TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Nailed it
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2019 Transfers
- Thread starter TonyTheTiger20
- Start date
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
Re: 2019 Transfers
Would this not be complete chaos if there were no limits to transfers? Each staff would have to hire 2 or 3 assistants to evaluate who to try and transfer.
Would this not be complete chaos if there were no limits to transfers? Each staff would have to hire 2 or 3 assistants to evaluate who to try and transfer.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: 2019 Transfers
There is a difference between allowing students to transfer and allowing coaches to try to poach players from other rosters.
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: 2019 Transfers
Or, the NCAA could treat athletes like employees, and bargain over working conditions, which would include rules on transfers.
Or, the NCAA could treat athletes like employees, and bargain over working conditions, which would include rules on transfers.
Offsides Guy
Active member
Re: 2019 Transfers
This is a good question. The answer is it is a way for the coaches and programs to protect their investments. A whole lot of time and money is spent in recruiting, training and educating a player so to have them be able to transfer so easily is a considerable "business risk". If I'm the coaches, I do whatever I can to get the NCAA to instill the sit-out-a-year policy across the women's D1 hockey.
No one is forcing any of these women to play D1 hockey. They can play D3 if the transfer rule doesn't exist there or not play at all and just go to school. It's not much different than companies/occupations that require employees to sign non-competes which severely limit their employment options should they leave the company. If you don't want to sign a non-compete, look for a job somewhere else.
This is a good question. The answer is it is a way for the coaches and programs to protect their investments. A whole lot of time and money is spent in recruiting, training and educating a player so to have them be able to transfer so easily is a considerable "business risk". If I'm the coaches, I do whatever I can to get the NCAA to instill the sit-out-a-year policy across the women's D1 hockey.
No one is forcing any of these women to play D1 hockey. They can play D3 if the transfer rule doesn't exist there or not play at all and just go to school. It's not much different than companies/occupations that require employees to sign non-competes which severely limit their employment options should they leave the company. If you don't want to sign a non-compete, look for a job somewhere else.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 Transfers
Why would universities want to treat athletes like employees? Students are not employees, although some of them may have jobs separate from their education at the school.
Athletes want to advance in their sport and the schools give them an avenue for it, nobody puts a gun to their head and forces them. In fact they are treated like prima donnas, receiving much perks not available to other students. Unless you have ever attended a school without athletics, you don’t realize what a pain in the rear and drag on receiving an education these so-called student-athletes are. They are athlete-students (most of them).
Grad students are expected to teach classes and act as teaching assistants. You don’t earn a doctorate and then *poof* you are a professor, you actually need experience teaching students (amazing I know).
Grad students have, like athletes at some schools, organized and try to extra perks from their school. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact they’d be dumb not to. But to expect these perks and argue they are employees, just like the athletes arguing they are employees is just that, an argument. They are students and not employees. Employees can quit whenever they want and go somewhere else (I repeat, anytime, athletes and students cannot without great cost to themselves.). There are many other differences.
Why would universities want to treat athletes like employees? Students are not employees, although some of them may have jobs separate from their education at the school.
Athletes want to advance in their sport and the schools give them an avenue for it, nobody puts a gun to their head and forces them. In fact they are treated like prima donnas, receiving much perks not available to other students. Unless you have ever attended a school without athletics, you don’t realize what a pain in the rear and drag on receiving an education these so-called student-athletes are. They are athlete-students (most of them).
Grad students are expected to teach classes and act as teaching assistants. You don’t earn a doctorate and then *poof* you are a professor, you actually need experience teaching students (amazing I know).
Grad students have, like athletes at some schools, organized and try to extra perks from their school. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact they’d be dumb not to. But to expect these perks and argue they are employees, just like the athletes arguing they are employees is just that, an argument. They are students and not employees. Employees can quit whenever they want and go somewhere else (I repeat, anytime, athletes and students cannot without great cost to themselves.). There are many other differences.
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: 2019 Transfers
They don't, which is why they've made ridiculous arguments in court to keep from having to. As I've said, they have sworn an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then told courts that generating revenue is not, in any way, a significant consideration in how they run their athletic departments. Judges and juries keep buying that argument, demonstrating how desperate everyone seems to be to pretend that obvious reality is false and a comforting myth is true. Read up on the Marc Buoniconti case, just one of many times they have done this.
But the athletes are employees, even if they are not legally recognized as such. They perform a job in exchange for remuneration. Their boss within the university sets their schedules and working conditions. If they quit the team, they lose their compensation. And the universities that argued in court that the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws for setting rules that limited the amount of that revenue they aren't at all concerned with that they could earn from TV networks are perfectly happy to argue that rules limiting the ability of their not-employees to play at another school are not an anticompetitive violation of those same laws.
