NCAA proposing new rules to allow schools to pay athletes directly

[volfan102455]

Actually, if a ESPNFLite league develops it would compete directly with college for athletes and ad revenue.

The leagues would go after the kids too young to make the NFL but the ESPNFLite league could also include older guys who can't quite make the NFL or did and then got cut. College can't do that.

You could see guys who played "real college" ball for UT move to ESPNFLite if they don't make the NFL.

The difference in media is what builds the league. Colleges will have to find someone to televise competing games, likely at competing times on Saturday, against ESPN.

It's quality. It's just a fact we saw in the B1G and ACC championship games: bad football is not fun to watch unless "real college" can match or come close to pro quality.

There's a reason why college is on Saturday and the NFL is on Sunday. Head-to-head the NFL would beat the brakes off college ball on TV.

If I remember correctly, the Titan stadium record for attendance to a football game is owned by the TENNESSEE VOLS not the Titans. Many who follow college do not follow NFL and vice versa. There are some college teams that would "beat the brakes" over the NFL on TV. I do not follow any NFL team. The only time I have any interest is when it is a former Tennessee player that I support. Other than that, I could care less about the NFL.

They don't put the two in competition because it would split the audience and college would WIN in many markets.

College football is generally an "all day" thing on Saturday with back-to-back games on multiple networks. NFL has what 2 games televised, at most 3 that folks can watch unless they want to "pay for the others". College stadiums at the BRAND schools are larger, some double the size of the NFL counterpart stadiums.

But I'll play your ...college would lose game for a moment.

Who is going to pay to set up all the teams, build the stadiums, promote the brands for the NFL JR league? The NFL? If they were going to do that, they would have done that a long time ago. They know they cannot compete with the college brands at that level and to the same extent. There have been spins off of the NFL over the years and NONE of them lasted very long.

This will also impact Basketball - what is the replacement for March Madness in this model?

ESPN and the like that are making millions off of college sports are not stupid. They know there is no replacement and destroying it would mean a lot of lost revenue.

 

[volfan102455]

Some on here obviously don't understand that those who generally support college football aren't as fixated on the game meeting your definition of GOOD FOOTBALL! The rivalries and the tradition and the gameday atmosphere are just as important.

I personally find the NFL and NBA boring to watch.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

If I remember correctly, the Titan stadium record for attendance to a football game is owned by the TENNESSEE VOLS not the Titans. Many who follow college do not follow NFL and vice versa. There are some college teams that would "beat the brakes" over the NFL on TV. I do not follow any NFL team. The only time I have any interest is when it is a former Tennessee player that I support. Other than that, I could care less about the NFL.

They don't put the two in competition because it would split the audience and college would WIN in many markets.

College football is generally an "all day" thing on Saturday with back-to-back games on multiple networks. NFL has what 2 games televised, at most 3 that folks can watch unless they want to "pay for the others". College stadiums at the BRAND schools are larger, some double the size of the NFL counterpart stadiums.

But I'll play your ...college would lose game for a moment.

Who is going to pay to set up all the teams, build the stadiums, promote the brands for the NFL JR league? The NFL? If they were going to do that, they would have done that a long time ago. They know they cannot compete with the college brands at that level and to the same extent. There have been spins off of the NFL over the years and NONE of them lasted very long.

This will also impact Basketball - what is the replacement for March Madness in this model?

ESPN and the like that are making millions off of college sports are not stupid. They know there is no replacement and destroying it would mean a lot of lost revenue.

The problem is the barn door is open and college players are going to be declared employees, pro athletes, by the courts.

That's the root of this. Once that happens for basketball and football, the schools will have big issues convincing the court the rest of their non-revenue sports and pro employee sports aren't the same.

In short, colleges will have to decide if they want to actually have student-athletes or be in the pro sports business. It's sad for non-revenue scholarship athletes if schools just drop all of their programs because they have to pay them too and the school is determined to keep their big revenue sports and only pay them. I, personally, believe the schools are educational, primarily, and should get out of pro sports.

As for the money, the NFL and NBA and MLB are the pinnacle of their sports and generate revenue at a higher level than college. I giggled at you citing "in person" attendance. How quaint. The money is in media, not butts in seats.

 

[volfan102455]

The problem is the barn door is open and college players are going to be declared employees, pro athletes, by the courts.

