Is a tectonic change coming to college sports?

[#UnleashSean]

Old white men talking about is football slavery. This should go over veeeeeeery well.

[MU82]

The Hypocrisy Parade marches on.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2020/08/19/college-football-leaders-keep-moving-goalposts-covid-19-surges/5611083002/

North Carolina tried a week of in-person classes before deciding that wasn’t going to work. Notre Dame is going virtual for two weeks because a spike of positive cases showed up a week or so after students moved in. More universities are inevitably headed for the same fate.

Yet college football remains on track to start in a few weeks in six of the 10 Football Bowl Subdivision Conferences with a new talking point attached to them: It’s actually safer for football if regular students have been sent home.

“That helps us create a better seal around (the) program and a better bubble,” North Carolina coach Mack Brown said.

He’s not wrong. If a university’s top priority is to play a football season under the current conditions, its best chance — perhaps only chance — is to sequester football players from their classmates for the next four months.

But that’s not the tune college athletics officials were singing several months ago. Not even close.

In fact, after a mid-April conference call between the College Football Playoff management committee and Vice President Mike Pence, the coordinated message from conference commissioners was diametrically opposite.

“If things are all virtual and if you can’t have kids on campus, can you justify the risks of having athletes on campus?” American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco said at the time.

Said Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby on the Golic and Wingo radio show: “The question was asked at one point, can you play football if school’s not in session, and I think the answer is no. These are student-athletes that are there for an education and it’s unlikely to happen. If online learning becomes the coin of the realm and if that can be satisfactorily implemented I suppose it's theoretically possible that there could be some contests. But if it’s not safe for fans to be in the stands, one has to wonder if it's really safe for young people to be banging heads and in close proximity to one another.”

And here’s SEC commissioner Greg Sankey on Knoxville radio station WNML: “I think fundamentally activity on our campuses is one of the important steps we’ll take to bring back college football, college soccer, college volleyball or whatever it may be.”

And NCAA president Mark Emmert said May 8 that in Division I: "all of the commissioners and every president that I’ve talked to is in clear agreement: If you don’t have students on campus, you don’t have student-athletes on campus."

Donna Lopiano, the former women’s athletics director at Texas and current president of The Drake Group, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to defend academic integrity in higher education, could only shake her head.

"You can see the writing on the wall now,” she said. “It’s really embarrassing. It’s just embarrassing.”

[MU82]

From Investopedia:

Indentured servitude refers to a contract between two individuals, in which one person worked not for money but in exchange for the price of passage to America. Indentured servitude—popular in the United States in the 1600s—was essentially a kind of barter system. For example, someone who sought a new life in America, but who could not afford the expensive steamship fare from another country, would contract with a wealthy U.S. landowner to perform a type of work for a fixed period in exchange for the price of the boat ticket. ...

Immigrants entered indentured servitude contracts of their own free will, as opposed to slaves, who did not have a choice in the matter. Treatment of indentured servants differed greatly from one master to another. ...

Servants also fared better than slaves in other respects: they had access to the courts and were entitled to own land.

Obviously, I was using hyperbole when I made my earlier reference to indentured servitude. But as the above shows, there certainly are parallels.

Athletes -- especially football players, but also basketball players and others -- choose the "servitude" of college sports because the system was set up by the masters years ago to make it by far the best way (and in some cases the only realistic way) for the servants to win their financial freedom as athletes.

For example, Trevor Lawrence, who would have been the No. 1 draft pick last spring if not for the ridiculous rules set up by the NFL and endorsed by the colleges, really had no choice but to play in college another year -- for no salary -- if he wanted to further his career.

He wasn't forced to, as would have been the case if he were a slave, but he really had no choice. It was either play or sit out the season. In other words, he had to make a "contract with a wealthy U.S. landowner (Clemson U.) to perform a type of work (football) for a fixed period (another season) in exchange for the price of the boat ticket (the opportunity to play in the NFL)."

The balance of power, which had tilted 100% to the universities for generations, is finally starting to shift some.

I am proud of the athletes that they realize they have been used and underrepresented, that they realize they are the most important part of college athletics (as universities long have claimed but have not shown to be true by their actions), and that they now are trying to do something about it.

I'm happy for the young men and women that the forced redshirt year for transfers appears to be on the way out, and that it's all but a done deal they will be eligible to get compensated for their NIL.

It's not a "tectonic change" yet, but there finally is some incremental progress.

[GooooMarquette]

There are definitely parallels between college sports and indentured servitude, but as you acknowledged, they are still quite different.

[warriorchick]

There are definitely parallels between college sports and indentured servitude, but as you acknowledged, they are still quite different.

Let's not forget that no one is forced into indentured servitude.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Some people in the Middle Ages preferred to be indentured servants over being free because of the security it provided. The key was to be tied to a nice landowner. Similar parallels.

[GooooMarquette]

Let's not forget that no one is forced into indentured servitude.

Correct. That's one of the parallels.

It's just that the differences are pretty vast....

