ivy league 2024

[wgdsr]

A whole bunch of interesting games coming up this last weekend before league play.

Saturday:
Brown at Maryland. Well, if Brown State has an A game bottled up inside and waiting to emerge, this is the time to show it.

Cornell at Penn State. Battle of nationally ranked teams with one loss, Cornell vs one of its former head coaches, Tambroni. I wish I could be in State College for this one!

Penn at Villanova. Gotta love these local rivalry games.

Sunday:
Princeton at Rutgers, the Battle of New Jersey. Yet another Ivy v Big 10 game.

Harvard at 5-0 finally leaves New England, heading to the Midwest to visit 5-1 Michigan. Michigan's only loss was to UVA to open the season; last weekend's win at Delaware might have been the Wolverines' best so far. Is Harvard for real? Is Michigan NCAA tourney bound again this year? An intriguing Ivy vs Big 10 match-up!

Yale at undefeated and #1 Denver.

Wow, a terrific slate of games! Go Ivy!

probably the biggest weekend of the year for the ivy?

[MDlaxfan76]

I know this is a lacrosse board but the Dartmouth basketball union saga is quite something. (There's a link to the NLRB decision in this law firm blog post summary: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources ... oard-case/)

I think it's extremely tortured logic that the Dartmouth players receive "compensation" (sneakers and gear and on-campus housing during winter break are included) -- one argument turns on its head the principle that the players aren't compensated because they can quit the team and maintain full student status and financial aid benefits; somehow the NLRB accepted the interpretation that this means the athletes, who receive a bump in admission likelihood, are thus receiving guaranteed compensation since they keep their financial aid/student benefits even if off the team. To put it another way: if you lost your financial aid when you quit the team, that would show you were being compensated. If you keep your financial aid when you quit the team, per the NLRB interpretation that also shows you were being compensated, you just had a guaranteed contract.

Although this is currently only in the context of a right to bargain collectively, if athletes are found to be employees for union purposes one wonders if athletes would be found to be employees in other regulatory contexts such as minimum wage laws? I just can't really see the Ivy League agreeing to pay players but who knows.

This probably deserves its own thread, however in the meantime, I agree that the Ivies are going to struggle with the notion that athletes are employees.

The logic that providing housing and food and equipment and access to facilities and travel to athletes incrementally more than other students (because they need such in order to effectively participate in the activity of intercollegiate DI sports) is compensation is indeed 'tortured'. But there is the alternative of club sports in which the students are responsible for these sorts of costs...often with the support of alumni. And the schools are making the call to support DI teams.

They're really edge cases for the union movement as other leagues are far more clearly engaged in compensation, especially in major revenue sports. Those situations are obviously compensating, just limiting that compensation with no collective bargaining power for the athletes. Union negotiating makes a ton of sense from those perspectives, though, IMO what the most likely impact will be is a reduction in the # of sports supported across the board.

If this stands up in court, pretty much all schools which in any way cover such costs will be compelled to allow their athletes to join...it'll be interesting what would happen if the US military academy athletes make such a call...

I asked my son what he thinks as a more recent ex Ivy athlete....he's in favor and suggested that from an Ivy perspective it's likely to be mostly about negotiating the priorities many such Ivy athletes feel about things like making sure that practices don't conflict with easy access to food, access to majors in various subjects that may conflict with practice schedules, representation in the event of coach/trainer conflicts/abuse, etc. It's to shift just a bit the power dynamics between the school and coaches relative to the athletes, who individually are rather powerless within the system other than dropping the sport, transferring etc.

I'd note though that non-Ivies with which we compete in our non-revenue sport are actively enabling paying their lacrosse players. Minimums and bonuses. Through booster NIL. My hunch is that's already happening or will happen in some of the Ivies. The lack of transparency is another issue that unions could address.

Seems to me that it would be better to have consistency at the sport level and full transparency, as negotiated collectively, than not, given that the genie is out of the bottle.

[joewillie78]

Last weekend was predicted to be a losing weekend for the Ivies, and what happens? Penn beats the #1 team in the country, Princeton beat #17/18, Cornell beat #20, Harvard remained undefeated, and Yale lost in the final seconds to PSU.

It seems anytime, we get predictions of an Ivy demise, or possible bad weekend coming up, that all these Ivy teams step up and play their guts out. This could be yet another weekend where that occurs.

