Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,712
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 960
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #61
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-12-2022 02:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 12:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 11:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  All of these fuzzy platitudes about what the student-athlete model is supposed to be are all well and good. However, ultimately, what do the schools *really* want? At least to me, if they really want all of the aforementioned benefits, then there might be additional costs of doing business going forward (including but not limited to student-athletes needing to be considered to be employees).

Right, athletes being classified as employees is not their only issue, IMO not even their biggest issue. The biggest issue is schools agreeing, through the NCAA or otherwise, to rules that restrict athlete movement and/or compensation. Suppose colleges give in on athletes-as-employees, but then want to restrict movement by signing them to a one-year or even a four-year contract. They can't lawfully standardize that among all D-I or FBS schools.

To use a real-world employee example, if Apple tells an engineer he has to sign a one-year contract and can't work for a competitor during that time, he can sign it, or he can go work someplace where they don't ask for a contract. But if every large tech company has agreed amongst themselves that engineers can only work there if they sign a contract of at least one year, that agreement is probably illegal. The same problem will exist for any group of colleges that agrees to require athletes to sign a contract limiting their ability to move to a team at another college.

I agree the idea that this will happen with 4 year contracts is not realistic.

For sure.

The length of a contract is not the only problem, though, it's also the collusion of every team in FBS or D-I having the same contractual requirement so that elite athletes have no realistic alternative to signing if they want to play. That kind of collusion is one of the things Kavanaugh hammered on in his Supreme Court opinion.
05-12-2022 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 53,541
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2216
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-12-2022 03:19 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 02:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 12:13 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 12:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 11:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  All of these fuzzy platitudes about what the student-athlete model is supposed to be are all well and good. However, ultimately, what do the schools *really* want? At least to me, if they really want all of the aforementioned benefits, then there might be additional costs of doing business going forward (including but not limited to student-athletes needing to be considered to be employees).

Right, athletes being classified as employees is not their only issue, IMO not even their biggest issue. The biggest issue is schools agreeing, through the NCAA or otherwise, to rules that restrict athlete movement and/or compensation. Suppose colleges give in on athletes-as-employees, but then want to restrict movement by signing them to a one-year or even a four-year contract. They can't lawfully standardize that among all D-I or FBS schools.

To use a real-world employee example, if Apple tells an engineer he has to sign a one-year contract and can't work for a competitor during that time, he can sign it, or he can go work someplace where they don't ask for a contract. But if every large tech company has agreed amongst themselves that engineers can only work there if they sign a contract of at at least one year, that agreement is probably illegal. The same problem will exist for any group of colleges that agrees to require athletes to sign a contract limiting their ability to move to a team at another college.
In my industry nearly all companies require non-competes. If I leave, I’m sitting out. Whether I get paid to do that depends on whether I had the leverage to negotiate that into my contract.

CBAs will occur for the P2 at least

Conferences have long been able to implement conference rules on things like admission requirements and transfers to in-conference schools. The P2 will have their own min/max contract standards, negotiated via CBA if needed

And the “best of rest” conference will serve as the antitrust. Players will be free to take Baylor’s offer, and if Baylor can make a better one while getting $50-$70 million less per year, good for them. If they do that enough they may earn a P2 invite. In basketball the P2 will likely need to stick closer to market value in their offers. True antitrust. In football they’ll have more market power, but not enough to risk antitrust imo

Non-competes get thrown out by courts all the time. Its just that everybody doesn't contest them. They have to be reasonable in terms of distance and time. To use an extreme example, if they said you couldn't work in the field in the US for 2 years, there's no way it holds up if contested.

If college athletes are employees and not under a union contract, maybe you could restrict them from transferring to conference mates and future opponents, but you could not restrict them from playing for any other school.

