NLRB rules against NCAA

[gtcam]

I used to think colleges' jobs were to educate. How wrong I was!
Now, colleges' jobs are to entertain.
After all, what's more important, entertainment or education?

There hasn't been education or open discussion in the colleges for years
It's now re-education and directive thinking

 

[tykurez]

There hasn't been education or open discussion in the colleges for years
It's now re-education and directive thinking

Amen! My son went into college as a straight white male and now he’s graduating with a degree in mechanical engineer BUT he’s also gay!

 

[freescooter]

I've never cheered those things but keep doing what you do.

I was using you in the Sense of many people, not you personally. I had no idea your personal views. But your point that it was bad because they played on a bad team is wrong. They are either correct or not correct.

 

[fatlucy]

If you're fine with only football and basketball being played at the scholarhip level then good on you. There's going to be a lot of people freaking out when all the other scholarship sports are cut and thousands of kids who would be getting free college are no longer getting it.

I hear you but why do athletes get such preferential treatment over academics? What’s the business model? I can see revenue sports but the rest?

 

[upstater]

Something has to be done to regulate the cash flow at this point. Each school will need to develop departments that do the same things as sports teams. Each school needs to have a cap on funds available through NIL. I think college sports has already changed what it is. I think it’s for the better as it will reign in the habitual cheaters in the old system. But it is time for a different type of regulatory arm than the ncaa or the ncaa needs to change how the regulate college athletics.

This has nothing to do with NIL. This has to do with union wages and union benefits. They will need to cap practice time, and it could -- at the bigger schools -- eat into those $5k stipends.

Once you join a union, you also have to pay taxes on your income. Stipends aren't stipends anymore. In addition, depending on the parties in power, congress has gone after tuition remission as income in the past for paid employees. This is a very different thing than work-study.

 

[upstater]

Vast majority of non revenue scholarships are already institutionally backed. Why would that change? For a lot of schools, non revenue sports are enrollment drivers, they are not suddenly going to stop supporting them.

This is only true at D3 schools, not at D1 schools.

You can enroll all the people in the universe if you let them go to school for free, but this is exactly what schools are trying NOT to do.

 

[superjohn]

I hear you but why do athletes get such preferential treatment over academics? What’s the business model? I can see revenue sports but the rest?

Yep, that's the point. They had it is as good as it's going to get. They're already losing money for the schools, they're not going to start paying them to lose money for the schools.

 

[uconnfan68]

Can you change the thread title to NLRB instead of Courtx
?

I’m pretty sure mortals can’t do that.

 

[Vowelguy]

They're already losing money for the schools, they're not going to start paying them to lose money for the schools.

Again, why not?
They already are paying coaches to lose money for the schools. They already are paying thousands in airfares etc to lose money for the schools. How is this any different?
Absolutely some schools may get pushed over the edge and stop, but the idea that everyone will stop doesn’t make sense.

 

[superjohn]

Again, why not?
They already are paying coaches to lose money for the schools. They already are paying thousands in airfares etc to lose money for the schools. How is this any different?
Absolutely some schools may get pushed over the edge and stop, but the idea that everyone will stop doesn’t make sense.

How is this any different? It's way more money.

 

[visitingcock]

This has nothing to do with NIL. This has to do with union wages and union benefits. They will need to cap practice time, and it could -- at the bigger schools -- eat into those $5k stipends.

Once you join a union, you also have to pay taxes on your income. Stipends aren't stipends anymore. In addition, depending on the parties in power, congress has gone after tuition remission as income in the past for paid employees. This is a very different thing than work-study.

Union wages my butt. First step is minimum wage.

 

[upstater]

Union wages my butt. First step is minimum wage.

They are already making well beyond minimum wage.

 

[Vowelguy]

They are already making well beyond minimum wage.

The Dartmouth players arent.

 

[Spaceman213J]

How is this going to work with scholarships in the future. Can colleges and universities put language into scholarships that will allow them to be taken away whenever they want for 'failure to perform' or if a player decides to transfer, let the college sue the employee for 'breach of contract'.
It could also be the 'death nail' for a lot sports at colleges outside of football and basketball who don't bring in money. Are athletes going to have to pay 'dues' and it will be the same for all.
If it isn't reversed, I don't see how any semblance of the NCAA as we know it, remains in the long term.

 

[How Sway?!]

How is this going to work with scholarships in the future. Can colleges and universities put language into scholarships that will allow them to be taken away whenever they want for 'failure to perform' or if a player decides to transfer, let the college sue the employee for 'breach of contract'.
It could also be the 'death nail' for a lot sports at colleges outside of football and basketball who don't bring in money. Are athletes going to have to pay 'dues' and it will be the same for all.
If it isn't reversed, I don't see how any semblance of the NCAA as we know it, remains in the long term.

