I enjoyed college sports while it lasted.

[jkjsooner]

I guess this is the beginning of the end. It was a good 100 year run.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize

[BoulderSooner79]

The impact of this will be gnats nuts compared to the impact big money has had on college FB and hoops.

[badger]

I'm not really sure what impact this will have on college athletics, but it's hard to feel sympathy for conferences, colleges and the NCAA that have been milking fans and donors for increasingly larger money piles while still offering players the same thing they have for years; tuition, fees and some living expenses. Unless, of course, they're athletes in an equivalency sport or walk-ons. Those ones don't even get that.

[swardboy]

Students are ruled as employees. I think college football as we know it is over.

[oudanny]

I have no idea what the end result of this ruling will be but the possible scenarios are endless. And this could potentially spill over to include any student receiving aid in exchange for their time and labor. Pandora's box has just been opened.

[KantoSooner]

Haven't read the ruling, don't know the reasoning. But, a student can be a student...and also an employee (part time jobs, summer jobs, etc) and be entitled to some or all the protections of full time employees. Until we know precisely what this means, it's premature to draw conclusions.

(we also don't know, for example, if the players will be able to organize, and successfully vote in a union. They may have the right to organize and opt (in essence) not to exercise it.)

[badger]

Students are ruled as employees.

Tee hee, maybe there's hope my toddler won't someday suffocate from student loans... the colleges will pay students for their work --- maybe they can collect overtime for all-nighters! :P

[jkjsooner]

I'm not really sure what impact this will have on college athletics, but it's hard to feel sympathy for conferences, colleges and the NCAA that have been milking fans and donors for increasingly larger money piles while still offering players the same thing they have for years; tuition, fees and some living expenses. Unless, of course, they're athletes in an equivalency sport or walk-ons. Those ones don't even get that.

Are you talking only about the 23 schools with athletic departments that actually make money?

Most of the schools have to profit as much as possible from football just to support the non-revenue programs. But I'm sure that will be dismissed by a few here who tend to not deal with reality.

Note: I recognize the $5 million coach's salary is in the expense column. I do think there is room for athletic departments to give athletes a little stipend, and I think the downward pressure on coach's salaries would be a good thing.

[BoulderSooner79]

Haven't read the ruling, don't know the reasoning. But, a student can be a student...and also an employee (part time jobs, summer jobs, etc) and be entitled to some or all the protections of full time employees. Until we know precisely what this means, it's premature to draw conclusions.

(we also don't know, for example, if the players will be able to organize, and successfully vote in a union. They may have the right to organize and opt (in essence) not to exercise it.)

No, no! Union bad, sky is falling. Never too early to panic.

College FB as we know it has never existed. It has been under constant change since I started following in '71. 85 scholarships, conference re-alignment, big money TV deals, video replay and other frequent rule changes are all bigger deals than this is likely to be. But if this has big ripples and forces the NFL to fund their own farm teams and CFB becomes more like the Ivy League, so be it.

[jkjsooner]

Haven't read the ruling, don't know the reasoning. But, a student can be a student...and also an employee (part time jobs, summer jobs, etc) and be entitled to some or all the protections of full time employees. Until we know precisely what this means, it's premature to draw conclusions.

(we also don't know, for example, if the players will be able to organize, and successfully vote in a union. They may have the right to organize and opt (in essence) not to exercise it.)

While I don't know exactly what this will mean, I have serious reservations. The courts and/or executive branch better recognize that the NCAA must maintain a competitive and level playing field and therefore must maintain a structure that does not favor the rich at the expense of the poorer programs. There are lots of things one school can offer over another - better education, better facilities, etc. I don't think we want to go to a situation where it is more money directly to the player.

I know NW players weren't after money as much as other things and that's great but with the decision that they are employees it's just a matter of time until someone uses that as a stepping stone for a pay-for-play system - and I don't mean a uniform stipend.

[jkjsooner]

No, no! Union bad, sky is falling. Never too early to panic.

College FB as we know it has never existed. It has been under constant change since I started following in '71. 85 scholarships, conference re-alignment, big money TV deals, video replay and other frequent rule changes are all bigger deals than this is likely to be. But if this has big ripples and forces the NFL to fund their own farm teams and CFB becomes more like the Ivy League, so be it.

I would actually love that. I think we would still fill Memorial Stadium under that scenario.

The other reason I would love it is that these self obsessed athletes would quickly learn that college football was about a lot more than just their own talent. They'll find the interest in the minor leagues (no matter how much more talented) to be a fraction of the interest in college football.

Who won the D league game last night? Did Duke make it to the Sweet 16?

[Ton Loc]

Are you talking only about the 23 schools with athletic departments that actually make money?

Most of the schools have to profit as much as possible from football just to support the non-revenue programs. But I'm sure that will be dismissed by a few here who tend to not deal with reality.

Note: I recognize the $5 million coach's salary is in the expense column. I do think there is room for athletic departments to give athletes a little stipend, and I think the downward pressure on coach's salaries would be a good thing.

If only 23 schools make money then the NCAA is even more corrupt and shady then I previously thought. And the people who run colleges must be complete idiots because whats up with the mad dash to improve the athletic programs if you're not making any money from it?

[KantoSooner]

I can see a development in which you restart a bunch of the old lower tier pro- and semi-pro ball that existed in the 1930's say. That could serve as a home/development stop off for those who really can't hack college. And college ball, while losing out on some of the less intellectually gifted could go back to more of what Div 3 is today.

I went to a div 3 school undergrad. And the football team there was, frankly, awful. Hell, I played half my freshman year (until I got my neck broken). And, let me assure you: any team I played for was in severe shortage of athletes. But the games were fun, going to the games were fun. And the cocktail parties that broke out on the field afterwards were awesome things to behold.

It would be more like college baseball. Not what college football is today, but still worth my time.

Or it could turn out entirely differently. We just don't know now.

[jkjsooner]

If only 23 schools make money then the NCAA is even more corrupt and shady then I previously thought. And the people who run colleges must be complete idiots because whats up with the mad dash to improve the athletic programs if you're not making any money from it?

Several reasons. 1) For most schools like OU (non Ivy-like schools), a successful athletic department raises the school's profile. 2) On a related note, anecdotal evidence has shown donations to academic programs have generally increased when the school's football team is successful. 3) For football and basketball, you have to invest to make money to afford the others.

You may say that these football players are essentially bringing in money indirectly to the school from #1 and #2 but that's not really something the athletic department can get its hands on. If I'm donating to the College of Engineering, I want that money to go there even if having the football team succeed impacts my decision to donate the money.


I'll add, even schools like Duke with outstanding academic reputations, competitive sports programs raise the profile of the school. I knew Duke was a great institution long before I knew Rice was. The only reason I can think of to account for that is the fact that Duke has a high profile basketball team. (Obviously Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. are on a different level as far as worldwide prestige and name recognition.

[Widescreen]

This decision was made by a judge in Chicago. If their judiciary is as corrupt as their politicians, I wouldn't be surprised to see this get overturned. On the surface, this sounds like a really bad idea so I hope it does get overturned.

[Ton Loc]

Several reasons. 1) For most schools like OU (non Ivy-like schools), a successful athletic department raises the school's profile. 2) On a related note, anecdotal evidence has shown donations to academic programs have generally increased when the school's football team is successful. 3) For football and basketball, you have to invest to make money to afford the others.

You may say that these football players are essentially bringing in money indirectly to the school from #1 and #2 but that's not really something the athletic department can get its hands on. If I'm donating to the College of Engineering, I want that money to go there even if having the football team succeed impacts my decision to donate the money.


I'll add, even schools like Duke with outstanding academic reputations, competitive sports programs raise the profile of the school. I knew Duke was a great institution long before I knew Rice was. The only reason I can think of to account for that is the fact that Duke has a high profile basketball team. (Obviously Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. are on a different level as far as worldwide prestige and name recognition.

