National Labor Relations Board - What a Joke

[PokerGuy]

In what other profession are you required to work for essentially free for a minimum of 3 years before you can try to cash in - all without a guarantee?

Are you at all familiar with trades? (electrician, plumber etc) Oh, and college players aren't playing for "free", they are getting a valuable scholarship worth $30k-$80k per year.

Because there is an overseeing body that has a monopoly in this country, the kids are literally locked out of making any money.

The NCAA doesn't prevent kids from playing for money, the NFL does. The NCAA just says "if you want to play in our league, you have to be an amateur".

The false hope of an education is dangled in front of them as a carrot that doesn't really exist - and the guys IN THE PROGRAM will tell you that.

False hope my butt. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of scholarship athletes that have gotten degrees thanks to their athletic ability. Again, don't focus on the star QB at a big name football school. That's the anomaly. Think of the gymnast or archer at some school and think about the value equation from their perspective.

 

[Genx87]

The olympics are also a "big business" that generates billions, but nobody's looking to compensate the javelin throwing athlete with a big paycheck are they? College football players ARE getting "paid" a ton of money through their scholarships. Sure, there are some that bring in a lot more than they are paid (a big time qb, rb, wr etc), but what about the punter, backup linebacker that never sees the field etc? The vast majority of players get waaaaay more out of their scholarship than they would get any other way. The 'stars' are the exception, not the rule.

The Olymics is a scam as well where everybody but the athlete profits from their performance.

You might be right, but that would reduce college football to the same as triple a baseball, or the d-league in basketball. What makes college football special is the fact that players can only be there for a short amount of time, and that they are amateur athletes rather than pros. If I want to see the best of the best, I watch the NFL. If I want to see the best amateurs (cheating aside of course), I can watch college football.

What's ironic about the calls for players to be able to market their name etc, is that for the vast majority of players it doesn't do much. For the star players, it could mean big opportunities, but those tend to be the guys that are going to be making money at the next level anyway.

Just because players are compensated doesnt mean eligibility rules go out the door. You can still watch college football even if the players get to partake in the millions or billions of revenue generated. I dont understand why a football player being justly compensated for his work ruins your viewing of the sport. Does Nick Saban or Dabo Swinney making 5-7 million\year ruin that amateur sport? If not, why would their players making money ruin it? Amateurism is a sham created by the NCAA and its participant universities to justify why they dont pay their players what they are worth.

How many other industries would love to label their labor pool amateur then give them a scholarship that is paid back to the company to work at their corporate office?

 

[Genx87]

The NCAA doesn't prevent kids from playing for money, the NFL does. The NCAA just says "if you want to play in our league, you have to be an amateur".

That is preventing the players from playing for money. The NFL is a different story. IMO they should be kicking in some cash to the system as well. In true form the NFL is abusing public institutions for their farm league.

False hope my butt. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of scholarship athletes that have gotten degrees thanks to their athletic ability. Again, don't focus on the star QB at a big name football school. That's the anomaly. Think of the gymnast or archer at some school and think about the value equation from their perspective.

If the star athlete is an anomaly why the fuss if he is allowed to make money on his name?

 

[PokerGuy]

That depends on the tackle of course. A compensation schedule from a school doesnt have to be unequal. It just needs to implemented.

Why?

If I were to implement such a system it would be based on seniority.

What does seniority have to do with value? Does a second year rower contribute more than a senior rower?

The unequal part of compensation comes from star athletes being able to generate income from their own name or likeness. Being able to generate income from ones own name is a pretty basic human right is it not?

No, generating income from one's own name is not a basic human right. Where was that established and by whom?

 

[Genx87]

Why?

Because players are underpaid.

What does seniority have to do with value? Does a second year rower contribute more than a senior rower?

Typically yes more senor players contribute more. We are discussing a revenue generating sport(football). Rowing is not in the discussion for me.

No, generating income from one's own name is not a basic human right. Where was that established and by whom?

Really, you dont own your own name? If we don't own our names or likeness then who does?

 

[Genx87]

John Oliver as always nails it. Amateurism is a sham. Worth 21 minutes of your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0&list

 

[PokerGuy]

That is preventing the players from playing for money.

No, the NCAA is not preventing them from playing for money. They are just running an amateur league. If you want to play for money, you are free to do so elsewhere. The NCAA doesn't have some government sanctioned monopoly (like the NFL for example), nor does it prevent someone else from engaging in the same activity.

