|
|
Post by bulkey on May 27, 2021 13:22:41 GMT -5
This seems really, really nuts, and I suppose that most of us fans--regardless of our political preferences--would oppose it. But here are my thoughts (FWIW): 1. It may just be a scare tactic to move the NCAA to be more flexible on the NIL issue. 2. Even if it's sincerely intended, we should realize that graduate student teaching assistants, despite being on fellowship and their teaching being considered training for their profession, have recently been recognized by the courts as unionizable. The situation is somewhat different, of course, but it is on the same sliding scale of principle. 3. It's unbelievably dumb. Why can't the college's orchestra--most also on scholarship; playing concerts that charge admission--unionize? 4. One thing IS certain: college athletics is undergoing massive changes College athletes would be able to form players' unions and would be considered employees of their schools if a new Congressional bill introduced Thursday morning is passed into law.
The College Athletes Right to Organize bill, co-authored by Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., presents a direct challenge to the NCAA's foundational premise of amateurism. It asserts that any college athletes who are compensated by their school for their athletic ability -- whether through a scholarship or other means -- should have the right to organize and collectively bargain.
A companion bill is also being introduced in the House by Reps. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y.; Andy Levin, D-Mich.; and Lori Trahan, D-Mass.
"Big time college sports haven't been 'amateur' for a long time, and the NCAA has long denied its players economic and bargaining rights while treating them like commodities," Murphy said in a statement Thursday morning. "...It's a civil rights issue, and a matter of basic fairness."
www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31521100/congressional-bill-introduced-allow-college-athletes-form-unions-become-employees |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2021 16:29:25 GMT -5
This seems really, really nuts, and I suppose that most of us fans--regardless of our political preferences--would oppose it. But here are my thoughts (FWIW): 1. It may just be a scare tactic to move the NCAA to be more flexible on the NIL issue. 2. Even if it's sincerely intended, we should realize that graduate student teaching assistants, despite being on fellowship and their teaching being considered training for their profession, have recently been recognized by the courts as unionizable. The situation is somewhat different, of course, but it is on the same sliding scale of principle. 3. It's unbelievably dumb. Why can't the college's orchestra--most also on scholarship; playing concerts that charge admission--unionize? 4. One thing IS certain: college athletics is undergoing massive changes College athletes would be able to form players' unions and would be considered employees of their schools if a new Congressional bill introduced Thursday morning is passed into law.
The College Athletes Right to Organize bill, co-authored by Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., presents a direct challenge to the NCAA's foundational premise of amateurism. It asserts that any college athletes who are compensated by their school for their athletic ability -- whether through a scholarship or other means -- should have the right to organize and collectively bargain.
A companion bill is also being introduced in the House by Reps. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y.; Andy Levin, D-Mich.; and Lori Trahan, D-Mass.
"Big time college sports haven't been 'amateur' for a long time, and the NCAA has long denied its players economic and bargaining rights while treating them like commodities," Murphy said in a statement Thursday morning. "...It's a civil rights issue, and a matter of basic fairness."
www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31521100/congressional-bill-introduced-allow-college-athletes-form-unions-become-employeesOMG........this would put the fear of God into Commissioner Mark Emmert, his bureaucratic minions and plenty of P5 people!!! |
|
|
|
Post by zoney on May 27, 2021 16:52:15 GMT -5
This seems really, really nuts, and I suppose that most of us fans--regardless of our political preferences--would oppose it. But here are my thoughts (FWIW): 1. It may just be a scare tactic to move the NCAA to be more flexible on the NIL issue. 2. Even if it's sincerely intended, we should realize that graduate student teaching assistants, despite being on fellowship and their teaching being considered training for their profession, have recently been recognized by the courts as unionizable. The situation is somewhat different, of course, but it is on the same sliding scale of principle. 3. It's unbelievably dumb. Why can't the college's orchestra--most also on scholarship; playing concerts that charge admission--unionize? 4. One thing IS certain: college athletics is undergoing massive changes College athletes would be able to form players' unions and would be considered employees of their schools if a new Congressional bill introduced Thursday morning is passed into law.
