|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 10, 2024 20:54:10 GMT -5
Springfield vs MIT had 438 spectators. That's about 2 spectators per player and the parents are already paying tuition. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 11, 2024 12:45:22 GMT -5
www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/third-circuit-johnson-ncaa-flsa-case-1234780117/The NCAA motion to dismiss the Johnson case has been denied. It goes back to the lower court for trial... The Third Circuit instead instructed Judge Padova to apply an economic realities analysis of the issue that grounded in common-law (case precedent) agency principles. To that end, Padova should find that college athletes are employees if they
(a) perform services for another party,
(b) necessarily and primarily for the college’s benefit,
(c) under the college’s control or right of control and
(d) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits.”A - Perform services for another party - I can see that. B- Necessarily and primarily for the college's benefit - this could be how they separate Major athletics from Olympic sports and lower division athletics so their can still be D3 and NAIA and high school sports - though some high school basketball teams may have trouble here. Major profit programs are for the college's benefit, but Olympic sports and D3 athletes, it could be argued is primarily for the the participants benefit? I think that would fly but the courts have been much harsher on college sports than I am. C- under college's control - clearly D- in return for compensation - and the Dartmouth case said gear is compensation so if that holds it's hard to argue this.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 11, 2024 14:12:24 GMT -5
www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/third-circuit-johnson-ncaa-flsa-case-1234780117/The NCAA motion to dismiss the Johnson case has been denied. It goes back to the lower court for trial... The Third Circuit instead instructed Judge Padova to apply an economic realities analysis of the issue that grounded in common-law (case precedent) agency principles. To that end, Padova should find that college athletes are employees if they
(a) perform services for another party,
(b) necessarily and primarily for the college’s benefit,
(c) under the college’s control or right of control and
(d) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits.”A - Perform services for another party - I can see that. B- Necessarily and primarily for the college's benefit - this could be how they separate Major athletics from Olympic sports and lower division athletics so their can still be D3 and NAIA and high school sports - though some high school basketball teams may have trouble here. Major profit programs are for the college's benefit, but Olympic sports and D3 athletes, it could be argued is primarily for the the participants benefit? I think that would fly but the courts have been much harsher on college sports than I am. C- under college's control - clearly D- in return for compensation - and the Dartmouth case said gear is compensation so if that holds it's hard to argue this. I have a harder time buying (a). What service are Dartmouth basketball players providing for the university? And how is it different from somebody in the jazz ensemble or engineering club? I also think that (b) fails because the athletes are benefitting from the experience more than the university. Otherwise, why did these athletes choose Dartmouth over basketball programs that could've provided more financial aid? Because of the benefit they are getting from being members of the Dartmouth basketball program. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefuldawg on Jul 11, 2024 14:52:13 GMT -5
www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/third-circuit-johnson-ncaa-flsa-case-1234780117/The NCAA motion to dismiss the Johnson case has been denied. It goes back to the lower court for trial... The Third Circuit instead instructed Judge Padova to apply an economic realities analysis of the issue that grounded in common-law (case precedent) agency principles. To that end, Padova should find that college athletes are employees if they
(a) perform services for another party,
(b) necessarily and primarily for the college’s benefit,
(c) under the college’s control or right of control and
(d) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits.”A - Perform services for another party - I can see that. B- Necessarily and primarily for the college's benefit - this could be how they separate Major athletics from Olympic sports and lower division athletics so their can still be D3 and NAIA and high school sports - though some high school basketball teams may have trouble here. Major profit programs are for the college's benefit, but Olympic sports and D3 athletes, it could be argued is primarily for the the participants benefit? I think that would fly but the courts have been much harsher on college sports than I am. C- under college's control - clearly D- in return for compensation - and the Dartmouth case said gear is compensation so if that holds it's hard to argue this. I have a harder time buying (a). What service are Dartmouth basketball players providing for the university? And how is it different from somebody in the jazz ensemble or engineering club? I also think that (b) fails because the athletes are benefitting from the experience more than the university. Otherwise, why did these athletes choose Dartmouth over basketball programs that could've provided more financial aid? Because of the benefit they are getting from being members of the Dartmouth basketball program. I read "perform services for another party" as performing services for a party outside of themselves and the college. Otherwise, they could've said "perform services for the college," as they refer to "the college" in (b) and (c). In that case, they clearly do perform services for another party: entertainment of fans. For (b), like OP, I think it starts to delineate the big money, high promotion value sports from the rest. At the same time, I'm sure there are walk-ons at top football programs who could argue they have no future NFL prospects, the training workload forces them to choose less potentially lucrative fields of study, and they could've gotten into this school or others without being student athletes; therefore, their participation benefits the college more than themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 11, 2024 15:28:29 GMT -5
