Kendall Gregory-McGhee is suing the NCAA, SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12

[GreasyGopher]

If your employer coordinated with other companies in their field in an effort to keep down the wages of you and your coworkers you could have a case.

Bingo. In this instance, however, there are no other "companies". There's only one option in college sports play under the NCAA or don't play. For a lot of kids don't play means don't go to college. So to go back to the example, it means work for the one company or don't work. For DPO, don't work means don't provide for the family. DPO's gonna work in whatever conditions are present. Even if they suck and are long overdue for a change.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I can get on board with increasing the cost of attendance allowance. If the NCAA can dictate equivalency scholarships per school then they can certainly make that happen. Everyone, most everyone, will be happy.

I wonder if the NCAA will see fit to increase equivalency scholarships as revenue rises? Seems like an admirable use of the profit-sharing.

The slippery slope to employment/professionalism and full-on labor markets is what scares me. That opens up pandora's box.

 

[mplsbadger]

When the following happens will you be satisfied?

- D1 football goes from 120 schools to 60 for competitive reasons
- D1 hoops goes from 250 schools to 80 for competitive reasons
- women's sports are cut or become local (no travel)
- men's non-revenue sports disappear
- attendance shrinks
- competitive balance collapses I.e. OSU player salary budget = 4x Gophers budget
- annually, the best Gopher players transfer to OSU, the worst OSU players transfer to the Gophers
- eligibility requirements disappear
- former college players return from the CFL or their couch - no five year limit
- non-student players?
- principled schools drop football, basketball

I don't even pay attention to pro sports anymore. I can't imagine caring about college athletics if the players were paid a salary.

 

[CentralGopher]

You understand that the NCAA is making BILLIONS off their likeness and you want them to repay their scholarship if they go pro?

I don't think you get it. A "full ride" scholarship doesn't cover everything a student athlete needs while attending schools. Make scholarships cover the total true cost of attendance and forget about paying these kids. If an item can be purchased on campus, allow it to be covered by the scholarship. Obviously put limits on non-essential items.

Link that shows what a full scholarship does not cover? I'd like to see some real evidence please. I want to believe the students like Shabazz Napier but take a look at his high school photo and then a recent photo of him. Those tats aren't free. Obviously he is getting money from somewhere as well as other students as well. They spend it on tats, jewlery and cell phones. I'm sure they get some gifts from family and others but I don't think grandma is buying them a tattoo or earings.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

Propaganda but interesting layman's rundown of "where the money goes" at the NCAA.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/investing-where-it-matters

For those interested in a more detailed breakdown here is the consolidated financial statement of the NCAA, also interesting. PDF file.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/NCAA_FS_2012-13_V1 DOC1006715.pdf

A couple of highlights:

The NCAA receives 75% of its revenue from the CBS/Turner MBB tournament contract.

57% of the NCAA's revenue is returned to D-I schools as direct distributions, while 10.5% goes to run the D-I tournaments and programs and only 7% goes to D-II & D-III tournaments and programs combined. 13% goes to Association-wide programs. 4.5% goes to G & A expenses.

 

[dpodoll68]

If your employer coordinated with other companies in their field in an effort to keep down the wages of you and your coworkers you could have a case.

There are no other notable "companies in their field". They're virtually a monopoly - that's what all of the ninnies are whining about. Are they a monopoly or are they colluding? Which one? It can't be both.

 

[GopherHomer]

When the following happens will you be satisfied?

- D1 football goes from 120 schools to 60 for competitive reasons
- D1 hoops goes from 250 schools to 80 for competitive reasons
- women's sports are cut or become local (no travel)
- men's non-revenue sports disappear
- attendance shrinks
- competitive balance collapses I.e. OSU player salary budget = 4x Gophers budget
- annually, the best Gopher players transfer to OSU, the worst OSU players transfer to the Gophers
- eligibility requirements disappear
- former college players return from the CFL or their couch - no five year limit
- non-student players?
- principled schools drop football, basketball

I don't even pay attention to pro sports anymore. I can't imagine caring about college athletics if the players were paid a salary.

Totally agree with this post! Certainly, an interesting argument can be made surrounding whether or not the current system is fair for the student-athlete but I don't see why any true fan would risk blowing up the entire system. If I'm being honest, I care more about the 'program' than the individual athlete. If you could promise me that nothing would change, in terms of how I am able to enjoy the product, than by all means pay these guys what they're worth.

