|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 10, 2024 10:37:04 GMT -5
Also, I can see that something which seems like it would be universally approved … might just then get held hostage as a bargaining chip. “We’ll approve college athletics reform, but you have to give us X,Y,Z policy. But that’s how it should work. Collaborative decision making processes are messy, inefficient, and should leave everyone feeling at least a little dissatisfied if done right. We have one of the worst systems of government in the world to get anything done, but that’s not a bug. It’s a feature. The problem we have right now is due to a number of social, technological, and political challenges coming together, compromise has become a dirty word. Not only is it extremely difficult to get legislation passed in this environment, but any kind of changes in policy - mostly handled through the executive branch since the current congress is historically unproductive, but there have also been some remarkable changes in policy from the Supreme Court, with abortion being the main, but not only one - is bound to upset a lot of people. I think the bigger issue with Congress getting involved is right now there’s still no upside. What constituency are they serving? How is passing legislation involving college athletics going to mobilize their base or increase campaign contributions? Right now both parties are running on the platform that a victory from the other party means the apocalypse is upon us. It’s just hard to get anything done in this environment. I know college sports is important to us. It’s extremely important to me. But it’s hard to get a politician to even take it all that seriously. In the minds of the ones I’ve spoken to, they frankly have bigger fish to fry. I get the impression Congress sees the NCAA and college sports as a toy to bat around in public hearings rather than a real problem to solve. I agree with you there isn't an obvious constituency to serve with legislation. And my *guess* is any legislation would naturally be very friendly to the schools, which directly conflicts with the desire to publicly yell at presidents and Charlie Baker every few months. Also, SCOTUS is currently deciding whether to mostly decapitate or entirely decapitate the NLRB, so that may be a non-issue moving forward. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Jun 10, 2024 12:13:11 GMT -5
For Baker's Div-1 'Tier 1' schools he proposes a special governing model. Codification of which puts in place special rules that recognize they're engaged in a big business of athletic entertainment on a national level, drawing huge contracts from national broadcast deals. Some Democrats may want these school's players treated as employees; one can make an argument that's fair. The 'student' package then is just another employment benefit that must be optional for the employee to take advantage of, not mandatory for their employment at this 'Tier' of collegiate sponsored sports. You might get some Republicans to agree that those schools are engaged in national big-business commerce that crosses state lines, that their rosters are professionals first and students secondarily and only if they wish to partake of that employment benefit; and accordingly, these programs must lose non-profit status and be appropriately taxed. At that point, one can also argue that the schools have the right of any business owner to raise capital to support their business. Perhaps they could take their programs public and sell shares; issue bonds; or run them as private corporations. These 'Tier-1' programs are then 'spin-offs' from the rest of the college/university system. Perhaps the school retains ownership interest, perhaps they sell it off and the athletic unit becomes available to move to another college or university for the appropriate college town investment, stadium rights, and college branding.
|
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 10, 2024 12:45:29 GMT -5
For Baker's Div-1 'Tier 1' schools he proposes a special governing model. Codification of which puts in place special rules that recognize they're engaged in a big business of athletic entertainment on a national level, drawing huge contracts from national broadcast deals. Some Democrats may want these school's players treated as employees; one can make an argument that's fair. The 'student' package then is just another employment benefit that must be optional for the employee to take advantage of, not mandatory for their employment at this 'Tier' of collegiate sponsored sports. You might get some Republicans to agree that those schools are engaged in national big-business commerce that crosses state lines, that their rosters are professionals first and students secondarily and only if they wish to partake of that employment benefit; and accordingly, these programs must lose non-profit status and be appropriately taxed. At that point, one can also argue that the schools have the right of any business owner to raise capital to support their business. Perhaps they could take their programs public and sell shares; issue bonds; or run them as private corporations. These 'Tier-1' programs are then 'spin-offs' from the rest of the college/university system. Perhaps the school retains ownership interest, perhaps they sell it off and the athletic unit becomes available to move to another college or university for the appropriate college town investment, stadium rights, and college branding. That’s a lot of hypotheticals. At the point players aren’t students any more I don’t see the University of Texas fielding those particular sports teams any more. Even football. There has to be some element of truth to the fiction they’re students playing for their university, even the ones getting paid over a million dollars and driving around Lamborghinis to do so. I obviously do not speak for UT, but I feel confident the powers that be would see it that way. College athletics creates a huge cognitive dissonance within the academic structure, but to maintain the suspension of disbelief I believe getting rid of the student label, or making it optional, is the point at which a number of institutions would drop out and form a league of their own. I really don’t think much of what you proposed is even remotely realistic, even in this wild Wild West environment. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Jun 10, 2024 12:54:14 GMT -5
