Vol8188
revolUTion in the air!
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2011
- Messages
- 46,348
- Likes
- 43,918
I don't love the idea of athletes being "employees". I actually think that's a backdoor attempt at giving power back to people who shouldn't have it.
That said, the NCAA refused to evolve with the realities of college sports. It won't break my heart when it is replaced by something better.
BTW, Pate isn't just wrong but badly wrong about the extent of players being paid before NIL. It wasn't just $100 hand shakes.
You’re assuming that being unionized means they’ll have the leverage to negotiate salary.That's going to happen all over college sports when it's all said and done. Many smaller colleges and universities will have no choice but to shut down their athletic programs.
The UTAD can likely find the budget to pay at least minimum wage to every varsity athlete.I see collectives and everything else that is trying to get money from "regular guys" (not big money donors) really struggling if players are employees. IMO, most people are not going to give any more than they have to in order to get their tickets (ticket fee plus donor requirement).
Yeah that’s a good point. If the players ever became employees, you’re not gonna be getting donations from fans anymore most likely. I’m sure donors will still give, but even they will likely back off someI see collectives and everything else that is trying to get money from "regular guys" (not big money donors) really struggling if players are employees. IMO, most people are not going to give any more than they have to in order to get their tickets (ticket fee plus donor requirement).
Nothing really changes as they would still be "on scholarship" and have cost avoidance of academic fees, books, housing etc. The question is employee vs. 1099. Then benefits come into play where I could see some sports go away but certianly not the ones that generate revenue.But what standard are they being held to? If they're poor, they're poor. They only pay what they can afford to pay. If they can't afford to pay anything, they take the players who are willing to play sports without pay, just for the love of it. And there are a LOT of players out there, in all sports (yes, including football and basketball) who would still play if no one were willing to pay them.
Ditto. And keep in mind: the players with NIL deals, they're employees of the NIL co-ops (or, in many cases, self-employed under contract). They're not employees of the universities, and I don't believe they ever will be. That's not the model we're evolving toward.
The smaller schools are gonna be fine, I think. They'll compete at their own level and be fine.
For the same reasons it is in place in all other sports where players are paid by the teams. Is there a pro sport without them?Why would it lead to salary caps
Paid employees getting free tuition and room and board? Doubt it. A billion years ago I had to start paying cops enough to pay their rent in apartment complexes to be security instead of comping it. Uncle Sam wants not only his income tax cut, he wants social security for every dang dollar. You think NFL guys get free housing? Or free off season meals?Nothing really changes as they would still be "on scholarship" and have cost avoidance of academic fees, books, housing etc. The question is employee vs. 1099. Then benefits come into play where I could see some sports go away but certianly not the ones that generate revenue.
Another thought is how important are some sports to attract the students you want? Smaller schools in D1/2 will figure it out if the big sports are a critical component. D3 has never had scholarships but offer tuition assistance so that would be largely unaffected.
Last hurdle will be Title IX compliance.....
No one has to get out of athletics.Those schools aren’t in this game anyway. They’ll get out of athletics
I’m not sure how your example pertains to this developing and dynamic situation. Taxes will, of course, be a factor for employees but nothing you can’t “true up.” They can structure pay however they want to accommodate for Uncle Sam and will likely pay experts to figure it out.Paid employees getting free tuition and room and board? Doubt it. A billion years ago I had to start paying cops enough to pay their rent in apartment complexes to be security instead of comping it. Uncle Sam wants not only his income tax cut, he wants social security for every dang dollar. You think NFL guys get free housing? Or free off season meals?
For the same reasons it is in place in all other sports where players are paid by the teams. Is there a pro sport without them?
The hell hole will be the variability of how different schools handle a plethora of related areas like insurance, employee tuition rates, etc. A raft of lawsuits if they are not real careful. Uncle Sam will be a frequent visitor too in order to get their cut of every dollar when they move from amateur to professional relationship. No free room and board for example... outside of training table itself. No state income tax will be a big advantage when having to report all those previous freebies. Maybe that was the SCOTUS plan all along. Bet they did not get a bunch of perks on the debate and college bowl teams.