I'm not saying those 3 things aren't true, but when the NCAA is making billions but only 23 schools actually see any real money something is incredibly wrong. And the way the schools and the NCAA categorize and claim their money makes it almost impossible to show any profit off of athletics (Football and Basketball) - which is just the way they want it.

Really - I just want to see the NCAA get destroyed.

[NorthernIowaSooner]

Are you talking only about the 23 schools with athletic departments that actually make money?

Most of the schools have to profit as much as possible from football just to support the non-revenue programs. But I'm sure that will be dismissed by a few here who tend to not deal with reality.

Note: I recognize the $5 million coach's salary is in the expense column. I do think there is room for athletic departments to give athletes a little stipend, and I think the downward pressure on coach's salaries would be a good thing.

I've never understood why schools support so many non-money making sports. Perhaps this will make lead to more cuts of those programs, frankly I think they should if a sport can't support itself.

[jkjsooner]

I've never understood why schools support so many non-money making sports. Perhaps this will make lead to more cuts of those programs, frankly I think they should if a sport can't support itself.

They can cut many of them but they would need to keep quite a few women's sports just to balance out the scholarship numbers for Title IX. (Someone here pointed out that Title IX doesn't exactly require equal scholarship numbers but if I remember correctly the easiest and least ambiguous way to be compliant was for scholarships that reflect the gender distribution in the university.)

[jkjsooner]

I'm not saying those 3 things aren't true, but when the NCAA is making billions but only 23 schools actually see any real money something is incredibly wrong. And the way the schools and the NCAA categorize and claim their money makes it almost impossible to show any profit off of athletics (Football and Basketball) - which is just the way they want it.

Really - I just want to see the NCAA get destroyed.

The NCAA isn't making billions. The NCAA's budget is quite small.

If you're talking about NCAA member institutions making billions, well they do but it takes billions to fund all of the sports they fund.

[8timechamps]

I was really surprised by the ruling, but I'm still not convinced it'll hold up to appeal. Even if it does, I can't imagine Northwestern just saying "okay, we'll accept it" and move on, there are plenty of ways they can get the ball back in their court.

In any event, I'm not ready to worry that the game as we know it is gone. It's way too early in the process, and we don't even have an understanding of what all this means yet.

[swardboy]

Heard the Northwestern QB who raised this issue: It only deals with private universities (only 17 in the country play football), it mostly deals with continuing medical expenses for football-related injuries, and further studies into concussions. State universities are not included in the suit.

While these are the main issues I think it will ultimately deal with compensation. And if the student-athlete is now considered an "employee", won't they be responsible for taxes on all benefits? For example, taxes on a $250,000 education?

[ouflak]

The NCAA isn't making billions. The NCAA's budget is quite small.


Oooops! 10.8 billion dollar TV deal! (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.usatoday.com%2Fcommunitie s%2Fcampusrivalry%2Fpost%2F2010%2F04%2Fncaa-reaches-14-year-deal-with-cbsturner%2F1&ei=Eh40U5bCB8is7QbVjoDoDg&usg=AFQjCNFRogInCrVjH3QkYeC0ffKFhWYvEw&bvm=bv.63808443,d.d2k)

[PrideMom]

I do not understand going into debt to go to school. I worked full time and went to night school, it took me ten years to get my first degree in education, then I went back and got another degree in accounting because my employer said I had to have it to get a bigger position in the company. Then the company was bought by T. Boone and I was out of a job.

[Soonerjeepman]

As I sat and ate my chicken sandwich at the sports bar last night they had the NCAA Indoor track championships on....wonder if they'll get to unionize...? noticing that there was NO ONE watching them..

[badger]

Are you talking only about the 23 schools with athletic departments that actually make money?

I know that's the common argument when saying that college athletes shouldn't be paid, but I doubt anyone here believes that athletic departments don't fudge the numbers a lot to make it seem like they're non-profit (or in the red).

For example, the endless OU t-shirts that they sell on gamedays? Clearly, an academic institution's product unrelated to athletics.

The athletic scholarships that are endowed and therefore no longer an expense (at least entirely) of the department? We still are writing checks, aren't we? Expense report!

I'm sure there's more examples of how athletic departments easily cover themselves and their expenses/revenues to ensure that they never "make" too much money.

[FaninAma]

I say pay them but take away their tuition scholarships and room and board. They should be treated the same as any other employee of the state or university.

[BoulderSooner79]

I say pay them but take away their tuition scholarships and room and board. They should be treated the same as any other employee of the state or university.

Then you could kiss big time CFB goodbye. In the case of NW, that's $75k/yr tuition. Everyone assumes unions are bad forgetting what this country was like before they existed. Unions are bad when they have too much power or leverage - just as industries can be bad if workers have too little. I know it's a grey area to even consider CFB players as employees, but even if that holds up, there is no way such a union would *ever* have much leverage/power. It could be a good thing if it causes the NCAA to back off a bit and allow the schools to provide weekend meals or a little cash. But athletes going on strike or something like that? Yeah, right - and endanger their NFL or NBA chances. Not gonna happen. As for other sports, who would notice? Zero leverage.

[jkjsooner]

Oooops! 10.8 billion dollar TV deal! (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.usatoday.com%2Fcommunitie s%2Fcampusrivalry%2Fpost%2F2010%2F04%2Fncaa-reaches-14-year-deal-with-cbsturner%2F1&ei=Eh40U5bCB8is7QbVjoDoDg&usg=AFQjCNFRogInCrVjH3QkYeC0ffKFhWYvEw&bvm=bv.63808443,d.d2k)

Billions over many years. Only a tiny fraction of that money stays within the NCAA organization itself. Most of it is distributed back to the member institutions.

"The NCAA" does have a staff and executives and I'm sure they're paid well but it is not a behemoth that accumulates billions a year as some believe.



Where does the NCAA’s revenue come from?
Television and marketing rights fees, mostly from the Division I men’s basketball championship, generate 90 percent of revenues. Championship ticket sales provide most of the remaining revenue. Current revenues total approximately $800 million.

How are NCAA funds distributed?
Ninety-six percent of NCAA expenses benefit student-athletes at member schools through services or direct distributions. The NCAA supports operational expenses and student-athlete travel expenses for 89 national championships in 23 sports. The association also provides catastrophic-injury insurance coverage for all student-athletes and various scholarship, grant and internship programs. The NCAA and member schools together award more than $2.4 billion in athletic scholarships every year to more than 150,000 student-athletes.

[jkjsooner]

I know that's the common argument when saying that college athletes shouldn't be paid, but I doubt anyone here believes that athletic departments don't fudge the numbers a lot to make it seem like they're non-profit (or in the red).


You can ignore reality all you want. The numbers are the numbers.

Does the rest of the university make money off of the athletic department. Sure. Am I buying that t-shirt because I went to OU or because I like the football team. Who knows? That is still not money directly available to the athletic department which could be used for compensation of players and if it is then it's on their budget.

A large percentage of schools have general student fees to help pay for athletics. In fact, even among the 23 who were in the black, 16 received some type of subsidy.

You seem to be denying reality because you have some sort of grudge against the NCAA or athletic departments.

[jkjsooner]

One sports legal expert on Marketplace yesterday said something interesting. I'm curious about how this would play out in the courts.

The host asked if the players could demand money. The expert responded, "Of course but then the NCAA would simply declare them ineligible."

It seemed to me that the courts/unions could possible force NW and other private institutions into breaking NCAA rules.


At some point we have to back up and realize that sports leagues have to maintain some level of integrity and fairness. Whether it's little league or NCAA, they have to be able to set eligibility standards without being subjected to being labelled by the courts as being a illegal cartel.

[badger]

You seem to be denying reality because you have some sort of grudge against the NCAA or athletic departments.

nah, i'm just skeptical of both sides as I don't think either side is entirely a victim, nor is either side completely to blame for what is wrong/unfair/etc about college sports.

