Fair Pay to Play Act

[MDlaxfan76]

And yet, shouldn't the free market sort out what a man's worth is? This thread has been a real eye opener. Surprised at how many believe the answer is "no".

I think the reason you see some many "NOs" is these are team sports, it is not a man's worth but a teams worth. Without the grunts in the trenches doing their job, the superstar no matter how gifted is not going to succeed. You think Pat Spencer is Pat Spencer without the ball. Guys getting him the ball like McNulty are part of Spence's success.

Who said that McNulty couldn't get paid from this same free market?

If you're a ten year old kid and a Loyola fan, and McNulty runs a weekend lacrosse camp for $200, would you go?

Of course you would. Right now, McNulty can't do that. He's barred from doing it. Or heck, have the whole Loyola team run a camp.

I'd think that at the very least, it's worth discussing why we would want to keep McNulty from doing that, don't you think?

Taking food off someone's plate is a pretty serious thing to do, and shouldn't be done lightly, IMHO.

I tend to agree with this logic, though I'm less sure about the "taking food off someone's plate" not being a little over the top, at least in most situations...that said, for a poor kid, we get in that realm.

Even with a kid from a relatively well-off family, the rules are ridiculous. I encouraged my son from a very early point in his life to make his own spending money by finding gigs of various sorts, just as my dad did when I was a kid. No allowance, I needed to earn my money by doing chores (though most were unpaid).At 6, I sold strawberries door to door to earn my first baseball mitt, at 15 I created and ran a summer camp to earn enough to buy my first car.

I did the same with my son. Early in HS he turned his lax speed and strength and skill training into a gig in which he traded gym time and his workouts for training younger kids and later on (still in HS) into actually training college goalies, both female and male, as well as HS and younger. But when he entered college he needed to give that up, 'cause he was too identifiable with his college team! That's the way his school saw it. One summer he did some side work for start-up sports hydration company, Motive Pure. Had to be sure not to wear anything identified as his school when he attended club tournaments etc. No use of his name or image. When he went back in the fall, no longer working for the company, he wrote a letter to the coaches of the various sports (his lax team was already using the product) to introduce them to the product and its benefits versus sugared sports drinks. No compensation, just trying to help out both the other teams and his former employer. Believed in the product. Told them that his lax team had been using the product for over a year as had he. OHH Boy, you'd have thought he'd robbed a bank. Over XMAs, the Compliance Office came down on him like a ton of bricks, reported the 'offense' to the NCAA who took their sweet time to finally give him a 'reprimand'. Meanwhile he hadn't been allowed to practice with the team and there was a very real chance he'd lose a season! Absolutely ridiculous on its face, but that's the kind of stranglehold the NCAA has had.

The idea of the law was to avoid boosters bribing kids to play at their school. I get that.
But to deny youngsters from making a legit buck, ridiculous.

[a fan]

This law will grow quite a few of tentacles before it’s all said and done. How is the name on the front of the jersey going to be considered? If my likeness includes my school’s logo how many points do I have to pay my school or the NCAA? I could see the government utilizing tax law to cap income i.e. your scholarship will be considered taxable if your income exceeds a certain amount. It’s a simple concept but I think we’ll end up with a complex law, I keep seeing that scene when the Germans open the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfQWz4gVcP8[/youtube]

You're not wrong. No one can foresee all the outcomes of this law.

[shoothi]

This new Fair Pay to Play Act, is taylor made for the Laws of Unintended Consequences or the Chaos Theory.

Sit back and watch as NO ONE has a clue on what is about to happen with this "Act". Once the Genie is out, there is no putting her back in the bottle.

[LandM]

afan,
I can get a player at PSU to close between $300,000 to $400,000 a year all in. I think Franklin makes $6 million, using the low end at $300,000 which equals 20 times the players salary, that is way below the multiple in the corporate sector and he gets no options or other lifetime benefits. If he was working in the corporate sector he should be at least $12 to $13 million pre-options et al.

I played against guys who had to make the decision of whether Wheaties with water or milk and no Wheaties. Sports and an education is the way out of that situation IMHO. They made it that far I am sure they can figure it out. I will keep using Barkley as an example, he and his mom did make it and btw, somehow his mom made it to ALL of his games. If you have the will you can figure it out.

