Give me a break Joey

[lawdog77]

Yup

And 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.

Yes. Tax them. So?

[lawdog77]

Lol

Even the 9th circuit has shot that down.  Good luck.

The FLSA is pretty outdated, as well as the DOL's Field Office Handbook.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."

[muguru]

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.

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??

[brewcity77]

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.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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.

Workers would try so much harder and be so much happier if they worked for company pride and stopped getting those demotivating paychecks.

[Uncle Rico]

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??

So shameturism should continue to exist because it entertains you is a terrible argument

[Lennys Tap]

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?

[lawdog77]

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?

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.

[forgetful]

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.

If the athletes are treated the same as employees, the athletes wouldn't even be allowed to sign an NIL deal with the advertiser that already has or had an existing contract with the University. It would be a clear financial conflict of interest that any employee is forbidden to sign into by contract.

[MU82]

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??

Thank you for taking the time to respond and for the tone in which you responded.

Some of the things you worry about happening might indeed happen. But I disagree that any of them would do much if any damage to college sports. Might even make them better.

The good news (IMHO) is that it looks like we'll be able to find out, and fairly soon.

[Cheeks]

Non compete clauses. Simple fix. Can only fire for cause. Which they do now anyway.

Scholarships are guaranteed now for 4 years now.


But but but but coaches don’t have non-compete clauses, says the unicorn brigade...that’s not fair.

[Cheeks]

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."

August of 2019.


“The 9th Circuit ruled that the players’ receipt of scholarships from their schools could trigger no expectation of compensation from the NCAA or PAC-12. Any such expectation could not be grounded on the NCAA’s prohibition on student athletes accepting compensation beyond scholarships limited to the cost of attendance.

Second, said the court, the NCAA and PAC-12 lack the power to hire and fire student athletes. Yes, the NCAA and PAC-12 indirectly exercise some control over student athletes by regulating such things as the players’ living arrangements, athletic eligibility, permissible compensation, and allowable behavior. But that is not the kind of control that matters under the FLSA. It is the schools that select, supervise, and discharge players. The power to make rules that member schools enforce is not equivalent to the power to hire and fire the players ultimately subject to those rules.

Third, the court concluded the arrangement between the NCAA/PAC-12 and the student athletes could not have been either conceived or carried out to dodge the mandates of the FLSA because the NCAA rules were first issued in the 1920s -- over a decade before Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938. The court acknowledged that the “economic reality” of college sports is much different today than it was a hundred years ago, but, by itself, the substantial revenue the student athletes generate for the NCAA/PAC-12 could not resolve whether there was an employment relationship.

The 9th Circuit also rejected the student athletes’ claim that they were employees under the state of California’s wage laws. The court rested its conclusion on a provision of the state’s workers compensation law that excludes student athletes from coverage as employees of the schools for which they play.”

[Cheeks]

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.

You want examples of pro players after getting guaranteed contracts decided to cruise after it....happy to provide.

[brewcity77]

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.

[Cheeks]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[MU82]

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.

Don't worry, brewski. The other day, hoopaloop said: There is a reason the rule is in place, because it makes sense. That means he believes that 100% of all rules that have ever been put in place by anybody "make sense."

Ipso fatso, he now is for the grad-transfer rule, and he will be 100% behind whatever NIL policy emerges.

He also has indicated many times over the years that if a survey shows the majority strongly favors something, that thing automatically is "right." And he also backs 100% of things that have been affirmed by courts.

[Uncle Rico]

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.

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

[muguru]

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_Brazille
Sources 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.

[Pakuni]

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.

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.

[Uncle Rico]

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_Brazille
Sources 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.

You must not have supported Koby McEwen, Ed Morrow and Jayce Johnson then.  You want those kind of kids on your team that can’t keep a commitment?

[forgetful]

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.

I agree with you. But part of this is then the athletes can't market their likeness to any athletic companies, because it would be a financial conflict of interest that would be prohibited by University agreements. So the athletes would get no compensation from these sources, and be prohibited from contracting with any other competitors, again financial conflict of interest.

In that case, how long until the athletes say they should be paid from these sponsorships by the University?

[Cheeks]

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

You know everyone’s age and racial makeup here?  That is interesting.

As a 50+ white male, I can only comment on my history, experience that I have seen.  Some players will slack off, some will not.  Cannot wait for the scenarios where one guy on the team gets a NIL, and another one who is performing better doesn’t.  Or the coach decides to sit a NIL player on the bench and the drama that causes.  Oh it is going to be fun.  So much fun.

But let’s stop pretending you and others ONLY want NIL.  You know that is complete crap.  This is just phase 1 for you.  That’s how it works and to deny it is ridiculous.  People aren’t stupid.  5 years from now it will be more, 10 years from now, more.  Etc, etc. 

[MUDPT]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

This is because you were an at will employee, which is default in Wisconsin and most states. It doesn't mean that a legally enforceable contract requiring cause for termination couldn't be drafted.