[NorthernIowaSooner]

They can cut many of them but they would need to keep quite a few women's sports just to balance out the scholarship numbers for Title IX. (Someone here pointed out that Title IX doesn't exactly require equal scholarship numbers but if I remember correctly the easiest and least ambiguous way to be compliant was for scholarships that reflect the gender distribution in the university.)

I'm not so sure scholarships would be a factor anymore. Why give them out if you have to pay players? If they are employees then pay them like a student working their way through college. I may be more cut throat with this than others but there are consequences for actions and they may change their mind when the bill comes tuition.

This might change the whole system.

[BoulderSooner79]

One sports legal expert on Marketplace yesterday said something interesting. I'm curious about how this would play out in the courts.

The host asked if the players could demand money. The expert responded, "Of course but then the NCAA would simply declare them ineligible."

It seemed to me that the courts/unions could possible force NW and other private institutions into breaking NCAA rules.



I think this is the only leverage a union could provide. The school can just defer and say they are following NCAA rules and then the union can sue the NCAA. It would just be nuisance level, but it could be bad PR for the NCAA and they might choose to bend a bit instead of fight it. The NCAA has bigger fish to fry with the elite programs trying to take more control of their sports.

[8timechamps]

nah, i'm just skeptical of both sides as I don't think either side is entirely a victim, nor is either side completely to blame for what is wrong/unfair/etc about college sports.

Fair point badg. I am in the same camp.

[ouflak]

I may be more cut throat with this than others but there are consequences for actions and they may change their mind when the bill comes tuition.


Oh they'll change their mind alright. They'll change their mind about which school to attend, favoring instead the ones that will pay them enough to cover the costs of their tuition and then some. It's all about money now and it will still be all about money. Nothing is going to change that much except maybe who's getting paid.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

I wonder how the IRS will figure in to all of this...

[Pricetag]

If the athletes are employees, does that mean the schools can outsource to save money? Maybe "Kasey Studdard to Texas" wasn't such a joke after all.

[PrideMom]

Now with the Affordable HealthCare Act, no one is supposed to be without health insurance. So that argument doesn't hold up. Also, they want to be considered employees? Be careful there... You can be FIRED for no reason at all. The athlete student that gets a full scholarship is paid with free classes, food, rooms, clothes, trips, tutors, etc. I bet everyone of those that are complaining have Ipods, phones, etc. If they don't have money for dates, they are not budgeting their money.......

[KantoSooner]

I wonder how the IRS will figure in to all of this...

Are schollies today considered 'income'? I know that if an American is employed overseas, a typical benefit is tuition for his/her kids at a local 'American' school. These little money mills generally run $20k/yr or so in Asia. And that's considered income by the IRS.

I wonder if the players at NU have considered that they could easily end up with close to $100K/yr in taxable 'income' before they see a dime of cash (when you count tuition, housing, food, insurance, etc etc.)

[8timechamps]

Are schollies today considered 'income'? I know that if an American is employed overseas, a typical benefit is tuition for his/her kids at a local 'American' school. These little money mills generally run $20k/yr or so in Asia. And that's considered income by the IRS.

I wonder if the players at NU have considered that they could easily end up with close to $100K/yr in taxable 'income' before they see a dime of cash (when you count tuition, housing, food, insurance, etc etc.)

Scholarships are tax-exempt and do not qualify as income...yet. I suspect the NCAA is already building the IRS into their case against this whole thing.

[ouflak]

I wonder how the IRS will figure in to all of this...

The same way they figure into it when the millionaire coaches and AD's and senior NCAA admins get paid. Why should it be any different with the people who are actually playing the games?

[ouflak]

Also, they want to be considered employees? Be careful there... You can be FIRED for no reason at all.

Careful with this scare tactic. As it is right now, the school can yank a players scholarship for no reason at all at anytime. There is no guarantee. There are no mult-year scholarships. And a school, and the NCAA, restrict student athletes from working other jobs so they are concentrating on the $port$, for obviou$ rea$on$. And they can wipe out a students eligibility in a heartbeat, even doing so before they qualify for the NFL (3 years out of high school). So if you want to throw the kicked-to-the-curb scare tactic at them, sorry, the schools and NCAA have already beat you to the punch. In fact, I think this scare tactic is one of the ways they control these athletes, by threatening to wipe out their education and any hope of the pros.

Right now, as an employee in a free nation, I can leave my job when I want and find another where I want, without any restriction placed on me by any organization or any law as to seeking work or being compensated for that work. That is freedom, and it goes both ways. Indeed by definition, it must. It's not just the schools and the coaches and athletic administrators who have rights.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

The same way they figure into it when the millionaire coaches and AD's and senior NCAA admins get paid. Why should it be any different with the people who are actually playing the games?

They are receiving goods and services already. With cash being added to the pot, you can bet that the IRS will want a slice.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I have no idea what the end result of this ruling will be but the possible scenarios are endless. And this could potentially spill over to include any student receiving aid in exchange for their time and labor. Pandora's box has just been opened.a new stream of revenue for the lawyers. It'll be swell!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Are you talking only about the 23 schools with athletic departments that actually make money?

Most of the schools have to profit as much as possible from football just to support the non-revenue programs. But I'm sure that will be dismissed by a few here who tend to not deal with reality.

Note: I recognize the $5 million coach's salary is in the expense column. I do think there is room for athletic departments to give athletes a little stipend, and I think the downward pressure on coach's salaries would be a good thing.The existence of unions is a giant leap over paying the student-athletes more than just the football scholarship. That leap did indeed take it into Pandora's Box.

Few things screw up a business/industry/institution like collective bargaining.

[SoonerorLater]

Careful with this scare tactic. As it is right now, the school can yank a players scholarship for no reason at all at anytime. There is no guarantee. There are no mult-year scholarships. And a school, and the NCAA, restrict student athletes from working other jobs so they are concentrating on the $port$, for obviou$ rea$on$. And they can wipe out a students eligibility in a heartbeat, even doing so before they qualify for the NFL (3 years out of high school). So if you want to throw the kicked-to-the-curb scare tactic at them, sorry, the schools and NCAA have already beat you to the punch. In fact, I think this scare tactic is one of the ways they control these athletes, by threatening to wipe out their education and any hope of the pros.

Right now, as an employee in a free nation, I can leave my job when I want and find another where I want, without any restriction placed on me by any organization or any law as to seeking work or being compensated for that work. That is freedom, and it goes both ways. Indeed by definition, it must. It's not just the schools and the coaches and athletic administrators who have rights.

I agree with what you say but I differ as to seeing this as some type of problem. These student athletes can do what they want. The NCAA member organizations have rules. If you don't like the rules do something else. Simple as that.

[8timechamps]

The same way they figure into it when the millionaire coaches and AD's and senior NCAA admins get paid. Why should it be any different with the people who are actually playing the games?

When I was a college intern, I made next to nothing. It took me a long time to get to a point of making real money. Why is it any different for college players? Bob Stoops didn't just luck into a big contract, he's worked his entire adult life to get there. Same for Joe Castiglione.

Players are receiving a full education, room, board, extra study assistance, etc. in exchange for playing the game. Why should they automatically get paid more? It doesn't work that way anywhere else in life.

Should players be able to make it through school without having to "go without" or worrying about living costs (extra portion of pasta, etc.)? Yes. Which is why I am completely in favor of a system that gives the players enough to live with some extra left over (the same as if a kid were going to school on any scholarship and working). Anything above that is just a money grab.

[8timechamps]

Careful with this scare tactic. As it is right now, the school can yank a players scholarship for no reason at all at anytime. There is no guarantee. There are no mult-year scholarships. And a school, and the NCAA, restrict student athletes from working other jobs so they are concentrating on the $port$, for obviou$ rea$on$. And they can wipe out a students eligibility in a heartbeat, even doing so before they qualify for the NFL (3 years out of high school). So if you want to throw the kicked-to-the-curb scare tactic at them, sorry, the schools and NCAA have already beat you to the punch. In fact, I think this scare tactic is one of the ways they control these athletes, by threatening to wipe out their education and any hope of the pros.

