The Myth of the Student athlete

[Shorttimer]

What's interesting is that there's not a lot of push among the athletes on the topic that we think would be important, which is compensation for athletic services rendered.  Instead, the issues concerning most athletes are around quality of life and freedom of choice.  If you were to see unionization, the first collective bargaining issues would concern mandatory practices, season lengths and transfer eligibility.

[Mike Irwin]

The system is corrupt as a system overall not because of whether any particular person succeeds or doesn't succeed.  Or maybe corrupt isn't the right word, it's just that it has nothing to do with the educational mission and everything to do with marketing/profit.   Taylor Branch illustrates it well in this article from The Atlantic a few years ago:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

As he points out, it's a myth because it's a made up term created by the NCAA for legal purposes.

I totally disagree with you. I work around these young men and women every day. The vast majority of them are going to class and getting an education. Every few days I run into a former player who is doing well in life.

Yes, some don't make it. That happens to non athletes all the time.

[Shorttimer]

The system is corrupt as a system overall not because of whether any particular person succeeds or doesn't succeed.  Or maybe corrupt isn't the right word, it's just that it has nothing to do with the educational mission and everything to do with marketing/profit.   Taylor Branch illustrates it well in this article from The Atlantic a few years ago:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

As he points out, it's a myth because it's a made up term created by the NCAA for legal purposes.

Honest question Fatty--Do you think the academic side of the university benefits from the Razorback brand?

[Fatty McGee]

I totally disagree with you. I work around these young men and women every day. The vast majority of them are going to class and getting an education. Every few days I run into a former player who is doing well in life.

Yes, some don't make it. That happens to non athletes all the time.

I'm not saying they're not getting an education.  I believe they are.  I believe the Northwestern players are.  It still doesn't make it right for the schools to collude to cap the value of their services. 

The schools did not tolerate it when the NCAA negotiated their TV rights for them, which resulted in a landmark USSC opinion.  What's good for the goose. . .

Now, maybe no athletes will take advantage of the opportunity to negotiate for more, who knows.  But the right should exist, free of anti-trust violations.

[Mike Irwin]

No, the president of the school did not say that.

And, as I said, the point being overlooked is Emmert admitted there were problems with the current system. That completely flies in the face of the fans who've been saying the players should shut up and enjoy what they get.

Athletes should be given spending money. The problem is, while major conference schools can afford $1,000 a month to each of their scholarship athletes, mid majors would struggle with that.

[Fatty McGee]

Honest question Fatty--Do you think the academic side of the university benefits from the Razorback brand?

Absolutely.  As I've pointed out before, college sports are one big commercial for a university.  Everyone talks about the profit/loss of an athletic department, but they never factor in what it would cost a school to buy that much air time on TV.  A 30 second ad in the SEC Championship game would run over $500,000.  Even in a regular season Arkansas telecast you're talking $50K for a 30 second spot. 

But Arkansas gets PAID for that access, via rights it gave the SEC to use, and gets those hours upon hours of airtime.  THAT is the real value of athletics.  At this level at least.  If an athletic dept otherwise makes a profit, that's great, but it's not the point.

[Inhogswetrust]

What's interesting is that there's not a lot of push among the athletes on the topic that we think would be important, which is compensation for athletic services rendered.  Instead, the issues concerning most athletes are around quality of life and freedom of choice.  If you were to see unionization, the first collective bargaining issues would concern mandatory practices, season lengths and transfer eligibility.

THAT's the problem. It would only be the first issues. There will eventually be a second, third and fourth and on and on push for more and more from a union. That's what unions do. 

[Fatty McGee]

Athletes should be given spending money. The problem is, while major conference schools can afford $1,000 a month to each of their scholarship athletes, mid majors would struggle with that.

Sure they could.  Take it out of the marketing budget.  That's why they have a football team anyway.  It's certainly not because they have a realistic shot at winning a national title. 

