College Football Players---Students or Employees?

[CLS]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

To make things more complicated, this ruling only applies at private colleges, not public colleges.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Because they are the only parties to the suit. If they prevail all the way through then the whole athletic program could fall under the ruling.

To add on, a big part of the ruling focused on the crazy amount of hours the football players spent doing sporting activities (averaging around 50 hours/week during training camp and the season, and even 20 hours/week during the spring), and the ridiculous amount of control that the coaches had over the players.

I'm not saying that this isn't the case in other sports, it's just that was a big part of the ruling in this particular case. Just because the Football players are "employees" doesn't mean that the Tennis players will also be "employees."

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

There was an article posted on GPL about this:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...8/college-football-players-union-pay-for-play


Here was my response to the whole thing:

I think that's because we know this will evolve into a pay-for-play issue down the road. Sure, right now it's not, but it will become that.

In addition, point #2 has some absolute absurdities in it. Money to travel home? Cost for laundry? Give me a break. If traveling home is so **** important, stay close to home. Buying clothes? Why should the school foot the bill for clothes? And laundry, really? Is laundry that much a burden to college students? These are not expenses that should be covered in a scholarship. And I really don't care if Delaney and others are for it.

#4's explanation simply doesn't make sense. If the player wants to leave early, the school can't force him to stay. That's on the players, not the institutions. Unless we start forcing players to commit to a four-year contract that prevents them from playing sports elsewhere if they leave early. Which is a terrible idea. I'm not opposed to reducing school-night games. I think that's a fairly good idea. Not sure how that would work for sports like basketball and baseball. Hockey and football would be easy.

#9 is also preposterous. How do you punish someone for breaking the rules if they've already jumped ship? You have to punish the institution. Does it suck for current players? Absolutely. But they should make it a priority to ensure a school isn't violating the rules.

#10 is there for a reason. I don't understand the opposition to this. I think the NCAA should be far more lenient in granting exceptions, but overall this is in place to protect the rest of the players and the institution should a star player not like the team he's playing for and just jump ship.

There are a number of very valid points in that article, however. Namely the injury and post-graduation medical insurance. These are absolutely required.

I also like the idea that a school should be required to give an academic scholarship to a player who loses his athletic scholarship for on-the-field performance issues (exceptions would be things like failed drug tests, criminal activity, etc.) and not be penalized by the NCAA. If a player doesn't cut it anymore, he should be allowed to continue his education without it costing the university an athletic scholarship slot (as long as he's in good standing academically).




Regarding the hours required when I was discussing the original ruling, here was my reply to that:
Then there's section 1 on page 18. He asserts that because players spend 50 to 60 hours on football in a week on football and receive compensation, that is one factor in calling them employees. Then goes on to say that 20 hours of class attendance is required by the players. I don't know about you guys, but when I was in school, I had 20+ hours of class and an additional 40-80 hours of work just to keep up in class. I believe he also includes team meals, required study halls, medical visits, and other team activities (movies, chapel, etc.) as part of the football-related duties. I'm not so certain that's the right call.




Another great point that was brought up on GPL was what happens in right to work states?
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Map-of-Right-to-Work-States1.png

So, pretty much the SEC, the Big 12, a quarter of the Big Ten, Notre Dame (although they're private, so who knows how that works), and half the ACC.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

If a college scholarship was "the greatest gift you can receive," Doug Gottlieb wouldn't have needed to steal those credit cards.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

There was an article posted on GPL about this:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...8/college-football-players-union-pay-for-play


Here was my response to the whole thing:

I think that's because we know this will evolve into a pay-for-play issue down the road. Sure, right now it's not, but it will become that.

In addition, point #2 has some absolute absurdities in it. Money to travel home? Cost for laundry? Give me a break. If traveling home is so **** important, stay close to home. Buying clothes? Why should the school foot the bill for clothes? And laundry, really? Is laundry that much a burden to college students? These are not expenses that should be covered in a scholarship. And I really don't care if Delaney and others are for it.

So no student should ever be allowed to go home even once in 4 years unless they can get there for free? I think you are making an assumption that these kids are going home every weekend or something.

#4's explanation simply doesn't make sense. If the player wants to leave early, the school can't force him to stay. That's on the players, not the institutions. Unless we start forcing players to commit to a four-year contract that prevents them from playing sports elsewhere if they leave early. Which is a terrible idea. I'm not opposed to reducing school-night games. I think that's a fairly good idea. Not sure how that would work for sports like basketball and baseball. Hockey and football would be easy.

You think 50% of the students are leaving early?

#9 is also preposterous. How do you punish someone for breaking the rules if they've already jumped ship? You have to punish the institution. Does it suck for current players? Absolutely. But they should make it a priority to ensure a school isn't violating the rules.

The best way would be to retroactively take their scholarship away and put them in debt for that amount. Then it would have credit implications if they didn't pay it.