Right now, as an employee in a free nation, I can leave my job when I want and find another where I want, without any restriction placed on me by any organization or any law as to seeking work or being compensated for that work. That is freedom, and it goes both ways. Indeed by definition, it must. It's not just the schools and the coaches and athletic administrators who have rights.

I haven't had a job (or hired anyone) in many years that did not include a non-compete clause. I know there are folks that work in industries that don't have those, but a lot do. I don't have a problem with the transfer rule the NCAA has in place. A player is free to leave whenever he wants, but will have to wait a year if he wants to play D1. If he doesn't want to wait, he's free to transfer to a lower division and play anytime. Seems fair to me.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, because it's far from it (look at Baker Mayfield as an example of a broken system). However, I don't think the players are as taken advantage of as some lead us to believe.

[Eielson]

Should players be able to make it through school without having to "go without" or worrying about living costs (extra portion of pasta, etc.)? Yes. Which is why I am completely in favor of a system that gives the players enough to live with some extra left over (the same as if a kid were going to school on any scholarship and working).

I've never asked too deeply, but I've heard of multiple players talking doing things with the scholarship money they saved up. Are they not given a little extra to do what they want with? Perhaps it was extra money labeled as "food" or "housing" money that they didn't end up needing to spend.

I talked to a former OU player who went on to play a few years in the NFL. He had some injuries that ended his career, and he came back to OU to finish up his degree. While he was at OU, he felt like he was being taken advantage of. When he came back to school he realized just how expensive everything was, and he admitted that he didn't know how blessed he truly was. I kinda feel like that story is typical.

Also, people like Bob Stoops SHOULD be getting paid way more than the players. There are very few people who can do what he does. The players are easily replaced. You can replace Williams with Clay, Clay with Finch, Finch with Ford, etc. We proved that this year.

[ashley]

I talked to a Big 12 assistant whose name you would know and he said if they were considered employees they would cut them for bad play or bad attitudes just like the pros.

[SicEmBaylor]

I've never asked too deeply, but I've heard of multiple players talking doing things with the scholarship money they saved up. Are they not given a little extra to do what they want with? Perhaps it was extra money labeled as "food" or "housing" money that they didn't end up needing to spend.

I talked to a former OU player who went on to play a few years in the NFL. He had some injuries that ended his career, and he came back to OU to finish up his degree. While he was at OU, he felt like he was being taken advantage of. When he came back to school he realized just how expensive everything was, and he admitted that he didn't know how blessed he truly was. I kinda feel like that story is typical.

Also, people like Bob Stoops SHOULD be getting paid way more than the players. There are very few people who can do what he does. The players are easily replaced. You can replace Williams with Clay, Clay with Finch, Finch with Ford, etc. We proved that this year.

The idea that the worker (player) should be paid as much as the CEO (coach) is the sort of absurd claptrap that is indicative of the socialist agenda that most unions have.

[badger]

At the very least, this opens up doors for much-needed reform. It might not result in very much money paid to student athletes, but perhaps it can open the door to:
1- Multiple year scholarships. Right now, they have to be renewed every year, even in sports like football where a player can't turn pro till 3 years removed from high school.
2- Relaxed transfer rules. The only non-penalty-year transfer is to a grad program that your current school doesn't have.
3- Weekend meals. Why do the rulemakers think that athletes don't need to eat on weekends?
4- More years of eligibility. If certain programs require more than 120 credit hours/4 years (30 credits per year), shouldn't players be given more than 4 years to play?
5- Extended health insurance. It doesn't have to be forever, but perhaps at least as long as they played at a school. For example, play football for four years, get an additional four years of health insurance afterward (unless preferred coverage is coming from another source, such as the NFL).

It's a start.

[CobraKai]

Right now, as an employee in a free nation, I can leave my job when I want and find another where I want, without any restriction placed on me by any organization or any law as to seeking work or being compensated for that work. That is freedom, and it goes both ways. Indeed by definition, it must. It's not just the schools and the coaches and athletic administrators who have rights.

I had to sign a non-compete. If leave my company I am barred from doing certain types of work for 12 months. Depending on the industry/type of job these are common.

[jkjsooner]

I agree with what you say but I differ as to seeing this as some type of problem. These student athletes can do what they want. The NCAA member organizations have rules. If you don't like the rules do something else. Simple as that.

Except when the courts rule the NCAA is an illegal cartel.

The whole cartel label for sports is absurd. Clearly there needs to be some uniform rules in all leagues (professional and amateur) to maintain a level playing field and some level of parity. This has no analog in normal business but is an absolute necessity for any viable sports league. Taken another way, in some respects a sports league is a single entity and should be viewed as such.

[jkjsooner]

I had to sign a non-compete. If leave my company I am barred from doing certain types of work for 12 months. Depending on the industry/type of job these are common.

And almost unenforceable.

[Scott D]

And almost unenforceable.

depends on the industry....if you are on the teevee, it's a little hard to hide the fact you broke a non-compete in the same market.

[KantoSooner]

depends on the industry....if you are on the teevee, it's a little hard to hide the fact you broke a non-compete in the same market.

Or design, or specialized legal fields, or a whole bunch of other things. I'd send you over an NDA I had to sign when I did some work with XXXXX (a large computer chip firm). While it might not be enforceable, I know that they are completely willing to spend me into banruptcy attempting to enforce it. So, you just stay out of their corner of the industry thereafter.

[badger]

depends on the industry....if you are on the teevee, it's a little hard to hide the fact you broke a non-compete in the same market.

Yeah. I remember Sony threw up a big stink when their infamous actor for PS3 was suddenly on a different company's ad playing Nintendo Wii :D

[Eielson]

At the very least, this opens up doors for much-needed reform. It might not result in very much money paid to student athletes, but perhaps it can open the door to:

What I want to see is an extra year of "free" schooling given to those players who never sign an NFL contract (if OU gets you an NFL contract, they've probably provided you with more than you provided them). Getting a meaningful degree in 4 years is pretty tough for the average student. Now, part of that is due to the adviser telling you a different story every semester you go in for your appointment as well as the fact that you're often unable to enroll in the upper division classes you want. I doubt football players have those issues, but it's still insane to expect them to do everything a normal student does on top of playing football. I don't know if it's true (heard it from an iffy source), but I recently heard football players are required to be "full-time" students, and thus have to take 12 hours in the fall. Do you want to be a microbiology major and take 12 hours of classes like Microbial Physiology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Organic Chemistry? Of course not. Even if you're very intelligent (...trying to bite my tongue), you want to take multi-disciplinary studies and cram a bunch of easy classes into your already insane schedule. The NCAA needs to stop pushing for graduation. It's better to end your football career with 3 years of a useful major (that you can finish up later) than having graduated with a useless degree.

[badger]

I don't know if it's true (heard it from an iffy source), but I recently heard football players are required to be "full-time" students, and thus have to take 12 hours in the fall.
It may be insurance purposes, and if so, it's nothing new. In the early aughts I was required to be enrolled in at least 12 to be considered a full time student and therefore, on my parents' health insurance.

I remember talking to one football player who said that he always did more credits in the spring and cut down to 12 during football season because football takes a lot of time... not just practice, but flying to places like Alabama, UCLA, Oregon, etc.

Football players also, in order to maintain eligibility, must have passed 30 credits per year. That's what got the former Michigan quarterback Tate Forcier. He didn't pass enough of his classes (and played as a true freshmen) or something.

It would not surprise me if schools worked with athletes to help them get degrees after their pro aspirations are over via scholarships or something else NCAA-rules-approved. There are already NCAA scholarships for athletes that don't go pro in sports that want to pursue grad degrees

[oudivesherpa]

This could significantly raise the cost to field a top level team--how does OU compare in Football Revenue plus Alumni giving to the program? How would we do against schools with really deep pockets, UT, AM, tOSu and Bama if this program was adopted?

