CSNbbs

Full Version: Cheating in CFB
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
I'd bet my dinner this thread will go off the rails, but here goes...

Let me deliver a punch line, first:

Is there more cheating in American marriages OR in CFB transfers? (this is a metaphorical question).

Anyway, this article suggest that cheating abounds among the power schools (surprised? - not me) and that tampering is a way of life.

Now, with looser transfer rules, tampering should be on steroids...

And this is a better punch line from the article:

""You play a team now and you don't go shake the coach's hand on the other side," Brown said. "You go shake the great tight end's hand. 'Hey, you look great, man. Aw, man, we should have recruited you. Wish you were here.'"

If I were a lawyer I'd suggest that the coach eliminate the last sentence... 03-idea
Otherwise, deniability.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ree-agency
"With one player, last season I got four calls from four different conferences," the high school coach said. "'Is he happy? They're not using him like we would use him.' These are SEC, Big Ten and some big-name schools."

This reminds me of an ole saying of Chris Matthews, (can't remember the exact words) but like the piano player at the brothel claiming not to know what is going on upstairs...

Some things are hard to deny with a straight face.
The most salient point in the article was made by the P5 assistant who urged MAC schools to stay away from HS kids. Why develop them to All MAC only to watch them head to more prominent programs? He thinks we would be better off accepting kids not getting playing time in the B1G instead and get the customary 2-3 years out of them instead. He is most likely correct.

As to the crux of your post, cheating, I would have hoped the NCAA would have seen that train coming when they created the portal and relaxed the transfer rules. When we beat Purdue, I would not have blamed Jeff Brohm for hunting down Maxx Crosby and having the conversation you described. Maxx might have came back for his senior year, played in front of 80K crowds and been a first round round draft pick. Not necessarily a bad thing. Actually I wish Butler could have contacted Ty Groce when Toure became eligible and with JT4, Ty was pushed away from the basket and his growth was subsequently stunted.

At the end of the day, the bigger programs are going to get a second bite at the apple of these HS prospects. Their networks of alumni, coaches and players are going to be able to scour and entice talents of lesser programs to come their way. The line of "cheating" will be blurry, a call from a Cassius Winston to a fellow college player in the MAC is OK, unless Izzo instigated it, and proving it will be next to impossible.

Not liking this at all.
(05-24-2021 05:30 PM)Jerry Weaver Wrote: [ -> ]The most salient point in the article was made by the P5 assistant who urged MAC schools to stay away from HS kids. Why develop them to All MAC only to watch them head to more prominent programs? He thinks we would be better off accepting kids not getting playing time in the B1G instead and get the customary 2-3 years out of them instead. He is most likely correct.

As to the crux of your post, cheating, I would have hoped the NCAA would have seen that train coming when they created the portal and relaxed the transfer rules. When we beat Purdue, I would not have blamed Jeff Brohm for hunting down Maxx Crosby and having the conversation you described. Maxx might have came back for his senior year, played in front of 80K crowds and been a first round round draft pick. Not necessarily a bad thing. Actually I wish Butler could have contacted Ty Groce when Toure became eligible and with JT4, Ty was pushed away from the basket and his growth was subsequently stunted.

At the end of the day, the bigger programs are going to get a second bite at the apple of these HS prospects. Their networks of alumni, coaches and players are going to be able to scour and entice talents of lesser programs to come their way. The line of "cheating" will be blurry, a call from a Cassius Winston to a fellow college player in the MAC is OK, unless Izzo instigated it, and proving it will be next to impossible.

Not liking this at all.

Yep. I remember the late, great Boston sports talk host, Ken Beatrice.

He explained why the NCAA has the LOI program. Basically he called coaches a den of thieves and it was necessary to implement a program to legalize commitments the best they could. The LOI serves the same purpose as a purchase contact on a house. Sorry, Mr. Buyer, but I want to cancel our deal. I got a better offer. Mr. Buyer: "See you in court."
BAH GAWD - IS THAT DANSPLAINING'S MUSIC?

Tampering is such a poor choice of words for this stuff. Players know each other. Socially and frankly professionally.

Players should have autonomy. What's the purpose of going to school? To prepare for a career. If a player can move schools to better suit themselves for a career they should. I knew a kid at EMU (in 08) who transferred to a school with a better engineering program. How is that different than transferring to a school with a better football or basketball program - if that is there career goal? (worth noting i have a philosophy degree so i know a thing or two about a questionable degree choice)

The NCAA needs to COMPLETELY overhaul the rules - whether its multi-year scholarships instead of 1 year increments, whether its NIL rights or collective bargaining, whether its some kind 'two transfer in 5 year policy' or what have you. The NCAA has clung too long to antiquated rules and now that the pendulum is swinging back - they arent prepared for the changes that will bring.

Both head coaches and assistants have COMPLETE freedom of movement - why isnt there hand wringing about Lance Leipold taking his staff from Buffalo to Kansas in May? It all reeks of inequity and i think thats lame as heck.
(05-25-2021 05:57 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]Both head coaches and assistants have COMPLETE freedom of movement - why isnt there hand wringing about Lance Leipold taking his staff from Buffalo to Kansas in May? It all reeks of inequity and i think thats lame as heck.