That's the root of this. Once that happens for basketball and football, the schools will have big issues convincing the court the rest of their non-revenue sports and pro employee sports aren't the same.

In short, colleges will have to decide if they want to actually have student-athletes or be in the pro sports business. It's sad for non-revenue scholarship athletes if schools just drop all of their programs because they have to pay them too and the school is determined to keep their big revenue sports and only pay them. I, personally, believe the schools are educational, primarily, and should get out of pro sports.

As for the money, the NFL and NBA and MLB are the pinnacle of their sports and generate revenue at a higher level than college. I giggled at you citing "in person" attendance. How quaint. The money is in media, not butts in seats.

So you think that what college sports, in particular football, March Madness generates in terms of revenue, would not be missed and could be replaced "overnight" by quickly adding a bunch of NEW teams? Seriously?

I do agree that college may need to cut the ties and let those athletes that want to get paid and proceed to the NFL go. Let the NFL set up the minor league system and those who are just interested in the 100 to 200 players that are assumed to be NFL caliber play each year can go watch them play. Similar to the spin off leagues that have been tried before that did not generate income, was not televised because there was no interest.

Colleges can then cater to those athletes that want to be part of the college tradition. I will guarantee that the college game will still survive and fare better than the NFL Jr league.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

So you think that what college sports, in particular football, March Madness generates in terms of revenue, would not be missed and could be replaced "overnight" by quickly adding a bunch of NEW teams? Seriously?

I do agree that college may need to cut the ties and let those athletes that want to get paid and proceed to the NFL go. Let the NFL set up the minor league system and those who are just interested in the 100 to 200 players that are assumed to be NFL caliber play each year can go watch them play. Similar to the spin off leagues that have been tried before that did not generate income, was not televised because there was no interest.

Colleges can then cater to those athletes that want to be part of the college tradition. I will guarantee that the college game will still survive and fare better than the NFL Jr league.

Has this NIL change occurred overnight? It's been festering in the courts for years and the employee case is festering now. All these changes will be worked out under a timeline set by the courts, most likely.

The NCAA is trying to find a way to "pay but not pay" "employees but not employees" and this won't, IMO, satisfy the court. College football and college basketball are pro sports masquerading as "student athlete" sports.

College football and basketball (and probably by implication) all college athletes are GOING to be declared employees, PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, by the court. It's not a matter of if...... it's when.

At that point the schools are in the pro sports business and the courts will tell them "start paying these athletes by this date or stop playing these sports."

The court decision matters far more than whether "it can be easily changed." The court doesn't care. Once they decide these players are employees, the schools are going to have to decide whether they want to pay all these athletes, shutter the non revenue sports, sell/lease the rights to the brand and facilities, or some other plan.

What's NOT going to happen is the NCAA winning the coming lawsuit that athletes are employees. That's the reason this new idea is being floated by the NCAA. They're trying to get a conversation started on HOW can we pay these people?

 

[turbovol]

High-school football and basketball games get televised too--and I'm sure somebody is making a tiny bit of money from doing so--or for broadcasting the games on the radio. High-school sports broadcasts (radio and TV ) are sponsored. Are the courts going to declare that high-schoolers are employees and should get paid, too?

I don't understand the couple of judges who have seemed to suggest that student-athletes are employees. They're not. They're students--full-time students. Pro players are full-time pro players. College players are full-time students and part-time athletes. They spend most/much of their days in class. Big difference.

I think the activists--always looking for free money--started this mess years ago when they started noticing the money in college football and started whining that the players are "exploited." It's nonsense. They're not exploited--and they're all getting a free college education--plus many other benefits--worth a helluva lot of money over four or five years. You never hear the activists mention the scholarships--and why not: Because it's not free cash. Because it's academics--and free money is much more their thing than academics. And all of this whining has prompted a judge or two to come to what seem to me to be strange opinions.

In his concurring opinion in NCAA vs. Alston, a very narrow case involving education-related compensation for student-athletes, which the NCAA lost, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the NCAA's compensation restrictions present serious anti-trust issues--potentially foreshadowing future litigation--and and asserted that the NCAA's business model "would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America."