 

[imthewalrus]

Totally agree with this post! Certainly, an interesting argument can be made surrounding whether or not the current system is fair for the student-athlete but I don't see why any true fan would risk blowing up the entire system. If I'm being honest, I care more about the 'program' than the individual athlete. If you could promise me that nothing would change, in terms of how I am able to enjoy the product, than by all means pay these guys what they're worth.

Bring it all down and see what happens! Do education systems have ANY business running sports programs? On the college and university level? On the high school level? Perhaps it has become SO corrupt at EVERY level that the school systems and college and university systems should just focus on providing educations for all of their students. Perhaps football and basketball and all the non-revenue sports are distracting the schools from the challenges and the problems that they currently have actually teaching the children and young adults the basics of what they will need to earn a living.

Let the parents start worrying about the reading skills of their child rather than how much "love" the college coach will give their "gifted athletically...but...challenged academically four or five star high school fantasy football or basketball recruit..." Let the gambling industry, the professional sports franchise industry, the coaches, the administrators of the athletic departments, the fund-raising professionals who work for athletic departments, the ESPNs...the foxsportsnetworks and all the other programmers who rely on selling sports programming to the millions and millions of sports junkies worry about forming leagues and teams and kissing the butts of the athletes and parents of athletes that they will need to have their meal tickets punched and their lavish life styles provided for.

Maybe...just maybe, college sports have been exploited too much to possibly be saved.

At least, it appears some of the people on this board feel that the end is near and that having student athletes share in such basic facts of life as having concerns about their physical well-being, disability concerns with concussive disorders, having college football and college basketball coaches becoming too demanding and too dictating of their time, energy, and ability to BE a student by creating still more weight lifting, team meetings, film viewing sessions, all for the greater glory of their coaches futures in the coaching industry, ability to EARN those great incentives that the coaches have built into their contracts IF certain rankings are achieved, conference finishes are achieved, national championships are won, etc.

What the hell does any of this have to do with the basic charge of and purpose of a college...university...or even high school?

And since some of you people don't want the student athletes to have a seat at the table, I would say it is time to take the seats at the table away from the gambling industry, the coaching fraternity, the athletic administrators, the cable and television people and ALL THE REST of those people who so richly benefit from the people who play the games. This is a stinking business...a corrupt business. It has nothing to do with education OR games. It is all greed and all $$$$$ all of the time. Perhaps the feeding trough for the fat-cats...the "TABLE" so to speak must be overturned so that the schools and colleges and universities can worry about this little education problem that the United States appears to currently find itself in can better be attended to. Then all you people so incredibly afraid of giving a position of potentially equal power to the little people...the student athletes would not cause you so much distress, distrust, angst and misery.

 

[GreasyGopher]

Totally agree with this post! Certainly, an interesting argument can be made surrounding whether or not the current system is fair for the student-athlete but I don't see why any true fan would risk blowing up the entire system. If I'm being honest, I care more about the 'program' than the individual athlete. If you could promise me that nothing would change, in terms of how I am able to enjoy the product, than by all means pay these guys what they're worth.

This thread is not about "paying" student athletes. It's about maintaining the current scholarship system but increasing the amount to cover attendance.

I agree with everyone about pay for play. Once the NCAA start negotiating with student athletes or their union, college sports suffer dramatically. In my opinion this is a chance to right an issue while maintaining the current system. The only compensation received for their performance is the scholarship and in turn an education.

 

[dpodoll68]

It's about maintaining the current scholarship system but increasing the amount to cover attendance.

As asked earlier in the thread, do you have any evidence for this claim? We've kept hearing over the years that scholarships don't cover the full cost, but I've yet to see anyone actually substantiate it. It sounds made up to me.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

As asked earlier in the thread, do you have any evidence for this claim? We've kept hearing over the years that scholarships don't cover the full cost, but I've yet to see anyone actually substantiate it. It sounds made up to me.

I think they get meal money for the time that there is no food service.

I think they want money to go out and buy stuff.

 

[GreasyGopher]

As asked earlier in the thread, do you have any evidence for this claim? We've kept hearing over the years that scholarships don't cover the full cost, but I've yet to see anyone actually substantiate it. It sounds made up to me.

The link below discusses both sides of the argument.

Mind the (Scholarship) Gap

This is obviously a hot button topic. There will be people on both sides of the topic. There is an issue and I don't know how it will be solved. Just presenting one option that I think would be effective.

 

[dpodoll68]

The link below discusses both sides of the argument.