Gobigred
Joewillie78

[Typical Lax Dad]

I know this is a lacrosse board but the Dartmouth basketball union saga is quite something. (There's a link to the NLRB decision in this law firm blog post summary: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources ... oard-case/)

I think it's extremely tortured logic that the Dartmouth players receive "compensation" (sneakers and gear and on-campus housing during winter break are included) -- one argument turns on its head the principle that the players aren't compensated because they can quit the team and maintain full student status and financial aid benefits; somehow the NLRB accepted the interpretation that this means the athletes, who receive a bump in admission likelihood, are thus receiving guaranteed compensation since they keep their financial aid/student benefits even if off the team. To put it another way: if you lost your financial aid when you quit the team, that would show you were being compensated. If you keep your financial aid when you quit the team, per the NLRB interpretation that also shows you were being compensated, you just had a guaranteed contract.

Although this is currently only in the context of a right to bargain collectively, if athletes are found to be employees for union purposes one wonders if athletes would be found to be employees in other regulatory contexts such as minimum wage laws? I just can't really see the Ivy League agreeing to pay players but who knows.

This probably deserves its own thread, however in the meantime, I agree that the Ivies are going to struggle with the notion that athletes are employees.

The logic that providing housing and food and equipment and access to facilities and travel to athletes incrementally more than other students (because they need such in order to effectively participate in the activity of intercollegiate DI sports) is compensation is indeed 'tortured'. But there is the alternative of club sports in which the students are responsible for these sorts of costs...often with the support of alumni. And the schools are making the call to support DI teams.

They're really edge cases for the union movement as other leagues are far more clearly engaged in compensation, especially in major revenue sports. Those situations are obviously compensating, just limiting that compensation with no collective bargaining power for the athletes. Union negotiating makes a ton of sense from those perspectives, though, IMO what the most likely impact will be is a reduction in the # of sports supported across the board.

If this stands up in court, pretty much all schools which in any way cover such costs will be compelled to allow their athletes to join...it'll be interesting what would happen if the US military academy athletes make such a call...

I asked my son what he thinks as a more recent ex Ivy athlete....he's in favor and suggested that from an Ivy perspective it's likely to be mostly about negotiating the priorities many such Ivy athletes feel about things like making sure that practices don't conflict with easy access to food, access to majors in various subjects that may conflict with practice schedules, representation in the event of coach/trainer conflicts/abuse, etc. It's to shift just a bit the power dynamics between the school and coaches relative to the athletes, who individually are rather powerless within the system other than dropping the sport, transferring etc.

I'd note though that non-Ivies with which we compete in our non-revenue sport are actively enabling paying their lacrosse players. Minimums and bonuses. Through booster NIL. My hunch is that's already happening or will happen in some of the Ivies. The lack of transparency is another issue that unions could address.

Seems to me that it would be better to have consistency at the sport level and full transparency, as negotiated collectively, than not, given that the genie is out of the bottle.

How much support for these “employees” come from Alumni?

[MDlaxfan76]

I know this is a lacrosse board but the Dartmouth basketball union saga is quite something. (There's a link to the NLRB decision in this law firm blog post summary: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources ... oard-case/)

I think it's extremely tortured logic that the Dartmouth players receive "compensation" (sneakers and gear and on-campus housing during winter break are included) -- one argument turns on its head the principle that the players aren't compensated because they can quit the team and maintain full student status and financial aid benefits; somehow the NLRB accepted the interpretation that this means the athletes, who receive a bump in admission likelihood, are thus receiving guaranteed compensation since they keep their financial aid/student benefits even if off the team. To put it another way: if you lost your financial aid when you quit the team, that would show you were being compensated. If you keep your financial aid when you quit the team, per the NLRB interpretation that also shows you were being compensated, you just had a guaranteed contract.

Although this is currently only in the context of a right to bargain collectively, if athletes are found to be employees for union purposes one wonders if athletes would be found to be employees in other regulatory contexts such as minimum wage laws? I just can't really see the Ivy League agreeing to pay players but who knows.

This probably deserves its own thread, however in the meantime, I agree that the Ivies are going to struggle with the notion that athletes are employees.

The logic that providing housing and food and equipment and access to facilities and travel to athletes incrementally more than other students (because they need such in order to effectively participate in the activity of intercollegiate DI sports) is compensation is indeed 'tortured'. But there is the alternative of club sports in which the students are responsible for these sorts of costs...often with the support of alumni. And the schools are making the call to support DI teams.

They're really edge cases for the union movement as other leagues are far more clearly engaged in compensation, especially in major revenue sports. Those situations are obviously compensating, just limiting that compensation with no collective bargaining power for the athletes. Union negotiating makes a ton of sense from those perspectives, though, IMO what the most likely impact will be is a reduction in the # of sports supported across the board.

If this stands up in court, pretty much all schools which in any way cover such costs will be compelled to allow their athletes to join...it'll be interesting what would happen if the US military academy athletes make such a call...

