

 

While these kids are getting their education paid for, a lot of these kids don't have any spending money.  If you look at most of the recent incidents, it is not multimillion dollar deals.  It's selling stuff to make a few bucks for spending money.  How else can they hit the late night Taco Bell.  The NCAA really needs to look at itself in the mirror.     

You don't hear a top coach blast the NCAA about player treatment very often.

Steve Fisher of SDSU did late last night.  After SDSU beat NMSU in an overtime game which ended just after 11pm, PDT, Fisher disclosed the NCAA would not allow the NMSU team to stay overnight in a hotel.  The team was "required" to leave immediately, which meant a 2:40am flight out of Spokane to Las Cruces. I would expect at least one connection and probably 2 so those players might just be getting back to school

When the video gets to the point where he calls out the NCAA and, in effect, where are the stuffed shirts and why are they not on that plane with the student athletes, he could have added "who generate the revenue to pay your salary."

It is quite refreshing to see a top coach challenge the NCAA on a topic such as this rather than Pitino whining about playing the Jaspers.

.

http://collegebasketballtalk.n...tgame-presser-video/

 

 

For those who have never had a son/daughter in post-season play, the NCAA makes the travel arrangements and literally pays extra to get the team out on the first plane/bus possible, upon elimination.

Why shouldn't a top HS prospect be able to have a Nike contract?

Already happening.  Won't be long for Football and Basketball before ESPN is televising the "National Championship"  But if you think some of the preps in basketball are not paying players so they get to be on ESPN....stop it ...your killing me. 

 

When there is a $100MM deal between ESPN and the NFHS to you will have the same kind of creeps there that are at the NCAA.  At the trough exploiting young men and stealing their labor and images.

And we'll watch it all from Disney in Orlando as they have all kinds of film of the kids with Mickey & Co. 

 

http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outre...-university-athletes

JH,

Thank you for posting the link to the decision.  While the appeals are going to take several years, an immediate question(at least in the legal arena) is whether efforts will be made in different States to extend the "employee"  concept of scholarship-athletes to workers' compensation with the colleges/universities being fully  responsible for providing and covering all costs of  injuries occurring while practicing, competing or training, including lifetime medical care.

Here is an article that puts the ruling/reasons into plain language.  This is going to get interesting.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...?tid=pm_national_pop 

What effect does this ruling have on the amateur status of the players?  Now that it has been decreed they are being paid to play football, they are essentially professional athletes. Will the NCAA declare them all ineligible?

im wondering when its going to hit them that as employees their income (scholarships and such) will become taxable....you know the tax man is going to come a-knocking!!

No.  When you write the rules you can make them mean anything you want to.  The NCAA has it's own definition of amateur, which they adjust to suit their needs.  They will continue to define these kids as amateurs/student-athletes.  To do anything else would define the NCAA out of existence.  

Don't let the media frenzy get you all excited.  What you have here is one administrative law judge reading the statute to say what he decided it would be kinda neato if it said.  I have a feeling this will get overturned as things move on through the process, if not at the full NLRB, then potentially in federal court on appeal.

Uh, no. This one is pretty solid.

 

Not necessarily. It remains to be seen what the decision on that would be, but if employer-provided education is a necessity for a position, it's generally not taxable.