Conferences have long been able to implement conference rules on things like admission requirements and transfers to in-conference schools. The P2 will have their own min/max contract standards, negotiated via CBA if needed

And the “best of rest” conference will serve as the antitrust. Players will be free to take Baylor’s offer, and if Baylor can make a better one while getting $50-$70 million less per year, good for them. If they do that enough they may earn a P2 invite. In basketball the P2 will likely need to stick closer to market value in their offers. True antitrust. In football they’ll have more market power, but not enough to risk antitrust imo

Its not just an anti-trust issue. Extreme non-competes violate the constitution.
05-12-2022 04:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,454
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 269
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-12-2022 04:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 03:19 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 02:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 12:13 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 12:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Right, athletes being classified as employees is not their only issue, IMO not even their biggest issue. The biggest issue is schools agreeing, through the NCAA or otherwise, to rules that restrict athlete movement and/or compensation. Suppose colleges give in on athletes-as-employees, but then want to restrict movement by signing them to a one-year or even a four-year contract. They can't lawfully standardize that among all D-I or FBS schools.

To use a real-world employee example, if Apple tells an engineer he has to sign a one-year contract and can't work for a competitor during that time, he can sign it, or he can go work someplace where they don't ask for a contract. But if every large tech company has agreed amongst themselves that engineers can only work there if they sign a contract of at at least one year, that agreement is probably illegal. The same problem will exist for any group of colleges that agrees to require athletes to sign a contract limiting their ability to move to a team at another college.
In my industry nearly all companies require non-competes. If I leave, I’m sitting out. Whether I get paid to do that depends on whether I had the leverage to negotiate that into my contract.

CBAs will occur for the P2 at least

Conferences have long been able to implement conference rules on things like admission requirements and transfers to in-conference schools. The P2 will have their own min/max contract standards, negotiated via CBA if needed

And the “best of rest” conference will serve as the antitrust. Players will be free to take Baylor’s offer, and if Baylor can make a better one while getting $50-$70 million less per year, good for them. If they do that enough they may earn a P2 invite. In basketball the P2 will likely need to stick closer to market value in their offers. True antitrust. In football they’ll have more market power, but not enough to risk antitrust imo

Non-competes get thrown out by courts all the time. Its just that everybody doesn't contest them. They have to be reasonable in terms of distance and time. To use an extreme example, if they said you couldn't work in the field in the US for 2 years, there's no way it holds up if contested.

If college athletes are employees and not under a union contract, maybe you could restrict them from transferring to conference mates and future opponents, but you could not restrict them from playing for any other school.

Conferences have long been able to implement conference rules on things like admission requirements and transfers to in-conference schools. The P2 will have their own min/max contract standards, negotiated via CBA if needed

And the “best of rest” conference will serve as the antitrust. Players will be free to take Baylor’s offer, and if Baylor can make a better one while getting $50-$70 million less per year, good for them. If they do that enough they may earn a P2 invite. In basketball the P2 will likely need to stick closer to market value in their offers. True antitrust. In football they’ll have more market power, but not enough to risk antitrust imo

Its not just an anti-trust issue. Extreme non-competes violate the constitution.

Nonetheless, professional leagues have anti-trust exemptions.

Competition on the athletic field is by its nature different than competition in the workplace from one company to the next. In the instance of the latter, the goal of most companies is to dominate the competition. In the instance of athletics, you can't have on-the-field competition if you put the other athletic departments out of business.

I won't be shocked if major conferences pursue the same statutes, but I suppose it's a question of whether they'll get them.
05-13-2022 03:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,454
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 269
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Kliavkoff and Sankey meeting with US senators on Thursday
(05-12-2022 10:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-11-2022 10:07 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 06:40 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2022 12:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Employees don't have to have contracts. Let's say that playing football is a paying job for a student, like working in a bookstore or cafeteria on campus. The students working the cash registers at the bookstore can quit at any time for any reason. They can leave to take a better paying job off campus, they can leave because they are transferring to a different college, they can leave because they think the bookstore's boss is a jerk, or for any other reason.

(05-08-2022 12:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  Indentured servitude is illegal. Employees in the USA are pretty much free to move. In very limited cases you have penalties like with coaches. And you do get some non-compete agreements. But those have to be limited--for example you could prevent them from transferring to one of your conference mates or scheduled opponents for the next couple of years, but not from transferring to any college.

You two are missing my point.