[Mike Irwin]

The NCAA itself had a $71 million surplus in F2012. Perhaps the money should come directly from the NCAA itself and not the schools?

The top conferences should abandon the NCAA, start over and create a new governing body for athletics. There's no reason for the NCAA to stockpile money like that.

[Fatty McGee]

THAT's the problem. It would only be the first issues. There will eventually be a second, third and fourth and on and on push for more and more from a union. That's what unions do. 

And the school would push back.  That's what management does.  It's called negotiation, and both sides could assess the value to the other of the services the player provides and the opportunity the university provides. 

This is not particularly unique.

[Inhogswetrust]

No, the president of the school did not say that.

And, as I said, the point being overlooked is Emmert admitted there were problems with the current system. That completely flies in the face of the fans who've been saying the players should shut up and enjoy what they get.

There are problems with ALL systems in everything in life. NO system is perfect.

[Mike Irwin]

Sure they could.  Take it out of the marketing budget.  That's why they have a football team anyway.  It's certainly not because they have a realistic shot at winning a national title.

You need to look at the athletic budgets of most mid majors. They can barely cover all the scholarships mandated by Title IX.

There's a huge difference in Tulsa and Arkansas.

[Fatty McGee]

You need to look at the athletic budgets of most mid majors. They can barely cover all the scholarships mandated by Title IX.

There's a huge difference in Tulsa and Arkansas.

Why would we just look at the athletic budgets?  After all, these schools aren't in D-1 to win titles, especially in football.  Tulsa will never, ever win an NCAA title in football.  So why do it, the most expensive sport?

The answer is simple - marketing.  You can't beat that exposure even if you're getting beat by a top team.  You can't beat the name recognition for the price, even of fielding an NCAA football team at the FBS level.  So why just look to the athletic department?

[RT1941]

IMO, this is all just a bunch of off-season discussion during the dead period - college football as a whole will not unionize - players will not be paid/compensated for their "services rendered" - and the NCAA will stay in tact because it is afterall made up of voluntary member institutions.

[Fatty McGee]

IMO, this is all just a bunch of off-season discussion during the dead period - college football as a whole will not unionize - players will not be paid/compensated for their "services rendered" - and the NCAA will stay in tact because it is afterall made up of voluntary member institutions.

It's discussed because the O'Bannon case goes to trial in two months, and the NCAA has suffered some adverse rulings of late.  That's why it's on the table.  Not football dead period.  As Scott said, big changes are coming.

[Fatty McGee]

The top conferences should abandon the NCAA, start over and create a new governing body for athletics. There's no reason for the NCAA to stockpile money like that.

If they did create a new governing body, they'd have to fund it.  Right now the NCAA funds itself, provides minimal oversight, and at least until recently has done a marvelous job of providing the sheen of amateurism and bad publicity protection for the schools by being the bad guy. 

The one time it really did enforce amateurism rules with serious teeth against a SCHOOL, SMU, everyone agreed that was a terrible idea never to be done again as it damaged the golden goose.  So we fuss about AJ Green selling a bowl jersey and OSU QBs getting tattoos.

[kingofdequeen]

IMO, this is all just a bunch of off-season discussion during the dead period - college football as a whole will not unionize - players will not be paid/compensated for their "services rendered" - and the NCAA will stay in tact because it is afterall made up of voluntary member institutions.

you know why you're wrong?

there's not gonna be another NCAA Football video game.  think about that.

[Mike Irwin]

Why would we just look at the athletic budgets?  After all, these schools aren't in D-1 to win titles, especially in football.  Tulsa will never, ever win an NCAA title in football.  So why do it, the most expensive sport?

The answer is simple - marketing.  You can't beat that exposure even if you're getting beat by a top team.  You can't beat the name recognition for the price, even of fielding an NCAA football team at the FBS level.  So why just look to the athletic department?

I'm not going to argue that playing football and basketball doesn't help bring in donations to the academic side of the school. It does. It also helps draw students.

