If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Enid News and Eagle)   College athletics experts fear the decision to allow unionization will impact enrollment, end to athletic scholarships, wipe out the only reason to attend the University of Arkansas   (enidnews.com) divider line 65
    More: Followup, University of Arkansas, athletic scholarship, college sports, Jeremy Hise, junior colleges, Northwestern University, athletic director, football  
•       •       •

499 clicks; posted to Sports » on 30 Mar 2014 at 10:19 AM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-30 09:16:31 AM
They certainly sound like a business.
 
2014-03-30 10:20:37 AM
Good.
 
2014-03-30 10:21:22 AM

MFAWG: Good.

 
2014-03-30 10:27:45 AM
Then you could get the students to sign employment contracts to stay for 4 years where you pay them money for playing, and they could put that money back into tuition if they wanted to.
 
2014-03-30 10:28:02 AM
If this decision leads to colleges eliminating sports, it will be a blessing.
 
2014-03-30 10:39:02 AM

The Muthaship: If this decision leads to colleges eliminating sports, it will be a blessing.


We could join the rest of the civilized world in higher education
 
2014-03-30 10:42:21 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: The Muthaship: If this decision leads to colleges eliminating sports, it will be a blessing.

We could join the rest of the civilized world in higher education


You mean that the colleges would focus on educating people instead?
 
2014-03-30 10:46:21 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: The Muthaship: If this decision leads to colleges eliminating sports, it will be a blessing.

We could join the rest of the civilized world in higher education


I'm no big fan of Europe in general, but in this area they do something right.
 
2014-03-30 10:52:40 AM

pjbreeze: Doktor_Zhivago: The Muthaship: If this decision leads to colleges eliminating sports, it will be a blessing.

We could join the rest of the civilized world in higher education

You mean that the colleges would focus on educating people instead?


My alma mater built a gigantic stadium for their division ii program and ended up having to let go a large portion of their professors in order to pay for it.

Because football and merka
 
2014-03-30 10:52:57 AM

The Muthaship: If this decision leads to colleges eliminating sports, it will be a blessing.


If they do eliminate sports because of this decision, I'm guessing it'll be less "let's focus on improving the quality of the education of our students" and more "f*ck unions."

They might do something like putting a clause in the union contracts saying the players' only pay will be a cut of the TV revenue and then not televising the games.
 
2014-03-30 10:59:03 AM
Well, you had your chance to be fair to the athletes and not pretend that a scholarship was equivalent to legal tender that could be accepted as payment for goods and services. Now your NCAA Fun Bucks setup comes crashing down for you. You brought it on yourself.
 
2014-03-30 11:00:20 AM
So the NFL and NBA could either subsidize the university programs or create their own farm systems like baseball. Meh.
 
2014-03-30 11:00:34 AM
Schollys are a series of one-year contracts.  Don't play well?-byebye
Hope the college kids know they will be taxed on their earnings,  and they'll also have to pay union dues.  United Steel Workers are behind this and are grasping at straws since the defeat most recently in Chattanooga.  I'm sure the USW has briefed them on all of the extra charges associated with a union (wink wink).  A unions last resort is a strike.  Wonder if they'll just not play next Saturday?  I can see the schools shutting the program down and telling the adios.
 
2014-03-30 11:08:30 AM
Like Hise, Carter is referring to the fact that, if forced to begin paying athletes or providing employee-like benefits, all but a select few schools could afford to do so, with most likely opting out of scholarship athletics.....................................  They are not looking to get payed
 
2014-03-30 11:10:36 AM
I'd like to see how this conflicts with Title 9. If it holds that the feds count student athletes as workers and colleges drop unprofitable women's sports, will the government take the position that they can force a company to keep an unprofitable division for the take of gender party?
 
