I enjoyed college sports while it lasted.

[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.