[bluedogok]

At the very least, this opens up doors for much-needed reform. It might not result in very much money paid to student athletes, but perhaps it can open the door to:
1- Multiple year scholarships. Right now, they have to be renewed every year, even in sports like football where a player can't turn pro till 3 years removed from high school.
2- Relaxed transfer rules. The only non-penalty-year transfer is to a grad program that your current school doesn't have.
3- Weekend meals. Why do the rulemakers think that athletes don't need to eat on weekends?
4- More years of eligibility. If certain programs require more than 120 credit hours/4 years (30 credits per year), shouldn't players be given more than 4 years to play?
5- Extended health insurance. It doesn't have to be forever, but perhaps at least as long as they played at a school. For example, play football for four years, get an additional four years of health insurance afterward (unless preferred coverage is coming from another source, such as the NFL).

It's a start.
I doubt there would be relaxed transfer rules if a scholarship is mandated to be guaranteed for 4 years, seems like one will be tied to the other.

If they want to be classified and treated like "employees" they will more than likely be paid as an employee and then have to pay their tuition, room and board out of that. Then you know since it is now a "salary" the IRS and state tax authorities will want to assess that as taxable income and they would be responsible for that. Would private schools then have to "pay" according to their tuition costs? That would mean a Northwestern or Stanford would have to "pay more" than most state institutions since their tuition averages about three times higher.

I never understood the weekend meal thing, the players that I knew back in the 80's mostly came from somewhat wealthy families so it wasn't much of a concern to them but I know others were not so fortunate.

I don't think they know how good many of them have it in comparison to the average student.

[BoomerJack]

From above post bluedogok: "If they want to be classified and treated like "employees" they will more than likely be paid as an employee and then have to pay their tuition, room and board out of that. Then you know since it is now a "salary" the IRS and state tax authorities will want to assess that as taxable income and they would be responsible for that. Would private schools then have to "pay" according to their tuition costs? That would mean a Northwestern or Stanford would have to "pay more" than most state institutions since their tuition averages about three times higher."

It's been my understanding for a long time that this is pretty much what happens now at O.U. The athletic department pays the university for the tuition/fee costs for the athletes. The $$$$$ come from the athletic dept. revenues. I guess the difference would be that under the new "employer/employee" relationship, the money would go from athletic dept. to athlete to university.

[jkjsooner]

I doubt there would be relaxed transfer rules if a scholarship is mandated to be guaranteed for 4 years, seems like one will be tied to the other.

I agree. I don't think people fully realize the negative impact of relaxed transfer rules - especially when it comes to coaching changes. If a team lost 70% of its players because of a coaching change it could very easily follow a path that resembles SMU. Once the team is nowhere near competitive, it becomes almost impossible to attract recruits so you're looking at a decade or more rebuilding process.

[jkjsooner]

Here's a question for you all. Most athletic departments lose money. (That is a fact and is not just an accounting trick.)

Why do schools continue to fund athletics if they're losing money on it? There are probably several answers but the big one is marketing. It attracts students. It even attracts academic donations. It gets the school general exposure that puts it on par with the very top schools in the country. (I'm only talking about exposure not academics.)

Should athletes put a dollar amount on this marketing and expect some of it in return? This would require funneling money from academics to athletics with the assumption that academics benefited from athletics.

I think this is a line that no university wants to cross. They can subsidize athletics to an extent but I don't think any school would want to view the AD as a marketing arm and pay it proportionally.

Unless you take this drastic step, the talk about paying players is a non-starter at the majority of the universities. The only way for that to happen is to split FBS.

[jkjsooner]

Or design, or specialized legal fields, or a whole bunch of other things. I'd send you over an NDA I had to sign when I did some work with XXXXX (a large computer chip firm). While it might not be enforceable, I know that they are completely willing to spend me into banruptcy attempting to enforce it. So, you just stay out of their corner of the industry thereafter.

You're giving really specific cases where the worker might have very specific knowledge to use elsewhere.

In general, lots of companies make employees sign non-compete clauses which are not enforceable.


Funny story. Years ago we had to sign some document that basically gave away our rights to any patents that we generate while being employed by the company. I believe we had a non-compete clause in there was well. Anyway, the patent stuff was infuriating because it didn't require that the patent be related to company work, developed on company time, or using company resources. I'd wonder what would happen if you created a patent while going to graduate school and both the university (for which the work was directly related) and the company tried to make a claim on it.

Anyway, one of the guys in my group edited the document in a way that made it appear to have been unaltered and signed the edited version. My guess is that wouldn't protect him in court as he was intentionally misleading the company but it was funny nonetheless.

[ashley]

I agree. I don't think people fully realize the negative impact of relaxed transfer rules - especially when it comes to coaching changes. If a team lost 70% of its players because of a coaching change it could very easily follow a path that resembles SMU. Once the team is nowhere near competitive, it becomes almost impossible to attract recruits so you're looking at a decade or more rebuilding process.

Yes, and can you imagine the alumni underground recruiting this could provoke. Or, just players wanting a better deal.

[8timechamps]

And almost unenforceable.

I'm not sure what you mean. In my industry, they are very enforceable, and have been enforced many times.

[8timechamps]

I've never asked too deeply, but I've heard of multiple players talking doing things with the scholarship money they saved up. Are they not given a little extra to do what they want with? Perhaps it was extra money labeled as "food" or "housing" money that they didn't end up needing to spend.

I talked to a former OU player who went on to play a few years in the NFL. He had some injuries that ended his career, and he came back to OU to finish up his degree. While he was at OU, he felt like he was being taken advantage of. When he came back to school he realized just how expensive everything was, and he admitted that he didn't know how blessed he truly was. I kinda feel like that story is typical.

Also, people like Bob Stoops SHOULD be getting paid way more than the players. There are very few people who can do what he does. The players are easily replaced. You can replace Williams with Clay, Clay with Finch, Finch with Ford, etc. We proved that this year.

I can't honestly say I know the full details. I just base my assumption on various reports I've seen over the years. I'm also not sure if it's the same for every school. I know at one time players were hardly able to work, and they may not be able to work at all now. Even a college kid should have a little money to spend for things like going to a movie or buying a sweatshirt. I get the impression that isn't the case for most/all of them now.

[8timechamps]

Here's a question for you all. Most athletic departments lose money. (That is a fact and is not just an accounting trick.)

Why do schools continue to fund athletics if they're losing money on it? There are probably several answers but the big one is marketing. It attracts students. It even attracts academic donations. It gets the school general exposure that puts it on par with the very top schools in the country. (I'm only talking about exposure not academics.)

Should athletes put a dollar amount on this marketing and expect some of it in return? This would require funneling money from academics to athletics with the assumption that academics benefited from athletics.

I think this is a line that no university wants to cross. They can subsidize athletics to an extent but I don't think any school would want to view the AD as a marketing arm and pay it proportionally.

Unless you take this drastic step, the talk about paying players is a non-starter at the majority of the universities. The only way for that to happen is to split FBS.

Exposure is probably the single biggest reason. Donations would probably be up there too.

Your reasoning is exactly why I think this whole thing will ultimately go nowhere. What is more likely to happen is an overhaul of sorts to the NCAA.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm not sure what you mean. In my industry, they are very enforceable, and have been enforced many times.

*pops head up*

It's not the industry, it's the jurisdiction. Some states, like California, refuse to enforce any non-competes. Other states, like Alabama, will only enforce them if they are reasonable in spatial and temporal duration. Illinois will enforce them if reasonable and they protect a legitimate business interest, but their definition of "reasonable" and "legitimate business interest" is pretty narrow.

