Potential Settlement of House v NCAA (Pete Thamel reporting)
This is from last night, too. The article mainly reads like this is a path for the NCAA and Conferences to implement a pay scale for athletes. Very interesting snippet towards the end...
**********
NCAA leaders have remained firmly opposed to athletes becoming employees. However, Baker -- who took over as the association's president last March -- said he wants to find ways for some schools to provide more to their athletes. He proposed in December creating a new subdivision of the wealthiest teams that would be required to pay at least half their athletes a minimum of $30,000 per year.
"If you look at what Baker has been out there doing, he seems to be very aware," Kessler told ESPN earlier this month. "Some of his proposals he's made in December -- I'm not say it's what we'd settle for -- but it's certainly moving in the direction of proposing to give much more compensation to the athletes. That's what we're advocating."
*************
So, does this read to anybody else like basically colleges can convert the money they were allocating to scholarships for athletes to direct pay? If athletes are employees, why do they need to go to class? (Let's not get on the rabble rabble train of grumbling about the sanctity of college athletes being students...I'm sure the ones that want to be students will continue to do so...and the athletes that have never wanted to be students never were anyway...)
76 Replies
2y
The article also says the plaintiffs lawyers are probably telling their clients they’re going to lose. So everyone is vying for a settlement. What that looks like? Who knows.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
S
Stech
2y
-uate. I don’t care what the degree is in, it’s thousand times better than not having a degree. The income from someone with a degree is still way more than someone that doesn’t have one. Now I wish they had a Trades/Business degree, because we need more entrepreneurs in the trades, especially ones that know how to keep a balance sheet. Rant over!! 🤣🤣
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
Employees.
They can be Employees and students at the same time-is it really that different than a student working in a lab, in the bookstore or as an RA?
It's also how they get around Title IX requirements for equivalent funding for make and female athletes - different jobs get different pay.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
students too. Otherwise create minor leagues like Major League Baseball has.
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
2y
have the fans and alumni pay them through these stupid NIL collectives. That way their cash cow...errr...revenue stream isn't affected.
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
2y
If they become employees, then they have rights they don't have now. For example, they can sue for medical for the rest of their lives. The NFL has collective bargaining agreements which sets up who get medical insurance and for how long. If the colleges start paying the players as employees, then they will eventually be on the hook for medical cost and insurance past their time as players. That could start once the players start a union or it could start with a court case. Either way, it's coming and that's a major long term expense most colleges can't afford.
I want college to have student athletes. The problem is football, and really basketball, really aren't going to work under that model anymore. In a perfect world, I'd honestly rather colleges just let football go and stop trying to be a farm system for the NFL, but that's not going to happen either.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2y
But I have to think that the schools, themselves, realize that the courts will establish that college athletes are employees. They're just stalling, through NCAA activity, while behind the scenes they prepare to meet the payroll.
NIL is so poorly defined, with no central regulation, that it is just a runaway bribery riot. I don't know how they will bring it under control, but they need to find a way; the law says it must remain.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2y
to the NCAA. The NCAA is nothing but a mouth piece for the schools. This could have been put together with rules many years ago. The schools didn't want to do that, so here we are.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
V
VPI 1924
2y
Who is ready to donate $50,000 to help the Gobblers win at least four games per year.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2y
in the college game. NIL is out of control - for now. Football players will not be employees, and education will rise to the top.
There is much more money involved on the education side of the ledger than any athletic program can even think of competing with.
(In response to this post by VPI 1924)
L
lawhokie
2y
Maybe work as hard at academics as you would at football, and I guarantee you’ll succeed at something well enough to pay your bills. All of this agonizing over how to compensate kids who want to play football and someday support themselves begs a fairly obvious question.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
M
mjfhokie
2y
I have heard mentioned that 98% of college athletes make the pros thrown around. It is then implied that most of these are in non-revenue sports as if football/ basketball players have a higher percentage. The actual stat is that 98.6% of college football players do not make the pros. Of the 1.4% of these football players, the average career in the NFL is 3 years (whether due to injury or simply skill sets). Throw in the fact that those future NFL players are highly focused at likely 8-16 college programs, and we are likely discussing 1-3 players max per year for 50% of P2 programs (as well as the Big 12 and ACC). G5 schools have almost no chance going forward (especially in the transfer world where the top G5 players have ample opportunities to move up).
