|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 6, 2024 15:19:25 GMT -5
[But the players are asking for athletic scholarships. Where are you reading that? As far as I can tell from their own words, they are not asking for athletic scholarships. They are asking for an hourly wage in line with other campus jobs, and also a waiver of their health care deductibles for injuries incurred in practice or games.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Mar 6, 2024 15:20:21 GMT -5
Where are you reading that? As far as I can tell from their own words, they are not asking for athletic scholarships. They are asking for an hourly wage in line with other campus jobs, and also a waiver of their health care deductibles for injuries incurred in practice or games. Yes, I know that and I know you know that. I'm curious if n00b knows that.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Mar 6, 2024 15:35:41 GMT -5
That's a separate lawsuit where two Brown basketball players have filed a class-action suit in federal court accusing the Ivy league of collusion by eliminating scholarships.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 6, 2024 16:19:31 GMT -5
That's a separate lawsuit where two Brown basketball players have filed a class-action suit in federal court accusing the Ivy league of collusion by eliminating scholarships. The judge has allowed limited discovery, but could have just as easily dismissed the suit altogether imo: Ivy League Faces Federal Class Action Lawsuit over refusal to award athletic scholarships A class-action lawsuit filed March 2023 claimed eight Ivy League universities unlawfully colluded to reduce financial aid and compensation for student-athletes. Grace Kirk ‘24, a current student-athlete on Brown’s women’s basketball team, and Tamenang Choh ‘21, a former member of Brown’s men’s basketball team, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Connecticut on March 7. Both Plaintiffs turned down athletic scholarships at non-Ivy League schools and claim that the Ivy League schools colluded to “refuse to provide any athletic scholarships or other compensation/reimbursement for athletic services.” www2.law.temple.edu/voices/ivy-league-faces-federal-class-action-lawsuit-over-refusal-to-award-athletic-scholarships/#:~:text=However%2C%20they%20may%20be%20forced,and%20compensation%20for%20student%2Dathletes.
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Mar 6, 2024 17:47:03 GMT -5
They have no idea how bad this would be for players. The support they get with the traditional model, that is majorly taken for granted, will stop and it won’t be good for a majority of the players. The only hope for college sports is actually Ted Cruz. He can get congress to step in and save the ncaa, if he gets enough support. If he can’t, we will see a ahit show that will weaken college sports to the dark ages. "They have no idea how bad this would be for players" = "I have no idea how bad this would be for players, if at all, but my ideology tells me it must be bad" Add that to the classic "allowing the rank-and-file to be compensated for the work they put in will ruin the product 'for everybody'" is so classically anti-labor it's funny. Frankly, I'm not sure what a college basketball union is supposed to do and what affect it will have. Part of me thinks that revenue college sports should be unionized and that the unions should negotiate with the NCAA over how to deal with the NIL collectives (which are ruining football and men's basketball) since the NCAA basically only needs one court case to go against it for any rule to make them afraid to enforce that rule. But the "it's the end of the world" speech is so out of touch as to be comical. If anything is wrong with college sports, it's the fact that an endeavor which was not designed to be profitable is now so profitable at the top levels that people have more money than they know what to do with and with the NCAA central office being toothless, self-serving and out of touch, there is no effective central leadership to make things work. Not that central leadership is often the answer - look at basically every international soccer governing body. But the other solution is basically for the B1G and SEC to shake hands and make an AL/NL type merger which would govern big money college athletics in a way that actually made sense.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,134
|
Post by trojansc on Mar 6, 2024 17:49:13 GMT -5
Didn't have Lyin' Ted being the only hope for the future of college athletics on my bingo board. VolleyTalk is on another level sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 6, 2024 19:17:32 GMT -5
As far as I can tell from their own words, they are not asking for athletic scholarships. They are asking for an hourly wage in line with other campus jobs, and also a waiver of their health care deductibles for injuries incurred in practice or games. Yes, I know that and I know you know that. I'm curious if n00b knows that. www.thedartmouth.com/article/2023/09/haskins-and-myrthil-why-we-are-unionizingThey say “wages…or scholarships”. I’m sure they’d prefer scholarships (since they wouldn’t be taxed) but ultimately I don’t really see the difference.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Mar 6, 2024 19:37:18 GMT -5
That "or" is pretty important. Especially because that line is in the context of a passage talking entirely about wages for student workers. Also, educational benefits for university employees (like tuition remission) are taxable income. So if they are employees and receive educational benefits as part of their compensation, they'd very likely pay taxes on it.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Mar 6, 2024 19:47:36 GMT -5