I asked my son what he thinks as a more recent ex Ivy athlete....he's in favor and suggested that from an Ivy perspective it's likely to be mostly about negotiating the priorities many such Ivy athletes feel about things like making sure that practices don't conflict with easy access to food, access to majors in various subjects that may conflict with practice schedules, representation in the event of coach/trainer conflicts/abuse, etc. It's to shift just a bit the power dynamics between the school and coaches relative to the athletes, who individually are rather powerless within the system other than dropping the sport, transferring etc.

I'd note though that non-Ivies with which we compete in our non-revenue sport are actively enabling paying their lacrosse players. Minimums and bonuses. Through booster NIL. My hunch is that's already happening or will happen in some of the Ivies. The lack of transparency is another issue that unions could address.

Seems to me that it would be better to have consistency at the sport level and full transparency, as negotiated collectively, than not, given that the genie is out of the bottle.

How much support for these “employees” come from Alumni?

Far as I know, it's all based on booster alumni. It's under the guise of NIL, but it's not individualized the way a specific athlete might monetize their YouTube, etc. But the schools are involved. But not transparent.

And it's getting to be significant $, even $ for benchwarmers.
Which is ok by me (though could be the death knell for many sports teams) but should at least be transparent.

I'd rather a union negotiate the levels of pay $ based on some common criteria set which could be simple or complex, variations by sport, including individual bonuses and team bonuses for success that enable a reward for that success. I'd rather those $ all come through the school as a cost of participation in the sport at the DI, DII, and DIII levels. Choose your level and fundraise as you want to support that expenditure. Or choose a different level...but that negotiation would be the task of the athlete union. Bargain for better healthcare support, trainer access, etc...whatever the players decide they wish to prioritize.

It would not be easy, but the mess that's coming is likely to be worse.

[faircornell]

Those winter bus trips from Hanover to Ithaca are highly desirable perks unavailable to the general student body....

[MDlaxfan76]

Those winter bus trips from Hanover to Ithaca are highly desirable perks unavailable to the general student body....

[mdk01]

Those winter bus trips from Hanover to Ithaca are highly desirable perks unavailable to the general student body....

Or Scenectady for Union in the spring.. These days it's Geneva for Hobart

[bearlaxfan]

Bus?
I thought that's where our Iditarod competitors got their starts.

One last thing on the southern swing weekend. Certainly wish Ivies went 4-0, but I'm pretty sure there is a difference, game 2 on day 3, between teams going back to dorm/apartment in home cities and teams bussing around the state from hotel to hotel for game 2.

[Ivyman]

"...teams bussing around the state from hotel to hotel for game 2?"

What is it - ten miles between Durham and Chapel Hill? The teams probaly didn't change hotels. I'm surprised the discussion hasn't surrounded 2nd game ACC sweep was because of bounce back of a conferece against its equal after a loss, or because of superior athletic depth of the ACC against teams on short rest.

[coda]

I know this is a lacrosse board but the Dartmouth basketball union saga is quite something. (There's a link to the NLRB decision in this law firm blog post summary: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources ... oard-case/)

I think it's extremely tortured logic that the Dartmouth players receive "compensation" (sneakers and gear and on-campus housing during winter break are included) -- one argument turns on its head the principle that the players aren't compensated because they can quit the team and maintain full student status and financial aid benefits; somehow the NLRB accepted the interpretation that this means the athletes, who receive a bump in admission likelihood, are thus receiving guaranteed compensation since they keep their financial aid/student benefits even if off the team. To put it another way: if you lost your financial aid when you quit the team, that would show you were being compensated. If you keep your financial aid when you quit the team, per the NLRB interpretation that also shows you were being compensated, you just had a guaranteed contract.

Although this is currently only in the context of a right to bargain collectively, if athletes are found to be employees for union purposes one wonders if athletes would be found to be employees in other regulatory contexts such as minimum wage laws? I just can't really see the Ivy League agreeing to pay players but who knows.

This probably deserves its own thread, however in the meantime, I agree that the Ivies are going to struggle with the notion that athletes are employees.

The logic that providing housing and food and equipment and access to facilities and travel to athletes incrementally more than other students (because they need such in order to effectively participate in the activity of intercollegiate DI sports) is compensation is indeed 'tortured'. But there is the alternative of club sports in which the students are responsible for these sorts of costs...often with the support of alumni. And the schools are making the call to support DI teams.

They're really edge cases for the union movement as other leagues are far more clearly engaged in compensation, especially in major revenue sports. Those situations are obviously compensating, just limiting that compensation with no collective bargaining power for the athletes. Union negotiating makes a ton of sense from those perspectives, though, IMO what the most likely impact will be is a reduction in the # of sports supported across the board.

