Bowlsby said he asked the player why he felt that way, and Bowlsby said the player replied, in part: “My time is not my own. … I don’t have any control over where I go, what I do, how I work out, how long I work out, what I eat, where I eat. … That sounds like an employee to me. … I’m grateful for what I’m getting, but you asked me if I feel like an employee — and I do.”

Bowlsby then added: “I’ve thought about a lot since then and I’m going to ask that question of others as I go around. … In the end, I guess it doesn’t really matter what the courts say about employee status if the student-athletes feel like they’re involved in a situation where they lack control over what it is they can do or can’t do — and Lord knows we’ve got lots of rules that govern them from a grade-point standpoint and from a name, image and likeness standpoint. I probably would have felt differently if I still was on campus, but in listening to student-athletes, in some ways we’re putting them in untenable situations.”


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../72586120/

Very interesting comments. The player told Bowlsby that he feels like an employee.

Which explains Bowlsby's prediction, mentioned earlier in the same article:

Quote:“I’m glad the unionization process has cooled for right now,” Bowlsby said. “But the fact is — and it probably will be in the sport of men’s basketball — there will be a day in the future when the popcorn is popped, the TV cameras are there, the fans are in the stands and the team decides they’re not going to play. Mark my words. We will see that in the years ahead. We saw some of it for other reasons in the ’70s, but I really believe that we aren’t finished with the compensation issue or with the employee-vs.-student issue.”

Bowlsby later said he doesn’t think such an action is close to happening, “but the tension in the system isn’t going to go away anytime soon.”

Bowlsby is correct in realizing that the NCAA and the schools have offered no adequate answer to the disparity between big-time programs making millions and the athletes in those programs feeling like unpaid employees.

(09-21-2015 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Very interesting comments. The player told Bowlsby that he feels like an employee.

Which explains Bowlsby's prediction, mentioned earlier in the same article:

Quote:“I’m glad the unionization process has cooled for right now,” Bowlsby said. “But the fact is — and it probably will be in the sport of men’s basketball — there will be a day in the future when the popcorn is popped, the TV cameras are there, the fans are in the stands and the team decides they’re not going to play. Mark my words. We will see that in the years ahead. We saw some of it for other reasons in the ’70s, but I really believe that we aren’t finished with the compensation issue or with the employee-vs.-student issue.”

Bowlsby later said he doesn’t think such an action is close to happening, “but the tension in the system isn’t going to go away anytime soon.”

Bowlsby is correct in realizing that the NCAA and the schools have offered no adequate answer to the disparity between big-time programs making millions and the athletes in those programs feeling like unpaid employees.

Our government can come up with a law to say that athletes are students, not a school employee. The athletes are there to learn to get a degree for them to get a job once they graduate from college.

(09-21-2015 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Very interesting comments. The player told Bowlsby that he feels like an employee.

Which explains Bowlsby's prediction, mentioned earlier in the same article:

Quote:“I’m glad the unionization process has cooled for right now,” Bowlsby said. “But the fact is — and it probably will be in the sport of men’s basketball — there will be a day in the future when the popcorn is popped, the TV cameras are there, the fans are in the stands and the team decides they’re not going to play. Mark my words. We will see that in the years ahead. We saw some of it for other reasons in the ’70s, but I really believe that we aren’t finished with the compensation issue or with the employee-vs.-student issue.”

Bowlsby later said he doesn’t think such an action is close to happening, “but the tension in the system isn’t going to go away anytime soon.”

Bowlsby is correct in realizing that the NCAA and the schools have offered no adequate answer to the disparity between big-time programs making millions and the athletes in those programs feeling like unpaid employees.

I've been posting something similar about the football playoff for a while. What is gong to be the reaction when a star quarterback decides that he doesn't want to play in the playoff? He already knows that he will go in the 1st or 2nd round of the draft and decides he doesn't want to risk getting injured.

(09-21-2015 08:24 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Very interesting comments. The player told Bowlsby that he feels like an employee.

Which explains Bowlsby's prediction, mentioned earlier in the same article:

Quote:“I’m glad the unionization process has cooled for right now,” Bowlsby said. “But the fact is — and it probably will be in the sport of men’s basketball — there will be a day in the future when the popcorn is popped, the TV cameras are there, the fans are in the stands and the team decides they’re not going to play. Mark my words. We will see that in the years ahead. We saw some of it for other reasons in the ’70s, but I really believe that we aren’t finished with the compensation issue or with the employee-vs.-student issue.”