2014-03-30 11:13:48 AM
the local radio guys said there's a supreme court case from i think the 50s, something like, "Westinghouse Inc. vs. US" where the Westinghouse company paid a student's tuition in exchange for his promise to work at Westinghouse.  the IRS taxed the student on his scholarship.

the crux of the lawsuit was - as noted legal experts THE LOCAL RADIO GUYS - said, was that the student argued he was not an employee of the company and could not be taxed.  the supreme court agreed, saying while he was receiving an economic benefit (scholarship) he wasn't an employee of either Westinghouse or the school, and thus his scholarship could not be taxed.

so they argued, if this 40-50 year old supreme court case says, students are not employees and thus their scholarships cannot be taxed, if Northwestern says "we *are* employees", are they in essence saying their scholarships can be taxed?  i do not know.

I'm rather skeptical of taking sports lunkheads opining on supreme court (and employment law) jurisprudence, but it is an interesting point no?
 
2014-03-30 11:17:10 AM
A lot of people are getting rich off college athletes. It doesn't seem like the worst idea to give the athletes some kind of a say in what hours they work, what kind of safety equipment they can use, how often they travel, etc.
 
2014-03-30 11:24:49 AM

rickythepenguin: the local radio guys said there's a supreme court case from i think the 50s, something like, "Westinghouse Inc. vs. US" where the Westinghouse company paid a student's tuition in exchange for his promise to work at Westinghouse.  the IRS taxed the student on his scholarship.

the crux of the lawsuit was - as noted legal experts THE LOCAL RADIO GUYS - said, was that the student argued he was not an employee of the company and could not be taxed.  the supreme court agreed, saying while he was receiving an economic benefit (scholarship) he wasn't an employee of either Westinghouse or the school, and thus his scholarship could not be taxed.

so they argued, if this 40-50 year old supreme court case says, students are not employees and thus their scholarships cannot be taxed, if Northwestern says "we *are* employees", are they in essence saying their scholarships can be taxed?  i do not know.

I'm rather skeptical of taking sports lunkheads opining on supreme court (and employment law) jurisprudence, but it is an interesting point no?


IANAL (I always wanted to say that!), but that sounds like an interesting and relevant precedent.  I don't think it answers everything, though.  There's a difference between being "working" for an outside interest and "working" for the school, I would guess.
 
2014-03-30 11:32:29 AM
I'd be interesting to see if former NFL players could be allowed to suit up for teams; Champ Bailey is your starting CB for the University of Georgia.
 
2014-03-30 11:32:42 AM
Weren't the athletes mainly asking for medical benefits and rights to their likenesses? 'cause that seems like a rather rational demand.

I just think it will be interesting how and what the athletes actually bargain for. I know a sizeable percentage use their scholarship as a ticket to getting to the major leagues, but some still use it to get an education they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.
 
2014-03-30 11:32:44 AM

rickythepenguin: o work at Westinghouse.  the IRS taxed the student on his scholarship.the crux of the lawsuit was - as noted legal experts THE LOCAL RADIO GUYS - said, was that the student argued he was not an employee of the company and could not be taxed.  the supreme court agreed, saying while he was receiving an economic benefit (scholarship) he wasn't an employee of either Westinghouse or the school, and thus his scholarship could not be taxed.so they argued, if this 40-50 year old supreme court case says, students are not employees and thus their scholarships cannot be taxed, if Northwestern says "we *are* employees", are they in essence saying their scholarships can be taxed?  i do not know.I'm rather skeptical of taking sports lunkheads opining on suprem


Paying tuition is a pretty standard benefit for a lot of professional jobs.  Tuition assistance is not taxable.
 
2014-03-30 11:32:59 AM

trailerpimp: Schollys are a series of one-year contracts.  Don't play well?-byebye



Except for the fact if the university decides to cut you and you move to another university you have to sit out another year.  So it's a one year contract with a one year uncompensated non-compete clause.
 
2014-03-30 11:34:50 AM

Summoner101: Weren't the athletes mainly asking for medical benefits and rights to their likenesses? 'cause that seems like a rather rational demand.

