(03-24-2023 04:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 04:27 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  This article is so hypocritical and self-serving it's hilarious. Let's just zoom in on the core of the hypocrisy and thus undermine ND's entire argument:

Quote:We have been vocal in our conviction that student-athletes should be allowed to capture the value of the use of their name, image and likeness (N.I.L.) — in other words, profit from their celebrity — for one simple reason: Other students are allowed to. If a college student is a talented artist or musician no one begrudges him the chance to make money from his skills. And athletes should as far as possible have the opportunities other students enjoy.

Unfortunately, the new N.I.L. rules have proven to be easy to abuse. To avoid the N.C.A.A. prohibition against directly paying athletic recruits, many schools funnel money to recruits under the guise of a supposed third-party licensing deal — regardless of whether a player’s name, image and likeness have any market value whatsoever. We must establish and enforce regulations that allow legitimate transactions while barring those that are recruiting enticements or pay-for-play.

Should we go line by line here? Oh yes, Fire Joe Morgan style it IS!

Quote:We have been vocal in our conviction that student-athletes should be allowed to capture the value of the use of their name, image and likeness (N.I.L.) — in other words, profit from their celebrity — for one simple reason: Other students are allowed to.

The word "allowed" is comical. The NCAA, of which ND is a member, for years decided to restrict a subset of students from earning money based on their "celebrity" in part by arguing that the celebrity was the uniform they wore and not due to the individual themselves. And instead of acting on your convictions by leveraging the power of your position as NOTRE DAME to "allow" your student-athletes to earn this money by refusing to adhere to an arbitrary rule that materially damaged said subset of your students, you waited until the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that left no doubt. You know what we call a "vocal conviction" that lacks any action? We call it bullpoop.

Quote: If a college student is a talented artist or musician no one begrudges him the chance to make money from his skills.

So you said you are vocal in your conviction that student-athletes can "profit from their celebrity" but now you say that college students aren't begrudged the chance to "make money from their skills". Skills and celebrity are different things, and both are subjective, we'll get to why this matters in a moment.

Quote:And athletes should as far as possible have the opportunities other students enjoy.

"As far as possible" eh? Not weaselly at all and also interesting that you put this conditional here, instead of as part of your "simple reason" - so it's not really a simple reason then, is it? And who defines what is possible? I'm pretty sure that there are no restrictions on all the possible opportunities available for students that aren't athletes. So your conviction is that student-athletes should "capture the value" of their NIL like other students, but really no, not like that?

Quote: Unfortunately, the new N.I.L. rules have proven to be easy to abuse.

CITATION NEEDED.

Quote: To avoid the N.C.A.A. prohibition against directly paying athletic recruits, many schools funnel money to recruits under the guise of a supposed third-party licensing deal — regardless of whether a player’s name, image and likeness have any market value whatsoever.

By definition, just like the tuition you charge ND students, whatever rate you offer and someone accepts is the market value. Do they not teach economics at ND?

Quote: We must establish and enforce regulations that allow legitimate transactions while barring those that are recruiting enticements or pay-for-play.

Who's the arbiter of "legitimate transactions"? Jack Swarbrick? A committee that he personally approves of? The sheer arrogance of this is breathtaking. And also you just said student-athletes should have the same opportunities as non-athletes and that students like musicians and artists aren't begrudged the ability to make money on their skills - this seems like you specifically do begrudge student-athletes the ability to make money on their skills. Because the entire premise of a recruiting enticement or pay-for-play is based on receiving money FOR THEIR SKILLS.

--------------------------------

You can't have it both ways, Jack, though you certainly are trying to. Either you treat them fully like other students that go to your school, removing anything that looks like a condition of employment - e.g. time sheets, national letters of intent, restrictions on transferring due to athletics, rules prohibiting pay-to-play - or you are a professional sports league and thus you're going to get collective bargaining for the student-athletes as part of their employment.

For the record, I think what's going to happen is the former. It'll be a free-for-all, because that'll benefit those with the most money.

Yeah - the more I look back at Swarbrick’s statements, the more that I agree with you that he wants it both ways. Matt Brown had a great point in his newsletter today: on the one hand, Swarbrick criticized the NCAA for fighting amateurism for so long and effectively called it “not paying the babysitter”… but then says he wants “limited” federal regulation to say that student-athletes *aren’t* employees (so he still *doesn’t* want to pay the babysitter)! That’s neither “limited” regulation nor consistent with his critique of the NCAA.

Democracy and the free market are inherently messy. It’s not the place of anyone to say what compensation is “reasonable” for an athlete, particularly when these athletic departments have over $100 million in revenue per year and the Big Ten and SEC are signing $1 billion TV contracts.

Plus, this standard of what is “market value” for an athlete is inherently tied to the value of winning. Most of us wouldn’t recognize an NFL left tackle walking down the street (beyond just noticing a massive human being) and no one is paying money or turning on the TV to watch them play, yet that’s the highest-paid position in the NFL after the QB. Why? Because they’re the primary protector of the QB and you need your QB healthy to win games and ultimately drive value (both competitively and financially). So yeah, if that offensive lineman is a key to winning games (and I’d argue strength in the trenches is really where the top programs differentiate themselves more than in the skill positions), then their market value *should* be high.