Lets say I start a league of dart throwers, and specify that only those who are amateurs are allowed to play (ie, no pros). Why is that a problem? That's essentially what the NCAA has done. Players are students. Schools offer scholarships to students if they want, and students play sports. If they want to not be bound by those restrictions, they don't have to be.

The NFL is a different story. IMO they should be kicking in some cash to the system as well.

Why should they have an obligation to pay anyone not affiliated with their organization anything?

If the star athlete is an anomaly why the fuss if he is allowed to make money on his name?

Because it goes against the principles of the NCAA. You can't have one set of rules for a "star" and another set for "non stars". Bottom line: the NCAA is for amateurs. If you want to make money playing a sport, go elsewhere.

 

[PokerGuy]

Because players are underpaid.

They are? According to what metric? They are free to seek out more money elsewhere.

Typically yes more senor players contribute more.

Based on what metric? Generally, the top players are juniors and then they go to the nfl.

We are discussing a revenue generating sport(football). Rowing is not in the discussion for me.

Ok, if you want to only talk about NCAA football and basketball, that's fine, but they are not in isolation, they are part of the NCAA program that includes everything, not just the revenue generating sports.

Really, you dont own your own name? If we don't own our names or likeness then who does?

Sure you do, but if you want to play in someone's league, you play by their rules. Don't like those rules, go somewhere else.

 

[glenn1]

That's the spirit! Get petty with taxation and charge athletes for generating millions in profit!

Here is a clue of what to expect in the real world. When compensation happens they wont take this asinine route.

Why is it "petty" to point out the tax implications of a decision like this? This isn't me saying I hope it happens, I'm saying given current law it might well happen especially since the law never anticipated a situation like this. I didn't write the tax code and don't know how the IRS would interpret the law should student athletes be designated as employees, but I'm taking an educated guess the tax man would certainly not be less aggressive in collections against "student athlete employees" than they would any other kind of employee. If nothing else the value of their scholarships would certainly be considered "earned income" if they were treated as employees, and given they might not have another source of income to pay that tax owed it might be problematic to many players.

 

[PokerGuy]

The Olymics is a scam as well where everybody but the athlete profits from their performance.

Is someone putting a gun to the heads of the participants and forcing them to spend their entire lives in effort to compete in some event? The participants do it for their own reasons, the olympics just gives them a venue to showcase their wares.

Just because players are compensated doesnt mean eligibility rules go out the door.

That IS the CORE eligibility rule -- amateur student athletes. If you want pros, there are pro leagues.

You can still watch college football even if the players get to partake in the millions or billions of revenue generated. I dont understand why a football player being justly compensated for his work ruins your viewing of the sport.

The same reason I enjoy watching the little league world series: players playing for the love of the game and glory. If I want to see pros, I'll watch MLB. Sure, the superstars just want to get to the NFL, but 99% of the players are not going to the NFL, they play because they love the game and they can get an education doing so. If they are just paid pros, then it's just another triple a team, not something I care to watch.

Does Nick Saban or Dabo Swinney making 5-7 million\year ruin that amateur sport?

Nope, I don't watch them play either, so I don't care what they make.

Amateurism is a sham created by the NCAA and its participant universities to justify why they dont pay their players what they are worth.

Says you, I completely disagree. There is value to me as the "consumer" of the sport in it being an amateur sport. If it's not, it's just another minor league affiliate with those who aren't good enough to hit the big leagues.

How many other industries would love to label their labor pool amateur then give them a scholarship that is paid back to the company to work at their corporate office?

You can "label" the labor pool whatever you want, but you can't force people to participate in that activity. It's up to them. If they don't want to, then you have to offer more.

 

[Genx87]

No, the NCAA is not preventing them from playing for money. They are just running an amateur league. If you want to play for money, you are free to do so elsewhere. The NCAA doesn't have some government sanctioned monopoly (like the NFL for example), nor does it prevent someone else from engaging in the same activity.

Lets say I start a league of dart throwers, and specify that only those who are amateurs are allowed to play (ie, no pros). Why is that a problem? That's essentially what the NCAA has done. Players are students. Schools offer scholarships to students if they want, and students play sports. If they want to not be bound by those restrictions, they don't have to be.

