|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 10:55:39 GMT -5
If players had value, if someone else wanted them, they'd have left, as evidence by so many athletes leaving when they were draft eligibile, or even like Matt Anderson leaving a year early. If they stayed, it's because they wanted to, or because a scholarship, room, board and training was the best deal they could get. The NFL saying we don't want you for 3 years isn't the colleges problem. The absence of a pro league for 19 year olds only goes to show, they don't have value without the colleges. The schools are the ones who provide the service and we've totally lost sight of that. This is 100% correct, and particularly at a place like Dartmouth. There's a strong possibility that some of the kids on the varsity rosters would not have even gotten into the school if they were just regular students applying. Being an athlete who was on the coaches' lists put them over the top in the admissions process. That's how it works. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 11:00:05 GMT -5
Here's the doubt. You can just as easily say the school provides a service to the students in running the teams... because that is how every high school and junior high school has it set up. Nobody thinks their pimple faced 12 year old is providing a service to Jimmy Carter Middle School by playing on their team. College sports is set up the same way. Look, the cable company provides a service in delivering me channels. Then they sell ad time to companies and make money on that end too. Nobody thinks I provide my cable company with a service by watching the ads (I rarely watch the ads anyway) because they make money off of me. Just because colleges can sell tickets and ads on the scoreboard and program doesn't change the fact that college sports are run as a service to the student body that participate as players or cheerleaders or marching band members, and to those students that want to watch their classmates play. If players had value, if someone else wanted them, they'd have left, as evidence by so many athletes leaving when they were draft eligibile, or even like Matt Anderson leaving a year early. If they stayed, it's because they wanted to, or because a scholarship, room, board and training was the best deal they could get. The NFL saying we don't want you for 3 years isn't the colleges problem. The absence of a pro league for 19 year olds only goes to show, they don't have value without the colleges. The schools are the ones who provide the service and we've totally lost sight of that. The top schools are generating hundreds of millions of dollars annually and paying their staffs millions. Are the high schools doing that? The people who are generating a huge chunk of that value should have a say in how that revenue is distributed. It's absurd to think the colleges, which have invested billions in their athletics programs as a marketing and entertainment operation, are providing a service to the players. If that means DI needs to be treated differently than the rest of college sports or the top 50 than the rest of DI, so be it. OK.
If you're willing to make a big line in the sand for schools in conferences that have major TV contracts, and then everyone else, I can live with that.
Good luck making something like that stick with the laws we have now. You need new law for that.
And indeed, we need college athletics reform. That has to get done.
And in such a package can be an objectively correct thing: college athletes need the right to collectively bargain without being employees.
That's what will work for everyone. DIII, DII, DI, and $$$ schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 20, 2024 12:54:10 GMT -5
The top schools are generating hundreds of millions of dollars annually and paying their staffs millions. Are the high schools doing that? The people who are generating a huge chunk of that value should have a say in how that revenue is distributed. It's absurd to think the colleges, which have invested billions in their athletics programs as a marketing and entertainment operation, are providing a service to the players. If that means DI needs to be treated differently than the rest of college sports or the top 50 than the rest of DI, so be it. OK. If you're willing to make a big line in the sand for schools in conferences that have major TV contracts, and then everyone else, I can live with that. Good luck making something like that stick with the laws we have now. You need new law for that. And indeed, we need college athletics reform. That has to get done. And in such a package can be an objectively correct thing: college athletes need the right to collectively bargain without being employees. That's what will work for everyone. DIII, DII, DI, and $$$ schools.
How does one collectively bargain an employment contract without being an employee. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 20, 2024 13:15:02 GMT -5
I think SEC schools will find a way, no problem. Yeah, it's not that the conferences and member schools cannot find a way, its that the NCAA has to set reasonable numbers early enough for schools to implement them while recruiting the 2025 class. It's camp season. Coaches in every sport are making offers now. I'd love to know what the conversations are between coaches and ADs about this, how to handle this. |
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Jul 20, 2024 14:42:11 GMT -5
Tier I FBS, ~ the top 60 schools in primarily the P4 conferences, are about making money and winning. Seven figure NIL deals and Lamborghinis. Multi-billion$ media contracts. Conference jumping that ignores regionality, old rivalries, and limits on travel IOT maximize profit. The primary 'services' at play are athletic labor for football program money$. Any educational 'service' is a secondary aspect, the kabuki dance that distracts from the spectacle of a non-profit university operating a 'not-for-profit' football program that is in truth for-profit.
