ChiefsPlanet
Page 4 of 14 123 4 5678 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Football College athletes on their way to a union. (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=282594)

blaise 03-26-2014 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 10518553)
By the way, we can easily pass a law carving out a "college athlete exception", declaring that student athletes are not employees and the schools are under no obligation to pay them.

That is something the congress CAN do, and I'm not necessarily opposed to that, I'm not sure how I feel about passing that kind of law.

But this silly fiction we currently live in where we all pretend that college athletes are not employees and that their scholarship is enough is crap. If we want college athletes to not be paid, then we need to explicitly make that clear in our laws.

I don't think the idea that a scholarship is enough is crap. Seems to me there's stories every day about kids being saddled with 20 years of crippling student loan debt.
If athletes can get money, good for them. But the idea that they're receiving a pittance is laughable.

alnorth 03-26-2014 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco (Post 10518563)
Another thing that sticks out too...is oh....you have an income now....we're gonna need you to pay income tax.
yep.

Same as students who work part time for a school in the library or cafeteria, they also file taxes.

RealSNR 03-26-2014 02:10 PM
At the very least, I'm getting sick of people who bitch about pros getting paid too much as a reason why college athletics are a better product.

The NCAA has demonstrated that it can be every bit as corrupt and greedy as the NFL, NBA, or MLB. Time and time again.

Let's at least remove the veil and show people that the two products MIGHT have been different in the 1970s or 1980s, but not anymore.

RealSNR 03-26-2014 02:12 PM
"So does this include the gymnastics and karate teams?"

If they represent the university as an official team and not just a student-run club, then yes.

The universities won't be paying for the ultimate frisbee teams.

vailpass 03-26-2014 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 10518574)
"So does this include the gymnastics and karate teams?"

If they represent the university as an official team and not just a student-run club, then yes.

The universities won't be paying for the ultimate frisbee teams.
Man I loved ultimate friz...

Chiefs Pantalones 03-26-2014 02:14 PM
@GottliebShow: There are exactly zero College football players who spend 60 hours a week on football, unless you count video games

alnorth 03-26-2014 02:14 PM
If I had to guess, presuming they lose in court, I'd say its at least 50/50 that congress might step in and reverse this.

J Diddy 03-26-2014 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 10518553)
By the way, we can easily pass a law carving out a "college athlete exception", declaring that student athletes are not employees and the schools are under no obligation to pay them.

That is something the congress CAN do, and I'm not necessarily opposed to that, I'm not sure how I feel about passing that kind of law.

But this silly fiction we currently live in where we all pretend that college athletes are not employees and that their scholarship is enough is crap. If we want college athletes to not be paid, then we need to explicitly make that clear in our laws.
I find your last paragraph extremely debatable. They are not only getting a free education worth thousands and thousands of dollars to schools that the majority of them wouldn't get into if they didn't play sports but they're also getting a lifetime of that benefit. Forty years of higher wages due to a degree from a top notch university for playing sports is a huge deal.

RealSNR 03-26-2014 02:15 PM
I also don't see why the NCAA can't institute wage controls to ensure fair competition in recruiting.

If a player is deciding between staying close to home at the University of North Dakota but also has an offer from the University of Alabama, the money shouldn't be the deciding factor. The NCAA can take measures to regulate that.

King_Chief_Fan 03-26-2014 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaise (Post 10518564)
I don't think the idea that a scholarship is enough is crap. Seems to me there's stories every day about kids being saddled with 20 years of crippling student loan debt.
If athletes can get money, good for them. But the idea that they're receiving a pittance is laughable.
I agree. And that scholarship should now be considered income and thereofre be taxed. How does Obamacare work in this situation:D

Gravedigger 03-26-2014 02:17 PM
Bad precedent imo. It flips College Football on its end on how to build a team, allows a further ability to pay off and corrupt to sway unions and players towards a contract negotiation, etc. I don't see the benefit of allowing 18 year old kids (Yes, they're kids) the power to mass strike leading to a drop in quality of sport, scabs replacing the players, just overall ugly precedent in so many ways bringing out bad decisions all for the sake of money. It always corrupts absolutely.

vailpass 03-26-2014 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 10518585)
I also don't see why the NCAA can't institute wage controls to ensure fair competition in recruiting.

If a player is deciding between staying close to home at the University of North Dakota but also has an offer from the University of Alabama, the money shouldn't be the deciding factor. The NCAA can take measures to regulate that.
Probably true but I shudder at the thought of more nc2a regulation...

Garcia Bronco 03-26-2014 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaise (Post 10518564)
I don't think the idea that a scholarship is enough is crap. Seems to me there's stories every day about kids being saddled with 20 years of crippling student loan debt.
If athletes can get money, good for them. But the idea that they're receiving a pittance is laughable.
A scholarship that...at least at Virginia Tech ...weight room, books, classes, room, food(as in a dining hall only for athletes attached to their dorm), and a monthly stipend.

King_Chief_Fan 03-26-2014 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 10518585)
I also don't see why the NCAA can't institute wage controls to ensure fair competition in recruiting.

If a player is deciding between staying close to home at the University of North Dakota but also has an offer from the University of Alabama, the money shouldn't be the deciding factor. The NCAA can take measures to regulate that.
If the scholarship is considered compensation, it is already lop-sided.
Education at the University of Michigan has got to be a lot higher than Idaho State

Discuss Thrower 03-26-2014 02:20 PM
I think the only way this works out positively is if scholarships for Div 1 football is lowered to 50 or 60.. spreads the athletes to other schools when a lot of them might be content with being depth at Alabama or Oregon.

But my guess is schools would opt to kill every men's sport but football and probably take a handful of scholarships from basketball just to fulfill Title IX and have 85 guys on football scholies.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:40 AM.
Page 4 of 14 123 4 5678 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.