They aren't running an amateur league. The league is professional business from top to bottom. The term amateur-athlete was coined by the NCAA in the early 50s because they lost a workers comp case. Classifying their employees as amateurs shielded the NCAA from having to provide workers comp insurance. The term like everything related to not compensating athletes is a sham.

Your dart league competes against other dart leagues for starters. The NCAA has a monopoly on sports in this country. If darts were as popular as NCAA football. Then I suspect nobody would give up their claim to join your league. There are professional dart leagues that have their players recieve compensation for their name.

Because it goes against the principles of the NCAA. You can't have one set of rules for a "star" and another set for "non stars". Bottom line: the NCAA is for amateurs. If you want to make money playing a sport, go elsewhere.

The principles of the NCAA are to underpay their athletes. It isnt one set of rules for one player neither. Every player would be allowed to sell their name. The NCAA is a business. You need to understand that. They alone generated 1 billion in revenue last year. That doesnt even begin to count their university participants.

They are? According to what metric? They are free to seek out more money elsewhere.

When a football program generated over 100 million in revenue and pays their athletes in a scholarship which is nothing more than a book keeping entry that is underpaying. And no, they cant seek out more money elsewhere. Nearly every institution falls under the NCAA umbrella.

Based on what metric? Generally, the top players are juniors and then they go to the nfl.

Most players are not going to the NFL. And most players drafted are not juniors.

Sure you do, but if you want to play in someone's league, you play by their rules. Don't like those rules, go somewhere else.

Where do you suggest football players go exactly? Anyways that isnt a compelling argument. Rules are the rules have been used for centuries for people to oppress other people.

That IS the CORE eligibility rule -- amateur student athletes. If you want pros, there are pro leagues.

That can be amended.

The same reason I enjoy watching the little league world series: players playing for the love of the game and glory. If I want to see pros, I'll watch MLB. Sure, the superstars just want to get to the NFL, but 99% of the players are not going to the NFL, they play because they love the game and they can get an education doing so. If they are just paid pros, then it's just another triple a team, not something I care to watch.

This is some naive bullshit. Just because you have bought into the bullshit this is an amateur league doesnt make it so. Open your eyes, everybody but the athletes are making money hand over fist in this arrangement. Remember this amateur league status the next time you watch a half time report by Vizio at the AT&T Rose bowl.

Nope, I don't watch them play either, so I don't care what they make.

You watch them coach.

Says you, I completely disagree. There is value to me as the "consumer" of the sport in it being an amateur sport. If it's not, it's just another minor league affiliate with those who aren't good enough to hit the big leagues.

There is value to you in watching athletes not being paid what they are worth? I suggest reviewing your value system.

You can "label" the labor pool whatever you want, but you can't force people to participate in that activity. It's up to them. If they don't want to, then you have to offer more.

This is what the NCAA does in a nutshell. They are also a monopoly in college athletics.

 

[Genx87]

Why is it "petty" to point out the tax implications of a decision like this? This isn't me saying I hope it happens, I'm saying given current law it might well happen especially since the law never anticipated a situation like this. I didn't write the tax code and don't know how the IRS would interpret the law should student athletes be designated as employees, but I'm taking an educated guess the tax man would certainly not be less aggressive in collections against "student athlete employees" than they would any other kind of employee. If nothing else the value of their scholarships would certainly be considered "earned income" if they were treated as employees, and given they might not have another source of income to pay that tax owed it might be problematic to many players.

Oh please you phrased it like a punishment for athletes having the audacity to be paid. Making them pay for taxes on training and rehab? What other sports league has this requirement?

Anyways once they are paid, I do expect it to be taxed. But I also expect them to not be paying for rehab and training and their education.

 

[PokerGuy]

They aren't running an amateur league. The league is professional business from top to bottom.

Sorry, that's just flat out wrong. It's a business, but the participants are amateurs. Period.

Classifying their employees as amateurs shielded the NCAA from having to provide workers comp insurance. The term like everything related to not compensating athletes is a sham.

They are not employees. Call it a a sham all you want, but it doesn't change the facts: people who are not paid to play a sport are amateurs. NCAA football players are amateurs.

Your dart league competes against other dart leagues for starters. The NCAA has a monopoly on sports in this country.

The NCAA does not have a monopoly -- you don't have to attend school on a scholarship to play the sport. You can go play professionally if you'd like. The fact that the NFL makes you wait until you are three years out of high school is not the NCAA's problem. You can always play in the arena league, the CFL etc.

