|
A great viable change I'd love to see come out of this would be for more of the huge amount of money that is being generated through the NCAA to actually go towards athlete welfare in the form of lock-tight medical insurance, realistic stipends, post-eligibility scholarships, and long term support. The IOC and just about every national governing body for Olympic sports is just as bad or worse as the NCAA and they need the same reforms. I don't think the solution is to pay them unless you go straight up minor league. But I think the athletes should be the ones benefiting from all their effort, not a bunch of people who skim off the top. I mean, it isn't going to happen, zero chance, but I wish it actually would.
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Any relaxation of amateurism completely changes the entire landscape of college sports. If you want an openly semi-pro league then make an openly semi-pro league. But don't attach it to the school at that point. If you want to take the money and use it to benefit the athletes instead of a bunch of TV and bowl execs, then embrace the money and just pour it into stuff that actually benefits the athletes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Idiot Wind posted:In a lot of cases the only reason they got in is because of the athletics, they certainly couldn't get in (regardless of background) on the merits of their applications simply as students! The kid who got into school because of athletic skill and is using it to get a degree and better his or her life (remember, college sports aren't just football and basketball) in not what is being discussed in this argument. Nobody wants to pay 100k for that guy's autograph. And those kids are the ones who will get screwed over if college sports go full semi-pro.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
astr0man posted:Which is why only athletes in revenue generating sports (football and mens basketball) would be eligible for this union if it actually happens. I don't think anyone would disagree that it is a lot harder, if not impossible to make the case that athletes in the non-revenue sports could make the claim that they are employees of a university. There are individual programs of football and men's basketball that lose shitloads of money. And there are also individual programs of niche sports that make money at certain schools. If you're say, a Hockey player at Minnesota, do you get to unionize? What if you're a football player at Kansas? Do you get to unionize? A basketball player at an Ivy? Do they get included?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
BigBoss posted:I think this is the biggest hurdle in the process. Title IX was one of those laws that had good intentions, but the consequences a few decades after its implementation are starting to become known. Given the unique nature of football due to the large roster and facility expense, Title IX needs to be adjusted to account for these expenses if successful unionization of football players goes forward. Starting to become known? Men's Wrestling, Gymnastics, soccer, etc... found out those consequences a long time ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
D&D is leaking again.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Open transfer in general is a tough subject because if you don't limit it in some way teams would have to just be assembled from free agents every season.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
swickles posted:Well, they did say you would only have a one-time chance. So you can transfer anywhere once without penalty, but afterwards maybe they would institute the sit out a year part. Actually, that might work. Say you go to Texas for your first year and are red-shirted. It becomes clear that you aren't going to be a starter or see much time, so year two you transfer and can play immediately at TCU. I'm more thinking about the opposite situation. You go to, say, Houston and redshirt, and then have a breakout sophomore year. Suddenly you're getting calls from A&M and Texas about transferring up to the big leagues. So then Houston suddenly needs to replace you and starts recruiting a key guy from North Texas. And so on and so forth. Except a couple hundred schools all doing this at the same time all with different needs that shift as they get guys recruited away or pull in a new transfer. Thoguh fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Bliggers- posted:There's one thing that I have learned about American College Football, it's that no matter how corrupt/exploitive the system, how bad the team, how terrible the scandals the program is responsible for, how much bullshit surrounds everything; fans will ALWAYS buy tickets, tv subscriptions, merchandise, etc to support their school. That is never going to change. Completely divorce them from being students and I think it would change. Especially given that at some point you along the line the ability for donations to be tax deductible would go away if you're donating to an openly semi pro team rather than a school athletic department. Thoguh fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Simplex posted:It depends on the state yes, but a non-compete in Pennsylvania isn't going to hold water at Ohio State outside of their road games played at Penn State. It's why they don't even bother with them for coaches and instead just focus on the buy-out portion of the contract. The coach can leave whenever he wants and there's nothing the school can do about it except try to get paid. I'd guess the fact that no coach would ever sign a contract with a non-compete clause probably plays into it as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Just make it illegal for for-profit minor league sports to be connected to learning institutions. It's such a blatant and ridiculous conflict of interest. You see schools like Florida cutting funding to schooling so they can spend it on the football team, but we're supposed to act like the top priority for players on the team is supposed to be their education, even though all the good ones leave before they get a degree. They shouldn't have to care about college, they're in the minor leagues. If someone wants to pursue a degree while playing in said minor leagues, that's completely irrelevant to them playing football. Does anyone seriously give a poo poo if their college team started a player who was "ineligible" for academics or some stupid non-football reason? I say they should just separate the NCAA from college, and run it like any other minor league, while still using the names and stadiums of the college teams. At least the PAC 12, SEC, and the conferences like that who bring about the most talent. Colleges get some extra cash for something that has nothing to do with their education services while being provided an incentive for high school kids to want to attend their school, athletes get paid for playing in a professional minor league, everyone still gets to watch their favorite team, and it ends the stupid "But what about the tennis team? Then donations are suddenly non tax deductible, which would kill just about every program. And if teams are only tangentially affiliated with schools a lot of fan interest would dry up anyway. Hockey and Baseball make it work. There's no reason not to use them as a model if big changes are made.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 21:04
|
|
" nonsense. I don't understand how this system can still be so broken in the year of our lord 2014.