Not opposed to players getting paid but they ALL need to get paid. Not sure if you saw the post-game interview Holley Rowe had with PSU Robert Windsor after Iowa game, number 54....funny as he$$ - he is a DT, she was laughing as she said you must not get interviewed much----take a few minutes it was great she did it as he was the impact player of the game, kudos to her.......but here is a kid in this law that is not gonna get paid much based on where he plays but really helped control the game.

If you ever get out this way, we know a bunch of distillers and winery owners and I think a PSU tour might open your eyes as to what these athletes get. I was happy with a sack lunch after dinner. Lots has changed. We have unfettered access. BTW Michigan and khaki pants this weekend

[a fan]

afan,
I can get a player at PSU to close between $300,000 to $400,000 a year all in. I think Franklin makes $6 million, using the low end at $300,000 which equals 20 times the players salary, that is way below the multiple in the corporate sector and he gets no options or other lifetime benefits. If he was working in the corporate sector he should be at least $12 to $13 million pre-options et al.

Have no clue where you're coming up with that $300K number. That kid gets room, board, and tuition paid. You seem to want to add overhead to that cost. It doesn't work like that. All you do is look at how much a regular ol' student has to pay to attend Penn St.

You have a problem here, and the problem is, I'm right. If you want to hold the Football Program to some financial oath in the name of amateurism, great. I'm all for it. All you have to do is hold everyone in the Athletic Department to that same noble, amateur standard.

Pay them all the cash equivalent to room and board and tuition. That solves every problem that everyone has here. Kids get their degree. Coaches get paid a modest salary with the idea that they are working a higher, more noble purpose......that is the idea of amateurism.

Everyone wins. Why aren't you on board?

You're not on board because you don't like the idea of capping how much someone earns at an Athletic Department, and that trumps any ideas you have about amateurism. You're stuck, logically speaking.

If you ever get out this way, we know a bunch of distillers and winery owners and I think a PSU tour might open your eyes as to what these athletes get.

Spent a decade in Ann Arbor. Been to UMich fundraisers, locker rooms, mess halls, lecture in various schools....all of it. I know the score.

So again: if it's so swanky and such a great deal, it should be that much easier to give UMich's Harbaugh the cash equivalent of room, board, and tuition.

We're all set, are we not?

[LandM]

afan,
No you are not correct. BTW, these guys are not amateurs, the are the equivalent of Triple A baseball. Out of state - that will set you back between $75,000 and $100,000 a year - I have those stats and that is an average PSU student all-in. The swanky gear which is given out like candy, free extra food, smoothies, workout facilities that are best in the world to help advance your football career, tutors for every player, player development handbooks, and I will stop there so let's say it is $200,000 a year.

Now take the coach. How many players make sure that their teammates go to class, study film, break down film, ensure everyone is on the team bus, have the responsibility to make sure 105 young men are acting responsible, go out on the recruiting trail both during the season and post season, attend and speak at multiple weekly venues, sit through TV and radio shows and answer dumba$$ questions, kiss up to alumni so they can get another corporate sponsor, deal with former football alumni, deal with the administration when a player gets into trouble, comfort an 18 year old who misses his mom, makes sure a kid is being a responsible adult and punish one who is not. I will stop there. There is a HUGE difference between being a player and being a coach or being in the athletic department. And, if you want to be crass, PSU football as could most P5 teams, cut themselves out of the university and there P&L and B/S would look pretty good. I am sure you take great care of your employees but be real, there is a difference between the person leading the charge and those following and you know that, start-ups excluded

I was just inviting behind the scenes - allot of what you see in the locker room is amazing now days - these guys have their own pods. BTW, PSU hockey has a $100 million ice skating rink compliments of Pegula - PSU grad and made all his money in fracking. Now how many college kids get to play hockey in a $100 million rink, it is better then some of the pro rinks I have been in? And if you are a wrestler, they have the best in the world facilities to the point an OSU grad and world team member will be training at PSU - gotta factor those costs into that education.

[wgdsr]

afan,
I can get a player at PSU to close between $300,000 to $400,000 a year all in. I think Franklin makes $6 million, using the low end at $300,000 which equals 20 times the players salary, that is way below the multiple in the corporate sector and he gets no options or other lifetime benefits. If he was working in the corporate sector he should be at least $12 to $13 million pre-options et al.

