"Why more Prospects will Skip Bowl Games"

[bphi11ips]

Unless their was specific language in the scholarship for Andrews, he fulfilled it by playing the 2003 season.

You don't really believe that.

I have litigated many contract disputes and have no idea what Andrew's agreement said.  But I can tell you this as a matter of principle - a contract is a promise for a promise.  Was Arkansas' s 2004 record 8-4 or 9-4? 

Most people, without looking at a contract, would tell you that a bowl game is part of the season.  Colleges promise to pay expenses for athletes.  Athletes promise to play sports Iin return.  I believe that good faith on the part of the athlete requires performance in a bowl game after the school has paid expenses. Parse the language of the agreement anyway you want, but unless bowl games are specifically excluded, I believe most people would agree with that.

[hogsanity]

You don't really believe that.

I have litigated many contract disputes and have no idea what Andrew's agreement said.  But I can tell you this as a matter of principle - a contract is a promise for a promise.  Was Arkansas' s 2004 record 8-4 or 9-4? 

Most people, without looking at a contract, would tell you that a bowl game is part of the season.  Colleges promise to pay expenses for athletes.  Athletes promise to play sports Iin return.  I believe that good faith on the part of the athlete requires performance in a bowl game after the school has paid expenses. Parse the language of the agreement anyway you want, but unless bowl games are specifically excluded, I believe most people would agree with that.

What if the school gave him permission not to play?

[hogsanity]

It would have been a horrible idea.

Why?

[311Hog]

You don't really believe that.

I have litigated many contract disputes and have no idea what Andrew's agreement said.  But I can tell you this as a matter of principle - a contract is a promise for a promise.  Was Arkansas' s 2004 record 8-4 or 9-4? 

Most people, without looking at a contract, would tell you that a bowl game is part of the season.  Colleges promise to pay expenses for athletes.  Athletes promise to play sports Iin return.  I believe that good faith on the part of the athlete requires performance in a bowl game after the school has paid expenses. Parse the language of the agreement anyway you want, but unless bowl games are specifically excluded, I believe most people would agree with that.

Scholarship athletes are not employees remember? and thus there are no contracts here.

[bennyl08]

About the same with me. Pro sports are getting less interesting all the time for me. I would watch the Utah Jazz, because I used to like them and Joe Johnson plays for them. But the games are so late for me. And really, the NBA is not interesting at all in the regular season. And frankly, unless the Dolphins are playing and playing well, I could not care less about the NFL either.

I enjoy the NFL for the precision of it. Even the browns would go undefeated in the SEC and win the natty with no game within 21 points. Very small margins of error in the NFL compared to college ball.

[bphi11ips]

Scholarship athletes are not employees remember? and thus there are no contracts here.

Huh?  Contracts don't require an employer/employee relationship.  Trust me on this one.

[HamSammich]

It would have been a horrible idea.

It would have been an earth shattering move for cfb and a genius move. He would have been drafted #1 overall. But disagree if you want 

[LZH]

It would have been an earth shattering move for cfb and a genius move. He would have been drafted #1 overall. But disagree if you want 

Not so sure about a genius move. But what did Andrews supposedly do?

[HamSammich]

Not so sure about a genius move. But what did Andrews supposedly do?

Spending a year at an Olympic village not taking hits after you have already proven you are elite in the SEC is a little different. Fournette is a once a five year sort of talent .... one day someone will be smart and do this.

[bphi11ips]

Not so sure about a genius move. But what did Andrews supposedly do?

Skipped the Cotton Bowl and blamed it on allergies.  Media consensus was he didn't want to risk an injury.

Andrews broke his leg in his first NFL game and missed his rookie season.

[LZH]

Skipped the Cotton Bowl and blamed it on allergies.  Media consensus was he didn't want to risk an injury.

Andrews broke his leg in his first NFL game and missed his rookie season.

Guess I had forgotten that....hadn't thought of him in a long time.

[jkstock04]

Guess I had forgotten that....hadn't thought of him in a long time.

That was the first time I had ever taken notice of a player skipping out on the bowl game. It irritated me because it was beyond obvious it wasn't a medical condition. Even the homer media didn't buy into it.