I obviously agree with your whole post, but this is really my favorite point whenever I argue this with others. As long as coaches can leave in the middle of the night at literally anytime, then there should be no reason the players can’t do the same. It needs to be all-in both ways.

People also assume that if there were no restrictions, then everyone would transfer. I’d disagree with that. If you have a strong program with a good coach, then you’ll likely be able to keep most of your team together for a while. And college sports are already transient as it is. Players should be allowed to make the most out of their 4 years (or 5...or 6...) in the way that’s best for them.
(05-25-2021 05:57 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]BAH GAWD - IS THAT DANSPLAINING'S MUSIC?

Tampering is such a poor choice of words for this stuff. Players know each other. Socially and frankly professionally.

Players should have autonomy. What's the purpose of going to school? To prepare for a career. If a player can move schools to better suit themselves for a career they should. I knew a kid at EMU (in 08) who transferred to a school with a better engineering program. How is that different than transferring to a school with a better football or basketball program - if that is there career goal? (worth noting i have a philosophy degree so i know a thing or two about a questionable degree choice)

The NCAA needs to COMPLETELY overhaul the rules - whether its multi-year scholarships instead of 1 year increments, whether its NIL rights or collective bargaining, whether its some kind 'two transfer in 5 year policy' or what have you. The NCAA has clung too long to antiquated rules and now that the pendulum is swinging back - they arent prepared for the changes that will bring.

Both head coaches and assistants have COMPLETE freedom of movement - why isnt there hand wringing about Lance Leipold taking his staff from Buffalo to Kansas in May? It all reeks of inequity and i think thats lame as heck.
Because it is killing the sport. The on field product is suffering and alumni who worked their asses off and have been paying off student loan debt into their 50's don't want to root for a bunch of pseudo-student mercenary meatheads.
(05-25-2021 06:42 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 05:57 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]BAH GAWD - IS THAT DANSPLAINING'S MUSIC?

Tampering is such a poor choice of words for this stuff. Players know each other. Socially and frankly professionally.

Players should have autonomy. What's the purpose of going to school? To prepare for a career. If a player can move schools to better suit themselves for a career they should. I knew a kid at EMU (in 08) who transferred to a school with a better engineering program. How is that different than transferring to a school with a better football or basketball program - if that is there career goal? (worth noting i have a philosophy degree so i know a thing or two about a questionable degree choice)

The NCAA needs to COMPLETELY overhaul the rules - whether its multi-year scholarships instead of 1 year increments, whether its NIL rights or collective bargaining, whether its some kind 'two transfer in 5 year policy' or what have you. The NCAA has clung too long to antiquated rules and now that the pendulum is swinging back - they arent prepared for the changes that will bring.

Both head coaches and assistants have COMPLETE freedom of movement - why isnt there hand wringing about Lance Leipold taking his staff from Buffalo to Kansas in May? It all reeks of inequity and i think thats lame as heck.
Because it is killing the sport. The on field product is suffering and alumni who worked their asses off and have been paying off student loan debt into their 50's don't want to root for a bunch of pseudo-student mercenary meatheads.

I don't know how you can say the on field product is suffering. I think college football is as great as ever as far as what's happening on the field (unless you're a Nebraska or Miami fan HEYO). But yeah Joe Burrow transferring really ruined the college football season eh? When Jawon Hamilton rips off a big run next year and scores a touch down for the Eagles - you're going to boo him? Because he's ruining football. When Dashonte Riley was getting 7 blocks a game was he ruining basketball? None of Duncan Robinson's 3's for Michigan should have counted because he's a meat head mercenary.

If you - someone with student load debt - NEED to to watch guys get CTE for nothing - then watch some NAIA or Div III ball. Good seats are still available at all Madonna University and Concordia - Ann Arbor football games.
(05-25-2021 07:36 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 06:42 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 05:57 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]BAH GAWD - IS THAT DANSPLAINING'S MUSIC?

Tampering is such a poor choice of words for this stuff. Players know each other. Socially and frankly professionally.

Players should have autonomy. What's the purpose of going to school? To prepare for a career. If a player can move schools to better suit themselves for a career they should. I knew a kid at EMU (in 08) who transferred to a school with a better engineering program. How is that different than transferring to a school with a better football or basketball program - if that is there career goal? (worth noting i have a philosophy degree so i know a thing or two about a questionable degree choice)

The NCAA needs to COMPLETELY overhaul the rules - whether its multi-year scholarships instead of 1 year increments, whether its NIL rights or collective bargaining, whether its some kind 'two transfer in 5 year policy' or what have you. The NCAA has clung too long to antiquated rules and now that the pendulum is swinging back - they arent prepared for the changes that will bring.

Both head coaches and assistants have COMPLETE freedom of movement - why isnt there hand wringing about Lance Leipold taking his staff from Buffalo to Kansas in May? It all reeks of inequity and i think thats lame as heck.
Because it is killing the sport. The on field product is suffering and alumni who worked their asses off and have been paying off student loan debt into their 50's don't want to root for a bunch of pseudo-student mercenary meatheads.

I don't know how you can say the on field product is suffering. I think college football is as great as ever as far as what's happening on the field (unless you're a Nebraska or Miami fan HEYO). But yeah Joe Burrow transferring really ruined the college football season eh? When Jawon Hamilton rips off a big run next year and scores a touch down for the Eagles - you're going to boo him? Because he's ruining football. When Dashonte Riley was getting 7 blocks a game was he ruining basketball? None of Duncan Robinson's 3's for Michigan should have counted because he's a meat head mercenary.