For Baker's Div-1 'Tier 1' schools he proposes a special governing model. Codification of which puts in place special rules that recognize they're engaged in a big business of athletic entertainment on a national level, drawing huge contracts from national broadcast deals. Some Democrats may want these school's players treated as employees; one can make an argument that's fair. The 'student' package then is just another employment benefit that must be optional for the employee to take advantage of, not mandatory for their employment at this 'Tier' of collegiate sponsored sports. You might get some Republicans to agree that those schools are engaged in national big-business commerce that crosses state lines, that their rosters are professionals first and students secondarily and only if they wish to partake of that employment benefit; and accordingly, these programs must lose non-profit status and be appropriately taxed. At that point, one can also argue that the schools have the right of any business owner to raise capital to support their business. Perhaps they could take their programs public and sell shares; issue bonds; or run them as private corporations. These 'Tier-1' programs are then 'spin-offs' from the rest of the college/university system. Perhaps the school retains ownership interest, perhaps they sell it off and the athletic unit becomes available to move to another college or university for the appropriate college town investment, stadium rights, and college branding. That’s a lot of hypotheticals. At the point players aren’t students any more I don’t see the University of Texas fielding those particular sports teams any more. Even football. There has to be some element of truth to the fiction they’re students playing for their university, even the ones getting paid over a million dollars and driving around Lamborghinis to do so. I obviously do not speak for UT, but I feel confident the powers that be would see it that way. College athletics creates a huge cognitive dissonance within the academic structure, but to maintain the suspension of disbelief I believe getting rid of the student label, or making it optional, is the point at which a number of institutions would drop out and form a league of their own. I really don’t think much of what you proposed is even remotely realistic, even in this wild Wild West environment. In the realm of political solutions, I chose a model that already exists and is wildly successful. The NFL. The 'Tier 1' proposed by Baker is a big step in that direction. Once the players become employees, they become arguably professionals and school enrollment could become a condition of employment. But as professionals they'd also have the right to unionize, and could conceivably bargain that they must be paid appropriately for enrolling and taking courses at the branded school. Perhaps different course loads get different reimbursement rates, with appropriate dollars to the professional for good grades, and perhaps appropriate compensation to the school for ensuring that student receives the attention needed to succeed academically. All this could be spelled out under league-union contracts, collectively bargained, with appropriate union representation for the professional employees. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,212 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 10, 2024 13:20:37 GMT -5
I think the bigger issue with Congress getting involved is right now there’s still no upside. What constituency are they serving? How is passing legislation involving college athletics going to mobilize their base or increase campaign contributions? Right now both parties are running on the platform that a victory from the other party means the apocalypse is upon us. It’s just hard to get anything done in this environment. I know college sports is important to us. It’s extremely important to me. But it’s hard to get a politician to even take it all that seriously. In the minds of the ones I’ve spoken to, they frankly have bigger fish to fry. Do you mean no political upside? Because the lack of political upside I think makes a bipartisan bill on this possible. There would be no political risk in working with 'the other side'. Also - congress is obviously dysfunctional - but they also have tons of bipartisan bills every year - generally on things of agreement where there is very little political upside (downside). Constituency - Universities, conferences, college coaches, college players, and college sports fans. Not an insignificant number. I would see this as being some kind of compromise between University/Conferences and players. I would suspect many of the Democratic leaders on this issue would be advocating on behalf of the players (generally speaking). Probably a 'deal' made by those directly involved in college sports (players/universities) that then is taken to college for action. It probably is going to be hard to do something before things are broken - but there is a point of college sports broken where congress would have incentives to fix. |
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Jun 10, 2024 13:36:48 GMT -5
I think the bigger issue with Congress getting involved is right now there’s still no upside. What constituency are they serving? How is passing legislation involving college athletics going to mobilize their base or increase campaign contributions? Right now both parties are running on the platform that a victory from the other party means the apocalypse is upon us. It’s just hard to get anything done in this environment. I know college sports is important to us. It’s extremely important to me. But it’s hard to get a politician to even take it all that seriously. In the minds of the ones I’ve spoken to, they frankly have bigger fish to fry. Do you mean no political upside? Because the lack of political upside I think makes a bipartisan bill on this possible. There would be no political risk in working with 'the other side'. Also - congress is obviously dysfunctional - but they also have tons of bipartisan bills every year - generally on things of agreement where there is very little political upside (downside). Constituency - Universities, conferences, college coaches, college players, and college sports fans. Not an insignificant number. I would see this as being some kind of compromise between University/Conferences and players. I would suspect many of the Democratic leaders on this issue would be advocating on behalf of the players (generally speaking). Probably a 'deal' made by those directly involved in college sports (players/universities) that then is taken to college for action. It probably is going to be hard to do something before things are broken - but there is a point of college sports broken where congress would have incentives to fix. I guess I’d say if those constituencies were inportant enough to move the needle, something would have been done already. What I’m saying is that passing legislation involving college sports doesn’t do anything for the base of either party. I do agree about college sports being so broken they have to do something. I guess the question is when does that occur? Let’s see what happens after this election cycle. All I know is everything I’m hearing is that we have a choice between the end of democracy as we know it, or the end of the America dream and American traditional values.i don’t see the issues with college sports being on the radar for most people except the folks most invested in college sports. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 10, 2024 13:42:56 GMT -5