Mind the (Scholarship) Gap

This is obviously a hot button topic. There will be people on both sides of the topic.

As I thought, it's garbage. Food and clothing are covered by their scholarships, and the other things (travel and child care) are unnecessary expenses. You consciously made the decision to go away to school. If you want to travel home to see your family, that's on your dime. Also, child care? Are you kidding me? You don't wrap it up and knock up some girl, and now you want the school to pay for your child care? That's hilarious. If you were actually responsible and got married before having a child...again, you've made a decision, and child care is your responsibility, not the school's.

Travel and child care are covers (in order to make their argument sound more legitimate) for their real purpose. What they're really pushing for is Beats and tattoo money, i.e., getting paid.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Back in the 70's, there were a number of cases of point-shaving in college sports. at that time, the argument was presented that, by paying players a small stipend for "living expenses," so they could go to a movie or order a pizza, etc. - that would reduce the temptation to take money from gamblers.
Today, that argument has evolved to an issue of "fairness." But, it comes down to the same thing - let the players have a few more bucks in their pockets to keep them happy.

In principle, the idea of paying the "true cost" of a scholarship sounds reasonable - but as always, the devil is in the details. What do you do with the sports like baseball that pay partial scholarships? Do you treat all sports the same, even tho some sports generate far more income than others? What about a school like Union (you know, the one that kicked the Gophs' butts in Hockey) that does not offer scholarships, but plays a D1 hockey schedule?
Or, do you factor the cost of living into the equation if school A is located in a big city where things are more expensive, and School B is located in the boonies where things are less expensive?

 

[stocker08]

Wow. You really are not getting this. The education they are receiving is not free. Scholarship amounts are not equal across all schools. So simply going to a cheaper school would not solve the problem. The scholarships pay for 90-95% of the cost of attending the school. I'm simply saying make it cover 100% of the cost associated with attending the school. No stipend. No pay for play. No free market system creating a pay disparity in locker room.

Sorry, but you are the one that's not getting it. You are trying to lump discretionary funds in with everything else. Room and board, tuition, books and supplies, meals...........these are all covered under a good number of full ride scholarships.

 

[CentralGopher]

As I thought, it's garbage. Food and clothing are covered by their scholarships, and the other things (travel and child care) are unnecessary expenses. You consciously made the decision to go away to school. If you want to travel home to see your family, that's on your dime. Also, child care? Are you kidding me? You don't wrap it up and knock up some girl, and now you want the school to pay for your child care? That's hilarious. If you were actually responsible and got married before having a child...again, you've made a decision, and child care is your responsibility, not the school's.

Travel and child care are covers (in order to make their argument sound more legitimate) for their real purpose. What they're really pushing for is Beats and tattoo money, i.e., getting paid.

+1. I think we can end the discussion here. There is nothing the scholarship doesn't cover that isn't something frivolous. I've seen no evidence anywhere that the scholarship doesn't cover all expenses. Nobody is making these fools live off campus with their buddies and have the latest and greatest cell phones, beats by dre, tats, jewelry, knock up their girlfriends, etc. The scholarship would cover everything if they lived in the dorms and used the meal plan the school offers(I realize scheduling makes this one very tough sometimes and leads to some not being able to eat when the cafeteria is open).

 

[stocker08]

Link that shows what a full scholarship does not cover? I'd like to see some real evidence please. I want to believe the students like Shabazz Napier but take a look at his high school photo and then a recent photo of him. Those tats aren't free. Obviously he is getting money from somewhere as well as other students as well. They spend it on tats, jewlery and cell phones. I'm sure they get some gifts from family and others but I don't think grandma is buying them a tattoo or earings.

As asked earlier in the thread, do you have any evidence for this claim? We've kept hearing over the years that scholarships don't cover the full cost, but I've yet to see anyone actually substantiate it. It sounds made up to me.

.

The link below discusses both sides of the argument.

Mind the (Scholarship) Gap

This is obviously a hot button topic. There will be people on both sides of the topic. There is an issue and I don't know how it will be solved. Just presenting one option that I think would be effective.

Exactly. It's the discretionary funds that create the differences. Why on earth would those costs be covered under a scholarship?

 

[stocker08]

As I thought, it's garbage. Food and clothing are covered by their scholarships, and the other things (travel and child care) are unnecessary expenses. You consciously made the decision to go away to school. If you want to travel home to see your family, that's on your dime. Also, child care? Are you kidding me? You don't wrap it up and knock up some girl, and now you want the school to pay for your child care? That's hilarious. If you were actually responsible and got married before having a child...again, you've made a decision, and child care is your responsibility, not the school's.