But mostly these schools continue to participate in athletics because of tradition. They've done it for over 100 years. Alums would go bonkers if they didn't.

If those schools want to use part of their university budget to pay athletes a monthly fee that's fine with me.

However, under the current structure of the NCAA, if the major conference schools wanted to pay their athletes $1,000 a month in spending money the mid majors would vote it down.

Just another reason why there's a move underway to take away mid major voting privileges. If that move fails you're going to eventually see the major conferences break away from the NCAA.

[Fatty McGee]

I'm not going to argue that playing football and basketball doesn't help bring in donations to the academic side of the school. It does. It also helps draw students.

But mostly these schools continue to participate in athletics because of tradition. They've done it for over 100 years. Alums would go bonkers if they didn't.

If those schools want to use part of their university budget to pay athletes a monthly fee that's fine with me.

However, under the current structure of the NCAA, if the major conference schools wanted to pay their athletes $1,000 a month in spending money the mid majors would vote it down.

Just another reason why there's a move underway to take away mid major voting privileges. If that move fails you're going to eventually see the major conferences break away from the NCAA.

In this time of declining education budgets, rising tuition, etc. if a school is still in the most expensive sport AND perpetually losing money at it while never playing for titles, simply for tradition, then it is a poorly run school and needs its trustees replaced.  Simply because some alums might get mad, who cares if their donations aren't making up for the losses? 

The reality is that's not the case, because again, the bang for the marketing buck can't be beat.  It's why App State and Georgia Southern are coming up to the FBS level, not because they have some long standing major college football tradition.  90% of mid-majors have never even sniffed a national title, so what tradition are we talking about?  Why are they still willing to lose money? 

The mid-majors have no choice, because the NCAA has no real power.  The big schools broke it back in the 80s when they sued for their own TV football rights and won.  If the mid-majors don't come along, the big schools will just leave, and the value of being in FBS will plummet.  The TV ratings won't be there to watch Tulsa play UAB, and they know it.   

The only value to the NCAA anymore is the basketball tournament and the cover of amateurism.  As conference realignment indicates, basketball is a deep second to football.  And the NBA isn't as cozy with the NCAA as the NFL is.  Plus, there are 6 figure incomes to be made overseas in basketball right out of high school.

Really though, the time to placate with $1,000 a month is long past.  The school and NCAA hogs were so busy slurping up everything they could and unwilling to share even the most meager of scraps, they didn't realize the ax was being sharpened.  It's coming down now.

[Mike Irwin]

In this time of declining education budgets, rising tuition, etc. if a school is still in the most expensive sport AND perpetually losing money at it while never playing for titles, simply for tradition, then it is a poorly run school and needs its trustees replaced.  Simply because some alums might get mad, who cares if their donations aren't making up for the losses? 

The reality is that's not the case, because again, the bang for the marketing buck can't be beat.  It's why App State and Georgia Southern are coming up to the FBS level, not because they have some long standing major college football tradition.  90% of mid-majors have never even sniffed a national title, so what tradition are we talking about?  Why are they still willing to lose money? 

The mid-majors have no choice, because the NCAA has no real power.  The big schools broke it back in the 80s when they sued for their own TV football rights and won.  If the mid-majors don't come along, the big schools will just leave, and the value of being in FBS will plummet.  The TV ratings won't be there to watch Tulsa play UAB, and they know it.   

The only value to the NCAA anymore is the basketball tournament and the cover of amateurism.  As conference realignment indicates, basketball is a deep second to football.  And the NBA isn't as cozy with the NCAA as the NFL is.  Plus, there are 6 figure incomes to be made overseas in basketball right out of high school.

Really though, the time to placate with $1,000 a month is long past.  The school and NCAA hogs were so busy slurping up everything they could and unwilling to share even the most meager of scraps, they didn't realize the ax was being sharpened.  It's coming down now.

