PonyFans.com

A reporter on Sirius mentioned a group of private schools like SMU joining them in a new conference


WASHINGTON — Notre Dame's athletic director and Northwestern's president emeritus said Tuesday that if college athletes ultimately are ruled to be employees of their respective schools, they foresee their universities withdrawing from the current setup of big-time sports.

Their comments come as the full National Labor Relations Board continues to deliberate about an effort to unionize scholarship football players at Northwestern. In addition, there are a range of pending federal court cases concerning athlete compensation, including one alleging that the NCAA and schools are violating the wage-and-hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by not allowing athletes to be paid at least the federal minimum wage.

"Notre Dame's just not prepared to participate in any model where the athlete isn't a student first and foremost — that's the hallmark for us," Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick told USA TODAY Sports after a Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics meeting here during which he appeared as a panelist. "If the entire model were to move toward athletes as employees, we'd head in a different direction. Our president has been clear about that. I'm not articulating a unique position."

Magnolia League!

In my opinion, the unintended consequences of reclassifying student-athletes to employees would mark the end of collegiate athletics as we know it.

Off the top of my head, you'd probably see all non-revenue sports eliminated at most schools - I don't think Title IX would apply if the athletes were considered employees instead of student-athletes and you can rest assured that a number of schools around the country would almost immediately eliminate any sport that didn't generate positive revenues in order to shift more spending to the profitable sports... say goodbye to women's soccer, tennis, softball, lacrosse, swimming and diving, etc.

I also don't think there would be any way around the fact that the athletes' scholarships would end up being reclassified as an employee benefit. As a result, every penny in tuition paid on their behalf above $5,500 would become taxable income. Their health care would also have to be treated as an employee health care plan instead of what it is now - basically unlimited access to team doctors and the school just paying for all surgeries, etc.

Eliminate age minimums so that superstars can go directly to the pros. The rest would be stupid not to realize that the current system is a great setup.

RebStang wrote:In my opinion, the unintended consequences of reclassifying student-athletes to employees would mark the end of collegiate athletics as we know it.

Off the top of my head, you'd probably see all non-revenue sports eliminated at most schools - I don't think Title IX would apply if the athletes were considered employees instead of student-athletes and you can rest assured that a number of schools around the country would almost immediately eliminate any sport that didn't generate positive revenues in order to shift more spending to the profitable sports... say goodbye to women's soccer, tennis, softball, lacrosse, swimming and diving, etc.

I also don't think there would be any way around the fact that the athletes' scholarships would end up being reclassified as an employee benefit. As a result, every penny in tuition paid on their behalf above $5,500 would become taxable income. Their health care would also have to be treated as an employee health care plan instead of what it is now - basically unlimited access to team doctors and the school just paying for all surgeries, etc.

While there are a few players like Manziel who are arguably "under-compensated," the vast majority of college athletes are over-compensated by a full scholarship. Even at a big school like A&M, a backup player is not worth the cost of tuition, room & board, books, and other costs incurred by TAMU to prepare him to play.

Cannen Cunningham was a good player for us, but will he make more money playing professional BB than the value of his SMU BB scholarship + value of coaching by Larry Brown?
Most D1 Players cannot play professionally anywhere. Thus, their market value is ZERO.

If they are employees then they are a) entitled to wages and subject to taxation b) there will be know way to restrain the amount any individual could be paid and I can't see a way for a collective bargaining agreement to exist because 1) there are too many schools in too many states with to many affiliations 2) several states don't allow collective bargaining for state employees (like Wisconsin for example) so get ready for the highest bidder/booster for each player. c) kiss all non-revenue sports good bye so the US should be prepared to win a lot less Olympic medals as college scholarships are the main prize driving athlete development in those sports.

If a court comes down with a stupid decision like this kiss college sports goodbye.

East Coast Mustang wrote:Magnolia League!

Ha! It's been a long, long time since I've seen a reference to the Magnolia League on here.

Ponylaw is correct about the ramifications.

That's why college sports will simply change the rules to say anybody can go pro at any time. But if you want to play in college you will play for a scholarship and we won't make you an employee. Its a choice the player gets. If you think you are being exploited by a college - go pro. If you don't want to go to college - go pro.