[WhiteTrash]

Correct. That's one of the parallels.

It's just that the differences are pretty vast....

99% of college athletes will not benefit from NIL but will from scholarships and other benefits. The schools are losing millions dollars due to COVID. Who is in the right?

[MU82]

99% of college athletes will not benefit from NIL but will from scholarships and other benefits. The schools are losing millions dollars due to COVID. Who is in the right?

What I said had nothing to do with COVID.

[WhiteTrash]

What I said had nothing to do with COVID.

I was agreeing with you. But. COVID is a real thing that some people only want the schools to pay for. And, let's face it we will all pay for it.

[MU82]

I was agreeing with you. But. COVID is a real thing that some people only want the schools to pay for. And, let's face it we will all pay for it.

OK, but I still don’t get the connection. I still don’t know what you meant by “Who is in the right?”

[Johnny B]

wtf are these posts.. wth is going on

[WhiteTrash]

OK, but I still don’t get the connection. I still don’t know what you meant by “Who is in the right?”

I was questioning the NIL proposal, 1% of student athletes will benefit but the schools bear the burden of potential losses. I'm sorry. I was not clear. I'll move on.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I was questioning the NIL proposal, 1% of student athletes will benefit but the schools bear the burden of potential losses. I'm sorry. I was not clear. I'll move on.

I think you are underestimating the number of athletes who will benefit and overestimating the potential losses of the schools.

[WhiteTrash]

I think you are underestimating the number of athletes who will benefit and overestimating the potential losses of the schools.

Schools are not lookingat huge loses? Some have abandoned some sports for good.

There's got to be like 30,000 college athletes. How many will make money? Maybe 1% is a little too low but not far off.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Schools are not lookingat huge loses? Some have abandoned some sports for good.

There's got to be like 30,000 college athletes. How many will make money? Maybe 1% is a little too low but not far off.

From NIL? I think any losses will be more than manageable. NIL doesn't require universities to pay athletes it allows money from outside entities to go to athletes.

100% of college athletes will have the opportunity to make money off of NIL. Not all of them will take advantage. Remember, NIL isn't just about the huge shoe endorsements. It also allows them to use their status as a college athlete to make money teaching skills camps, influencing on social media, and in other small ways.

[WhiteTrash]

From NIL? I think any losses will be more than manageable. NIL doesn't require universities to pay athletes it allows money from outside entities to go to athletes.

Yes they are manageable by cutting sports, which is happening.

[Pakuni]

Yes they are manageable by cutting sports, which is happening.

No sports have been cut because of NIL.

[The Big East]

D-1 College Sports is a very good deal for the Student Athlete.  What many are overlooking is the cost of the capital and operating costs to create these great collegiate institutions. The players take no financial risk and get a guaranteed return in the form of scholarships, room and board, books and stipends. Not to mention for any kid with half a brain, a huge leg up in the work world due to their celebrity status as having played for XYZ State University. That is where the dividends of college sports come into play.  In real life, many of these athletes start to realize by junior year that there is no pro sports option and start to focus on building their own personal resumes. They generally come out school with a head of steam and do very well.

That said, I am for the likeness rules being lifted. Primarily , for the kids who are not the stars. They can still make good money doing instructional clinics , modeling, social media, participating in corporate events etc . To my way of thinking, the likeness issue is simply one of expanding the available pie and letting more people share in it.  The schools where never going to tap into these ancillary revenue streams, so why not open them up to the students.

[MU82]

No sports have been cut because of NIL.

Yes, our friend Mr. Trash is conflating two very different things. He is against NIL, and is somehow trying to "prove" something about them by bringing up athletic department cuts relating to COVID. Makes absolutely no sense.

[MU82]

D-1 College Sports is a very good deal for the Student Athlete.  What many are overlooking is the cost of the capital and operating costs to create these great collegiate institutions. The players take no financial risk and get a guaranteed return in the form of scholarships, room and board, books and stipends. Not to mention for any kid with half a brain, a huge leg up in the work world due to their celebrity status as having played for XYZ State University. That is where the dividends of college sports come into play.  In real life, many of these athletes start to realize by junior year that there is no pro sports option and start to focus on building their own personal resumes. They generally come out school with a head of steam and do very well.

That said, I am for the likeness rules being lifted. Primarily , for the kids who are not the stars. They can still make good money doing instructional clinics , modeling, social media, participating in corporate events etc . To my way of thinking, the likeness issue is simply one of expanding the available pie and letting more people share in it.  The schools where never going to tap into these ancillary revenue streams, so why not open them up to the students.

Whether or not they are "a very good deal" is in the eye of the beholder. Given the number of student-athletes who are rising up now, it would appear many of them disagree with you.

And one could argue that every time a top-100 football athlete plays (or practices) when he could be playing in the NFL (but can't because of the rules that force him to wait 3 years until after high school), he is taking a "financial risk." And then when guys like McCaffrey and Fournette skip a single exhibition game to reduce that risk a little, they get ripped by some for being "selfish."

