(03-17-2014 08:43 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 12:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 11:56 AM)prp Wrote:  There have been several cases involving graduate students over things like working conditions, compensation, and work hours, and in almost all cases, the courts have sided with the universities. The students are not considered regular employees and therefore not entitled to the same legal protections according to the courts. Student athletes are likely to be considered the same way.

This sounds like a different argument, though. Here, Kessler isn't arguing that student-athletes must be classified as employees and paid/compensated like regular employees. He's arguing, I think, that there is an illegal conspiracy to pay athletes nothing, and that the courts should bar the NCAA and conferences from imposing such rules, so that schools would be free to pay their athletes, but not required to pay them.

Correct that is their argument but the courts have mentioned several times that the amateur nature is unique market aspect that the NCAA is allowed to preserve.

And yes as someone else asked, it would endanger the non-profit status because school booster clubs and conferences are non-profit under the provision related to promoting amateur athletics.

I am not quite sure that they should be non-profit entities.

The people who donate to get tickets and fund building improvements would disagree.

(03-17-2014 10:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 07:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 11:38 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 11:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Never work.

Even the US Supreme Court has conceded that amateurism is an important component of intercollegiate athletics.

They don't like amateurism, they need to go pro.

Problem is they are not allowed to make the decision to go pro until certain time lines are met, therein lies a big problem. To me the NFL and NBA have helped create a quasi....free.....minor league.

You start paying players; they are then employees and that opens up a whole suite of problems; OSHA, Labor Laws, taxes, etc. It might even turn out that the Unvisersity become taxable. Too many issues with the whole dang thought.

Why is any of that a "problem"? Just curious. Universities have other employees covered by these "problems".

Worker's comp premiums on football playing employees would be a significant cost. All those costs would easily double ND's outlay or more. The unemployment premiums would also be stout since you layoff 20% or more of that workforce every year.

Ok. So what? It will just be the cost of doing business. ND athletics fully funds all 26 sports and sends $23 million a year over to the academic side.

They can afford it.

Every idea that involves compensating the guys who are "doing the work" to make the product (play on the field) can't be dismissed by the argument that it dents the bottom line. Sorry.

(03-17-2014 10:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 08:43 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 12:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 11:56 AM)prp Wrote:  There have been several cases involving graduate students over things like working conditions, compensation, and work hours, and in almost all cases, the courts have sided with the universities. The students are not considered regular employees and therefore not entitled to the same legal protections according to the courts. Student athletes are likely to be considered the same way.

This sounds like a different argument, though. Here, Kessler isn't arguing that student-athletes must be classified as employees and paid/compensated like regular employees. He's arguing, I think, that there is an illegal conspiracy to pay athletes nothing, and that the courts should bar the NCAA and conferences from imposing such rules, so that schools would be free to pay their athletes, but not required to pay them.

Correct that is their argument but the courts have mentioned several times that the amateur nature is unique market aspect that the NCAA is allowed to preserve.

And yes as someone else asked, it would endanger the non-profit status because school booster clubs and conferences are non-profit under the provision related to promoting amateur athletics.

I am not quite sure that they should be non-profit entities.

The people who donate to get tickets and fund building improvements would disagree.

They may have to just get used to it, though. Life is tough all over.

Congress will step in, before it gets to the end game. This is the slippery slope Delany and all those B1G Presidents who listen to him started, and I felt would end up going. They should have left well enough alone. Greed leads to no good end.

The Roman Empire fell, the British Empire fell, the United States may fall, etc....

Most things and institutions in human history fall apart. Something always comes along to take its place.

Life will go on if this happens and players are paid.

(03-17-2014 08:43 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 12:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 11:56 AM)prp Wrote:  There have been several cases involving graduate students over things like working conditions, compensation, and work hours, and in almost all cases, the courts have sided with the universities. The students are not considered regular employees and therefore not entitled to the same legal protections according to the courts. Student athletes are likely to be considered the same way.

This sounds like a different argument, though. Here, Kessler isn't arguing that student-athletes must be classified as employees and paid/compensated like regular employees. He's arguing, I think, that there is an illegal conspiracy to pay athletes nothing, and that the courts should bar the NCAA and conferences from imposing such rules, so that schools would be free to pay their athletes, but not required to pay them.

Correct that is their argument but the courts have mentioned several times that the amateur nature is unique market aspect that the NCAA is allowed to preserve.

And yes as someone else asked, it would endanger the non-profit status because school booster clubs and conferences are non-profit under the provision related to promoting amateur athletics.

I am not quite sure that they should be non-profit entities.

I have no problem with the notion that they should be non-profit entities. Where I have a problem is allowing a booster to take a tax deduction for his "donation" when in effect he is just paying market price for premium seating at entertainment events. Now, the amount of the donation is only reduced by the face value of the tickets, which is the same price you would pay for nose bleed seats in the end zone. That isn't the fair market value for luxury seats on the 50 yard line.

Concept would never pass. It would be a ruling that would go against past court decisions. Athletes are not employees. If they don't like it, go play overseas.

(03-18-2014 01:38 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Concept would never pass. It would be a ruling that would go against past court decisions. Athletes are not employees. If they don't like it, go play overseas.

Or try to go after the right people. If they want to be paid athletes they need to convince organizations that actually do that to hire them. It is the professional leagues that are saying no to younger players and that is not the colleges problem.