Pretending this is not true and that a degree is not of importance is a disservice (or worse) for the eventual 98.6% of football players (let alone the non-revenue athletes) who will be competing for jobs on the street when they leave school. In addition, a degree will be needed for the majority of the remaining 1.4% that make the pros but never get beyond a 3-4 year rookie contract in the pros (and never qualify for guaranteed money). Simply proposing a half-degree or less strenuous degree that would become the norm for say 50% of football players puts them at a disadvantage to the other college students going forward.
In terms of the less than 1% of college football players that do make it to and then stay in the pros, awesome. They will be more than compensated and come out winners regardless of their degree status (or their NIL deal). Of course, even they are just an injury or bad investment away from looking for that "regular" job before they reach middle age.
(Note: This is simply based on the future salary implications. I have not even touched on the real value of graduating with no student loans (or worse yet student loans without a completed degree). The financial "aid" loans are holding back a whole generation of "regular" students.)
Providing additional compensation through NIL or other means is important and overdue. Pretending that the NIL deal is worth more than the degree, however, is incorrect for the vast majority of student-athletes. That said, when the broadcasters, the big conferences, the lawyers, and college football fans all seem to believe and sell the NIL narrative, it is way too easy for 17 year old kids to believe the false promises of a recruiter or booster - with no concept of the reality of the stats. Because every 17 year old believes they will be a success - otherwise they would not be the successful athlete that they are.
PS - Sorry to rant after Stech so politely stopped his rant.
** Edited by mjfhokie at 5/1/2024, 10:03:16 AM
** Edited by mjfhokie at 5/1/2024, 10:03:57 AM
** Edited by mjfhokie at 5/1/2024, 10:12:55 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
Professional sport. The numbers do show any degree is better than no degree, and many come from families where they weren’t taught how to study, because their parents and grandparents never did. So often once they get a degree, they teach/expect their kids to study, and they do even better than they did. I know of many of those situations. Maybe they become a teacher and coach, but their kids go on to own a business, be a Dentist, Doctor or other professional. It can take another generation, but it’s a great thing when it happens. We need more of that, not less.
(In response to this post by mjfhokie)
2y
To your first point, I certainly agree that the 90%+ of college athletes that don't have a professional athletic career possibility need to come out of school with a degree. Not arguing that at all. My main argument was the way the money was handled/earmarked for those that plan on going professional (Football, Hoops, Baseball, maybe women's hoops), more for accounting purposes. So schools won't need to come up with additional funding totally out of nowhere if they can use existing scholarship funding for Athletes for the athletic salary that is surely on the way. If you have 125-150 scholarship athletes in a "semi-professional" sport multiplied times ~$30k/year, that is a fairly significant line item. And even for them, I'm almost certain there would be a path for athletes to work towards their degree (if they were so inclined) if they weren't on athletic scholarship, using the money they were being paid. Gee, I wonder if Virginia Tech offers tuition assistance for employees?? So, VT pays an Offensive Lineman $40k, but that O-Lineman is an employee of VT and can take courses at a discounted, in-state tuition level. They get some money and also are still college students.
To your second point, totally agree there as well. I'm a CTE (Career Technical Education) teacher in Middle School and I'm thinking of moving to working more with High Schoolers or Community Colleges in setting up work experience opportunities, industry certification achievement and/or apprenticeships for students interested in a "non 4-year degree" path to starting their careers. We need qualified people entering the workforce at all levels, not just white collar.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
I think you are on to something here. Schools should offer minors in trades
Nothing wrong with taking 15 credits or whatever and learning a hands on skill. Welding, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, mechanics, anything like that. Would be something to fall back on. And at the least, you can use it as a homeowner and save yourself tons of money on home repairs and remodeling.
Colleges are getting a reputation for bogus majors and worthless degrees. And they've earned it. Learning a trade would go a long way to reversing this trend.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 5/1/2024, 4:14:21 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
drives my wife crazy sometimes. 🤣
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
HouClone
2y
If I am the school, I would tell each player. "We are going to pay you for playing football." The football player smiles. "Opening the packet in front of you, you will see your contract, $200,000 a year." The smile grows. "At the bottom, you will see the expenses: Food, housing, tuition, tutors, books, transportation, uniform, pads, $120,000 per year for a net of $80,000." The smile turns to a frown. "Sign at the bottom please. Welcome to the team."