The universities' position on this is morally indefensible. Their willingness to commit perjury, confident that no one will call them on it, is contemptible. It shouldn't take lawsuit after lawsuit to try to get them to do the right thing. They should step up and treat the athletes as what they are: employees. Instead, the prefer a system in which they bear no legal responsibility to pay the medical costs of someone paralyzed from the neck down working for them.
They don't, which is why they've made ridiculous arguments in court to keep from having to. As I've said, they have sworn an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then told courts that generating revenue is not, in any way, a significant consideration in how they run their athletic departments. Judges and juries keep buying that argument, demonstrating how desperate everyone seems to be to pretend that obvious reality is false and a comforting myth is true. Read up on the Marc Buoniconti case, just one of many times they have done this.
But the athletes are employees, even if they are not legally recognized as such. They perform a job in exchange for remuneration. Their boss within the university sets their schedules and working conditions. If they quit the team, they lose their compensation. And the universities that argued in court that the NCAA was in violation of antitrust laws for setting rules that limited the amount of that revenue they aren't at all concerned with that they could earn from TV networks are perfectly happy to argue that rules limiting the ability of their not-employees to play at another school are not an anticompetitive violation of those same laws.
The universities' position on this is morally indefensible. Their willingness to commit perjury, confident that no one will call them on it, is contemptible. It shouldn't take lawsuit after lawsuit to try to get them to do the right thing. They should step up and treat the athletes as what they are: employees. Instead, the prefer a system in which they bear no legal responsibility to pay the medical costs of someone paralyzed from the neck down working for them.
Last edited:
pokechecker
Banned
Re: 2019 Transfers
the only thing that matters, the legality
so how are they different than other students who receive scholarship? even if there is a difference, that doesn't make them an employee
the only thing that matters, the legality
I get paid for performing a job, yet I am not an employee of the company that I do the work for either.
so how are they different than other students who receive scholarship? even if there is a difference, that doesn't make them an employee
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: 2019 Transfers
Then you are almost certainly a contractor, which has its own set of regulations. Scholarship athletes don't qualify as one of those, either. And scholarship athletes do not meet the criteria that would allow the universities to declare them to be independent contractors.
My advice is to not edit out the places where I describe the differences, and then keep asking the same question.
Unlike the sort of students on scholarship that you are referring to, athletes are required to perform a job in order to keep theirs. They must show up at certain times and places. They must do what their supervisor tells them to do. If they do not do these things, they lose their scholarship. That makes it a job, and makes the athletes employees.
You edited out the part where I described the legal gymnastics that the NCAA goes through to prevent the athletes from being considered employees. A key element in the cases that have been decided, including the Marc Buoniconti trial, is that the athletic department cannot use revenue generation as a significant part of how it makes decisions about running its operations. If it does, then it is considered a commercial enterprise. If it's a commercial enterprise, then the people who perform the tasks that generate the revenue are employees.
So, unless you are prepared to confront and accept the argument that D1 university athletic departments do not consider generating revenue as a part of their operations, you have to accept that the athletes are employees. The latter necessarily follows from the negation of the former. Note, the key element is revenue, not profit.
Then you are almost certainly a contractor, which has its own set of regulations. Scholarship athletes don't qualify as one of those, either. And scholarship athletes do not meet the criteria that would allow the universities to declare them to be independent contractors.
My advice is to not edit out the places where I describe the differences, and then keep asking the same question.
Unlike the sort of students on scholarship that you are referring to, athletes are required to perform a job in order to keep theirs. They must show up at certain times and places. They must do what their supervisor tells them to do. If they do not do these things, they lose their scholarship. That makes it a job, and makes the athletes employees.
You edited out the part where I described the legal gymnastics that the NCAA goes through to prevent the athletes from being considered employees. A key element in the cases that have been decided, including the Marc Buoniconti trial, is that the athletic department cannot use revenue generation as a significant part of how it makes decisions about running its operations. If it does, then it is considered a commercial enterprise. If it's a commercial enterprise, then the people who perform the tasks that generate the revenue are employees.
So, unless you are prepared to confront and accept the argument that D1 university athletic departments do not consider generating revenue as a part of their operations, you have to accept that the athletes are employees. The latter necessarily follows from the negation of the former. Note, the key element is revenue, not profit.
Re: 2019 Transfers
Revenue generation is a significant part of how they make decisions in men's basketball and football. So why don't we all just accept the fact that women's sports are preposterous propositions and turn them all over to the marketplace.
Maybe we cab spin off basketball and football into another set of pro leagues. Get the colleges out of the sports business altogether instead of having the women playing parasite off the men for payroll crumbs due to some federal Title IX ruling. Since the real point is revenue generation and not federal funds.
Revenue generation is a significant part of how they make decisions in men's basketball and football. So why don't we all just accept the fact that women's sports are preposterous propositions and turn them all over to the marketplace.