I think the bigger issue with Congress getting involved is right now there’s still no upside. What constituency are they serving? How is passing legislation involving college athletics going to mobilize their base or increase campaign contributions? Right now both parties are running on the platform that a victory from the other party means the apocalypse is upon us. It’s just hard to get anything done in this environment. I know college sports is important to us. It’s extremely important to me. But it’s hard to get a politician to even take it all that seriously. In the minds of the ones I’ve spoken to, they frankly have bigger fish to fry. Do you mean no political upside? Because the lack of political upside I think makes a bipartisan bill on this possible. There would be no political risk in working with 'the other side'. Also - congress is obviously dysfunctional - but they also have tons of bipartisan bills every year - generally on things of agreement where there is very little political upside (downside). Constituency - Universities, conferences, college coaches, college players, and college sports fans. Not an insignificant number. I would see this as being some kind of compromise between University/Conferences and players. I would suspect many of the Democratic leaders on this issue would be advocating on behalf of the players (generally speaking). Probably a 'deal' made by those directly involved in college sports (players/universities) that then is taken to college for action. It probably is going to be hard to do something before things are broken - but there is a point of college sports broken where congress would have incentives to fix. Any deal struck in Congress is going to be way more favorable to the schools than the athletes compared to a situation where Congress doesn't get involved. The NCAA is getting pantsed every time it goes to court. The only way that trend gets reversed is if Congress steps in to save it. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 13, 2024 11:33:45 GMT -5
Any AD or president who falls for this is a rube and should be immediately fired. Brett Yormark, come on down! |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 13, 2024 11:41:58 GMT -5
This is . . . something.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jun 13, 2024 12:00:18 GMT -5
As I heard it explained, Private Capital forks over $50 million, $100 million, $200 million, whatever. Then they collect 20% of new revenue (so if your department goes from $100 million to $110 million they'd get $2 million, 20% of the additional $10 million) until they collect their investment, and then they collect 3-5% for like 30 years after that.
I'm not a finance guy but they say it isn't that different than financing a building with a bank.
But obviously they want their money back ASAP so they become a partner in setting ticket and concession prices among other financial decisions and in that way it could be like getting into bed with the mafia.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 13, 2024 12:30:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 13, 2024 12:32:06 GMT -5
Do you mean no political upside? Because the lack of political upside I think makes a bipartisan bill on this possible. There would be no political risk in working with 'the other side'. Also - congress is obviously dysfunctional - but they also have tons of bipartisan bills every year - generally on things of agreement where there is very little political upside (downside). Constituency - Universities, conferences, college coaches, college players, and college sports fans. Not an insignificant number. I would see this as being some kind of compromise between University/Conferences and players. I would suspect many of the Democratic leaders on this issue would be advocating on behalf of the players (generally speaking). Probably a 'deal' made by those directly involved in college sports (players/universities) that then is taken to college for action. It probably is going to be hard to do something before things are broken - but there is a point of college sports broken where congress would have incentives to fix. Any deal struck in Congress is going to be way more favorable to the schools than the athletes compared to a situation where Congress doesn't get involved. The NCAA is getting pantsed every time it goes to court. The only way that trend gets reversed is if Congress steps in to save it. Hopefully they do! Certainly, athletes are already in a great place even compared to all the way back in … 2019. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 13, 2024 21:23:51 GMT -5
As I heard it explained, Private Capital forks over $50 million, $100 million, $200 million, whatever. Then they collect 20% of new revenue (so if your department goes from $100 million to $110 million they'd get $2 million, 20% of the additional $10 million) until they collect their investment, and then they collect 3-5% for like 30 years after that. I'm not a finance guy but they say it isn't that different than financing a building with a bank. But obviously they want their money back ASAP so they become a partner in setting ticket and concession prices among other financial decisions and in that way it could be like getting into bed with the mafia. Without the horse heads? Or would they be there too? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 13, 2024 21:26:11 GMT -5
LOL. Of course they would call it "protecting their economic freedom" to prevent them from being declared employees (and therefore having a lot more economic rights).
These are the same people who call it "right to work" when they try to make unions illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jun 13, 2024 21:40:13 GMT -5
|
|