Tier 1 FBS are for-profit programs operating for-profit leagues consisting of primarily P4 conferences — their athletes are in fact under contract — required to take a minimum number of courses from the sponsoring school. Walk-ons are interns paying their own way — hoping to snag a future contract or upgrade their CV for a transfer.
Shed the charade that football at this level is in the business of 'servicing' their athletes with academia. What primarily attracts their top talent is NIL money, media attention, and other $benefits$. What keeps them around is the hope that their chosen football program can propel them into a longer and perhaps more lucrative career in other professional football franchises and leagues. The athletes are the labor force generating the millions that pay staff salaries and fund facilities. A fair judgement is they are employees under contract, entitled to unionize, and to bargain collectively for benefits and compensation.
Also shed the charade that Tier 1 FBS level programs are nonprofits or not-for-profit. Legislation at the federal level should strip them of this status if the courts can't or won't. These programs are for-profits, in for-profit leagues comprised of primarily the P4 conferences, and they should be organized, regulated, and taxed accordingly.
Since Title IX doesn't apply to the operation of professional sports leagues and their profit distribution, non-profit schools operating for-profit athletic programs in for-profit leagues raises some interesting Title IX questions. Shedding the Title IX requirements imposed by a 100-man football roster with eighty scholarships, many of the impacted schools might chose to distribute their football profits differently than that dictated by Title IX. But the courts and Dept. of Education and DOJ might see things differently, that as long as these athletes are enrolled and their school sponsors their athletic program, the school falls under Title IX and all profits from their professional athletic programs must be distributed as regulated by Title IX.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 20, 2024 14:49:17 GMT -5
I think SEC schools will find a way, no problem. It will be both things you suggest: inflated women's varsity sport rosters (swimming, rowing, etc.) and new sports that have no rightly business being played at public state schools where the high school activities association in that state doesn't even sponsor that sport! Women's field hockey/lacrosse ... in the south? Good lord. Is what it is. ]Scholarship limits for football are now 85, but roster limits will seem to be at the very least 100, and all major schools will max fund their rosters. ]I was hoping scholarships would go down, and spread more of the top talent around. But of course we know the SEC and Big Ten don't want that. They want the opposite. [/div][/quote] I don't think there will need to be nearly the drastic changes in sport offerings and roster composition that you're implying. Title IX's financial aid requirement is that scholarships are awarded in proportion to participation. If every athlete in every sport goes on full scholarship, that would fundamentally make that proportionality true. SEC schools will actually become MORE compliant if they cap football and baseball roster sizes to something reasonable like 100 and 35. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 15:57:51 GMT -5
I don't think there will need to be nearly the drastic changes in sport offerings and roster composition that you're implying. Title IX's financial aid requirement is that scholarships are awarded in proportion to participation. If every athlete in every sport goes on full scholarship, that would fundamentally make that proportionality true. SEC schools will actually become MORE compliant if they cap football and baseball roster sizes to something reasonable like 100 and 35. Title IX requires participation to be aligned with the gender ratio of the student body for full time undergraduate enrollment, is my understanding.
If you have 500 male varsity athletes on scholarship and 250 female varsity athletes on scholarship, you are very likely not in compliance (I think only military academies have that low of a female enrollment ratio).
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 15:59:27 GMT -5
I think SEC schools will find a way, no problem. Yeah, it's not that the conferences and member schools cannot find a way, its that the NCAA has to set reasonable numbers early enough for schools to implement them while recruiting the 2025 class. It's camp season. Coaches in every sport are making offers now. I'd love to know what the conversations are between coaches and ADs about this, how to handle this. Sure, agree.
That is really a side discussion, though. As mentioned (I think by you?), it's not even for sure that the roster limits will be in the proposal submitted to the judge overseeing the settlement. That's how relatively unimportant that detail is.
