3/30/2014 8:16 AM
need to figure out a system that will withstand challenges under Title IX, nondiscrimination and equal protection.

If mens hoops get a salary, how about womens hoops.  And how about water polo.  Or fencing.

Allowing players to get a share of licensing revenue could be done on a nondiscriminatory basis - one sport produces millions in licensing, another not.  You get a share.  Maybe the NCAA requires reporting and supervision of licensing revenue, maybe it limits how much can be paid currently and requires greater amounts to be held in trust.

Need a nondiscriminatory answer to survive review
3/30/2014 8:24 AM
That's what complicates it all it who all gets pd and how much. Probably the simplest would be let them sign endorsements. Shoes, shoot commercials, jersey sales.
3/30/2014 2:55 PM
i agree, something has to be done. fd when you say "how about womans hoops or water polo", i would expect this change to be sweeping - if someone wants to put the water polo star on T shirts, and pay them for it, more power to them. 

to me what is really difficult is universities and their boosters paying athletes just to come. i really don't like that part of it, i don't want it to be minor leagues and have schools get in bidding wars for top players. that could really **** up the college basketball i know and love. the problem is, when you start to have shades of gray - and i think this is why the NCAA takes the black and white approach - its SO HARD to oversee. what if some local booster wants to pay the kid 40 bucks an hour to run the register. its clearly not reasonable pay for the service being provided - but then again, having a famous UK player serving customers could definitely bring folks in. to me the difficulty is trying to make a set of rules that is enforceable. going the black and white approach of everything goes, i think most agree, could ruin the sport - but its sure hard to find that middle ground.

maybe you could set a limit on hourly rate for players during the season, something normal for people without a degree, and then only allow players to be paid for doing advertisements and endorsements. its still tough, the rich UK fan who owns the dealership might think that 10K is a fair price for a service but pay 50K anyway... 

alternatively you could not allow ANYTHING except a living stipend, that could vary by player say up to 30K/year, which isn't a huge amount from a budgeting standpoint, but it does make a big difference to the kids who come from very poor families and want to send some money home. minimally, allowing them to cover the 10K or so you have to pay on top of a full scholarship, just in basic living expenses, seems very easy to justify, to me. you could also only allow schools to pay say a total of 150K per year across all players - so the 30K doesn't become automatic to everyone from the big schools, as a way of luring them away from smaller schools who would struggle to pay the 390K/year with a full roster.

i don't know, i don't like the status quo, but it does seem very difficult to create a set of rules that is enforceable. 
3/30/2014 3:02 PM (edited)
Posted by stinenavy on 3/30/2014 2:09:00 AM (view original):
I thought the President got those slots filled on the DC Circuit when they changed the filibuster rules.
its pretty sad it came to that in washington.... very, very ****** way to address the problems those guys have. "we can't work together so lets make it so we don't have to". its sad that doesn't fly in kindergarden but it does in washington. what a load of crap (not meant as a partisan comment)

edit: i haven't paid much attention lately, but ive been wondering - if anyone here knows, i'd be curious to hear it - how did the dems changes the filibuster rules? wouldn't the republicans just filibuster? did they choose not to because they think they are going to win the senate back, or can you not filibuster certain things like changing filibuster rules? or was it like, a sneaky midnight vote? my personal opinion is they should have went back to the way it was - allow filibustering but you have to actually DO IT. not the lamest and most oxymoronic invention of all time, the silent filibuster.
3/30/2014 4:08 PM
I agree gill

the issue for womens hoops or fencing etc etc is if one suggests a salary - like we should pay these athletes a salary - would the salary differ for revenue sports?  in economic terms it should, but in a world of nondiscrimination and title IX thats hard

thats why the licensing approach makes sense - and I agree with your example.  I think the negotiation should be about what % of licensing revenue goes to the players and what % of that is paid immediately and how much is held in trust for after they leave school


3/30/2014 4:52 PM
Posted by rogelio on 3/29/2014 11:24:00 PM (view original):
Not sure whether a decision that the students meet the NLRB's definition of employee means that they meet the same definition under IRS regulations.  If it did, then sure, all private universities have failed to file W-2's for all of their scholarship athletes, the athletes have failed to pay income taxes.   Many would owe penalties for their failure to file appropriate returns, withholding elections and FICA withholding.  I'm not sure that one follows from the other though.

I'm also not certain whether the NLRB's decision necessarily extends to public non-profit institutions, rather than merely private non-profit institutions.  It seemed they relied quite a bit on Northwestern's choice to extend scholarships to a 4 year duration, rather than just 1 year.  Potential upshots of the decision may be that private non-profit institutions will only offer 1 year / temporary grant-in-aid programs (renewable at the whimsy of the head coach) or, if the NLRB's jurisdiction fails to extend to Public/State-owned/chartered Universities, that private universities are simply unable to be competitive anymore.

