|
Crazy Ted posted:You could also play for a team as long as you were taking one class or were employed by the school. This led to one University of Minnesota player being on the team for six or seven years in the early 1900s, and then as a professor they called him back in for a game a couple of years later when they needed him at QB. Basically, there were no standard eligibility rules of any kind. It was entirely up to individual schools and negotiation between schools when they played. So every team was responsible for doing its own detective work on every player on every team they played.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
This is a nice idea in theory but seems to open a can of worms. Where do you draw the line? Should someone on an ncaa swimming team be paid the same as a football player? Should an engineering major at MIT have their medical expenses covered if the stress causes them health issues? It just seems like if you provide athletes with free healthcare and say it's because it's a for profit industry, you would have to do the same in academia. Colleges are HUGE business and athletics are just a small chunk of their profits
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
It is inevitable that the NCAA gets shithoused by the courts in the upcoming years and they might as well try and hold onto every last bit of their power until it all goes bust. This won't be fixed with marginal changes here and there. The best is they really brought it all upon themselves with the absurd TV deals and conference realignment poo poo. Vulgar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
vaginal culture posted:It is inevitable that the NCAA gets shithoused by the courts in the upcoming years and they might as well try and hold onto every last bit of their power until it all goes bust. This won't be fixed with marginal changes here and there. The best is they really brought it all upon themselves with the absurd TV deals and conference realignment poo poo. Vulgar. The real problem is that the NCAA has always operated by mutual consent and cooperation of its member institutions, and has never had any actual legal authority to do anything outside of that. It seems the legal issues involved in college athletics are getting too complicated for that sort of arrangement, and some sort of federally-chartered organization with real legal teeth is going to be needed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Basically, there were no standard eligibility rules of any kind. It was entirely up to individual schools and negotiation between schools when they played. So every team was responsible for doing its own detective work on every player on every team they played. Case in point: one-time SWC member Phillips University of Enid, OK. Former Michigan All-American halfback John Maulbetsch headed out west following his playing career to coach at the obscure college starting in 1917. Two years later, the Haymakers went 10-0-1, including a win in Austin over a Texas team that didn't lose a game the season before. Apparently, this was good enough for an invitation to the conference. In 1920, however, the team was required to follow SWC eligibility requirements (a significant step up from the school's previous lack of eligibility requirements, as far as I understand) and consequently failed to score a single point in conference play before quietly returning to independent status. Maulbetsch was hired away by Oklahoma A&M and within fifteen years the school no longer even fielded a football team; they went bankrupt in 1998 and are today largely a historical footnote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Basically, there were no standard eligibility rules of any kind. It was entirely up to individual schools and negotiation between schools when they played. So every team was responsible for doing its own detective work on every player on every team they played. That really isn't that much worse. Hell its hardly that big a deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That really isn't that much worse. It's a big deal if you think athletes representing colleges should actually be students at those college. If you reject that notion, then there really isn't anything to argue about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
fat greasy puto posted:This is a nice idea in theory but seems to open a can of worms. Where do you draw the line? Should someone on an ncaa swimming team be paid the same as a football player? Should an engineering major at MIT have their medical expenses covered if the stress causes them health issues? It just seems like if you provide athletes with free healthcare and say it's because it's a for profit industry, you would have to do the same in academia. I can't say for certain where the line should be drawn but I think it's a good thing that those groups at least be allowed to negotiate the terms of their scholarships quote:Colleges are HUGE business and athletics are just a small chunk of their profits This is a good point and many colleges operate at a loss in terms of athletics so I think most of them will shutter their athletic programs or reduce them to intramurals which is sad but is probably for the best
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That really isn't that much worse. Horse Feathers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:This is a good point and many colleges operate at a loss in terms of athletics so I think most of them will shutter their athletic programs or reduce them to intramurals which is sad but is probably for the best
