SEC Threatens Creation of "Division 5"

[mplsbadger]

ETA: Why do people that hold your opinion take the stance that these kids 'owe' something to the NCAA? That somehow the NCAA isn't gaining anything and is actually providing some invaluable service to these young men who should be ashamed of themselves for evening challenging that system?

Nobody who holds the opposing point of view has ever said any of the things you outline above.

 

[maroonedinCA]

Nobody who holds the opposing point of view has ever said any of the things you outline above.

Except for every poster that makes the point that they should just shut up and be happy with the scholarship or feel free to pack their bags and go elsewhere and forgo a chance at the NFL...Do you know how to read or determine context or nuance?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The NCAA and the member schools are not preventing anyone from making a living or making a living playing football. The NCAA has no say on NFL entry requirements.

Similarly, as dpodoll has said the players have every chance to turn down or walk away for the grant-in-aid.

Regarding the power 5 proposals, it almost seems like a miscalculated effort to appease the union/public opinion. Perhaps they are confident the collegiate amateur model can withstand these changes. I believe it weakens their position.

The NLRB decision laid out the bullet points for determining what it considers the common definition of an employee (it is a fascinating insight into the wildcat program: http://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4581667b6f ).

By treating football players increasingly differently (more $) and allowing more hours for football than academics they are at risk for an adverse decision. Even athletic dept tax exempt status could theoretically be at risk if the IRS decides to revisit the issue (a thorny issue).

If unions become a reality the lawyers, like the terminator, will never stop in their efforts to increase compensation for their clients. It is the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

At that point we could see the sport implode in a thousand different ways (free agency, labor strikes, etc) or even go to an Ivy League model. MN might even regain it's dominance...

Of course, just like tax law can make exceptions for special "non-profit" interests that defy common sense or the law for most Americans, Congress could theoretically step in on this issue to protect the vested interest of lobbying parties. Stranger things have happened.

 

[Iceland12]

The NCAA and the member schools are not preventing anyone from making a living or making a living playing football. The NCAA has no say on NFL entry requirements.

Similarly, as dpodoll has said the players have every chance to turn down or walk away for the grant-in-aid.

Regarding the power 5 proposals, it almost seems like a miscalculated effort to appease the union/public opinion.

The NLRB decision laid out the bullet points for determining what an employee is (it is a fascinating insight into the wildcat program: http://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4581667b6f )

By treating football players differently and allowing more hours for football than academics they are at risk for an adverse decision.

If unions become a reality the lawyers, like the terminator, will never stop in their efforts to increase compensation. It is the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

At that point we could see the sport implode in a thousand different ways (free agency, labor strikes, etc) or even go to an Ivy League model. MN might even re again it's dominance...

The Big Five conferences have been ticked off about sharing with the other schools for quite awhile now, long before the threat of a union. Basically they don't like sharing TV money with the other schools. They get really irritated when the smaller schools can block their initiatives. They see themselves as bringing in all the money, all the viewers yet being hamstrung by the smaller schools.

Don't know their position on still playing them and counting the wins.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Can you prove that sweatshop workers are given the conditions of their employment and then held to those conditions only? I can prove the conditions into which scholarship athletes enter and are then held to those conditions only. It's in their scholarship agreement, very well documented. I highly doubt sweatshop workers are given arrangements held to the same standards.

Oh goody....we get to have this debate again.

The courts will decide if the NCAA doesn't cave first...either way, this will work out with more benefits to the players and will show that you are a jack wagon.

 

[Sparlimb]

Oh goody....we get to have this debate again.

The courts will decide if the NCAA doesn't cave first...either way, this will work out with more benefits to the players and will show that you are a jack wagon.

The students should end up with more, which I think almost all agree they should. But there is only so much to share around. If the players get greedy it will backfire.

 

[mplsbadger]

Except for every poster that makes the point that they should just shut up and be happy with the scholarship or feel free to pack their bags and go elsewhere and forgo a chance at the NFL...Do you know how to read or determine context or nuance?

Your post attributed four points to your opponents:

- "these kids owe something to the NCAA"
- "the NCAA isn't gaining anything"
- "[the NCAA] is providing some invaluable service"
- "these young men should be ashamed of themselves for evening (sic) challenging the system

I think you're confusing nuance with paranoia. All of the above are absurd strawmen. They are uncharacteristic of 99.9% of the arguments made here. The closest thing I've seen to any of the above is "be careful what you wish for". The implication being that you might end up with the life and prospects of a baseball minor leaguer. This is a far cry from saying that someone should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

A lot of people like to focus on how the NCAA is making a lot of money on the backs of the players. Let's not forget that the players gain a lot from the NCAA too. As the pro-union group has pointed out many times, there is not a lot in the way of good paying options for kids who want to take a route other than college to the pros. That seems to make the point that there is no interest in watching 18-22 year old kids play just for their athletic talent, the only reason these kids get the attention and notice is because of the affiliation that people have with college sports.

 

[Ski U Master]

That seems to make the point that there is no interest in watching 18-22 year old kids play just for their athletic talent, the only reason these kids get the attention and notice is because of the affiliation that people have with college sports.

This is true, if the same talent pool was in a minor league system unattached to a school it would be far less popular. It is the affiliation with a common institution that binds the fan to the team.

 

[dpodoll68]

Oh goody....we get to have this debate again.

The courts will decide if the NCAA doesn't cave first...either way, this will work out with more benefits to the players and will show that you are a jack wagon.

Well hey, at least you can stick to the debate at hand and not resort to personal attacks on an obscure sports-themed message board.

 

[diefirma]

I think when Glenn Mason played players were allowed $15 per week for misc. expenses. In today's dollars that would be about $85. Is that what players get? Some schools have been known to graduate players that can't read. Has that been cleaned up?

 

[Deleted_User]

I believe most posters are well educated, smart, and thoughtful individuals, until they fall all over themselves to prove a point.

So, it's my turn to be stupid...

1. The NCAA has no business limiting the relationship between players and their schools. If a kid wants to negotiate a better scholarship to include anything they dream up, that is okay with me.
2. The term student athlete or amateur athlete is not a goal. It is not desirable. It does not improve the game. And, it is not an ideal. That is all propaganda of the worst brain washed type.
3. The little schools should sit down and take note of who controls the checkbook in this game. The NCAA should sit down and take note that the major conferences want little to do with being dictated to by the little schools. If they opt out, it is for their own pleasure and purpose. Good for the schools to determine their own fate. The NCAA is not an end in itself. If the Big Ten decided tomorrow to opt out of the NCAA and started paying their athletes, I would cheer. If you want to play Minnesota, you play by Minnesota's rules.
4. I'm sick of the argument that the athletes get a lot of benefits. So do all kinds of people in this world. The world isn't flat and pay and benefits are not either. If a football player becomes an employee and earns more benefits than a volleyball player, so what. The two sports are not comparable. The football player puts his brain at higher risk than a member of the swim team. Football also generates more revenue. On a pay for performance basis football players would command higher pay. And, if they get enough to spend money on pizza more than 2 times per week, I would not call that a large amount of pay.
5. Now, you all can continue to be blowhards on a subject that can be debated forever by Jack Cass' of the world.