I just think it will be interesting how and what the athletes actually bargain for. I know a sizeable percentage use their scholarship as a ticket to getting to the major leagues, but some still use it to get an education they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.


A trivially small percentage of college athletes go pro.  Even at high level BCS caliber schools most guys are never going to be playing another game after their senior season is over.
 
2014-03-30 11:46:50 AM
The NCAA reels in a ton of money, and the benefactors do not want anyone else sticking their fingers into the pie.  So let's hope this doesn't get to the point where they bribe Congress into doing something really stupid.
 
2014-03-30 12:04:22 PM

ArkAngel: I'd like to see how this conflicts with Title 9. If it holds that the feds count student athletes as workers and colleges drop unprofitable women's sports, will the government take the position that they can force a company to keep an unprofitable division for the take of gender party?


I see this as a gigantic challenge to Title IX. Not even at UConn can it be said that there's any way for the women's hoops team to compete fiscally with football or men's hoops. And that's the key to this whole idea; by letter of law, IX dictates equality, and it's hard to say revenues from all sports are remotely equal. So you're basically setting it up that schools will have to cut football because there's no equivalent to it in women's sports, at which point the smrtkid from NWU is gonna see his friends out of a job. And that's before we even get to the idea of what you pay to watch mens vs womens sports.
 
2014-03-30 12:05:26 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-30 12:09:35 PM

Summoner101: Weren't the athletes mainly asking for medical benefits and rights to their likenesses? 'cause that seems like a rather rational demand.



Yes they were, but people who didn't bother to listen to what they were asking all kept screaming that this was an attempted cash grab by the athletes, so that is the message that got out.
 
2014-03-30 12:11:57 PM

OdradekRex: So the NFL and NBA could either subsidize the university programs or create their own farm systems like baseball. Meh.


That's what I'd like to see, but the NFL has no incentive to do it right now.  If we're going to pay the kids -- and whether or not one likes it (I'm for it, personally), I think it's almost inevitable that we will at some point -- then I'd like to see a system set up that provides for the NFL (and perhaps the FSUs and Bamas and UFs and OUs of the world) to kick in to a national fund to pay a flat wage to the FBS players.  The smaller programs would be net-takers, obviously, but having a system in which the UCFs and Nevadas of the world at least have a shot to build good programs is healthy for the sport in the long run.  Otherwise we're going to go from a system in which the big schools with big alumni bases have big advantages to a system in which they have insurmountable advantages.

Setting a flat wage would create antitrust problems, but having a players union fixes it, if I'm not mistaken.  (Isn't that why the NFLPA disbanded prior to the antitrust suit during the lockout?)
 
2014-03-30 12:16:07 PM
The NCAA has a small window of time to fix this situation before it explodes into something out of control that very well could destroy the NCAA itself. Just pay the kids the same as if they were in a work/study job. Nothing more than that, to help TRY to keep costs and corruption in check. Do that and it might help Northwestern in their appeal case. If they lose that, hang on to your hats.
 
2014-03-30 12:26:04 PM

Thoguh: Summoner101: Weren't the athletes mainly asking for medical benefits and rights to their likenesses? 'cause that seems like a rather rational demand.

I just think it will be interesting how and what the athletes actually bargain for. I know a sizeable percentage use their scholarship as a ticket to getting to the major leagues, but some still use it to get an education they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

A trivially small percentage of college athletes go pro.  Even at high level BCS caliber schools most guys are never going to be playing another game after their senior season is over.


Sure, only a small percentage make it. That doesn't mean that there isn't a greater percentage that is their primary reason to be there.
 
2014-03-30 12:30:15 PM
Take 50% of the head coaches salary. Share it out among the players according to playing time. Remember, a college sports coach is probably the best paid government employee in your state. The 70th best paid college football coach makes over a million dollars.If the program was really at stake, he could probably survive on half a million.
 
2014-03-30 12:32:40 PM

FriarReb98: ArkAngel: I'd like to see how this conflicts with Title 9. If it holds that the feds count student athletes as workers and colleges drop unprofitable women's sports, will the government take the position that they can force a company to keep an unprofitable division for the take of gender party?

