CSNbbs

Read this article at SB Nation and only one item out of 11 deals with the so-called pay-for-play.

(03-27-2014 08:11 PM)Rube Dali Wrote: [ -> ]Read this article at SB Nation and only one item out of 11 deals with the so-called pay-for-play.

This all seems pretty reasonable to me.

(03-27-2014 08:51 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2014 08:11 PM)Rube Dali Wrote: [ -> ]Read this article at SB Nation and only one item out of 11 deals with the so-called pay-for-play.

This all seems pretty reasonable to me.

It always sounds reasonable at the beginning.

(03-28-2014 07:31 AM)CardinalZen Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2014 08:51 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2014 08:11 PM)Rube Dali Wrote: [ -> ]Read this article at SB Nation and only one item out of 11 deals with the so-called pay-for-play.

This all seems pretty reasonable to me.

It always sounds reasonable at the beginning.

And this is what the Northwestern players want. The list will be different at other schools.

I assume the push to unionize college players is the same as every other union push - new sources of union dues and PAC money.

And actually, they would destroy the NCAA with some of these. And an individual school could do nothing with regard to a lot of these requests.
4 of these things the NCAA is already making an effort to do. The increased scholarship $ is also something they are trying to pass. A couple others most schools do. So really there are just 4 items.
#11 is to basically allow free agency for athletes. That would lead to a mess for the athletes as well as the schools as recruiting would never end. But the current system does need some loosening of the rules where a jerk of a coach can mess with a player. I think ST. Joe's had an egregious example last year.
#9 would deny the NCAA the ability to punish schools, only the coaches and particular players, who generally would have already graduated. So basically it would be free season for violators.
#5 says if they don't perform athletically, they still get an academic scholarship if they meet academic standards.
Yanking scholarships is abused and I like the idea of a 4 year scholarship (which the NCAA has passed optionally), but why should they necessarily get a free ride if they aren't doing the thing that got them the scholarship? Would a musician get a full scholarship if they quit the music program?
#8 is basically the professionalism question. Allowing endorsements is a box of worms. With boosters signing players for endorsements, it would become professional. It would be an underhanded way of professionalism with lots of shady deals and broken promises.

They may say it not about pay for play, but in order to unionize you need to be an employee. Now, they are consider an employee, they changed their precious scholarship to income per the IRS code. They actually screwed themselves from a 70K scholarship to being paid just above minimum wage. Good Luck!

(03-28-2014 08:41 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]They may say it not about pay for play, but in order to unionize you need to be an employee. Now, they are consider an employee, they changed their precious scholarship to income per the IRS code. They actually screwed themselves from a 70K scholarship to being paid just above minimum wage. Good Luck!

Why not a scholarship for the "student" and a paycheck for the "athlete"?

(03-28-2014 09:51 AM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2014 08:41 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]They may say it not about pay for play, but in order to unionize you need to be an employee. Now, they are consider an employee, they changed their precious scholarship to income per the IRS code. They actually screwed themselves from a 70K scholarship to being paid just above minimum wage. Good Luck!

Why not a scholarship for the "student" and a paycheck for the "athlete"?

Because Alabama would have to take the ATM wired into the university bank account out of Saban's office to pay higher amounts of money to the athletes.

It's for increased federal Tax Revenue.

(03-28-2014 07:31 AM)CardinalZen Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2014 08:51 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2014 08:11 PM)Rube Dali Wrote: [ -> ]Read this article at SB Nation and only one item out of 11 deals with the so-called pay-for-play.

This all seems pretty reasonable to me.

It always sounds reasonable at the beginning.

You got that right. In my seven decades on this planet I have seen a lot of changes that were initiated for the noblest of reasons. And none of them adequately took into account the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Some consequences that are unintended are also unforeseen - maybe even unforeseeable. In this case, I think the NCAA member schools have foreseen - and dreaded - the likely consequences of a ruling like the one issued by this NLRB judge. While the legal battle in this specific case will plod through the courts for at least a couple of years, the genie is now out of the bottle, and we'll never get it back in.

Do scholarship athletes meet all the criteria for being considered paid employees? Of course, they do. This judge didn't have to use any twisted legal arguments to reach the conclusion he did. Any first year law student could have connected the legal dots on this issue. The defendants in this case didn't really make any legal argument to rebut the plaintiffs. Their defense was basically "we don't look at student-athletes that way".

So, there will be unintended consequences. How bad can it get? The biggest problem I see is that the legal arguments make no distinction between P5 football players and field hockey players. If receiving a scholarship in exchange for performing athletic services creates an employer-employee relationship, it does so for all scholarship athletes. The fact that those services financially benefit the employer more in some sports than in others is irrelevant.

For the "Higher Resource Group", however many schools that encompasses, "grossing up" the payment of tuition and room and board, etc. by paying a football player enough cash to cover the tax liability he now has as an employee is very affordable. More so for men's basketball. But the less well-heeled members of the NCAA, who are already operating their athletic departments in the red, it's out of the question.

But even for the HRG, extending that to all scholarship athletes is out of the question for all but a few schools. As a result, I could foresee a future in which the HRG remove football and men's basketball from under the schools' umbrella, and just acknowledge them as being "unrelated business activities" subject to taxation according to existing laws and regulations. Having done that, they will simply do away with all athletic scholarships, just like the Ivy League did years ago.

It's hard for me to estimate how much that will save the schools. But I'm guessing something in the $8-10 billion per year range. And by "save" I mean shift to the families of athletes in Olympic sports. I would also guess that the schools would realize even more savings by eliminating many of those sports altogether. Why would we imagine schools would keep funding sports that they did not sponsor until Title IX forced them to?

Will football survive outside the HRG? I'm guessing it would. It survives in the Ivy League and at all levels of the NCAA. Football is a major part of America's self-image. Baseball and basketball, too. But field hockey? Water polo? Even soccer? Not so much.

I used to think I wouldn't see these changes in my lifetime. Now, I'm not so sure.