Bowlsby later said he doesn’t think such an action is close to happening, “but the tension in the system isn’t going to go away anytime soon.”

Bowlsby is correct in realizing that the NCAA and the schools have offered no adequate answer to the disparity between big-time programs making millions and the athletes in those programs feeling like unpaid employees.

I've been posting something similar about the football playoff for a while. What is gong to be the reaction when a star quarterback decides that he doesn't want to play in the playoff? He already knows that he will go in the 1st or 2nd round of the draft and decides he doesn't want to risk getting injured.

One of the new autonomous rules that the P5 are pushing through will allow schools to pay for insurance protecting players with NFL futures. Frankly, I think this all heading for a compromise in which the NCAA gets an anti-trust exemption in exchange for some level of governmental regulation of big time college athletics.

(09-21-2015 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Very interesting comments. The player told Bowlsby that he feels like an employee.

Which explains Bowlsby's prediction, mentioned earlier in the same article:

Quote:“I’m glad the unionization process has cooled for right now,” Bowlsby said. “But the fact is — and it probably will be in the sport of men’s basketball — there will be a day in the future when the popcorn is popped, the TV cameras are there, the fans are in the stands and the team decides they’re not going to play. Mark my words. We will see that in the years ahead. We saw some of it for other reasons in the ’70s, but I really believe that we aren’t finished with the compensation issue or with the employee-vs.-student issue.”

Bowlsby later said he doesn’t think such an action is close to happening, “but the tension in the system isn’t going to go away anytime soon.”

Bowlsby is correct in realizing that the NCAA and the schools have offered no adequate answer to the disparity between big-time programs making millions and the athletes in those programs feeling like unpaid employees.

Agreed. These issues are far from over......

Collegefootballnews.com had a piece and he mentioned a big fear he's heard for years is in regards to the sports betting. It's getting so big and everyone seems to be making money around the players. Let's say you are a star quarterback at a school who has done the math and knows you are not going to be in the NFL or at least going to have a very limited career in it. You see ex-players struggling, you see your million dollar a year head coach and assistant coaches making good salaries too. You hear about the billion dollar TV contract your school's conference has. You see rich boosters coming to games spending a lot for seats. In short, you see everyone around you getting rich except yourself.

Now let's say someone offers you $100,000 to make sure your team doesn't beat the spread. You don't necessarily have to lose, but a few well timed turn-overs would be valuable.

Anyone want to bet, the answer to that question will always be no?

I think he's right that basketball will be the problem. You have fewer players to organize and basketball players are more egotistical and focused on the pros. In football you have linemen who don't get the same star treatment in HS. And you don't have the AAU with all the agents floating around.

Although he doesn't seem to understand that a LOT of regular students transfer. I doubt its 50%, but its a pretty good sized number.

(09-22-2015 08:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  Although he doesn't seem to understand that a LOT of regular students transfer. I doubt its 50%, but its a pretty good sized number.

Yeah, some transfer down to the FCS, D2 and D3. They could try and bring this issue to all levels of football. Imagine football players at John Hopkins demand the money or they will strike after unionizing? We are growing kids up into college playing sports in a greed society. It does not work in the real world. These players are stupid to not realized that they are there for an education, and not making money there.

Any college student-athlete that refuses to perform should be suspended for the rest of the season and have his/her scholarship removed for the next semester.

Not much more to say about it than that. If you just want to be a student, fine. Go be a student, on your own.


Any players who think they can strike their way to employee status have a harsh, harsh reality coming to them.

(09-22-2015 09:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Any college student-athlete that refuses to perform should be suspended for the rest of the season and have his/her scholarship removed for the next semester.

In other words, you want to treat them like EMPLOYEES and fire them if they don't show up for WORK.

But they're still not employees, right?

(09-22-2015 10:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 09:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Any college student-athlete that refuses to perform should be suspended for the rest of the season and have his/her scholarship removed for the next semester.

In other words, you want to treat them like EMPLOYEES and fire them if they don't show up for WORK.

But they're still not employees, right?

That's not any different than someone on a music scholarship not showing up for performances or someone on an academic scholarship not bothering to show up for finals.

(09-22-2015 10:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 09:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Any college student-athlete that refuses to perform should be suspended for the rest of the season and have his/her scholarship removed for the next semester.

In other words, you want to treat them like EMPLOYEES and fire them if they don't show up for WORK.

