Scholarship table
YupAnd start to tax those scholarships, and pay taxes in every state they play in like the pro jock taxes. And start to contribute to health care which they currently get for free from the school. Ahh, those unintended consequences the unicorn brigade rarely contemplates. Going to be awesome.
LolEven the 9th circuit has shot that down. Good luck.
You asked a serious question, guru, so I will give you a serious answer, with no mud-slinging or name-calling or anything of that sort ...Because I am for what benefits the young athlete/students who work so hard for my alma mater, who bring me school pride and who provide a lot of entertainment during the college basketball season. To me, it is important that they be treated like their peers, who are allowed to profit off their own likenesses without having to give up eligibility in their chosen activities and who are allowed to attend a different school without having to give up their chosen activities for a year.I really do understand your reluctance to those concepts, though. The prospect of status quo changing significantly can seem scary. It's a big reason why there were people at southern schools who were against their schools recruiting black athletes; why there were lots of fans of men's sports who were vocally opposed to women receiving athletic scholarships; why there were people against freshmen being eligible to play varsity college sports; why there were people against athletes being able to go pro before they exhausted their college eligibility; why there were people against college basketball adopting the 3-point line and shot clock; why there were (and still are) people against the grad-transfer rule; etc, etc, etc.People tend to want to hang onto what they have known, and that's just human nature. But it's pretty important to note that none of those scary changes to the status quo actually "ruined" college sports as many feared they might. Indeed, many would argue that at least some of those things enhanced college sports.Athletes being able to profit off their own likenesses without having to give up their eligibility won't ruin college sports IMHO. Nor would athletes being able to transfer without having to sit out a season. College sports are resilient. They have been for well over a century.
So do NBA and NFL players not try hard because they get a paycheck? And if the backup tackle wants an unreasonable amount of money from the video game company, he gets left out.
And I will respond in kind...as with you, it affects me as well from the entertainment of it. One of the reasons I love College BB so much, is because it's NOT pro basketball. It's not about the money. It's about playing for school pride, the fans, their future(potentially) and because they love to play.Now, I don't necessarily disagree with you that it won't hurt college sports...TO START with. But eventually it will. Why?? Because I'm 90% certain that eventually this will lead to directly paying players straight from the University. Once something like this happens, there's no going back, and it won't be enough. Someone always wants more. That's just the way these things work. I also think an unintended consequence could be a SA's effort. What if instead of giving it their all because that's what it's supposed to be about, now they don't put forth as much, because all they are thinking about/care about is that 100K check that's supposed to be coming net week??Something else that will be affected..say advertiser A has an agreement with said University for advertising etc. Once this becomes a reality, why wouldn't that same advertiser STOP shelling out x amount of dollars to the University, when it's cheaper for them to just hire the QQB to do an ad spot for them, and they essentially get the same results only less $. Which also means, less revenue for the University, which means...higher ticket prices etc. That WILL happen. As far as so many people saying this will only affect the top 1% of athletes or whatever. I also disagree there..what if there's a video game based on college sports again?? You are using every single player on that teams name, image or likeness, so you HAVE to compensate every single one of them, don't you?? How is that going to work when the back up tackle is negotiating an unreasonable deal??
Non compete clauses. Simple fix. Can only fire for cause. Which they do now anyway.
Honest question, as I know little about law in general and almost nothing about labor law: when you fire someone for "cause", isn't a "cause" because they are bad at their job?. And wouldn't "non compete" limit transfers?
Something else that will be affected..say advertiser A has an agreement with said University for advertising etc. Once this becomes a reality, why wouldn't that same advertiser STOP shelling out x amount of dollars to the University, when it's cheaper for them to just hire the QQB to do an ad spot for them, and they essentially get the same results only less $. Which also means, less revenue for the University, which means...higher ticket prices etc. That WILL happen.
The FLSA is pretty outdated, as well as the DOL's Field Office Handbook. To quote the 7th Circuit"The Department of Labor believes that the athletic activities are conducted primarily for the benefit of the participants as a part of the educational opportunities provided to the students by the school or institution, and are not work of the kind contemplated by the FLSA.We find the FOH's interpretation of the student-athlete experience to be persuasive," However, the FOH does state that students who participate in a work-study program and, for example, "work at food service counters or sell programs or usher at athletic events, or who wait on tables or wash dishes in dormitories in anticipation of some compensation" are "generally considered employees under the FLSA."
You want examples of pro players after getting guaranteed contracts decided to cruise after it....happy to provide.
Unless it's 100% of pro athletes and 0% of college athletes, it's a stupid straw man.
Interesting standard...so that plays out then with everything here about those comparisons? Duly noted and saved in the memory bank.
In the case of the argument Iceman was making? Yes. The idea that college players will start slacking because of financial interests is a stupid straw man.
Rasheem Dunn's waiver was denied...and Cleveland State's AD wouldn't support him playing right away. Honestly, the AD is right, even though his Coach was fired, and his teammates transferred, he COULD have stayed with the team. This is why kids SHOULD be committing to University's/schools and everything about it rather than just a Coach or the program. That in and of itself would reduce transfer numbers.Zach Braziller@NYPost_BrazilleSources told me Cleveland State AD not supporting Rasheem Dunn playing right away and NCAA decision based on fact he could've stayed at Cleveland State, despite his coach getting fired and his teammates transferring. Mind-boggling.
This won't happen because sponsors won't get the same results.Why, for example, would Nike choose to sponsor only Tua, when they can sponsor Alabama athletics and get Tua AND every other Bama athlete in every sport? They'll get way more screen time sponsoring the uniform every Alabama coach and player wears during games than they ever would by sticking a star player in a commercial .. for which, by the way, they have to buy the screen time, as opposed to having it provided by ESPN and CBS.The idea that sponsors are going to abandon their deals with schools to sponsor individual athletes makes zero sense from either an economic or marketing standpoint.
It’s interesting the old white male brigade assumes players will slack off and not play hard because they might make some money from NILs.I find that very interesting indeed
its state specific, but generally, reasons for cause should be written into their contracts. As for non competes, if the school wishes to release the individual, they should wipe away the non compete. That is why I think scholarshups should be for 4 years, and if the school wishes to release someone from scholarship, they should be immediately eligible.
Wisconsin employees are "at will" and can be fired for any reason (besides the obvious ones). I was let go from a company for looking for other jobs and my non compete was enforced. I was told my multiple lawyers it would never hold up, but it was only a year and probably not worth fighting if I could do something else.