We will end up with contractual employment(which is not indentured servitude or else private companies in this country are going to have a lot of explaining to do) if we enter a world where the athletes are employees. Professional athletes tend to have contracts which is precisely what they will be. I never said contracts are a condition of any form of employment, I said it will end up moving that direction in this hypothetical world we're navigating.

There's no way the schools will employ them and enter a world of shifted dynamics and not require contracts. If the kids can just up and leave at any time then their pay/privileges will be commensurate. Nobody is worried about the kid who quits his job at the library so there's mechanism to motivate him staying. That's also why they get paid very little.

Coaches get paid a crap ton of money and guess what, they've got contracts as a form of guarantee to the payer. The schools/ADs will be the payers in this instance and it's a big business. They're not going to give the athletes the whole ball of wax. With real payment will come real responsibility and real consequences.

Thus if the kids want to take being a pro-athlete seriously then they won't break their contract. If there's any sort of uniform system of competition then the other schools won't sign transferring kids to a new contract if it's outside a established standard of rules for the new employment structure...just like professional leagues. You can just decide to quit one team and join another because you feel like it.

Remember there is no right to be employed by a school if you decide to enroll at a new school. Johnny can quit the library, but that doesn't mean the library at the school down the road is required to hire him for the same role.

It's like I've been trying to tell you people. Students and university employees are not the same thing. You can't truly be both. Johnny working at the library isn't eligible for benefits or a host of other things that genuine employees are eligible for...the fact that he is getting paid for labor is deceptive. His role, both legally and practically, is that of a student. Everything about his experience is filtered through that paradigm.

The librarian is a different matter. That person was hired to aid in the function of the operation of the school itself. Everything about their experience is filtered through that paradigm. This is true despite the fact that employees at colleges tend to have the ability to take courses as one of their benefits. Just because they attend a class and the rules work a little differently for 3 hours a week doesn't mean they're students.

You can't blend the two even if you are able to come up with a superficial way to blur the lines here and there.


Think of this way, students are customers and employees are being paid to meet the needs of the customer. It's a transaction regardless of the nature of academia.

If the athletes become employees then everything changes.

That's actually not true. The fact that the library employee is also a student is completely irrelevant with respect to that employee's legal rights.

For instance, if Johnny is working at the school library for 30 hours or more per week, then the school is required to provide him with health care benefits by law under the ACA. Even if Johnny is working just a few hours per week, minimum wage laws, Title VII, OSHA, ADA, workers compensation, and a whole host of other employment-related regulations apply to that student employee in the EXACT same way as any other employee. The fact that he is a student doesn't magically mean that there are suddenly different employment rules that the schools can avoid versus hiring a non-student employee.

On the flip side, the fact that Johnny is an employee getting paid at the school library also doesn't turn him into a non-student. This ought to be basic stuff, but if someone is taking classes in accordance with academic requirements, then that person is a student regardless of whether they are getting paid as an employee or not. That would be the case whether it's a library worker or an athlete as we're discussing here. There might be an internal distinction between having full-time student status (taking 15 hours per semester) versus part-time student status (taking 3 hours a semester), but how much that person is working is similarly irrelevant to that student status. If the full-time librarian that works 40 hours a week is also taking a full-time class load of 15 hours per semester, then that librarian is every bit of a full-time student as someone that doesn't work at all while attending school.

THAT is what all of the "sky is falling" crowd needs to get through their heads. I see absolutely no incongruence between an athlete getting paid and being able to be a student. LOTS (e.g. MILLIONS) of non-athlete students are in similar situations. These subjective distinctions that many of us build up in our heads (e.g. the student library worker versus the full-time librarian example that you've provided) are completely meaningless. Being a student doesn't magically allow schools to avoid employment laws, including but not limited to providing health benefits where required. At the same time, being a full-time employee similarly doesn't magically mean that you're not a full-time student when you're still taking a full-time class load. Being an employee and being a student are pretty objective definitions and a person can absolutely be both at the same time. We know this because MILLIONS OF PEOPLE are in that situation.