In any event, it’s funny when people are rabid capitalists with their businesses but then suddenly become fans of even distributions of wages (or not paying wages at all) for their talent. It’s all so hypocritical.

I think the idea is to discern the difference between giving people money for something, and calling them "employees".

To use your example, you can pay a babysitter, but that does not make the baby sitter your "employee".

(03-24-2023 05:04 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 04:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 04:27 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  This article is so hypocritical and self-serving it's hilarious. Let's just zoom in on the core of the hypocrisy and thus undermine ND's entire argument:

Quote:We have been vocal in our conviction that student-athletes should be allowed to capture the value of the use of their name, image and likeness (N.I.L.) — in other words, profit from their celebrity — for one simple reason: Other students are allowed to. If a college student is a talented artist or musician no one begrudges him the chance to make money from his skills. And athletes should as far as possible have the opportunities other students enjoy.

Unfortunately, the new N.I.L. rules have proven to be easy to abuse. To avoid the N.C.A.A. prohibition against directly paying athletic recruits, many schools funnel money to recruits under the guise of a supposed third-party licensing deal — regardless of whether a player’s name, image and likeness have any market value whatsoever. We must establish and enforce regulations that allow legitimate transactions while barring those that are recruiting enticements or pay-for-play.

Should we go line by line here? Oh yes, Fire Joe Morgan style it IS!

Quote:We have been vocal in our conviction that student-athletes should be allowed to capture the value of the use of their name, image and likeness (N.I.L.) — in other words, profit from their celebrity — for one simple reason: Other students are allowed to.

The word "allowed" is comical. The NCAA, of which ND is a member, for years decided to restrict a subset of students from earning money based on their "celebrity" in part by arguing that the celebrity was the uniform they wore and not due to the individual themselves. And instead of acting on your convictions by leveraging the power of your position as NOTRE DAME to "allow" your student-athletes to earn this money by refusing to adhere to an arbitrary rule that materially damaged said subset of your students, you waited until the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that left no doubt. You know what we call a "vocal conviction" that lacks any action? We call it bullpoop.

Quote: If a college student is a talented artist or musician no one begrudges him the chance to make money from his skills.

So you said you are vocal in your conviction that student-athletes can "profit from their celebrity" but now you say that college students aren't begrudged the chance to "make money from their skills". Skills and celebrity are different things, and both are subjective, we'll get to why this matters in a moment.

Quote:And athletes should as far as possible have the opportunities other students enjoy.

"As far as possible" eh? Not weaselly at all and also interesting that you put this conditional here, instead of as part of your "simple reason" - so it's not really a simple reason then, is it? And who defines what is possible? I'm pretty sure that there are no restrictions on all the possible opportunities available for students that aren't athletes. So your conviction is that student-athletes should "capture the value" of their NIL like other students, but really no, not like that?

Quote: Unfortunately, the new N.I.L. rules have proven to be easy to abuse.

CITATION NEEDED.

Quote: To avoid the N.C.A.A. prohibition against directly paying athletic recruits, many schools funnel money to recruits under the guise of a supposed third-party licensing deal — regardless of whether a player’s name, image and likeness have any market value whatsoever.

By definition, just like the tuition you charge ND students, whatever rate you offer and someone accepts is the market value. Do they not teach economics at ND?

Quote: We must establish and enforce regulations that allow legitimate transactions while barring those that are recruiting enticements or pay-for-play.

Who's the arbiter of "legitimate transactions"? Jack Swarbrick? A committee that he personally approves of? The sheer arrogance of this is breathtaking. And also you just said student-athletes should have the same opportunities as non-athletes and that students like musicians and artists aren't begrudged the ability to make money on their skills - this seems like you specifically do begrudge student-athletes the ability to make money on their skills. Because the entire premise of a recruiting enticement or pay-for-play is based on receiving money FOR THEIR SKILLS.

--------------------------------

You can't have it both ways, Jack, though you certainly are trying to. Either you treat them fully like other students that go to your school, removing anything that looks like a condition of employment - e.g. time sheets, national letters of intent, restrictions on transferring due to athletics, rules prohibiting pay-to-play - or you are a professional sports league and thus you're going to get collective bargaining for the student-athletes as part of their employment.

For the record, I think what's going to happen is the former. It'll be a free-for-all, because that'll benefit those with the most money.

Yeah - the more I look back at Swarbrick’s statements, the more that I agree with you that he wants it both ways. Matt Brown had a great point in his newsletter today: on the one hand, Swarbrick criticized the NCAA for fighting amateurism for so long and effectively called it “not paying the babysitter”… but then says he wants “limited” federal regulation to say that student-athletes *aren’t* employees (so he still *doesn’t* want to pay the babysitter)! That’s neither “limited” regulation nor consistent with his critique of the NCAA.

Democracy and the free market are inherently messy. It’s not the place of anyone to say what compensation is “reasonable” for an athlete, particularly when these athletic departments have over $100 million in revenue per year and the Big Ten and SEC are signing $1 billion TV contracts.

Plus, this standard of what is “market value” for an athlete is inherently tied to the value of winning. Most of us wouldn’t recognize an NFL left tackle walking down the street (beyond just noticing a massive human being) and no one is paying money or turning on the TV to watch them play, yet that’s the highest-paid position in the NFL after the QB. Why? Because they’re the primary protector of the QB and you need your QB healthy to win games and ultimately drive value (both competitively and financially). So yeah, if that offensive lineman is a key to winning games (and I’d argue strength in the trenches is really where the top programs differentiate themselves more than in the skill positions), then their market value *should* be high.