If darts were as popular as NCAA football. Then I suspect nobody would give up their claim to join your league. There are professional dart leagues that have their players recieve compensation for their name.

Precisely, just like there are other pro leagues where you can play football. If you want to be a pro, you can do so. If you want to play in the NCAA, you're going to have to be an amateur. Nobody's forcing you to do so.

The principles of the NCAA are to underpay their athletes.

They can't "underpay" when they don't "pay" at all. Further, they are not "their" athletes, they are students attending the universities that decide they want to be a participant in NCAA organized activities.

It isnt one set of rules for one player neither. Every player would be allowed to sell their name.

Which is obviously completely irrelevant for those who are not major stars in football or basketball. If you want to profit playing the sport and not be "exploited" by getting a free education, you can choose to play in pro leagues all you like.

The NCAA is a business. You need to understand that.

What in the world makes you think I don't? Of course they are a business. So what?

When a football program generated over 100 million in revenue and pays their athletes in a scholarship which is nothing more than a book keeping entry that is underpaying. And no, they cant seek out more money elsewhere. Nearly every institution falls under the NCAA umbrella.

Does the arena league fall under the NCAA? What about the CFL? Further, if players want to organize their own league, they are free to do so. There is no exclusionary monopoly that prevents them from doing it.

Also, take for example the Ivy League schools. They don't even give out scholarships. Students do it because they want to play that sport. They don't get paid, they don't get scholly's. The schools still compete under the NCAA umbrella.

Where do you suggest football players go exactly? Anyways that isnt a compelling argument. Rules are the rules have been used for centuries for people to oppress other people.

I've already provided alternatives. There are at least 3 pro leagues where players can play, probably more. Players are also free to start their own league if they want to. There is nothing that says if you want to play you MUST do so at a school. Nobody is being "oppressed", everyone has complete freedom to choose not to participate at all. However, if you choose to participant in the amateur league, then you have to be an amateur.

This is some naive bullsh*t. Just because you have bought into the bullsh*t this is an amateur league doesnt make it so.

The players that are not getting paid are by definition amateurs. You don't like that or agree that they should be, but it's a simple fact. Arguing that 2 plus 2 equals 5 is pointless. They are in fact amateurs.

Open your eyes, everybody but the athletes are making money hand over fist in this arrangement. Remember this amateur league status the next time you watch a half time report by Vizio at the AT&T Rose bowl.

You seem to be conflating two very distinct things. Whether they are amateurs or not and whether you think the whole process is fair or not are two very different things. They are amateurs, and can choose not to be if they want. The fact that others are making money off it doesn't change anything. Are you going to tell me the little league baseball players should be considered employees of little league and should get paid because little league gets money from espn to show the llws?

What about high school players, should they get paid too? Should anyone who plays a game that generates revenue get paid, and every league that enforces any kind of restrictions (including amateurism) be forced to abandon those rules? That's absurd. Nobody is forced to participate. Don't like the rules, don't participate.

You watch them coach.

I do not, I watch the players on the field. Perhaps I'm watching the result of their coaching, but I'm not watching them coaching, I don't care about them at all, I care about watching the sport.

There is value to you in watching athletes not being paid what they are worth? I suggest reviewing your value system.

That's an idiotic way to look at it. People play sports whether or not they get paid for it. I enjoy watching amateurs play the game, just as I enjoy the top of the line best of the best pros. I don't care to watch the not-good-enough-to-play-top-level pros. Most people are like me, they don't watch the second division soccer, minor league baseball etc etc, they watch the elite leagues, and they watch the top amateurs.

 

[fskimospy]

I am baffled that anyone would defend the NCAA, much less buy into the 'student athlete' bullshit.

John Oliver had a pretty good piece on how much of a sham the whole thing is.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/john-oliver-discusses-the-sham-of-ncaa-amateurism

 

[Genx87]

Sorry, that's just flat out wrong. It's a business, but the participants are amateurs. Period.

Except the coaches, administrators, universities, and the NCAA. Other than that the participants are amateur. Am I right?

They are not employees. Call it a a sham all you want, but it doesn't change the facts: people who are not paid to play a sport are amateurs. NCAA football players are amateurs.