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Alereon posted:This ruling wouldn't affect those programs, right? It seems limited to schools where athletics is a big enough deal for the players to be fulltime athletes who are also students rather than full-time students who are also athletes. So... every D-1 university?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Alereon posted:This ruling wouldn't affect those programs, right? It seems limited to schools where athletics is a big enough deal for the players to be fulltime athletes who are also students rather than full-time students who are also athletes. Right now it only affects Northwestern(and logically all Private Universities)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Alereon posted:This ruling wouldn't affect those programs, right? It seems limited to schools where athletics is a big enough deal for the players to be fulltime athletes who are also students rather than full-time students who are also athletes. The ruling only applies to private universities, as unions at public universities would be subject to state laws. If the argument that time spent with athletics > time spent on education makes them employees holds up on appeal, the quickest response would be to limit the time spent on athletics to get under the cap. IMO, this ought to be done regardless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:So... every D-1 university? I think he's more worried about mid-major colleges. I think that's bullshit because mid-major colleges also reap a killing from running a college, just not as much of a killing as their D1 counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:This is a good point and many colleges operate at a loss in terms of athletics so I think most of them will shutter their athletic programs or reduce them to intramurals which is sad but is probably for the best
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's a big deal if you think athletes representing colleges should actually be students at those college. If you reject that notion, then there really isn't anything to argue about. Well more to the point is it worse because it is brazen? Because you could argue that right now effectively the same thing is happening now. As I assume the big deal you are saying it is has more to do with him being a ringer who isn't there for college as opposed to his age.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Doesn't the amount of student athletes getting sham degrees undervalue the typical students own typically overpriced degree? Students at my alma mater voted down transitioning to D1 due to this, which bothered me at the time but now seems good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Alereon posted:This ruling wouldn't affect those programs, right? It seems limited to schools where athletics is a big enough deal for the players to be fulltime athletes who are also students rather than full-time students who are also athletes. NCAA dictates up to 4 hours of practice a day for a maximum of 20 per week with at least one day off (which doesn't include game day) and that doesn't include "self-directed or student-led training" (i.e. strength and conditioning done at the coach's request but not under his supervision or other drills) which is (anecdotally, from 4 basketball players at VCU) another 1-2 hours (plus independent film study which is heartily encouraged). It's a bit more reasonable during the offseason (8 hours a week, two days off) but that's every program. It's basically a part time job except it's all physical labor and you have to travel out of town regularly (and travel count towards your hours; only the actual competition counts, and regardless of how long it goes on, it gets clocked at 3 hours). Right now it just applies to private universities, though (and no one's sure how it'll all end up shaking out, so it's all speculation).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Well more to the point is it worse because it is brazen? Because you could argue that right now effectively the same thing is happening now. As I assume the big deal you are saying it is has more to do with him being a ringer who isn't there for college as opposed to his age. Lack of control of eligibility led to the formation of conferences, first, and the NCAA, second. It was complete chaos otherwise. It was not "better" in any sense whatsoever. I'm sure there's some subtle, clever point you're trying to make, but I'm not getting it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Lack of control of eligibility led to the formation of conferences, first, and the NCAA, second. It was complete chaos otherwise. It was not "better" in any sense whatsoever. I am sure we are talking past each other, because I am having a similar reaction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
fat greasy puto posted:This is a nice idea in theory but seems to open a can of worms. Where do you draw the line? Should someone on an ncaa swimming team be paid the same as a football player? Should an engineering major at MIT have their medical expenses covered if the stress causes them health issues? It just seems like if you provide athletes with free healthcare and say it's because it's a for profit industry, you would have to do the same in academia. Colleges are HUGE business and athletics are just a small chunk of their profits Engineering majors at MIT are buying a product. Players at big universities ARE a product. Either way, healthcare for all students somehow or another would obviously be the best case scenario. Don't most universities require health insurance or have some kind of set up to ensure students have it while they are at the university?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Engineering majors at MIT are buying a product. Players at big universities ARE a product. Either way, healthcare for all students somehow or another would obviously be the best case scenario. Don't most universities require health insurance or have some kind of set up to ensure students have it while they are at the university? They do
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
vaginal culture posted:They do They don't. They require you to be up to date on vaccinations including MRSA if you live in a dorm. Outside of that there is no law that enforces health care coverage for any student.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