Have no clue where you're coming up with that $300K number. That kid gets room, board, and tuition paid. You seem to want to add overhead to that cost. It doesn't work like that. All you do is look at how much a regular ol' student has to pay to attend Penn St.

You have a problem here, and the problem is, I'm right. If you want to hold the Football Program to some financial oath in the name of amateurism, great. I'm all for it. All you have to do is hold everyone in the Athletic Department to that same noble, amateur standard.

Pay them all the cash equivalent to room and board and tuition. That solves every problem that everyone has here. Kids get their degree. Coaches get paid a modest salary with the idea that they are working a higher, more noble purpose......that is the idea of amateurism.

Everyone wins. Why aren't you on board?

You're not on board because you don't like the idea of capping how much someone earns at an Athletic Department, and that trumps any ideas you have about amateurism. You're stuck, logically speaking.

If you ever get out this way, we know a bunch of distillers and winery owners and I think a PSU tour might open your eyes as to what these athletes get.

Spent a decade in Ann Arbor. Been to UMich fundraisers, locker rooms, mess halls, lecture in various schools....all of it. I know the score.

So again: if it's so swanky and such a great deal, it should be that much easier to give UMich's Harbaugh the cash equivalent of room, board, and tuition.

We're all set, are we not?

again, those are your views on what compensation, amateurism should look like. and it doesn't mean you're "right" just because you declare yourself so. it means that's your opinion.
the nc$$, after probably decades of coming out on top in legal challenges, is now losing them. specifically in one court to one judge (and appeals to the o'bannon case). they're likely to lose appeals to one of the most impactful and recent ones:
https://www.si.com/college-football/201 ... on-jenkins
judge wilkins also had the o'bannon case.

they're also losing the legislation wave. it probably would behoove them to get out in front of it all now that they're behind and structure something they can live with before it all gets put to them.

[LandM]

afan,
Couple of other items:
Two B/S intangible items - PSU has the largest alumni network in the world - available 24x7 if you want to take advantage of it; the endowment and fund raising is matching the Hopkins, Harvard's et al - gotta a business idea, they will look at funding it.

Finally many of the admin and assistance coaches are in the $50,000 a year range. The hosts for our club seats $55,000 a year - she not only takes care of unruly fans, but answers the phones and ensures everyone has a great game experience. She is technically making less then a player and I would gather most do and has a he$$ of allot more headaches then a player does. Lots of grad assistants working for an education and nothing else; I could go on but the admin department is not hitting out of the park with a salary they are doing it to advance their career. So you are really down to the coaching staff and you are baffling me on this as they are way within the norm of a Fortune 500 company and many have a B/S bigger then some in that category.

wgsdr,
I am glad that the NCAA is starting to get hammered. They are the prosecutor, jury and judge and it is about time IMHO they get their comeuppance.

[a fan]

afan,
No you are not correct. BTW, these guys are not amateurs, the are the equivalent of Triple A baseball. Out of state - that will set you back between $75,000 and $100,000 a year - I have those stats and that is an average PSU student all-in. The swanky gear which is given out like candy, free extra food, smoothies, workout facilities that are best in the world to help advance your football career, tutors for every player, player development handbooks, and I will stop there so let's say it is $200,000 a year.

Respectfully , that's not how accounting works...you're counting twice. That's like charging a student $500 an hour to meet with a professor during office hours. Or $10K per hour to use the University's electron microscope. Or $100 an hour to use a lecture hall on campus. All that is built into tuition and room and board.

But in any event, let's use your accounting here. Now you've pegged the "fair" amount for your system at $200K, yes?

So again, the move here is to not let anyone in the Athletic Department make more than $200K. Problem solved.

Now take the coach. How many players make sure that their teammates go to class, study film, break down film, ensure everyone is on the team bus, have the responsibility to make sure 105 young men are acting responsible, go out on the recruiting trail both during the season and post season, attend and speak at multiple weekly venues, sit through TV and radio shows and answer dumba$$ questions, kiss up to alumni so they can get another corporate sponsor, deal with former football alumni, deal with the administration when a player gets into trouble, comfort an 18 year old who misses his mom, makes sure a kid is being a responsible adult and punish one who is not. I will stop there. There is a HUGE difference between being a player and being a coach or being in the athletic department.