Im telling you how the sham of the student athlete was started. The NCAA lost a workers comp case in the early 50s and reclassified athletes as student-athletes to get around worker comp laws. It was solely done to save money, not out of being a champion of amateurism.

The NCAA does not have a monopoly -- you don't have to attend school on a scholarship to play the sport. You can go play professionally if you'd like. The fact that the NFL makes you wait until you are three years out of high school is not the NCAA's problem. You can always play in the arena league, the CFL etc.

They absolutely do have a monopoly. Anti-trust law is being used against them right now.

They can't "underpay" when they don't "pay" at all. Further, they are not "their" athletes, they are students attending the universities that decide they want to be a participant in NCAA organized activities.

Did you really just say that? If we dont pay them then they cant be underpaid! Brilliant! You work for the NCAA?

Which is obviously completely irrelevant for those who are not major stars in football or basketball. If you want to profit playing the sport and not be "exploited" by getting a free education, you can choose to play in pro leagues all you like.

Absolutely right. But so what? You still havent provided a compelling reason why somebody should be deprived of the right to earn money off their own name except rules are rules.

The players that are not getting paid are by definition amateurs. You don't like that or agree that they should be, but it's a simple fact. Arguing that 2 plus 2 equals 5 is pointless. They are in fact amateurs.

Classified as amateurs by the body that doesnt want to pay them. How convenient.

You seem to be conflating two very distinct things. Whether they are amateurs or not and whether you think the whole process is fair or not are two very different things. They are amateurs, and can choose not to be if they want. The fact that others are making money off it doesn't change anything. Are you going to tell me the little league baseball players should be considered employees of little league and should get paid because little league gets money from espn to show the llws?

Money changes everything. And will be why the whole system will be moved towards compensating players and letting them sell their own name in the coming decades. The NCAA cant hide behind amateurism when the money so is big.

The NCAA can try to work out a system that is favorable to players now. Or have the court system decimate them in the coming years. I would try to work out something in advance to preserve what power the organization can keep. Once the courts get done with this the NCAA will have little power imo.

 

[glenn1]

Oh please you phrased it like a punishment for athletes having the audacity to be paid. Making them pay for taxes on training and rehab? What other sports league has this requirement?

Anyways once they are paid, I do expect it to be taxed. But I also expect them to not be paying for rehab and training and their education.

If the value of their scholarship isn't taxed then what exactly would you say was their income to make them employees in the first place rather than volunteers? They don't seem to meet one of the key tests for being a volunteer: "Does the worker receive (or expect) any benefit from the entity to which it is providing services?"

Indeed the fact they get scholarships seems to be the primary basis for the earlier ruling that the NLRB just overturned seems to imply exactly that:

Regional NLRB Director Peter Sung Ohr issued a stunning decision three months later, saying Northwestern football players who receive scholarships fit the definition of employees under federal law

If they're employees I'd certainly say their scholarships should be treated as a benefit-in-kind although I defer to anyone who is a CPA or tax expert. I'm not saying this to be mean to the students, it just seems that would be the correct tax treatment.

If you're advocating they get paid salaries that's fine and I don't have a problem with that approach, but let's just ensure we're talking about the same thing.

 

[PokerGuy]

Except the coaches, administrators, universities, and the NCAA. Other than that the participants are amateur. Am I right?

None of those people are participants in the sport. Not that hard to distinguish between the athletes and those otherwise involved with the process.

Im telling you how the sham of the student athlete was started. The NCAA lost a workers comp case in the early 50s and reclassified athletes as student-athletes to get around worker comp laws. It was solely done to save money, not out of being a champion of amateurism.

How and why it came to be is not relevant. They are amateurs by the definition of the word.

They absolutely do have a monopoly. Anti-trust law is being used against them right now.

Someone should inform the CFL, NFL and arena league that the NCAA has a monopoly on the game of organized football, stat!

Did you really just say that? If we dont pay them then they cant be underpaid! Brilliant! You work for the NCAA?

It's a fact. They can't be "over" or "under" paid -- they are not paid at all, they are not employees.

Absolutely right. But so what? You still havent provided a compelling reason why somebody should be deprived of the right to earn money off their own name except rules are rules.

Deprived of their right? You have a right to join an organization and participate in their activities and dictate to them what the rules should be? No. You have the right to participate under the rules of that organization , or simply not participate with that organization and do something else. Nobody forces anyone, no rights are deprived. Just like with my darts club. You don't have to join to play, but if you do want to play in my league, you have to be an amateur. Otherwise, play somewhere else.