*pops back down*

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

*pops head up*

It's not the industry, it's the jurisdiction. Some states, like California, refuse to enforce any non-competes. Other states, like Alabama, will only enforce them if they are reasonable in spatial and temporal duration. Illinois will enforce them if reasonable and they protect a legitimate business interest, but their definition of "reasonable" and "legitimate business interest" is pretty narrow.

*pops back down*So, wuz you sucked up into a saucer by aliens from another globe?

[jkjsooner]

I can't honestly say I know the full details. I just base my assumption on various reports I've seen over the years. I'm also not sure if it's the same for every school. I know at one time players were hardly able to work, and they may not be able to work at all now. Even a college kid should have a little money to spend for things like going to a movie or buying a sweatshirt. I get the impression that isn't the case for most/all of them now.

I'm pretty sure the guys can work. It's probably impossible during the season but in the summer and spring I'm sure they can. After all Bomar was allowed to have a job. That incident also indicates why the schools monitor and control it.

[jkjsooner]

*pops head up*

It's not the industry, it's the jurisdiction. Some states, like California, refuse to enforce any non-competes. Other states, like Alabama, will only enforce them if they are reasonable in spatial and temporal duration. Illinois will enforce them if reasonable and they protect a legitimate business interest, but their definition of "reasonable" and "legitimate business interest" is pretty narrow.

*pops back down*

He's back!

[8timechamps]

*pops head up*

It's not the industry, it's the jurisdiction. Some states, like California, refuse to enforce any non-competes. Other states, like Alabama, will only enforce them if they are reasonable in spatial and temporal duration. Illinois will enforce them if reasonable and they protect a legitimate business interest, but their definition of "reasonable" and "legitimate business interest" is pretty narrow.

*pops back down*

Good Lord...you ARE alive.

[8timechamps]

I'm pretty sure the guys can work. It's probably impossible during the season but in the summer and spring I'm sure they can. After all Bomar was allowed to have a job. That incident also indicates why the schools monitor and control it.

I wasn't completely sure about that. I knew in the past they worked (specifically because of the Bomar incident), but wasn't sure if that was still the case. Now I know.

[FaninAma]

Of course we now have the UConn BB player
saying he goes to bed hungry.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Good Lord...you ARE alive.He's prolly fully bamatized by now. (Why would a 5-star fan from SEC lower hissef to a 3.5 message board?)

[Eielson]

Of course we now have the UConn BB player
saying he goes to bed hungry.

...despite the fact that he is given money specifically for food by UConn.

[8timechamps]

He's prolly fully bamatized by now. (Why would a 5-star fan from SEC lower hissef to a 3.5 message board?)

Oh, he's a Sooner through and through.

[8timechamps]

This is an uphill climb for the NW players, and I still don't think this has much (if any) chance of becoming reality. There are ways to address the issues without going for unionization.

Here's an example of how states will push back from this: Ohio legislation says "Players aren't employees" (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10749079/ohio-legislative-panel-clarifies-bill-says-student-athletes-considered-employees)

[Eielson]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10757376/adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings-says-college-athletes-paid

Dangit Adrian...

More disturbing, ESPN has a poll right now, and 57% of fans voted that players should be paid. Thankfully, it only has about 10,000 votes.

[ouflak]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10757376/adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings-says-college-athletes-paid

Dangit Adrian...

More disturbing, ESPN has a poll right now, and 57% of fans voted that players should be paid. Thankfully, it only has about 10,000 votes.

Wish I'd seen that poll. Would've been happy to throw my vote in on that one. Curiously, they now have a poll on whether fans support the unionization effort by Northwestern players, and that poll is actually heavily against the idea (67%). So you have a lot of fans that think that players should be paid in one poll one day, but are against unionization in another poll the next day. Kinda gives you an idea of what Americans think of unions these days.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Wish I'd seen that poll. Would've been happy to throw my vote in on that one. Curiously, they now have a poll on whether fans support the unionization effort by Northwestern players, and that poll is actually heavily against the idea (67%). So you have a lot of fans that think that players should be paid in one poll one day, but are against unionization in another poll the next day. Kinda gives you an idea of what Americans think of unions these days.Getting paid and unions are CERTAINLY quite different subjects. It was a surprise to me that the union cart got put before the horse.

[swardboy]

I saw next year's senior QB on the Northwestern team say he would vote against unionization. He thinks it's a mistake to not go to the coaches and administration first to air grievances. Then he goes on to say the football players are treated like kings and he thinks it's basically a travesty for them to be complaining about anything.

Sounds like a "no" vote coming up.

[ouflak]

I saw next year's senior QB on the Northwestern team say he would vote against unionization. He thinks it's a mistake to not go to the coaches and administration first to air grievances. Then he goes on to say the football players are treated like kings and he thinks it's basically a travesty for them to be complaining about anything.

Sounds like a "no" vote coming up.

Well he has a right to his opinion and vote, and I'm glad he is getting his say. But I wonder if he really thinks 'airing grievances' to the coaches and AD's would do any good?

Players: "Coach/AD, we should have the right to seek employment without restriction. We want to have guaranteed multi-year scholarships. And we need better health coverage after our playing years for injuries we've sustained while playing. And we'd also like a say on safety matters regarding equipment, just have our voice heard when such matters are officially discussed."

Coaches/AD: "Yeah we agree completely. But unfortunately the NCAA rule book is quite clear. And their organization is setup the way it's setup by they themselves. We don't have a say in that. So... *shrug* sorry!"

End of grievances being aired.

[Eielson]

Wish I'd seen that poll. Would've been happy to throw my vote in on that one. Curiously, they now have a poll on whether fans support the unionization effort by Northwestern players, and that poll is actually heavily against the idea (67%). So you have a lot of fans that think that players should be paid in one poll one day, but are against unionization in another poll the next day. Kinda gives you an idea of what Americans think of unions these days.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/poll/conversation/_/id/4270367

It's evened out at around 30,000 votes.

[8timechamps]

Wish I'd seen that poll. Would've been happy to throw my vote in on that one. Curiously, they now have a poll on whether fans support the unionization effort by Northwestern players, and that poll is actually heavily against the idea (67%). So you have a lot of fans that think that players should be paid in one poll one day, but are against unionization in another poll the next day. Kinda gives you an idea of what Americans think of unions these days.

Those polls support my stance on this issue.

I believe the NCAA needs to address the cost-of-living issue, whether that be with stipends or moderate pay. I believe the idea that college athletes are employees of the university of absurd. So, unionization is the wrong avenue, and I disagree with that direction. I think the majority of fans feel the same way I do.

Stipends or moderate pay does not equal paying players tens of thousands of dollars (or more) to play college sports.

[8timechamps]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10757376/adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings-says-college-athletes-paid

Dangit Adrian...

More disturbing, ESPN has a poll right now, and 57% of fans voted that players should be paid. Thankfully, it only has about 10,000 votes.

AD has a really weak argument here. I love the guy, but disagree with his reasoning.

[bluedogok]

Getting paid and unions are CERTAINLY quite different subjects. It was a surprise to me that the union cart got put before the horse.
That was because a union was pushing the cart......and telling the plaintiffs what they wanted to hear. When it really hits the fan that union who pushed for this will be nowhere to be found.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That was because a union was pushing the cart......and telling the plaintiffs what they wanted to hear. When it really hits the fan that union who pushed for this will be nowhere to be found.It(paying players) becomes considerably more complicated when unionization is also being considered. I would think the unions have a bigger chance to be formed if players being paid was to first become a reality. Maybe the unions just want to create chaos.

[ouflak]

I would think the unions have a bigger chance to be formed if players being paid was to first become a reality.