Opposite? Is the one objective to let a powerful collective buy 85 of the best? CAPS along with the draft spreads each new class across the NFL.Pro sports do it, doesn’t mean college football will or should do it. A big argument for salary caps is that it levels the playing field. That’s the opposite of what college football wants/needs.
No one ever rips their goalposts down in the nfl, no one storms the field. Because even the worse team beating the best team, is very possible in the NFL.
Opposite? Is the one objective to let a powerful collective buy 85 of the best? CAPS along with the draft spreads each new class across the NFL.
The worst team can beat the better teams cause they get the early picks in the draft every year till their talent level gets them closer to even.
You suggesting a draft WITH MULTI-year schollies for D1 football? FCS MAYBE? Then you can ignore NIL to a degree. NONE. of Peyton’s endorsement deals while under contract could influence his NFL team. BAMA and GA won’t sniff many top 30 game changers.
LIKE I said in another post, the vote to go to a draft would be 300-4.
If you go pro, then there is no prioritizing educational pursuits and player determination of school.
The better solution for fair player distribution in a true employee model, the reasons the pros start with smaller roster limits, a draft AND salary caps. Would be a little ugly with 128 first round selections for FCS schools, so I am guessing a new super division would be created for the pro model and the amateur schollie with NIL for the balance. The top 300 players each year would only last a little over 2 rounds if not.Idk how you could’ve got the idea that I want a draft based on anything I said. Not sure why you went on that wild tangent.
The better solution for fair player distribution in a true employee model, the reasons the pros start with smaller roster limits, a draft AND salary caps. Would be a little ugly with 128 first round selections for FCS schools, so I am guessing a new super division would be created for the pro model and the amateur schollie with NIL for the balance. The top 300 players each year would only last a little over 2 rounds if not.
Informative post. Thanks.It empowers them... and it is what many fans and the universities want.
If you work for someone else then you are subject to a salary cap whether you realize it or not. I have a pay scale with medians for each position. We typically start people at 80-85% of their median. High performers achieve the median faster but they all move toward the median. After getting there the resistance grows. Only in very special cases can I ever pay someone more than about 110% of their median.
Eventually the scale moves and loosens things up due to inflation. But even the best employees have their raises slow as they move past the median. That's an effective salary cap.
Another way of looking at it is that my labor budget is limited to a certain amount. Even if the above were not true I would have to find a way to distribute those limited funds equitably. To pay one QB $5 million... you might have to pay your back up $1 million and accept a lower quality player.
Why do you think they WANT to have them become employees?
Oh, if declared employees then the "employers" also gain more power over what they can do for a side gig... like NIL.
You make a good point. I think it would be a bad move since CFB players usually need a 1-3 years of physical and mental development before contributing. However to control football costs, you could be right.Informative post. Thanks.
Which prompts a question, if you don't mind: Do you (or anyone) think this ruling, might lead, as method of budgeting, to a reduction of scholarships, and most-specifically for football? I'm sure everyone is familiar with the beloved Steve Spurrier's comments of a few decades ago, in which he opined that (paraphrasing) "If the NFL can manage with 53, surely then we could function with fewer than (whatever the limit was at the time)."
I'm likely in the minority, but it (a reduction) appears a reasonable first step. I'm thinking of the number 72. Which would, though cruel as it seems, inevitably shove several borderline P-5s into (working for) the lower-rated, and lower-paying schools. But hey, "it's the economy, stu....".
Would trimming what, 13 scholarships, inflict irreparable damage? Would it render the sport an unwatchable circus? The scholarships, plus other maintenance - food, equipment, travel, tutoring, etc. - would make for considerable savings. But, all this stipulates everyone would finally be playing by the same rules.
I don't mean to sound insensitive. Just trying to make dollars and cents of it all.