If this stands up in court, pretty much all schools which in any way cover such costs will be compelled to allow their athletes to join...it'll be interesting what would happen if the US military academy athletes make such a call...

I asked my son what he thinks as a more recent ex Ivy athlete....he's in favor and suggested that from an Ivy perspective it's likely to be mostly about negotiating the priorities many such Ivy athletes feel about things like making sure that practices don't conflict with easy access to food, access to majors in various subjects that may conflict with practice schedules, representation in the event of coach/trainer conflicts/abuse, etc. It's to shift just a bit the power dynamics between the school and coaches relative to the athletes, who individually are rather powerless within the system other than dropping the sport, transferring etc.

I'd note though that non-Ivies with which we compete in our non-revenue sport are actively enabling paying their lacrosse players. Minimums and bonuses. Through booster NIL. My hunch is that's already happening or will happen in some of the Ivies. The lack of transparency is another issue that unions could address.

Seems to me that it would be better to have consistency at the sport level and full transparency, as negotiated collectively, than not, given that the genie is out of the bottle.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dea ... s-unionize

[MDlaxfan76]

I know this is a lacrosse board but the Dartmouth basketball union saga is quite something. (There's a link to the NLRB decision in this law firm blog post summary: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources ... oard-case/)

I think it's extremely tortured logic that the Dartmouth players receive "compensation" (sneakers and gear and on-campus housing during winter break are included) -- one argument turns on its head the principle that the players aren't compensated because they can quit the team and maintain full student status and financial aid benefits; somehow the NLRB accepted the interpretation that this means the athletes, who receive a bump in admission likelihood, are thus receiving guaranteed compensation since they keep their financial aid/student benefits even if off the team. To put it another way: if you lost your financial aid when you quit the team, that would show you were being compensated. If you keep your financial aid when you quit the team, per the NLRB interpretation that also shows you were being compensated, you just had a guaranteed contract.

Although this is currently only in the context of a right to bargain collectively, if athletes are found to be employees for union purposes one wonders if athletes would be found to be employees in other regulatory contexts such as minimum wage laws? I just can't really see the Ivy League agreeing to pay players but who knows.

This probably deserves its own thread, however in the meantime, I agree that the Ivies are going to struggle with the notion that athletes are employees.

The logic that providing housing and food and equipment and access to facilities and travel to athletes incrementally more than other students (because they need such in order to effectively participate in the activity of intercollegiate DI sports) is compensation is indeed 'tortured'. But there is the alternative of club sports in which the students are responsible for these sorts of costs...often with the support of alumni. And the schools are making the call to support DI teams.

They're really edge cases for the union movement as other leagues are far more clearly engaged in compensation, especially in major revenue sports. Those situations are obviously compensating, just limiting that compensation with no collective bargaining power for the athletes. Union negotiating makes a ton of sense from those perspectives, though, IMO what the most likely impact will be is a reduction in the # of sports supported across the board.

If this stands up in court, pretty much all schools which in any way cover such costs will be compelled to allow their athletes to join...it'll be interesting what would happen if the US military academy athletes make such a call...

I asked my son what he thinks as a more recent ex Ivy athlete....he's in favor and suggested that from an Ivy perspective it's likely to be mostly about negotiating the priorities many such Ivy athletes feel about things like making sure that practices don't conflict with easy access to food, access to majors in various subjects that may conflict with practice schedules, representation in the event of coach/trainer conflicts/abuse, etc. It's to shift just a bit the power dynamics between the school and coaches relative to the athletes, who individually are rather powerless within the system other than dropping the sport, transferring etc.

I'd note though that non-Ivies with which we compete in our non-revenue sport are actively enabling paying their lacrosse players. Minimums and bonuses. Through booster NIL. My hunch is that's already happening or will happen in some of the Ivies. The lack of transparency is another issue that unions could address.

Seems to me that it would be better to have consistency at the sport level and full transparency, as negotiated collectively, than not, given that the genie is out of the bottle.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dea ... s-unionize

yes the Dartmouth team isn't very good and hasn't been pretty much for decades, if I recall. But that doesn't have anything to do with the reality that they have started the ball rolling...it's a rather extreme argument to call Ivy players employees, so if that stands up, pretty much everyone else playing NCAA sports will be as well.

And there's at least a valid argument that such would be appropriate; I worry about unintended consequences....

Not a fan of zero hedge, but that's beside the point.