If you - someone with student load debt - NEED to to watch guys get CTE for nothing - then watch some NAIA or Div III ball. Good seats are still available at all Madonna University and Concordia - Ann Arbor football games.
All I could see in all that was DaShonte Riley. That stiff did ruin EMU basketball for me. In the words of Jimmy Butler, that dude was "softer than baby sh**." As for college sports, if it gets too ridiculous, too silly, if the sport becomes a parody of itself, I will eventually stop watching.
All is right on The Board: Dan banging pots and pans for students and Bob sounds like Donald Duck.
(05-25-2021 06:11 AM)EagleSam Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 05:57 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]Both head coaches and assistants have COMPLETE freedom of movement - why isnt there hand wringing about Lance Leipold taking his staff from Buffalo to Kansas in May? It all reeks of inequity and i think thats lame as heck.

I obviously agree with your whole post, but this is really my favorite point whenever I argue this with others. As long as coaches can leave in the middle of the night at literally anytime, then there should be no reason the players can’t do the same. It needs to be all-in both ways.

People also assume that if there were no restrictions, then everyone would transfer. I’d disagree with that. If you have a strong program with a good coach, then you’ll likely be able to keep most of your team together for a while. And college sports are already transient as it is. Players should be allowed to make the most out of their 4 years (or 5...or 6...) in the way that’s best for them.

I'm not sure that we are accurately describing the world as it is.

As mentioned many times, coaches have buyout clauses which simply bind a coach to a school as a school is bound (by the contract) to the coach. It is an attempt to place reasonable, legal restrictions on both parties.

Also remember that the world is not full of free agents. There are non-compete clauses, etc. for highly skilled individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

Someone who is a mRNA scientist is likely covered by a non-compete clause. Does Pfizer want to lose a top scientist to another company which will use mRNA technology for the next pandemic?

Getting closer to S.E. MI. How about an engineer with great knowledge of EV (electric vehicles)?

Aren't many workers required to transfer their patents they worked on while employed by a company to the company (I know of a such a case with GM and a supplier).
(05-25-2021 09:30 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 06:11 AM)EagleSam Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 05:57 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]Both head coaches and assistants have COMPLETE freedom of movement - why isnt there hand wringing about Lance Leipold taking his staff from Buffalo to Kansas in May? It all reeks of inequity and i think thats lame as heck.

I obviously agree with your whole post, but this is really my favorite point whenever I argue this with others. As long as coaches can leave in the middle of the night at literally anytime, then there should be no reason the players can’t do the same. It needs to be all-in both ways.

People also assume that if there were no restrictions, then everyone would transfer. I’d disagree with that. If you have a strong program with a good coach, then you’ll likely be able to keep most of your team together for a while. And college sports are already transient as it is. Players should be allowed to make the most out of their 4 years (or 5...or 6...) in the way that’s best for them.

I'm not sure that we are accurately describing the world as it is.

As mentioned many times, coaches have buyout clauses which simply bind a coach to a school as a school is bound (by the contract) to the coach. It is an attempt to place reasonable, legal restrictions on both parties.

Also remember that the world is not full of free agents. There are non-compete clauses, etc. for highly skilled individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

Someone who is a mRNA scientist is likely covered by a non-compete clause. Does Pfizer want to lose a top scientist to another company which will use mRNA technology for the next pandemic?

Getting closer to S.E. MI. How about an engineer with great knowledge of EV (electric vehicles)?

Aren't many workers required to transfer their patents they worked on while employed by a company to the company (I know of a such a case with 'M and a supplier).

Right but the main difference between coach's buy outs and worker's non-compete clauses is that coaches have the right to negotiate those buys outs (and have guaranteed contracts if they get fired) and employees in other industries don't work in monopolies (college football is the very definition of a functional monopoly).

Players don't have guaranteed contracts (if they get cut they don't get the rest of their education paid for) or the ability to take a job in the same industry at a different employer (there are no other developmental gridiron football leagues). This creates a restrictive environment unique in the American economy.
The market will find its level. My 2 cents.
I think it shows a lot of CFB assistant coaches are not good at their job (which is recruiting and development) if they have to live off the transfer portals. They make cool # tags though
Some school will swim against the grain and offer 2 or 4 year guaranteed scholarships and it will work to their advantage and everyone else will copy.
(05-25-2021 09:56 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 09:30 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 06:11 AM)EagleSam Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 05:57 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]Both head coaches and assistants have COMPLETE freedom of movement - why isnt there hand wringing about Lance Leipold taking his staff from Buffalo to Kansas in May? It all reeks of inequity and i think thats lame as heck.

I obviously agree with your whole post, but this is really my favorite point whenever I argue this with others. As long as coaches can leave in the middle of the night at literally anytime, then there should be no reason the players can’t do the same. It needs to be all-in both ways.

People also assume that if there were no restrictions, then everyone would transfer. I’d disagree with that. If you have a strong program with a good coach, then you’ll likely be able to keep most of your team together for a while. And college sports are already transient as it is. Players should be allowed to make the most out of their 4 years (or 5...or 6...) in the way that’s best for them.