But they're still not employees, right?

That's not any different than someone on a music scholarship not showing up for performances or someone on an academic scholarship not bothering to show up for finals.

It is different. Not showing up for finals means that a student isn't fulfilling requirements toward his or her degree. A music major not showing up for performances is the same thing; they have performance requirements for their degrees. Those are academic requirements for music majors. But no school that I'm aware of gives football players a B.A. or B.S. just for playing football. Football isn't an academic requirement.

(09-21-2015 10:08 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Collegefootballnews.com had a piece and he mentioned a big fear he's heard for years is in regards to the sports betting. It's getting so big and everyone seems to be making money around the players. Let's say you are a star quarterback at a school who has done the math and knows you are not going to be in the NFL or at least going to have a very limited career in it. You see ex-players struggling, you see your million dollar a year head coach and assistant coaches making good salaries too. You hear about the billion dollar TV contract your school's conference has. You see rich boosters coming to games spending a lot for seats. In short, you see everyone around you getting rich except yourself.

Now let's say someone offers you $100,000 to make sure your team doesn't beat the spread. You don't necessarily have to lose, but a few well timed turn-overs would be valuable.

Anyone want to bet, the answer to that question will always be no?

Well said. There is no question that organized gambling is a serious threat to major college athletics. That's why I don't see how anyone who loves college sports could ever participate in the betting.

(09-22-2015 10:50 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 09:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Any college student-athlete that refuses to perform should be suspended for the rest of the season and have his/her scholarship removed for the next semester.

In other words, you want to treat them like EMPLOYEES and fire them if they don't show up for WORK.

But they're still not employees, right?

That's not any different than someone on a music scholarship not showing up for performances or someone on an academic scholarship not bothering to show up for finals.

It is different. Not showing up for finals means that a student isn't fulfilling requirements toward his or her degree. A music major not showing up for performances is the same thing; they have performance requirements for their degrees. Those are academic requirements for music majors. But no school that I'm aware of gives football players a B.A. or B.S. just for playing football. Football isn't an academic requirement.

Good point, but that is still what generated their scholarship.

Athletes do have things like mandatory study halls and curfews in addition to the mandatory practices and workouts. That makes them feel very controlled. Of course, some of that is necessary because colleges are recruiting players who wouldn't be in college otherwise.

(09-22-2015 10:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 09:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Any college student-athlete that refuses to perform should be suspended for the rest of the season and have his/her scholarship removed for the next semester.

In other words, you want to treat them like EMPLOYEES and fire them if they don't show up for WORK.

But they're still not employees, right?

Likey any college student who signed up for some activity through the school does. If they choose not to show up for women's volleyball games/practice or fail to meet academic requirements why should they get a scholarship for playing volleyball?

I would like to see Bowlsby stop being a puppet for Texas, grow a spine and tell the schools to expand now. If he is too chicken to stand up to Texas? He should resign and get someone who can whip the Big 12 back into shape, and tell Texas that they must play fairly with the rest of the schools.

(09-22-2015 10:50 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 10:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 09:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Any college student-athlete that refuses to perform should be suspended for the rest of the season and have his/her scholarship removed for the next semester.

In other words, you want to treat them like EMPLOYEES and fire them if they don't show up for WORK.

But they're still not employees, right?

That's not any different than someone on a music scholarship not showing up for performances or someone on an academic scholarship not bothering to show up for finals.

It is different. Not showing up for finals means that a student isn't fulfilling requirements toward his or her degree. A music major not showing up for performances is the same thing; they have performance requirements for their degrees. Those are academic requirements for music majors. But no school that I'm aware of gives football players a B.A. or B.S. just for playing football. Football isn't an academic requirement.

This is just a good example that shows how your analogy was false.

True analogy: an undergraduate student in engineering who received a merit scholarship to the school as a performance artist.

His scholarship requires that he practice his art, with his coach, for X hours a week and perform his art, representing the school, Y times a year.


He decides that his school work is more important and skips the last 10 performances of the year.

Should he get to keep his scholarship???




And here's the true double standard: in the (true) analogy that I described above, people probably would be outraged that his scholarship was pulled when he was focusing on academics .... but what if a football player said he couldn't practice or play because he was too busy studying for a big test!?

There would be hell to pay, of course.

I have grown weary of hearing about the supposed plights of student athletics. Good grief, they act as if they are coal mining in the 1800's. They are receiving a free education for playing a sport they love.