Obviously, I agree with your second paragraph, which was a pleasant surprise to read after your first.

[Not A Serious Person]

I see two possible outcomes with college football, you agree?

----

* The SEC/B12/ACC have bumps and issues, but pull it off.  They have games every week from Late September until Dec.  Everyone is satisfied they had a fall season as best they could.

If this happens, the B1G are in choas and lost hundreds of millions.  B1G Commissioner Kevin Warren is out and many B1G University Presidents are grilled by their Trustees about how this happened and what are they going to do to cover these (now seen as unnecessary) losses?



* The SEC/B12/ACC attempt to have a fall season fails, ends early after a couple of games, sickness (or worse) and potentially a superspreader event is the story.

If this happens, the SEC/B12/ACC are in choas.  Commissioners and University Presidents are called to how they allowed this to happen, resignations to follow.  Kevin Warren is a hero.

[WhiteTrash]

D-1 College Sports is a very good deal for the Student Athlete.  What many are overlooking is the cost of the capital and operating costs to create these great collegiate institutions. The players take no financial risk and get a guaranteed return in the form of scholarships, room and board, books and stipends. Not to mention for any kid with half a brain, a huge leg up in the work world due to their celebrity status as having played for XYZ State University. That is where the dividends of college sports come into play.  In real life, many of these athletes start to realize by junior year that there is no pro sports option and start to focus on building their own personal resumes. They generally come out school with a head of steam and do very well.

That said, I am for the likeness rules being lifted. Primarily , for the kids who are not the stars. They can still make good money doing instructional clinics , modeling, social media, participating in corporate events etc . To my way of thinking, the likeness issue is simply one of expanding the available pie and letting more people share in it.  The schools where never going to tap into these ancillary revenue streams, so why not open them up to the students.

I agree with this. Well stated.

[Galway Eagle]

Whether or not they are "a very good deal" is in the eye of the beholder. Given the number of student-athletes who are rising up now, it would appear many of them disagree with you.

And one could argue that every time a top-100 football athlete plays (or practices) when he could be playing in the NFL (but can't because of the rules that force him to wait 3 years until after high school), he is taking a "financial risk." And then when guys like McCaffrey and Fournette skip a single exhibition game to reduce that risk a little, they get ripped by some for being "selfish."

Obviously, I agree with your second paragraph, which was a pleasant surprise to read after your first.

Your first paragraph tries to claim people rising up is always proof that people have been mistreated but it doesn't really prove anything. All it takes is for easily influenced people to start a movement and see where it goes.

Also the argument for a top 100 football recruit losing out of money because they're stuck in college isn't great either. It assumes a new crop of 100 recruits get signed into the NFL every year. It also assumes that at 18 they're able to compete with grown men who do this professionally. I agree is BS that people get upset when stars skip meaningless bowl games but your kid ranked 99 isn't losing out on pro money by going to college for a year.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

From Investopedia:

Indentured servitude refers to a contract between two individuals, in which one person worked not for money but in exchange for the price of passage to America. Indentured servitude—popular in the United States in the 1600s—was essentially a kind of barter system. For example, someone who sought a new life in America, but who could not afford the expensive steamship fare from another country, would contract with a wealthy U.S. landowner to perform a type of work for a fixed period in exchange for the price of the boat ticket. ...

Immigrants entered indentured servitude contracts of their own free will, as opposed to slaves, who did not have a choice in the matter. Treatment of indentured servants differed greatly from one master to another. ...

Servants also fared better than slaves in other respects: they had access to the courts and were entitled to own land.

Obviously, I was using hyperbole when I made my earlier reference to indentured servitude. But as the above shows, there certainly are parallels.

Athletes -- especially football players, but also basketball players and others -- choose the "servitude" of college sports because the system was set up by the masters years ago to make it by far the best way (and in some cases the only realistic way) for the servants to win their financial freedom as athletes.

For example, Trevor Lawrence, who would have been the No. 1 draft pick last spring if not for the ridiculous rules set up by the NFL and endorsed by the colleges, really had no choice but to play in college another year -- for no salary -- if he wanted to further his career.

He wasn't forced to, as would have been the case if he were a slave, but he really had no choice. It was either play or sit out the season. In other words, he had to make a "contract with a wealthy U.S. landowner (Clemson U.) to perform a type of work (football) for a fixed period (another season) in exchange for the price of the boat ticket (the opportunity to play in the NFL)."

The balance of power, which had tilted 100% to the universities for generations, is finally starting to shift some.

I am proud of the athletes that they realize they have been used and underrepresented, that they realize they are the most important part of college athletics (as universities long have claimed but have not shown to be true by their actions), and that they now are trying to do something about it.

I'm happy for the young men and women that the forced redshirt year for transfers appears to be on the way out, and that it's all but a done deal they will be eligible to get compensated for their NIL.

It's not a "tectonic change" yet, but there finally is some incremental progress.

Check out the new show on Hulu & NatGeo Barkskins.