Classified as amateurs by the body that doesnt want to pay them. How convenient.

They are "classified" as amateurs by the very definition of the word. They don't have to be, they can choose to play somewhere else.

The NCAA can try to work out a system that is favorable to players now. Or have the court system decimate them in the coming years. I would try to work out something in advance to preserve what power the organization can keep. Once the courts get done with this the NCAA will have little power imo.

You might speculate that the court system will "decimate" them, but I don't see any law being violated, nor do the players have a right to dictate terms of NCAA processes. They have no obligation to participate in the NCAA activities, but neither do they have a right to change the rules that govern the NSCC.

 

[Genx87]

None of those people are participants in the sport. Not that hard to distinguish between the athletes and those otherwise involved with the process.

They are participants in the business. And they are all compensated well for their effort to run said business, except the athlete who actually puts his body on the line every day.

How and why it came to be is not relevant. They are amateurs by the definition of the word.

It is very relevant. It shows the NCAA coined the term to dupe people into believing the business employs amateurs. When in reality they coined it to avoid providing workers comp insurance to what the court deemed an employee.

Someone should inform the CFL, NFL and arena league that the NCAA has a monopoly on the game of organized football, stat!

Someone should inform the court system. The NCAA track record on fighting anti-trust litigation isnt very good.

It's a fact. They can't be "over" or "under" paid -- they are not paid at all, they are not employees.

Its a fact not paying them at all is by definition being underpaid by any measure beyond the NCAA.

Deprived of their right? You have a right to join an organization and participate in their activities and dictate to them what the rules should be? No. You have the right to participate under the rules of that organization , or simply not participate with that organization and do something else. Nobody forces anyone, no rights are deprived. Just like with my darts club. You don't have to join to play, but if you do want to play in my league, you have to be an amateur. Otherwise, play somewhere else.

You might speculate that the court system will "decimate" them, but I don't see any law being violated, nor do the players have a right to dictate terms of NCAA processes. They have no obligation to participate in the NCAA activities, but neither do they have a right to change the rules that govern the NSCC.

This most recent case that was decided about a year ago is chipping away at the NCAAs ability to regulate compensation at zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Bannon_v._NCAA

Jeffrey Kessler is also leading a class action case against the NCAA to open the whole thing up to free market forces.

Given the NCAAs defense is really indefensible(not paying players generating millions of dollars). I think there will be some kind of settlement or the NCAA will lose. Which will result in the NCAA losing their ability to regulate the whole thing.

 

[PokerGuy]

They are participants in the business. And they are all compensated well for their effort to run said business, except the athlete who actually puts his body on the line every day.

Are little league players part of a "business" that need to be paid? What about high school players? The fact that it's a business simply isn't relevant.

It is very relevant. It shows the NCAA coined the term to dupe people into believing the business employs amateurs. When in reality they coined it to avoid providing workers comp insurance to what the court deemed an employee.

Who came up with a term decades ago is not relevant. By the simple definition of the word, there is no arguing whether they are amateurs or not. They are. Whether

Someone should inform the court system. The NCAA track record on fighting anti-trust litigation isnt very good.

Not relevant.

Its a fact not paying them at all is by definition being underpaid by any measure beyond the NCAA.

Is an unpaid volunteer "underpaid"? What about an unpaid intern? Unpaid does not by definition mean "underpaid", it means unpaid. Further, compensation can occur without payment, ie there can be consideration (ie, an education) in return for participation.

This most recent case that was decided about a year ago is chipping away at the NCAAs ability to regulate compensation at zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Bannon_v._NCAA

Nope. In that case, the plaintiffs argue that the athletes should become entitled to the financial compensation for use of their images and likeness after the athlete has left college. It is also under appeal and the appeals court already issued a stay in the case. Regardless, it's about after a student has left college, not about amateurism itself.

Jeffrey Kessler is also leading a class action case against the NCAA to open the whole thing up to free market forces.

Kessler's case is more interesting, but it's barely underway yet. We have no idea what's going to come of it.

Given the NCAAs defense is really indefensible(not paying players generating millions of dollars).

There's absolutely nothing indefensible about saying "we want a league of amateurs playing". Just because that league is tremendously popular doesn't mean all of a sudden the rules need to change regarding amateurism.

