(04-04-2014 12:53 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 11:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Title 9 will mean that everyone is going to get the 30K stipend. If a school has 400 scholarship athletes---that alone is 12 million dollars.

1) I doubt any school has 400 scholarships. Cal has 30 varsity sports, which is in the top 10 in D-I, and has about 350 full scholarships (equivalent sports spread those out among a few athletes, of course). Sports like men's golf, men's tennis, and men's water polo have limits of 4.5 scholarships each. Schools that are closer to the minimum number of FBS sports will have far fewer, they will be under 250 scholarships.

2) Title IX means that a school that gives stipends will probably have to give stipends to the same number of men and women athletes. A school that covers football, men's basketball, women's basketball, plus enough women's sports to balance out the football scholarships, would have 196 stipends. One way to do that might be to pay stipends only in head-count sports, which would require designating a few more women's sports as head-count sports to make the total number of scholarships in those sports equal to 98.

$30,000 is in the range of STEM graduate-student stipends at top schools now -- but grad students have to pay room/board, health insurance, and all other living expenses out of their stipends. If you're still giving room/board to scholarship athletes, a "cash" stipend of $10,000 would be enough to put scholarship athletes on par with those grad students. Frankly, a stipend of $10,000 plus room/board could legitimately be termed "full cost of attendance".

I had estimated 200 scholarships. That would be $6 million a year in salary, plus payroll matching taxes, etc...

I guessed $12 million a year total in addition to current scholarships.

(04-04-2014 01:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Another article on this topic. A USA Today writer rips Emmert and the NCAA bureaucracy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/7265843/

Quote:The NCAA needs a strong leader now more than ever, someone with vision and backbone. So far, President Mark Emmert hasn't shown any signs of having either.

Had Emmert held his state of the union Thursday, as has been the norm for years, he would have been front and center on a day when little else was going on. He would have had the chance to change the conversation, or at least mount a vigorous defense of his organization.

Instead, he's not speaking until Sunday morning, a time slot that guarantees no one will hear a word.

Quote:Take a stand. Give an opinion. Find a way to make the university presidents see that the cash cow that is college athletics is going to wind up in someone else's hands if they don't find a way to adapt. Protect the "student-athletes" you claim to prize so much.

These are tough times in college athletics, and they're only going to get more challenging. The NCAA needs someone who is up to the task.

Or, at the very least, someone who's willing to show his face when people are paying attention, rather than when it's convenient.

I don't think its really Emmert but the non-fbs/non-football schools in D1 that should be ripped by the authors. Had the stipend or full cost had been accepted a few years ago, I don't we would be where we are now. They would have created another division regardless (FBS+).

However, given the tact of the Northwestern athletes, this goes beyond all this. I agree with Stanford's coach Shaw, questions the real reason for this union formation. http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...n-movement

(04-04-2014 08:37 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Another article on this topic. A USA Today writer rips Emmert and the NCAA bureaucracy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/7265843/

Quote:The NCAA needs a strong leader now more than ever, someone with vision and backbone. So far, President Mark Emmert hasn't shown any signs of having either.

Had Emmert held his state of the union Thursday, as has been the norm for years, he would have been front and center on a day when little else was going on. He would have had the chance to change the conversation, or at least mount a vigorous defense of his organization.

Instead, he's not speaking until Sunday morning, a time slot that guarantees no one will hear a word.

Quote:Take a stand. Give an opinion. Find a way to make the university presidents see that the cash cow that is college athletics is going to wind up in someone else's hands if they don't find a way to adapt. Protect the "student-athletes" you claim to prize so much.

These are tough times in college athletics, and they're only going to get more challenging. The NCAA needs someone who is up to the task.

Or, at the very least, someone who's willing to show his face when people are paying attention, rather than when it's convenient.

I don't think its really Emmert but the non-fbs/non-football schools in D1 that should be ripped by the authors. Had the stipend or full cost had been accepted a few years ago, I don't we would be where we are now. They would have created another division regardless (FBS+).

However, given the tact of the Northwestern athletes, this goes beyond all this. I agree with Stanford's coach Shaw, questions the real reason for this union formation. http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...n-movement

It is really funny to me that, in America, it is acceptable and even laudable that some people and all corporations try to maximize their profits and income, not matter what the other consequences (pollution, downsizing due to mergers, exporting jobs overseas, etc....).