Yea? That last comment perplexes me, given that, IMO, college football quite obviously isn't a conventional business or a conventional industry. One could say that it's a business--but a very distinct and unique one, no? Much if not most of an athletic department's football revenues are redirected to other sports--they're used to finance other sports that //do not make money// and will not make money in the future. What conventional business invests its earnings in others business lines/endeavors that the company knows will not make money? None! Doesn't happen. Also, college football players practice what, 2 or 2.5 hours a day. Conventional business employees work 8 hours a day. Student-athletes must go to class, spend hours studying, take tests. Those are not the habits of conventional businesses.

I don't know enough about anti-trust to understand Kavanaugh's point there, and don't think he expounded on it. I do know that a lot of judicial reasoning involves personal interpretations, and judges are quite capable, in some cases, of flawed reasoning. And so am I, I acknowledge. The legal issues are wonky, to be sure--but I don't see how college athletics can be considered a conventional business or industry--or that student-athletes are employees. They aren't.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

High-school football and basketball games get televised too--and I'm sure somebody is making a tiny bit of money from doing so--or for broadcasting the games on the radio. High-school sports broadcasts (radio and TV ) are sponsored. Are the courts going to declare that high-schoolers are employees and should get paid, too?

I don't understand the couple of judges who have seemed to suggest that student-athletes are employees. They're not. They're students--full-time students. Pro players are full-time pro players. College players are full-time students and part-time athletes. They spend most/much of their days in class. Big difference.

I think the activists--always looking for free money--started this mess years ago when they started noticing the money in college football and started whining that the players are "exploited." It's nonsense. They're not exploited--and they're all getting a free college education--plus many other benefits--worth a helluva lot of money over four or five years. You never hear the activists mention the scholarships--and why not: Because it's not free cash. Because it's academics--and free money is much more their thing than academics. And all of this whining has prompted a judge or two to come to what seem to me to be strange opinions.

In his concurring opinion in NCAA vs. Alston, a very narrow case involving education-related compensation for student-athletes, which the NCAA lost, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the NCAA's compensation restrictions present serious anti-trust issues--potentially foreshadowing future litigation--and and asserted that the NCAA's business model "would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America."

Yea? That last comment perplexes me, given that, IMO, college football quite obviously isn't a conventional business or a conventional industry. One could say that it's a business--but a very distinct and unique one, no? Much if not most of an athletic department's football revenues are redirected to other sports--they're used to finance other sports that //do not make money// and will not make money in the future. What conventional business invests its earnings in others business lines/endeavors that the company knows will not make money? None! Doesn't happen. Also, college football players practice what, 2 or 2.5 hours a day. Conventional business employees work 8 hours a day. Student-athletes must go to class, spend hours studying, take tests. Those are not the habits of conventional businesses.

I don't know enough about anti-trust to understand Kavanaugh's point there, and don't think he expounded on it. I do know that a lot of judicial reasoning involves personal interpretations, and judges are quite capable, in some cases, of flawed reasoning. And so am I, I acknowledge. The legal issues are wonky, to be sure--but I don't see how college athletics can be considered a conventional business or industry--or that student-athletes are employees. They aren't.

Judge Kavanaugh also said about the NCAA:

“[n]owhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. . . . The NCAA is not above the law.”

The NCAA is DEFINITELY going to lose. Alston was a 9-0 loss for the NCAA. NONE of the Supreme Court Justices disagreed that the NCAA needed to compensate the players at the "market rate" for their services.

The market rate, per a coach and per several examples, for a quality QB is $1-2 million from the portal. You're going to insist that a QB might be worth a million to a team but ISN'T a pro level athlete?

Again, that's not me, that's a coach in the know and in the recruiting fray for players. That's the "market value" of a "student athlete" that isn't a pro in your eyes?

How much do they have to be worth to the team before they would be considered professionals to you?

 

[butchna]

This is clear that this is being proposed because of the inequalities that NIL is causing. If you think what is happening with NIL is resulting with all student athletes being treated equally - I don't what to tell you.

View attachment 600180

NIL is what an INDIVIDUAL can bank from their own brand. It’s not designed to be “equal”.

 

[turbovol]

Has this NIL change occurred overnight? It's been festering in the courts for years and the employee case is festering now. All these changes will be worked out under a timeline set by the courts, most likely.

The NCAA is trying to find a way to "pay but not pay" "employees but not employees" and this won't, IMO, satisfy the court. College football and college basketball are pro sports masquerading as "student athlete" sports.

