http://adimeback.com/proposed-bill-would...-athletes/

Interesting turn of events after the P5 elect to approve full cost of attendance.

"...the key passage states that the student would have to receive a scholarship for no less than 90% of the cost of tuition, that the scholarship is “materially related to the student’s participation in athletics,” and that the revenues for the athletic program in which the student participates, when divided by the number of students expected to participate in that athletic program, be more than four-hundred percent of the cost of the scholarship. In other words, this only applies to athletes participating in “revenue sports,” which means football and men’s basketball at most schools, though a cursory look at the revenue for UConn’s women’s basketball team indicates that they would also qualify."

(01-20-2015 01:22 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  http://adimeback.com/proposed-bill-would...-athletes/

Interesting turn of events after the P5 elect to approve full cost of attendance.

"...the key passage states that the student would have to receive a scholarship for no less than 90% of the cost of tuition, that the scholarship is “materially related to the student’s participation in athletics,” and that the revenues for the athletic program in which the student participates, when divided by the number of students expected to participate in that athletic program, be more than four-hundred percent of the cost of the scholarship. In other words, this only applies to athletes participating in “revenue sports,” which means football and men’s basketball at most schools, though a cursory look at the revenue for UConn’s women’s basketball team indicates that they would also qualify."

Never qualify with title 9. At ucf the only revenue sports are football, men's basketball, and baseball. So essentially only the men would get extra money. This whole thing tarnished what people perceived as college athletics. I'd rather force student fees down to a certain percentage of overall college tuition costs and let everyone benefit from athletics revenue. Then maybe any budget over $50 million getd distributed across the state education budget.

I'm not going to pay "donations" for union members.

(01-20-2015 01:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:22 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  http://adimeback.com/proposed-bill-would...-athletes/

Interesting turn of events after the P5 elect to approve full cost of attendance.

"...the key passage states that the student would have to receive a scholarship for no less than 90% of the cost of tuition, that the scholarship is “materially related to the student’s participation in athletics,” and that the revenues for the athletic program in which the student participates, when divided by the number of students expected to participate in that athletic program, be more than four-hundred percent of the cost of the scholarship. In other words, this only applies to athletes participating in “revenue sports,” which means football and men’s basketball at most schools, though a cursory look at the revenue for UConn’s women’s basketball team indicates that they would also qualify."

Never qualify with title 9. At ucf the only revenue sports are football, men's basketball, and baseball. So essentially only the men would get extra money. This whole thing tarnished what people perceived as college athletics. I'd rather force student fees down to a certain percentage of overall college tuition costs and let everyone benefit from athletics revenue. Then maybe any budget over $50 million getd distributed across the state education budget.

I'm not going to pay "donations" for union members.

I disagree. Under that model, Women have every opportunity to get the same that's being offered to the men. They just have to be good

(01-20-2015 02:00 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:22 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  http://adimeback.com/proposed-bill-would...-athletes/

Interesting turn of events after the P5 elect to approve full cost of attendance.

"...the key passage states that the student would have to receive a scholarship for no less than 90% of the cost of tuition, that the scholarship is “materially related to the student’s participation in athletics,” and that the revenues for the athletic program in which the student participates, when divided by the number of students expected to participate in that athletic program, be more than four-hundred percent of the cost of the scholarship. In other words, this only applies to athletes participating in “revenue sports,” which means football and men’s basketball at most schools, though a cursory look at the revenue for UConn’s women’s basketball team indicates that they would also qualify."

Never qualify with title 9. At ucf the only revenue sports are football, men's basketball, and baseball. So essentially only the men would get extra money. This whole thing tarnished what people perceived as college athletics. I'd rather force student fees down to a certain percentage of overall college tuition costs and let everyone benefit from athletics revenue. Then maybe any budget over $50 million getd distributed across the state education budget.

I'm not going to pay "donations" for union members.

I disagree. Under that model, Women have every opportunity to get the same that's being offered to the men. They just have to be good

Opportunity has never been limit on Title IX. If it was, you could have always argued that if women's athletics drew more crowds, they would get more revenue and would be able to pay for as many scholarships as men's sports.

Not sure why the above posters think providing additional funds (or it's like) on the women's side wouldn't satisfy Title IX.