The College Athletes Right to Organize bill, co-authored by Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., presents a direct challenge to the NCAA's foundational premise of amateurism. It asserts that any college athletes who are compensated by their school for their athletic ability -- whether through a scholarship or other means -- should have the right to organize and collectively bargain.
A companion bill is also being introduced in the House by Reps. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y.; Andy Levin, D-Mich.; and Lori Trahan, D-Mass.
"Big time college sports haven't been 'amateur' for a long time, and the NCAA has long denied its players economic and bargaining rights while treating them like commodities," Murphy said in a statement Thursday morning. "...It's a civil rights issue, and a matter of basic fairness."
www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31521100/congressional-bill-introduced-allow-college-athletes-form-unions-become-employeesOMG........this would put the fear of God into Commissioner Mark Emmert, his bureaucratic minions and plenty of P5 people!!! I don't have a dog in this fight so........but think about this: you're 18 years old and you get signed by the Yankees or the Dodgers etc etc. You go a Double-A team. Maybe to a Triple-A team if you're that good. You get a salary, right? There's fans watching. You travel, you get meals, you get medical care? Back to WCBB: what is that school (and to some degree that school may be federally or state subsidized - ie taxpayer supported.) Jeez the "student-athlete" concept of the 30s or 40s or 50s............what's the reality today? Look I certainly don't know. I only know I enjoy I watching Geno and his players. End of My Rant. |
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on May 27, 2021 17:13:23 GMT -5
OMG........this would put the fear of God into Commissioner Mark Emmert, his bureaucratic minions and plenty of P5 people!!! I don't have a dog in this fight so........but think about this: you're 18 years old and you get signed by the Yankees or the Dodgers etc etc. You go a Double-A team. Maybe to a Triple-A team if you're that good. You get a salary, right? There's fans watching. You travel, you get meals, you get medical care? Back to WCBB: what is that school (and to some degree that school may be federally or state subsidized - ie taxpayer supported.) Jeez the "student-athlete" concept of the 30s or 40s or 50s............what's the reality today? Look I certainly don't know. I only know I enjoy I watching Geno and his players. End of My Rant. True. I agree. It seems unfair, and is certainly wrong on some level. But picture this. You're a piano prodigy. You leave China and end up at the Curtis. You don't get paid for playing there even though your presence brings huge prestige and applications to the Curtis boom (Yuja Wang). Even Martha Argerich knows you're the next great thing. Meanwhile another young Chinese prodigy decides to leave the Curtis and packs the house and gets rich a lot quicker than you do (Lang Lang). Tough noogies, I suppose. My point is that if Paige wanted to get paid now, she could go to Europe and make a mint. |
|
|
|
Post by zoney on May 27, 2021 20:04:18 GMT -5
I don't have a dog in this fight so........but think about this: you're 18 years old and you get signed by the Yankees or the Dodgers etc etc. You go a Double-A team. Maybe to a Triple-A team if you're that good. You get a salary, right? There's fans watching. You travel, you get meals, you get medical care? Back to WCBB: what is that school (and to some degree that school may be federally or state subsidized - ie taxpayer supported.) Jeez the "student-athlete" concept of the 30s or 40s or 50s............what's the reality today? Look I certainly don't know. I only know I enjoy I watching Geno and his players. End of My Rant. True. I agree. It seems unfair, and is certainly wrong on some level. But picture this. You're a piano prodigy. You leave China and end up at the Curtis. You don't get paid for playing there even though your presence brings huge prestige and applications to the Curtis boom (Yuja Wang). Even Martha Argerich knows you're the next great thing. Meanwhile another young Chinese prodigy decides to leave the Curtis and packs the house and gets rich a lot quicker than you do (Lang Lang). Tough noogies, I suppose. My point is that if Paige wanted to get paid now, she could go to Europe and make a mint. Yes Paige would make a mint, you are totally correct. Interesting article when it comes to the "is the NCAA a business" discussion: www.businessinsider.com/ncaa-college-athletes-march-madness-basketball-football-sports-not-paid-2019-3 |
|
|
|
Post by huskyharper on May 30, 2021 19:41:58 GMT -5
my thoughts as someone who had to work their way through school is that student athletes are being paid for their services. A full ride scholarship to any DI college is worth at least 15K per semester. These kids are getting 3 or 4 semesters (depending on the school) per year, free and clear. So they have to work at their chosen sport, big effing whoop. I worked full or part-time or two or three part-time jobs during the five years it took me to get my degree, except for my last semester. If their sport happens to make enough money to fund their scholarships, great. If it makes enough to fund several scholarships, even better. If it doesn't make any money, too bad. But I do not think students are entitled to a portion of the ticket revenue.