It's a long way from "coming down."

Athletes will eventually get a bigger slice of the pie but there's going to be a long fight over this.

[Fatty McGee]

It's a long way from "coming down."

Athletes will eventually get a bigger slice of the pie but there's going to be a long fight over this.

It's already underway.  O'Bannon goes to trial in June.  As you mention, the NCAA is already letting the major conferences set their own rules and pay.  They aren't doing this because they want to, it's defensive because of cases like O'Bannon.

When we're talking about paying guys $1,000/mo and still calling them "amateurs", then the word has no meaning.  All we are debating is amount they'll be paid, not whether they're professionals. 

As the old Churchill line goes:

"Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price"

The NCAA and the schools are going to pay for the services, we're just haggling over price.

[Kevin]

the players don't have to go to college. they can hit the free market in professional leagues.

golfers, tennis, & baseball players do it all the time.

if you go to college you know what you are going to receive. if you don't want that deal, then go pro.

college sports is not the only league out there.

but, basketball players don't want to try the d-league at $25,000 to $30,000 a year, they want to USE college & it's tv, to move up in the nba draft.

so colleges use them & the players use college.

[Fatty McGee]

Don't get me wrong, I love college sports and I'm sad to see it go.  In my top book recommendations are everything Dan Jenkins ever wrote on the old SWC, fiction and nonfiction.  The schools and NCAA just couldn't say no to the money, and ruined it for everyone.

Vaccaro's statement to the Knight Commission puts it best:

"Why," asked Bryce Jordan, the president emeritus of Penn State, "should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?"

Sonny Vaccaro did not blink. "They shouldn't, sir," he replied. "You sold your souls, and you're going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir," Vaccaro added with irrepressible good cheer, "but there's not one of you in this room that's going to turn down any of our money. You're going to take it. I can only offer it."

Although Switzer doesn't do a bad job of summing it up too when he says:

"On current coaches' salaries, as noted in a conversation with his old coach and boss, Frank Broyles: "Frank, you and I coached in an era when the players won, not the $5 million coaches."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/columnists/kevin-sherrington/20130820-sherrington-barry-switzer-shooting-from-a-new-hip.ece

[Shorttimer]

But Arkansas gets PAID for that access . . .

I guess I'm too much of a free-market guy because, from a purely economic standpoint, the vast majority of student-athletes would be considered overpaid from an ROI standpoint by virtue of the fact that they receive ANY scholarship money.

When we talk about student-athletes, we tend to paint with a broad brush.  There is a very thin strata of athletes from whom the university profits immensely and their benefit to the university far exceeds the university's benefit to them.  These players almost exclusively exist in the revenue sports of football and basketball.  And many of these players get theirs later on the professional level.  Unfortunately, this is the level of athlete that gets all of the attention in the amatuerism debate.  There is a much larger strata of athletes who participate in non-revenue sports or serve to fill out rosters in revenue sports who do not specifically increase the university's bottom line. 

That said, would I be against splitting a larger piece of the pie with student-athletes?  Not at all.  If there's a way to compensate those who disproportionately benefit the university without diminishing the amount of revenue available to sustain the non-revenue sports, I'm all for it.  I just don't see how it can be done without reducing funding to everyone who doesn't play football or basketball.

[Fatty McGee]

I guess I'm too much of a free-market guy because, from a purely economic standpoint, the vast majority of student-athletes would be considered overpaid from an ROI standpoint by virtue of the fact that they receive ANY scholarship money.

When we talk about student-athletes, we tend to paint with a broad brush.  There is a very thin strata of athletes from whom the university profits immensely and their benefit to the university far exceeds the university's benefit to them.  These players almost exclusively exist in the revenue sports of football and basketball.  And many of these players get theirs later on the professional level.  Unfortunately, this is the level of athlete that gets all of the attention in the amatuerism debate.  There is a much larger strata of athletes who participate in non-revenue sports or serve to fill out rosters in revenue sports who do not specifically increase the university's bottom line. 