But by what mechanism? Let's face it. The NCAA is making loads, with more to come. They can't pay their executive board enough in money to spend it all. So they are shuffling money into the political campaigns of Congressman. If they can help it, their empire of indentured servitude will become the law of the land, atleast until the Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional, which might be decades from now. There's no way they are going to allow any slice of their pie to be doled out to the players. It'$ ju$t not in their be$t intere$t. I don't see the millionaire class of coaches and athletic directors giving up a slice of their burgeoning pie either, though admittedly a few coaches have publicly offered (and even spoken out in favor of the players). So in the current structure, with all of the money flowing in, and more set to flow in, how do you think it would ever happen that the people who are actually earning the money would actually start getting paid some of it?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

But by what mechanism? Let's face it. The NCAA is making loads, with more to come. They can't pay their executive board enough in money to spend it all. So they are shuffling money into the political campaigns of Congressman. If they can help it, their empire of indentured servitude will become the law of the land, atleast until the Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional, which might be decades from now. There's no way they are going to allow any slice of their pie to be doled out to the players. It'$ ju$t not in their be$t intere$t. I don't see the millionaire class of coaches and athletic directors giving up a slice of their burgeoning pie either, though admittedly a few coaches have publicly offered (and even spoken out in favor of the players). So in the current structure, with all of the money flowing in, and more set to flow in, how do you think it would ever happen that the people who are actually earning the money would actually start getting paid some of it?IDGAS. Sounds like you think unions are a good thing. Collective bargaining is bad news, and especially so where it's not optional. They are always detrimental to optimal performance of any industry.

[ouflak]

IDGAS. Sounds like you think unions are a good thing. Collective bargaining is bad news, and especially so where it's not optional. They are always detrimental to optimal performance of any industry.

To be honest, I'm not a real big fan of unions (in fact, that may be an understatement). I'd rather the NCAA just vanish in a puff of dust. But that is unrealistic. I am not naive enough to think that the NCAA will ever give up its model of making money without having to pay the people actually doing the work. If I were them, as sleazy as it may sound, I wouldn't. Heck I would fight tooth and nail for that. It'$ a virtual printing pre$$. So I'm not really sure how else this can all work out.

[8timechamps]

To be honest, I'm not a real big fan of unions (in fact, that may be an understatement). I'd rather the NCAA just vanish in a puff of dust. But that is unrealistic. I am not naive enough to think that the NCAA will ever give up its model of making money without having to pay the people actually doing the work. If I were them, as sleazy as it may sound, I wouldn't. Heck I would fight tooth and nail for that. It'$ a virtual printing pre$$. So I'm not really sure how else this can all work out.

College football is big business, and does bring in millions, but the "NCAA" is not the recipient of the money. I'm not sure if you're using "NCAA" to mean all the member schools, or if you are referring to the "NCAA" as the actual governing body. The actual NCAA is strapped for cash, which is why inquiries and investigations take so long, they can't afford to hire the people they really need.

The decline of the NCAA, as it stands today, may not be as far off as you think. I think the power 6 conferences have made it pretty clear that either things change, or they will leave the NCAA. One of the issues is player stipends. All of the schools (or at least most of them) in those conferences can afford to pay player stipends, but mid-major schools are a completely different story. So, the NCAA knows they are in a tough spot right now and if they want things to remain the same they must reach an agreement that serves both the power conferences and the small ones. I'm not sure that's even possible, which is why I think the NCAA is close to being on life support. I say "close", because nothing moves fast when it comes to these kinds of things.

I suspect the Power 6 will square off with the NCAA next offseason. They (the power 6) have already made it clear they are willing to leave if they don't get what they want, and frankly there isn't much the NCAA can do. Could spell the end of the NCAA as we know it.

[ouflak]

College football is big business, and does bring in millions, but the "NCAA" is not the recipient of the money.

People somehow think this. I'm not sure where that perception comes from. Anyway, the 10.8 billion dollar basketball deal (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/2010-04-21/cbs-sports-turner-broadcasting-ncaa-reach-14-year-agreement) they signed a few years back would suggest otherwise.



The actual NCAA is strapped for cash, which is why inquiries and investigations take so long, they can't afford to hire the people they really need.

Yes, they can barely afford to pay Emmert his 1.7 million in yearly salary (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/07/10/ncaa-mark-emmert-salary-million-tax-return/2505667/), up $100,000 from the previous year. Fortunately money grows on trees and falls from the skies. I'm sure that's how they were able to afford this, as well as the pay to the rest of that executive board detailed in the link.



The decline of the NCAA, as it stands today, may not be as far off as you think. I think the power 6 conferences have made it pretty clear that either things change, or they will leave the NCAA. One of the issues is player stipends. All of the schools (or at least most of them) in those conferences can afford to pay player stipends, but mid-major schools are a completely different story. So, the NCAA knows they are in a tough spot right now and if they want things to remain the same they must reach an agreement that serves both the power conferences and the small ones. I'm not sure that's even possible, which is why I think the NCAA is close to being on life support. I say "close", because nothing moves fast when it comes to these kinds of things.

I suspect the Power 6 will square off with the NCAA next offseason. They (the power 6) have already made it clear they are willing to leave if they don't get what they want, and frankly there isn't much the NCAA can do. Could spell the end of the NCAA as we know it.

Don't try to give me too much hope! I'm a notorious daydreamer.

[jkjsooner]

People somehow think this. I'm not sure where that perception comes from. Anyway, the 10.8 billion dollar basketball deal (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/2010-04-21/cbs-sports-turner-broadcasting-ncaa-reach-14-year-agreement) they signed a few years back would suggest otherwise.

96% of the money the NCAA makes (almost all from the basketball tournament) goes back to the member institutions. With $10.8 billion over 14 years with only 4% staying within the NCAA organization, that gives them only about $30.8 million a year.

The NCAA isn't flush with cash. As for the member institutions, about 80% lose money in their athletic departments.

I'm sure this will mean little as people from your side seem to ignore the financial reality.



Yes, they can barely afford to pay Emmert his 1.7 million in yearly salary (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/07/10/ncaa-mark-emmert-salary-million-tax-return/2505667/), up $100,000 from the previous year. Fortunately money grows on trees and falls from the skies. I'm sure that's how they were able to afford this, as well as the pay to the rest of that executive board detailed in the link.

That's a pretty mediocre salary for someone in his position. In addition, you take that salary and spread it out among the 420,000 division I athletes and it doesn't go very far.


I'd love to see athletes get a decent stipend but when you consider Title IX and the number of athletes we're talking about I've yet to see any realistic proposal. The only way this is possible is to split FBS into a smaller division who can afford such a thing. A lot of these athletes that are complaining probably wouldn't be in such a
division. (I'm not so sure NW would be involved as I don't see the split being purely on conference affiliations.)

[jkjsooner]

I just looked it up. This is a few years old (2010). The NCAA had about 400 employees and spent about $50 million per year. That's an average compensation of $125,000.

Considering the nature of the business that isn't extremely high. They have a lot more executives than a normal 400 employee organization simply because they're an umbrella organization that represents the interests of the member institutions. In addition they are probably extremely top-heavy on lawyers, etc.

Again, the NCAA isn't a rich organization as you have portrayed it. They have some highly paid executives but so does every other damn organization in this country.

[8timechamps]

Yes, they can barely afford to pay Emmert his 1.7 million in yearly salary (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/07/10/ncaa-mark-emmert-salary-million-tax-return/2505667/), up $100,000 from the previous year. Fortunately money grows on trees and falls from the skies. I'm sure that's how they were able to afford this, as well as the pay to the rest of that executive board detailed in the link.



flak, I defer to jk on this:


That's a pretty mediocre salary for someone in his position

While most of us hate the NCAA, it's still a large organization responsible for many things. Considering what Emmert has to do (which I would compare to just about any CEO), that's far less than most make. Personally, I think most CEO's are way overpaid, but that's a topic for a different thread.

jksooner also addressed the tournament funds being distributed back to the member schools. The NCAA, as a stand alone organization, isn't a cash-cow. They are relatively "minor" compared to what the conferences make financially.

[LakeRat]

I haven't seen a union do a good thing in any industry. If you look at any industry they have been a part of, they screw it up. Auto, steel, education etc...