Essentially, all of these breathless threads on this forum along with the NCAA are trying to argue one thing: student-athletes are somehow a different class of people that should be treated different than EVERY other type of student AND employee in America simply because we don't like it when our sports teams can't compete with the ones with more money. At the same time, they worry that all of this is somehow new for athletes and changes all types of status and it now means athletes somehow can't be employees and students at the same time... even though millions of people across the country are both employees and students at the same time without issue.

The myopia of too many sports fans is that they think that paying student-athletes is somehow abnormal when the reality is the fact that they *weren't* being paid is what was abnormal compared to the entire rest of society. The courts and legislators are starting to reflect this and they are rightfully coming down forcefully on breaking down the previously abnormal system.

Frank,

As Doc Brown would say...you're not thinking 4th dimensionally.

Labor laws are designed to protect individuals who need employment in order to provide for themselves. How many college students need to work 30-40 hours a week in order to meet ends meet? A fairly high percentage of them are being supported directly by their parents. Some are receiving financial aid to cover basic expenses. Some are working to have a little spending money when they aren't studying.

The vast majority of college students I have known and have interacted with don't work nearly that much every week for an employer that would be forced to comply with the ACA. The stipulations of the law don't mean anything if they're not met.

Some time ago, before the ACA admittedly, I managed student workers for a department at a major university. I directly supervised dozens of them at any given time over the course of nearly 2 years. Do you know how many of them were working 30 hours a week on even a semi-regular basis? Not one. Why? They were students. And many of the student employees were not affluent by any reasonable measure...don't offer that qualifier.

More to the point, the idea that employees are eligible for certain benefits is an illustration of the point, not the core concept being debated. It doesn't matter what you do with the laws with respect to benefits of one sort or another. I don't care if Congress passes a law that states an employee working 4 hours for any company under the sun is now eligible for a host of 100% subsidized benefits. It's not the point. The point is that an employee/employer relationship is fundamentally different than that of a student/institutional relationship.

For example, the tradition thus far has been that the athletes are given certain exemptions and privileges that allow them to pursue an education while also putting in a lot of time towards their chosen sport. Now, we could maintain a system that limits the amount of time they have to practice or work out. Or we could simply abandon it.

I don't mind the idea of limiting their labor, but employers don't think in those terms. Your first and ultimate priority is to complete the job. You'll be paid for it, but you are on the hook if you don't. Your employer, being a university, may offer you the opportunity to take classes as a benefit, but they honestly don't give a crap if you take advantage of it. That's not why the two parties have a relationship. I mean, how many university employees regularly engage in coursework? I doubt it's a high percentage. Your example of millions of people both working and living as students is completely arbitrary. Sure, plenty of people work full time jobs and go to school. I've taken online classes towards the completion of a degree myself and I did it while working full time. BUT GUESS WHAT...I paid for the classes because I wasn't taking courses FROM MY EMPLOYER. Are you sure that millions of university and college employees from around the country are working full time schedules and simultaneously pursuing degrees? I'm guessing that wasn't your point though which, of course, makes it an irrelevant answer to the issue at hand. I wasn't talking about people pursuing education in their spare time...even if pursuing seriously. I was talking about the dynamics of an employee/employer relationship.

Furthermore, the university doesn't give a crap if Johnny works at the library or not. He may or may not. He might work 10 hours here and there and he might quit a month into it. It affects nothing. They want his tuition money and hopefully his donations down the road.

The nature of the two relationships is fundamentally different even if you can blur the lines in certain circumstances. And for heaven's sake, don't give me this nonsense that I'm trying to treat a subset of the population differently. What I want is for college athletes to be given more opportunity, not less. Outlining the inequities in the current system is irrelevant to prescribing a cure. It's like saying: "Wow, all of these factory workers aren't getting paid nearly enough for the value they're providing to their employer. I've got an idea! Why don't we create a system where the top 10% of workers get all the money and we fire the rest of them? That'll be great! The workers that are left will be making tons of cash and live great lives. Who gives a rip about the ones who lose out? That's their problem."

On the whole, we weren't talking about the ethics of paying athletes or even upending the system. We're talking practical mechanisms here. The philosophical musings are distracting to the discussion.