For (b), like OP, I think it starts to delineate the big money, high promotion value sports from the rest. At the same time, I'm sure there are walk-ons at top football programs who could argue they have no future NFL prospects, the training workload forces them to choose less potentially lucrative fields of study, and they could've gotten into this school or others without being student athletes; therefore, their participation benefits the college more than themselves. See, my interpretation of this is exactly the opposite. A walkon KNOWS all of those drawbacks and still chooses to commit to the team. That means they’re getting a LOT out of it. If Thanos snapped his fingers and eliminated intercollegiate athletics, universities would be fine and it would be students losing out on the experience. It’s why there are hundreds of thousands of D3 athletes. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 11, 2024 21:28:50 GMT -5
I have a harder time buying (a). What service are Dartmouth basketball players providing for the university? And how is it different from somebody in the jazz ensemble or engineering club? I also think that (b) fails because the athletes are benefitting from the experience more than the university. Otherwise, why did these athletes choose Dartmouth over basketball programs that could've provided more financial aid? Because of the benefit they are getting from being members of the Dartmouth basketball program. In the article it mentioned a difference between things that are done for course credit - students obviously are not paid for independent study projects and usually not for a for-credit internship. Marching band or jazz ensemble could be for credit but yeah, engineering club has an event maybe they need to be paid by the hour too. FTR, Johnson was actually a Villanova football player, I just used the Dartmouth case to fill in some blanks. Some programs are obviously of tremendous value to their schools, and some are obviously not. Where/how they draw the line would be significant and interesting. For (b), like OP, I think it starts to delineate the big money, high promotion value sports from the rest. At the same time, I'm sure there are walk-ons at top football programs who could argue they have no future NFL prospects, the training workload forces them to choose less potentially lucrative fields of study, and they could've gotten into this school or others without being student athletes; therefore, their participation benefits the college more than themselves. See, my interpretation of this is exactly the opposite. A walkon KNOWS all of those drawbacks and still chooses to commit to the team. That means they’re getting a LOT out of it. If Thanos snapped his fingers and eliminated intercollegiate athletics, universities would be fine and it would be students losing out on the experience. It’s why there are hundreds of thousands of D3 athletes. I read A as doing services for a school official (coach, strength coach, required athletic department tutor) that is not a professor assigning coresework. I'm sure there is more to it than that but unless anybody on here is a labor lawyer I think we are all kind of guessing. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 13, 2024 9:24:40 GMT -5
If Thanos snapped his fingers and eliminated intercollegiate athletics, universities would be fine and it would be students losing out on the experience. It’s why there are hundreds of thousands of D3 athletes. Correct, schools would just go down the list of submitted applications and hit the accept button until they filled up the slots they needed to make the finances work. And without sports, there wouldn't be student fees to pay for sports. That's what happens at the vast majority of schools. Varsity sports don't actually pay for themselves except at the very tip top. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 13, 2024 9:30:06 GMT -5
www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/third-circuit-johnson-ncaa-flsa-case-1234780117/The NCAA motion to dismiss the Johnson case has been denied. It goes back to the lower court for trial... The Third Circuit instead instructed Judge Padova to apply an economic realities analysis of the issue that grounded in common-law (case precedent) agency principles. To that end, Padova should find that college athletes are employees if they
(a) perform services for another party,
(b) necessarily and primarily for the college’s benefit,
(c) under the college’s control or right of control and
(d) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits.”A - Perform services for another party - I can see that. B- Necessarily and primarily for the college's benefit - this could be how they separate Major athletics from Olympic sports and lower division athletics so their can still be D3 and NAIA and high school sports - though some high school basketball teams may have trouble here. Major profit programs are for the college's benefit, but Olympic sports and D3 athletes, it could be argued is primarily for the the participants benefit? I think that would fly but the courts have been much harsher on college sports than I am. C- under college's control - clearly D- in return for compensation - and the Dartmouth case said gear is compensation so if that holds it's hard to argue this. I have a harder time buying (a). What service are Dartmouth basketball players providing for the university? And how is it different from somebody in the jazz ensemble or engineering club? I also think that (b) fails because the athletes are benefitting from the experience more than the university. Otherwise, why did these athletes choose Dartmouth over basketball programs that could've provided more financial aid? Because of the benefit they are getting from being members of the Dartmouth basketball program. This list is so vague and generally worded that plain old students could claim to be employees.
