NLRB: Student athletes are employees

[Johnny Sack 8397]

The value in college football isn’t the name on the back of the jersey.  It’s the name on the front.  There are very rare exceptions.  
 

I don’t think college sports moving to a professional minor league is going to bring much revenue.  

[David Dennison 18661]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The value in college football isn’t the name on the back of the jersey.  It’s the name on the front.  There are very rare exceptions.  
 

I don’t think college sports moving to a professional minor league is going to bring much revenue.  

One thing is certain, if the University of Texas ever moved to an Ivy League model for football, DKR would be empty and the athletic department would be poor.

[ChickenNuggets 1611]

5 hours ago, txhorns said:

If college athletes are employees then wouldn't that extend down to high school athletes and even junior high athletes?

your  You're missing the bigger picture... If college athletes are employees, does that mean they're barred from having sex with students? 

 

My Gawd.... 

Edited September 29, 2021 by ChickenNuggets

[Johnny Sack 8397]

34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

One thing is certain, if the University of Texas ever moved to an Ivy League model for football, DKR would be empty and the athletic department would be poor.

Maybe.  Or maybe other schools would also and nothing would change much.  A lot of schools cannot afford to pay players -- especially given how if you pay a football player directly you have to pay the womens rowing team.  And a lot of players probably cannot afford the 1099 for their benefits or their W-2 for any salary they are paid.

The Rio Grande Valley team that is the Rockets G league team would kick the shit out of Texas in basketball.  But one makes millions in media rights and one is nothing but an expense.

I firmly believe the value in college athletics from a fan revenue perspective is the name on the front of the jersey.

[Beau Vine 54005]

3 hours ago, CfRhTxStBobcats said:

Now athletes be washed up and broke by the time they're 21. Not looking forward to all the stories of college athletes broke and owing the IRS unpaid taxes when they don't make it to the pros. Hopefully these athletes have someone giving them a little guidance.

2 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

here come the lawsuits from non-athlete students over athlete-student behaviors

that is the 1,000,000 pound gorilla

the 999,999,999 pound gorilla is the lawsuits from other university employees when universities try and exempt athlete-student EMPLOYEES from the same codes of conduct and employment rules as non-athlete student EMPLOYEES

It's really no wonder that the NCAA fights change tooth and nail...

Any time change is proposed for the NCAA, random people show up here predicting that the change will cause the absolute downfall of society, for no reason other than "I like football." 

[Beau Vine 54005]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

A lot of schools cannot afford to pay players -- especially given how if you pay a football player directly you have to pay the womens rowing team. 

Or maybe they could just take away the athletic scholarship (which they somehow manage to afford) and pay them the exact same amount required for tuition. 

Quote

And a lot of players probably cannot afford the 1099 for their benefits or their W-2 for any salary they are paid.

What the fuck does this even mean?

[Beau Vine 54005]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I firmly believe the value in college athletics from a fan revenue perspective is the name on the front of the jersey.

Then why don't we save $100M+/year and drop to D3 and play Trinity and Texas Lutheran?

Why don't we see a large number of athletic programs dropping down to lower divisions (which are much cheaper to fund)?  Instead, in my lifetime, only one program has announced plans to drop from D1 to D2/D3, the University of New Orleans, which bailed on the idea before they played a single event as a non-D1 program.

Why do we regularly see programs moving from D3 to D2 and D2 to D1?  TAMU-Commerce just announced they're moving to D1 this morning; Tarleton did it last year.  Incarnate Word, Houston Baptist, etc.

 

[TwiceHorn 31288]

7 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Then why don't we save $100M+/year and drop to D3 and play Trinity and Texas Lutheran?

Why don't we see a large number of athletic programs dropping down to lower divisions (which are much cheaper to fund)?  Instead, in my lifetime, only one program has announced plans to drop from D1 to D2/D3, the University of New Orleans, which bailed on the idea before they played a single event as a non-D1 program.

Why do we regularly see programs moving from D3 to D2 and D2 to D1?  TAMU-Commerce just announced they're moving to D1 this morning; Tarleton did it last year.  Incarnate Word, Houston Baptist, etc.

 

To play the big boys?  Get in a big boy conference and get big boy conference/media money?

It's a bit of chicken or egg question, but the big boys are mostly historical big boys, with names established in college football long before there was so much money to be made.

I think he's right.

[RomaVicta 29795]

5 hours ago, LOHorn said:

I grew up in Texas where unions were some sort of bogeyman. Unions will ruin your business, take all the money, leave, etc...

I have been a part of several different ones now, which is common in my field. Some were good, some were kinda useless. But I wholeheartedly support people's desires to band together and advocate for themselves. I don't get people who don't support that. I'm quite sure my employers were utilizing their extensive resources to drive down my pay. As I see, college athletes have had their value artificially deflated for a century now, and they should have every right to advocate for better working conditions. It means the end of the fictitious idea of a "student athlete", but that was always a ridiculous concept anyway. At least at the major college level.

A lot of good sense right there, but I don't fully agree with the dismissal of the idea of student-athlete.

Maybe the top 3% of Division 1 college football players are looking at making money playing after college. Maybe a lower percentage of that have any real value to the use of their name or likeness being of any real advertising value, yet these are the players we focus on in this discussion.

The massive portion of football scholarship players' best hope of good income is taking advantage of the scholar part of the scholarship. Likely the same with basketball. In other sports, the possible degree is a huge value for someone whom has excelled at an endeavor in high school (sports, debate, music, whatever). Dismissing the notion of student athlete altogether is inapt in my opinion.

I'm not ruling out the arguments that players in revenue-producing sports have claim to some part of the pie. I preferred things the way they were, but I get how that doesn't work fairly anymore. Those cases deserve to made.