That said, would I be against splitting a larger piece of the pie with student-athletes?  Not at all.  If there's a way to compensate those who disproportionately benefit the university without diminishing the amount of revenue available to sustain the non-revenue sports, I'm all for it.  I just don't see how it can be done without reducing funding to everyone who doesn't play football or basketball.

You make a good point, as far as analyzing the ROI.  Are those players worth less than the scholarship they get now?  I don't know, particularly when you consider how little a scholarship costs the university.  It would be an interesting study. 

To an extent that's where a union benefits those players.  Just like LeBron will never be paid what he's worth by the team, that's a tradeoff all the players in the league take so that a guy like Ron Brewer can still make some money even though he hasn't seen the court in weeks.

[ChitownHawg]

Don't get me wrong, I love college sports and I'm sad to see it go.  In my top book recommendations are everything Dan Jenkins ever wrote on the old SWC, fiction and nonfiction.  The schools and NCAA just couldn't say no to the money, and ruined it for everyone.

Vaccaro's statement to the Knight Commission puts it best:

“Why,” asked Bryce Jordan, the president emeritus of Penn State, “should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?”

Sonny Vaccaro did not blink. “They shouldn’t, sir,” he replied. “You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir,” Vaccaro added with irrepressible good cheer, “but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to turn down any of our money. You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.”

Although Switzer doesn't do a bad job of summing it up too when he says:

"On current coaches’ salaries, as noted in a conversation with his old coach and boss, Frank Broyles: “Frank, you and I coached in an era when the players won, not the $5 million coaches.”

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/columnists/kevin-sherrington/20130820-sherrington-barry-switzer-shooting-from-a-new-hip.ece

All I can say is you are passionate and seem to keep up with the subject. Agree with you or not - I respect you for that.

[Fatty McGee]

All I can say is you are passionate and seem to keep up with the subject. Agree with you or not - I respect you for that.

Thanks.

[kingofdequeen]

All I can say is you are passionate and seem to keep up with the subject. Agree with you or not - I respect you for that.

don't forget to mind the stepchildren.

[Wildhog]

Fatty's logically consistent.  He's just wrong.

[arkmark]

Yes, money and amateur sports never work! 

(Says coach while he checks coaching contract for escalator clauses based on games won and ditching current long term contract for more money elsewhere) 

(Says AD while he checks with agent about rival offer for more money to use as leverage) 

(Says bowl exec while he's stuffing $100s in the stripper's G-string) 

(Says university marketing head while negotiating the latest Nike contract) 

(Says Conference Commissioner depositing $550,000 bonus for signing a billion dollar contract with TV network) 

(Says ESPN CEO as he deposits 7 figure bonus)

(Says Disney exec as he deposits 8 figure bonus from ESPN deals)

(Says NCAA head as he extols the virtues of amateurism while cashing his $1.7 million salary)

It's an outrage!!  These kids just aren't ready for that kind of success!

Gee Whiz Fatty, just 4 posts ago the NCAA head was making 1.6 a year now he's making 1.7 in the last few minutes.  He just get another bonus or you just making it up as you go along?

[Fatty McGee]

Gee Whiz Fatty, just 4 posts ago the NCAA head was making 1.6 a year now he's making 1.7 in the last few minutes.  He just get another bonus or you just making it up as you go along?

I was thinking of Mike Slive - he made $1.6M.  Emmert got 1.7M.  You can use the interwebs to verify.  What's $100K among friends running amateur sports?

[bphi11ips]

Scholar-athletes have been around for millenia and are here to stay.  Athletics is as essential to well rounded human development as academics. That's not going to change because a few superstars assert as much leverage as they can muster in men's football and basketball.

[arkmark]

I guess I'm too much of a free-market guy because, from a purely economic standpoint, the vast majority of student-athletes would be considered overpaid from an ROI standpoint by virtue of the fact that they receive ANY scholarship money.