I understand why these guys would want to skip the bowl game...but I also see this as a slippery slope. When this becomes "the" thing to do for everyone what is going to keep them from skipping the last regular season game of the year?

[LZH]

That was the first time I had ever taken notice of a player skipping out on the bowl game. It irritated me because it was beyond obvious it wasn't a medical condition. Even the homer media didn't buy into it.

I understand why these guys would want to skip the bowl game...but I also see this as a slippery slope. When this becomes "the" thing to do for everyone what is going to keep them from skipping the last regular season game of the year?

Or try to sit out contact drills in practice.....

[jkstock04]

Or try to sit out contact drills in practice.....

Ya not a real promising trend for college football. If this were to get out of hand the only way to combat it would be paying players via contracts and penalize them for not playing.

[bphi11ips]

Ya not a real promising trend for college football. If this were to get out of hand the only way to combat it would be paying players via contracts and penalize them for not playing.

Scholarships are contracts.  Players are compensated for practicing and playing.  Until recently, it was a given that players would do their best and play ALL games when healthy and called upon.  In return, they would recieve an education, room and board.  They now earn a stipend, which, I believe, is now around $500/mo. on average in the SEC.

I have a son who is being recruited by SEC and similar schools as a kicker and by smaller schools as a player. So, I've been to a bunch of camps.  Have any of you seen the way these players are fed?  Do you realize the value of the academic support available to them?  Tutors are expensive.

With the competition for top players, no school wants to be the first to insert penalty provisions into scholarship agreements. Certainly no school wants to be the first to ask a player for a pro-rated refund.  And attempting to collect that refund through litigation would be suicide for recruiting. It's a buyer's market for players.  About the only solution for schools would be for NCAA member schools to agree that all members would penalize players for voluntary non-participation, whether it be for bowls or otherwise.  There may be some anti-trust issues with that approach, but there are with the system in general as it is.

In any event, for many of us, this issue is simply symptomatic of what we find wrong with society in general - when is a promise a promise?

[jkstock04]

Scholarships are contracts.  Players are compensated for practicing and playing.  Until recently, it was a given that players would do their best and play ALL games when healthy and called upon.  In return, they would recieve an education, room and board.  They now earn a stipend, which, I believe, is now around $500/mo. on average in the SEC.

I have a son who is being recruited by SEC and similar schools as a kicker and by smaller schools as a player. So, I've been to a bunch of camps.  Have any of you seen the way these players are fed?  Do you realize the value of the academic support available to them?  Tutors are expensive.

With the competition for top players, no school wants to be the first to insert penalty provisions into scholarship agreements. Certainly no school wants to be the first to ask a player for a pro-rated refund.  And attempting to collect that refund through litigation would be suicide for recruiting. It's a buyer's market for players.  About the only solution for schools would be for NCAA member schools to agree that all members would penalize players for voluntary non-participation, whether it be for bowls or otherwise.  There may be some anti-trust issues with that approach, but there are with the system in general as it is.

In any event, for many of us, this issue is simply symptomatic of what we find wrong with society in general - when is a promise a promise?

Great points all around.

[311Hog]

Scholarships are contracts.  Players are compensated for practicing and playing.  Until recently, it was a given that players would do their best and play ALL games when healthy and called upon.  In return, they would recieve an education, room and board.  They now earn a stipend, which, I believe, is now around $500/mo. on average in the SEC.

I have a son who is being recruited by SEC and similar schools as a kicker and by smaller schools as a player. So, I've been to a bunch of camps.  Have any of you seen the way these players are fed?  Do you realize the value of the academic support available to them?  Tutors are expensive.

With the competition for top players, no school wants to be the first to insert penalty provisions into scholarship agreements. Certainly no school wants to be the first to ask a player for a pro-rated refund.  And attempting to collect that refund through litigation would be suicide for recruiting. It's a buyer's market for players.  About the only solution for schools would be for NCAA member schools to agree that all members would penalize players for voluntary non-participation, whether it be for bowls or otherwise.  There may be some anti-trust issues with that approach, but there are with the system in general as it is.