I'm not sure that we are accurately describing the world as it is.

As mentioned many times, coaches have buyout clauses which simply bind a coach to a school as a school is bound (by the contract) to the coach. It is an attempt to place reasonable, legal restrictions on both parties.

Also remember that the world is not full of free agents. There are non-compete clauses, etc. for highly skilled individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

Someone who is a mRNA scientist is likely covered by a non-compete clause. Does Pfizer want to lose a top scientist to another company which will use mRNA technology for the next pandemic?

Getting closer to S.E. MI. How about an engineer with great knowledge of EV (electric vehicles)?

Aren't many workers required to transfer their patents they worked on while employed by a company to the company (I know of a such a case with 'M and a supplier).

Right but the main difference between coach's buy outs and worker's non-compete clauses is that coaches have the right to negotiate those buys outs (and have guaranteed contracts if they get fired) and employees in other industries don't work in monopolies (college football is the very definition of a functional monopoly).

Players don't have guaranteed contracts (if they get cut they don't get the rest of their education paid for) or the ability to take a job in the same industry at a different employer (there are no other developmental gridiron football leagues). This creates a restrictive environment unique in the American economy.

I'm not sure about your last paragraph.

In the state of Michigan, a top player can chose UofM and if he can't make it there he can transfer to one of our MAC schools. If he can't make it there, he can transfer to the GLIAC.

A student-athlete at UofM and EMU get functionally the same package. Full ride scholarship, COA, and all the food that 300 lb. linemen can eat at the training table... 02-13-banana

I would argue that this should make a labor leader HAPPY. It is like working at a Ford Rouge plant. Everyone doing the same job gets the same pay (used to be that way. After 90 days an employee 'was in the union' and got the same pay as others.). I worked a bit out of h.s. to pay my way through college without $ from parents).

One point from our PREVIOUS discussion.

A FB player is a student-athlete. He does not teach which is the mission of a college.

A Ph.D. student at UofM teaching undergrad X is an employee (teaching is an occupation normally found in colleges and universities). The grad student TA is kind of a junior teacher. Should have a master's degree and working on a PhD.

I believe teaching assistants must pay taxes on their TA stipends. It is considered employment. A FB studying PE is not considered an employee of the school. He doesn't teach football theory and practice to h.s. or jr. h.s. coaches. Matter of fact, I believe a master's degree is required to teach at most universities.

I thought of this recently. A few weeks ago I had a local U. professor over for lunch and he was talking about his TAs and what it involved during the pandemic (this school was almost entirely remote, except for those involving labs, practicums. etc.). He has 16 TAs and they teach an intro, required course at the U.
(05-25-2021 10:17 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 09:56 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 09:30 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 06:11 AM)EagleSam Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 05:57 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]Both head coaches and assistants have COMPLETE freedom of movement - why isnt there hand wringing about Lance Leipold taking his staff from Buffalo to Kansas in May? It all reeks of inequity and i think thats lame as heck.

I obviously agree with your whole post, but this is really my favorite point whenever I argue this with others. As long as coaches can leave in the middle of the night at literally anytime, then there should be no reason the players can’t do the same. It needs to be all-in both ways.

People also assume that if there were no restrictions, then everyone would transfer. I’d disagree with that. If you have a strong program with a good coach, then you’ll likely be able to keep most of your team together for a while. And college sports are already transient as it is. Players should be allowed to make the most out of their 4 years (or 5...or 6...) in the way that’s best for them.

I'm not sure that we are accurately describing the world as it is.

As mentioned many times, coaches have buyout clauses which simply bind a coach to a school as a school is bound (by the contract) to the coach. It is an attempt to place reasonable, legal restrictions on both parties.

Also remember that the world is not full of free agents. There are non-compete clauses, etc. for highly skilled individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

Someone who is a mRNA scientist is likely covered by a non-compete clause. Does Pfizer want to lose a top scientist to another company which will use mRNA technology for the next pandemic?

Getting closer to S.E. MI. How about an engineer with great knowledge of EV (electric vehicles)?

Aren't many workers required to transfer their patents they worked on while employed by a company to the company (I know of a such a case with 'M and a supplier).

Right but the main difference between coach's buy outs and worker's non-compete clauses is that coaches have the right to negotiate those buys outs (and have guaranteed contracts if they get fired) and employees in other industries don't work in monopolies (college football is the very definition of a functional monopoly).

Players don't have guaranteed contracts (if they get cut they don't get the rest of their education paid for) or the ability to take a job in the same industry at a different employer (there are no other developmental gridiron football leagues). This creates a restrictive environment unique in the American economy.

I'm not sure about your last paragraph.

In the state of Michigan, a top player can chose UofM and if he can't make it there he can transfer to one of our MAC schools. If he can't make it there, he can transfer to the GLIAC.

A student-athlete at UofM and EMU get functionally the same package. Full ride scholarship, COA, and all the food that 300 lb. linemen can eat at the training table... 02-13-banana

I would argue that this should make a labor leader HAPPY. It is like working at a Ford Rouge plant. Everyone doing the same job gets the same pay (used to be that way. After 90 days an employee 'was in the union' and got the same pay as others.). I worked a bit out of h.s. to pay my way through college without $ from parents).

