This was brought on by years of abuse of minimally compensated labor to generate billions of dollars on the backs of student athletes.

Belly35;1596962 wrote:Take and throw Title IX out the window ....

Title IX only speaks to a student's access to an education, not compensation. If this were implement you'd be dealing with student employees, not student athletes.

Edit: On second thought, yeah. There would most definitely be lawsuits filed by or on behalf of women's teams at such schools, I just do not see how they would win. ButI would assume that under this all sports would want to unionize in which case it's about being profitable, not equitable

HitsRus;1596974 wrote:This was brought on by years of abuse of minimally compensated labor to generate billions of dollars on the backs of student athletes.

While I have no problems with some changes in the system (or even blowing it up and starting over), I struggle to understand how one can make the cause for abuse when both parties willingly and knowingly agree to a business deal.

Con_Alma;1596968 wrote:Ahhh, I see. I didn't understand that the educational services were not going to be provided without payment. I understand your explanation now. Thank you.

The additional benefit I was referring to was the educational services.

Ah okay. Glad to clear it up for you. Like I said earlier, still so far away from any of this being a reality. But I'm extremely interested in the topic since I'm writing my 3L thesis/substantial paper on it.

HitsRus;1596974 wrote:This was brought on by years of abuse of minimally compensated labor to generate billions of dollars on the backs of student athletes.

I think that once you look at how much is really spent on each student athlete, you'll find it's more than just minimal compensation. Minimal relative to billions? Well yeah. But I don't perceive what they get to be minimal.

I used to be a strong supporter of the student-athlete's rights, but there was just too ignorance with a lot of people on that side of the argument for me to continue to agree. I think it may have been the realization of my own ignorance of the facts that made me change my tune a little.

I think TJ Moe (former Missouri receiver) gave a pretty good breakdown of a lot of the considerations in a string of about 15 tweets.

lhslep134;1596980 wrote:I think that once you look at how much is really spent on each student athlete, you'll find it's more than just minimal compensation. Minimal relative to billions? Well yeah. But I don't perceive what they get to be minimal.

I used to be a strong supporter of the student-athlete's rights, but there was just too ignorance with a lot of people on that side of the argument for me to continue to agree. I think it may have been the realization of my own ignorance of the facts that made me change my tune a little.

The same can be said for pretty much any business as well. $$ spent on any given employee is relatively small compared to the big picture.

I had an idea a few years ago and I put in on a thread in the CFB forum as well I think.

I wouldnt be opposed to a tier system for the players.
A. Full scholarship.
B. 75% scholarship, 25% cash.
C. 50%/50%.

Of course they would have to take loans out like the rest of the students for the rest of the money, just like everyone else.
That way they do get some spending money as it is pretty difficult for any of them to be able to make any real money working.

queencitybuckeye;1596976 wrote:While I have no problems with some changes in the system (or even blowing it up and starting over), I struggle to understand how one can make the cause for abuse when both parties willingly and knowingly agree to a business deal.

I've always been amused the contractual notion that just assumes equal bargaining power between parties just because either one can walk away.

Let's be serious, when it comes to a source of income (whether it be a real job, or now the quasi-income of scholarship) the lone individual vs. big institutions aren't exactly on equal footing.

But as far as this ruling goes, I don't think it benefits "college athletes" like some claim it does. It may end up benefiting a small percentage of college athletes (football players and men's basketball, and maybe even only a small subset of those), but it doesn't benefit all. The easy solution might just to not offer scholarships period to athletes. If it's considered a job because of the compensation then take away the compensation and it's no longer a job (ie taking away Track, Swimming, Wrestling, Tennis, Soccer, Lacrosse, Hockey, etc. scholarships away completely). There are plenty of athletes at the collegiate level who do play without scholarship already in some of the aforementioned sports especially on the Men's side (Thanks Title IX).

But now what about those students who don't receive scholarships for athletics. If college sports is a job, are schools violating human rights by not compensating them? Or are they just donating their time as a volunteer? What's the new model for that? Is high school football in places like Ohio or Texas where Friday night draws a full crowd possibly violating labor laws?

I'd be willing to bet a decent amount of money that if you offered players cash (which is the full value of the scholarship as defined by the university) + the stipend they currently get, and even throwing in a 15% bonus on top of that each year as a salary... players would still run out of cash if they had to pay for everything. And not to sound racist, but it'd skew ethnically.

