(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...

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?