#10 is there for a reason. I don't understand the opposition to this. I think the NCAA should be far more lenient in granting exceptions, but overall this is in place to protect the rest of the players and the institution should a star player not like the team he's playing for and just jump ship.

The penalty of sitting out a year to transfer seems good enough to me. No immediate transfers though, unless its an exceptional case.

I also like the idea that a school should be required to give an academic scholarship to a player who loses his athletic scholarship for on-the-field performance issues (exceptions would be things like failed drug tests, criminal activity, etc.) and not be penalized by the NCAA. If a player doesn't cut it anymore, he should be allowed to continue his education without it costing the university an athletic scholarship slot (as long as he's in good standing academically).

Scholarships are 1 year things. They are then renewed each year. So the university should not be under any obligation to continue giving a scholarship to a player after their last one expired if they have been removed from their sport. Let them qualify for other types of scholarships, grants, loans, etc. if they can, but it shouldn't be guaranteed to them. They are likely only at that school because of their sport to start with.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

First, scholarships aren't always one year deals. There are four year deals as described in the decision published.

The other points I will address later.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Resubscribed because mobile blows.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

There was an article posted on GPL about this:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...8/college-football-players-union-pay-for-play
In addition, point #2 has some absolute absurdities in it. Money to travel home? Cost for laundry? Give me a break. If traveling home is so **** important, stay close to home. Buying clothes? Why should the school foot the bill for clothes? And laundry, really? Is laundry that much a burden to college students? These are not expenses that should be covered in a scholarship. And I really don't care if Delaney and others are for it.

Many athletes come from poor homes. The NCAA makes it very difficult for these athletes to take jobs that there is a fundamental hole in the ability for these young men to simply live a life. How do you get money for laundry if you're not allowed to work? Are you going to get a student loan for the express purpose of buying some Downey? How about obtaining a laptop computer so you can do your homework? I paid for almost half my schooling through my summer jobs, but these athletes could be seen as violating NCAA rules when getting a summer job because the students don't always know who the donors to their programs are.

 

[wolverineTrumpet]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Students and employees. The work they do brings money to the university. There are plenty of students that are also employees of a University, from simple jobs like grading a class to TA positions. At Michigan the GSI (graduate student instructors) have a union and are often negotiating for better compensation and working conditions. Why shouldn't athletes be able to?

Many of the things being requested are perfectly reasonable. A scholarship that includes misc. expenses seems like the right thing to do. Especially when some scholarships already include that. And to the poster who commented "if you want to go home, stay near home" would you give the same advice to a scholarship student who chose a school based on the academic merit of their chosen major? If I want to be a great violinist, I'm going to go to a school with the best violin professor I can get into, no matter location. Football players are going to go to the best program they can get into, no matter location.

The medical expenses should be covered. I had my own situation with that as a marching band member. I needed to get stitches taken out during band week, a week before school started my freshman year. Because the semester hadn't started yet, I was technically not a student yet, and thus unable to use the university health services. Even though I was at school, doing school related activities. A player doing athletics related activities absolutely should be covered for medical insurance.

Yes, all of this will eventually lead to the pay for play arguement. But why should league commisioners, coaches, athletic department administrators, marketing executives, tv producers get to line their pockets on the talent of amateur athletes? Yes, some of these big name athletes will make it to the pros and have more money than they need thanks to the opportunity to play at __ University. But when you're a broke college kid that can't afford to put gas in your 20 year old car that barely runs, potential future money doesn't help.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

If this thing gets legs, it'll change the face of college athletics like few things have. Which is probably good in some ways and bad in other ways. It's all about money and to the extent more money stays in the football program, other parts of the athletic department will inevitably suffer (absent a Phil Knight or something).

 

[Handyman]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Many athletes come from poor homes. The NCAA makes it very difficult for these athletes to take jobs that there is a fundamental hole in the ability for these young men to simply live a life. How do you get money for laundry if you're not allowed to work? Are you going to get a student loan for the express purpose of buying some Downey? How about obtaining a laptop computer so you can do your homework? I paid for almost half my schooling through my summer jobs, but these athletes could be seen as violating NCAA rules when getting a summer job because the students don't always know who the donors to their programs are.

Yeah you paid for half your school by working, they are paying for all of their school by playing football. They dont have nearly the expenses you did. I guess I am not seeing your point.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Yeah you paid for half your school by working, they are paying for all of their school by playing football. They dont have nearly the expenses you did. I guess I am not seeing your point.

Whatever money I earned, I was free to do with it as I chose. I could put it all into tuition or I could split it out to do other things. During the school year I worked 20 hrs per week (usually) to help pay for more school and those things like clothes, soaps and entertainment. One of my roommates had a job that afforded him the chance to earn more than my cost of school, and he also elected to only take 9 credits a term to find a work/school balance that he found to be most personally effective. These athletes are not allowed any of these options because of NCAA restrictions on scholarships.

 

[Handyman]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

That is wonderful that you and your roommate worked hard to pay the bills...their bills are paid for by their scholarship. That is the point of the scholarship, to pay for their schooling. Your example doesnt work because they dont have to pay for what you have to pay for.