In any event, it’s funny when people are rabid capitalists with their businesses but then suddenly become fans of even distributions of wages (or not paying wages at all) for their talent. It’s all so hypocritical.

I think the idea is to discern the difference between giving people money for something, and calling them "employees".

To use your example, you can pay a babysitter, but that does not make the baby sitter your "employee".

I don't think anyone is making the argument that paying a person for a service makes that person your employee.

You are paying a babysitter because you are receiving a service in return. I'm not a lawyer, but I think legally that paying the neighborhood teenager to watch your kid is akin to hiring an independent contractor, whereas you could also pay a babysitting service to provide a sitter for you (in which case the actual babysitter has some form of employment relationship with the babysitting service entity). We just, as a society, have decided that we are not going to intervene in or regulate the market for independent contractor babysitters.

(03-24-2023 05:31 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 05:04 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 04:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 04:27 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  This article is so hypocritical and self-serving it's hilarious. Let's just zoom in on the core of the hypocrisy and thus undermine ND's entire argument:

Quote:We have been vocal in our conviction that student-athletes should be allowed to capture the value of the use of their name, image and likeness (N.I.L.) — in other words, profit from their celebrity — for one simple reason: Other students are allowed to. If a college student is a talented artist or musician no one begrudges him the chance to make money from his skills. And athletes should as far as possible have the opportunities other students enjoy.

Unfortunately, the new N.I.L. rules have proven to be easy to abuse. To avoid the N.C.A.A. prohibition against directly paying athletic recruits, many schools funnel money to recruits under the guise of a supposed third-party licensing deal — regardless of whether a player’s name, image and likeness have any market value whatsoever. We must establish and enforce regulations that allow legitimate transactions while barring those that are recruiting enticements or pay-for-play.

Should we go line by line here? Oh yes, Fire Joe Morgan style it IS!

Quote:We have been vocal in our conviction that student-athletes should be allowed to capture the value of the use of their name, image and likeness (N.I.L.) — in other words, profit from their celebrity — for one simple reason: Other students are allowed to.

The word "allowed" is comical. The NCAA, of which ND is a member, for years decided to restrict a subset of students from earning money based on their "celebrity" in part by arguing that the celebrity was the uniform they wore and not due to the individual themselves. And instead of acting on your convictions by leveraging the power of your position as NOTRE DAME to "allow" your student-athletes to earn this money by refusing to adhere to an arbitrary rule that materially damaged said subset of your students, you waited until the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that left no doubt. You know what we call a "vocal conviction" that lacks any action? We call it bullpoop.

Quote: If a college student is a talented artist or musician no one begrudges him the chance to make money from his skills.

So you said you are vocal in your conviction that student-athletes can "profit from their celebrity" but now you say that college students aren't begrudged the chance to "make money from their skills". Skills and celebrity are different things, and both are subjective, we'll get to why this matters in a moment.

Quote:And athletes should as far as possible have the opportunities other students enjoy.

"As far as possible" eh? Not weaselly at all and also interesting that you put this conditional here, instead of as part of your "simple reason" - so it's not really a simple reason then, is it? And who defines what is possible? I'm pretty sure that there are no restrictions on all the possible opportunities available for students that aren't athletes. So your conviction is that student-athletes should "capture the value" of their NIL like other students, but really no, not like that?

Quote: Unfortunately, the new N.I.L. rules have proven to be easy to abuse.

CITATION NEEDED.

Quote: To avoid the N.C.A.A. prohibition against directly paying athletic recruits, many schools funnel money to recruits under the guise of a supposed third-party licensing deal — regardless of whether a player’s name, image and likeness have any market value whatsoever.

By definition, just like the tuition you charge ND students, whatever rate you offer and someone accepts is the market value. Do they not teach economics at ND?

Quote: We must establish and enforce regulations that allow legitimate transactions while barring those that are recruiting enticements or pay-for-play.

Who's the arbiter of "legitimate transactions"? Jack Swarbrick? A committee that he personally approves of? The sheer arrogance of this is breathtaking. And also you just said student-athletes should have the same opportunities as non-athletes and that students like musicians and artists aren't begrudged the ability to make money on their skills - this seems like you specifically do begrudge student-athletes the ability to make money on their skills. Because the entire premise of a recruiting enticement or pay-for-play is based on receiving money FOR THEIR SKILLS.

--------------------------------

You can't have it both ways, Jack, though you certainly are trying to. Either you treat them fully like other students that go to your school, removing anything that looks like a condition of employment - e.g. time sheets, national letters of intent, restrictions on transferring due to athletics, rules prohibiting pay-to-play - or you are a professional sports league and thus you're going to get collective bargaining for the student-athletes as part of their employment.

For the record, I think what's going to happen is the former. It'll be a free-for-all, because that'll benefit those with the most money.

Yeah - the more I look back at Swarbrick’s statements, the more that I agree with you that he wants it both ways. Matt Brown had a great point in his newsletter today: on the one hand, Swarbrick criticized the NCAA for fighting amateurism for so long and effectively called it “not paying the babysitter”… but then says he wants “limited” federal regulation to say that student-athletes *aren’t* employees (so he still *doesn’t* want to pay the babysitter)! That’s neither “limited” regulation nor consistent with his critique of the NCAA.