I see this as a gigantic challenge to Title IX. Not even at UConn can it be said that there's any way for the women's hoops team to compete fiscally with football or men's hoops. And that's the key to this whole idea; by letter of law, IX dictates equality, and it's hard to say revenues from all sports are remotely equal. So you're basically setting it up that schools will have to cut football because there's no equivalent to it in women's sports, at which point the smrtkid from NWU is gonna see his friends out of a job. And that's before we even get to the idea of what you pay to watch mens vs womens sports.


Let the players earn whatever outside income they want, regardless of the sport.

No Title IX issues there.
 
2014-03-30 12:34:07 PM

iron_city_ap: The NCAA has a small window of time to fix this situation before it explodes into something out of control that very well could destroy the NCAA itself. Just pay the kids the same as if they were in a work/study job. Nothing more than that, to help TRY to keep costs and corruption in check. Do that and it might help Northwestern in their appeal case. If they lose that, hang on to your hats.


They really aren't even asking for pay. They are asking for medical coverage, for their scholarships to be honored if they are unable to perform because of injury or illness, and the rights to their names and likeness.
 
2014-03-30 12:35:47 PM

MFAWG: Good.

 
2014-03-30 12:41:30 PM

PowerSlacker: FriarReb98: ArkAngel: I'd like to see how this conflicts with Title 9. If it holds that the feds count student athletes as workers and colleges drop unprofitable women's sports, will the government take the position that they can force a company to keep an unprofitable division for the take of gender party?

I see this as a gigantic challenge to Title IX. Not even at UConn can it be said that there's any way for the women's hoops team to compete fiscally with football or men's hoops. And that's the key to this whole idea; by letter of law, IX dictates equality, and it's hard to say revenues from all sports are remotely equal. So you're basically setting it up that schools will have to cut football because there's no equivalent to it in women's sports, at which point the smrtkid from NWU is gonna see his friends out of a job. And that's before we even get to the idea of what you pay to watch mens vs womens sports.

Let the players earn whatever outside income they want, regardless of the sport.

No Title IX issues there.


Yep this. If Mr booster Ford wants to pay some player to come out and sign autographs then the ncaa should stay out of it.
 
2014-03-30 12:41:59 PM

ongbok: iron_city_ap: The NCAA has a small window of time to fix this situation before it explodes into something out of control that very well could destroy the NCAA itself. Just pay the kids the same as if they were in a work/study job. Nothing more than that, to help TRY to keep costs and corruption in check. Do that and it might help Northwestern in their appeal case. If they lose that, hang on to your hats.

They really aren't even asking for pay. They are asking for medical coverage, for their scholarships to be honored if they are unable to perform because of injury or illness, and the rights to their names and likeness.


Seems pretty reasonable and fair to me, as long as those injuries occur while they are playing/practicing.
 
2014-03-30 12:45:18 PM

iron_city_ap: ongbok: iron_city_ap: The NCAA has a small window of time to fix this situation before it explodes into something out of control that very well could destroy the NCAA itself. Just pay the kids the same as if they were in a work/study job. Nothing more than that, to help TRY to keep costs and corruption in check. Do that and it might help Northwestern in their appeal case. If they lose that, hang on to your hats.

They really aren't even asking for pay. They are asking for medical coverage, for their scholarships to be honored if they are unable to perform because of injury or illness, and the rights to their names and likeness.

Seems pretty reasonable and fair to me, as long as those injuries occur while they are playing/practicing.


In fairness though just because th aren't asking for pay doesn't mean they can't in the future. The ruling here is bigger than the current demands.
 
2014-03-30 12:49:17 PM

NickelP: iron_city_ap: ongbok: iron_city_ap: The NCAA has a small window of time to fix this situation before it explodes into something out of control that very well could destroy the NCAA itself. Just pay the kids the same as if they were in a work/study job. Nothing more than that, to help TRY to keep costs and corruption in check. Do that and it might help Northwestern in their appeal case. If they lose that, hang on to your hats.