You know in all my time at the U it never failed that I saw athletes eating out at restaurants or chilling at bars and so on. I mean if they are so poor and woebegon how do they pay for that exactly? (not to mention the tvs, gaming systems, tattoos...etc)

And before you say it, no they werent all hockey players and many of them came from lower income families. Do you honestly think the players are sitting at home not having fun and living the campus life? If you do that is fine...you would be wrong but that is cool

But hey what harm could come from letting them get jobs...I am sure that wont be abused at all.

 

[MavHockey14]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Whatever money I earned, I was free to do with it as I chose. I could put it all into tuition or I could split it out to do other things. During the school year I worked 20 hrs per week (usually) to help pay for more school and those things like clothes, soaps and entertainment. One of my roommates had a job that afforded him the chance to earn more than my cost of school, and he also elected to only take 9 credits a term to find a work/school balance that he found to be most personally effective. These athletes are not allowed any of these options because of NCAA restrictions on scholarships.

These kids have plenty of opportunities to spend the money they get wisely. They don't pay room and board, or for their books. They have a luxury no other college students have.

http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/football-players-receive-17000-annually-in-cash-all-within-ncaa-rules/

 

[St. Clown]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

That is wonderful that you and your roommate worked hard to pay the bills...their bills are paid for by their scholarship. That is the point of the scholarship, to pay for their schooling. Your example doesnt work because they dont have to pay for what you have to pay for.

You know in all my time at the U it never failed that I saw athletes eating out at restaurants or chilling at bars and so on. I mean if they are so poor and woebegon how do they pay for that exactly? (not to mention the tvs, gaming systems, tattoos...etc)

And before you say it, no they werent all hockey players and many of them came from lower income families. Do you honestly think the players are sitting at home not having fun and living the campus life? If you do that is fine...you would be wrong but that is cool

But hey what harm could come from letting them get jobs...I am sure that wont be abused at all.

Some colleges include the extra money in their scholarship offers, but not all. That was plainly stated in the link provided by dx. That said, I still find it to be nearly criminal, and if not criminal then certainly immoral, that the NCAA limits these students' ability to find other means of income. Aside from that, some of these student athletes may have taken out student loans to cover these various costs.

 

[Handyman]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

So what? I took out loans, most people I know took out loans. I guarantee we are in a worse position than most of the football team is.

You want to argue morality that is one thing. Calling it criminal...yeah sorry these kids are not victims.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

So what? I took out loans, most people I know took out loans. I guarantee we are in a worse position than most of the football team is.

You want to argue morality that is one thing. Calling it criminal...yeah sorry these kids are not victims.

I disagree. As much as I know that many (probably most) of them are self-entitled prima donnas who mistreat women and all the rest, that doesn't make it right that a 3rd party (the universities) should be allowed to make money off of them hand over fist. You can't round up a bunch of starving refugees from Haiti and force them to work in your factory 50 hours per week while paying them next to nothing and refusing to negotiate with them just because "at least they're better off now than they would have been otherwise." That's effectively what universities are doing to their money-making (i.e. football and basketball) athletes.

If the universities are no longer allowed to profit from the athletes in this way, it seems almost inevitable that some investors will see an opportunity to make money WHILE paying young athletes reasonably close to their market value and we will finally see true minor/developmental leagues appear without the charade of academics.

I say this as someone whose tail is firmly planted in front of the TV every Saturday in the fall, enjoying watching the spectacle of it all - but that doesn't make it right.

 

[dxmnkd316]

I disagree. As much as I know that many (probably most) of them are self-entitled prima donnas who mistreat women and all the rest, that doesn't make it right that a 3rd party (the universities) should be allowed to make money off of them hand over fist. You can't round up a bunch of starving refugees from Haiti and force them to work in your factory 50 hours per week while paying them next to nothing and refusing to negotiate with them just because "at least they're better off now than they would have been otherwise." That's effectively what universities are doing to their money-making (i.e. football and basketball) athletes.

If the universities are no longer allowed to profit from the athletes in this way, it seems almost inevitable that some investors will see an opportunity to make money WHILE paying young athletes reasonably close to their market value and we will finally see true minor/developmental leagues appear without the charade of academics.

I say this as someone whose tail is firmly planted in front of the TV every Saturday in the fall, enjoying watching the spectacle of it all - but that doesn't make it right.

Well, I think getting paid $76k a year in college would have been quite dandy. I think those Haitians may agree.

 

[dxmnkd316]

So what? I took out loans, most people I know took out loans. I guarantee we are in a worse position than most of the football team is.

You want to argue morality that is one thing. Calling it criminal...yeah sorry these kids are not victims.

Yeah, I don't understand why these kids can't take out loans like the rest of us schlubs.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

There's no reason they can't work off-season/summer jobs, either. Half the bouncers in Grand Forks were current UND football players...some of them even worked a day or two a week in season.