Democracy and the free market are inherently messy. It’s not the place of anyone to say what compensation is “reasonable” for an athlete, particularly when these athletic departments have over $100 million in revenue per year and the Big Ten and SEC are signing $1 billion TV contracts.

Plus, this standard of what is “market value” for an athlete is inherently tied to the value of winning. Most of us wouldn’t recognize an NFL left tackle walking down the street (beyond just noticing a massive human being) and no one is paying money or turning on the TV to watch them play, yet that’s the highest-paid position in the NFL after the QB. Why? Because they’re the primary protector of the QB and you need your QB healthy to win games and ultimately drive value (both competitively and financially). So yeah, if that offensive lineman is a key to winning games (and I’d argue strength in the trenches is really where the top programs differentiate themselves more than in the skill positions), then their market value *should* be high.

In any event, it’s funny when people are rabid capitalists with their businesses but then suddenly become fans of even distributions of wages (or not paying wages at all) for their talent. It’s all so hypocritical.

I think the idea is to discern the difference between giving people money for something, and calling them "employees".

To use your example, you can pay a babysitter, but that does not make the baby sitter your "employee".

I don't think anyone is making the argument that paying a person for a service makes that person your employee.

You are paying a babysitter because you are receiving a service in return. I'm not a lawyer, but I think legally that paying the neighborhood teenager to watch your kid is akin to hiring an independent contractor, whereas you could also pay a babysitting service to provide a sitter for you (in which case the actual babysitter has some form of employment relationship with the babysitting service entity). We just, as a society, have decided that we are not going to intervene in or regulate the market for independent contractor babysitters.

bolded - I believe that's the point that Mr. Swarbrick would like clarified.

(03-24-2023 05:49 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 05:31 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 05:04 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 04:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 04:27 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  This article is so hypocritical and self-serving it's hilarious. Let's just zoom in on the core of the hypocrisy and thus undermine ND's entire argument:


Should we go line by line here? Oh yes, Fire Joe Morgan style it IS!


The word "allowed" is comical. The NCAA, of which ND is a member, for years decided to restrict a subset of students from earning money based on their "celebrity" in part by arguing that the celebrity was the uniform they wore and not due to the individual themselves. And instead of acting on your convictions by leveraging the power of your position as NOTRE DAME to "allow" your student-athletes to earn this money by refusing to adhere to an arbitrary rule that materially damaged said subset of your students, you waited until the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that left no doubt. You know what we call a "vocal conviction" that lacks any action? We call it bullpoop.


So you said you are vocal in your conviction that student-athletes can "profit from their celebrity" but now you say that college students aren't begrudged the chance to "make money from their skills". Skills and celebrity are different things, and both are subjective, we'll get to why this matters in a moment.


"As far as possible" eh? Not weaselly at all and also interesting that you put this conditional here, instead of as part of your "simple reason" - so it's not really a simple reason then, is it? And who defines what is possible? I'm pretty sure that there are no restrictions on all the possible opportunities available for students that aren't athletes. So your conviction is that student-athletes should "capture the value" of their NIL like other students, but really no, not like that?


CITATION NEEDED.


By definition, just like the tuition you charge ND students, whatever rate you offer and someone accepts is the market value. Do they not teach economics at ND?


Who's the arbiter of "legitimate transactions"? Jack Swarbrick? A committee that he personally approves of? The sheer arrogance of this is breathtaking. And also you just said student-athletes should have the same opportunities as non-athletes and that students like musicians and artists aren't begrudged the ability to make money on their skills - this seems like you specifically do begrudge student-athletes the ability to make money on their skills. Because the entire premise of a recruiting enticement or pay-for-play is based on receiving money FOR THEIR SKILLS.

--------------------------------

You can't have it both ways, Jack, though you certainly are trying to. Either you treat them fully like other students that go to your school, removing anything that looks like a condition of employment - e.g. time sheets, national letters of intent, restrictions on transferring due to athletics, rules prohibiting pay-to-play - or you are a professional sports league and thus you're going to get collective bargaining for the student-athletes as part of their employment.

For the record, I think what's going to happen is the former. It'll be a free-for-all, because that'll benefit those with the most money.

Yeah - the more I look back at Swarbrick’s statements, the more that I agree with you that he wants it both ways. Matt Brown had a great point in his newsletter today: on the one hand, Swarbrick criticized the NCAA for fighting amateurism for so long and effectively called it “not paying the babysitter”… but then says he wants “limited” federal regulation to say that student-athletes *aren’t* employees (so he still *doesn’t* want to pay the babysitter)! That’s neither “limited” regulation nor consistent with his critique of the NCAA.

Democracy and the free market are inherently messy. It’s not the place of anyone to say what compensation is “reasonable” for an athlete, particularly when these athletic departments have over $100 million in revenue per year and the Big Ten and SEC are signing $1 billion TV contracts.