One point from our PREVIOUS discussion.

A FB player is a student-athlete. He does not teach which is the mission of a college.

A Ph.D. student at UofM teaching undergrad X is an employee (teaching is an occupation normally found in colleges and universities). The grad student TA is kind of a junior teacher. Should have a master's degree and working on a PhD.

I believe teaching assistants must pay taxes on their TA stipends. It is considered employment. A FB studying PE is not considered an employee of the school. He doesn't teach football theory and practice to h.s. or jr. h.s. coaches. Matter of fact, I believe a master's degree is required to teach at most universities.

I thought of this recently. A few weeks ago I had a local U. professor over for lunch and he was talking about his TAs and what it involved during the pandemic (this school was almost entirely remote, except for those involving labs, practicums. etc.). He has 16 TAs and they teach an intro, required course at the U.

This is an interesting approach to the issue at hand - but i dont think that everyone doing the same job is getting the same pay. for example - a scholarship to Northwestern has more value (dollars wise) than a scholarship to EMU. strictly speaking - the punters for both of these schools are doing the same job for different pay.

If i was representing the players in a collective bargaining sessions i would argue for the following package for players:
2 transfers during their eligibility
all players in NCAA get equal pay ON TOP of scholarships (based on previous seasons revenues)
players are eligible for bonuses for post season accomplishment
players get unlimited earning for NIL rights
scholarships / contracts are guaranteed and in 2 or 3 year increments (to be decided between coach and player)

as for players not being teachers - neither is the guy who runs the bookstore. athletes still represent and generate income for the member institutions of the NCAA.
(05-25-2021 12:02 PM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 10:17 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 09:56 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 09:30 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 06:11 AM)EagleSam Wrote: [ -> ]I obviously agree with your whole post, but this is really my favorite point whenever I argue this with others. As long as coaches can leave in the middle of the night at literally anytime, then there should be no reason the players can’t do the same. It needs to be all-in both ways.

People also assume that if there were no restrictions, then everyone would transfer. I’d disagree with that. If you have a strong program with a good coach, then you’ll likely be able to keep most of your team together for a while. And college sports are already transient as it is. Players should be allowed to make the most out of their 4 years (or 5...or 6...) in the way that’s best for them.

I'm not sure that we are accurately describing the world as it is.

As mentioned many times, coaches have buyout clauses which simply bind a coach to a school as a school is bound (by the contract) to the coach. It is an attempt to place reasonable, legal restrictions on both parties.

Also remember that the world is not full of free agents. There are non-compete clauses, etc. for highly skilled individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

Someone who is a mRNA scientist is likely covered by a non-compete clause. Does Pfizer want to lose a top scientist to another company which will use mRNA technology for the next pandemic?

Getting closer to S.E. MI. How about an engineer with great knowledge of EV (electric vehicles)?

Aren't many workers required to transfer their patents they worked on while employed by a company to the company (I know of a such a case with 'M and a supplier).

Right but the main difference between coach's buy outs and worker's non-compete clauses is that coaches have the right to negotiate those buys outs (and have guaranteed contracts if they get fired) and employees in other industries don't work in monopolies (college football is the very definition of a functional monopoly).

Players don't have guaranteed contracts (if they get cut they don't get the rest of their education paid for) or the ability to take a job in the same industry at a different employer (there are no other developmental gridiron football leagues). This creates a restrictive environment unique in the American economy.

I'm not sure about your last paragraph.

In the state of Michigan, a top player can chose UofM and if he can't make it there he can transfer to one of our MAC schools. If he can't make it there, he can transfer to the GLIAC.

A student-athlete at UofM and EMU get functionally the same package. Full ride scholarship, COA, and all the food that 300 lb. linemen can eat at the training table... 02-13-banana

I would argue that this should make a labor leader HAPPY. It is like working at a Ford Rouge plant. Everyone doing the same job gets the same pay (used to be that way. After 90 days an employee 'was in the union' and got the same pay as others.). I worked a bit out of h.s. to pay my way through college without $ from parents).

One point from our PREVIOUS discussion.

A FB player is a student-athlete. He does not teach which is the mission of a college.

A Ph.D. student at UofM teaching undergrad X is an employee (teaching is an occupation normally found in colleges and universities). The grad student TA is kind of a junior teacher. Should have a master's degree and working on a PhD.

I believe teaching assistants must pay taxes on their TA stipends. It is considered employment. A FB studying PE is not considered an employee of the school. He doesn't teach football theory and practice to h.s. or jr. h.s. coaches. Matter of fact, I believe a master's degree is required to teach at most universities.

I thought of this recently. A few weeks ago I had a local U. professor over for lunch and he was talking about his TAs and what it involved during the pandemic (this school was almost entirely remote, except for those involving labs, practicums. etc.). He has 16 TAs and they teach an intro, required course at the U.

This is an interesting approach to the issue at hand - but i dont think that everyone doing the same job is getting the same pay. for example - a scholarship to Northwestern has more value (dollars wise) than a scholarship to EMU. strictly speaking - the punters for both of these schools are doing the same job for different pay.

