And ... the gloves are now off !

[spaceghost]

The Northwestern decision probably wouldn't affect non-revenue sports even if it were upheld, since the athletes in those sports aren't performing a function that financially benefits the schools and therefore probably can't be classified as employees. As for revenue sports (and other sports if the revenue distinction isn't enough), the cheapest way to get around the ruling would be to stop offering athletic scholarships, since you're not an employee unless you're receiving payment.

[fvp47]

If they prevail and it is a long way to that and they are considered employees I would think that the total value of their scholarship becomes taxable income. One could also make the argument that there is imputed income in the value of the training they recieve through the coaching staff.
Be careful what you wish for.

[spaceghost]

Great point. I'm sure the people supporting this legal maneuvering mean well, but there are apt to be some serious unintended consequences for the people who can least afford it (in a literal sense).

[durenduren]

Mar 27, 2014 17:23:04 GMT -5 fvp47 said:

If they prevail and it is a long way to that and they are considered employees I would think that the total value of their scholarship becomes taxable income. One could also make the argument that there is imputed income in the value of the training they recieve through the coaching staff.
Be careful what you wish for.

There's a Forbes article out there that computed this total value at 120k yearly or something.

[gymrat67]

Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted

Attachment Deleted

[gymrat67]

Rich Hoffmann : Hey, NCAA, just go away

www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleges/20140411_Hey_NCAA__just_go_away.html#568mjYgzO77PCZLo.03

[JoeFedorowicz]

Apr 12, 2014 11:06:12 GMT -5 gymrat67 said:

Rich Hoffmann : Hey, NCAA, just go away

www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleges/20140411_Hey_NCAA__just_go_away.html#568mjYgzO77PCZLo.03

I think he nailed it, which is hard to admit as a former small sport athlete. My only worry? That the power brokers of MBB price the 200 schools, La Salle included, out of the basketball business.

[las71]

I will be shocked if the top 60-80 football schools don't form their own alliance. The issue for schools like La Salle will be what those football schools choose to do with their other sports. If we are lucky they will make a deal with the NCAA to remain as is with all sports other than football and basketball will survive in it's present form. If not, the non football schools will have to see if the major sports networks will continue broadcasting their men's teams and at what price. Truly difficult times for the schools whose main sport is men's basketball.

[big5explorer]

Mar 19, 2014 9:33:20 GMT -5 MisterD said:

You give them a percentage of what they're earning for the university.

And how would you reliably calculate that? The MLB and the players union can't agree on their book, and you want this tracked for a quarter million NCAA student athletes? C'mon....isn't 200,000 in free tuition, food, housing, and books enough for someone who is not yet a professional? Does a football QB generate more revenue than the punter? How about Union College's NCAA championship winning hockey defenseman? How about a second string LaSalle tennis player?

Maybe I should have asked for a percentage of the recvenue generated when I worked at Internissions as a student. Maybe a grad student who wins a 2 million dollar cancer research grant for her University should get a cut? Maybe 25%. Is that fair enough? How about 50%?

[MisterD]

Didn't Steve already take that path of "if you can't calculate absolute value you shouldn't pay"? I'm an accountant at a decent sized company, do you really believe my salary is directly proportional to the revenue I generate for the company? That's not how compensation works.

[MisterD]

So basically, just be honest here: You like college sports and you don't want to risk it changing for the worse. That's fine.

[theneumann64]

I don't think we'll ever get to "We will pay our starting QB X dollars, we will pay our back up LG y dollars" etc. At least not for a long time. And if it gets to that, it's all over, because then we'd literally be looking at a minor league system where Duke could just take all of our best players anytime they showed any promise.

I think the article from the weekend is closest to ideal. Anything but really football, basketball (M&W) and Baseball stay roughly the same, with maybe the elimination of the totally archaic rules. But for the most part, we're talking non-revenue sports. I know some sports, like Lacrosse or hockey, have a SMALL handful of schools that are revenue generators, but let's put that aside for now. I think the proposition of "student-athletes" is actually true for most of the other sports, so not too much changes.

I think separate governing entities for each major sport makes sense. Hopefully, that means the ACC is still included in the same umbrella as the MAAC, but who knows. I think you could have several umbrella organizations (say the ACC, Big 10, Pac 12, etc.) are part of 1 "Tier" and then you could have 2 or 3 other levels. They could have different rules (and pay scales), yet still play each other, compete for the same title, and agree to the same rules of play. Then I think you could do something where a Freshman earns X dollars per month, Sophomore earns 150% of that etc. Possibly uniform bonuses for All Conference, All American Honors, etc. and may be different based on Conferences. But I don't see how you can have a system where players are paid differently based on subjective criteria. I just don't see that right now.

