|
Post by jgrout on Aug 2, 2020 16:35:06 GMT -5
A group of PAC-12 athletes has unilaterally demanded changes to college sports that would end any semblance of amateurism and any meaningful distinction between scholarship athletes and walk-on athletes. They would all have to be paid, all guaranteed half of any revenue generated by a sports program to be distributed among all athletes, all have to be covered by insurance, all guaranteed that COVID-19 issues and “racial justice” issues would be resolved to the satisfaction of player representatives (aka union reps).
Many of the demands are similar to “wage-theft” actions California has been pursuing against minor-league baseball and contemplating against college sports. Eliminating walk-ons would end all but a tiny fraction of college sports and giving in to such demands would put college athletics into the same subservient position as owners of professional teams dealing with similar athlete demands. I see one group of athletes in one revenue sport (football... soon to be joined by MBB, I believe) in one Power 5 conference as a precipitating event for other unilateral athlete demands to be followed by matching government mandates.
I do not believe there will be any collegiate sports at all in five years... including all divisions of WVB. There will be intermural sports and there may be professional sports affiliated with universities. The causal factors have been declared out of scope for VT so I will end here.
|
|
|
Post by playaplease on Aug 2, 2020 16:55:01 GMT -5
A group of PAC-12 athletes has unilaterally demanded changes to college sports that would end any semblance of amateurism and any meaningful distinction between scholarship athletes and walk-on athletes. They would all have to be paid, all guaranteed half of any revenue generated by a sports program to be distributed among all athletes, all have to be covered by insurance, all guaranteed that COVID-19 issues and “racial justice” issues would be resolved to the satisfaction of player representatives (aka union reps). Many of the demands are similar to “wage-theft” actions California has been pursuing against minor-league baseball and contemplating against college sports. Eliminating walk-ons would end all but a tiny fraction of college sports and giving in to such demands would put college athletics into the same subservient position as owners of professional teams dealing with similar athlete demands. I see one group of athletes in one revenue sport (football... soon to be joined by MBB, I believe) in one Power 5 conference as a precipitating event for other unilateral athlete demands to be followed by matching government mandates. I do not believe there will be any collegiate sports at all in five years... including all divisions of WVB. There will be intermural sports and there may be professional sports affiliated with universities. The causal factors have been declared out of scope for VT so I will end here. They will get told they can turn pro and try their skills in the professional ranks to earn money and be released of their scholarship. There will be other kids who will be more than happy to take their scholarship and play for the university without the demands. College sports are not going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by donneyp on Aug 2, 2020 17:20:39 GMT -5
A group of PAC-12 athletes has unilaterally demanded changes to college sports that would end any semblance of amateurism and any meaningful distinction between scholarship athletes and walk-on athletes. They would all have to be paid, all guaranteed half of any revenue generated by a sports program to be distributed among all athletes, all have to be covered by insurance, all guaranteed that COVID-19 issues and “racial justice” issues would be resolved to the satisfaction of player representatives (aka union reps). Many of the demands are similar to “wage-theft” actions California has been pursuing against minor-league baseball and contemplating against college sports. Eliminating walk-ons would end all but a tiny fraction of college sports and giving in to such demands would put college athletics into the same subservient position as owners of professional teams dealing with similar athlete demands. I see one group of athletes in one revenue sport (football... soon to be joined by MBB, I believe) as a precipitating event for other unilateral athlete demands to be followed by government mandates that match them.. I do not believe there will be any collegiate sports at all in five years... including all divisions of WVB. There will be intermural sports and there may be professional sports affiliated with universities. The causal factors have been declared out of scope for VT so I will end here. I've been scratching my head for a while on this. There are complaints, from inside and outside the system, that athletes are being exploited, and the solution to all this exploiting is to compensate the athletes who are being exploited, and that's where this conversation has focused for many years. The other, less considered side, is to STOP EXPLOITING THE ATHLETES. That might look something like this. -Scholarships til graduation. -full medical insurance through their career and for some period of time after (the 6 years requested seems excessive) -Some mileage limit on Monday-Thursday non-conference games and other efforts to reduce missed class time. -Count travel time in the 20 hour limit. -A 2nd day off per week during the semester. They need time to go to class, take an internship or even, ya know, sleep. -No athlete will have their jersey licensed until after they graduate, when they can be compensated appropriately. (I'd have every school hold out a number that nobody ever wears that they can sell, but I'm being flexible here) The requests to be able to go into the draft and have an agent and all that would take care of itself if you run this for actual student-athletes instead of catering to future professional athletes. Colleges/NCAA hasn't given away NIL yet, and those who want to pay student-athletes are already asking for more. They aren't going to keep getting the money they've been getting so if you are only going to get x% at least do that on your terms where you aren't a minor league sports operation. It's time to back it up and go the other way. Take better care of student-athletes and get back to what College is all-about. There will always be sports, but I certainly agree with the OP that the path we are on leads to a sports landscape that none of us will recognize and it won't take long to get there.