I am told "Hey, that is just capitalism at work" and "let the market decide what people and companies earn" even if it is 725 times what the average worker makes.

Companies organize themselves, merge and acquire others to maximize profit and form trade unions to foster economic gains for themselves, collectively. All good, according to many.

But, let workers or ( in this case) players try to organize and collectively bargain to grab a piece of the economic gain that he/she has had a role in creating, and suddenly many are against them trying to leverage their situation into making some or more income.

To me, the players trying to get paid is just capitalism at work. This is just the American way, to try to earn more income and profit.

That is a good thing, right?

(04-04-2014 10:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 08:37 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Another article on this topic. A USA Today writer rips Emmert and the NCAA bureaucracy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/7265843/

Quote:The NCAA needs a strong leader now more than ever, someone with vision and backbone. So far, President Mark Emmert hasn't shown any signs of having either.

Had Emmert held his state of the union Thursday, as has been the norm for years, he would have been front and center on a day when little else was going on. He would have had the chance to change the conversation, or at least mount a vigorous defense of his organization.

Instead, he's not speaking until Sunday morning, a time slot that guarantees no one will hear a word.

Quote:Take a stand. Give an opinion. Find a way to make the university presidents see that the cash cow that is college athletics is going to wind up in someone else's hands if they don't find a way to adapt. Protect the "student-athletes" you claim to prize so much.

These are tough times in college athletics, and they're only going to get more challenging. The NCAA needs someone who is up to the task.

Or, at the very least, someone who's willing to show his face when people are paying attention, rather than when it's convenient.

I don't think its really Emmert but the non-fbs/non-football schools in D1 that should be ripped by the authors. Had the stipend or full cost had been accepted a few years ago, I don't we would be where we are now. They would have created another division regardless (FBS+).

However, given the tact of the Northwestern athletes, this goes beyond all this. I agree with Stanford's coach Shaw, questions the real reason for this union formation. http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...n-movement

It is really funny to me that, in America, it is acceptable and even laudable that some people and all corporations try to maximize their profits and income, not matter what the other consequences (pollution, downsizing due to mergers, exporting jobs overseas, etc....).

I am told "Hey, that is just capitalism at work" and "let the market decide what people and companies earn" even if it is 725 times what the average worker makes.

Companies organize themselves, merge and acquire others to maximize profit and form trade unions to foster economic gains for themselves, collectively. All good, according to many.

But, let workers or ( in this case) players try to organize and collectively bargain to grab a piece of the economic gain that he/she has had a role in creating, and suddenly many are against them trying to leverage their situation into making some or more income.

To me, the players trying to get paid is just capitalism at work. This is just the American way, to try to earn more income and profit.

That is a good thing, right?

If they are employees, perhaps. But there is a difference working for a non-profit/Public university vs a for-profit corporation. Especially, when a university's revenue is dependent on federal funds, donations and grants rather than any athletic revenue (That's not capitalism.) Schools don't manufacture and produce product for revenue. Sure some may invent some things but then they give their patent to a producing company and get royalties from their invention.

(04-04-2014 11:08 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 08:37 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Another article on this topic. A USA Today writer rips Emmert and the NCAA bureaucracy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/7265843/

Quote:The NCAA needs a strong leader now more than ever, someone with vision and backbone. So far, President Mark Emmert hasn't shown any signs of having either.

Had Emmert held his state of the union Thursday, as has been the norm for years, he would have been front and center on a day when little else was going on. He would have had the chance to change the conversation, or at least mount a vigorous defense of his organization.

Instead, he's not speaking until Sunday morning, a time slot that guarantees no one will hear a word.

Quote:Take a stand. Give an opinion. Find a way to make the university presidents see that the cash cow that is college athletics is going to wind up in someone else's hands if they don't find a way to adapt. Protect the "student-athletes" you claim to prize so much.

These are tough times in college athletics, and they're only going to get more challenging. The NCAA needs someone who is up to the task.

Or, at the very least, someone who's willing to show his face when people are paying attention, rather than when it's convenient.

I don't think its really Emmert but the non-fbs/non-football schools in D1 that should be ripped by the authors. Had the stipend or full cost had been accepted a few years ago, I don't we would be where we are now. They would have created another division regardless (FBS+).

However, given the tact of the Northwestern athletes, this goes beyond all this. I agree with Stanford's coach Shaw, questions the real reason for this union formation. http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...n-movement

It is really funny to me that, in America, it is acceptable and even laudable that some people and all corporations try to maximize their profits and income, not matter what the other consequences (pollution, downsizing due to mergers, exporting jobs overseas, etc....).