Scholarships can already be taken away whenever a coach/school wants. They are renewable on a yearly basis. If a player is not performing, a coach will let them know it's in their best interest to move down a level or find a new school. let's not kid ourselves and ignore that college sports has been a business since at least the turn of the century.

The NCAA of today is not the same of 5 years ago, and much less the NCAA of 20 years ago. Whatever idea of the NCAA you had has been long gone

 

[UConnTrumbull]

I just can’t imagine a scenario (aside from Title IX) to keep certain non-revenue sports.

 

[visitingcock]

They are already making well beyond minimum wage.

Dartmouth (Ivy League) does not give athletic scholarships. What are the players being paid?

 

[Chasm64]

Compensation as an employee means social security taxes, medicare taxes, income tax withholding on the value of that compensation. You think that's a win?

Plus union dues?

 

[Chin Diesel]

I just can’t imagine a scenario (aside from Title IX) to keep certain non-revenue sports.

They will become club sports or intramural sports.

 

[CL82]

They will become club sports or intramural sports.

Why would that matter? If the act of being a student athlete is employment, why would labeling that activity being a club sport be any different?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Scholarships can already be taken away whenever a coach/school wants. They are renewable on a yearly basis. If a player is not performing, a coach will let them know it's in their best interest to move down a level or find a new school. let's not kid ourselves and ignore that college sports has been a business since at least the turn of the century.

The NCAA of today is not the same of 5 years ago, and much less the NCAA of 20 years ago. Whatever idea of the NCAA you had has been long gone

Yes and no. It's a marketing function. Last I recall, maybe 20-30 schools had an AD that turn a profit, and that was without paying athletes. Do you think there's some huge bucket of cash just sitting there? It's already heavily subsidized, and aside from football and basketball, a complete money loser. They do it because kids like to attend a school that has sports. The real money is in admissions. The Ivys cut scholarships, because their students didn't really care. Nor MIT or CalTech. UC Santa Cruz has a nice ultimate frisbee team. Oxford, Cambridge, Trinity, none of the European schools have this. Maybe a non-scholarship crew team and track team. It's as it was in the U.S. 100 years ago. Actual students competing.

You move these kids to a payroll and the economics of this model collapse completely. You'll have maybe 40 schools participating. The rest will need to cut almost everything to non-scholarship. Schools like NYU, BU, Fordham, they may not even keep scholarship basketball. Honestly, their students mostly don't care now.

That said the NLRB is made up of mostly very, very pro-labor people at present. I doubt this ruling survives judicial review and even if does, Congress can wipe it out, and probably would.

 

[upstater]

Dartmouth (Ivy League) does not give athletic scholarships. What are the players being paid?

We're talking about D1 here. The Ivy League is irrelevant. But everyone knows the Ivy bball players receive full tuition remission plus r&b. It's not a secret.

 

[upstater]

The Dartmouth players arent.

We're talking about the impact on D1

 

[upstater]

Why would that matter? If the act of being a student athlete is employment, why would labeling that activity being a club sport be any different?

It will be impossible to legislate. Good luck with all of that. Maybe they'll establish thresholds for income, but again they'll fall afoul of TITLE IX.

 

[upstater]

Yes and no. It's a marketing function. Last I recall, maybe 20-30 schools had an AD that turn a profit, and that was without paying athletes. Do you think there's some huge bucket of cash just sitting there? It's already heavily subsidized, and aside from football and basketball, a complete money loser. They do it because kids like to attend a school that has sports. The real money is in admissions. The Ivys cut scholarships, because their students didn't really care. Nor MIT or CalTech. UC Santa Cruz has a nice ultimate frisbee team. Oxford, Cambridge, Trinity, none of the European schools have this. Maybe a non-scholarship crew team and track team. It's as it was in the U.S. 100 years ago. Actual students competing.

You move these kids to a payroll and the economics of this model collapse completely. You'll have maybe 40 schools participating. The rest will need to cut almost everything to non-scholarship. Schools like NYU, BU, Fordham, they may not even keep scholarship basketball. Honestly, their students mostly don't care now.

That said the NLRB is made up of mostly very, very pro-labor people at present. I doubt this ruling survives judicial review and even if does, Congress can wipe it out, and probably would.

When Boston U. got rid of football, their metrics in student applicants etc. shot through the roof. These 2 things are not related. But it's an example of how little schools in much of the country will notice they're gone. Only donors, alumni and politicians seem to care. Down south and midwest, it's a different story.

BUT I note things are changing a little bit. The mayor of Las Vegas basically told the Oakland As not to come.