|
|
|
Post by Vball Fandom on Aug 2, 2020 17:31:34 GMT -5
Playing college athletics is not a right. Its a gift that many would be happy to receive. If the atmosphere is too difficult for some athletes to manage after they willingly signed their NLI, then leave the team, school, or sport and find another path. If they are concerned about the virus...opt out...all P5 schools have stated clearly that their Scholly will he honored. No one is making these athletes take a scholarship or play. The entitlement generation continues to think everything is owned to them. College sports will not being going away anytime soon. There will be changes and casualties due to the virus, but not because a small fraction of athletes are wanting more than was promised when they signed. Believe me, there are thousands of athletes that would kill for their spot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 17:38:59 GMT -5
They could also go back to focusing on educating the student athlete, so that scholarship actually is for what it is supposed to be for.
Or the University could just sponsor professional teams for college-age athletes.
Or both. Just seems a shame that the athletes who are there for a college education would be punished by the elimination of their sport.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 18:46:07 GMT -5
I've made numerous posts about this but the days of the NCAA are numbered... And that was the case before Covid. To those who would say "let's get back to what the student athlete used to mean", I'd point out that Walter Byers, the man who created the term 'student athlete' acknowledged before he died that he invented the phrase in order to "insulate the colleges from having to provide long term disability payments to players injured while playing their sport and making money for their university and the NCAA".
The same man, who was the first executive president of the NCAA, characterized amateur collegiate athletics thus: "Collegiate amateurism is not a moral issue; it is an economic camouflage for monopoly practice which operates an air-tight racket of supplying cheap athletic labor."
When you understand the principles on which the NCAA is based, doesn't it make you question what you're fighting to save and for whom? Everyone talks about the gift of a collegiate scholarship, but those scholarship athletes would, in any other free market, be earning (in some cases significant amounts of) money for the disbursement of their skills. Those athletes, like Hayley Hodson or Torrey Van Winden, who sustain career ending injuries in the pursuit of amateur athletics, how'd amateurism work out for them? And before you say, "well they got a 'free' (overpriced) American education" I'd point out that they wanted, first and foremost to be professional athletes and were forced to go to college by a system that won't take a moments pause over the loss of their dreams. Sure, anyone can get hurt playing pro sports too, but at least you're getting to do what you want to do; play your sport at the highest level.
Which brings us to the quality of athletes we produce. Due to the current model of collegiate athletics, which is a business for the schools and the governing bodies to, as Walter Byers put it, exploit "cheap athletic labor", we are more focused on participation than excellence. There are over 300 D1 volleyball schools and each year they graduate, on average, about 1000 players. How many of those players will go on to play pro? Play internationally? Further the cause of USA volleyball? And the few that will have spent 4 years between the ages of 18 and 22, an incredibly important period in the development of any athlete, doing what? Being a part time volleyball player while being forced to study some other discipline in order to remain 'eligible'. I was reminded of this subject a few days ago. We had a player, a 2019 All American working out in our gym and we were talking about school and I asked her about her choice of major. She said "Oh, I just asked the staff what was the easiest major to take and they said [her major] so I took it. I want to be a volleyball player, I don't care about [her major]". So before anyone starts extolling the virtues of a "free education" let's not forget the 'education' we're depriving these athletes of; a full time volleyball education. And what's the value of that? Why not ask 23 year old Tijana Boskovic, who was 19 when she led Serbia to an Olympic silver medal. Or 21 year old Paola Egonu. Or 21 year old Isabelle Haak. Or even 20 year old Hanna Hellvig who, after winning BW FOY last year at Hawaii, has parlayed her success into a professional volleyball contract and is embarking on her career, so that SHE might financially and professionally benefit from her talents, rather than the institution she represents!