It may not be the law, but I know there's some schools that do that. Just don't know how universal it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Doltos posted:They don't. They require you to be up to date on vaccinations including MRSA if you live in a dorm. Outside of that there is no law that enforces health care coverage for any student. My (private) college requires it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Doltos posted:They don't. They require you to be up to date on vaccinations including MRSA if you live in a dorm. Outside of that there is no law that enforces health care coverage for any student. NIU(state school) did. I had to provide proof of insurance, in order to opt out of the 300 dollar or so insurance charge on my tuition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
When did you guys attend? I went to two state schools between 2007 to 2011 and neither required insurance or a waiver, and only one even asked about it because I was living on campus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Doltos posted:When did you guys attend? I went to two state schools between 2007 to 2011 and neither required insurance or a waiver, and only one even asked about it because I was living on campus. 2006-2010. Now that I think about it, I might have only had to waive the insurance charge when I lived on campus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Doltos posted:When did you guys attend? I went to two state schools between 2007 to 2011 and neither required insurance or a waiver, and only one even asked about it because I was living on campus. I'm currently attending. On the other hand, my girlfriend is going to a state school in California and I'm not sure that she has to have insurance. I'll check later if we don't have this cleared up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
I think Kent just wants a vaccination certification even if you aren't living on campus. Then you just ignore it completely until it disappears from your blackboard NEED TO DO list
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
I'm curious how this would work for private colleges located in right-to-work (aka union-busting) states. It's pretty difficult to have a union if you can't get dues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Graduated last year and all I had to have was vaccines at both schools I went to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:the quickest response would be to limit the time spent on athletics to get under the cap. Declan MacManus already went over this, but the teams already get around this by "non-mandatory" duties. If you don't show, someone else will, then you are out your education and a year of eligibility. The morality of squeezing kids passed the agreed upon limits is up to you, but a vast majority believes this is free enterprise and how the "real" world works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
If we want to look at a very similar, we should probably look at the efforts to unionize teaching assistants at colleges: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_student_unionization Its interesting to see that this has primarily occurred at public schools. It also touches on the differences between taxes on direct wages and on scholarships.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I don't think you've thought this through at all. The players are looking for the right to bargain. That means that D3 teams and tennis players don't deserve anything beyond basic rights that they don't currently have. If they aren't bringing in profit, there's little to bargain over. No schools would shut down poo poo over this. If you're paying the coach and athletic director millions of dollars a year, why the hell do the players deserve nothing? How much profit did having the rights to Johnny Manziel™ bring TAMU? Probably enough to pay the whole conference a reasonable salary and benefits. But we're supposed to act like schools shutting down educational programs to give the team more funding, because that's the real profit engine, are too hard up to pay for basic profit sharing? Shut up please. If anything, this is at least a step against the NCAA and corruption in school funds, which is the real issue behind schools being football teams with educational institutions on the side rather than vice versa. I wasn't saying they shouldn't get anything ever, just that if athletes unionize in schools that run in the red that they will get nothing. The big schools can afford to treat players as employees. The small schools? Not so much. I don't like the NCAA either but unionizing as "employees" is not the answer and will have a lot of bad unintended consequences.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:I wasn't saying they shouldn't get anything ever, just that if athletes unionize in schools that run in the red that they will get nothing. The big schools can afford to treat players as employees. The small schools? Not so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:I wasn't saying they shouldn't get anything ever, just that if athletes unionize in schools that run in the red that they will get nothing. The big schools can afford to treat players as employees. The small schools? Not so much. What are the bad unintended consequences if not every college in america has a full range of sports?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
edit: eh, not contributing anything to the discussion
Neil Armbong fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
vaginal culture posted:Doesn't the amount of student athletes getting sham degrees undervalue the typical students own typically overpriced degree? Students at my alma mater voted down transitioning to D1 due to this, which bothered me at the time but now seems good. They're such a tiny fraction that it doesn't matter. I mean, of all the stuff to worry about, this is like the last, unless your university has graduating classes of 30 people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
A BA could not really get an less valuable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 23:34
|
|