[big5explorer]

So a sophomore pole vaulter at PSU should be paid the same as the starting QB for the football team?

What I'm getting at is that there is no system of paying players that is uncomplicated.

College students are rarely earning dollars as professionals, regardless of chosen career path, while they are students. Why should student athletes be different? They already are given what can be equal to a quarter of a million dollars of food, shelter, clothing, books, athletic gear, and tuition (and that's not accounting for student loan interest costs not paid), to live a college life, be a big man on campus, and play a game that kids play, while *training* to be a pro athlete.

If I were the Northwestern AD, I'd let them unionize, and have the coach cut them all and strip their scholarships on day 1 of practice. No one is forcing them to attend Northwestern.

[theneumann64]

No, you have to split it by sport. That's the point that was made in the article. The non-revenue sports will continue to not generate revenue and therefore not distribute much, if any, to its athletes.

And no, no one "forces" them to attend school. But no one "forced" coal miners to work the mines in the 1910's, that didn't mean they weren't exploited and abused. No, it's not an apples to apples comparison, or close to it, but I flatly reject the idea that unless you're forced to do something, you have no right to complain about it. The athletes in revenue sports at major schools are being totally screwed in this system. And I agree, this will be very messy and complex, and there's no perfect answer, but the current system sucks. I can think of a political analogy from the last few years, but as the moderator, I really shouldn't be opening that industrial sized jug of worms.

[MisterD]

If these were break-even or loss ventures, that would be one thing, but they very obviously are not. Schools (and the NCAA itself) generates insane revenue and does so off both student-athletes and "student-athletes" then argues they, the administrators on up, deserve to reap the money. Come on. If you look at the $10.8 BILLION tourney deal, that breaks down to $11.5MM per game. Allocating just three games of postseason money to every single school as stipend money is $100,000 per year. Evenly split, that's better than $7,500 each. If you want to break it up by contribution and use it as a salary cap and recruiting tool, that's fine too. The NCAA and schools aren't going to go poor off this, they still have the entire regular season plus those TV deals plus 95.5% of the tourney to work with.

[MisterD]

(And honestly, I don't see a great reason for schools to prop up loss sports rather than make them club or whatever.)

[big5explorer]

So players of revenue generating sports should get paid? Is Temple's punter going to be paid as well as PSU's QB?

Cry me a river for all the exploited athletes who get a free college degree, housing, and food for four years.

To compare them to coal miners from 100 years ago is laughable.

[MisterD]

Right right right ... the classes and housing and food is more than fair compensation and it means nothing that Calipari makes 250 "full rides" per season before incentives. He's the real revenue driver, not the players.

[theneumann64]

And we arrive at the point we always do for opposition in this case, which is the "cry me a river" argument. If my boss tells me I'm going to paid in free trombone lessons from now on, yeah that's something, still doesn't mean I'm not getting screwed.

[MisterD]

Well ... what if they offer Julius Randle free grad classes too as a bonus for the tourney run? That might balance his revenue generated versus compensation received equation, right?

[MisterD]

This is the list I found of our scholarship sports ...

Baseball (M)
Basketball (M & W)
Crew (W)
Cross country (M & W)
Field hockey (W)
Golf (M)
Lacrosse (W)
Soccer (M & W)
Softball (W)
Swimming and diving (M & W)
Tennis (M & W)
Track and field (M & W)
Volleyball (W)


I would love to see stats in terms of average gains/losses by sport and also average family earning by student-athlete by sport. Would just be very interesting to me.

[gymrat67]

                            Round One to Ed O'Bannon.

[weston2]

Apr 15, 2014 16:02:17 GMT -5 big5explorer said:

So players of revenue generating sports should get paid? Is Temple's punter going to be paid as well as PSU's QB?

Cry me a river for all the exploited athletes who get a free college degree, housing, and food for four years.

To compare them to coal miners from 100 years ago is laughable.

This has the potential to become a real disaster. Can't wait for Title IX implications. Can't wait for the first hand out to buy a prospective recruit by a family member, even a minister? The corruption is bad now, wait till you see it then. Colleges though have brought this on themselves, so its a 2 way street.