If i was representing the players in a collective bargaining sessions i would argue for the following package for players:
2 transfers during their eligibility
all players in NCAA get equal pay ON TOP of scholarships (based on previous seasons revenues)
players are eligible for bonuses for post season accomplishment
players get unlimited earning for NIL rights
scholarships / contracts are guaranteed and in 2 or 3 year increments (to be decided between coach and player)

as for players not being teachers - neither is the guy who runs the bookstore. athletes still represent and generate income for the member institutions of the NCAA.

The value of an education is a complete can of worms.

Is an Alabama education equal to Cal Tech? Harvard? UofM? If I were a STEM athlete, I'd say Cal Tech, Harvard and UofM over AL. If I wanted to be a NFL player, I'd take AL.

P.S. what you are proposing is professionalizing college sports by giving them bonuses. Bonuses are paid for exemplary work.

P.S. II: The guy who runs the book store is an employee and has to pay taxes on income. We don't want student-athletes being classified as employees and end up paying taxes (which they can't afford as they aren't paid cash wages).

I maintain that you would create the biggest can of worms which would harm collegiate athletics.

P.S. III: (bonus) I believe the reason teaching assistants can try to organize is that they are considered employees. Employees have an inherent right to organize.
(05-25-2021 12:20 PM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 12:02 PM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 10:17 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 09:56 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 09:30 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure that we are accurately describing the world as it is.

As mentioned many times, coaches have buyout clauses which simply bind a coach to a school as a school is bound (by the contract) to the coach. It is an attempt to place reasonable, legal restrictions on both parties.

Also remember that the world is not full of free agents. There are non-compete clauses, etc. for highly skilled individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

Someone who is a mRNA scientist is likely covered by a non-compete clause. Does Pfizer want to lose a top scientist to another company which will use mRNA technology for the next pandemic?

Getting closer to S.E. MI. How about an engineer with great knowledge of EV (electric vehicles)?

Aren't many workers required to transfer their patents they worked on while employed by a company to the company (I know of a such a case with 'M and a supplier).

Right but the main difference between coach's buy outs and worker's non-compete clauses is that coaches have the right to negotiate those buys outs (and have guaranteed contracts if they get fired) and employees in other industries don't work in monopolies (college football is the very definition of a functional monopoly).

Players don't have guaranteed contracts (if they get cut they don't get the rest of their education paid for) or the ability to take a job in the same industry at a different employer (there are no other developmental gridiron football leagues). This creates a restrictive environment unique in the American economy.

I'm not sure about your last paragraph.

In the state of Michigan, a top player can chose UofM and if he can't make it there he can transfer to one of our MAC schools. If he can't make it there, he can transfer to the GLIAC.

A student-athlete at UofM and EMU get functionally the same package. Full ride scholarship, COA, and all the food that 300 lb. linemen can eat at the training table... 02-13-banana

I would argue that this should make a labor leader HAPPY. It is like working at a Ford Rouge plant. Everyone doing the same job gets the same pay (used to be that way. After 90 days an employee 'was in the union' and got the same pay as others.). I worked a bit out of h.s. to pay my way through college without $ from parents).

One point from our PREVIOUS discussion.

A FB player is a student-athlete. He does not teach which is the mission of a college.

A Ph.D. student at UofM teaching undergrad X is an employee (teaching is an occupation normally found in colleges and universities). The grad student TA is kind of a junior teacher. Should have a master's degree and working on a PhD.

I believe teaching assistants must pay taxes on their TA stipends. It is considered employment. A FB studying PE is not considered an employee of the school. He doesn't teach football theory and practice to h.s. or jr. h.s. coaches. Matter of fact, I believe a master's degree is required to teach at most universities.

I thought of this recently. A few weeks ago I had a local U. professor over for lunch and he was talking about his TAs and what it involved during the pandemic (this school was almost entirely remote, except for those involving labs, practicums. etc.). He has 16 TAs and they teach an intro, required course at the U.

This is an interesting approach to the issue at hand - but i dont think that everyone doing the same job is getting the same pay. for example - a scholarship to Northwestern has more value (dollars wise) than a scholarship to EMU. strictly speaking - the punters for both of these schools are doing the same job for different pay.

If i was representing the players in a collective bargaining sessions i would argue for the following package for players:
2 transfers during their eligibility
all players in NCAA get equal pay ON TOP of scholarships (based on previous seasons revenues)
players are eligible for bonuses for post season accomplishment
players get unlimited earning for NIL rights
scholarships / contracts are guaranteed and in 2 or 3 year increments (to be decided between coach and player)

as for players not being teachers - neither is the guy who runs the bookstore. athletes still represent and generate income for the member institutions of the NCAA.

The value of an education is a complete can of worms.

Is an Alabama education equal to Cal Tech? Harvard? UofM? If I were a STEM athlete, I'd say Cal Tech, Harvard and UofM over AL. If I wanted to be a NFL player, I'd take AL.

P.S. what you are proposing is professionalizing college sports by giving them bonuses. Bonuses are paid for exemplary work.

P.S. II: The guy who runs the book store is an employee and has to pay taxes on income. We don't want student-athletes being classified as employees and end up paying taxes (which they can't afford as they aren't paid cash wages).

I maintain that you would create the biggest can of worms which would harm collegiate athletics.

P.S. III: (bonus) I believe the reason teaching assistants can try to organize is that they are considered employees. Employees have an inherent right to organize.

1.) Yup. I think college players should be paid. Welcome to the board.