In any event, for many of us, this issue is simply symptomatic of what we find wrong with society in general - when is a promise a promise?

They are not contracts.  The language of the agreements specifically state these players are NOT employees, are are not beholden like employees.  Does it look similar? yes is there an exchange of services ? yes, but the player is not being "reimbursed" for work done. And the player is not "working" when they eat, go to practice, or play in a game.  They are participating in an school sanctioned/supported event.  They are students.

There is alot of grey area in this process and that is exactly how the schools and NCAA want it.  If this ever moved to a strict employee/employer model then alot would change about the game as we know it.

The other side to this, is fear.  If the "big time college players" ever "unionized" so to speak it would crush this little cash cow and the schools know it.  The players are doing the schools the favor now.  For 70 years + it was the other way around, in today's world that is now reversed.  The business of big time college football/basketball is so large and so much $$ much like everything else in our world the individual compensation is dwarfed compared to the powers that be's "rake" of the profits.

The last thing a school/conference/entity wants to do now is upset the one thing the enterprise cannot afford to lose.  The players.

[bphi11ips]

They are not contracts.  The language of the agreements specifically state these players are NOT employees, are are not beholden like employees.  Does it look similar? yes is there an exchange of services ? yes, but the player is not being "reimbursed" for work done. And the player is not "working" when they eat, go to practice, or play in a game.  They are participating in an school sanctioned/supported event.  They are students.

There is alot of grey area in this process and that is exactly how the schools and NCAA want it.  If this ever moved to a strict employee/employer model then alot would change about the game as we know it.

The other side to this, is fear.  If the "big time college players" ever "unionized" so to speak it would crush this little cash cow and the schools know it.  The players are doing the schools the favor now.  For 70 years + it was the other way around, in today's world that is now reversed.  The business of big time college football/basketball is so large and so much $$ much like everything else in our world the individual compensation is dwarfed compared to the powers that be's "rake" of the profits.

The last thing a school/conference/entity wants to do now is upset the one thing the enterprise cannot afford to lose.  The players.

I agree with you that the sport can not survive without the players.  As I said, it is a buyer's market. 

There are many reasons neither the schools nor the players want the relationship between school and player to be characterized as employer/employee.  Other than maintaining the perception that college football is an amateur sport, neither schools nor players want to be subjected to federal and state income and payroll taxes, and schools don't want to be subject to minimum wage laws and other state and federal employment laws, e.g., Title VII.

Where we disagree is over whether an athletic scholarship is a contract.  I am an attorney with twenty-five years of experience negotiating contracts.  I also taught law school for ten years in a setting that requires the examination and negotiation of entertainment and sports contracts.  There's a reason the invitation to play football for a school on scholarship is called an "offer".  Other than consideration (the promise for a promise), contracts require offer and acceptance.  Acceptance occurs when an athlete signs a Letter of Intent.  Having said that, if you don't believe me, maybe you will believe the information provided at this link:

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/example-athletic-aid-agreement.htm

At the end of the day, the question from 30,000 feet is not whether an athletic scholarship forms a binding legal contract between a school and an athlete.  It is whether people should honor commitments, especially after the other side to the commitment has performed.  I have more respect for Solomon Thomas than I have for Christian McCaffrey, because Christian McCaffrey reneged on his commitment to Stanford and abandoned his teammates.  In contrast, Solomon Thomas recorded a sack, 7 tackles (5 solo), and 2 TFL's in the Sun Bowl.  Thomas was drafted third overall.  McCaffrey was drafted eighth overall.  Who would you want covering your back in a firefight - McCaffrey or Thomas?

[hogcard1964]

Scholarships are contracts.  Players are compensated for practicing and playing.  Until recently, it was a given that players would do their best and play ALL games when healthy and called upon.  In return, they would recieve an education, room and board.  They now earn a stipend, which, I believe, is now around $500/mo. on average in the SEC.

I have a son who is being recruited by SEC and similar schools as a kicker and by smaller schools as a player. So, I've been to a bunch of camps.  Have any of you seen the way these players are fed?  Do you realize the value of the academic support available to them?  Tutors are expensive.

