More on the athlete lawsuits before the courts, NLRB

[takethepoints]

See:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...s-worry-about-nlrb-ruling-and-jenkins-lawsuit

The links are very informative, but this article tells the tale. Me, I'm betting on the Northwestern football team. I don't think anybody in today's funding environment for higher education believes the threat to discontinue major college sports for a minute. I also think this was completely predictable as soon as colleges and universities began to franchise their stadiums and logos to private corporations.

The solution is easy, of course: have everybody go to the Ivy League model; i.e. no athletic scholarships per se (but scholarships for every athlete, none the less) for any sport. They fill the Yale Bowl for every game. But we'll see soon enough.

 

[SolicitorJacket]

Yale Bowl seats over 61,000 and in 2014 Yale averaged just over 15k per game. While that doesn't change anything about the Northwestern lawsuit, it does undermine your argument that everything would be status quo moving to an Ivy league model.

 

[takethepoints]

Yale Bowl seats over 61,000 and in 2014 Yale averaged just over 15k per game. While that doesn't change anything about the Northwestern lawsuit, it does undermine your argument that everything would be status quo moving to an Ivy league model.

I stand corrected on the attendance at Yale games.

But I never said or implied that moving to an Ivy model would save the status quo. Obviously, doing that would mean wrenching changes for athletic programs everywhere (except the Ivies and the academies) and would lead to numerous nervous breakdowns among "advancement" people who specialize in soaking alums at major college sports events. But … it might be a way out of the difficulty if decisions ran against the NCAA and the universities. I went to a Div 3 school that didn't give athletic scholarships. Our starting 11s on both sides were heavily populated with athletes who had originally signed with Div 1 schools, mostly from the SEC and ACC, or who had been offered by schools from major conferences. Almost to a man they were on scholarships that were either full boats or close to it. But these were "scholarship scholarships"; I remember one of them had a scholarship reserved for students from western North Carolina and carefully targeted for football players (something about "evaluating the whole person", I think).

So it's not impossible for schools to go Ivy and still have scholarship athletes. They simply have to avoid giving athletic scholarships. And, of course, that's another whole set of law suits right there.

 

[DC Bee]

What started out as a game we love played between schools for school pride is being hijacked by big money interests. Either play it with amateur students or just forget about it and each school will form own NFL DL team composed of illiterate thugs and put the school's name on it. The reason why most people watch college football is still because of school pride and because our love and passion for our school's team create an exciting game experience. Nobody wants to watch an NFL DL.

I don't want to get into politics but there should be no mystery as to how Obama's stacked NLRB is going to rule. "Impartial" my a$$.

 

[AE 87]

Is Georgia a Right-to-Study state?

 

[Skeptic]

I don't want to get into politics but there should be no mystery as to how Obama's stacked NLRB is going to rule. "Impartial" my a$$.

Then don't. This president's appointments weigh in on the Democratic side for the same reason George Bush's weighed in Republican. Because that is politics. So let's just leave it alone and argue the financial side.

 

[DC Bee]

Then don't. Because that is politics. So let's just leave it alone and argue the financial side.

I wish I could after the OUTRAGEOUS Boeing shakedown. That's what this will be - another mafioso shakedown.

 

[Skeptic]

I wish I could after the OUTRAGEOUS Boeing shakedown. That's what this will be - another mafioso shakedown.

I'm sure I don't have a clue, but go ahead and have at whatever your point might be. It is a vast internet and I'm sure you can find a place for it. This one, however, is football, if you please.

 

[AE 87]

I'm sure I don't have a clue, but go ahead and have at whatever your point might be. It is a vast internet and I'm sure you can find a place for it. This one, however, is football, if you please.

If you don't want a politics discussion in the GT football forum, report the OP, don't complain about someone contributing their opinion.

That's my opinion.

 

[DC Bee]

I'm sure I don't have a clue, but go ahead and have at whatever your point might be. It is a vast internet and I'm sure you can find a place for it. This one, however, is football, if you please.

Well, the NLRB could potentially destroy college football as we currently know it. How's that for a football discussion?

 

[orientalnc]

The current system is terribly flawed, but designating athletes as employees opens up other threads of potential problems. If players are employees and their aid is income, there is a small matter of taxes that has to be addressed.

I think the system is unraveling already and the NLRB decision won't really matter that much.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

What started out as a game we love played between schools for school pride is being hijacked by big money interests. Either play it with amateur students or just forget about it and each school will form own NFL DL team composed of illiterate thugs and put the school's name on it. The reason why most people watch college football is still because of school pride and because our love and passion for our school's team create an exciting game experience. Nobody wants to watch an NFL DL.

I don't want to get into politics but there should be no mystery as to how Obama's stacked NLRB is going to rule. "Impartial" my a$$.

I agree with this. It would water down the talent, but college fans would still go. They still go to basketball and baseball games and the NBA and MLB take most of the best young talent. It would be an adjustment, but people are college football crazy and it comes from brand loyalty. That loyalty wouldn't suddenly evaporate because the overall average talent level dipped.