College football and basketball (and probably by implication) all college athletes are GOING to be declared employees, PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, by the court. It's not a matter of if...... it's when.

At that point the schools are in the pro sports business and the courts will tell them "start paying these athletes by this date or stop playing these sports."

The court decision matters far more than whether "it can be easily changed." The court doesn't care. Once they decide these players are employees, the schools are going to have to decide whether they want to pay all these athletes, shutter the non revenue sports, sell/lease the rights to the brand and facilities, or some other plan.

What's NOT going to happen is the NCAA winning the coming lawsuit that athletes are employees. That's the reason this new idea is being floated by the NCAA. They're trying to get a conversation started on HOW can we pay these people?

To me, the notion that student-athletes are professional athletes is nonsense. They're not--or they haven't been. They're full-time students! A full-time student cannot, ipso facto, be a full-time employees. They are //obligated// to go to class and pass classes. The academics are not optional. They are in classrooms many hours a day; they practice football 2.-2.5 hours a day. They are not employees anymore than high-school student-athletes are employees. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

College football and basketball have never been "pro sports." That's wrong. Have they been corrupted by commercialization? Yea, but that's different. In fact, it's only this nonsense of paying players and paying transfers that has pushed college football and basketball strongly toward professionalization. They are certainly a big businesses--but being big does not mean professional. College athletics has remained amateur precisely because the players aren't not paid. And yet they receive a MAJOR financial benefit anyway, in the form of a full, 4-year scholarships worth about $250,000 over four years--plus other benefits! So this activist notion that student-athletes are exploited is BS.

Also, every athletic department redirects a big chunk of its football revenue to finance non-revenue sports--that is, sports that do not make money and will NEVER make money! They lose money. What other business would invest earnings in different business lines that are guaranteed to lose money? None! They're not stupid. So somebody will have to explain to me how college football can be considered a conventional business, as a few judges seem to think.

 

[volfan102455]

Some of you need to really read the article - it was not about the employee verses non-employee concept. It was about addressing the craziness that NIL is causing.

I mean when you have an unproven player whose NIL is thought to be millions something is wrong with the system.

 

[volfan102455]

NIL is what an INDIVIDUAL can bank from their own brand. It’s not designed to be “equal”.

The proposal is around the concept of the University paying the athletes for their brand while they are at the school. That would imply to me that it is no longer an individual thing for each player to go out there and sell their own brand or if they do the brand they sell would not be connected to the university.

In reality the players are using their connection to the school to sell their brand. In the real business world, a person would pay for that.

This proposal is the NCAA trying to get NIL under control.

 

[DeerPark12]

@DeerPark12 , what are your thoughts on this? You know legal stuff.

Three things: First, there are quite a few schools that have traditionally played big boy football that are worried their ability to compete will slip away if there isn't some control over NIL. This doesn't necessarily control NIL, but if you're able to give every student-athlete a $40k check just to be used in a team photo, then your second-string OL is a lot less likely to hop in the portal.

Second, there are a bunch of schools that are seeing their annual giving go down because their donors are also being asked to support NIL collectives. If this happens, players will still be cutting NIL deals, but the collectives' power will be reduced significantly because the small and medium-size base deals will be replaced by these institutional payments.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I have heard that some conference commissioners and other P5 stakeholders got some formal legal opinions on the implications of the Title IX lawsuit at Oregon that aren't favorable to the departments or the current model. If the courts deem collectives extensions of the University, which some in my industry believe they will, then the only way to lock in compliance is to put the deals under your umbrella and pay everyone.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

To me, the notion that student-athletes are professional athletes is nonsense. They're not--or they haven't been. They're full-time students! A full-time student cannot, ipso facto, be a full-time employees. They are //obligated// to go to class and pass classes. The academics are not optional. They are in classrooms many hours a day; they practice football 2.-2.5 hours a day. They are not employees anymore than high-school student-athletes are employees. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

College football and basketball have never been "pro sports." That's wrong. Have they been corrupted by commercialization? Yea, but that's different. In fact, it's only this nonsense of paying players and paying transfers that has pushed college football and basketball strongly toward professionalization. They are certainly a big businesses--but being big does not mean professional. College athletics has remained amateur precisely because the players aren't not paid. And yet they receive a MAJOR financial benefit anyway, in the form of a full, 4-year scholarships worth about $250,000 over four years--plus other benefits! So this activist notion that student-athletes are exploited is BS.