With the competition for top players, no school wants to be the first to insert penalty provisions into scholarship agreements. Certainly no school wants to be the first to ask a player for a pro-rated refund.  And attempting to collect that refund through litigation would be suicide for recruiting. It's a buyer's market for players.  About the only solution for schools would be for NCAA member schools to agree that all members would penalize players for voluntary non-participation, whether it be for bowls or otherwise.  There may be some anti-trust issues with that approach, but there are with the system in general as it is.

In any event, for many of us, this issue is simply symptomatic of what we find wrong with society in general - when is a promise a promise?

Very good post.

[EastexHawg]

What the angst over this comes down to is fans do not want these players to sit out because fans think these guys will help teams win their bowl game, which will then let fans crow about their team.

If fans didn't care they wouldn't spend large amounts of their money buying tickets, contributing to foundations, and watching in huge enough numbers to create massive television contracts.

If none of that happened, the players wouldn't have state of the art weight and training facilities, highly paid coaches and trainers to develop their skills, and scholarships that allow them to be able to afford access to those benefits...along with the exposure that playing in major programs affords them.

For that matter, even if they were discovered and signed to NFL contracts they wouldn't make anywhere near the money they make without fans paying exorbitant amounts of money on tickets and watching in large enough numbers to warrant the TV ratings that fuel the league's TV deals.

Yeah, let's take the "selfish" fans out of the equation and see how that works for the players.

[hogsanity]

If fans didn't care they wouldn't spend large amounts of their money buying tickets, contributing to foundations, and watching in huge enough numbers to create massive television contracts.

If none of that happened, the players wouldn't have state of the art weight and training facilities, highly paid coaches and trainers to develop their skills, and scholarships that allow them to be able to afford access to those benefits...along with the exposure that playing in major programs affords them.

For that matter, even if they were discovered and signed to NFL contracts they wouldn't make anywhere near the money they make without fans paying exorbitant amounts of money on tickets and watching in large enough numbers to warrant the TV ratings that fuel the league's TV deals.

Yeah, let's take the "selfish" fans out of the equation and see how that works for the players.

I am not disagreeing. I just wish fans would be honest, put all this other stuff aside, and just say it " I want ( insert star player ) to play because it gives my team a better chance to win!". I'll agree with that in a heartbeat. 

[311Hog]

I agree with you that the sport can not survive without the players.  As I said, it is a buyer's market. 

There are many reasons neither the schools nor the players want the relationship between school and player to be characterized as employer/employee.  Other than maintaining the perception that college football is an amateur sport, neither schools nor players want to be subjected to federal and state income and payroll taxes, and schools don't want to be subject to minimum wage laws and other state and federal employment laws, e.g., Title VII.

Where we disagree is over whether an athletic scholarship is a contract.  I am an attorney with twenty-five years of experience negotiating contracts.  I also taught law school for ten years in a setting that requires the examination and negotiation of entertainment and sports contracts.  There's a reason the invitation to play football for a school on scholarship is called an "offer".  Other than consideration (the promise for a promise), contracts require offer and acceptance.  Acceptance occurs when an athlete signs a Letter of Intent.  Having said that, if you don't believe me, maybe you will believe the information provided at this link:

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/example-athletic-aid-agreement.htm

At the end of the day, the question from 30,000 feet is not whether an athletic scholarship forms a binding legal contract between a school and an athlete.  It is whether people should honor commitments, especially after the other side to the commitment has performed.  I have more respect for Solomon Thomas than I have for Christian McCaffrey, because Christian McCaffrey reneged on his commitment to Stanford and abandoned his teammates.  In contrast, Solomon Thomas recorded a sack, 7 tackles (5 solo), and 2 TFL's in the Sun Bowl.  Thomas was drafted third overall.  McCaffrey was drafted eighth overall.  Who would you want covering your back in a firefight - McCaffrey or Thomas?

Very good post, we also differ IMHO on the context of this conversation.

I am not a lawyer, but i am familiar with contracts and institutions of higher education.  Also my response originally was not to you, but to the poster that said an "institution should seek restitution/reimbursement" from a player if they skip a bowl for pro rated tuition, etc.