You're arguing all sides of this argument. You want the free market to decide what a coach is worth. And YOU think a coach is more valuable than a player....and this is a judgement based on absolutely nothing. The free market decides that worth. Not "some guy", like you, or me.

And you want to you, yourself, to come up with the arbitrary worth of a player. You "think" that what a Penn State player gets is fair.

Free market says you're wrong.

I've got news for you: in more than one case, a player is more financially valuable than the coach. The problem...and the reason we're having this conversations.....is that a bunch of back seat drivers think that they get to decide a man's worth.

And, if you want to be crass, PSU football as could most P5 teams, cut themselves out of the university and there P&L and B/S would look pretty good.

Tell that to the Arena football league. How's that workin' out?

This actually gets to an important financial point that everyone forgets when they try and do "college sports accounting":

Who owns the rights to the name "Penn State University"? James Franklin? Nope. Sandy Barbour? Nope.

The State of Pennsylvania does. They can change the name of the School any time they see fit. They can change the school colors to pink and brown if they want. They own those marks.

So: where's the check for the use of that name and logo? In the business world, that's a serious thing, and big bucks. You're arguing that the Athletic Department doesn't "need" the State. Great.

So where is the fee the State is charging the football team to use the name "Penn State Nittany Lions"? How much do you suppose those rights are worth for a year? That fee could fill an awful lot of potholes.

Get rid of that name? They're just a bunch of guys in blue uni's, running around in some stadium no one has ever heard of. Good luck with that.

I was just inviting behind the scenes - allot of what you see in the locker room is amazing now days - these guys have their own pods. BTW, PSU hockey has a $100 million ice skating rink compliments of Pegula - PSU grad and made all his money in fracking. Now how many college kids get to play hockey in a $100 million rink, it is better then some of the pro rinks I have been in? And if you are a wrestler, they have the best in the world facilities to the point an OSU grad and world team member will be training at PSU - gotta factor those costs into that education.

Yes. And the Engineering students get access to some pretty sweet equipment. So what? You don't get to count those things twice.

[a fan]

again, those are your views on what compensation, amateurism should look like. and it doesn't mean you're "right" just because you declare yourself so. it means that's your opinion.

Respectfully, you have it backwards.

I'm the only one here saying the free market should decide compensation for everyone involved.

LandM and others are the ones trying to decide "what amateurism should look like", and allowing free market for everyone except the people who are actually doing the work.

And Land said that the players are compensated more than fairly. Great. So there's your data point. Use that. Find the cash value for room, board, and tuition-----and you've got your number for everyone involved in this "noble, amateur" venture to be paid annually.

Otherwise, the word for this is Exploitation, a very specific word that is not noble or amateur at all.

Exploitation: the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.

[wgdsr]

again, those are your views on what compensation, amateurism should look like. and it doesn't mean you're "right" just because you declare yourself so. it means that's your opinion.

Respectfully, you have it backwards.

I'm the only one here saying the free market should decide compensation for everyone involved.

LandM and others are the ones trying to decide "what amateurism should look like", and allowing free market for everyone except the people who are actually doing the work.

And Land said that the players are compensated more than fairly. Great. So there's your data point. Use that. Find the cash value for room, board, and tuition-----and you've got your number for everyone involved in this "noble, amateur" venture to be paid annually.

Otherwise, the word for this is Exploitation, a very specific word that is not noble or amateur at all.

Exploitation: the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.

i don't consider myself "right".
and while others on my side of the aisle may, they're not "right" either.

this is straight up a matter of opinion.

your discussion about everyone in an organization needing to make college costs or the equivalent doesn't fit my definition of amateurism or an organization's ability to make the rules for that "amateur" sport. i understand you have a different take on things and you're not alone.

[a fan]

That's cool. I'm simply saying I'm not the one deciding what is fair....I'm using the yardstick that LandM gave me to decide what is "fair".

I haven't the wisdom to decide what a "fair" wage is for thousands of players.

I'd rather the free market sort it out. Let that decide what is "fair". And deal with all the consequences.

[ggait]

That's cool. I'm simply saying I'm not the one deciding what is fair....I'm using the yardstick that LandM gave me to decide what is "fair".