1. I never said the sky was falling. No, the world will keep spinning no matter what happens. What I said is that the powers that be need to be creative in order to preserve what is meaningful about this game.

2. I have never even once opposed NIL.

3. I'm not a fan of direct employment, but since it's coming, I would prefer it be a reasonable system that respects the point of the game. If I want to watch straight professional athletics then that is what I will do because the best athletes will not be on campus. I watch college sports because the participants are tied to the same school I attended or grew up cheering for. There is intended to be a sense of community and common goals and that is especially true given the reality that a tiny, tiny fraction of these athletes will make serious money in the professional ranks. College sports plays a role in elevating thousands of athletes every single year and it is done with a college education and the related connections of being immersed in the respective collegiate community.

4. I think it's completely disingenuous that the same crowd that has jeered the SEC for paying players under the table because it's "cheating" is the same crowd that now believes a thoroughly professional system is the only one that's just and ethical. Nonsense. They paid the kids/families because 9 times out of 10, they needed the support. No one was hurt by that. I would prefer it all be above board, yes, but that's not the same thing as forcing everyone into a cookie cutter mold. What some of you are proposing will harm some people/athletes/students and it will do so unnecessarily. My initial comment was that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. That is indisputable. College sports will be nothing without the ability to play opponents from other states so yes, Congress will have the ability to regulate how labor is defined in that context. What I propose is a framework for that context that respects the educational endeavor.

5. Frankly, I don't even care if people think the schools/ADs are a bunch of hypocrites who have been hoarding money from the athletes for decades. It's irrelevant to the discussion. Life is about transactions. The athletes provide something the schools want and there should be a mutually beneficial dynamic in place to ensure the athletes have something they want as well. That's really the only philosophical argument that needs to be made. What is relevant is that change is coming so we are probably best served by being thoughtful on how that change is implemented rather than raising our fists at the NCAA and their antics...as deplorable as that organization is.

If you're going to misrepresent me then at least examine what I'm actually talking about and not the general aura of whatever you've heard here and there.

To be honest, I think we probably agree more than we disagree at least on the 5 points that you've listed. For instance, I never really cared if players were getting paid under the table. I thought that was a byproduct of the market imbalance of an antiquated compensation system (or lack thereof) that's now being corrected.

However, as I noted in my post just before this one, student-athletes are already being treated like employees. Unlike other students, they have to sign a National Letter of Intent (an employment-like agreement) to participate in their activity, are subject to restrictions on their ability to transfer to other schools in order to participate in their activity, and suffer directly negative repercussions (e.g. lose their scholarships) if they choose to leave that activity.

To me, there aren't these silos of "student" and "employee" or any other category. One can be both a student and employee at the same time and it isn't a subjective determination at all. It doesn't matter if the primary intent of a full-time student is to be a student with a side job at the library on the side or the primary intent of a full-time librarian is to be a librarian while taking classes on the side. Both of those people are both students and employees at the same time. Now, they might be at different levels within those respective categories - it's understood that a full-time student with a part-time job has a different profile than a full-time employee that's a part-time student. However, those different profiles doesn't change the fact that both of those people still have both an employment and student relationship with the applicable university. All of the stuff about what a person is primarily there for is a subjective issue.

In any event, all I'm saying that is a university paying an athlete is NOT some type of bright line change that needs to suddenly alter everything that we know about college sports. Student-athletes are already being subject to employment-like agreements and restrictions. Lots of other students have part-time jobs on campus and manage to be both students and employees at the same time without any issue. For as much as I believe the NCAA and colleges need to change their approach, I also believe that the ultimate outcome will end up being a lot less change to the *structure* of college sports (unlike many others here that foresee Armageddon-level changes). I think that schools will largely keep their conferences and everything else with just a new line item to pay athletes because schools (from Stanford to Alabama) keep showing that they really care about maintaining their place at the top level of athletics.

There is a line of demarcation though.

I'm not suggesting the lines between student and employee haven't already been blurred. I'm also not suggesting that athletes are always treated fairly and reasonably.