I am told "Hey, that is just capitalism at work" and "let the market decide what people and companies earn" even if it is 725 times what the average worker makes.

Companies organize themselves, merge and acquire others to maximize profit and form trade unions to foster economic gains for themselves, collectively. All good, according to many.

But, let workers or ( in this case) players try to organize and collectively bargain to grab a piece of the economic gain that he/she has had a role in creating, and suddenly many are against them trying to leverage their situation into making some or more income.

To me, the players trying to get paid is just capitalism at work. This is just the American way, to try to earn more income and profit.

That is a good thing, right?

If they are employees, perhaps. But there is a difference working for a non-profit/Public university vs a for-profit corporation. Especially, when a university's revenue is dependent on federal funds, donations and grants rather than any athletic revenue (That's not capitalism.) Schools don't manufacture and produce product for revenue. Sure some may invent some things but then they give their patent to a producing company and get royalties from their invention.

Separate the athletic department. Make it a for profit entity.

Make the players the employees of the athletic department.

Either that, or create a separate, minor league entity affiliated with both a university and a pro franchise.

(04-04-2014 06:55 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 12:53 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 11:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Title 9 will mean that everyone is going to get the 30K stipend. If a school has 400 scholarship athletes---that alone is 12 million dollars.

1) I doubt any school has 400 scholarships. Cal has 30 varsity sports, which is in the top 10 in D-I, and has about 350 full scholarships (equivalent sports spread those out among a few athletes, of course). Sports like men's golf, men's tennis, and men's water polo have limits of 4.5 scholarships each. Schools that are closer to the minimum number of FBS sports will have far fewer, they will be under 250 scholarships.

2) Title IX means that a school that gives stipends will probably have to give stipends to the same number of men and women athletes. A school that covers football, men's basketball, women's basketball, plus enough women's sports to balance out the football scholarships, would have 196 stipends. One way to do that might be to pay stipends only in head-count sports, which would require designating a few more women's sports as head-count sports to make the total number of scholarships in those sports equal to 98.

$30,000 is in the range of STEM graduate-student stipends at top schools now -- but grad students have to pay room/board, health insurance, and all other living expenses out of their stipends. If you're still giving room/board to scholarship athletes, a "cash" stipend of $10,000 would be enough to put scholarship athletes on par with those grad students. Frankly, a stipend of $10,000 plus room/board could legitimately be termed "full cost of attendance".

I had estimated 200 scholarships. That would be $6 million a year in salary, plus payroll matching taxes, etc...

I guessed $12 million a year total in addition to current scholarships.

Last time I checked, UNC offered 338 scholarships. By comparison, a non-FBS state supported school (Southern Illinois) offered 204. I thought I read somewhere that to be in D-I you had to offer a minimum of 200 scholarships.

The "full cost of attendance" ploy is just another attempt by the NCAA to give political cover to government agencies at all levels to pretend "student-athletes" in FBS football aren't employees, even though by every other definition in either statute or regulation they would be considered so.

To my knowledge, nobody has attempted to legislate an exception for the revenue sports of football and men's basketball, even though for the most part it is only those sports that give rise to the conditions (such as working hours and perpetual seasons) that bring employee status into play.

I think that universities would be better served overall if they just accepted the idea that these two sports are really "unrelated business activities" and let the taxation chips fall where they may. They could easily make the "student-athlete" case for all other sports, and could likely justify dropping all scholarships in them without violating Title IX.

What I am saying is that it would be cheaper to just remove the fig leaf and pay 85 football players and 13 basketball players directly than to fund 300+ scholarships.

Here's a question for the attorneys or would-be attorneys on the site. If the P5 were to embrace the idea that basketball was an unrelated business activity, and pay the players out in the open, could they not put those players on a binding employment contract that prevented them from jumping to the NBA during the term of their contract?

(04-04-2014 12:36 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 11:08 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 08:37 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Another article on this topic. A USA Today writer rips Emmert and the NCAA bureaucracy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/7265843/

I don't think its really Emmert but the non-fbs/non-football schools in D1 that should be ripped by the authors. Had the stipend or full cost had been accepted a few years ago, I don't we would be where we are now. They would have created another division regardless (FBS+).