Maybe we cab spin off basketball and football into another set of pro leagues. Get the colleges out of the sports business altogether instead of having the women playing parasite off the men for payroll crumbs due to some federal Title IX ruling. Since the real point is revenue generation and not federal funds.
hockeydad23
New member
Re: 2019 Transfers
A major reason University’s don’t want athletes to be considered employees, in addition to having to pay them, is worker’s compensation. Imagine the premiums schools would pay and athletic injuries of which there are many in every sport would be very very costly!
This whole discussion about revenue generation and students vs employees obviously matters much more in revenue generating sports of football and Men’s basketball. How is it fair that the athletes that generate all of the revenue are not even allowed to benefit off their own likeness? The NCAA is holding onto an antiquated model and will go down to their dying breath lying, yes absolutely lying, about the concept of the student-athlete! The NCAA doesn’t care about student-athletes, it cares about money and power!
A major reason University’s don’t want athletes to be considered employees, in addition to having to pay them, is worker’s compensation. Imagine the premiums schools would pay and athletic injuries of which there are many in every sport would be very very costly!
This whole discussion about revenue generation and students vs employees obviously matters much more in revenue generating sports of football and Men’s basketball. How is it fair that the athletes that generate all of the revenue are not even allowed to benefit off their own likeness? The NCAA is holding onto an antiquated model and will go down to their dying breath lying, yes absolutely lying, about the concept of the student-athlete! The NCAA doesn’t care about student-athletes, it cares about money and power!
MAHOCKEY FAN
Member
Re: 2019 Transfers
Looks like some sports are changing the rules....
https://theathletic.com/1048789/201...fer-waivers-is-in-favor-of-ncaa-not-athletes/
Looks like some sports are changing the rules....
https://theathletic.com/1048789/201...fer-waivers-is-in-favor-of-ncaa-not-athletes/
Double Eagle
Registered User
Re: 2019 Transfers
Former Providence D Rachel Rockwell will be on the blue line for the Merrimack Warriors this season.
Former Providence D Rachel Rockwell will be on the blue line for the Merrimack Warriors this season.
Sean Pickett
2009 NCAA Champions
Re: 2019 Transfers
Sean
It is my understanding that when an athlete is injured that all medical costs of the injury are covered by the schools and any athletic aid the player was receiving is continued for as long as they remain in school. For most players that fully recover from their injury these costs paid by the schools are similar. Looking at the reported medical and insurance costs of the 32 public schools for which I have NCAA financial reports for from 2010 through 2018 the overall average annual cost was $508,501 with the median $216,700. That does not include the cost of exhausted eligibility or medical equivalency aid, which I have not tracked, but in 2016 Wisconsin reported a total of 31.69 such cases across all sports, 9.3% of the 339.12 overall athletic aid equivalencies granted. Based on the dollar amount reported that comes to about $1.3 million, plus another $656,407 of non specific athletic aid. Since I specifically cited Wisconsin as an example I will also mention that the school reported almost $2.4 million in medical expenses and/or medical insurance premiums. So that mean for 2016 Wisconsin paid between $2.4 million and $4.3 million due to injuries to athletes.
Sean
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: 2019 Transfers
Most schools that I'm aware of will cover the medical costs associated with an injury, as BU did with Travis Roy. However, they are not under any legal obligation to do so. Again, see the Marc Buoniconti case. And I am not aware of any of them that go beyond that and compensate an athlete with a permanent injury for future lost income potential, as worker's compensation would.
Most schools that I'm aware of will cover the medical costs associated with an injury, as BU did with Travis Roy. However, they are not under any legal obligation to do so. Again, see the Marc Buoniconti case. And I am not aware of any of them that go beyond that and compensate an athlete with a permanent injury for future lost income potential, as worker's compensation would.
Sean Pickett
2009 NCAA Champions
Re: 2019 Transfers
As for lost income potential you then have to determine if the permanent injury prevents the athlete from earning an income in a regular job or if they might have been able to earn income playing a sport professionally. Travis is an extreme case, and there have been others as extreme, but most injuries are less serious. Does any organization track how many injuries there are across the NCAA and how serious they are?
Sean
I agree that the NCAA rules have loopholes which allow schools to weasel out of paying medical costs, still, I believe most honor the commitment to the student-athlete and pay medical costs. Other than the NCAA financial reports is this reported and tracked?
As for lost income potential you then have to determine if the permanent injury prevents the athlete from earning an income in a regular job or if they might have been able to earn income playing a sport professionally. Travis is an extreme case, and there have been others as extreme, but most injuries are less serious. Does any organization track how many injuries there are across the NCAA and how serious they are?
Based on the NCAA financial reports I have seen I believe a number of schools are self-insured and cover medical costs directly vs carrying a medical insurance policy.
Sean
Re: 2019 Transfers
It'll be interesting to see if she can make an impact in DIII given her DI stats.
It'll be interesting to see if she can make an impact in DIII given her DI stats.