Also, every athletic department redirects a big chunk of its football revenue to finance non-revenue sports--that is, sports that do not make money and will NEVER make money! They lose money. What other business would invest earnings in different business lines that are guaranteed to lose money? None! They're not stupid. So somebody will have to explain to me how college football can be considered a conventional business, as a few judges seem to think.

Those few justices are the highest authority in the United States and they know a bit more about antitrust than we do.

NONE of them disagreed. Kavanaugh lays it out clearly:

"All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a 'tradition' of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a 'spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood."

The NCAA argues that tradition means they shouldn't pay and that "it would harm amateur athletics if they weren't considered amateur." Even the NCAA has stopped arguing the "student-athlete" ruse and you know money has been changing hands to these athletes to play for decades.

What is so difficult to see? Football and basketball players in college have been being paid to play for decades and decades. The very definition of a pro athlete is someone who is paid to play a sport. Why is that hard to grasp? It's in the open now, the NCAA is suggesting that the schools get in the business of paying them directly also.

What the heck is a pro athlete except someone who gets paid to play a sport?

 

[butchna]

The proposal is around the concept of the University paying the athletes for their brand while they are at the school. That would imply to me that it is no longer an individual thing for each player to go out there and sell their own brand or if they do the brand they sell would not be connected to the university.

In reality the players are using their connection to the school to sell their brand. In the real business world, a person would pay for that.

This proposal is the NCAA trying to get NIL under control.

The basic right to profit from your own brand was what the Supreme Court ruled on…not going backwards. Nice try at the genie bottle, NCAA.

 

[volfan102455]

Also, college football players practice what, 2 or 2.5 hours a day. Conventional business employees work 8 hours a day. Student-athletes must go to class, spend hours studying, take tests. Those are not the habits of conventional businesses.

I laughed at the conventional business employees and 8 hours and then there is the commute time, the getting up and becoming presentable time, the meetings that run late or start early because of time zone differences.

I think some don't understand what it means to be an actual employee of a company or the value of what the university is providing in return for their part time participation in sports.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I laughed at the conventional business employees and 8 hours and then there is the commute time, the getting up and becoming presentable time, the meetings that run late or start early because of time zone differences.

I think some don't understand what it means to be an actual employee of a company or the value of what the university is providing in return for their part time participation in sports.

Whether you are a part-time trucker or full-time, you still get paid as a trucker, that is, MARKET VALUE for your services.

You're really trying to squirm away by saying "they don't work enough to be professionals" when PLENTY of professionals, including myself, worked less than 40 hours at times but I still got paid at the same market value rate as my peers.

 

[volfan102455]

The basic right to profit from your own brand was what the Supreme Court ruled on…not going backwards. Nice try at the genie bottle, NCAA.

Do you really think the world would care about a player's brand if that player was not a well-known player playing football / basketball for a major university? They profit off the publicity that is provided from being associated with the university and appearing every Saturday playing football on TV.

If they want to push an individual brand unrelated to football and not use the football platform to promote it - I have no problem with that. Let them. But that is not what I see happening.

 

[turbovol]

Judge Kavanaugh also said about the NCAA:

“[n]owhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. . . . The NCAA is not above the law.”

The NCAA is DEFINITELY going to lose. Alston was a 9-0 loss for the NCAA. NONE of the Supreme Court Justices disagreed that the NCAA needed to compensate the players at the "market rate" for their services.

The market rate, per a coach and per several examples, for a quality QB is $1-2 million from the portal. You're going to insist that a QB might be worth a million to a team but ISN'T a pro level athlete?

Again, that's not me, that's a coach in the know and in the recruiting fray for players. That's the "market value" of a "student athlete" that isn't a pro in your eyes?

How much do they have to be worth to the team before they would be considered professionals to you?

You are referring to the circumstances now rather than the way college athletics have been operated for the last 100 years. And, no, I don't get the justices' reasoning. You'll never convince me that 1) students are employees because....they're students. Full-time students. Can one be a full-time student and an employee? I guess so. Athletic departments are not conventional businesses. They devote much of their revenue to money-losing endeavors--non-revenue sports. No other business does, or would do, that. College athletic departments don't exist to maximize profits; if they did, there wouldn't be any non-revenue sports.