[mdk01]

I know this is a lacrosse board but the Dartmouth basketball union saga is quite something. (There's a link to the NLRB decision in this law firm blog post summary: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources ... oard-case/)

I think it's extremely tortured logic that the Dartmouth players receive "compensation" (sneakers and gear and on-campus housing during winter break are included) -- one argument turns on its head the principle that the players aren't compensated because they can quit the team and maintain full student status and financial aid benefits; somehow the NLRB accepted the interpretation that this means the athletes, who receive a bump in admission likelihood, are thus receiving guaranteed compensation since they keep their financial aid/student benefits even if off the team. To put it another way: if you lost your financial aid when you quit the team, that would show you were being compensated. If you keep your financial aid when you quit the team, per the NLRB interpretation that also shows you were being compensated, you just had a guaranteed contract.

Although this is currently only in the context of a right to bargain collectively, if athletes are found to be employees for union purposes one wonders if athletes would be found to be employees in other regulatory contexts such as minimum wage laws? I just can't really see the Ivy League agreeing to pay players but who knows.

This probably deserves its own thread, however in the meantime, I agree that the Ivies are going to struggle with the notion that athletes are employees.

The logic that providing housing and food and equipment and access to facilities and travel to athletes incrementally more than other students (because they need such in order to effectively participate in the activity of intercollegiate DI sports) is compensation is indeed 'tortured'. But there is the alternative of club sports in which the students are responsible for these sorts of costs...often with the support of alumni. And the schools are making the call to support DI teams.

They're really edge cases for the union movement as other leagues are far more clearly engaged in compensation, especially in major revenue sports. Those situations are obviously compensating, just limiting that compensation with no collective bargaining power for the athletes. Union negotiating makes a ton of sense from those perspectives, though, IMO what the most likely impact will be is a reduction in the # of sports supported across the board.

If this stands up in court, pretty much all schools which in any way cover such costs will be compelled to allow their athletes to join...it'll be interesting what would happen if the US military academy athletes make such a call...

I asked my son what he thinks as a more recent ex Ivy athlete....he's in favor and suggested that from an Ivy perspective it's likely to be mostly about negotiating the priorities many such Ivy athletes feel about things like making sure that practices don't conflict with easy access to food, access to majors in various subjects that may conflict with practice schedules, representation in the event of coach/trainer conflicts/abuse, etc. It's to shift just a bit the power dynamics between the school and coaches relative to the athletes, who individually are rather powerless within the system other than dropping the sport, transferring etc.

I'd note though that non-Ivies with which we compete in our non-revenue sport are actively enabling paying their lacrosse players. Minimums and bonuses. Through booster NIL. My hunch is that's already happening or will happen in some of the Ivies. The lack of transparency is another issue that unions could address.

Seems to me that it would be better to have consistency at the sport level and full transparency, as negotiated collectively, than not, given that the genie is out of the bottle.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dea ... s-unionize

yes the Dartmouth team isn't very good and hasn't been pretty much for decades, if I recall. But that doesn't have anything to do with the reality that they have started the ball rolling...it's a rather extreme argument to call Ivy players employees, so if that stands up, pretty much everyone else playing NCAA sports will be as well.

And there's at least a valid argument that such would be appropriate; I worry about unintended consequences....

Not a fan of zero hedge, but that's beside the point.

I believe the band gets transportation paid for when they to go to away games. Are they next? I can see this argument if there were athletic scholarships. But any financial aid they get is on the basis of need and being a student. If they quit the team nothing would change.

[coda]

I know this is a lacrosse board but the Dartmouth basketball union saga is quite something. (There's a link to the NLRB decision in this law firm blog post summary: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources ... oard-case/)

I think it's extremely tortured logic that the Dartmouth players receive "compensation" (sneakers and gear and on-campus housing during winter break are included) -- one argument turns on its head the principle that the players aren't compensated because they can quit the team and maintain full student status and financial aid benefits; somehow the NLRB accepted the interpretation that this means the athletes, who receive a bump in admission likelihood, are thus receiving guaranteed compensation since they keep their financial aid/student benefits even if off the team. To put it another way: if you lost your financial aid when you quit the team, that would show you were being compensated. If you keep your financial aid when you quit the team, per the NLRB interpretation that also shows you were being compensated, you just had a guaranteed contract.

Although this is currently only in the context of a right to bargain collectively, if athletes are found to be employees for union purposes one wonders if athletes would be found to be employees in other regulatory contexts such as minimum wage laws? I just can't really see the Ivy League agreeing to pay players but who knows.

This probably deserves its own thread, however in the meantime, I agree that the Ivies are going to struggle with the notion that athletes are employees.

The logic that providing housing and food and equipment and access to facilities and travel to athletes incrementally more than other students (because they need such in order to effectively participate in the activity of intercollegiate DI sports) is compensation is indeed 'tortured'. But there is the alternative of club sports in which the students are responsible for these sorts of costs...often with the support of alumni. And the schools are making the call to support DI teams.