** Edited by HouClone at 4/30/2024, 5:38:35 PM
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
I see no need for them to be students
(In response to this post by HouClone)
H
HouClone
2y
my school name and he is just a hired hand, yeah, hard pass for me caring. I'll watch the NFL instead.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
Isn’t it basically that way right now? And it’s only going to get worse…..
And yes I agree with you that the caring level has gone way down for me. I don’t sweat missing a game on tv anymore. I like beating UVA because it’s ingrained in me. Otherwise I’m generally happy when they win but losing rolls off of my back. iiwii
(In response to this post by HouClone)
2y
Maybe that changes, or is changing, with the passage of time, but if college ball becomes some kind of ersatz NFL and a bunch of schools with great histories, traditions and fan bases get left in the lurch...I dunno, I'm not going to be terribly interested.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
V
VTCALS72
2y
demand, VA State Retirement system and benefits? Then Title IX may go out the window but other things come up like health insurance and equal opportunity hiring process just like any other state employee.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
H
Hokester
2y
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
This is why athletic departments need to privatize.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VPI 1924
2y
Most athletes are on welfare now. Question is can they keep their welfare checks and be employed at the same time.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
H
Hokie 04
2y
(In response to this post by VPI 1924)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Guarantee there are a lot more college students barely surviving on Ramen noodles than Div-1A athletes. Athletes live like kings compared to the majority of the student body.
(In response to this post by VPI 1924)
2y
Athl Dept and our entire team are employees that are not students and we can afford the best - I’m not sure if I’d care to watch employees that do not attend VT - not sure if the OSU, Bamas of world feel same. I am now watching a G league or minor league baseball - I don’t know - really changes why I love college football .
** Edited by Hokie12thman at 4/30/2024, 12:26:00 PM
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
...because I already don't care to watch any of it. I really hope they DO go down this path, because in my opinion, it will accelerate the inevitable implosion, and it just might hit the reset button on the whole system.
(In response to this post by Hokie12thman)
2y
people still watch and go to games. In the end, I don't think that many people truly care.
I will say that my interest in college sports is at an all-time low, but I know I'll continue to watch. Just not like I did 10+ years ago.
(In response to this post by Hokie12thman)
2y
This portal needs to end (in its current state). That will kill college sports.
Pay the players, have a CBA, but when a player signs a contract, they have to stay, and the school is also on the hook to pay them, regardless of performance. Each take on risk, like any good contract. Just get to that point quick or college sports will alienate a generation of fans.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2y
really and truly wants to do a thing about it. Make the players contracted employees and pay them. The contract is going to have terms to protect both the player and the school/employer. It won't halt all movement, but it won't be the wild west. Oh, and get rid of the collectives. NIL should be something completely separate, and tied to the athlete. Not the school.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
The Steelers are sponsoring and promoting flag football at WPIAL schools (i.e., high schools in the Pittsburgh/western PA region) and the high school in the district where my wife teaches started a new program this spring. My wife and another teacher agreed to coach. My wife has coached soccer and track for years and some other sports off and on, and she likes watching football, but neither she nor her co-coach really know much about the details of the game.
The games are 7v7, with the opportunity to gain one first down and certain areas of the field in which a running play is prohibited. No kicking or punting; the ball gets placed at a spot on change of possession instead. Game is played on half a football field, sideline to sideline and therefore perpendicular to the normal layout of the field.
There are about 10-12 girls on my wife's team - mostly volleyball and soccer players who for whatever reason did not want to participate in more traditional spring sports. And they are wildly inconsistent. They can't throw the ball very well, and don't execute set plays very well. But they have fun, and the games are short and entertaining to watch. Sometimes they get clobbered; other times they do the clobbering. But there's no "me first" or "look at me" attitudes, and they are competitive without taking things too seriously.
All in all, I find this sort of thing to be much more refreshing than anything about college sports these days.
** Edited by Tailgate Guru at 4/30/2024, 1:15:35 PM
(In response to this post by Hokie12thman)
...especially when they can just transfer the next season.
I think, in the end, the powers behind all of this are going to have to decide if they want the players to be students or not. If so, there needs to be investigations and enforcement. And the penalties should come in real time in the standings. Not vacating wins after the fact.