Are they entitled to a portion of the money made off their name and face? Probably, in some way. But remember here too, both they (the athlete) and their school is benefiting from the advertising the school and/or conference is doing, using that name/face. These students have opportunities come their way that the average student will never see. \
I don't know the answer, but I do know this. My Rant is OVER. Thanks for reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by knightsbridgeaz on May 30, 2021 22:17:35 GMT -5
my thoughts as someone who had to work their way through school is that student athletes are being paid for their services. A full ride scholarship to any DI college is worth at least 15K per semester. These kids are getting 3 or 4 semesters (depending on the school) per year, free and clear. So they have to work at their chosen sport, big effing whoop. I worked full or part-time or two or three part-time jobs during the five years it took me to get my degree, except for my last semester. If their sport happens to make enough money to fund their scholarships, great. If it makes enough to fund several scholarships, even better. If it doesn't make any money, too bad. But I do not think students are entitled to a portion of the ticket revenue. Are they entitled to a portion of the money made off their name and face? Probably, in some way. But remember here too, both they (the athlete) and their school is benefiting from the advertising the school and/or conference is doing, using that name/face. These students have opportunities come their way that the average student will never see. \ I don't know the answer, but I do know this. My Rant is OVER. Thanks for reading. I don't completely disagree. But you really have 2 different classes of athlete. You have the stars and good players - particularly in high visibility sports - who are going to have the option of continuing their career in sports. You have everyone else, who, well, as the NCAA likes to say, will have careers in fields other than sports. I support the NIL issue, reluctantly, as a matter of fairness. And, other than the intrinsic value of being an athlete, the folks in the 2nd class probably do not have opportunities that non-athletes will never see. No, I don't think they need to share in the ticket revenue, but the whole issue needs to be looked at. |
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on May 30, 2021 22:46:23 GMT -5
my thoughts as someone who had to work their way through school is that student athletes are being paid for their services. A full ride scholarship to any DI college is worth at least 15K per semester. These kids are getting 3 or 4 semesters (depending on the school) per year, free and clear. So they have to work at their chosen sport, big effing whoop. I worked full or part-time or two or three part-time jobs during the five years it took me to get my degree, except for my last semester. If their sport happens to make enough money to fund their scholarships, great. If it makes enough to fund several scholarships, even better. If it doesn't make any money, too bad. But I do not think students are entitled to a portion of the ticket revenue. Are they entitled to a portion of the money made off their name and face? Probably, in some way. But remember here too, both they (the athlete) and their school is benefiting from the advertising the school and/or conference is doing, using that name/face. These students have opportunities come their way that the average student will never see. \ I don't know the answer, but I do know this. My Rant is OVER. Thanks for reading. I don't completely disagree. But you really have 2 different classes of athlete. You have the stars and good players - particularly in high visibility sports - who are going to have the option of continuing their career in sports. You have everyone else, who, well, as the NCAA likes to say, will have careers in fields other than sports. I support the NIL issue, reluctantly, as a matter of fairness. And, other than the intrinsic value of being an athlete, the folks in the 2nd class probably do not have opportunities that non-athletes will never see. No, I don't think they need to share in the ticket revenue, but the whole issue needs to be looked at. Of course, I agree with both of you. It's an incredibly complex issue because of what you both note. Most D-1 athletes are getting a guaranteed free ride when other students, equally hard working and maybe better in academics, are not. That's already a huge entitlement. On the other hand, the super talented are giving up years of potential professional earnings to enrich the schools without compensation. So, probably the right to NIL for individual players is the only way this works. |
|
|
|
Post by swash on May 31, 2021 5:35:54 GMT -5