On a second point, the NCAA makes almost all of its money on March madness in basketball and very little on Football (check the leaked NCAA financial records to verify if you wish).  The jerseys are a very unseemly and stupid mistake by the NCAA.  Those sales are chump change compaired with the licensing & tv rights for the tournament that we're probably all watching.  Control of football may matter, but it isn't a big source of revenue for the NCAA.  The Ed O'Bannon lawsuit probably has them more concerned.  They may beat the NU students on appeal within the NLRB and would certainly win before the DC Circuit (as long as republicans are able to prevent democratic appointees to fill vacancies on that circuit).  
I agree with your second piint rogelio. The conferences make the most money in network and tv deals. The university too. But the ncaa does make money on everything with their logo on it. March madness, bowl games, jersey sales, any clothes with team name on it, etc... All crooked.
3/30/2014 5:56 PM
At least give every athlete an hourly wage for the hours they spend on the sport.  Then it's like any other kid who works for the school.  It's still not equitable for the revenue generating sports that earn big money but it's more than fair for the other 90%.
3/30/2014 8:39 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 3/30/2014 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 3/30/2014 2:09:00 AM (view original):
I thought the President got those slots filled on the DC Circuit when they changed the filibuster rules.
its pretty sad it came to that in washington.... very, very ****** way to address the problems those guys have. "we can't work together so lets make it so we don't have to". its sad that doesn't fly in kindergarden but it does in washington. what a load of crap (not meant as a partisan comment)

edit: i haven't paid much attention lately, but ive been wondering - if anyone here knows, i'd be curious to hear it - how did the dems changes the filibuster rules? wouldn't the republicans just filibuster? did they choose not to because they think they are going to win the senate back, or can you not filibuster certain things like changing filibuster rules? or was it like, a sneaky midnight vote? my personal opinion is they should have went back to the way it was - allow filibustering but you have to actually DO IT. not the lamest and most oxymoronic invention of all time, the silent filibuster.
The press kept referring to the potential rules change as the "nuclear option".   The deal is that vote to change Senate rules, in this case on invoking cloture (cut off debate), could be approved with a simple majority as a vote on the rules was not itself subject to filibuster.   The existing cloture rules were adopted to shut off embarrassing filibusters over, say, civil rights legislation.  Those rules required 60% vote to close debate over a filibuster.

It was "nuclear" because it would so **** off the minority party that no further cooperation could be expected from the minority.  As the minority had committed itself to wholesale obstruction of all legislative activity, the Dems said, "well, what the hell!"  Reid did limit the scope to try to keep the next Congress's backlash to a minimum.  Here's a NYT quote that describes the rules limits: "Under the change, the Senate will be able to cut off debate on executive and judicial branch nominees with a simple majority rather than rounding up a supermajority of 60 votes. The new precedent established by the Senate on Thursday does not apply to Supreme Court nominations or legislation itself."   

For some reason, I thought the DC Circuit still wasn't getting filled, but I knew that there was a backlash from the left as some of Obama's nominees to that Circuit were too conservative (disapproving of abortion rights or in favor of limits).   Probably should have put 1 + 1 together and not gotten zero.

3/30/2014 9:56 PM
No way in hell should they get paid. This will make college sports hard to watch IMO. This also hurts small schools and that means march madness will never be the same again. I think an education is enough pay as it is, and which most players don't take advantage of. This being said I think they should let players straight out of high school to go pro if they want.
3/30/2014 10:43 PM
Baseball has the best. Go pro or atleast 3 yrs college.
3/31/2014 10:14 AM
i'm against paying 'amateur' college athletes as they are already receiving tens of thousands of $$$ each year...in tuition, room/board.
but ok, pay them - and the girl's softball, soccer and track/field athletes, too.......but - if anyone that receives scholarship money from a public university - make them reimburse the state that they play in, for anything received...if they don't graduate in 5 years of enrolling....graduate and pay nothing back....but if you're using state colleges for 'job training', then pay the $$$ back from your professional signing bonus.
3/31/2014 10:34 AM
why is this job training different from the kid who studies engineering, gets a merit schollie and then earns nice $$?
3/31/2014 12:38 PM
the engineering major is going to need his/her degree in order to earn the nice $$$. 6'5" receivers that run 4.5 40's don't. they'll stay long enough to be seen on tv catching a few td's - then bolt...thereby wasting an educational opportunity (with no student loan to worry about) and be out of the game by 30, with nothing but (hopefully) their savings to live on...and if not, a high school education won't open a lot of doors.
3/31/2014 12:53 PM
I know this idea has a below 0% chance(!) but I wish there was no MAJOR intercollegiate sports. Do like a lot of the world and let communities/organisations have athletic clubs. If an exercise club wishes to field what amounts to a minor league team then let 'em. Basically I'm talking the worldwide soccer/basketball model. In this perfect world we could all plant flowers too!
3/31/2014 3:23 PM (edited)
Actually jennings, I don't think your utopia is that far-fetched.  

Very few DI athletic programs are profitable and most receive subsidies.  Where would the money come from?  If players are to get paid, then the scholarships will have to go.  If the scholarships go, then how many players can afford to attend a university even if they are paid?  I can see an Ivy league format across the board with no athletic scholarships.  Without the scholarships, there's no player's union and no need to pay anyone.   

This would leave a huge demand for club or minor league systems a la baseball/soccer/hockey.  Then players would have choices.  Go straight to the pros, got to a club or minor league team, or go to a university on their own dime or academic scholarship and try out for the football team.  

P.S.  Nice to see two pages on this without the overblown partisan rhetoric that usually accompanies these kinds of topics.
of 3

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.