Fly4Fun;1596994 wrote:I've always been amused the contractual notion that just assumes equal bargaining power between parties just because either one can walk away.

Let's be serious, when it comes to a source of income (whether it be a real job, or now the quasi-income of scholarship) the lone individual vs. big institutions aren't exactly on equal footing.

Who said anything about equal footing? One side having more leverage != abuse, precisely because either party can choose not to participate.

Very few contractual situations take place on a level playing field.

derek bomar;1596999 wrote:I'd be willing to bet a decent amount of money that if you offered players cash (which is the full value of the scholarship as defined by the university) + the stipend they currently get, and even throwing in a 15% bonus on top of that each year as a salary... players would still run out of cash if they had to pay for everything. And not to sound racist, but it'd skew ethnically.

I wouldnt even go that far. They would still run out of cash because they are young.

What the hell, even adults making good $$ run out of cash

Mohican00;1596975 wrote:Title IX only speaks to a student's access to an education, not compensation. If this were implement you'd be dealing with student employees, not student athletes.

Edit: On second thought, yeah. There would most definitely be lawsuits filed by or on behalf of women's teams at such schools, I just do not see how they would win. ButI would assume that under this all sports would want to unionize in which case it's about being profitable, not equitable

Yep!

derek bomar;1596999 wrote:I'd be willing to bet a decent amount of money that if you offered players cash (which is the full value of the scholarship as defined by the university) + the stipend they currently get, and even throwing in a 15% bonus on top of that each year as a salary... players would still run out of cash if they had to pay for everything. And not to sound racist, but it'd skew ethnically.

and? They run out of money now

What would be the advantage for say, Northwestern to pay athletes to win a National Championship in football? How much money would the University make? Would their academic performance have anything to do with their eligibility to play football? I just don't see where it would be advantageous for a school like NW to continue with sports programs.

queencitybuckeye;1596976 wrote:While I have no problems with some changes in the system (or even blowing it up and starting over), I struggle to understand how one can make the cause for abuse when both parties willingly and knowingly agree to a business deal.

queencitybuckeye;1597001 wrote:Who said anything about equal footing? One side having more leverage != abuse, precisely because either party can choose not to participate.

Very few contractual situations take place on a level playing field.

I think you're overvaluing the option of the party with less leverage of choosing not to participate.

For example, the basketball and football players (this issue is about them and I think detrimental to the large majority of student athletes) don't really have an option to continue their athletic careers if they don't like the current scholarship format. Yes, there have been a few that have gone oversees for European basketball, but that is a really small number compared to the whole.

But I also am not necessarily an advocate for them getting paid. I am just amused that the notion of walking away is really a realistic option. There is a reason unions eventually came about and did do some good for our country as far as improving working conditions. But I also don't want to get into a debate about unions at the moment.

Fly4Fun;1597017 wrote:I think you're overvaluing the option of the party with less leverage of choosing not to participate.

For example, the basketball and football players (this issue is about them and I think detrimental to the large majority of student athletes) don't really have an option to continue their athletic careers if they don't like the current scholarship format. Yes, there have been a few that have gone oversees for European basketball, but that is a really small number compared to the whole.

Presumably, taking the deal is then better for them than not taking the deal. That's currently the cost of continuing their athletic career. They have no inherent right to do so, and can choose a million other things to do with the years of their life we're discussing.

But I also am not necessarily an advocate for them getting paid.

I am. I'm for the model where we shit can the hypocrisy of the "student-athlete" garbage, and be honest about what college athletics are - part of the fund raising/PR/marketing arm of the university. Pay them a market wage, which could vary widely by sport. If an athlete is interested in school, allow them to use part or all of their wages in the form of discounted cost of attendance. For those using the programs to advance to the next level of sports, let them do so without them having to pretend they're students.

se-alum;1597011 wrote:What would be the advantage for say, Northwestern to pay athletes to win a National Championship in football? How much money would the University make? Would their academic performance have anything to do with their eligibility to play football? I just don't see where it would be advantageous for a school like NW to continue with sports programs.