However, given the tact of the Northwestern athletes, this goes beyond all this. I agree with Stanford's coach Shaw, questions the real reason for this union formation. http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...n-movement

It is really funny to me that, in America, it is acceptable and even laudable that some people and all corporations try to maximize their profits and income, not matter what the other consequences (pollution, downsizing due to mergers, exporting jobs overseas, etc....).

I am told "Hey, that is just capitalism at work" and "let the market decide what people and companies earn" even if it is 725 times what the average worker makes.

Companies organize themselves, merge and acquire others to maximize profit and form trade unions to foster economic gains for themselves, collectively. All good, according to many.

But, let workers or ( in this case) players try to organize and collectively bargain to grab a piece of the economic gain that he/she has had a role in creating, and suddenly many are against them trying to leverage their situation into making some or more income.

To me, the players trying to get paid is just capitalism at work. This is just the American way, to try to earn more income and profit.

That is a good thing, right?

If they are employees, perhaps. But there is a difference working for a non-profit/Public university vs a for-profit corporation. Especially, when a university's revenue is dependent on federal funds, donations and grants rather than any athletic revenue (That's not capitalism.) Schools don't manufacture and produce product for revenue. Sure some may invent some things but then they give their patent to a producing company and get royalties from their invention.

Separate the athletic department. Make it a for profit entity.

Make the players the employees of the athletic department.

Either that, or create a separate, minor league entity affiliated with both a university and a pro franchise.

I like your second option. Create a corporate league and sell the rights to the league annually. Takes all the risk off the schools and places it on a separate corporation. Run it like an NFL. If the student athletes want payment, then let them be employees of the league and simply scholarship students at the school. I'd run all my revenue sports through that sports corporation. Leave the rest in the NCAA under the current amateur model.

(04-04-2014 12:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 06:55 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 12:53 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 11:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Title 9 will mean that everyone is going to get the 30K stipend. If a school has 400 scholarship athletes---that alone is 12 million dollars.

1) I doubt any school has 400 scholarships. Cal has 30 varsity sports, which is in the top 10 in D-I, and has about 350 full scholarships (equivalent sports spread those out among a few athletes, of course). Sports like men's golf, men's tennis, and men's water polo have limits of 4.5 scholarships each. Schools that are closer to the minimum number of FBS sports will have far fewer, they will be under 250 scholarships.

2) Title IX means that a school that gives stipends will probably have to give stipends to the same number of men and women athletes. A school that covers football, men's basketball, women's basketball, plus enough women's sports to balance out the football scholarships, would have 196 stipends. One way to do that might be to pay stipends only in head-count sports, which would require designating a few more women's sports as head-count sports to make the total number of scholarships in those sports equal to 98.

$30,000 is in the range of STEM graduate-student stipends at top schools now -- but grad students have to pay room/board, health insurance, and all other living expenses out of their stipends. If you're still giving room/board to scholarship athletes, a "cash" stipend of $10,000 would be enough to put scholarship athletes on par with those grad students. Frankly, a stipend of $10,000 plus room/board could legitimately be termed "full cost of attendance".

I had estimated 200 scholarships. That would be $6 million a year in salary, plus payroll matching taxes, etc...

I guessed $12 million a year total in addition to current scholarships.

Last time I checked, UNC offered 338 scholarships. By comparison, a non-FBS state supported school (Southern Illinois) offered 204. I thought I read somewhere that to be in D-I you had to offer a minimum of 200 scholarships.

The "full cost of attendance" ploy is just another attempt by the NCAA to give political cover to government agencies at all levels to pretend "student-athletes" in FBS football aren't employees, even though by every other definition in either statute or regulation they would be considered so.

To my knowledge, nobody has attempted to legislate an exception for the revenue sports of football and men's basketball, even though for the most part it is only those sports that give rise to the conditions (such as working hours and perpetual seasons) that bring employee status into play.

I think that universities would be better served overall if they just accepted the idea that these two sports are really "unrelated business activities" and let the taxation chips fall where they may. They could easily make the "student-athlete" case for all other sports, and could likely justify dropping all scholarships in them without violating Title IX.

What I am saying is that it would be cheaper to just remove the fig leaf and pay 85 football players and 13 basketball players directly than to fund 300+ scholarships.

There are other athletes that put in more hours and have more "perpetual seasons" than football or basketball players. Their yearly hours are nothing compared to runners or swimmers. Don't give me this poor, poor, fb/bb player.