In that context i said it would never happen.  And while yes it is called an "offer", but the institutions own rules make this not possible.  Because the player is a student and not an employee and because of the timing and "day to day" of how schools usually work, by the time the bowl comes around all the tuition has been paid, all resources are used and once the kid declares for the draft hires an agent there is nothing more the school can do, or wants to do except hopefully keep the best relationship possible in order to ask for donations when they are "alumni" even if they didn't graduate.

There is nothing more the school has that the player wants (as a student), and the school is for dang sure not going to go through the trouble, expense, hassle, bad PR etc. of trying to "get those funds back" i was merely trying to point how crazy it is that some people BELIEVE that these kids enter into a "contract" when they agree to play football and may or may not take advantage of the school aspect.

The school and this goes for students in general only care that that the tuition has been paid.  If the student is not or does not return for another semester or complete that semester it is not a big deal to the school because someone else, lots of someone else's is waiting to take their place and the bill is paid.

[311Hog]

If fans didn't care they wouldn't spend large amounts of their money buying tickets, contributing to foundations, and watching in huge enough numbers to create massive television contracts.

If none of that happened, the players wouldn't have state of the art weight and training facilities, highly paid coaches and trainers to develop their skills, and scholarships that allow them to be able to afford access to those benefits...along with the exposure that playing in major programs affords them.

For that matter, even if they were discovered and signed to NFL contracts they wouldn't make anywhere near the money they make without fans paying exorbitant amounts of money on tickets and watching in large enough numbers to warrant the TV ratings that fuel the league's TV deals.

Yeah, let's take the "selfish" fans out of the equation and see how that works for the players.

None of what you are saying is not true to some extent but think about this for a second.

How many Fans are there?

How many Players are there?

Scarcity defines value.  Half the fan base could quit being fans tomorrow and there would still be more than enough to cover, but if Half the existing player base quit tomorrow ? Leagues would fold.

This is my short way of saying the schools are not butt hurt over a handful of players skipping "lesser" bowls.  The fans on the other can be, and they have that right, but they should also realize their ratio to relevance is quiet a bit different.

The player gives the school so much more $$$$ then the average student/fan.

[bennyl08]

They are not contracts.  The language of the agreements specifically state these players are NOT employees, are are not beholden like employees. 

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/example-athletic-aid-agreement.htm

"Most athletes think a National Letter of Intent is your scholarship. That is not the case. The actual scholarship contract is known as an Athletic Aid Agreement. This contract outlines how much your scholarship will be worth and covers what you must do in order to keep your scholarship. Each school is slightly different, but below is an explanation of each section of these contracts."

[311Hog]

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/example-athletic-aid-agreement.htm

"Most athletes think a National Letter of Intent is your scholarship. That is not the case. The actual scholarship contract is known as an Athletic Aid Agreement. This contract outlines how much your scholarship will be worth and covers what you must do in order to keep your scholarship. Each school is slightly different, but below is an explanation of each section of these contracts."

And what they have to do to "keep your scholarship" is the key part of this phrase.  A kid going to the draft, does not care to keep their scholarship.

See University of Kentucky Basketball.  for some of those kids all they have to do is "get into" the school then the school part stops, the caring about "keeping the scholarship" stops because they know and the school knows they aren't coming back.

If a player planned to return to school for the next year, you best believe they are playing in that bowl game.

[hogsanity]

And what they have to do to "keep your scholarship" is the key part of this phrase.  A kid going to the draft, does not care to keep their scholarship.

See University of Kentucky Basketball.  for some of those kids all they have to do is "get into" the school then the school part stops, the caring about "keeping the scholarship" stops because they know and the school knows they aren't coming back.

If a player planned to return to school for the next year, you best believe they are playing in that bowl game.

plus scholarships are year to year. it is my understanding if a player leaves early, and is in good academic standing when they do so, it does not hurt the university, except that a good player is now not on the team.

[bennyl08]

And what they have to do to "keep your scholarship" is the key part of this phrase.  A kid going to the draft, does not care to keep their scholarship.