|
Volkerball posted:30% of NHL players played in college. It's a sizeable chunk, and there are some stars in there, but it's typically the route for players who are quite a bit behind the rest of the talent pool. Only 5 first round picks (none in the top 20) are currently playing in the NCAA, and 17 second rounders, and that's from all the drafts from 2009-present. Tons of late round picks though. The system works like you described, but no top talent goes that direction. Why do that when you can get paid and not have to worry about a bunch of irrelevant eligibility nonsense? So let the top players that don't have any interest in school go to a minor league, and let everybody else get a free ride to school while they play, get a degree, and then move on with their lives. What's the problem with that? That seems to me like a great solution. Sounds like Hockey has a good system. Thoguh fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Why would a minor league need to have any association at all with colleges? They don't in any other sport. Any honestly consider who would be going to a minor league - basically most of your 5* and a lot of 4* prospects. Even on a team like Alabama most of the guys on the team have no illusions of an NFL future, and even in the BCS conferences outside of the top handful of teams most of the time teams are sending a very small fraction of their players to the NFL. If you take the 32 team idea and figure a minor league team would have a roster of say, 60 players, that's 1,920 players involved in the minor leagues. Wikipedia says there are 126 FBS teams and 122 FCS teams. That means there are 18,396 players on scholarship in D-1 college football, plus another 10,000 or so walk ons. And that's ignoring the JuCo numbers. Taking 2000 players out of that group is less than 10%. And hell, it would even lead to improvements in competitive balance at the FBS level if the Texas's and Alabama's of the world weren't stacked with 5* talent anymore because those guys are off playing in a minor league.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That really isn't that much worse. Horse Feathers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ribsauce posted:I am well aware administrative costs are crazy at universities and increase at a much faster percentage than instructional costs. I was looking at the financial statements for my school and the gym was broken out nice and conveniently, so that is what I picked for just a random example. I also picked it because when I was in school the gym was the hot university arms race. One state college opened a fancy one with a climbing wall, pools etc. and within 2 years I think every other school broke ground on their own. I think the new arms race is fancy dorms. That's very true, there really is an arms race for amenities on college campuses. In large part, I think, because few students seem to care how large their loans are until they come due. But that's a totally different conversation about the cost of attending college as opposed to college athletics.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not true. Have you been on a college campus in the last decade? There is most certainly an amenities arms race. Dorms are being replaced by private suites, workout buildings are being replaced with huge rec centers with poo poo like lazy rivers and climbing walls. Those are big things that universities use to sell prospective students on the school. Here's an article about it from the Chronicle of Higher Education And the abstract of the paper they reference from the National Bureau of Economic Research quote:This paper investigates whether demand-side market pressure explains colleges’ decisions to provide consumption amenities to their students. We estimate a discrete choice model of college demand using micro data from the high school classes of 1992 and 2004, matched to extensive information on all four-year colleges in the U.S. We find that most students do appear to value college consumption amenities, including spending on student activities, sports, and dormitories. While this taste for amenities is broad-based, the taste for academic quality is confined to high-achieving students. The heterogeneity in student preferences implies that colleges face very different incentives depending on their current student body and the students who the institution hopes to attract. We estimate that the elasticities implied by our demand model can account for 16 percent of the total variation across colleges in the ratio of amenity to academic spending, and including them on top of key observable characteristics (sector, state, size, selectivity) increases the explained variation by twenty percent. Thoguh fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Gerund posted:We're leaving the realm of simplicity now. The Student-Athlete as a concept is going to fundamentally change in the very near future. And the schools that make up the NCAA have nothing but themselves to blame. The only question is whether or not they'll propose and pass realistic reforms before the union think fully takes hold.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
LARGE THE HEAD posted:The ironic thing is, student-athletes at the University of Tennessee and 98 percent of other colleges all get bigger dorm rooms, better food, and classes scheduled around the athletic requirements. I think you mean they have to schedule their classes around athletic requirements. If somebody has practice at the same time the only section of a lab is offered or something they don't get to take that class.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
oldskool posted:It'll put them at a huge competitive disadvantage against The Ohio State University: Seems legit. Well, I guess we're done here boys.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
kayakyakr posted:While they probably could consider scholarships income, they'll probably declare it as untaxable income and just keep going. My employer paid for my masters and my MBA. Every cent of that was tax free. Employers providing tuition assistance and scholarships is a pretty standard benefit for professional jobs. The IRS has rules in place for that kind of stuff already.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 16:19
|
|