One thing I like about a promotion and relegation system is that if a team is hit hard by infractions, it will threaten their position in the current league. See Everton right now. They had to sweat it out all year due to points deductions in the standings.
The powers behind this are also going to need to deal with the transfer problem.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 4/30/2024, 12:51:29 PM
(In response to this post by Hokie12thman)
2y
to go away. Still a ways to go, but when it's actual pay and not this iteration of NIL, they'll be able to put actual rules in place.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
Good. Because I think player movement is a
bigger deal than the money.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2y
The athletes are left chasing "NIL" money since the school isn't actually paying them. It's hard to blame them.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
to transfer to a different school, it would nip the transfers in a heartbeat. I they wanna pay them, then tie academics to that pay. last I checked, this is still college athletics, not a pro league.
Look at the pay structure of the UFL. 8 teams, and $28M for player compensation. That is $3.5M per team for a pro league.
Let the UFL expand, and sign high school kids, put a hard cap on athletic budgets for FBS, and we could solve this problem.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 4/30/2024, 1:04:19 PM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
not sure the courts would allow it. Most likely the courts would rule it is a restraint on free trade, restricts the pursuit of capitalism, and maybe even a violation of accounting principles for non-profit organizations.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
trade has already been established as a common law doctrine? It will likely take more than "We want it that way" to pass the various tests the courts use to determine their ruling. Currently the pro leagues have salary caps for players because of the CBA between the owner(s) and the players. However, there is no regulation on how much each owner is allowed to spend for non-player related expenses. Likewise, there are no laws, rules, or regulations that limits how much money an entity can spend on employee expenses and non-employee expenses.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
be to have anti trust exemption for the NCAA. If they were to get such an exemption, the P2 as we know it would in all likelihood break away, but so far, they have only threatened to do so.
The central question is will the schools allow their brands and names to be used for professional sports. The money is big, but only for about 20 schools if you take out the Northwestern's, Purdue's, and Vanderbilts. So ya, it's not only possible to cap athletic budgets, but it's probably likely.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
because the NFL was willing to give up something in return. More specifically the NFL would not play any regular season games on Friday during the high school football regular season or on Saturday during college football regular season. The act only amend the antitrust laws to authorize leagues of professional football, baseball, basketball, and hockey teams to enter into certain television contracts, and for other purposes. It does not address how much money the teams can spend on various expenses which is what you are trying to do by expanding the coverage of antitrust laws.
If the association were to approve such a bylaw, then I am pretty confident (maybe even guarantee you) that the NCAA would be sued by school employees (i.e. athletic department secretaries, athletic department custodial staff, athletic department sanitation engineers, physical therapists, etc.) because it would limit how much money those employees earn from the performance of their job. Particularly since those restrictions would not be in place for the academic side of the house, the private sector, the federal public sector, and the state public sector. You might even see schools join the lawsuit as a show of support to their employees and because the bylaw violates nonprofit accounting standards. The bylaw won't be able to place restrictions on how much money the athletic departments receive in a fiscal year because the NCAA has no jurisdiction over private citizens, private companies, or state governments. Remember nonprofits focus more on the accountability aspect of accounting because they follow a specific set of rules and procedures that help them stay accountable to their donors and contributors.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
disagree with you, there are already rules in place for FBS. Stadium size, minimum attendance, ... etc. They may not be enforced, but they are there. Putting a limit on athletic budgets to be included in FBS "as an example" could also be put in place. It could be sold as an "association of peers".
That does not put a cap on how much revenue a school can make, or a cap on donations, or even salaries of coaches, amount of employees, ... etc. It could also be adjusted for how many different sports are provided, and could actually enhance non revenue athletics. It wouldn't mandate that a school has to spend that much money, it just puts a curb where there currently isn't one.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
"put a hard cap on athletic budgets for FBS." The "athletic budgets" does include employee expenses though including salaries for coaches, secretaries, and every other employee associated with a school's athletic department. As I stated before you cannot place a curb on how much money a nonprofit school can spend in its athletic department because it would violate the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Since the academic side and athletic side are apart of the same organization, both sides are expected to adhere to GAAP for good reason.