Further, there's never been a market-rate for student-athletes because there has never been a market, as they've been students, yea, not full-time athletes/employees. It's only now with the advent of NIL that we see a market for transfer players or high-school prospects--owing to the corruption of the original NIL concept. You've got assistant coaches/recruiters who now can't really talk about academics or personal relationships, etc. with prospects--they've become like financial salesman; they've got to talk money! It's absurd.

Maybe the NCAA needs better lawyers. That's my take.

If Tennessee and other major colleges agree or are obligated to pay tens of thousands to student-athletes annually, treating them as paid employees, or effectively so, then I would think that the athletic departments and coaches would be entitled to be pretty ruthless with under-performing "employees." Underperforning players should be sacked and escorted out of the building.

Aren't schools in some (or all?) conferences obligated to honor a four-year scholarship offer? I know some conferences mandate it. Is that still going to be the case if you're paying "employees." Are schools going to honor a four-year scholly and keep paying players who are not good and not playing? I would think that there will be even more roster turnover than we see now. Coaches/ADs should have the right to sack player/employees who are no good, yes? Coaches effectively run off some players now--but a lot of players who don't play stick around on scholarship for years. Will that still be the case? I would think that if schools have to pay "employees," rosters will get smaller. There could be a lot of significant, perhaps unpleasant changes.

We may be looking at college football becoming another professional sport--but if so, it will only be because some judges decided that it should be, even as the players/employees are still obligated to go to class and pass classes, which is not how regular businesses operate. It's all crazy.

Alston vs. the NCAA, you may know, was a very narrow case involving //academic-related// pay/benefits for student athletes.

I just read that Ohio State has about 1,000 student-athletes. If it were obligated to pay each of them $30K a year, that would amount to $30 million dollars annually. That's a hefty chunk of change. Or maybe football players will get more than $30 k annually and volleyball players will get, say, a paltry $2K or somesuch--if there is even a volleyball or softball program going forward. There's going to be some weird changes if all this goes down.

 

[volfan102455]

Whether you are a part-time trucker or full-time, you still get paid as a trucker, that is, MARKET VALUE for your services.

You're really trying to squirm away by saying "they don't work enough to be professionals" when PLENTY of professionals, including myself, worked less than 40 hours at times but I still got paid at the same market value rate as my peers.

You have expectations with your job. If you don't meet those you get let go, no questions asked. If you cannot work, depending upon your benefits you may or may not be compensated. If you don't do as good as your peers, you will not be paid as much as your peers or you may lose your job. Maybe you are lucky and you get paid the same rate whether you do a bad job or a good job - most don't. I don't. For most the pay is related directly to how well one performs.

These players are not paid for performance on the field. With true employment comes expectations you must meet related directly to your paycheck. The expectations of a student-athlete to maintain their eligibility is related to the student aspect of the equation. If they become employees, the basis for that will shift and rightly so. Their worth will be determined by the value they bring to their employer. As employees they could be fired just as a coach is fired or the coach could fire them. The rules change.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You are referring to the circumstances now rather than the way college athletics have been operated for the last 100 years. And, no, I don't get the justices' reasoning. You'll never convince me that 1) students are employees because....they're students. Full-time students. Can one be a full-time student and an employee? I guess so. Athletic departments are not conventional businesses. They devote much of their revenue to money-losing endeavors--non-revenue sports. No other business does, or would do, that. College athletic departments don't exist to maximize profits; if they did, there wouldn't be any non-revenue sports.

Further, there's never been a market-rate for student-athletes because there has never been a market, as they've been students, yea, not full-time athletes/employees. It's only now with the advent of NIL that we see a market for transfer players or high-school prospects--owing to the corruption of the original NIL concept. You've got assistant coaches/recruiters who now can't really talk about academics or personal relationships, etc. with prospects--they've become like financial salesman; they've got to talk money! It's absurd.

Maybe the NCAA needs better lawyers. That's my take.

If Tennessee and other major colleges agree or are obligated to pay tens of thousands to student-athletes annually, treating them as paid employees, or effectively so, then I would think that the athletic departments and coaches would be entitled to be pretty ruthless with under-performing "employees." Underperforning players should be sacked and escorted out of the building.

