EagleOutsider.com

JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?
And BTW, I also gotta say a union made sure I had health insurance when I was a kid and gave me scholies to BC and now instead of lower middle class I'm upper middle class and paying more taxes. People who hate unions really just can't stand poor people playing capitalism halfway decently, IMO.

JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:I still predict that either the NLRB or whichever appellate court gets the case (the only one that gives me pause is the 9th Circuit), reverses this and it all comes to nothing. The ramifications are immediate and too ridiculous for this to be allowed to stand.

Stating the obvious here, but if indeed they are "emloyees" then under federal law they are also entitled to be paid minimum wage and overtime. So it is not too far a stretch to say that Northwestern should start paying its players. Like now. Of course, that's nuts and would directly violate NCAA rules.

Congress will fix this if the Board and courts screw it up.

JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?
And BTW, I also gotta say a union made sure I had health insurance when I was a kid and gave me scholies to BC and now instead of lower middle class I'm upper middle class and paying more taxes. People who hate unions really just can't stand poor people playing capitalism halfway decently, IMO.

Endless Mike {l Wrote}:I'm really concerned about how this is going to affect the non-revenue sports (ie, the actual student-athletes). I worry that they could get screwed over. As others have stated, I also worry that this will decimate women's sports more than anything else.

Endless Mike {l Wrote}:I'm really concerned about how this is going to affect the non-revenue sports (ie, the actual student-athletes). I worry that they could get screwed over. As others have stated, I also worry that this will decimate women's sports more than anything else.

talon {l Wrote}:

JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?

Jeremy Bloom.

On one hand, it's dumb that a football player can play professional baseball in the off-season and maintain amateur status in football, but skiing crosses a line. On the other hand, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as the manner in which they get paid is not the same. How can you tell if a skier's sponsors are 100% interested in sponsoring him because of how he skis and 0% because he's also a college football player? If the NCAA ruled in Blooms' favor, could other football players decide to take up "skiing" in the off-season, rake in sponsorship dollars and fall at the top of every hill and never finish a race?

PhillyandBCEagles {l Wrote}:

talon {l Wrote}:

JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?

Jeremy Bloom.

On one hand, it's dumb that a football player can play professional baseball in the off-season and maintain amateur status in football, but skiing crosses a line. On the other hand, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as the manner in which they get paid is not the same. How can you tell if a skier's sponsors are 100% interested in sponsoring him because of how he skis and 0% because he's also a college football player? If the NCAA ruled in Blooms' favor, could other football players decide to take up "skiing" in the off-season, rake in sponsorship dollars and fall at the top of every hill and never finish a race?

He was actually good enough to ski in the Olympics IIRC, and I believe the NCAA declared him ineligible for football after the fact. Of course when Tom Zbikowski wanted to box professionally during the offseason, it was no problem because he played for Notre Dame.

Eaglekeeper {l Wrote}:The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:

Endless Mike {l Wrote}:I'm really concerned about how this is going to affect the non-revenue sports (ie, the actual student-athletes). I worry that they could get screwed over. As others have stated, I also worry that this will decimate women's sports more than anything else.

It's gonna get reversed. So don't worry, you'll still be able to watch women's ice hockey to your heart's content.

Endless Mike {l Wrote}:

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:

Endless Mike {l Wrote}:I'm really concerned about how this is going to affect the non-revenue sports (ie, the actual student-athletes). I worry that they could get screwed over. As others have stated, I also worry that this will decimate women's sports more than anything else.

It's gonna get reversed. So don't worry, you'll still be able to watch women's ice hockey to your heart's content.

Phew!

HJS {l Wrote}:

Eaglekeeper {l Wrote}:The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

BC didn't bring anything on itself. They underpay for coaches and NEVER sell jerseys of current players. They also have an athletic department that has never turned a profit.

hansen {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

Eaglekeeper {l Wrote}:The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

BC didn't bring anything on itself. They underpay for coaches and NEVER sell jerseys of current players. They also have an athletic department that has never turned a profit.

They lose money from an accounting perspective because they have to account for tuition scholarships at 45K dollars per person.
If you ignore these "costs", then the department is very profitable.

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

Eaglekeeper {l Wrote}:The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

BC didn't bring anything on itself. They underpay for coaches and NEVER sell jerseys of current players. They also have an athletic department that has never turned a profit.

They lose money from an accounting perspective because they have to account for tuition scholarships at 45K dollars per person.
If you ignore these "costs", then the department is very profitable.

wrong. the department is providing a service that has a recognized market value of $45k so the department incurs expenses of $45k for each of these services that are offered.

if you want cash flow accounting, move to russia

HJS {l Wrote}:

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

Eaglekeeper {l Wrote}:The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

BC didn't bring anything on itself. They underpay for coaches and NEVER sell jerseys of current players. They also have an athletic department that has never turned a profit.

They lose money from an accounting perspective because they have to account for tuition scholarships at 45K dollars per person.
If you ignore these "costs", then the department is very profitable.

wrong. the department is providing a service that has a recognized market value of $45k so the department incurs expenses of $45k for each of these services that are offered.

if you want cash flow accounting, move to russia

This.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?
And BTW, I also gotta say a union made sure I had health insurance when I was a kid and gave me scholies to BC and now instead of lower middle class I'm upper middle class and paying more taxes. People who hate unions really just can't stand poor people playing capitalism halfway decently, IMO.

Saying union and capitalism in the same sentence make your wooden nose grow?

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Saying union and capitalism in the same sentence make your wooden nose grow?

JesuitIvy {l Wrote}:I had written a long, (and brilliant, I must add) response at work but my damn browser un-logged me in and I lost it. So here's my short take -- unions are simply people using their leverage, which is very capitalistic, so no, I don;t see a contradiction in what I said. That's why the most powerful unions are, nowadays, the people who bring the most economic benefit to their employers -- pro athletes, actors, hollywood writers. Those with no leverage -- whose jobs are easily exported -- don't have unions.
Mainly re the decision, I just think this is what happens when you assume nothing can change your cost basis (essentially free college player labor) and then you decide to wring every dollar out of the system rather than recognizing you've got a good thing and nursing it. It's a classic business screw up. It's like record companies jacking up CD pricers to $20 a disc in the 90s, assuming nothing could affect their projections of ever increasing profits. Get greedy and the market finds a way to get you back.

SiValEagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Saying union and capitalism in the same sentence make your wooden nose grow?

I'm not a fan of most unions, but if you think that unionizing is incompatible with capitalism, you don't understand either concept very well.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

SiValEagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Saying union and capitalism in the same sentence make your wooden nose grow?

I'm not a fan of most unions, but if you think that unionizing is incompatible with capitalism, you don't understand either concept very well.

I'll take your word for it Hegel