The hyperlink has a section entitled "Why do nonprofits need to comply with GAAP standards?" which clearly address why college/university athletic departments need to adhere to GAAP too. You may not agree with the reasons or even like it. However, it does give you plausible reasons why Congress will likely never give the NCAA antitrust exemption for placing restrictions on "athletic budgets" because it is too broad and it would likely violate labor laws. Even if Congress did give the NCAA that exemption, enough schools would not support it due to conflict it would create for themselves over GAAP. Spinning the athletic departments off as a completely independent entity from the school still wouldn't resolve the GAAP issue because there are no examples where spending caps are placed on how much pro teams can spend on non-player expenses. The market drives non-player salaries and other factors determine how much money pro teams spend on other non-player expenses (i.e. facilties, travel, etc.). I get you may be unhappy with how much money schools spend on coaches' salaries and facility expenses. However, a spending cap isn't the right way to try to address this issue.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
so if you have an association, and a school wanted to join, they certainly could put financial curbs in, as it would be a voluntary action by the schools.
That was a good link, and I appreciate it, but tax exemption is not an anti trust exemption. Congress could most definitely sign into law that an athletic department is either a part of the educational institution, or that it isn't. Again, a very clear choice for those institutions. There is a quid pro quo with media revenue, but that is a taxable event as ESPN can not write it off as a donation. That too could be addressed with congressional action. (I'm not saying that will happen).
With all of the writings out there and the impending court settlements, they are going to have to do something, as I can not see how high dollar athletic departments can keep their tax exempt status when they are clearly evolving into a business entity separate from the educations institutions they are named after. Currently, they have their cake, and are feasting on that cake. While I may be throwing things against the wall here, the evolution of college athletics is untenable.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
they agree with every bylaw. If that was a requirement, then SCOTUS would never have ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984).
FWIW there is nothing to prevent nonprofits from entering into for profit business. The classic example is probably a city or county government owning a municipal golf course. In most, maybe all, cases those ventures are governed by prudent investment rules and other state laws. In states where the rules/laws already exist, it is possible they are also used to govern athletic departments. If these rules/laws don't place caps on revenue, then it may be difficult to reclassify athletic departments as for-profit. Particularly if their accounting shows they are operating as a nonprofit.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2 things. 1) Schools will probably start dropping some sports 2) Most of us
don't want to think about athletes being employees and NOT being students who go to class and work to a degree. But as you know, so many athletes are in college just as a stepping stone to pro sports--and college administrations have low-key enabled this. That being said, I think we might need to get over ourselves here. Maybe the "sport" and related course work should be the major. What I mean by related course work is things like sports business, fitness, personal finance, etc. Stuff EX-athletes might need, as well as current athletes.
I can tell you as a college athlete myself as an undergraduate that being a college athlete is demanding and dare I say educational--albeit in a broad sense.
Sure, I'd love for students to come to Tech and have a more academic major. But I'm over it if the culture wants to move in a different direction.
Back to Point 1, if any school is going to support football at the highest level, they are going to need to put mega resources behind it. This might result in the school dumping non-revs. I don't know which team will be invited to or want to be in the top level of college football, but it will be interesting to see who's in and who's out.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
M
MVIII
2y
I am sure this number is higher for Alabama Football but the education and degree is super important for most of these athletes.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by MVIII)
I think he meant Alabama football Stech.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
Athletes matter greatly too, and should be considered too.
(In response to this post by VaTechHokiesACC)
All athletes, including the big money NIL guys should have access to the
course work. That shouldn't change IMO.
(In response to this post by MVIII)
2y
only that they would cap the amount a school could pay athletes. I think what they are trying to do, is separate the "rich" athletic departments from the rest of college athletics.
If that evolves into a different division, we will find out pretty quickly how important it is for some schools to compete at the highest level. Title 9 will not be brushed to the side, and I do not see other sports being eliminated. They can not mandate that a school has to pay athletes without a change in the law - but revenue sharing is a different story, especially if it's a negotiated settlement.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
I don't think any schools will give up their non rev sports. But if there is a $30k salary cap for the CFP Division and you can't pay all of your athletes (including Non-Revs) $30k a piece, Title IX will get you. SO...there might be, say, an FBS Division, where the cap might be $5-$10k per athlete, and if you don't have the cash, you can drop down to that level and still play, but you won't be in the CFP Division.