[gymrat67]

The ( proverbial ) toothpaste is now officially out of the ( proverbial ) tube :

www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/8/8/5984363/obannon-trial-ruling-result-ncaa-players

touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81037611/

www.si.com/college-basketball/2014/08/09/ed-obannon-ncaa-claudia-wilken-appeal-name-image-likeness-rights

espn.go.com/ot/story/id/1332816/ed-obannon-says-antitrust-ruling-only-beginning-change

espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11334265/mark-emmert-says-ncaa-appeal-ed-obannon-ruling

[luhoopsfan]

I honestly believe that the big football conferences will wind up destroying themselves and they only programs that will survive will be the top 1% (Notre Dame, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, etc) because those programs will offer more money to recruits than other schools and everyone will try keeping up with the joneses. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised to see football become a bit of a minor league NFL and once that happens I think the viewership will evaporate as games become more and more meaningless other than the top few programs.

As for Title IX, this will also bring some of the schools other than the top, top football printing presses because I think you will see that if these student-athletes aren't going to be "employees" then how can a school justify not giving every student athlete the same stipend. A scholarship is worth the same regardless of the sport you play, so I wouldn't be surprised to see women's lacrosse demand $10,000 per player if men's football is getting $10,000 per player. So when you have 700+ student-athletes to each give $10k to, it starts to put a big strain on a budget. instead of $7MM for facility enhancements and maintenance, now the school needs to find that money from somewhere else.

Finally, I want to know who else is going to then go after these schools that made money off of their images and likenesses and demand the money that they should have been paid while they were at school.

It's a slippery slope indeed.....

[weston2]

You want bizarre. I have a hard time wrapping my head around this one. The NFL/NBA players association and a sport attorney?

www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24606377/nflpa-and-nbapa-leaders-support-jeffrey-kesslers-college-sports-lawsuit

This will get way out of control, a playground for attorneys and lawsuits.

[a10champion15]

luhoopsfan I think you are right but I also don't think Notre Dame is on board with paying athletes. I do understand student athletes want more protection which they should get. However, that isn't in the form of "getting a wad of cash."

I honestly don't think it is going to go far. If the P-5 wants to show they are putting student athletes before education than I would imagine that a number of P-5 schools will not be on board especially considering some of the prestigious universities involved. The ACC has already demonstrated such as Syracuse and Boeheim they are against paying athletes in compensation but an alternative would be offering them a trust account where they can use the money for educational purposes, health and family related expenses not to go out "partying with the boys". Also, there must be a cap on the compensation as well.

Also, whats to stop other conferences from fighting them whether it's in the legal system. They still have voting rights within the NCAA and the P-5 rules still need to be approved by a majority. Some P-5 schools who are on the wrong side of this could have a very tainted image if this doesn't go well especially in regards to basketball.

[ltrain38]

This outcome has seemed inevitable for a long time and I think it's probably the beginning of the end of scholarship sports at 75-80% of D-I schools. Stipends will become salaries and we'll all get priced out of the market. I think this will be the end of the exploitation for profit at the top programs and the closing off of access to education and social mobility for the bottom and middle. We may not have a program to discuss in a few years.

[a10champion15]

Aug 11, 2014 15:26:49 GMT -5 ltrain38 said:

This outcome has seemed inevitable for a long time and I think it's probably the beginning of the end of scholarship sports at 75-80% of D-I schools. Stipends will become salaries and we'll all get priced out of the market. I think this will be the end of the exploitation for profit at the top programs and the closing off of access to education and social mobility for the bottom and middle. We may not have a program to discuss in a few years.

This is dramatic....

You realize the schools that would be the other side of this. Cincinatti, UConn, Villanova, Temple, San Diego State, most of the ACC, A10 C-USA etc. Could you imagine the uproar these schools will bring to the media if they try to break up D-1 sports. They will never be able to pay their athletes salaries that push programs out of the division one sports. No way that will ever happen nor is this coming anytime soon. First, it probably against a dozen laws of United States antitrust. Second, the Big 5 conferences don't even agree themselves and the NCAA appealed the decision in the UCLA case. This is going no where anytime soon. We also don't have a football program to worry about either.

[gymrat67]

NCAA ruling and the myth of the student athlete :

www.thenewstribune.com/2014/08/11/3326336/ncaa-ruling-and-the-myth-of-the.html