They really aren't even asking for pay. They are asking for medical coverage, for their scholarships to be honored if they are unable to perform because of injury or illness, and the rights to their names and likeness.

Seems pretty reasonable and fair to me, as long as those injuries occur while they are playing/practicing.

In fairness though just because th aren't asking for pay doesn't mean they can't in the future. The ruling here is bigger than the current demands.


I've said it before, imagine what boosters at, say, The U are lining up to throw at the program if players are allowed to unionize. It's a very slippery slope.
 
2014-03-30 12:50:03 PM

trailerpimp: Schollys are a series of one-year contracts.  Don't play well?-byebye
Hope the college kids know they will be taxed on their earnings,  and they'll also have to pay union dues.  United Steel Workers are behind this and are grasping at straws since the defeat most recently in Chattanooga.  I'm sure the USW has briefed them on all of the extra charges associated with a union (wink wink).  A unions last resort is a strike.  Wonder if they'll just not play next Saturday?  I can see the schools shutting the program down and telling the adios.


You probably belong to the united derpers ASSociation.
 
2014-03-30 12:59:54 PM

iron_city_ap: ongbok: iron_city_ap: The NCAA has a small window of time to fix this situation before it explodes into something out of control that very well could destroy the NCAA itself. Just pay the kids the same as if they were in a work/study job. Nothing more than that, to help TRY to keep costs and corruption in check. Do that and it might help Northwestern in their appeal case. If they lose that, hang on to your hats.

They really aren't even asking for pay. They are asking for medical coverage, for their scholarships to be honored if they are unable to perform because of injury or illness, and the rights to their names and likeness.

Seems pretty reasonable and fair to me, as long as those injuries occur while they are playing/practicing.


That is all they are asking for and people keep screaming about paying them. I guess talking about the possibility of college athletes getting paid is more sexy and induces more emotion from jealous people than talking about college athletes receiving medical coverage for their injuries and keeping their scholarships if they are unable to play because of a athletics related injury. I guess this is because most people already think that this is the case for college athletes, so that won't create the outrage from the public that the sports media needs for this to become a story that will create ratings or the outrage that the NCAA needs from the public to turn support against it.
 
2014-03-30 01:03:29 PM

ongbok: iron_city_ap: ongbok: iron_city_ap: The NCAA has a small window of time to fix this situation before it explodes into something out of control that very well could destroy the NCAA itself. Just pay the kids the same as if they were in a work/study job. Nothing more than that, to help TRY to keep costs and corruption in check. Do that and it might help Northwestern in their appeal case. If they lose that, hang on to your hats.

They really aren't even asking for pay. They are asking for medical coverage, for their scholarships to be honored if they are unable to perform because of injury or illness, and the rights to their names and likeness.

Seems pretty reasonable and fair to me, as long as those injuries occur while they are playing/practicing.

That is all they are asking for and people keep screaming about paying them. I guess talking about the possibility of college athletes getting paid is more sexy and induces more emotion from jealous people than talking about college athletes receiving medical coverage for their injuries and keeping their scholarships if they are unable to play because of a athletics related injury. I guess this is because most people already think that this is the case for college athletes, so that won't create the outrage from the public that the sports media needs for this to become a story that will create ratings or the outrage that the NCAA needs from the public to turn support against it.


How long do you think it will be before one team's union wants paid?
 
2014-03-30 01:05:37 PM
GO HOGS! SUBBY SUCKS!
 
2014-03-30 01:08:13 PM

ongbok: keeping their scholarships if they are unable to play because of a athletics related injury.


They already have that.  If somebody gets hurt and can't play the school can convert their scholarship into a medical scholarship so they can finish school without counting against scholarship limits.


Of course, just like anything else involving the NCAA and college sports that is widely abused by a lot of coaches.  Sabin in particular is notorious for using medical scholarships to force underperformers off the team and free up space for new recruit.
 