So once UConn athletics are unionized will walkons be disallowed as non union workers?

Damn scabs

(01-20-2015 09:53 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:00 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:22 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  http://adimeback.com/proposed-bill-would...-athletes/

Interesting turn of events after the P5 elect to approve full cost of attendance.

"...the key passage states that the student would have to receive a scholarship for no less than 90% of the cost of tuition, that the scholarship is “materially related to the student’s participation in athletics,” and that the revenues for the athletic program in which the student participates, when divided by the number of students expected to participate in that athletic program, be more than four-hundred percent of the cost of the scholarship. In other words, this only applies to athletes participating in “revenue sports,” which means football and men’s basketball at most schools, though a cursory look at the revenue for UConn’s women’s basketball team indicates that they would also qualify."

Never qualify with title 9. At ucf the only revenue sports are football, men's basketball, and baseball. So essentially only the men would get extra money. This whole thing tarnished what people perceived as college athletics. I'd rather force student fees down to a certain percentage of overall college tuition costs and let everyone benefit from athletics revenue. Then maybe any budget over $50 million getd distributed across the state education budget.

I'm not going to pay "donations" for union members.

I disagree. Under that model, Women have every opportunity to get the same that's being offered to the men. They just have to be good

Opportunity has never been limit on Title IX. If it was, you could have always argued that if women's athletics drew more crowds, they would get more revenue and would be able to pay for as many scholarships as men's sports.

You know full well the new American culture is about free handouts. This won't end well....

Leave it to a freaking northerner to unionize.

Oppose.

(01-20-2015 11:10 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Leave it to a freaking northerner to unionize.

Don't know how much real support, if any, this proposal has --- but UConn is probably against it for no other reason than their P5 aspirations. P5 conferences obviously aren't pro-union -

(01-20-2015 01:54 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:22 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  http://adimeback.com/proposed-bill-would...-athletes/

Interesting turn of events after the P5 elect to approve full cost of attendance.

"...the key passage states that the student would have to receive a scholarship for no less than 90% of the cost of tuition, that the scholarship is “materially related to the student’s participation in athletics,” and that the revenues for the athletic program in which the student participates, when divided by the number of students expected to participate in that athletic program, be more than four-hundred percent of the cost of the scholarship. In other words, this only applies to athletes participating in “revenue sports,” which means football and men’s basketball at most schools, though a cursory look at the revenue for UConn’s women’s basketball team indicates that they would also qualify."

Never qualify with title 9. At ucf the only revenue sports are football, men's basketball, and baseball. So essentially only the men would get extra money. This whole thing tarnished what people perceived as college athletics. I'd rather force student fees down to a certain percentage of overall college tuition costs and let everyone benefit from athletics revenue. Then maybe any budget over $50 million getd distributed across the state education budget.

I'm not going to pay "donations" for union members.

They'd all get extra money based on the full Cost of Attendance. All this would do is "allow" them to unionize. I'm not sure how they can get around the non-revenue sports since they'd be getting "paid" too. All of the athletes dedicate a lot of time and expose themselves to a lot of risks for the universities they represent.

This is further evidence of the unintended consequences that will come about. It's going to be a complete mess for all parties involved. The only winners will be the lawyers.

Wow...that would change UConn for the worst. What this would do is make the UCONN athletes employees and not students. Just as Northwestern (which I don't think we know the results yet) athletes voted, it will have serious consequences to where the University may just drop all scholarships and do a D3 type of thing. Then if the carries on to the Big 10 states, then UConn would join them as the Big 10 would do away with scholarships rather than having athletes as employees.

(01-21-2015 11:17 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:10 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Leave it to a freaking northerner to unionize.

Don't know how much real support, if any, this proposal has --- but UConn is probably against it for no other reason than their P5 aspirations. P5 conferences obviously aren't pro-union -

Unions have lost most of the positive affect they had in protecting workers against unfair employers WAY back in the day. Those times have changed and today's world doesn't require Unions. Unions are a scam and do very little for employees (except the lazy ones).

(01-20-2015 11:10 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Leave it to a freaking northerner to unionize.

Unionize college sports at that. Obama claps