The LOI, for example, is clearly a contract that benefits the schools more so than the athlete. Even in that case, I've always argued the LOI system didn't violate norms of decency. It's all voluntary after all...if the kid thinks he's getting screwed by signing one then he doesn't have to. Or he could simply back out and go do something else with his life after signing one. No one is going to throw you in jail for that or even say you can't attend college. You just wouldn't be able to play college sports under the NCAA structure. But people howled about that notion which means that playing college athletics has value for the athlete which means he's not really getting the raw deal that some alleged in the first place. But I'm digressing.

What I am saying is that the one real advantage of the current system is that it actually protected the athlete from being treated as nothing more than an employee. Yes, there are disingenuous elements to the structure and there are contradictions, but it also worked for a lot of people. Just gaging it from that perspective, we should be careful about what changes we make.

Anyway...

There is a fundamental difference between being an employee for a university and being a student at the same institution. The impetus behind having a relationship in the first place is very different. That's really what it comes down to.

Let's take coaches for example and maybe that's a better illustration than a librarian. If you've been hired to coach a sport then that's your job, right? The university pursued you or you pursued them in order that this sort of mutually beneficial relationship occurred. The coach wants to provide labor in exchange for remuneration. The schools wants to have your labor and is willing to remunerate you.

Now, let's say down the road that this same coach wants to pursue full time education. The school says great! We'll be happy to set you up with classes as long as you pay part of the tuition. Yeah, the first class is free, but you'll have to pay a percentage of the cost for each hour after that. At least, this is the sort of system I'm familiar with as it pertains to employees. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is the established norm.

The coach comes back and says, yeah, I think this is really going to work out great for me. I will divide my time between coaching and pursuing a degree. Well now, hold on a second there coach, says the university. It's perfectly fine if you go to class, but we're paying you to be a coach. We've invested in you and we expect you to meet the expectations of a coach with high level performance in your field. If you don't do that then first we're going to dock your salary. If it keeps up then you're out the door. We're not running a charity around here.

Wait a minute, says the coach, I thought I could be both a coach and a student? You're saying I have to prioritize one over the other? But my education is important to me! This coaching thing may not last forever and yeah, I'm getting paid for it, but it's not like I'm the head football coach at a big P5 school. It's not like I'm making THAT much money. Even if this thing lasts then I still need retirement and I want to send my kids to school one day.

Look, I get all that, says the university. We're not saying we're drawing up the termination papers or anything. We're not even saying that you can't be both a student and a coach here at our fine and world renowned institution. What we're saying is you're going to have to choose what's most important to you because if you lose the big game and we find out you've been spending a lot of time studying then well...that's just not very professional. And we may have to reevaluate your place here in our esteemed organization. I mean, what's the difference between that and finding out you've been vacationing excessively in your spare time or spending a bunch of time out at the bars?

You work here big guy and you're an adult. It's time you started acting like one. Nothing wrong with a little self-improvement but we're paying you to perform. We're not paying you to go to school. Don't you want to provide for your family? Don't you have bills to pay? You need to decide what's important and act accordingly.

But look, don't get us wrong. It's not like we expect you to work 24 hours a day. You gotta sleep some time! We are paying you a salary though and you know what that means...you probably have to work more than 40 hours a week. I mean, this job is important to you right? All your colleagues are working at least 60 hours and remember, those are the guys we're competing against. We have to match them blow for blow.

We don't want you to spend an excessive amount of time away from your family or anything, don't get us wrong, but you need to take this seriously. After all, if we were looking for an excellent student then we would have given you an academic scholarship out of high school for heavens sake. We have people dedicated to recruiting those kinds of kids. If there's one thing we know, it's education.

You gotta be realistic coach. We're paying you to coach, not go to biology class. We're paying you because you know coaching so just do it.

My point is this, the current system has blurred the lines away from academics towards employment. I get that. What we're proposing is doing away with any gray area whatsoever. Whether you can both legally and formally be a student and an employee, one will take precedence over the other in a world where we've decided that the nature of the transaction is pure and unfiltered.

This is why I'm proposing that the athletes' status as students be protected in a formal or legal way. Paying them as employees will alter the context of the relationship.
05-13-2022 04:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2022 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.