2.) Yes - under my system players income would be taxable and would be paid cash wages. They would also be given full medical benefits and even a 401k. They would also be eligible for workman's comp and disability.

3.) Players should be classified as employees so they have the right to organize.
(05-25-2021 02:37 PM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 12:20 PM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 12:02 PM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 10:17 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 09:56 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]Right but the main difference between coach's buy outs and worker's non-compete clauses is that coaches have the right to negotiate those buys outs (and have guaranteed contracts if they get fired) and employees in other industries don't work in monopolies (college football is the very definition of a functional monopoly).

Players don't have guaranteed contracts (if they get cut they don't get the rest of their education paid for) or the ability to take a job in the same industry at a different employer (there are no other developmental gridiron football leagues). This creates a restrictive environment unique in the American economy.

I'm not sure about your last paragraph.

In the state of Michigan, a top player can chose UofM and if he can't make it there he can transfer to one of our MAC schools. If he can't make it there, he can transfer to the GLIAC.

A student-athlete at UofM and EMU get functionally the same package. Full ride scholarship, COA, and all the food that 300 lb. linemen can eat at the training table... 02-13-banana

I would argue that this should make a labor leader HAPPY. It is like working at a Ford Rouge plant. Everyone doing the same job gets the same pay (used to be that way. After 90 days an employee 'was in the union' and got the same pay as others.). I worked a bit out of h.s. to pay my way through college without $ from parents).

One point from our PREVIOUS discussion.

A FB player is a student-athlete. He does not teach which is the mission of a college.

A Ph.D. student at UofM teaching undergrad X is an employee (teaching is an occupation normally found in colleges and universities). The grad student TA is kind of a junior teacher. Should have a master's degree and working on a PhD.

I believe teaching assistants must pay taxes on their TA stipends. It is considered employment. A FB studying PE is not considered an employee of the school. He doesn't teach football theory and practice to h.s. or jr. h.s. coaches. Matter of fact, I believe a master's degree is required to teach at most universities.

I thought of this recently. A few weeks ago I had a local U. professor over for lunch and he was talking about his TAs and what it involved during the pandemic (this school was almost entirely remote, except for those involving labs, practicums. etc.). He has 16 TAs and they teach an intro, required course at the U.

This is an interesting approach to the issue at hand - but i dont think that everyone doing the same job is getting the same pay. for example - a scholarship to Northwestern has more value (dollars wise) than a scholarship to EMU. strictly speaking - the punters for both of these schools are doing the same job for different pay.

If i was representing the players in a collective bargaining sessions i would argue for the following package for players:
2 transfers during their eligibility
all players in NCAA get equal pay ON TOP of scholarships (based on previous seasons revenues)
players are eligible for bonuses for post season accomplishment
players get unlimited earning for NIL rights
scholarships / contracts are guaranteed and in 2 or 3 year increments (to be decided between coach and player)

as for players not being teachers - neither is the guy who runs the bookstore. athletes still represent and generate income for the member institutions of the NCAA.

The value of an education is a complete can of worms.

Is an Alabama education equal to Cal Tech? Harvard? UofM? If I were a STEM athlete, I'd say Cal Tech, Harvard and UofM over AL. If I wanted to be a NFL player, I'd take AL.

P.S. what you are proposing is professionalizing college sports by giving them bonuses. Bonuses are paid for exemplary work.

P.S. II: The guy who runs the book store is an employee and has to pay taxes on income. We don't want student-athletes being classified as employees and end up paying taxes (which they can't afford as they aren't paid cash wages).

I maintain that you would create the biggest can of worms which would harm collegiate athletics.

P.S. III: (bonus) I believe the reason teaching assistants can try to organize is that they are considered employees. Employees have an inherent right to organize.

1.) Yup. I think college players should be paid. Welcome to the board.

2.) Yes - under my system players income would be taxable and would be paid cash wages. They would also be given full medical benefits and even a 401k. They would also be eligible for workman's comp and disability.

3.) Players should be classified as employees so they have the right to organize.

I hope this is my last post on the subject (I'm kind of 'posted out').

One thing which does concern me is injury, health insurance, etc.

It is a legitimate concern if a player suffers a debilitating injury. That is the biggest concern I have with players not being employees, i.e., not covered under workman's compensation, etc.

I do feel good that EMU athletes are what a 1/2 mile from St. Joes Hospital. St. Joes is both very close and very good.
(05-25-2021 02:37 PM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 12:20 PM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 12:02 PM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 10:17 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2021 09:56 AM)dansplaining Wrote: [ -> ]Right but the main difference between coach's buy outs and worker's non-compete clauses is that coaches have the right to negotiate those buys outs (and have guaranteed contracts if they get fired) and employees in other industries don't work in monopolies (college football is the very definition of a functional monopoly).

Players don't have guaranteed contracts (if they get cut they don't get the rest of their education paid for) or the ability to take a job in the same industry at a different employer (there are no other developmental gridiron football leagues). This creates a restrictive environment unique in the American economy.

I'm not sure about your last paragraph.

In the state of Michigan, a top player can chose UofM and if he can't make it there he can transfer to one of our MAC schools. If he can't make it there, he can transfer to the GLIAC.

