Somewhere right now the Grate One is orgasmic

[Dave in Green]

If the NCAA had previously allowed players to receive compensation beyond their full scholarships, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference in terms of trying to start a union. Some players would have been making less than others, and those making less would have come up with the idea of a union to try to better equalize compensation.

[GP1]

Here's one of many little details that haven't been thought through yet: The Northwestern decision only applies to private universities.

Unless I missed something, the Northwestern decision only applies to Northwestern players on scholarship with playing eligibility remaining and does not include other schools, private or public. Makes no statement that differentiates between private and public. Not sure if it applies to a senior on scholarship who is in his final semester after football season.

[GP1]

If the NCAA had previously allowed players to receive compensation beyond their full scholarships, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference in terms of trying to start a union. Some players would have been making less than others, and those making less would have come up with the idea of a union to try to better equalize compensation.

You don't know this. What we do know is the atmosphere was created that caused this.

[Balsy]

Don't let athletic directors get $16,000 bonuses for any team that makes a national title *cough* *cough* State Ohio AD *cough *...cause you know, I'd probably try to form a Union too.

[LZIp]

coaches get bonuses for success as well, who cares? I believe I read somewhere once that a D1 university typically spends somewhere around 500k per student-athlete throughout the life of their eligibility. This includes tuition, living expenses, stipend, travel, everything.

I'm not going to elaborate much because I could write an essay on this topic, but if somebody truly believes athletes being considered employees is in any way, shape, or form feasible....you haven't thought about it much, or you're just delusional.

[ZachTheZip]

How's this: they get paid, but don't get scholarships. How many players would blow their money on tattoos and not be able to pay their tuition by their second semester? Heck, Akron's football players do this now with their meager stipend and then complain about how they should get paid. Maybe if they didn't get $200 tattoos every time their scholarship checks come in, they wouldn't be broke.

[Balsy]

I really don't see a huge difference, or one that you can so easily classify as "delusional". Not that I'm advocating for the compensation of students via these unions...but to act as if they have nothing in common with employees of the university is equally delusional. They sign a contract...they sign a media waver...they sign a conflict of interest terms...they are made representatives of the university...sounds a lot like the contracts I signed to work for NSO and admissions. Oh, and I was an employee.

So then what's the differentiation between student athletes and RA's? RA's are employees. They get reimbursed by free room and board. They represent the university and perform a function. The University roughly spends 40k per RA per their 4 years (or more depending how long they stay at the university). What's the magical difference between those employees and student athletes?

So athletes don't perform any level of responsibility of an employee of the university that they should not be considered employees? Sorry, it's delusional to think that they don't.

[LZIp]

How would you propose the players get paid, Balzy? Everybody the same? How much? You're going to pay Johnny Manziel the same as the 4th string walk-on QB? Do they have to cover all expenses? What happens when the student-athletes are irresponsible with their money and don't pay for tuition? It would lead to an even bigger disparity in college football. The best players are going to go to the programs with the biggest budgets who can pay the most. It would lead to the death of college athletics as we know it.

College athletics are to get a college education and/or prepare students for proffesional sports. If you want to get paid, there are plenty of other options to explore.

My point is that's its entirely too complex of an issue to ever work. I'm not saying they aren't comparable to employees, but I don't see RA's unionizing nor getting free vacations to Puerto Rico, Hawaii, etc every year.

[Dave in Green]

Am I the only one who remembers what happened to the goose that laid golden eggs when they cut the goose open to get to the golden eggs? LZip's right. Employers are free to pay their employees whatever they want, just as schools are now free to spend as much money on athletic programs as they want in areas other than paying players. What kind of employee players do you think UA will be able to afford? When the costs and legal obligations get even crazier than they are now, some schools will just opt out of intercollegiate sports. Any Zips fan who thinks that UA will come out a winner in this should support it with all your heart.

Now if you want a reasonable compromise out of this, here it is. The folks in the Northwestern case claim that their primary concern is not about making money for college players but about the health of college players. They say they want the health of the players covered by schools in the same way that school employees get health insurance plans. They want players covered so that they don't have to pay all the bills when they're injured while performing on behalf of the school. That's not unreasonable, and it doesn't break the bank. It just requires reallocating some of the billions of dollars generated by college sports. Institute a universal health coverage policy for all scholarship athletes to cover all sports-related injuries and the primary stated need for a college athlete union goes away.

[LZIp]

I've never heard of college athletes having to foot the bill for their medical expenses during their time as a student athlete. I have heard people confirm the school covers it, however.

My guess is that IF it happenes (and Im sure it does, rarely) it's due to complicated circumstances.

Here is a somewhat lengthy article that says pretty much what I'm saying.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/02/college_athletes_rights_ncaa_r.html

There appears to be some cases where part of the bill wasn't completely paid and had some hidden expenses (just like every other health plan).

Since 2005, the NCAA has required universities to certify that athletes have insurance for athletically-related injuries before they can compete. The insurance can come from the school, a parent or an athlete's personal policy, and must cover up to the $90,000 deductible of the NCAA catastrophic injury insurance program.

In 2011, Alabama spent 2 million in medical bills for it's student athletes.