This thread wasn't created just to talking about roster limits. (Not saying you were saying it was.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 16:00:32 GMT -5
How does one collectively bargain an employment contract There wouldn't be an employment contract. It would be possible to bargain certain aspects related to being a college student-athlete without being an employee, via new, specialized law for that exact purpose. As was a prerequisite for the point being made. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 20, 2024 16:02:48 GMT -5
I don't think there will need to be nearly the drastic changes in sport offerings and roster composition that you're implying. Title IX's financial aid requirement is that scholarships are awarded in proportion to participation. If every athlete in every sport goes on full scholarship, that would fundamentally make that proportionality true. SEC schools will actually become MORE compliant if they cap football and baseball roster sizes to something reasonable like 100 and 35. Title IX requires participation to be aligned with the gender ratio of the student body for full time undergraduate enrollment, is my understanding. Your understanding is incomplete. Proportionality is only one of the three prongs for compliance with Title IX. The other two are historic expansion of opportunities and full accommodation of athletic interest at the institution. Only one of the three needs to be satisfied. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 20, 2024 16:11:33 GMT -5
Title IX requires participation to be aligned with the gender ratio of the student body for full time undergraduate enrollment, is my understanding. Your understanding is incomplete. Proportionality is only one of the three prongs for compliance with Title IX. The other two are historic expansion of opportunities and full accommodation of athletic interest at the institution. Only one of the three needs to be satisfied. I DO think that this type of restructuring will open schools up to lawsuits if they don’t handle it correctly. There are definitely athletic departments out there who fulfill none of the three prongs, but their female athletes are generally happy and don’t have incentive to file a lawsuit. Florida State is a good example of this. Their club lacrosse team threatening a lawsuit caused them to elevate that team to a varsity program. There are probably a lot of schools who would prefer to NOT have a Title IX attorney take a deep dive into their department. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 20, 2024 16:11:51 GMT -5
How does one collectively bargain an employment contract There wouldn't be an employment contract. It would be possible to bargain certain aspects related to being a college student-athlete without being an employee, via new, specialized law for that exact purpose. As was a prerequisite for the point being made. So if there's no contract, what are they bargaining? A handshake agreement? |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Jul 20, 2024 16:12:26 GMT -5
Shed the charade that football at this level is in the business of 'servicing' their athletes with academia. What primarily attracts their top talent is NIL money, media attention, and other $benefits$. What keeps them around is the hope that their chosen footbal program can propel them into a longer and perhaps more lucrative career in other professional football franchises and leagues. I just want to push back on this point. What attracts athletes to a school is not related to the service universities provide those athletes. They may all want to be professionals, but only a tiny fraction of athletes are going to see even a minute of time as a professional athlete, forget making a decent living at it for any length of time. The university serves the vast majority that don't become professional athletes, whether they initially think they need it or not. I think it's very hard, and quite dangerous, to carve out football programs as for-profits within a not-for-profit structure. The key difference between a not-for-profit university and a for-profit company is that all excess moneys are supposed to be plowed back into educational and research purposes of the university (sometimes my state raids the university coffers in tough times to fund other state activities - because they are state funds in that case). That includes creating the physical and social space needed to support those activities. A for-profit corporation is primarily focused on the best ways of generating profits for the shareholders or owners/partners. For profit colleges follow the latter model, and rarely invest in sports because the overhead cuts seriously into profits (there is a reason so many are on-line). I have suggested in the past that football programs (and other money making programs) within top universities be treated primarily as self-sustaining professional schools, as players might become professional athletes, but also get into sports via physiology, analytics, medicine, communication, management, marketing, psychology, etc - things that take training and sometimes specific certifications. Normally, professional schools charge extra tuition since graduates will have earning power and current activities are not lucrative to support those schools. But in this case the activities of the athletes raises resources to support them while they are in school, while supplementing the larger university's activities as well, much as licensing fees for drug and invention patents do. The administrative separation might allow payment to those athletes enrolled in the school and walk-ons positions for those enlisted outside the school. You'd need to put safeguards into a system like that, but it could work. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 20, 2024 16:12:52 GMT -5
I don't think there will need to be nearly the drastic changes in sport offerings and roster composition that you're implying. Title IX's financial aid requirement is that scholarships are awarded in proportion to participation. If every athlete in every sport goes on full scholarship, that would fundamentally make that proportionality true. SEC schools will actually become MORE compliant if they cap football and baseball roster sizes to something reasonable like 100 and 35. Title IX requires participation to be aligned with the gender ratio of the student body for full time undergraduate enrollment, is my understanding. If you have 500 male varsity athletes on scholarship and 250 female varsity athletes on scholarship, you are very likely not in compliance (I think only military academies have that low of a female enrollment ratio).
Agreed. But athletic departments are not that way now and wouldn’t be if walk-ons became scholarship athletes. Especially if football and baseball rosters get trimmed down. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 17:30:03 GMT -5
Title IX requires participation to be aligned with the gender ratio of the student body for full time undergraduate enrollment, is my understanding. Your understanding is incomplete. Proportionality is only one of the three prongs for compliance with Title IX. The other two are historic expansion of opportunities and full accommodation of athletic interest at the institution. Only one of the three needs to be satisfied. Doubtful any institution has defended themselves against a T9 case using either of those two prongs. Please do prove me wrong |
|