See University of Kentucky Basketball.  for some of those kids all they have to do is "get into" the school then the school part stops, the caring about "keeping the scholarship" stops because they know and the school knows they aren't coming back.

If a player planned to return to school for the next year, you best believe they are playing in that bowl game.

Don't really care about your argument. Point is, scholarship are legally contracts. No more, no less.

[311Hog]

Don't really care about your argument. Point is, scholarship are legally contracts. No more, no less.

lol seriously? you even posted evidence that the agreement (Contract) is not the scholarship.  Also just because a kid signs an agreement they do not have to play ball for the school for any longer than the kid/school wishes them to.

if Kid A signs the letter and then changes his mind he can leave.  He can refuse to play.  If he gets into the school does everything he has to to be eligible to play, and decides in game 5 to hang it up for the rest of the season there is nothing anyone can do to stop him from doing it.  The school isn't going to argue with him publicly about it, the NFL or professional organization will do their job and weigh talent vs risk they do not care if he ditched mid season if he is talented enough.

These is are all choices, signing a letter of commitment does not mean the school owns them anymore then they HAVE to keep a kid on scholly if they choose to kick them off mid semester either.

You can argue that one side or the other "shouldn't do it" but that still doesn't mean they can't or are contractually obligated to not do what they want.  Because they are students playing a game for their school.

[EastexHawg]

None of what you are saying is not true to some extent but think about this for a second.

How many Fans are there?

How many Players are there?

Scarcity defines value.  Half the fan base could quit being fans tomorrow and there would still be more than enough to cover, but if Half the existing player base quit tomorrow ? Leagues would fold.

This is my short way of saying the schools are not butt hurt over a handful of players skipping "lesser" bowls.  The fans on the other can be, and they have that right, but they should also realize their ratio to relevance is quiet a bit different.

The player gives the school so much more $$$$ then the average student/fan.

Yes, if half the fans disappear there are more than enough remaining to keep the gravy train rolling.  That's why ESPN just laid off 100 employees and it is generally accepted that future TV deals won't be as lucrative.

[bennyl08]

lol seriously? you even posted evidence that the agreement (Contract) is not the scholarship.  Also just because a kid signs an agreement they do not have to play ball for the school for any longer than the kid/school wishes them to.

Umm, you might want to read that again. The agreement (letter of intent) is not a contract. The Athletic Aid Agreement (i.e. the actual scholarship the student athlete is receiving) is in fact a contract.

if Kid A signs the letter and then changes his mind he can leave.

Not entirely true. The kid is under contract from that scholarship. The school can choose to not release the student from said contract or can refuse to allow the contract to be broken if he goes to a certain school.

He can refuse to play.  If he gets into the school does everything he has to to be eligible to play, and decides in game 5 to hang it up for the rest of the season there is nothing anyone can do to stop him from doing it.

True, contracts are broken all the time. However, if the student athlete doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, the school doesn't need to hold up their's and there could be consequences depending on the contract itself.

The school isn't going to argue with him publicly about it, the NFL or professional organization will do their job and weigh talent vs risk they do not care if he ditched mid season if he is talented enough.

Obviously.

These is are all choices, signing a letter of commitment does not mean the school owns them anymore then they HAVE to keep a kid on scholly if they choose to kick them off mid semester either.

Letter of commitment isn't a contract. However, it doesn't get the kid paid via scholarship either. In order to get the actual scholarship, they have the sign the aforementioned contract. It's been about 150 years since any human was explicitly owned by anybody else so I agree with you there. However, a school can't kick a student off of scholarship mid-semester without breaking the contract themselves and facing the repercussions of that. I doubt there's a buyout for the contract of a student athlete, but I doubt such a breach of contract would be penalty free for the university either. A student can void the contract with mis-conduct and thus lose a scholarship. A school can not renew a scholarship at the end of the year (though that almost never happens either). However, it can't break the contract without facing the penalties of doing so.

You can argue that one side or the other "shouldn't do it" but that still doesn't mean they can't or are contractually obligated to not do what they want.  Because they are students playing a game for their school.

There certainly are contractual obligations.