2014-03-30 01:09:01 PM

rickythepenguin: the local radio guys said there's a supreme court case from i think the 50s, something like, "Westinghouse Inc. vs. US" where the Westinghouse company paid a student's tuition in exchange for his promise to work at Westinghouse. the IRS taxed the student on his scholarship.

the crux of the lawsuit was - as noted legal experts THE LOCAL RADIO GUYS - said, was that the student argued he was not an employee of the company and could not be taxed. the supreme court agreed, saying while he was receiving an economic benefit (scholarship) he wasn't an employee of either Westinghouse or the school, and thus his scholarship could not be taxed.

so they argued, if this 40-50 year old supreme court case says, students are not employees and thus their scholarships cannot be taxed, if Northwestern says "we *are* employees", are they in essence saying their scholarships can be taxed? i do not know.

I'm rather skeptical of taking sports lunkheads opining on supreme court (and employment law) jurisprudence, but it is an interesting point no?


Except there isn't a formal degree in football, basketball or any other sport, coaches are not members of the faculty, and sports are extracurricular activities. And as the NCAA commercials say, the vast majority of college athletes are not employed as professional athletes after graduation.

In my opinion, an athletic scholarship isn't fundamentally any different from the work-study financial aid I received for working part time in the Student Union, except that the athletes are working the equivalent of a full-time job while being required to carry a full-time course load to maintain eligibility, while I was limited to part-time. Therefore, scholarship athletes are technically employees, and not students of the sport.
 
2014-03-30 01:11:18 PM

iron_city_ap: ongbok: iron_city_ap: ongbok: iron_city_ap: The NCAA has a small window of time to fix this situation before it explodes into something out of control that very well could destroy the NCAA itself. Just pay the kids the same as if they were in a work/study job. Nothing more than that, to help TRY to keep costs and corruption in check. Do that and it might help Northwestern in their appeal case. If they lose that, hang on to your hats.

They really aren't even asking for pay. They are asking for medical coverage, for their scholarships to be honored if they are unable to perform because of injury or illness, and the rights to their names and likeness.

Seems pretty reasonable and fair to me, as long as those injuries occur while they are playing/practicing.

That is all they are asking for and people keep screaming about paying them. I guess talking about the possibility of college athletes getting paid is more sexy and induces more emotion from jealous people than talking about college athletes receiving medical coverage for their injuries and keeping their scholarships if they are unable to play because of a athletics related injury. I guess this is because most people already think that this is the case for college athletes, so that won't create the outrage from the public that the sports media needs for this to become a story that will create ratings or the outrage that the NCAA needs from the public to turn support against it.

How long do you think it will be before one team's union wants paid?


You negotiate about that when that demand is made, or better yet you put it into the initial agreement that that isn't an option. There are many ways that the NCAA can prevent that and accommodate the other demands. The NCAA is using the specter of college athletes getting paid a a boogy man to keep them from having to provide medical coverage and losing the exclusive rights to the players names and likeness during their time in college.
 
2014-03-30 01:15:07 PM

Thoguh: ongbok: keeping their scholarships if they are unable to play because of a athletics related injury.

They already have that.  If somebody gets hurt and can't play the school can convert their scholarship into a medical scholarship so they can finish school without counting against scholarship limits.


Of course, just like anything else involving the NCAA and college sports that is widely abused by a lot of coaches.  Sabin in particular is notorious for using medical scholarships to force underperformers off the team and free up space for new recruit.


The key point is that the school can, the school isn't required to. It is up to the school to decide. And I'm sure if they are making this one of their key demands that it doesn't happen all to often at most schools. Just like if a player gets injured because of their sport and can't play anymore, in most cases the schools don't pay a cent towards their recovery.
 
2014-03-30 01:20:59 PM

MFAWG: Good.