Aren't schools in some (or all?) conferences obligated to honor a four-year scholarship offer? I know some conferences mandate it. Is that still going to be the case if you're paying "employees." Are schools going to honor a four-year scholly and keep paying players who are not good and not playing? I would think that there will be even more roster turnover than we see now. Coaches/ADs should have the right to sack player/employees who are no good, yes? Coaches effectively run off some players now--but a lot of players who don't play stick around on scholarship for years. Will that still be the case? I would think that if schools have to pay "employees," rosters will get smaller. There could be a lot of significant, perhaps unpleasant changes.

We may be looking at college football becoming another professional sport--but if so, it will only be because some judges decided that it should be, even as the players/employees are still obligated to go to class and pass classes, which is not how regular businesses operate. It's all crazy.

Alston vs. the NCAA, you may know, was a very narrow case involving //academic-related// pay/benefits for student athletes.

I just read that Ohio State has about 1,000 student-athletes. If it were obligated to pay each of them $30K a year, that would amount to $30 million dollars annually. That's a hefty chunk of change. Or maybe football players will get more than $30 k annually and volleyball players will get, say, a paltry $2K or somesuch--if there is even a volleyball or softball program going forward. There's going to be some weird changes if all this goes down.

I don't have to convince you. You're welcome to believe what you want. You can read Alston for yourself, you can read various law reviews of what it means, you can do as you wish.

The legal opinions I've read are that employee status will be the next test before the court and the NCAA will lose.

Go up and read DeerPark's take. He's knowledgeable about what's going on in college sports. He brings up the point about Title IX, which is interesting, but also the point I should've figured out that certain high profile, he calls them "big boy" programs aren't liking what NIL is doing to their depth and they want the athletic department to have a way to compensate everyone.

Several have predicted that the inequality of NIL would create issues and I should have guessed the programs wanted more control and ability to "take care of problems" (meaning: pay a player directly) to avoid portal problems.

I hope all this stagnates and takes forever because the employee decision really will mean major changes for athletics and none of those changes will be good.

 

[turbovol]

Whether you are a part-time trucker or full-time, you still get paid as a trucker, that is, MARKET VALUE for your services.

You're really trying to squirm away by saying "they don't work enough to be professionals" when PLENTY of professionals, including myself, worked less than 40 hours at times but I still got paid at the same market value rate as my peers.

Truckers work for private businesses. They work. The University of Tennessee is not a private business, and students spend most of their days studying, not "working." They are obligated to do go to class--and pass their classes. It's not optional. As mentioned, there's never been a market value for student-athletes because they've always been considered---and I would say rightly so, yea?---STUDENTS--even if one wants to argue that they "work" part-time after school, playing a sport. Students equal amateurs. Of course, they've always been rewarded for their part-time work, yes, with a full 4-year scholarship worth a helluva lot of money. So they are not "working" for nothing--and it's the scholly that has been key to retaining the amateurism in college sports.

If you want to decree that student-athletes are "employees" and paid as such, then it's time, as others have suggested, to ditch the college part of college football altogether. Forget classes and degrees. Regular workers and pro athletes aren't obligated to work AND go to class. Just split college football off into its own pro entity--no college. We'll be the Tennessee Volunteers--a pro team--as opposed to the University of Tennessee Volunteers. But who would own, then, the Tennessee Volunteers? And how would a university--without football---be able to support any other sports at all? It probably wouldn't--and so that's not going to happen. Why should today's student-athetes get to have it both ways--a scholarship worth $250K and a free college degree AND you get rich, too? Damn. It should be the end of the athletic scholarship, no? My feeling is that if the courts want to make college players pro athletes, then they should also mandate that schools can drop all scholarships and academic requirements for football players. Why should the school offer scholarships AND pay "employees"?

 

[turbovol]

You have expectations with your job. If you don't meet those you get let go, no questions asked. If you cannot work, depending upon your benefits you may or may not be compensated. If you don't do as good as your peers, you will not be paid as much as your peers or you may lose your job. Maybe you are lucky and you get paid the same rate whether you do a bad job or a good job - most don't. I don't. For most the pay is related directly to how well one performs.