Travel and child care are covers (in order to make their argument sound more legitimate) for their real purpose. What they're really pushing for is Beats and tattoo money, i.e., getting paid.

+08

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

I've never seen this many people agree with Dpod on one thread. I'm also with him on this one.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

As I thought, it's garbage. Food and clothing are covered by their scholarships, and the other things (travel and child care) are unnecessary expenses. You consciously made the decision to go away to school. If you want to travel home to see your family, that's on your dime. Also, child care? Are you kidding me? You don't wrap it up and knock up some girl, and now you want the school to pay for your child care? That's hilarious. If you were actually responsible and got married before having a child...again, you've made a decision, and child care is your responsibility, not the school's.

Travel and child care are covers (in order to make their argument sound more legitimate) for their real purpose. What they're really pushing for is Beats and tattoo money, i.e., getting paid.

Prior to this year schools could only provide three meals a day or a stipend for food.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...-student-athlete-well-being-rules?division=d1
Now they can cover all nutritional needs. That could be meaningful for some players (especially those that have trouble keeping on weight).

I know I've read on the NCAA website that they assume an athletic scholarship does not cover all costs but of course now I can't find it. I seem to recall they had a number like 85%-90%. Even if I found it I recall it wasn't specific, so to DPO's point the 85% may include child care and travel or things many don't consider essential. If there are legitimate gaps I'm all for filling them. I don't know if there really are gaps or not...


Separately, for those promoting insurance it already exists for catastrophic injuries:

http://www.ncaa.org/health-and-safe...ease-insurance-coverage-catastrophic-injuries

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

I don't even pay attention to pro sports anymore. I can't imagine caring about college athletics if the players were paid a salary.

I checked out on pro sports many, many years ago. I’m amused at all the rubes who think it is a good idea to provide public subsidies to build palace-like stadiums for billionaire owners and their millionaire brats who play in them? Do the rubes really understand that this type of entertainment has the owners and players laughing all the way to the bank? I can already hear the rubes firing back with their idiotic “it’s such an important part of our culture” and foolish “it’s good for the economy” argument.

Perhaps it is inevitable that the entertainment product called college sports ends up like that of the pros in which the players get paid salaries but I sure hope not. The college arms race is bad enough (e.g., obnoxious coach’s salaries, over-the-top expensive training facilities, etc.). However, paying players is where I draw the line. The day the players are paid salaries is probably the day I walk away from it and find something else to spend my entertainment $’s on.

That's my b!tch for the day and I'm glad no one cares.

Go Gophers!

 

[highwayman]

As I thought, it's garbage. Food and clothing are covered by their scholarships, and the other things (travel and child care) are unnecessary expenses. You consciously made the decision to go away to school. If you want to travel home to see your family, that's on your dime. Also, child care? Are you kidding me? You don't wrap it up and knock up some girl, and now you want the school to pay for your child care? That's hilarious. If you were actually responsible and got married before having a child...again, you've made a decision, and child care is your responsibility, not the school's.

Travel and child care are covers (in order to make their argument sound more legitimate) for their real purpose. What they're really pushing for is Beats and tattoo money, i.e., getting paid.

+1. I think we can end the discussion here. There is nothing the scholarship doesn't cover that isn't something frivolous. I've seen no evidence anywhere that the scholarship doesn't cover all expenses. Nobody is making these fools live off campus with their buddies and have the latest and greatest cell phones, beats by dre, tats, jewelry, knock up their girlfriends, etc. The scholarship would cover everything if they lived in the dorms and used the meal plan the school offers(I realize scheduling makes this one very tough sometimes and leads to some not being able to eat when the cafeteria is open).

Prior to this year schools could only provide three meals a day or a stipend for food.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...-student-athlete-well-being-rules?division=d1
Now they can cover all nutritional needs. That could be meaningful for some players (especially those that have trouble keeping on weight).

I know I've read on the NCAA website that they assume an athletic scholarship does not cover all costs but of course now I can't find it. I seem to recall they had a number like 85%-90%. Even if I found it I recall it wasn't specific, so to DPO's point the 85% may include child care and travel or things many don't consider essential. If there are legitimate gaps I'm all for filling them. I don't know if there really are gaps or not...


