What's new
By:
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.

O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

Tipsy - If Target loses money, employees lose their jobs. You don't see student athletes of non-revenue sports losing their scholarships and not being able to compete because their program isn't bringing in money. Not apples-to-apples.

Simple fact is, these universities use the revenues from revenue sports to fund non-revenue sports. Student athletes received scholarships know full well before stepping foot on the university that they are going to get a free education, access to first-rate facilities, and the exposure that comes with playing at a high level. They don't assume any responsibility for having to earn money, and they aren't promised any money in return.
 
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

mnstate0fhockey said:
Have you toured any large universities? Not to mention, they don't even need to be "world class" anymore to cost a lot of money considering building costs. Look at the cost of Minnesota's new baseball facility. Not exactly the cost you see with the Viking's new stadium, but not cheap by any means. Baseball is a non-revenue sport (or relatively low revenue), but I'm sure the players aren't asked to chip in for that cost.
Click to expand...
You show me. You made the claim. You are claiming that they have to spend money on world class facilities. Quit moving the goalposts. The U of M spent $1 million on the new Siebert field. $6.5 million was contributed by donations. The Pohlads spent more money on it than the University did.
 
mnstate0fhockey said:
So, collegiate tennis and soccer players should play in community adult leagues so that a relatively few basketball and football players can get played to get college athletics?? You're making my point for me.
Click to expand...
Actually if any sport could benefit being outside of the NCAA it's soccer. If College Soccer was regulated by FIFA and the USSF, schools have more revenue opportunities.
 
Tipsy McStagger said:
You show me. You made the claim. You are claiming that they have to spend money on world class facilities. Quit moving the goalposts. The U of M spent $1 million on the new Siebert field. $6.5 million was contributed by donations. The Pohlads spent more money on it than the University did.
Click to expand...

Don't know about you, but $1 million is a lot of money if I am a player chipping in to pay for it.
 
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

LynahFan said:
Seriously? There are tons of awesome facilities out there in non-revenue sports. Here's one for tennis. Definitely world class and definitely cost a lot of money. Click on the picture and you'll see the satellite view of the awesome aquatic facility right next door.
Click to expand...
I am sure there are, but how many of them were paid for by the school? Both of those facilities were funded by donors.
http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-tennis/spec-rel/120401aaa.html
The principal funding for the expanded facilities, which is scheduled for completion next fall, has been provided by philanthropists Tad and Dianne Taube. The Taubes are long-time supporters of Stanford tennis and other Stanford University programs.
Click to expand...

http://giving.stanford.edu/stanford-benefactor/stories/avery-family-pools-their-resources-again
They've already funded the largest outdoor swimming and diving facility in the nation, but Marion "Pete" Avery and her extended family of Stanford alumni were ecstatic to receive a phone call from John Arrillaga, longtime driver and supporter of athletic building plans on the Farm, asking about a joint project on the west side of campus.
Click to expand...
 
Jimjamesak said:
Actually if any sport could benefit being outside of the NCAA it's soccer. If College Soccer was regulated by FIFA and the USSF, schools have more revenue opportunities.
Click to expand...

Don't know enough about that to comment. If true, I'm sure that isn't the case with the vast majority of non-revenue sports.
 
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

Tipsy McStagger said:
I am sure there are, but how many of them were paid for by the school?
Click to expand...
Now who's moving the goalposts? The entire text of your challenge was "Show me a college training facility for soccer, tennis, swimming or another non-revenue sport that is "world class" or that cost a lot of money."

Even directed donations are essentially fungible - if Stanford had preferred that the Taubes provided a new weight room for the football team with those millions, you can bet there would have been a new weight room. Conversely, if the Taubes had decided to line their mattresses instead, then Stanford would have had to use some of their general athletic revenues (from their revenue producing sports) to build the tennis facility. Donations are really just another revenue stream, and they allow schools to plow revenue from the revenue-producing sports back into those same revenue-producing sports - particularly into coaches salaries and other operating costs as it's easier to get donations (or taxpayer funding) for the facilities.
 
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

LynahFan said:
Now who's moving the goalposts? The entire text of your challenge was "Show me a college training facility for soccer, tennis, swimming or another non-revenue sport that is "world class" or that cost a lot of money."

Even directed donations are essentially fungible - if Stanford had preferred that the Taubes provided a new weight room for the football team with those millions, you can bet there would have been a new weight room. Conversely, if the Taubes had decided to line their mattresses instead, then Stanford would have had to use some of their general athletic revenues (from their revenue producing sports) to build the tennis facility. Donations are really just another revenue stream, and they allow schools to plow revenue from the revenue-producing sports back into those same revenue-producing sports - particularly into coaches salaries and other operating costs as it's easier to get donations (or taxpayer funding) for the facilities.
Click to expand...
If you want to start a thread about great non-revenue sport facilities, be my guest. But this is all a discussion about paying college athletes. He is saying, "well, these schools have to pump all of this money into the non-revenue sports, so the schools can't possibly afford to pay the players". He cited the world-class facilities for the non-revenue sports. I said show me one. You showed me one that was not paid for by the school. So that isn't an expense for the school that would diminish their ability to pay athletes. Stanford never would have built such an magnificent, expensive facility for a non-revenue sport if they had to pick up the tab. No school would. No school is going to pay to build a "world class facility" for a sport that doesn't make them money.
 