I don't completely disagree. But you really have 2 different classes of athlete. You have the stars and good players - particularly in high visibility sports - who are going to have the option of continuing their career in sports. You have everyone else, who, well, as the NCAA likes to say, will have careers in fields other than sports. I support the NIL issue, reluctantly, as a matter of fairness. And, other than the intrinsic value of being an athlete, the folks in the 2nd class probably do not have opportunities that non-athletes will never see. No, I don't think they need to share in the ticket revenue, but the whole issue needs to be looked at. Of course, I agree with both of you. It's an incredibly complex issue because of what you both note. Most D-1 athletes are getting a guaranteed free ride when other students, equally hard working and maybe better in academics, are not. That's already a huge entitlement. On the other hand, the super talented are giving up years of potential professional earnings to enrich the schools without compensation. So, probably the right to NIL for individual players is the only way this works. NIL is essentially just letting them get a job. A nerd with a lifeguard certificate can already do that. If that same kid happens to be crazy fast in the pool, then she should be eligible to be compensated for appearances and promo spots. I am sure there are going to be abuses, though. First, because boosters have historically overpaid athletes in what amounts to a bribe to choose a school. Second, because there is so little precedent and cultural understanding of the market that it will be easy to Game the system. As to unionizing, is there a need? Is life so terrible for athletes? Especially the stars? If the complaint is that the NCAA is forced labor because the pros won't take kids until age x, then take that up with the pro rule. The NCAA has capitalized on those rules, but has no say over them. If the complaint is that my talent is worth more than a full ride is worth, then where are you going to get paid that much given the pro rules above? Further, a scholarship is already at least competitive with a minor league salary. In many cases better. Some pro leagues don't even have a lower tier. today high end football and a relatively few basketball programs make the money that pays for facilities and other sports. I'm telling you the XC runners work as hard at least. My fav T shirt was ... My sport is your sport's punishment. The schools and the NCAA treat those athletes the same ... For the most part as the ones who play money sports. |
|
|
|
Post by bulkey on May 31, 2021 7:32:39 GMT -5
Of course, I agree with both of you. It's an incredibly complex issue because of what you both note. Most D-1 athletes are getting a guaranteed free ride when other students, equally hard working and maybe better in academics, are not. That's already a huge entitlement. On the other hand, the super talented are giving up years of potential professional earnings to enrich the schools without compensation. So, probably the right to NIL for individual players is the only way this works. NIL is essentially just letting them get a job. A nerd with a lifeguard certificate can already do that. If that same kid happens to be crazy fast in the pool, then she should be eligible to be compensated for appearances and promo spots. I am sure there are going to be abuses, though. First, because boosters have historically overpaid athletes in what amounts to a bribe to choose a school. Second, because there is so little precedent and cultural understanding of the market that it will be easy to Game the system. As to unionizing, is there a need? Is life so terrible for athletes? Especially the stars? If the complaint is that the NCAA is forced labor because the pros won't take kids until age x, then take that up with the pro rule. The NCAA has capitalized on those rules, but has no say over them. If the complaint is that my talent is worth more than a full ride is worth, then where are you going to get paid that much given the pro rules above? Further, a scholarship is already at least competitive with a minor league salary. In many cases better. Some pro leagues don't even have a lower tier. today high end football and a relatively few basketball programs make the money that pays for facilities and other sports. I'm telling you the XC runners work as hard at least. My fav T shirt was ... My sport is your sport's punishment. The schools and the NCAA treat those athletes the same ... For the most part as the ones who play money sports. +1 on all this. And a great point about increasing abuses. Alums can shovel money to athletes just by buying lots of their jerseys or even just clicking on the ads on their social media. Sort of like democracy: the worst possible outcome, except for all the others. |
|