In fact, lets pretend and do a hypothetical situation. Lets say the NCAA becomes becomes an open free market process where payers can be paid anything. Essentially, it would become competition for the NFL, or a minor league for the NFL. Now lets say some of the schools start a new league of pure amateurs, and that new league becomes extremely popular. Does that mean the new amateur league should be forced to become pro? Of course not. That's absurd.

Similarly, if I start a league with some buddies that excludes pros -- strictly for amateurs, and the league becomes tremendously popular, should my league of amateurs all of a sudden become pro ... just because...reasons?

I think there will be some kind of settlement or the NCAA will lose. Which will result in the NCAA losing their ability to regulate the whole thing.

Perhaps, but if so, I imagine some of the schools are simply going to leave the NCAA and form a new amateur league. I heard some of the schools already have said that's what they would do (including Notre Dame).

 

[Pulsar]

Are you at all familiar with trades? (electrician, plumber etc) Oh, and college players aren't playing for "free", they are getting a valuable scholarship worth $30k-$80k per year.

The NCAA doesn't prevent kids from playing for money, the NFL does. The NCAA just says "if you want to play in our league, you have to be an amateur".

False hope my butt. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of scholarship athletes that have gotten degrees thanks to their athletic ability. Again, don't focus on the star QB at a big name football school. That's the anomaly. Think of the gymnast or archer at some school and think about the value equation from their perspective.

I am very familiar with trades - I'm the boss of about 20 of them. Those trades were apprenticed. They were taught using company time and money with on-the-job training. At the same time they were being trained, they were being payed nearly what a full tradesman would make. The time they spend learning that trade is not split between learning the trade and, say, playing the oboe for 10-14 hours a day.

Of course, a tradesman or apprentice on the job is insured. If injured, he is eligible for workman's comp. If laid off, he's paid unemployment and sub pay for a significant amount of time.

You made the comparison. Not me.

I think Zorb made a great point. Mandatory health insurance (full coverage) for sports-related injuries. Mandatory retention of said student while they complete the degree if an injury takes them out of the game, rather than just dropping their scholarship. etc.

These kids need some protection.

 

[PokerGuy]

I am very familiar with trades - I'm the boss of about 20 of them. Those trades were apprenticed.

You said this: In what other profession are you required to work for essentially free for a minimum of 3 years before you can try to cash in - all without a guarantee?

They are not doing anything for "essentially free", they are getting upwards of $40k per year in scholly's. If you think that's free, I'd guessing there are quite a few people with student loans who would like a word with you.

I think Zorb made a great point. Mandatory health insurance (full coverage) for sports-related injuries. Mandatory retention of said student while they complete the degree if an injury takes them out of the game, rather than just dropping their scholarship. etc.

These kids need some protection.

I'm not at all opposed to such changes, including mandatory coverage for any injuries sustained playing the sport (or at school sanctioned practice). I'm also in favor of making the school commit to a full 4 (or 5?) year scholarship instead of the BS of 4 1-year scholly's that allow a school to pull the scholarship during the process. If the student athlete has to commit to the school, then the school should commit to the student athlete as well for the duration of their education.

Those kinds of changes to benefit the players don't bother me at all, I'm in favor of them. What bothers me is this idiotic notion that because the NCAA is making lots of money, the players are entitled to that money. The players are getting a scholarship worth hundreds of thousands to play a game. Most of them (everyone other than the big name stars) are getting much more from the deal than what they are putting in. If you're one of the "big name stars" and think you are so much more valuable that what you're getting from your scholarship, then it's a free world, feel free to go play somewhere else or do something else.

I'm assuming the pressure on the NCAA and schools will force them to make some of the changes that help protect the students (insurance etc), but I don't think the fundamental principle of amateurism should change. If it does, I certainly won't watch anymore. Why watch the football equivalent of the D-league when I can just watch the NFL?

 

[fskimospy]

The average scholarship value is somewhere around $10-$15k, not $40k. Considering the amount of time required in order to maintain that, they are probably being 'paid' less than minimum wage. Hundreds of thousands, my ass.

Not to mention the risk of injury, not to mention how you can lose your funding, etc, etc.

The NCAA is a scam. Pokerguy would be literally the only person I've ever heard of that would stop watching if the students were given a salary or a stipend of some sort.