When we talk about student-athletes, we tend to paint with a broad brush.  There is a very thin strata of athletes from whom the university profits immensely and their benefit to the university far exceeds the university's benefit to them.  These players almost exclusively exist in the revenue sports of football and basketball.  And many of these players get theirs later on the professional level.  Unfortunately, this is the level of athlete that gets all of the attention in the amatuerism debate.  There is a much larger strata of athletes who participate in non-revenue sports or serve to fill out rosters in revenue sports who do not specifically increase the university's bottom line. 

That said, would I be against splitting a larger piece of the pie with student-athletes?  Not at all.  If there's a way to compensate those who disproportionately benefit the university without diminishing the amount of revenue available to sustain the non-revenue sports, I'm all for it.  I just don't see how it can be done without reducing funding to everyone who doesn't play football or basketball.

Well put.

What is missing, it seems to me, is that many of the players in the revenue producing sports are receiving (if employees) "wages" far beyond their scholarship values.  For the 5% give or take of any given team that will go on to have a realistic shot at pro careers there is the benefit of a share of the millions schools spend on coaching staffs from head coach on down in order to train them to be the best in what they do and for what they can do on the pro level.  There is the millions every year in the value of the support staff of an athletic department from administration to trainers and medical staff to the SID that runs promotional schemes for everything up to and including Heisman candidates.  And lets throw in the millions in facility construction and upkeep.

What they don't won't recognize is that their compensation package beyond the scholarships and such comes in a deferred compensation package.  Almost all stand to benefit from this once their college playing days are over.  The upper 5% is easy as we see what the pros pay for those who make it.  But for the others what is the value of not just the education but the Razorback athletic experience when those players return home and enter the job market.  How much more marketable and at what higher wage rate does a letter A on the jacket mean to those kids who are the true student athletes back in the home town or for that matter anywhere in Arkansas or at any company in or out of Arkansas that recognizes the advantages of job applicants with a history of working in a situation requiring team work and dedication.  Student athletes can benefit quite well as is.  And, that doesn't end at graduation.

[arkmark]

What's $100K among friends running amateur sports?

So true.

[PonderinHog]

I was thinking of Mike Slive - he made $1.6M.  Emmert got 1.7M.  You can use the interwebs to verify.  What's $100K among friends running amateur sports?

Pimpin' ain't easy.

[grayhawg]

Does this mean there will be no more women's sports, after all when the college athletes become just employees and continually cost money we will just terminate them. And since the players are now employees, with a union do we still give them a free education or no education, do they file for workman's comp when injured?
    And since they are employees instead of student athletes we can also do away with title IX and all money losing sports.

  This is a long way from being a done deal

[Fatty McGee]

It's a long way from "coming down."

Athletes will eventually get a bigger slice of the pie but there's going to be a long fight over this.

By the way, I have the utmost respect for you as a sportswriter.  I think you do a great job.  Our disagreement on this issue in no way changes that. 

[Mike Irwin]

By the way, I have the utmost respect for you as a sportswriter.  I think you do a great job.

Thanks.

Back to the thread. I can see a series of court cases. Several appeals (if necessary). The Supreme Court (because title IX is in play). It might be years before it's settled unless the players agree to settle earlier.

Just a hunch but when it's over I don't think they'll end up with much more than they have now.

[Fatty McGee]

Thanks.

Back to the thread. I can see a series of court cases. Several appeals (if necessary). The Supreme Court (because title IX is in play). It might be years before it's settled unless the players agree to settle earlier.

Just a hunch but when it's over I don't think they'll end up with much more than they have now.

I have various ideas about what might happen, from the European sports academy model to a D-League model, but no certainty on any.  I just don't think the current model where the spoils aren't more equitably shared will last.