That South Park bit that got played over and over by radio sports idiots who really are largely idiots, dumbed down the discussion by its singular focus on players like Cam Newton. The discussion deserves to be broader.

"Broader? Look at the fancy words RV is using! Her Her Durrr!" That's the sports broadcaster attitude towards anything remotely related to a thought deeper than a bluefly's wing. Thus you have idiots framing the discussion for people smarter than themselves. Another venue of Idiot World.

One can recognize the monetary value generated by individual players or even teams in college football without dismissing the value of the sports scholarship in general.

[Beau Vine 54005]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To play the big boys?  Get in a big boy conference and get big boy conference/media money?

How many programs have gone D1 in the last 50 years and are currently in a "big boy conference?"

[CooterBrown 17914]

If they’re classified as employees, are scholarships now taxable as income?

[Gidnik 3251]

11 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

If they’re classified as employees, are scholarships now taxable as income?

Theyve always been taxable income above a certain point. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Do away with the illusion of the student athlete.

 

Since we have this system of athletic facilities tied to universities already in place, detach them from the schools. The Texas Longhorns would only tenuously be tied to the University.

Offer a year of scholarship as a part of a salary package to talented 18 years old who want to enter to the football school allied with the University of Texas. For every year you play, you get 30 hours of tuition, room and board.

These classes can and probably would be taken after their football career ended, but they could knock out a few blow-off courses while on the team. 

They are free to go work for money or accept it however it comes their way.

In other words, they don't have to play school if they don't want to. And the money to pay them doesn't have to come from the university.

There would be morals clauses out the wazoo. Because of the tenuous connection between the players and the schools, the schools would have final say so over who was in the football school under the college's name. This would be in place to prevent football schools from spiraling into raperlors, the U circa 1995, blowU back in the day, etc. 

These morals clauses would be lenient on normal college shit like weed and alcohol offenses and focus on felonies. 

 

 

 

 

[nd2003 23]

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by nd2003

[Ignatius 4002]

If Al Gore had gotten off his ass and invented the internet in 1910, your bitch ass great great grandpas would have been on surly bitching about how  the forward pass, substitution, and pussy-ass helmets were going to ruin the game. You fuckers will still be here, don’t kid yourselves.

 

NARRATOR - And so will this douche

[wild_turkey 3153]

Do away with the illusion of the student athlete.
 
Since we have this system of athletic facilities tied to universities already in place, detach them from the schools. The Texas Longhorns would only tenuously be tied to the University.
Offer a year of scholarship as a part of a salary package to talented 18 years old who want to enter to the football school allied with the University of Texas. For every year you play, you get 30 hours of tuition, room and board.
These classes can and probably would be taken after their football career ended, but they could knock out a few blow-off courses while on the team. 
They are free to go work for money or accept it however it comes their way.
In other words, they don't have to play school if they don't want to. And the money to pay them doesn't have to come from the university.

If this were to happen, could we get rid of the max 4 years of eligibility? Could a great college player like Colt McCoy choose to forego the NFL and remain a “college” athlete for his entire career?

Obviously the NFL offers a higher salary under the current system, but some university boosters have very deep pockets and would probably be willing to slap the franchise tag on certain players.

[Ignatius 4002]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Then why don't we save $100M+/year and drop to D3 and play Trinity and Texas Lutheran?

Why don't we see a large number of athletic programs dropping down to lower divisions (which are much cheaper to fund)?  Instead, in my lifetime, only one program has announced plans to drop from D1 to D2/D3, the University of New Orleans, which bailed on the idea before they played a single event as a non-D1 program.

Why do we regularly see programs moving from D3 to D2 and D2 to D1?  TAMU-Commerce just announced they're moving to D1 this morning; Tarleton did it last year.  Incarnate Word, Houston Baptist, etc.

 

Fukn pwnd 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

23 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

 

If this were to happen, could we get rid of the max 4 years of eligibility? Could a great college player like Colt McCoy choose to forego the NFL and remain a “college” athlete for his entire career?

Obviously the NFL offers a higher salary under the current system, but some university boosters have very deep pockets and would probably be willing to slap the franchise tag on certain players.

 

No, I think you cap it at five years, maybe six with a hardship. You'd want there to be an incentive for kids to aspire to. 

[Beau Vine 54005]

3 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

No, I think you cap it at five years, maybe six with a hardship. You'd want there to be an incentive for kids to aspire to. 

Colt McCoy, PhD is not something to aspire to?

[ChickenNuggets 1611]

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

If they’re classified as employees, are scholarships now taxable as income?

if that's there only income, then they won't be paying income tax.... No CR...

[ChickenNuggets 1611]

At this point, I think we should be allowed to raid the prison systems too.. just open this shit up...

[Scooter Monzingo 820]

Wage and hour showing up on campus is going to be a far different proposition than the NCAA.

[MirrOlure 14627]

I just learned that the NLRB is actually still a thing. Who knew….

[Hornlover 8824]

4 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Great point because if there's one thing academia has definitely never had before it's one class of employees having different rules than another. 

[Longhorn Fever 267]

As many have pointed out over the last few years, the professionalization of college sports is obviously going to make it difficult for the many smaller, less profitable schools to compete. Might as well start planning for inevitable calls for equity among the programs and abolish recruiting as it currently exists and think about a draft system that can be implemented. Northwestern South State University could never be expected to compete with UT, Bama, USC for a 5* recruit so do away with the expensive national recruiting process and let the schools draft the players they want. Of course, we are still left with the problem of free agen…umm, the transfer portal. Gonna have to continue to tweak that process as the playoffs continue to expand.