So what's the alternative? How about we do what every other major nation does, allow the kids that are talented enough, to join professional organizations at 18. Get them full-time, elite coaching and allow them to maximise their skills. The minute the NCAA folded we'd get a viable, competitive ~10 team indoor league comprised of our best and brightest players and the quality and exposure would attract the world's best and consequently improve the development and coaching our players receive, resulting in a more competitive and successful national team. Those not interested in (or capable of) pursuing a professional career can go to college, where, if they choose, they can play club sports... for fun! The schools can devote their resources to academics and stop trying to be wannabe pro sports franchises and Mark Emmert... Well he can... take up landscape painting! I'm sure he's saved enough of his annual salary of $3.5M to get some nice brushes!
|
|
|
Post by PostPrime on Aug 2, 2020 19:00:17 GMT -5
This is silly. If an athlete thinks he/she can earn more than what a scholarship offers then by all means go get it. College athletics is for amateur student/athletes. Of the hundreds of thousands of HS athletes trying to get a scholarship only a small fraction attain it. If an athlete wants more then move on. Thousands behind you that would be incredibly grateful to have the college scholarship and experience.
|
|
|
Post by shawty on Aug 2, 2020 19:01:50 GMT -5
Eliminating walk-ons would end all but a tiny fraction of college sports and giving in to such demands would put college athletics into the same subservient position as owners of professional teams dealing with similar athlete demands. The top 5 NFL owners alone had over $3 billion in revenues in 2019. The top 5 college programs in the country earned over $1 billion in revenues. It's hard for me to see them as subservient. The grateful athlete would sure make life easier for the schools/owners (and I'm sure they are), but I don't think that argument flies anymore with that kind of money being thrown around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 19:07:26 GMT -5
This is silly. If an athlete thinks he/she can earn more than what a scholarship offers then by all means go get it. College athletics is for amateur student/athletes. Of the hundreds of thousands of HS athletes trying to get a scholarship only a small fraction attain it. If an athlete wants more then move on. Thousands behind you that would be incredibly grateful to have the college scholarship and experience. You do understand why this post makes no sense, right? Collegiate athletics is the only path to the professional ranks in certain sports in this country and its existence chokes the life out of any other developmental opportunities for young athletes in the rest of them! Future professional volleyball players go to college to play volleyball because there is no viable alternative. That status quo will remain as long as the NCAA is propped up. On the bright side, the realities of Covid are exposing the more obvious deficiencies of the present model to even the most inattentive of observers. The end was always coming but I'd bet the virus accelerates it.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Aug 2, 2020 19:39:57 GMT -5
A group of PAC-12 athletes has unilaterally demanded changes to college sports that would end any semblance of amateurism and any meaningful distinction between scholarship athletes and walk-on athletes. They would all have to be paid, all guaranteed half of any revenue generated by a sports program to be distributed among all athletes, all have to be covered by insurance, all guaranteed that COVID-19 issues and “racial justice” issues would be resolved to the satisfaction of player representatives (aka union reps). Many of the demands are similar to “wage-theft” actions California has been pursuing against minor-league baseball and contemplating against college sports. Eliminating walk-ons would end all but a tiny fraction of college sports and giving in to such demands would put college athletics into the same subservient position as owners of professional teams dealing with similar athlete demands. I see one group of athletes in one revenue sport (football... soon to be joined by MBB, I believe) in one Power 5 conference as a precipitating event for other unilateral athlete demands to be followed by matching government mandates. I do not believe there will be any collegiate sports at all in five years... including all divisions of WVB. There will be intermural sports and there may be professional sports affiliated with universities. The causal factors have been declared out of scope for VT so I will end here. There will always be college sports. There’s too much money involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 19:41:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 2, 2020 20:25:16 GMT -5
What is the upside of the Power 5 leaving the NCAA? I really don't think it accomplishes anything (other than accommodating these player boycotts). If football teams are affiliated with the university, you'd still need to be in Title IX compliance (federal law, nothing to do with the NCAA). I guess it could allow universities to have only football, basketball and enough women's sports to get to 150 athletes. Olympic sports get more expensive because you no longer have local non-conference competition.