They're really edge cases for the union movement as other leagues are far more clearly engaged in compensation, especially in major revenue sports. Those situations are obviously compensating, just limiting that compensation with no collective bargaining power for the athletes. Union negotiating makes a ton of sense from those perspectives, though, IMO what the most likely impact will be is a reduction in the # of sports supported across the board.

If this stands up in court, pretty much all schools which in any way cover such costs will be compelled to allow their athletes to join...it'll be interesting what would happen if the US military academy athletes make such a call...

I asked my son what he thinks as a more recent ex Ivy athlete....he's in favor and suggested that from an Ivy perspective it's likely to be mostly about negotiating the priorities many such Ivy athletes feel about things like making sure that practices don't conflict with easy access to food, access to majors in various subjects that may conflict with practice schedules, representation in the event of coach/trainer conflicts/abuse, etc. It's to shift just a bit the power dynamics between the school and coaches relative to the athletes, who individually are rather powerless within the system other than dropping the sport, transferring etc.

I'd note though that non-Ivies with which we compete in our non-revenue sport are actively enabling paying their lacrosse players. Minimums and bonuses. Through booster NIL. My hunch is that's already happening or will happen in some of the Ivies. The lack of transparency is another issue that unions could address.

Seems to me that it would be better to have consistency at the sport level and full transparency, as negotiated collectively, than not, given that the genie is out of the bottle.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dea ... s-unionize

yes the Dartmouth team isn't very good and hasn't been pretty much for decades, if I recall. But that doesn't have anything to do with the reality that they have started the ball rolling...it's a rather extreme argument to call Ivy players employees, so if that stands up, pretty much everyone else playing NCAA sports will be as well.

And there's at least a valid argument that such would be appropriate; I worry about unintended consequences....

Not a fan of zero hedge, but that's beside the point.

I am more worried about the unintended consequences. The idea that you need pay and extra benefits at all levels of college sports is ridiculous and unhealthy. Outside of football and basketball, most sports programs cost the university money. College football is a billion dollar business, so happy to see the kids get a slice of the pie. It is absurd to see it at sports that generally lose money. We can use Lax as an example, since this is a lax board. NIL may pay kids more than a professional lacrosse. Can you think of another sport that is possible in? You play a sport that does not garner much national attention and for the most part costs Universities money. People yammer about growing the game, but those same people may try to buy a NC though NIL and are inadvertently making expansion harder. Why would schools add programs that cost the University money and require NIL collectives to compete? Its OK to have sports that the real benefit is a better education and 1st job. That is the benefit.

[MDlaxfan76]

I know this is a lacrosse board but the Dartmouth basketball union saga is quite something. (There's a link to the NLRB decision in this law firm blog post summary: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources ... oard-case/)

I think it's extremely tortured logic that the Dartmouth players receive "compensation" (sneakers and gear and on-campus housing during winter break are included) -- one argument turns on its head the principle that the players aren't compensated because they can quit the team and maintain full student status and financial aid benefits; somehow the NLRB accepted the interpretation that this means the athletes, who receive a bump in admission likelihood, are thus receiving guaranteed compensation since they keep their financial aid/student benefits even if off the team. To put it another way: if you lost your financial aid when you quit the team, that would show you were being compensated. If you keep your financial aid when you quit the team, per the NLRB interpretation that also shows you were being compensated, you just had a guaranteed contract.

Although this is currently only in the context of a right to bargain collectively, if athletes are found to be employees for union purposes one wonders if athletes would be found to be employees in other regulatory contexts such as minimum wage laws? I just can't really see the Ivy League agreeing to pay players but who knows.

This probably deserves its own thread, however in the meantime, I agree that the Ivies are going to struggle with the notion that athletes are employees.

The logic that providing housing and food and equipment and access to facilities and travel to athletes incrementally more than other students (because they need such in order to effectively participate in the activity of intercollegiate DI sports) is compensation is indeed 'tortured'. But there is the alternative of club sports in which the students are responsible for these sorts of costs...often with the support of alumni. And the schools are making the call to support DI teams.

They're really edge cases for the union movement as other leagues are far more clearly engaged in compensation, especially in major revenue sports. Those situations are obviously compensating, just limiting that compensation with no collective bargaining power for the athletes. Union negotiating makes a ton of sense from those perspectives, though, IMO what the most likely impact will be is a reduction in the # of sports supported across the board.

If this stands up in court, pretty much all schools which in any way cover such costs will be compelled to allow their athletes to join...it'll be interesting what would happen if the US military academy athletes make such a call...