The reason I don't think most of these will go to the Supreme Court is the same reason most cases settle.  You go that far, and you have no control over the result.  The ruling comes down, and you're stuck with it.  Can't negotiate a better deal because the winner often has no incentive to do so.  There is a middle ground somewhere in here, and the NCAA and the schools have the most to lose, so they'll bend the most.

Players being allowed to market their likenesses is a done deal I think.

[bphi11ips]

Thanks.

Back to the thread. I can see a series of court cases. Several appeals (if necessary). The Supreme Court (because title IX is in play). It might be years before it's settled unless the players agree to settle earlier.

Just a hunch but when it's over I don't think they'll end up with much more than they have now.

An NLRB Regional Director missaplied the agency test, and his decision will be reversed on appeal.  Scholarship athletes are not employees.  The decision will have no affect whatsoever other than to shine a light on certain grievances that may have merit, e.g., medical coverage for sports injuries.

[Mike Irwin]

Players being allowed to market their likenesses is a done deal I think.

Who was the greedy doof at the NCAA that thought it was a good idea to market video games with the likeness of actual players appearing in the game?

Seems like they would have known it was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[ThundrHawg]

It still doesn't make it right for the schools to collude to cap the value of their services. 

They could take their talents to the job market and get fair value there. Most college athletes seem to be physically fit and would be well suited to manual labor. Or they could attend class and utilize the degree they receive to get a good paying job outside of sports. Where is all this outrage for the workers of Wal-Mart, McDonald's, etc. It is pretty much standard in this country that the workers are paid exponentially less than those at the upper levels of management.

[Fatty McGee]

They could take their talents to the job market and get fair value there. Most college athletes seem to be physically fit and would be well suited to manual labor. Or they could attend class and utilize the degree they receive to get a good paying job outside of sports. Where is all this outrage for the workers of Wal-Mart, McDonald's, etc. It is pretty much standard in this country that the workers are paid exponentially less than those at the upper levels of management.

It's also pretty much standard that you are entitled to maximize the value of their skills free of collusion.

[Fatty McGee]

An NLRB Regional Director missaplied the agency test, and his decision will be reversed on appeal.  Scholarship athletes are not employees.  The decision will have no affect whatsoever other than to shine a light on certain grievances that may have merit, e.g., medical coverage for sports injuries.

I bet the attorneys for the NCAA don't have your certainty.

[Fatty McGee]

Who was the greedy doof at the NCAA that thought it was a good idea to market video games with the likeness of actual players appearing in the game?

Seems like they would have known it was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Hogs at the trough.

[popcornhog]

There is no "myth of the student" athlete at Arkansas and most other major college programs. A few make a joke out of academics but they are not the norm.

There are around 450 on scholarship at Arkansas and the vast majority of them go to class and will graduate. There are rules in place these days that prevent some kid from not going to class. They simply will not remain eligible unless you're talking the "one and done" approach at Kentucky.

I have known countless young men over the last 40 years who arrived at Arkansas totally unprepared for life away from home. Most of them were completely different people by the time their eligibility was up.

There are some kids who aren't going to succeed because they refuse to put in the work but you can't use that to say the system is corrupt. There are way too many who succeed to claim that.

I tend to agree with you more than the author of the article.

That said, he does make some interesting points. Note that he is only really talking about sports that produce enough revenue to be in the black.

[12247]