Bwf2 lays out why it could be good for pro volleyball in the US. But why would college presidents want this? And those are the only people who would make this decision. I just don't see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 20:32:49 GMT -5
What is the upside of the Power 5 leaving the NCAA? I really don't think it accomplishes anything (other than accommodating these player boycotts). If football teams are affiliated with the university, you'd still need to be in Title IX compliance (federal law, nothing to do with the NCAA). I guess it could allow universities to have only football, basketball and enough women's sports to get to 150 athletes. Olympic sports get more expensive because you no longer have local non-conference competition. Bwf2 lays out why it could be good for pro volleyball in the US. But why would college presidents want this? And those are the only people who would make this decision. I just don't see it. I think the potential division is just because the P5 really don't like the optics of FBS football being the only collegiate sport being played during a pandemic. Obviously they'll rationalize it as "our experts say it's safe" etc but it just comes back to them not wanting to be told what to do by the NCAA in general and Emmert in particular. That said, it could be that the P5 are simply trying to force the hand of the NCAA. I mean, this story definitely wasn't leaked to the media by the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 2, 2020 20:34:02 GMT -5
What is the upside of the Power 5 leaving the NCAA? I really don't think it accomplishes anything (other than accommodating these player boycotts). If football teams are affiliated with the university, you'd still need to be in Title IX compliance (federal law, nothing to do with the NCAA). I guess it could allow universities to have only football, basketball and enough women's sports to get to 150 athletes. Olympic sports get more expensive because you no longer have local non-conference competition. Bwf2 lays out why it could be good for pro volleyball in the US. But why would college presidents want this? And those are the only people who would make this decision. I just don't see it. I think the potential division is just because the P5 really don't like the optics of FBS football being the only collegiate sport being played during a pandemic. Obviously they'll rationalize it as "our experts say it's safe" etc but it just comes back to them not wanting to be told what to do by the NCAA in general and Emmert in particular. That said, it could be that the P5 are simply trying to force the hand of the NCAA. Agreed for this fall. But everything is upside down at the moment. My question was about long-term. Why would university presidents want to leave the NCAA?
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Aug 2, 2020 21:35:23 GMT -5
I've made numerous posts about this but the days of the NCAA are numbered... And that was the case before Covid. To those who would say "let's get back to what the student athlete used to mean", I'd point out that Walter Byers, the man who created the term 'student athlete' acknowledged before he died that he invented the phrase in order to "insulate the colleges from having to provide long term disability payments to players injured while playing their sport and making money for their university and the NCAA". The same man, who was the first executive president of the NCAA, characterized amateur collegiate athletics thus: "Collegiate amateurism is not a moral issue; it is an economic camouflage for monopoly practice which operates an air-tight racket of supplying cheap athletic labor." When you understand the principles on which the NCAA is based, doesn't it make you question what you're fighting to save and for whom? Everyone talks about the gift of a collegiate scholarship, but those scholarship athletes would, in any other free market, be earning (in some cases significant amounts of) money for the disbursement of their skills. Those athletes, like Hayley Hodson or Torrey Van Winden, who sustain career ending injuries in the pursuit of amateur athletics, how'd amateurism work out for them? And before you say, "well they got a 'free' (overpriced) American education" I'd point out that they wanted, first and foremost to be professional athletes and were forced to go to college by a system that won't take a moments pause over the loss of their dreams. Sure, anyone can get hurt playing pro sports too, but at least you're getting to do what you want to do; play your sport at the highest level. Which brings us to the quality of athletes we produce. Due to the current model of collegiate athletics, which is a business for the schools and the governing bodies to, as Walter Byers put it, exploit "cheap athletic labor", we are more focused on participation than excellence. There are over 300 D1 volleyball schools and each year they graduate, on average, about 1000 players. How many of those players will go on to play pro? Play internationally? Further the cause of USA volleyball? And the few that will have spent 4 years between the ages of 18 and 22, an incredibly important period in the development of any athlete, doing what? Being a part time volleyball player while being forced to study some other discipline in order to remain 'eligible'. I was reminded of this subject a few days ago. We had a player, a 2019 All American working out in our gym and we were talking about school and I asked her about her choice of major. She said "Oh, I just asked the staff what was the easiest major to take and they said [her major] so I took it. I want to be a volleyball player, I don't care about [her major]". So before anyone starts extolling the virtues of a "free education" let's not forget the 'education' we're depriving these athletes of; a full time volleyball education. And what's the value of that? Why not ask 23 year old Tijana Boskovic, who was 19 when she led Serbia to an Olympic silver medal. Or 21 year old Paola Egonu. Or 21 year old Isabelle Haak. Or even 20 year old Hanna Hellvig who, after winning BW FOY last year at Hawaii, has parlayed her success into a professional volleyball contract and is embarking on her career, so that SHE might financially and professionally benefit from her talents, rather than the institution she represents! So what's the alternative? How about we do what every other major nation does, allow the kids that are talented enough, to join professional organizations at 18. Get them full-time, elite coaching and allow them to maximise their skills. The minute the NCAA folded we'd get a viable, competitive ~10 team indoor league comprised of our best and brightest players and the quality and exposure would attract the world's best and consequently improve the development and coaching our players receive, resulting in a more competitive and successful national team. Those not interested in (or capable of) pursuing a professional career can go to college, where, if they choose, they can play club sports... for fun! The schools can devote their resources to academics and stop trying to be wannabe pro sports franchises and Mark Emmert... Well he can... take up landscape painting! I'm sure he's saved enough of his annual salary of $3.5M to get some nice brushes! Certainly the NCAA as we know it.
|
|