I asked my son what he thinks as a more recent ex Ivy athlete....he's in favor and suggested that from an Ivy perspective it's likely to be mostly about negotiating the priorities many such Ivy athletes feel about things like making sure that practices don't conflict with easy access to food, access to majors in various subjects that may conflict with practice schedules, representation in the event of coach/trainer conflicts/abuse, etc. It's to shift just a bit the power dynamics between the school and coaches relative to the athletes, who individually are rather powerless within the system other than dropping the sport, transferring etc.

I'd note though that non-Ivies with which we compete in our non-revenue sport are actively enabling paying their lacrosse players. Minimums and bonuses. Through booster NIL. My hunch is that's already happening or will happen in some of the Ivies. The lack of transparency is another issue that unions could address.

Seems to me that it would be better to have consistency at the sport level and full transparency, as negotiated collectively, than not, given that the genie is out of the bottle.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dea ... s-unionize

yes the Dartmouth team isn't very good and hasn't been pretty much for decades, if I recall. But that doesn't have anything to do with the reality that they have started the ball rolling...it's a rather extreme argument to call Ivy players employees, so if that stands up, pretty much everyone else playing NCAA sports will be as well.

And there's at least a valid argument that such would be appropriate; I worry about unintended consequences....

Not a fan of zero hedge, but that's beside the point.

I believe the band gets transportation paid for when they to go to away games. Are they next? I can see this argument if there were athletic scholarships. But any financial aid they get is on the basis of need and being a student. If they quit the team nothing would change.

I agree, it's a huge stretch...I do think that there would be some benefits, even for Ivy athletes, of having union representation, but the logic is definitely weakest for Ivies versus most other leagues.

[MDlaxfan76]

I know this is a lacrosse board but the Dartmouth basketball union saga is quite something. (There's a link to the NLRB decision in this law firm blog post summary: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources ... oard-case/)

I think it's extremely tortured logic that the Dartmouth players receive "compensation" (sneakers and gear and on-campus housing during winter break are included) -- one argument turns on its head the principle that the players aren't compensated because they can quit the team and maintain full student status and financial aid benefits; somehow the NLRB accepted the interpretation that this means the athletes, who receive a bump in admission likelihood, are thus receiving guaranteed compensation since they keep their financial aid/student benefits even if off the team. To put it another way: if you lost your financial aid when you quit the team, that would show you were being compensated. If you keep your financial aid when you quit the team, per the NLRB interpretation that also shows you were being compensated, you just had a guaranteed contract.

Although this is currently only in the context of a right to bargain collectively, if athletes are found to be employees for union purposes one wonders if athletes would be found to be employees in other regulatory contexts such as minimum wage laws? I just can't really see the Ivy League agreeing to pay players but who knows.

This probably deserves its own thread, however in the meantime, I agree that the Ivies are going to struggle with the notion that athletes are employees.

The logic that providing housing and food and equipment and access to facilities and travel to athletes incrementally more than other students (because they need such in order to effectively participate in the activity of intercollegiate DI sports) is compensation is indeed 'tortured'. But there is the alternative of club sports in which the students are responsible for these sorts of costs...often with the support of alumni. And the schools are making the call to support DI teams.

They're really edge cases for the union movement as other leagues are far more clearly engaged in compensation, especially in major revenue sports. Those situations are obviously compensating, just limiting that compensation with no collective bargaining power for the athletes. Union negotiating makes a ton of sense from those perspectives, though, IMO what the most likely impact will be is a reduction in the # of sports supported across the board.

If this stands up in court, pretty much all schools which in any way cover such costs will be compelled to allow their athletes to join...it'll be interesting what would happen if the US military academy athletes make such a call...

I asked my son what he thinks as a more recent ex Ivy athlete....he's in favor and suggested that from an Ivy perspective it's likely to be mostly about negotiating the priorities many such Ivy athletes feel about things like making sure that practices don't conflict with easy access to food, access to majors in various subjects that may conflict with practice schedules, representation in the event of coach/trainer conflicts/abuse, etc. It's to shift just a bit the power dynamics between the school and coaches relative to the athletes, who individually are rather powerless within the system other than dropping the sport, transferring etc.

I'd note though that non-Ivies with which we compete in our non-revenue sport are actively enabling paying their lacrosse players. Minimums and bonuses. Through booster NIL. My hunch is that's already happening or will happen in some of the Ivies. The lack of transparency is another issue that unions could address.

Seems to me that it would be better to have consistency at the sport level and full transparency, as negotiated collectively, than not, given that the genie is out of the bottle.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dea ... s-unionize

yes the Dartmouth team isn't very good and hasn't been pretty much for decades, if I recall. But that doesn't have anything to do with the reality that they have started the ball rolling...it's a rather extreme argument to call Ivy players employees, so if that stands up, pretty much everyone else playing NCAA sports will be as well.

And there's at least a valid argument that such would be appropriate; I worry about unintended consequences....