I don't agree that this will fail overall.  And as far as Northwestern just quitting football, there is a law against that.  You cannot close the doors because of your workers voting in a Union.  Mr. President of University should know that.  You can file bankruptcy and go under as we've seen many times in the real world.
What we could have is conditions of work such as having to attend and pass certain college courses to not get fired---Paying for the college classes from your salary or considering your college costs as income and paying taxes on them just like parents do on some college expenses--Seeing the 85 scholarship limit move to 50 in football immediately upon the Union gaining force because Companies can have say in how many it takes to do the job.  After all the NFL has a 43 active player limit and they play more games.  You could see a draft of players, (workers) much like the NFL.  Colleges could immediately have the right to chop off unprofitable businesses and just leave the profitable ones in force.  Workers could demand a part of the TV millions.  Companies (Colleges) could fire unsuccessful workers anytime they fail and replace them with better workers.  If things got a bit tight, you might see the colleges trimming up the  waste administration and those associate ADs, 8 assistant coaches, huge salaries, costly junkets, friends and family trips to Bowls, King like office buildings might go South.                                                                                                            I have felt for years that a football constant clinic type business where the players who do not wish to go to college or cannot cut the classes might go to a football Tech School where simple things like balancing a bank account, learning about family ties, learning how to live away from home, learning insurance needs, how to choose a lawyer, a tax preparer, buy food for the week, balancing a budget, etc. while attending tons of football classes and practice would be a profitable endeavor.  These players would be sold to the NFL or other paying leagues.  Players would be totally cared for and should they get hurt, their medical bill would be covered, along with disability insurance in the deal.  Otherwise, the Tech School would keep you only as long as it appeared you were a valuable asset and you would learn likewise.  If you couldn't cut it in say 2 years, you would be dismissed.  The entire idea is to make the players good enough in 1 or 2 years to entice the leagues to pay for them, thus making the so called school a profit.  If this flew, Tech Schools could play each other but that would not be the main idea.  Much like a Tech School teaches a trade, this school teaches football.  The Kid is on a fast track to the NFL and likely the schools pay is deducted from the Kids signing bonus.

[Peter Porker]

Athletes deserve money for tattoos.  They're not cheap either.  A sleeve can cost a couple of grand. Now imagine both arms, torso and of course the classy neck tattoo. Pay these unfortunate souls already!!!!

[PygmalionEffect]

Everything in this article has been discussed in various threads here before now.

The only thing that I don't recall is that State sponsored schools are unlikely to allow their universities to play a 'unionized' school and would attempt to break away from the 'privates', likely finally killing the NCAA.  This would be especially true of Right to Work States.

The fracturing of FBS or whatever big boy football is called in these playoff days would then  leave the TV contracts in tatters and we'd have to go through all of that again.  Then while the contract negotiations were being worked out would come the dancing around of schools trying to get into the best contracts/league and then would come even more suits trying to keep the private schools and a few from the northeast from being left out in the cold.

In the end it's likely that if this unionization continues we will see three separate leagues:

1)  The unionists, the larger private schools that pay their players a percentage of their earnings along with state schools that are from states who are onboard with unions.

2)  The State schools, the state sponsored schools that refuse to go union but will pay a 'full cost' scholarship --basically the same amount just calling it different to appease the political climate along with any school that wants to be in what is likely to be the top tiered league.

3)  The Privates, Basically everyone else that can't afford either one of the first two.  We'll probably see some backfill from the FCS level to shore up the scheduling and make this one attractive to TV.

Wow, three paragraphs of utter nonsense.

Why didn't you just post "I don't like unions" ?

[daBoar]

Agree 100%.  If this whole union thing is allowed, it would open up "bidding wars" between the schools and the big fish (Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Florida State) would outbid the littler fish.  Although Arkansas has a lot of monetary value, they would need to have some success soon otherwise they would be in quite a jam.

Also, I don't know why I would want this to succeed if I was a Northwestern player.  As a Northwestern player, you want the current system (emphasizes some academics which is the strength of your school) to remain as it gives your program a chance to compete.  Make it a free agent market (emphasizes no academics which isn't the strength of your school) and your program will most likely be left in the dust.

I don't see the full blown bidding war happening.  All of this might open up a true professional minor league, but no one would care.  I sense that this will lead to a bit of watering down of the college game, but the folks who love their schools will still go to games, even if the super stars no longer play.  Look at Arkansas baseball; we really aren't good, but attendance is wonderful.  Folks like to watch their college (mens) sports.  WPS, with or without 5 stars.