Separately, for those promoting insurance it already exists for catastrophic injuries:

http://www.ncaa.org/health-and-safe...ease-insurance-coverage-catastrophic-injuries

Way too much thought, way too many facts, way too much logic.

Cue carter...

 

[GreasyGopher]

Look the only reason I'm advocating this method is because it's obvious there is a change coming. There's too much going on with paying athletes for something to not change. This change is the lesser of all evils. There are many ways to enact this change rather than simply giving them money that they are allowed to spend at their own discretion.

I hate the idea of paying student-athletes as well but if there is a change that can be made that will satisfy everyone involve and still keep the scholarship as the only form of "compensation" to student-athletes, sounds like a win for the NCAA and member institutions to me.

 

[dpodoll68]

I checked out on pro sports many, many years ago. I’m amused at all the rubes who think it is a good idea to provide public subsidies to build palace-like stadiums for billionaire owners and their millionaire brats who play in them? Do the rubes really understand that this type of entertainment has the owners and players laughing all the way to the bank? I can already hear the rubes firing back with their idiotic “it’s such an important part of our culture” and foolish “it’s good for the economy” argument.

Perhaps it is inevitable that the entertainment product called college sports ends up like that of the pros in which the players get paid salaries but I sure hope not. The college arms race is bad enough (e.g., obnoxious coach’s salaries, over-the-top expensive training facilities, etc.). However, paying players is where I draw the line. The day the players are paid salaries is probably the day I walk away from it and find something else to spend my entertainment $’s on.

That's my b!tch for the day and I'm glad no one cares.

Go Gophers!

I care. I'm right there with you. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to support a knowingly inferior professional product. Minor league baseball and basketball already exist, and hardly anyone cares about either.

 

[50PoundHead]

I care. I'm right there with you. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to support a knowingly inferior professional product. Minor league baseball and basketball already exist, and hardly anyone cares about either.

I think minor league baseball is much more popular than its collegiate equivalent.

People continue to talk past each other here and there is more red herring than a Scandinavian Christmas party. There are some easy ways out of this and if the NCAA is wise, they will do some things around the edges (scholastically and medically) to get ahead of this.

 

[stocker08]

Look the only reason I'm advocating this method is because it's obvious there is a change coming. There's too much going on with paying athletes for something to not change. This change is the lesser of all evils. There are many ways to enact this change rather than simply giving them money that they are allowed to spend at their own discretion.

I hate the idea of paying student-athletes as well but if there is a change that can be made that will satisfy everyone involve and still keep the scholarship as the only form of "compensation" to student-athletes, sounds like a win for the NCAA and member institutions to me.

I agree that change is coming. The schools need to find a way to keep the compensation within the university, however. The problem that I have with these cost figures is that the 10% (around) of uncovered costs are not basic living or school expenses. These are excess costs that are discretionary on behalf of the individual students. These costs should not be covered. Like I said, all necessary school and (reasonable) living costs should be covered. On top of that, I wouldn't be opposed to a small discretionary stipend, as student athletes cannot be expected to balance their school and athletic life along with a job. It should be a universal amount that doesn't fluctuate depending upon student spending habits. Like dpo said......look at Napier during his high school years and then during his college years. He (as well as plenty of others) found ways to pay for tattoos. The life of the average "struggling" college athlete is way overblown.

 

[RodentRampage]

The NFL could make a minor league. There's one alternative.

Of course if the NFL doesn't feel like creating a minor league, it's obvious that it's the NCAA's job to provide it.

 

[bemidjigopher]

If they want a career in the NFL, please enlighten me on the alternatives. I don't think these kids should be paid but they should be given a scholarship that covers the cost of attending college.

Not everyone who gets a degree gets a job in their field of study, should an education major sue their school if they can't get off the sub list?

 

[50PoundHead]

Of course if the NFL doesn't feel like creating a minor league, it's obvious that it's the NCAA's job to provide it.

The relationship between the NFL and NCAA football doesn't get talked about enough in this whole thing, but I don't know if it's relevant to the solution (although an argument can be made that it should be). College football is a ready-made minor league system for the pros and it is certainly in the interest of the NFL to keep the current system in place. The cost of creating a minor league football system would be enormous and scouting/drafting high school players would be a real crapshoot. College football, in effect, does the scouting, drafting, and developing of players for the NFL and that is golden for the pros.

 

[Deleted_User]

There are less than 3 comments that made any sense at all. The rest have been junk logic.