Plus, this standard of what is “market value” for an athlete is inherently tied to the value of winning. Most of us wouldn’t recognize an NFL left tackle walking down the street (beyond just noticing a massive human being) and no one is paying money or turning on the TV to watch them play, yet that’s the highest-paid position in the NFL after the QB. Why? Because they’re the primary protector of the QB and you need your QB healthy to win games and ultimately drive value (both competitively and financially). So yeah, if that offensive lineman is a key to winning games (and I’d argue strength in the trenches is really where the top programs differentiate themselves more than in the skill positions), then their market value *should* be high.

In any event, it’s funny when people are rabid capitalists with their businesses but then suddenly become fans of even distributions of wages (or not paying wages at all) for their talent. It’s all so hypocritical.

I think the idea is to discern the difference between giving people money for something, and calling them "employees".

To use your example, you can pay a babysitter, but that does not make the baby sitter your "employee".

I don't think anyone is making the argument that paying a person for a service makes that person your employee.

You are paying a babysitter because you are receiving a service in return. I'm not a lawyer, but I think legally that paying the neighborhood teenager to watch your kid is akin to hiring an independent contractor, whereas you could also pay a babysitting service to provide a sitter for you (in which case the actual babysitter has some form of employment relationship with the babysitting service entity). We just, as a society, have decided that we are not going to intervene in or regulate the market for independent contractor babysitters.

bolded - I believe that's the point that Mr. Swarbrick would like clarified.

I didn't get that takeaway from the article at all. Again, not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the argument being made is not that student-athletes are employees due to the scholarships they receive, but due to the conditions required to maintain that scholarship looking exactly like workplace conditions. No one's arguing (that I'm aware of, anyway) that physics geniuses who get scholarships for their smarts are employees of the university that extended the scholarship, even though they may have to maintain a 3.0 GPA (or whatever) to continue receiving the scholarship.

One more bone to pick with Jack:

Quote:At Notre Dame, revenue from football and men’s basketball goes to support 24 other varsity sports, including, most important, women’s sports — most of which did not exist on college campuses before 1972.

Since the advent of Title IX 50 years ago, no development in college athletics has been more significant than the rise of women’s sports. While many female athletes have benefited from N.I.L. deals, those who press for giving a higher percentage of revenue to football and men’s basketball players should understand that such a decision could endanger women’s athletics. At Notre Dame, that encompasses more than 300 female student-athletes, all of whom work just as hard as their male counterparts to compete at the highest levels in their sport and in the classroom.

1st - Why is it most important that women's sports are subsidized by football and MBB vs the other non-rev men's sports being subsidized?
2nd - Can you not fund those "most important" sports with other revenue sources?
3rd - To what standard do those "most important" sports have to be funded to?
4th - Do the athletes whose performances and existence generate that revenue have any say in the decision to subsidize the experiences of unrelated individuals?
5th - Can you define "could endanger" so the readers can clearly understand the true consequences of a decision to remove the subsidy?

Hell of an argument to throw out there - "If we do not forcefully and unilaterally decide to allocate revenue from the largely african-american student-athletes that comprise our FB and MBB programs then we will choose to cause damage to women's athletics."

(03-24-2023 05:49 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 05:31 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 05:04 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 04:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 04:27 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  This article is so hypocritical and self-serving it's hilarious. Let's just zoom in on the core of the hypocrisy and thus undermine ND's entire argument:


Should we go line by line here? Oh yes, Fire Joe Morgan style it IS!


The word "allowed" is comical. The NCAA, of which ND is a member, for years decided to restrict a subset of students from earning money based on their "celebrity" in part by arguing that the celebrity was the uniform they wore and not due to the individual themselves. And instead of acting on your convictions by leveraging the power of your position as NOTRE DAME to "allow" your student-athletes to earn this money by refusing to adhere to an arbitrary rule that materially damaged said subset of your students, you waited until the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that left no doubt. You know what we call a "vocal conviction" that lacks any action? We call it bullpoop.


So you said you are vocal in your conviction that student-athletes can "profit from their celebrity" but now you say that college students aren't begrudged the chance to "make money from their skills". Skills and celebrity are different things, and both are subjective, we'll get to why this matters in a moment.


"As far as possible" eh? Not weaselly at all and also interesting that you put this conditional here, instead of as part of your "simple reason" - so it's not really a simple reason then, is it? And who defines what is possible? I'm pretty sure that there are no restrictions on all the possible opportunities available for students that aren't athletes. So your conviction is that student-athletes should "capture the value" of their NIL like other students, but really no, not like that?


CITATION NEEDED.


By definition, just like the tuition you charge ND students, whatever rate you offer and someone accepts is the market value. Do they not teach economics at ND?


Who's the arbiter of "legitimate transactions"? Jack Swarbrick? A committee that he personally approves of? The sheer arrogance of this is breathtaking. And also you just said student-athletes should have the same opportunities as non-athletes and that students like musicians and artists aren't begrudged the ability to make money on their skills - this seems like you specifically do begrudge student-athletes the ability to make money on their skills. Because the entire premise of a recruiting enticement or pay-for-play is based on receiving money FOR THEIR SKILLS.

--------------------------------

You can't have it both ways, Jack, though you certainly are trying to. Either you treat them fully like other students that go to your school, removing anything that looks like a condition of employment - e.g. time sheets, national letters of intent, restrictions on transferring due to athletics, rules prohibiting pay-to-play - or you are a professional sports league and thus you're going to get collective bargaining for the student-athletes as part of their employment.