A student-athlete at UofM and EMU get functionally the same package. Full ride scholarship, COA, and all the food that 300 lb. linemen can eat at the training table... 02-13-banana

I would argue that this should make a labor leader HAPPY. It is like working at a Ford Rouge plant. Everyone doing the same job gets the same pay (used to be that way. After 90 days an employee 'was in the union' and got the same pay as others.). I worked a bit out of h.s. to pay my way through college without $ from parents).

One point from our PREVIOUS discussion.

A FB player is a student-athlete. He does not teach which is the mission of a college.

A Ph.D. student at UofM teaching undergrad X is an employee (teaching is an occupation normally found in colleges and universities). The grad student TA is kind of a junior teacher. Should have a master's degree and working on a PhD.

I believe teaching assistants must pay taxes on their TA stipends. It is considered employment. A FB studying PE is not considered an employee of the school. He doesn't teach football theory and practice to h.s. or jr. h.s. coaches. Matter of fact, I believe a master's degree is required to teach at most universities.

I thought of this recently. A few weeks ago I had a local U. professor over for lunch and he was talking about his TAs and what it involved during the pandemic (this school was almost entirely remote, except for those involving labs, practicums. etc.). He has 16 TAs and they teach an intro, required course at the U.

This is an interesting approach to the issue at hand - but i dont think that everyone doing the same job is getting the same pay. for example - a scholarship to Northwestern has more value (dollars wise) than a scholarship to EMU. strictly speaking - the punters for both of these schools are doing the same job for different pay.

If i was representing the players in a collective bargaining sessions i would argue for the following package for players:
2 transfers during their eligibility
all players in NCAA get equal pay ON TOP of scholarships (based on previous seasons revenues)
players are eligible for bonuses for post season accomplishment
players get unlimited earning for NIL rights
scholarships / contracts are guaranteed and in 2 or 3 year increments (to be decided between coach and player)

as for players not being teachers - neither is the guy who runs the bookstore. athletes still represent and generate income for the member institutions of the NCAA.

The value of an education is a complete can of worms.

Is an Alabama education equal to Cal Tech? Harvard? UofM? If I were a STEM athlete, I'd say Cal Tech, Harvard and UofM over AL. If I wanted to be a NFL player, I'd take AL.

P.S. what you are proposing is professionalizing college sports by giving them bonuses. Bonuses are paid for exemplary work.

P.S. II: The guy who runs the book store is an employee and has to pay taxes on income. We don't want student-athletes being classified as employees and end up paying taxes (which they can't afford as they aren't paid cash wages).

I maintain that you would create the biggest can of worms which would harm collegiate athletics.

P.S. III: (bonus) I believe the reason teaching assistants can try to organize is that they are considered employees. Employees have an inherent right to organize.

1.) Yup. I think college players should be paid. Welcome to the board.

2.) Yes - under my system players income would be taxable and would be paid cash wages. They would also be given full medical benefits and even a 401k. They would also be eligible for workman's comp and disability.

3.) Players should be classified as employees so they have the right to organize.

Exactly. It's only a matter of time before the top high school players in revenue sports find a way to monetize their talent. It's happening rapidly with hoops. Football players are going to force the issue soon. The NCAA can either adapt or die when other investors swoop in and take their cash cow. Players understand they have more leverage than ever.

Also, medical benefits and workers comp is the bare minimum the players should receive. If a non-athlete was injured on the job at their work-study position, they would likely be eligible for workers comp benefits. Why is an athlete any different?
I don't think that there is an unintelligent post on this thread other than the usual brainless contribution from our resident "board idiot".

The NCAA is in a huge transformational period, I am in fact fascinated to see what it looks like five years from now. Will the expense of compensating players force many D1 programs to simply become D2 and thus limit the amount of scholarships available to prospective high school athletes? Will the new mobility rules actually rejuvenate the opportunities that young athletes have to find their "correct level" where they can flourish in sport while obtaining a college degree?

One thing I know for sure. The quality of NCAA basketball certainly declined when compared to the NBA in the past 20 years or so, thanks to the NBA's acceptance of non-graduate players. The number one overall NBA pick is no longer a senior as it was in the past. That decline in quality, however, has not diminished the interest in NCAA basketball. Have no fear, if Emoni Bates never plays a minute in college like Lebron James, the NCAA will be just fine. College basketball nerd fans like us will accept rosters like we have now, no Boykins, Long, Neely, Tolbert, etc... as long as the competition is equally deficient. We nerds just plain root for our University, thus the continued feverous interest despite a stripped down product.

Here is what distresses me. The NBA vs the NFL. The NBA allows a far great movement of players, Championship teams are being assembled by players, they presented a compelling product during the pandemic and yet their ratings are absolutely tanking. The NFL, by contrast, is minting money while being far more restrictive of player movement. If you are not in a warm weather coast state amenable to players in the NBA you have little hope of competing, but the NFL has serious teams in less than glamorous spots like Green Bay, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Buffalo. Will the NCAA's allowance of increased transfers mirror the failure of the NBA?

I will use Steve's reference to auto workers, the UAW did truly great things for auto workers. At some point, however, those demands became too great, spawned offshore competition and now those competitors laugh at the prospect of locating a manufacturing plant anywhere near their sphere of influence. Beware college athletes, sometimes too much is indeed "too much" and you kill the golden goose.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Reference URL's