This is where the 40-70 team breakaway will happen. Whatever the number schools willing to foot a massive athlete wage bill across all sports gets in. The schools that can't drop $20-$25 million a year into that bucket, will not get in.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
presidents sign off on that. Athletic directors, coaches, and fans for sure, but university presidents?
The academic reputation for a University is exponentially more lucrative than the athletics. Right now, we have a run away train. I'm not convinced that the presidents will not put the brakes on this madness if their lucrative athletic departments and the paying of players starts to hurt their academic reputations.
I could be dead wrong on that as recent events show, but the money in academics FAR exceeds athletics except for maybe Alabama :)
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
Give athletes options to choose from that suit their goals financially and academically
- Guaranteed employee salary only
- Hybrid employee with lower salary and lower NIL
- Contractor with NIL only
- Full time student with all classes books and housing paid for as employee
- Part time student (min 2 classes a semester) with everything paid for as employee
- Contractor covers all their own student costs but does have to take at least one class
- guaranteed lifetime scholarship that athletes can use whenever they want. Could be a few classes at a time spread over years.
Or any combination of things. This is an opportunity to be creative and break from the old mold.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
that the athletes representing their institutions to the world (literally) must actually be students enrolled in those institutions, attending classes, and meeting eligibility requirements.
Student-athlete is not going to go away. Why would that critical relationship have to change just because money is changing hands in currency rather than in scholarships and benefits?
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
I can’t imagine school admins allowing players to skip the academic side entirely. Because if they did, then why even have college teams at that point.
I agree with you that some level of student has to stay a requirement in all this.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2
2hhoop3
2y
That has been SOP at UNC for years and likely a few others that just did not get caught.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
Student athletes should always be the core of college athletics. Just because UNCheat broke a ton of rules and only got a slap on the wrist, doesn't mean that's how it should be.
Yes we all know that many coaches and schools will cheat no matter what the rules are. But we should still have the rules in place. If you take away the student part, then literally every part of the NCAA and college athletics model would need to be destroyed and something new created. And that would have a lot of legal and tax implications.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
disagreeing with you on the desirability of the student athlete model or the benefits for those who actually take advantage. My question was the practicality now that most everyone is charging toward a pro/semi pro model. The powers that be have screwed the entire model and made change infinitely more difficult by failing to address things until being led to the well at the tip of a judge's gavel.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Take the former, and you have to proceed towards getting your degree. Take the latter, and you no longer have to attend classes, but you'll have to pay for your books, tuition, and room & board if you decide to attend classes.
The latter will remove "student" from "student-athlete."
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
$EC style, and actually have an enforcement policy with a spine.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
V
VPI_1998
2y
let the "employee" decide. Why put money and resources into some of these players who won't even get anything out of it? I'm all for getting a higher education and no doubt many athletes will do that, but no need to keep up appearances for those who elect not to.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
T
TerryD
2y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
The question is probably overly simplistic, because I imagine nearly all "real students" at Notre Dame probably receive at least some amount in endowed grants and scholarships.
But it just annoys me that the media insists that college athletes be paid, instead of insisting that colleges educate athletes who are qualified for higher education.
After all, a legitimate degree from Notre Dame, Virginia Tech or most any ACC school is or should be a genuinely valuable thing. Yet, the media said nothing when an elite institution like Duke let Coach K recruit one-and-done players for years. Or when virtually all ACC schools admit football players who lack basic math skills.
I'm no Irish fan, but I do view Notre Dame as one of the schools that, far more than most, has tried to get the balance right.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
2y
And I think the majority of student athletes who don’t have a professional athletic career in mind will take the former. But, of those, the ones that have real value for their schools will generate NIL cash on top of their scholarship. (Like elite softball players or national championship caliber wrestlers, etc…)
But for the universities, it’s not like you’ll have to completely add a $20M expenditure for salaries. I honestly think the “salary” aspect of it is 100% geared towards initiating a Collective Bargaining Agreement to get out of this Transfer Portal mess.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
Each player gets a 'check' from the university that can be used for books, supplies, income, room and board and tuition. At the end of the year, each student gets either a 1099 or W2 with earnings and they pay taxes.
Key is student must be enrolled and be full faith and full paying student. If they want to take advantage of NIL its on their dime,
My question, should the athletic scholarships that is forward to the student athlete be tax exempt??? My first thought is no. its a business transaction and for the school the only tax exempt is athletic costs for facilities, staff, and operations.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)