Former college baseball pitcher Derik Olvey, a Pelham native, said he never paid any money for two elbow surgeries and numerous MRIs and X-rays he underwent while playing for LSU, Arizona State and Notre Dame. "I probably wouldn't have ever tried for the second (surgery) if I knew the money would have come out of my pocket," he said

California and Connecticut recently adopted laws requiring public schools in their states to put their medical policies in writing. Athletes and families can now see on paper the school's costs and the family's costs for premiums, deductibles and co-payments, whether independent second opinions are allowed by the school, and how long medical expenses are covered after an athlete's eligibility expires.

Like I said, there are extreme cases, but I would figure an athlete/their family should do a little due diligence when selecting a school to see if they have had any cases of screwing the athletes in the past.

[GP1]

For those of you who don't think Employee-Students are employees, please read the NLRB finding on this case. It's painfully boring, but is a finding based upon case law, not the whims of an employee at the NLRB. The Employee-Students at NWestern are employees in every way, shape and form of the law.

Someone mentioned this case has nothing to do with the NCAA. If you believe that, please read the finding and count the number of times the term "NCAA" is used in the finding. (Hint: It's a lot.) The NCAA makes rules that the schools have to follow that impact the Employee-Students. The NCAA is not a direct party to this case, but they are involved and some of the smell is on them.

Lastly, this case can be easily applied to every school if you just change school names and coaches names.

[GP1]

coaches get bonuses for success as well, who cares? I believe I read somewhere once that a D1 university typically spends somewhere around 500k per student-athlete throughout the life of their eligibility. This includes tuition, living expenses, stipend, travel, everything.

Maybe this amount is true, but I suspect it is overstated. Tuition is easily absorbed and isn't a real payout like normal tuition is. It is an inter departmental transfer of money and for the university it adds up to zero. Living expenses don't cover what it costs to live, that's why they players want to get jobs. "Everything"?...not sure what that means.

Travel?...This is a funny one and I'm sure bumps up the number. You're saying when I worked in corporate American and spent over 100 nights a year in Marriotts alone, that was part of my compensation from the company? Missed that on my W-2. Not to give Athletic Directors any ideas, but are the player supposed to pay their own travel to and from games?

[Balsy]

@LZip I wasn't proposing that we pay athletes. I'm AGAINST paying college atheletes above what they get compensated for room/board and tuition. In fact, I completely agree with you. Athletes go to college to get a COLLEGE DEGREE and then make a jump to the pros. You and I agree 100%.

What I was commenting on was the use of "Employee" to a student athlete.

What I'm saying is: You cannot so clearly state that they are NOT employees of the University. Because, frankly, there is almost no separation between employee and student athlete...because frankly student athletes ARE employees of the university. As employees they probably should be consulted when it comes to certain decision making processes that deal with them, like any faculty senate would be. My issue is NOT the compensation of student athletes (they are already compensated, and given contracts...and face problems if they break their contracts), yet are not considered employees which would possibly grant them a legitimate seat at decision making.

[zippy5]

So you think they're employees but they shouldn't be paid?

[Dave in Green]

LZip, the Northwestern case acknowledges that the players get some health care benefits while at school. They argue that after graduation some have continuing medical costs from sports injuries that aren't covered. Covering that would require an adjustment in current insurance. Players also want a voice in safety issues, such as protection from concussions. This is all pretty reasonable stuff. Where it starts getting a little questionable is giving players a voice in how many hours they have to practice. The NCAA already has pretty reasonable limits on team practice time. Would unionized players go on strike and cancel games to protest having to practice too much?

[Balsy]

I'm saying they ARE (at least should be considered) employees and they ARE (already) paid. The Labor board agrees with that, which is why they said that NW athletes can unionize.

Definition of employee: Performs a service (athletic events...generates income) and is compensated for that service (room/board, tuition) = employee.

[zippy5]

I'm saying they ARE (at least should be considered) employees and they ARE (already) paid. The Labor board agrees with that, which is why they said that NW athletes can unionize.

Definition of employee: Performs a service (athletic events...generates income) and is compensated for that service (room/board, tuition) = employee.

Ehhh show me a company where every employee is paid exactly the same.

[Balsy]

Zippy5...when did I EVER say that employees should be getting paid the same? I'm saying they should be considered employees. It's really not complicated...

How can you say one person who performs a service and gets compensated for the service is an employee, while saying another person whom performs a service for you is not an employee. I'm not saying they should be compensated the same...they do two different jobs. However they're both employees.

[zippy5]

My point is getting a scholarship doesn't make one an employee. I got $16k a year academically from the U, did I work for them?

[Balsy]

What I'm saying is: getting a scholarship for performing a service, while signing other conditions (such as a press release of all pictures of you) as well as requirements of you to represent the university well in all your endeavors...IS no different than employment.

Someone recieiving a physics scholarship does not two 2 of those three things. IE, performing a service and press release/representation of the university.

[GP1]

Funny some of you are arguing they aren't employees. That ship has sailed. This could be the best thing ever for college athletics. Change sparks fear. Fear is one of the worst reasons to not do something. NCAA members should embrace the ruling and make it work.

