|
Post by vbnerd on Apr 19, 2024 14:04:01 GMT -5
And that isn't to say there isn't some grey area to be found, but the way the Dartmouth decision was written was pretty open and shut. Someone with a wider lens, or a different political viewpoint altogether could carve out safe path for non-d1 sports, I would imagine, if they were so inclined. Whether that comes from the courts, or NLRB, or Congress, I don't know but the point is that mass culling of college sports teams, for a variety of reasons, is a real possibility. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 19, 2024 17:15:10 GMT -5
If the NLRB claims go through, every team at every private school in the country could be declared employees. For all the D2 and D3 schools that field teams to fill beds and keep the doors open, you either raise tuition/fees to be able to pay your athletes, cut sports teams, or shutter the school. I'm sure we'll see all three in some measure. Do some teams drop to club status? Perhaps, but club teams generally don't recruit and for these schools, if club teams aren't filling additional beds, why bother? Also, the Dartmouth decision could potentially impact high schools, which could cut off the feeder system in a lot of sports. In D1, whether it is the NLRB or NIL, direct pay to athletes is coming. Cutting sports like water polo, men's volleyball and tennis will allow you to pay that left tackle and power forward more money! I'd like to say that a de-professionalization is coming but I've expected that for years and they just keep running towards the tv money so I think you have to expect the lemmings to run right off the cliff up until the point where they decide not to. Thanks, that is the angle I was missing. Basically, you’re saying that if student-athletes are now legal employees, then the law says you have to pay them minimum wage. Being allowed to directly pay an athlete for their NIL (if you choose to do that) versus being legally forced to pay an athlete a minimum wage, as if they were working at the cafeteria, are two things that are galaxies apart. I agree with the former, while I vehemently disagree with the latter. Agree that if legal employment goes through, (especially at smaller schools that make no money from varsity athletics) they’ll just turn around and “fire” those athletes by pulling the plug on the athletic dept. You can’t force a school to run a money losing operation that is tangential to the educational mission. Moreover, rosters on surviving teams would almost certainly contract. One-third of FBS football players are walkons. They participate because they love the game and love being a part of their programs. If federal law doesn’t allow them to participate without getting paid, they’ll be cut.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 19, 2024 17:56:18 GMT -5
Thanks, that is the angle I was missing. Basically, you’re saying that if student-athletes are now legal employees, then the law says you have to pay them minimum wage. Being allowed to directly pay an athlete for their NIL (if you choose to do that) versus being legally forced to pay an athlete a minimum wage, as if they were working at the cafeteria, are two things that are galaxies apart. I agree with the former, while I vehemently disagree with the latter. Agree that if legal employment goes through, (especially at smaller schools that make no money from varsity athletics) they’ll just turn around and “fire” those athletes by pulling the plug on the athletic dept. You can’t force a school to run a money losing operation that is tangential to the educational mission. Moreover, rosters on surviving teams would almost certainly contract. One-third of FBS football players are walkons. They participate because they love the game and love being a part of their programs. If federal law doesn’t allow them to participate without getting paid, they’ll be cut. Or they'll get paid.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 19, 2024 19:11:40 GMT -5
Moreover, rosters on surviving teams would almost certainly contract. One-third of FBS football players are walkons. They participate because they love the game and love being a part of their programs. If federal law doesn’t allow them to participate without getting paid, they’ll be cut. Or they'll get paid. If volleyball teams are required to compensate every athlete, do you think the average roster will stay above 17 like it is now?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 19, 2024 20:00:41 GMT -5
If volleyball teams are required to compensate every athlete, do you think the average roster will stay above 17 like it is now? Weren't you talking about football? In WBB, I imagine some teams will get bigger because they can pay nonscholarship players to be there and some will get smaller because they don't want to pay anyone at all.
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Apr 20, 2024 9:08:18 GMT -5
Thanks, that is the angle I was missing. Basically, you’re saying that if student-athletes are now legal employees, then the law says you have to pay them minimum wage. Being allowed to directly pay an athlete for their NIL (if you choose to do that) versus being legally forced to pay an athlete a minimum wage, as if they were working at the cafeteria, are two things that are galaxies apart. I agree with the former, while I vehemently disagree with the latter. Agree that if legal employment goes through, (especially at smaller schools that make no money from varsity athletics) they’ll just turn around and “fire” those athletes by pulling the plug on the athletic dept. You can’t force a school to run a money losing operation that is tangential to the educational mission. Moreover, rosters on surviving teams would almost certainly contract. One-third of FBS football players are walkons. They participate because they love the game and love being a part of their programs. If federal law doesn’t allow them to participate without getting paid, they’ll be cut. Good point. With the transfer portal and free transfers, there isn’t really a good reason anymore to have 85 players on scholarship, let alone 105 total roster size (or whatever it is).
|
|