When the dust settles 99% will choose college as they aren't pro athletes and they will recognize the training they get to possibly go pro.

But the college game at the top level will be less exciting because the superstars won't stick around long. One and done has dimished BB but it hasn't killed it.

Digetydog wrote:

RebStang wrote:In my opinion, the unintended consequences of reclassifying student-athletes to employees would mark the end of collegiate athletics as we know it.

Off the top of my head, you'd probably see all non-revenue sports eliminated at most schools - I don't think Title IX would apply if the athletes were considered employees instead of student-athletes and you can rest assured that a number of schools around the country would almost immediately eliminate any sport that didn't generate positive revenues in order to shift more spending to the profitable sports... say goodbye to women's soccer, tennis, softball, lacrosse, swimming and diving, etc.

I also don't think there would be any way around the fact that the athletes' scholarships would end up being reclassified as an employee benefit. As a result, every penny in tuition paid on their behalf above $5,500 would become taxable income. Their health care would also have to be treated as an employee health care plan instead of what it is now - basically unlimited access to team doctors and the school just paying for all surgeries, etc.

While there are a few players like Manziel who are arguably "under-compensated," the vast majority of college athletes are over-compensated by a full scholarship. Even at a big school like A&M, a backup player is not worth the cost of tuition, room & board, books, and other costs incurred by TAMU to prepare him to play.

Cannen Cunningham was a good player for us, but will he make more money playing professional BB than the value of his SMU BB scholarship + value of coaching by Larry Brown?
Most D1 Players cannot play professionally anywhere. Thus, their market value is ZERO.

No major changes in store, compromise in the making because too much money involved.

"Majority of college athletes are over-compensated" may be accurate if all sports taken into consideration, but tough to make that claim against football players when you take into consideration the long term effects of major injuries, especially concussions.

Pony81 wrote: One and done has dimished BB but it hasn't killed it.

I see this all the time but not sure what it means. OAD was preceded by None-And-Done, i.e. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady. College basketball wasn't getting the top talent before OAD started. College basketball hasn't gotten the top talent ever since athlete salaries have become lucrative enough to override the intrinsic value of a college education.

Digetydog wrote:Even at a big school like A&M, a backup player is not worth the cost of tuition, room & board, books, and other costs incurred by TAMU to prepare him to play.
.

Cost of tuition is a paper cost only. It was utilized to shut down football at UAB (was booked as a $3.75 million cost against football) but an independent consulting firm (whose report was recently released) determined that the true marginal cost of educating the 85 football athletes was immeasurably small.

CalallenStang wrote:

Digetydog wrote:Even at a big school like A&M, a backup player is not worth the cost of tuition, room & board, books, and other costs incurred by TAMU to prepare him to play.
.

Cost of tuition is a paper cost only. It was utilized to shut down football at UAB (was booked as a $3.75 million cost against football) but an independent consulting firm (whose report was recently released) determined that the true marginal cost of educating the 85 football athletes was immeasurably small.

Your point is correct in terms of cost to the University, but my point was targeted at the "value" to the university. Roughly speaking, 1/2 of the scholarship BB and FB players contribute almost nothing to a school's bottom line.

In basketball, a D League player makes less than $30k. How much is a backup college PG really "worth"?

Digetydog wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:

Digetydog wrote:Even at a big school like A&M, a backup player is not worth the cost of tuition, room & board, books, and other costs incurred by TAMU to prepare him to play.
.

Cost of tuition is a paper cost only. It was utilized to shut down football at UAB (was booked as a $3.75 million cost against football) but an independent consulting firm (whose report was recently released) determined that the true marginal cost of educating the 85 football athletes was immeasurably small.

Your point is correct in terms of cost to the University, but my point was targeted at the "value" to the university. Roughly speaking, 1/2 of the scholarship BB and FB players contribute almost nothing to a school's bottom line.

In basketball, a D League player makes less than $30k. How much is a backup college PG really "worth"?

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying.

Nvm, Digety said it.