Not a fan of zero hedge, but that's beside the point.

I am more worried about the unintended consequences. The idea that you need pay and extra benefits at all levels of college sports is ridiculous and unhealthy. Outside of football and basketball, most sports programs cost the university money. College football is a billion dollar business, so happy to see the kids get a slice of the pie. It is absurd to see it at sports that generally lose money. We can use Lax as an example, since this is a lax board. NIL may pay kids more than a professional lacrosse. Can you think of another sport that is possible in? You play a sport that does not garner much national attention and for the most part costs Universities money. People yammer about growing the game, but those same people may try to buy a NC though NIL and are inadvertently making expansion harder. Why would schools add programs that cost the University money and require NIL collectives to compete? Its OK to have sports that the real benefit is a better education and 1st job. That is the benefit.

I quite agree...NIL is a huge mess, though I'd argue much more so because of the lack of transparency and standardization. It's the arms race that I see as the issue. And the arms race has started...

That's why I can imagine a more rational world including a union process in which whatever pay, benefits, etc are negotiated across sports with a set of variables with differentiation based upon the profitability of that sport more generally...but common benefits and/or minimum standards around safety, healthcare, and ability to address problems. $ could be variable by sport and with some bonus structure, but standardized satisfactory to the players overall in the sport. But no secret booster pay.

This isn't my arena, but seems to me that the path we're on is going to a huge mess, including what you describe.

[44WeWantMore]

Not saying I like the idea of student-athletes as employees or of unionization, but if we are going to be creative, what is the typical NIL payout? Compare that to almost-guaranteed admission to HPY.

Remember varsity blues? Not going to look it up, but they were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for admission to Southern Cal, and they were looking for a cheap back door. I have written previously somewhere on FanLax that at a highly-competitive institution, but not Ivy League, it took seven figures to get admissions to take a second look at an applicant in the 25-75 percentile, and otherwise typical extracurriculars. How much more valuable would admission to HPY be?

P.S. I would have loved the snark at the end of the Zero Hedge story a lot less had they been writing about our long drought.

[pcowlax]

This should be its own topic and would be a huge discussion. Personally think it is a terrible idea that would have massive repercussions but everyone is a Pollyanna. The vast, vast majority of athletes really are owed nothing from their schools as they are voluntarily choosing to do an extracurricular activity that loses the school money. For those few where it makes any sense and where there is real compensation, no one ever asks what the “students” are going to give up. As MDlax said, this will be negotiations and collective bargaining in which the “students” are asking for things. In negotiations, each side makes concessions. I think many with their heads in the sand just look at this as a way for the kids to get more goodies. What are they offering in return?

[MDlaxfan76]

This should be its own topic and would be a huge discussion. Personally think it is a terrible idea that would have massive repercussions but everyone is a Pollyanna. The vast, vast majority of athletes really are owed nothing from their schools as they are voluntarily choosing to do an extracurricular activity that loses the school money. For those few where it makes any sense and where there is real compensation, no one ever asks what the “students” are going to give up. As MDlax said, this will be negotiations and collective bargaining in which the “students” are asking for things. In negotiations, each side makes concessions. I think many with their heads in the sand just look at this as a way for the kids to get more goodies. What are they offering in return?

I suspect that my son is correct that at least in the Ivies, and presumably all the Ivies, the athletes would primarily want more consideration for their time schedules, enabling them to be able to take courses that they'd otherwise get shut out of due to practice timing, make sure the cafeteria isn't getting shut down before they get out of practice, access to good training staff and time with them, access to docs, and a conduit for addressing serious issues with an abusive coach, trainer where the power isn't all tilted away from a player or players...these are all legit issues to be found at these schools.

I think they'd also want parity across the league in how any NIL is distributed, some reasonable formula, limits, etc. but I'm not so sure they'd be demanding matching say ACC or Big 10...I suspect the comments about the value of admission are quite correct.

[pcowlax]

Totally agree, those are all things that I can see players asking for. My question is what are they offering? Once they are, in essence and perhaps in practice, employees, these are essentially demands of their employers. In negotiations, they would ask for these and in return they would give….? What? I’m not sure how students are supposed to negotiate with the school in this setting. Do they threaten to strike? That would obviously be hollow. Sue the school? Not so sure about the parity issue. Those who aren’t getting as much would like that sure but the higher earners would now be better compensated employees who have earned a higher salary, not sure why they would be arguing for the right to make less. Certainly not so much of an issue in the Ivy League but a huge issue in other conferences where some football players are making millions a year and others nothing (which it would be hard to argue is unfair if they are employees earning different salaries based on different earning power for their employees based on their star power and worth to the team). An utter mess.