Second, how are you going to provide medical insurance for someone after they are away from your organization? I can see covering issues that happen while in school. For instance you break a leg in your bowl game. That should be taken care of until it is fixed. But if you break your leg 6 months after you get out the school shouldn't be responsible. Maybe provide a cobra type policy until they get into a job. But to just provide 4 years of medical coverage after college doesn't make since.

[cvsooner]

I haven't seen a union do a good thing in any industry. If you look at any industry they have been a part of, they screw it up. Auto, steel, education etc...

You mean outside of the 40 hour week, weekends off, fairly widespread employee health insurance, retirement plans and time off for sick leave, paid vacations and family leave? Employers have done more to screw up the industries, in my view, than their employees--mostly for a buck.


Second, how are you going to provide medical insurance for someone after they are away from your organization?

You mean, like the VA? You could make the argument that the insurance should cover them years down the road when problems surface years later that are a result of their time as athletes. Insurers will insure anything if they think they can make money at it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Employers have done more to screw up the industries, in my view, than their employees--mostly for a buck.

Kool, Karl! Who needs employers, anyway?

[cvsooner]

Oh, employers are certainly needed. Not everybody wants to own their own company. But there's a big difference in attitude between "we're all in this together" versus "you're lucky to have a job."

The unions screwed up their companies by demanding to be paid a fair wage and benefits? Or is it the employer who decides he can get it done cheaper elsewhere and pocket the additional profit. All too often I don't see employers lowering their product costs to consumers, just the production cost.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Oh, employers are certainly needed. Not everybody wants to own their own company. But there's a big difference in attitude between "we're all in this together" versus "you're lucky to have a job."

The unions screwed up their companies by demanding to be paid a fair wage and benefits? Or is it the employer who decides he can get it done cheaper elsewhere and pocket the additional profit. All too often I don't see employers lowering their product costs to consumers, just the production cost.Well, if you're fine with letting the unions make the consumers/customers take it in the shorts, and enforced by the government, then unions do serve a purpose.

[cvsooner]

To try to get this back on track--as this isn't really the right forum for this discussion, per se--is it the unions who've screwed up professional sports? Or the networks? Or the owners? I mean, why do tickets cost so much? Why do owners like (or now, likely former owners) like Robert Sterling feel like the taxpayers should help construct their stadiums? Talk about cost-shifting. Everybody pays taxes on building the stadium, but only those lucky enough/wealthy enough to buy tickets can get in. True, the networks may broadcast the games, bringing in even more revenue so others may watch from outside, but the owners get the bulk of that too.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

To try to get this back on track--as this isn't really the right forum for this discussion, per se--is it the unions who've screwed up professional sports? Or the networks? Or the owners? I mean, why do tickets cost so much? Why do owners like (or now, likely former owners) like Robert Sterling feel like the taxpayers should help construct their stadiums? Talk about cost-shifting. Everybody pays taxes on building the stadium, but only those lucky enough/wealthy enough to buy tickets can get in. True, the networks may broadcast the games, bringing in even more revenue so others may watch from outside, but the owners get the bulk of that too.Crony socialism, or commonly called crony capitalism, is what gets stadia built, with taxpayers' money. Sometimes people even vote for the tax and expenditure. Seems wrong to me too, especially when it isn't even voted on.

Players are paid so much because the money is there, admission and tv dollars.(duh) Do you think it's the business of govt. to have a price control on the cost of tickets?

[cvsooner]

If government (and in this country that means you and me) helped fund the stadium, sure, why not? I mean, an awful lot of the money that built Oklahoma Memorial Stadium came out of taxpayer pockets. Yes, sponsors and donors and all helped, but ultimately, that stadium belongs to the people of the state of Oklahoma.

My bigger point is somebody like Sterling, say, is worth nearly two billion dollars. Two billion.

Why doesn't he, or somebody like Jerry Jones, just build their own stadium and pay for it themselves?

Players are paid so much because the money is there? No, players are paid what they are paid because that's who fans want to see. If owners could pay them less, they would. If they could pay them a whole lot less, they would. Compare starting pay for a first round draft choice to an undrafted kid out of college and see what the difference is.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Players are paid so much because the money is there? No, players are paid what they are paid because that's who fans want to see. If owners could pay them less, they would. If they could pay them a whole lot less, they would. Compare starting pay for a first round draft choice to an undrafted kid out of college and see what the difference is.Dayum, Karl, The money is there because the fans, including tv deals, pay it. How hard is that for you?The fans get exhorbitant contract worth millions because the money is there and the players negotiate for the money. How stupid would a team owner be to pay the players EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS TO ALREADY?

[bluedogok]

If government (and in this country that means you and me) helped fund the stadium, sure, why not? I mean, an awful lot of the money that built Oklahoma Memorial Stadium came out of taxpayer pockets. Yes, sponsors and donors and all helped, but ultimately, that stadium belongs to the people of the state of Oklahoma.

My bigger point is somebody like Sterling, say, is worth nearly two billion dollars. Two billion.

Why doesn't he, or somebody like Jerry Jones, just build their own stadium and pay for it themselves?

Players are paid so much because the money is there? No, players are paid what they are paid because that's who fans want to see. If owners could pay them less, they would. If they could pay them a whole lot less, they would. Compare starting pay for a first round draft choice to an undrafted kid out of college and see what the difference is.
Jerry Jones financed the bulk of the costs on Jerryworld to the tune of $875 million, the City of Arlington is on the hook through long term bond financing for $325 million. The Pepsi Center here in Denver was built by the then owner of the Nuggets and Avalanche and is now owned by Kronke Sports after the purchase of those teams. Many owners spend a whole lot more on their facilities than the media gives them credit for. At times the media tried to make it sound like the City of Arlington built it for the Cowboys when they were more of a minority partner. The taxes associated with the stadium district (mostly parking, tickets and concessions) have been higher than expected and in fact the city may pay off the bonds early.

The Staples Center is shared by the Lakers, Clipper and Kings and was part of a major public/private redevelopment in that part of Los Angeles. Donald Sterling would probably have had a hard time building something similar without public assistance because of the cost of land, labor and doing business in LA, especially when his team was historically bad during the construction of Staples. Two billion just doesn't go that far in expensive locales like LA or NYC.

I think at one point in history (100+ years ago) unions had their place but since the gov't mandates most of what the unions are known for in the past they have outlived their usefulness and have become in effect their own corporations who take money from he rank and file to enrich the bosses.

[jkjsooner]

Why do owners like (or now, likely former owners) like Robert Sterling feel like the taxpayers should help construct their stadiums?

I think the team owners could argue that they are just operating within the free market. (Given it's a free market with local governments as a player.) If a certain city does not finance their stadium they can move to another city. The team owners have bargaining power because there are other cities that will compete for the team and offer a better deal. If other cities were not willing to do so then I think you would see the public money dry up.

The team owners would just argue that that is just a representation of the value that their team brings to a city. If you look at it that way you could argue it's not really a subsidy.

I say this to just present another side to the story. I'm not necessarily a fan of public money being used to fund stadiums when the players and owners are getting filthy rich but there are two sides to that story.

[LakeRat]

You mean outside of the 40 hour week, weekends off, fairly widespread employee health insurance, retirement plans and time off for sick leave, paid vacations and family leave? Employers have done more to screw up the industries, in my view, than their employees--mostly for a buck.



You mean, like the VA? You could make the argument that the insurance should cover them years down the road when problems surface years later that are a result of their time as athletes. Insurers will insure anything if they think they can make money at it.

Retirement plans... How did that go for the Employees of Detroit? 40 hour work week has both parents working now. Now these industries are out of business and you have cities like Detroit turning into ghost towns.

Like I said, I am fine with them gettting coverage for stuff that happens during their time at the school. After shouldn't be covered. Like the VA.

You are obviously someone who doesn't understand insurance. So I will not try and argue with your naitevity. But as a person who has spent his life in the insurance world... Your statements aren't accurate.