Make the NFL start their own farm system like baseball if they don't want to take kids straight out of high school.

 

[takethepoints]

I think the Cheeseman has hit on the most likely outcome. The fan turnout might get lower, but a lot of people would go no matter what. And I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the NFL start a farm system; there are a considerable number of players in the league who either never went to college or left way early.

That would mean the games would be less fun from an athletic standpoint, but I don't go to the games to watch the athletes in general. I watch the game itself. It's nice to have great athletes, but not necessary for enjoying the contests.

One sideline thought: if the NLRB rules for the players, the academies will automatically become the great football powers they were in the past again. When everybody is on full boat, the distinctions that allow employees to be distinguished fall away and they will be the only schools who can do old style recruiting with no scholarship limits. I think. Maybe the lawyers here can get me straight on that.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Classifying amateur athletes as employees is laughable. There is no sound reasoning IMO to make that case. I'm not overly concerned with the NLRB. It wouldn't surprise me to see a boneheaded decision come from it however. If that occurs you can guarantee Congress will get involved not to mention the judicial.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Classifying amateur athletes as employees is laughable. There is no sound reasoning IMO to make that case. I'm not overly concerned with the NLRB. It wouldn't surprise me to see a boneheaded decision come from it however. If that occurs you can guarantee Congress will get involved not to mention the judicial.

I disagree with amateur athletes being classified as employee but legally it's a very, very close call. If you go in look at the original ruling the author lays it out well and there is a compelling argument there.

 

[AE 87]

If colleges have to pay football players, then they'll cut olympic sports. If they cut olympic sports, USA will become less competitive. If USA becomes less competitive in the olympics, our intl reputation will be subconsciously damaged. If our intl reputation is damaged, people will start hating America.

If you want colleges to pay football players, you want people to hate America. Move to Russia, commie!

... err to Iran, terrorist!

 

[Skeptic]

If colleges have to pay football players, then they'll cut olympic sports. If they cut olympic sports, USA will become less competitive. If USA becomes less competitive in the olympics, our intl reputation will be subconsciously damaged. If our intl reputation is damaged, people will start hating America.

If you want colleges to pay football players, you want people to hate America. Move to Russia, commie!

... err to Iran, terrorist!

Just as long as you're not worked up about it.

 

[Skeptic]

I disagree with amateur athletes being classified as employee but legally it's a very, very close call. If you go in look at the original ruling the author lays it out well and there is a compelling argument there.

Whatever happens the present model is not sustainable and major changes are coming. Unfortunately and so far, the stipend agreement has opened the door for the cheaters -- ah, heck, I'll say it, Tennessee and the like -- to mysteriously and on paper increase the cost of attendance to provide the athletes almost twice the money available to a school like Georgia Tech, which seems so far to have played by the rules in figuring it, and other schools where every effort has been made to keep the cost of attendance affordable for most everybody. (It is getting less so, but still...) If it fell apart and football was de-emphasized, I could still enjoy it as long as competition was relative. Wouldn't want to, but I would.

 

[scrappy_95]

The problem is not one of schools paying the players. I don't agree with this. The scholarship is payment enough just like any salary cap league. The problem is that the players can't make money on their own likeness. I am a free market guy. I don't understand how you can believe in the free market but then say I am going to limit someone from making money in a market (ads) that doesn't compete with yours. Here lies the problem in my honest opinion. So what if booster will use this to the schools advantage, the is not a thing that the NCAA should have a say in. All who believe in smaller gov't, free market and less regulation should be up in arms that we limit anyones ability to make money in a non competing market. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I disagree with amateur athletes being classified as employee but legally it's a very, very close call. If you go in look at the original ruling the author lays it out well and there is a compelling argument there.

I'm no lawyer certainly. And I have not read the relevant laws that would be used in court to define / determine what constitutes an employee in this matter. So I should probably do so to gain better insight. I'm just not sure I have the necessary curiosity to conduct that research.

But I feel fairly comfortable discussing reasonableness. And reasonableness, along with written law, and established case law, is what courts consider when deciding a case. And I think most reasonable people would have a hard time saying student athletes are employees or should be considered such. Being a student is not a job. It's something most people, at the college level, have to pay for. Participating in organized college sports is also a privilege, not a right. And I think most reasonable people would agree with that also. Student athletes that are "awarded" scholarships get the best of both worlds. They get the privilege of playing and have the school / degree paid for through the scholarship to boot.

Yes they work very hard in sports while also attending class. That is a free choice they can walk away from anytime.

Those who argue the opposite position usually make an entitlement related argument or argue based upon a socialist type reason, i.e. "The schools / TV make sooooo much money...it's not fair the athletes don't get a cut. That kind of reasoning should not hold up in a court. I have admittedly been surprised by more than one court decision however.

All this also brings me back to Congress. Who has the power to rewrite the laws governing all of this. They can't even balance the budget though so who knows?