THIS
 
2014-03-30 01:47:43 PM

iron_city_ap: I've said it before, imagine what boosters at, say, The U are lining up to throw at the program if players are allowed to unionize. It's a very slippery slope.

I'd imagine. . . what, exactly?  What am I supposed to imagine, here?  Boosters giving players cash bribes?  As in, the very things boosters are doing now?

Most of the "horrors" the NCAA are throwing out are basically just the same pet issues they portray as boogeymen to scare people into opposing labor rights for players.  Mind you, I don't feel sorry for players, and if some lower-tier teams (where the football program is running a massive deficit, so basically most of them) decide to go on strike, I think they'll learn in a real hurry just how good they have it.  This actually is more detrimental to the haves, the Alabamas and such, where players are bringing in huge bucks only to get cut if they get injured.  Except I will say something's a bit off when someone worth tens of millions to the program basically gets paid free room & board and a worthless diploma.  Yeah they sign up for it, so like I said I don't sympathize, but it was only a matter of time.  The money beast can only grow so disgustingly obese before the very people generating the revenue say enough.  So yeah, not feelin' the rage here.  If players want to risk bringing down the world of collegiate athletics as we know it, well, they're the ones that play the game so I say go for it.  It's their world, not ours and certainly not the NCAA's.

I mean FFS so what?  By the NCAA's own admission they're supposed to be students, as in hypothetically not part of any revenue stream, so the only real grounds to oppose this is if all the fat pigs at the trough really do have something to lose.  College football can't possibly get any more corrupt and the NCAA doesn't even have the moral high ground on the AIDS virus.  I'm supposed to care that these institutions are being threatened?  The political stability of the NCAA is the least of my concerns.
 
2014-03-30 01:53:38 PM
*shrugs* sports will go on, people will not suddenly dislike sports, people will not suddenly stop trying to be good at sports, this is a good thing in the end
 
2014-03-30 01:55:04 PM

ongbok: iron_city_ap: ongbok: iron_city_ap: ongbok: iron_city_ap: The NCAA has a small window of time to fix this situation before it explodes into something out of control that very well could destroy the NCAA itself. Just pay the kids the same as if they were in a work/study job. Nothing more than that, to help TRY to keep costs and corruption in check. Do that and it might help Northwestern in their appeal case. If they lose that, hang on to your hats.

They really aren't even asking for pay. They are asking for medical coverage, for their scholarships to be honored if they are unable to perform because of injury or illness, and the rights to their names and likeness.

Seems pretty reasonable and fair to me, as long as those injuries occur while they are playing/practicing.

That is all they are asking for and people keep screaming about paying them. I guess talking about the possibility of college athletes getting paid is more sexy and induces more emotion from jealous people than talking about college athletes receiving medical coverage for their injuries and keeping their scholarships if they are unable to play because of a athletics related injury. I guess this is because most people already think that this is the case for college athletes, so that won't create the outrage from the public that the sports media needs for this to become a story that will create ratings or the outrage that the NCAA needs from the public to turn support against it.

How long do you think it will be before one team's union wants paid?

You negotiate about that when that demand is made, or better yet you put it into the initial agreement that that isn't an option. There are many ways that the NCAA can prevent that and accommodate the other demands. The NCAA is using the specter of college athletes getting paid a a boogy man to keep them from having to provide medical coverage and losing the exclusive rights to the players names and likeness during their time in college.


It's not a negotiation with the NCAA. It would be a negotiation between each team and it's respective university. The NCAA needs to change its rules ASAP to prevent teams from unionizing. They can easily allow for everything the students want and then some to keep them happy. If players are allowed to organize, the NCAA will lose much of its power. They are far better off spending $1 today to prevent spending $5 later.

How many 'lower tier' SEC schools will match benefits and add pay to get better recruits? It will only take 1. How many big fish programs will want to add pay to stay a leg up? Again, once 1 does it, they all will.

With the $ involved at the school/conference levels, you can't expect all of them to give the minimum. Somebody (could even be a mid-major) will make a move fairly fast.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report