[zippy5]

I'm not arguing that they aren't employees. I side with the thought that they are. I'm arguing a scholarship isn't sufficient compensation.

[Dave in Green]

There's a difference between fear and prudent caution. Jumping off a bridge and then considering on the way down whether it's possible to make a safe landing is not generally considered to be a wise course of action. Think before you leap has always been considered good advice. There are still many aspects that haven't been fully thought through and still many things that could happen to alter the initial ruling.

[GP1]

Think before you leap has always been considered good advice.

It is important to think before you leap, unless staying where you are represents certain and ongoing failure. This issue has been debated for decades now. Have the players thought through every possibility?...Probably not, but if you sit around thinking about every possibility, then nothing ever gets done. I believe that's what the NCAA wants and what they want isn't in the interest of the players most of the time. One can go as far back as the development of the term "student-athlete" as an elaborate Workers Compensation avoidance scheme as evidence of how people in universities see the players.

The players made the situation fluid by disrupting the status quo. They needed to do that in order to get any form of change. College athletics isn't on the verge of collapse now that there is a players union. Players unions have made every sport in which they are affiliated better and more entertaining. There is no reason this couldn't happen in college...Actually, there is one big one. See paragraph below.

Here is my biggest concern about the unionization of college athletes and I think this is a massive problem for fans and universities in MAClike conferences. The ncaa is a massive organization and for all intensive purposes, the only institution representing universities in athletics on a national level. The ncaa is horrible at what it does. It could become the body that negotiates with a national college athletes union. In my opinion, that will spell trouble for all of the reasons us UofA/MAC have traditionally mistrusted the ncaa...the representatives are either from BCSlike schools or people who want to be at a BCSlike school and not a MAClike school. They will act in the interest of their careers. They will put their careers before the schools they are working for. I've said it once, I'll say it a 1,000 times, MAClike schools should do everything they can to distance themselves from the ncaa. The ncaa never acts in our interests.

Those who worry about players getting paid or whatever shouldn't look at the players as the bad guys in this situation. The blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of the ncaa for allowing it to get to this point. In the 1970s, a player could have a summer job. Today he can't and today we see players unionizing. It isn't hard to see the result of poor decision making on the part of the ncaa as a major cause of this issue. Their name is literally all over the finding report. While they haven't been completely inflexible as they did allow schools to have salmon with bagels, on the important issues facing college athletics, they almost always fail miserably.

[GP1]

I'm a huge Civil War buff and I like reading about it.Not just the war, but the thinking that preceded the war from the north and the south. The arguments surrounding the CW can be applied to a lot of things even though the moral issues may not be the same. Some argued there were economic reasons to end slavery and some argued there were economic reasons to keep slavery. To me, the issue of slavery was a moral issue that could only be resolved and the country made better with EVERYONE being free. Please read Edmund Ruffin's piece cited below and think about the arguments being made in favor and against paying athletes.

Had the ncaa, years ago, stopped restricting income on the part of the players or even allowed them to share in the income generated by merchandising, it would have been easier to make the argument that the scholarship is not income and sufficient for services rendered. Tough argument to make when you are restricting income with one hand and with the other saying the issues aren't about income all the while you are selling TV rights, paying coaches millions, building one stadium after another, etc. At some point, even a bunch of stupid jocks were going to figure it out.

So, the question is....Is there anything more profitable than a free labor force? Ruffin knew the benefits of a free labor force (so do Athletic Directors). He presents the loss of the free labor force as potential disaster (cough, cough, like those who think paying employee-students is a pending disaster), but Henry Ford proved paying people well for their services allowed them to buy the very goods they were making.

The one thing the ncaa could never get right, and it was so simple, was how to avoid this ever happening while keeping the free labor force. Their solution was always to restrict potential income for students more and more over time (in the 1970s, players could hold jobs). This strategy was so misguided it's amazing people defended it for so long. It doesn't cost a school a penny for a player to have a job. Player gets job, someone else pays and it costs school nothing. The labor for football is still free for the school and the player is offered some freedom as well to earn some money. If it costs the school 20% of the merchandise gross sales with a players likeness or name, then raise prices 20%....or, raise it 10% while losing 10%,but sell 20% more product.

I've never been in favor of paying players. I've always been in favor of them having the freedom to get a job or capitalize on their fame. If a person on a academic scholarship is free to have a job, so should someone with an athletic scholarship. See, the issue really isn't about paying people, it's about adults being free to make their own decisions. The ncaa has really stepped in it's own crap on this one. Freedom didn't ruin the south when slavery ended. Freedom won't ruin college athletics if players are allowed to make some money. It's too bad the ncaa put itself in a position where the members are going to have to shell out cash. Could have been handled a lot better and all of this could have been avoided. Freedom solves a lot of problems.

Excerpts from Edmund Ruffin's "Slavery and Free Labor Described and Compared" (1860)

Web Version:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/rbaapc:@field(DOCID+@lit(rbaapc25000div0))

Section VIII.--How the substitution of free labor for slave labor would finally operate on agricultural interests--High price of land, of itself, not a benefit to agriculture, and may be the reverse--Still greater evil in fluctuating prices.