For the record, I think what's going to happen is the former. It'll be a free-for-all, because that'll benefit those with the most money.

Yeah - the more I look back at Swarbrick’s statements, the more that I agree with you that he wants it both ways. Matt Brown had a great point in his newsletter today: on the one hand, Swarbrick criticized the NCAA for fighting amateurism for so long and effectively called it “not paying the babysitter”… but then says he wants “limited” federal regulation to say that student-athletes *aren’t* employees (so he still *doesn’t* want to pay the babysitter)! That’s neither “limited” regulation nor consistent with his critique of the NCAA.

Democracy and the free market are inherently messy. It’s not the place of anyone to say what compensation is “reasonable” for an athlete, particularly when these athletic departments have over $100 million in revenue per year and the Big Ten and SEC are signing $1 billion TV contracts.

Plus, this standard of what is “market value” for an athlete is inherently tied to the value of winning. Most of us wouldn’t recognize an NFL left tackle walking down the street (beyond just noticing a massive human being) and no one is paying money or turning on the TV to watch them play, yet that’s the highest-paid position in the NFL after the QB. Why? Because they’re the primary protector of the QB and you need your QB healthy to win games and ultimately drive value (both competitively and financially). So yeah, if that offensive lineman is a key to winning games (and I’d argue strength in the trenches is really where the top programs differentiate themselves more than in the skill positions), then their market value *should* be high.

In any event, it’s funny when people are rabid capitalists with their businesses but then suddenly become fans of even distributions of wages (or not paying wages at all) for their talent. It’s all so hypocritical.

I think the idea is to discern the difference between giving people money for something, and calling them "employees".

To use your example, you can pay a babysitter, but that does not make the baby sitter your "employee".

I don't think anyone is making the argument that paying a person for a service makes that person your employee.

You are paying a babysitter because you are receiving a service in return. I'm not a lawyer, but I think legally that paying the neighborhood teenager to watch your kid is akin to hiring an independent contractor, whereas you could also pay a babysitting service to provide a sitter for you (in which case the actual babysitter has some form of employment relationship with the babysitting service entity). We just, as a society, have decided that we are not going to intervene in or regulate the market for independent contractor babysitters.

bolded - I believe that's the point that Mr. Swarbrick would like clarified.

There are plenty of established legal standards in determining an employee versus a contractor (and even if you are able to deem someone a contractor, the employer could still be obligated to provide that contractor with employment benefits like health care depending on the number of hours worked).

Swarbrick *knows* he’s not going to get the answer to that question that he likes in those established legal standards through the courts. He’s essentially stating this outright in the opinion pieces. Swarbrick doesn’t want a clarification, but rather to outright change the law specifically with respect to student athletes. Whether that’s a good thing or not is debatable, but it’s disingenuous for him to call that “limited” federal regulation. He’s asking for student athletes to be held to a different definition of an employee than anyone else in America.

(03-24-2023 05:58 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 05:49 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 05:31 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 05:04 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 04:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah - the more I look back at Swarbrick’s statements, the more that I agree with you that he wants it both ways. Matt Brown had a great point in his newsletter today: on the one hand, Swarbrick criticized the NCAA for fighting amateurism for so long and effectively called it “not paying the babysitter”… but then says he wants “limited” federal regulation to say that student-athletes *aren’t* employees (so he still *doesn’t* want to pay the babysitter)! That’s neither “limited” regulation nor consistent with his critique of the NCAA.

Democracy and the free market are inherently messy. It’s not the place of anyone to say what compensation is “reasonable” for an athlete, particularly when these athletic departments have over $100 million in revenue per year and the Big Ten and SEC are signing $1 billion TV contracts.

Plus, this standard of what is “market value” for an athlete is inherently tied to the value of winning. Most of us wouldn’t recognize an NFL left tackle walking down the street (beyond just noticing a massive human being) and no one is paying money or turning on the TV to watch them play, yet that’s the highest-paid position in the NFL after the QB. Why? Because they’re the primary protector of the QB and you need your QB healthy to win games and ultimately drive value (both competitively and financially). So yeah, if that offensive lineman is a key to winning games (and I’d argue strength in the trenches is really where the top programs differentiate themselves more than in the skill positions), then their market value *should* be high.

In any event, it’s funny when people are rabid capitalists with their businesses but then suddenly become fans of even distributions of wages (or not paying wages at all) for their talent. It’s all so hypocritical.

I think the idea is to discern the difference between giving people money for something, and calling them "employees".

To use your example, you can pay a babysitter, but that does not make the baby sitter your "employee".

I don't think anyone is making the argument that paying a person for a service makes that person your employee.

You are paying a babysitter because you are receiving a service in return. I'm not a lawyer, but I think legally that paying the neighborhood teenager to watch your kid is akin to hiring an independent contractor, whereas you could also pay a babysitting service to provide a sitter for you (in which case the actual babysitter has some form of employment relationship with the babysitting service entity). We just, as a society, have decided that we are not going to intervene in or regulate the market for independent contractor babysitters.

bolded - I believe that's the point that Mr. Swarbrick would like clarified.