Tipsy McStagger said:
If you want to start a thread about great non-revenue sport facilities, be my guest. But this is all a discussion about paying college athletes.
Click to expand...

I think they go hand-in-hand. You're talking about paying college athletes who have absolutely no obligation to make money for the university. I find it funny that you think college athletes who are connected (directly or indirectly) to revenue streams for the school should get paid, but they and other student athletes should have no obligation to help pay for the facilities they use or cover shortfalls in revenue for their sports.

Students have no obligation to play college athletics and the contract they enter into when doing so in no way entitles, promises, or offers them financial compensation for doing so. Neither does it give them any responsibility for fundraising for facilities or covering shortfalls in revenue.
 
Last edited:
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

mnstate0fhockey said:
I think they go hand-in-hand. You're talking about paying college athletes who have absolutely no obligation to make money for the university. I find it funny that you think college athletes who are connected (directly or indirectly) to revenue streams for the school should get paid, but they and other student athletes should have no obligation to help pay for the facilities they use or cover shortfalls in revenue for their sports.
Click to expand...
Glad I could provide you with a laugh. Show me another business in this country where the employees have an obligation to pay for the facilities or cover shortfalls in revenue.

Students have no obligation to play college athletics and the contract they enter into when doing so in no way entitles, promises, or offers them financial compensation for doing so. Neither does it give them any responsibility for fundraising for facilities or covering shortfalls in revenue.
Click to expand...
Gee, thanks for letting me know how things currently operate. Now that we all understand the way things are now, let's talk about ways to improve the system. For me, that is giving college athletes rights that other workers in this country have.
 
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

Tipsy McStagger said:
Glad I could provide you with a laugh. Show me another business in this country where the employees have an obligation to pay for the facilities or cover shortfalls in revenue.


Gee, thanks for letting me know how things currently operate. Now that we all understand the way things are now, let's talk about ways to improve the system. For me, that is giving college athletes rights that other workers in this country have.
Click to expand...

But college athletes currently don't work for a university.
 
Tipsy McStagger said:
Gee, thanks for letting me know how things currently operate. Now that we all understand the way things are now, let's talk about ways to improve the system. For me, that is giving college athletes rights that other workers in this country have.
Click to expand...

I still fail to see why the system needs to be improved. All parties benefit. Athletes in revenue sports get access to a free education, world class facilities, and exposure playing in one of the world's premier amateur leagues. The Universities, in exchange, get revenue that they can use to fund non-revenue sports for other student athletes, and improve athletic and academic facilities that all students enjoy.

If O'Bannon gets his way, a select few student athletes will get paid at the expense of other student athletes playing non-revenue sports at the university and tuition rates will likely go up for all students. Sounds like a great deal for a few and a lousy deal for the vast majority. That is, if those select few student athletes who do get money aren't forced to pay for their own education.
 
Last edited:
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

mnstate0fhockey said:
I still fail to see why the system needs to be improved. All parties benefit. Athletes in revenue sports get access to a free education, world class facilities, and exposure playing in one of the world's premier amateur leagues. The Universities, in exchange, get revenue that they can use to fund non-revenue sports for other student athletes, and improve athletic and academic facilities that all students enjoy.
Click to expand...
What if the NHL owners got together and agreed to pay every player exactly $100,000 per year? The players would still be getting paid to play a mere game, and would still enjoy the best coaching and facilities in the world for playing that game. The owners, in exchange, get to take home millions more in profit, which they could use for all sorts of charitable works if they so choose.

Any player who signed for the $100,000 would still be "benefiting" (as would the owners), so this would be a fair system, since "all parties benefit," right?
 
LynahFan said:
What if the NHL owners got together and agreed to pay every player exactly $100,000 per year? The players would still be getting paid to play a mere game, and would still enjoy the best coaching and facilities in the world for playing that game. The owners, in exchange, get to take home millions more in profit, which they could use for all sorts of charitable works if they so choose.

Any player who signed for the $100,000 would still be "benefiting" (as would the owners), so this would be a fair system, since "all parties benefit," right?
Click to expand...

Wait..... What?

We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of millions of students in this country here. You're talking about a small number of professional players.

But the main problem with that analogy is that NHL players don't enter into a contract that doesn't guarantee them money. Student athletes willingly do. If you can get pro athletes to agree to that, by all means try.

Answer me this, if there aren't benefits to playing without any prospect of getting paid, why do student athletes do it?
 
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

4four4 said:
But college athletes currently don't work for a university.
Click to expand...
Then why are they compensated by the college with an education?

I know they aren't viewed as employees in the eyes of the law right now. But that is what they are fighting for and what I think they deserve.
 
Re: O'Bannon Case and its ripple effect on college hockey

mnstate0fhockey said:
Exactly. Someone needs to brush up on contractural law. The contracts student athletes agree to in no way entitles them to any financial compensation.
Click to expand...
Boy, I would love to see your credentials as a legal scholar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top