It would not be advantageous to continue all sports programs, but there would be an enormous amount of money generated from winning national championships in football and men's basketball.

queencitybuckeye;1597025 wrote: I am. I'm for the model where we shit can the hypocrisy of the "student-athlete" garbage, and be honest about what college athletics are - part of the fund raising/PR/marketing arm of the university. Pay them a market wage, which could vary widely by sport. If an athlete is interested in school, allow them to use part or all of their wages in the form of discounted cost of attendance. For those using the programs to advance to the next level of sports, let them do so without them having to pretend they're students.

That's the thing, you're focusing on the few and ignoring the many. The student-athlete is very much alive and well in pretty much every other sport besides men's basketball and football. Hell, even within those two there are still many student athletes (yes, even at the big time schools, i.e. Aaron Craft). But even beyond someone higher profile like him there are many other kids who are using their athletic talents to get themselves into a school for free then using that free education to their advantage while playing a sport they love. The problem is the focus has become on the small percentage of these athletes that actually have professional level talent and aspirations.

Fly4Fun;1597030 wrote:That's the thing, you're focusing on the few and ignoring the many. The student-athlete is very much alive and well in pretty much every other sport besides men's basketball and football.

If the university believes they get a return on investment on the non-revenue sports, they can offer those athletes a salary equal to the cost of attendance. I'm not limiting anything.

Hell, even within those two there are still many student athletes (yes, even at the big time schools, i.e. Aaron Craft).

and under my system, Mr. Craft can go to school, and likely be pulling in some cash beyond that, while those with no interest in education and those who have no business in a college classroom can raise money for the university just as they do today, without the pretense.

queencitybuckeye;1597034 wrote:If the university believes they get a return on investment on the non-revenue sports, they can offer those athletes a salary equal to the cost of attendance. .

They can't (get a return on investment). There's a reason those are called "non-revenue" sports. If all student-athletes were treated as employees you would only have football and men's basketball. All other sports would be offered as a club. There's simply too much money spent on the non-revenue sports to make them worth continuing as a varsity sport.

lhslep134;1597047 wrote:They can't (get a return on investment). There's a reason those are called "non-revenue" sports. If all student-athletes were treated as employees you would only have football and men's basketball. All other sports would be offered as a club. There's simply too much money spent on the non-revenue sports to make them worth continuing as a varsity sport.

If those athletes were employees, and their salary = cost of attendance, the cost for those sports would be exactly the same as today. The return on investment for those sports lies in the marketing of the university, not in revenue. They offer them today for a reason.

queencitybuckeye;1597048 wrote:If those athletes were employees, and their salary = cost of attendance, the cost for those sports would be exactly the same as today.

Wrong (I'll enlighten you): for any athletic scholarship given out, the athletic department gets a tuition waiver for that student. If all of a sudden you had to pay those athletes instead of just waiving the tuition, then it WOULD cost athletic departments much more than the current situation. Therefore, they would only pay players who actually DO give a ROI, football and basketball players.

Make sense?

I've always been amused the contractual notion that just assumes equal bargaining power between parties just because either one can walk away.

Let's be serious, when it comes to a source of income (whether it be a real job, or now the quasi-income of scholarship) the lone individual vs. big institutions aren't exactly on equal footing.

It actually more than that too. The burgeoning NCAA rulebook is restrictive in not allowing players to use their celebrity for even the smallest financial gain while penalizing them excessively and harshly for even minor and small dollar violations. Meanwhile, the NCAA and their member schools can use players' names and likenesses and make millions of dollars. Everyone cashes in on the money...except the kids that are the game itself.
.
Unionizing...and all that goes with it probably is not in anyone's interest. But this is probably necessary to grab enough attention to impress upon some people and make them finally realize that the system needs a radical overhaul.

lhslep134;1597049 wrote:Wrong (I'll enlighten you): for any athletic scholarship given out, the athletic department gets a tuition waiver for that student. If all of a sudden you had to pay those athletes instead of just waiving the tuition, then it WOULD cost athletic departments much more than the current situation. Therefore, they would only pay players who actually DO give a ROI, football and basketball players.

Make sense?

It doesn't. Capacity at many schools is largely finite. If they give an athlete a tuition waiver, it means they are giving up that amount in revenue to the university. They must feel that the athlete's attendance has a value at least equal to the revenue foregone.

Thanks for the enlightenment, your pretentious asshole.

queencitybuckeye;1597001 wrote:
Very few contractual situations take place on a level playing field.

^^^And hence the whole reason people contract together to form unions and bargain together in the first place.