I didn't get that takeaway from the article at all. Again, not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the argument being made is not that student-athletes are employees due to the scholarships they receive, but due to the conditions required to maintain that scholarship looking exactly like workplace conditions. No one's arguing (that I'm aware of, anyway) that physics geniuses who get scholarships for their smarts are employees of the university that extended the scholarship, even though they may have to maintain a 3.0 GPA (or whatever) to continue receiving the scholarship.

They're not just talking about scholarships.

There are more than a few ways in which money moves around sports and athletes. (Money's like water...)

And when athletes are paid, would they be paid as a service? or merely as a profit-sharing agreement?

From a university's point of view, they could argue (and I'm not saying he is, though others have) that sports is a benefit (a service) provided to athletes. That Universities shoulder the costs, and therefore receive any profits, which are then funneled back into university costs (supposedly : )

The problem, in my opinion, is the money's just gotten to be too big and the expectations of the athletes so high, that that perspective appears a bit tarnished. And from an outside observer, seems waaay too much like it's really a facade for what is actually pro-sports.

Pro-sports had similar growing pains which led to some ugly strikes (sport infrastructure provider vs players). And The Olympics had some growing pains on the other side of it (pro vs amateur).

I dunno how this will resolve.

But the powers-that-be better be very careful or they will kill college sports.

And I really hope that that does not happen.

(03-24-2023 02:28 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 01:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 03:13 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 01:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-23-2023 09:11 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Please read the article linked. The topic is a California bill under discussion known as the College Athlete Protection Act. Here, two points.

(1) Administrator and coach salaries remain relevant. According to the proposed law:

Athletic directors could be suspended for “a minimum of three years” if they eliminate entire sports, roster spots or aggregate scholarship amounts “while paying an athletic administrator or coach an annual salary of $500,000 or more.”

(2) Student athletes can—at least in theory—be entitled to work/study payments, revenue sharing, and other forms of compensation apart from legal 'employee' status.

The California bill offers an important notation: Payments to athletes should “not serve as evidence of an employment relationship.”

-----

To understand what Mr Swarbrick is supporting and what he's expressing concerns about, one needs to be familiar with the content of the College Athlete Protection Act and relevant pending suits. The latest developments are not a simple either-or matter of players getting money or not getting money, and you're either for or against. That is indeed a 1970s understanding. It's not where we are.

Mr Swarbrick, a lawyer, has familiarised himself with current legal developments before going national. He is calling for help at this level to clarify some key issues for what remain educational institutions. He is choosing his words carefully. If one intends to debate him, one needs first to understand him.

Enjoy.

https://www.si.com/college/2023/01/19/ca...l-ncaa-nil

What type of clown wrote that bill?! Who is going to suspend the athletic directors? The state? Are they going to convene the legislature? This could clearly not apply to private schools.

Payments don't impact employment relationship? Sorry, federal law trumps state law.

There are such morons in politics these days. Where do they dredge up these people?

I knew you'd be interested. :)

Re a couple of questions you posed that need not be rhetorical:

1
The university itself would suspend athletic directors or find itself out of compliance with the law.

This means that if a school cancels women's soccer in order to make budget room to pay football players, the soccer players can sue the school. If the AD isn't suspended and anyone working in the athletic department is still making US$500,000+ annually, the soccer players win. Juries will decide what that means.

Moral of the story: If your department needs to tighten belts to pay players, tighten belts first around administrative and staff waists—not your students on scholarship who play other sports.

2
Today, on any college campus, you can find employees who are paid salaries, independent contractors who are paid fees, and students who are paid work/study compensation, scholarships, stipends, grants, and other forms of financial aid. All these terms refer to someone getting money—but they mean different things. They represent different relationships with the university. Being an 'employee' is not the only legal way on campus to be paid something.

In practical terms, a meaningful difference between revenue sharing for student athletes and employment status of some kind may, in the long run, be difficult to uphold—given the huge amounts of cash generated by revenue sports right now. But the Act as written expressly declines to mandate erasure of the difference. The question is left open. Case law elsewhere can decide.

A number of related matters—including athlete support of the bill—are detailed in the article.

https://www.si.com/college/2023/01/19/ca...l-ncaa-nil

If it is saying it is a contractor and not an employee, that is still subject to IRS interpretation. What a state law says is irrelevant.

The suspension scenario is pretty stupid. Nobody is going to drop a sport without the president ultimately making the decision. Scenario just makes no sense in the real world.

The state law doesn't say. By design. That's the point.

Did you read the article?

You clearly don't understand my point.

(03-24-2023 06:04 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  One more bone to pick with Jack:

Quote:At Notre Dame, revenue from football and men’s basketball goes to support 24 other varsity sports, including, most important, women’s sports — most of which did not exist on college campuses before 1972.

Since the advent of Title IX 50 years ago, no development in college athletics has been more significant than the rise of women’s sports. While many female athletes have benefited from N.I.L. deals, those who press for giving a higher percentage of revenue to football and men’s basketball players should understand that such a decision could endanger women’s athletics. At Notre Dame, that encompasses more than 300 female student-athletes, all of whom work just as hard as their male counterparts to compete at the highest levels in their sport and in the classroom.

1st - Why is it most important that women's sports are subsidized by football and MBB vs the other non-rev men's sports being subsidized?
2nd - Can you not fund those "most important" sports with other revenue sources?
3rd - To what standard do those "most important" sports have to be funded to?
4th - Do the athletes whose performances and existence generate that revenue have any say in the decision to subsidize the experiences of unrelated individuals?
5th - Can you define "could endanger" so the readers can clearly understand the true consequences of a decision to remove the subsidy?