Homework is equally a service demanded by a school employee, for the school's benefit because they don't want to be failing students they want to pass them, clearly under the college's control, and the implied benefit is you get a degree that is very valuable for securing a (lucrative) job.
Just pure silliness. Regular students, are actually employees of the school! They shouldn't be paying tuition, they should be getting paid a minimum wage!
|
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Jul 13, 2024 11:09:05 GMT -5
I have a harder time buying (a). What service are Dartmouth basketball players providing for the university? And how is it different from somebody in the jazz ensemble or engineering club? I also think that (b) fails because the athletes are benefitting from the experience more than the university. Otherwise, why did these athletes choose Dartmouth over basketball programs that could've provided more financial aid? Because of the benefit they are getting from being members of the Dartmouth basketball program. This list is so vague and generally worded that plain old students could claim to be employees.
Homework is equally a service demanded by a school employee, for the school's benefit because they don't want to be failing students they want to pass them, clearly under the college's control, and the implied benefit is you get a degree that is very valuable for securing a (lucrative) job.
Just pure silliness. Regular students, are actually employees of the school! They shouldn't be paying tuition, they should be getting paid a minimum wage!
The student as employee is a successful educational model in business and the military. The employer picks and chooses carefully their candidates, and quickly cans those who don't do well in training. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 15, 2024 10:49:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by katn on Jul 16, 2024 20:27:26 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2024 7:33:20 GMT -5
The law says money must be shared between sexes. Not shared between men’s and women’s basketball!!!! Send that clarification to every AD you know. |
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Jul 17, 2024 10:15:31 GMT -5
Typical government speak. “It will apply, but we aren’t going to tell you how to do it. But if you do it wrong, we will take you to court and charge you huge penalties. Good luck figuring it out” |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 17, 2024 10:19:33 GMT -5
The law says money must be shared between sexes. Not shared between men’s and women’s basketball!!!! Send that clarification to every AD you know. It doesn’t say “money”. It says “financial aid”. And that article says absolutely nothing about if university issued NIL money counts as financial aid. So basically that article says absolutely nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 17, 2024 20:38:31 GMT -5
The law says money must be shared between sexes. Not shared between men’s and women’s basketball!!!! Send that clarification to every AD you know. It doesn’t say “money”. It says “financial aid”. And that article says absolutely nothing about if university issued NIL money counts as financial aid. So basically that article says absolutely nothing. Well, what the person said is:
"Schools must provide equal athletic opportunities based on sex, including with respect to benefits, opportunities, publicity, and recruitment, and must not discriminate in the provision of financial aid," Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary for the department's Office for Civil Rights, said in a written statement to ESPN. "In the new NIL environment, these same principles apply."
Benefits could have quite a general meaning.
That said, the following two things, as far as I know, have never been challenged using Title IX as the legal basis: - female professor who makes lower salary than a male professor in the same department/college - (head) coach of women's team makes lower salary than (head) coach of men's team
There have certainly been Title IX lawsuits filed by women's team coaches based on lack of resources for the team, and that would seem a proper application of Title IX.
But Title IX as far as I know never had anything to do with salaries.
Salaries should be solely based on merit. And a big part of merit is how much revenue a particular sport generates due to its popularity, which is ostensibly due to how exciting, fun, interesting, etc. that sport and its coaches/players are.
|
|