These players are not paid for performance on the field. With true employment comes expectations you must meet related directly to your paycheck. The expectations of a student-athlete to maintain their eligibility is related to the student aspect of the equation. If they become employees, the basis for that will shift and rightly so. Their worth will be determined by the value they bring to their employer. As employees they could be fired just as a coach is fired or the coach could fire them. The rules change.

Exactly. Coaches see that a player is not very good and is not going to play? He should be summarily axed--no more pay--and then he is free to explore the market for other "jobs." One can certainly see rosters getting smaller. And, as mentioned, athletic scholarships should END. Why should schools now pay players AND pay for their education if they're employees? They can pay for the education themselves.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You have expectations with your job. If you don't meet those you get let go, no questions asked. If you cannot work, depending upon your benefits you may or may not be compensated. If you don't do as good as your peers, you will not be paid as much as your peers or you may lose your job. Maybe you are lucky and you get paid the same rate whether you do a bad job or a good job - most don't. I don't. For most the pay is related directly to how well one performs.

These players are not paid for performance on the field. With true employment comes expectations you must meet related directly to your paycheck. The expectations of a student-athlete to maintain their eligibility is related to the student aspect of the equation. If they become employees, the basis for that will shift and rightly so. Their worth will be determined by the value they bring to their employer. As employees they could be fired just as a coach is fired or the coach could fire them. The rules change.

I believe Kiffin and Ole Miss almost got sued or are being sued because they basically tried to get rid of a student by assigning him to a different position. They tried to run him off, which is what coaches have done for years.

Scholarships are yearly. There ARE expectations and you CAN be dismissed and players are for not meeting team expectations and following team rules. Though it seldom happens because coaches tend, as above, to make it clear the player needs to leave, scholarships can simply not be renewed. That is a worse case scenario because it looks bad in recruiting if it gets out.

When the athletes become employees, they'll unionize immediately. They may unionize even before they are declared employees and they'll have a grievance/discipline appeal process like you probably have at work now. They'll engage in collective bargaining like pros for minimum salaries and such.

The worst of this is what could happen to the other sports AND the end of recruiting. Pro sports need a draft and league salary caps and have them to keep parity in the league. Without it, pro college sports will be dominated by large markets. I always liked the recruiting surprises.

Non revenue sports are in trouble if schools have to pay all the athletes. There's no way around that.

 

[turbovol]

What's going on these days is the opening of a HUGE can of worms.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Truckers work for private businesses. They work. The University of Tennessee is not a private business, and students spend most of their days studying, not "working." They are obligated to do go to class--and pass their classes. It's not optional. As mentioned, there's never been a market value for student-athletes because they've always been considered---and I would say rightly so, yea?---STUDENTS--even if one wants to argue that they "work" part-time after school, playing a sport. Students equal amateurs. Of course, they've always been rewarded for their part-time work, yes, with a full 4-year scholarship worth a helluva lot of money. So they are not "working" for nothing--and it's the scholly that has been key to retaining the amateurism in college sports.

If you want to decree that student-athletes are "employees" and paid as such, then it's time, as others have suggested, to ditch the college part of college football altogether. Forget classes and degrees. Regular workers and pro athletes aren't obligated to work AND go to class. Just split college football off into its own pro entity--no college. We'll be the Tennessee Volunteers--a pro team--as opposed to the University of Tennessee Volunteers. But who would own, then, the Tennessee Volunteers? And how would a university--without football---be able to support any other sports at all? It probably wouldn't--and so that's not going to happen. Why should today's student-athetes get to have it both ways--a scholarship worth $250K and a free college degree AND you get rich, too? Damn. It should be the end of the athletic scholarship, no? My feeling is that if the courts want to make college players pro athletes, then they should also mandate that schools can drop all scholarships and academic requirements for football players. Why should the school offer scholarships AND pay "employees"?

You're definitely getting why the employee thing is a disaster for college sports. Please don't think I support it. I just see it as inevitable from all the stuff I've read after Alston.

Colleges will, as I've said, need to decide if they want to be in that business. They already ARE in a huge sports business. The SEC signed a billion+ deal with ESPN. It's hard to sign a huge media deal like that and not claim you're in the sports business.

UT will get something like $50million a year for the media rights to an amateur football team? That's crazy. It's impossible for that kind of business to argue "we're just a simple group of student athletes who like to play ball." C'mon.