Hell of an argument to throw out there - "If we do not forcefully and unilaterally decide to allocate revenue from the largely african-american student-athletes that comprise our FB and MBB programs then we will choose to cause damage to women's athletics."

I think his point is that they are between a rock and a hard place on title IX. If they pay players they get in a bind on Title IX.

Matt Brown had a succinct conclusion about the NYTimes OpEd, saying that this is all about defining “amateurism”: “Swarbrick seems to want to retire the term completely…but, in my reading, is still arguing for some of its vestiges.”

(03-24-2023 09:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Matt Brown had a succinct conclusion about the NYTimes OpEd, saying that this is all about defining “amateurism”: “Swarbrick seems to want to retire the term completely…but, in my reading, is still arguing for some of its vestiges.”

A fair criticism if Mr Swarbrick hopes to keep athlete compensation limited to NIL. Most observers would say that horse has already sailed on the ship that left the barn. If that's what you want, though, and you're the Notre Dame AD, now is the time to send up a flare—with 6 of 9 Supreme Court justices Catholic and revenue sharing in the pipe.

If salary caps for ADs and coaches are put on the table, a conversation can at least start. Are we discussing a mutual vow of poverty on campus? That could get a hearing. Budget limits for sports? With off-campus minor/major pro franchises offering a show-me-the-money track to athletes and coaches? Academia would be all for it. Sure, let's do it, make it happen.

Short of that, abandoning the old 'amateur' stance doesn't have to mean universities are now in the business of running commercial franchises and that's that. Universities still have students at the center of their mission. It's right and proper that people are calling attention to this mission.

(03-24-2023 10:34 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 09:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Matt Brown had a succinct conclusion about the NYTimes OpEd, saying that this is all about defining “amateurism”: “Swarbrick seems to want to retire the term completely…but, in my reading, is still arguing for some of its vestiges.”

A fair criticism if Mr Swarbrick hopes to keep athlete compensation limited to NIL. Most observers would say that horse has already sailed on the ship that left the barn. If that's what you want, though, and you're the Notre Dame AD, now is the time to send up a flare—with 6 of 9 Supreme Court justices Catholic and revenue sharing in the pipe.

If salary caps for ADs and coaches are put on the table, a conversation can at least start. Are we discussing a mutual vow of poverty on campus? That could get a hearing. Budget limits for sports? With off-campus minor/major pro franchises offering a show-me-the-money track to athletes and coaches? Academia would be all for it. Sure, let's do it, make it happen.

Short of that, abandoning the old 'amateur' stance doesn't have to mean universities are now in the business of running commercial franchises and that's that. Universities still have students at the center of their mission. It's right and proper that people are calling attention to this mission.

Appeals to Catholicism won’t help Swarbrick’s & Father Jenkins’ arguments. Swarbrick has a huge conflict of interest…as an employee of ND he can personally earn $3M annually based on the skills of ND football players, while arguing that ND athletes themselves don’t deserve to be employees. Moralizing about the tradition and uniqueness of college athletics, while enabling a system that makes him rich. The hypocrisy is obvious.

College athletics at ND is absolutely a commercial enterprise. How else can you explain getting rid of the longtime basketball coach and spending $30M on his replacement?

(03-24-2023 09:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 06:04 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  One more bone to pick with Jack:

Quote:At Notre Dame, revenue from football and men’s basketball goes to support 24 other varsity sports, including, most important, women’s sports — most of which did not exist on college campuses before 1972.

Since the advent of Title IX 50 years ago, no development in college athletics has been more significant than the rise of women’s sports. While many female athletes have benefited from N.I.L. deals, those who press for giving a higher percentage of revenue to football and men’s basketball players should understand that such a decision could endanger women’s athletics. At Notre Dame, that encompasses more than 300 female student-athletes, all of whom work just as hard as their male counterparts to compete at the highest levels in their sport and in the classroom.

1st - Why is it most important that women's sports are subsidized by football and MBB vs the other non-rev men's sports being subsidized?
2nd - Can you not fund those "most important" sports with other revenue sources?
3rd - To what standard do those "most important" sports have to be funded to?
4th - Do the athletes whose performances and existence generate that revenue have any say in the decision to subsidize the experiences of unrelated individuals?
5th - Can you define "could endanger" so the readers can clearly understand the true consequences of a decision to remove the subsidy?

Hell of an argument to throw out there - "If we do not forcefully and unilaterally decide to allocate revenue from the largely african-american student-athletes that comprise our FB and MBB programs then we will choose to cause damage to women's athletics."

I think his point is that they are between a rock and a hard place on title IX. If they pay players they get in a bind on Title IX.

On that part, yes, I agree.

It’s fair for the colleges to seek a clarification in the regulations if they need to pay players directly to comply with employment laws on the one hand but, by doing so, either violate Title IX or Title VII on the other hand.

If that were the extent of the argument, then that’s reasonable. Colleges shouldn’t be put into a double jeopardy situation.

I just recoil at the more emotionally based “the colleges aren’t minor leagues” arguments. They’ve been minor leagues for a very long time in my mind.