Sure but they could (I think, you would know better) just recruit a whole team of different players. Or perhaps contract to a different employee-run firm of players that wasn’t unionized. No, they can't. "Recruiting a whole team of different players" is exactly what they can't do. That would be replacing the current players because they unionized, which is illegal. If they did try to do that, they would get sued. And they would lose. Here is a thought - if the players unionize, then subsequently strike because the employer (Dartmouth) doesn't want to pay them what they think they should be paid, Dartmouth, during the period of the strike by the union, can replace those players until the strike is over - which, could conceivably be an indefinite way to replace them with non-unionized labor.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 6, 2024 19:53:30 GMT -5
Also, educational benefits for university employees (like tuition remission) are taxable income. So if they are employees and receive educational benefits as part of their compensation, they'd very likely pay taxes on it. Interesting. If the NLRB says athletes are employees, does that mean they are supposed to be paying taxes on their scholarships now?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Mar 6, 2024 20:03:27 GMT -5
This may sound like a dumb question but what bargaining power does Dartmouth men's basketball have anyway? They collectively go to the university and say we won't play unless you pay us, the university then says, ok, we won't field a team this year. What's the big deal? The team hasn't had a winning record in forever, and given the paltry attendance, I'm sure the University pays more money to operate the team than it brings in from ticket sales. I can't imagine fielding a losing team produces enough value-added good will for the university that it actually makes sense to cave into the demands of a handful of players - why not just NOT field a team?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Mar 6, 2024 20:06:09 GMT -5
No, they can't. "Recruiting a whole team of different players" is exactly what they can't do. That would be replacing the current players because they unionized, which is illegal. If they did try to do that, they would get sued. And they would lose. Here is a thought - if the players unionize, then subsequently strike because the employer (Dartmouth) doesn't want to pay them what they think they should be paid, Dartmouth, during the period of the strike by the union, can replace those players until the strike is over - which, could conceivably be an indefinite way to replace them with non-unionized labor. Union busting and hiring scabs is certainly a choice Dartmouth could make.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Mar 6, 2024 20:10:47 GMT -5
Here is a thought - if the players unionize, then subsequently strike because the employer (Dartmouth) doesn't want to pay them what they think they should be paid, Dartmouth, during the period of the strike by the union, can replace those players until the strike is over - which, could conceivably be an indefinite way to replace them with non-unionized labor. Union busting and hiring scabs is certainly a choice Dartmouth could make. Well, I'm not saying they SHOULD do it, just saying they COULD. Frankly, given how bad the Dartmouth team has historically been and how little fan support they actually have, the University should just implement a policy that it does NOT control the students time as it relates to the sport, it's 100% voluntary (like the dozens of other extra curricular collegiate activities that happen on campus). If they have enough players to practice, great...if they have enough players in any given competition to compete, great, if not.... oh well. This program already is used to losing, I don't see how the above approach would fundamentally change the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 6, 2024 20:15:34 GMT -5
That "or" is pretty important. Especially because that line is in the context of a passage talking entirely about wages for student workers. Also, educational benefits for university employees (like tuition remission) are taxable income. So if they are employees and receive educational benefits as part of their compensation, they'd very likely pay taxes on it. The rule used to be: 1) Educational reimbursement paid for by your employer is taxable income. 2) Educational costs that will qualify you for a new job (like a bachelor's degree) is not deductable. 3) Educational costs that do *not* qualify you for a new job (like a graduate degree in a field for which you are already qualified) are deductable. So the combination of 1+2 means you owe taxes if you get reimbursed for undergrad. But the combination of 1+3 means you don't owe taxes if you are getting reimbursed for continuing educational expenses for a job you already qualify for.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 6, 2024 20:17:35 GMT -5
Here is a thought - if the players unionize, then subsequently strike because the employer (Dartmouth) doesn't want to pay them what they think they should be paid, Dartmouth, during the period of the strike by the union, can replace those players until the strike is over - which, could conceivably be an indefinite way to replace them with non-unionized labor. Union busting and hiring scabs is certainly a choice Dartmouth could make. I wouldn't entirely put it past them to do it out of panic, but hopefully someone with some PR sense would shut that down before it got out of a brainstorming session.
|
|