I haven't the wisdom to decide what a "fair" wage is for thousands of players.

I'd rather the free market sort it out. Let that decide what is "fair". And deal with all the consequences.

The back and forth about whether the players are/are not paid enough completely misses the point in my view. You can make fine economic arguments that the current level of pay is way too low or way too high. Zion Williamson of Duke hoops perhaps is massively under-compensated at a $75k full ride to Duke. Or maybe he's getting paid just fine, since his exposure with Duke hoops is easily monetized into a fat shoe contract. And maybe the field hockey player at Duke getting a full ride a WAAAYYYY overpaid. But the core issue is not economic, it is imo a civil rights issue.

Meaning the players have no say in how their compensation is determined. Because the top employers in the industry (i.e. the Power 5 teams under the NCAA auspices) are allowed to determine unilaterally what's fair. When I was coming out of law school, it would have been patently illegal for the top 300 law firms in the U.S. to all collude together and decide how much my pay as a young lawyer would be. Yet the 300 D1 hoops teams are allowed to do just that.

And the lamest argument is -- hey, you don't have to play D1 hoops if you don't like it. Go to the D League or overseas. That would be like telling me that the price fixing among the top law firms was just fine -- since I was still free to go work for legal aid or hang out my own shingle.

The right answer was the Northwestern football case (until it got overturned). The right answer is to let players (through a union) have representation and negotiate for what their pay should be. In that structure, what is "fair" or "adequate" isn't a question of high or low, it is a question of what you agree to.

Very likely that the players wouldn't negotiate for outright salaries. They might target enhanced education and medical benefits instead. Or limits on the amount of time required to be spent on sports. Or the right to do endorsements (which was permitted back in the olden days of college football). Or something else. And the schools would be entitled to negotiate for how they want their "amateur" product to be structured.

As with the rest of life, it is fair if you agreed to it. It is not fair if someone tells you -- you get what I tell you and you will like it. Which is why it is about representation and civil rights, not economics at the core. So instead of mandating the Fair Pay Play Act, just let the schools and player union work it out.

[Wheels]

That's cool. I'm simply saying I'm not the one deciding what is fair....I'm using the yardstick that LandM gave me to decide what is "fair".

I haven't the wisdom to decide what a "fair" wage is for thousands of players.

I'd rather the free market sort it out. Let that decide what is "fair". And deal with all the consequences.

The back and forth about whether the players are/are not paid enough completely misses the point in my view. You can make fine economic arguments that the current level of pay is way too low or way too high. Zion Williamson of Duke hoops perhaps is massively under-compensated at a $75k full ride to Duke. Or maybe he's getting paid just fine, since his exposure with Duke hoops is easily monetized into a fat shoe contract. And maybe the field hockey player at Duke getting a full ride a WAAAYYYY overpaid. But the core issue is not economic, it is imo a civil rights issue.

Meaning the players have no say in how their compensation is determined. Because the top employers in the industry (i.e. the Power 5 teams under the NCAA auspices) are allowed to determine unilaterally what's fair. When I was coming out of law school, it would have been patently illegal for the top 300 law firms in the U.S. to all collude together and decide how much my pay as a young lawyer would be. Yet the 300 D1 hoops teams are allowed to do just that.

And the lamest argument is -- hey, you don't have to play D1 hoops if you don't like it. Go to the D League or overseas. That would be like telling me that the price fixing among the top law firms was just fine -- since I was still free to go work for legal aid or hang out my own shingle.

The right answer was the Northwestern football case (until it got overturned). The right answer is to let players (through a union) have representation and negotiate for what their pay should be. In that structure, what is "fair" or "adequate" isn't a question of high or low, it is a question of what you agree to.

Very likely that the players wouldn't negotiate for outright salaries. They might target enhanced education and medical benefits instead. Or limits on the amount of time required to be spent on sports. Or the right to do endorsements (which was permitted back in the olden days of college football). Or something else. And the schools would be entitled to negotiate for how they want their "amateur" product to be structured.

As with the rest of life, it is fair if you agreed to it. It is not fair if someone tells you -- you get what I tell you and you will like it. Which is why it is about representation and civil rights, not economics at the core.

Agree with what you're saying. The only thing I'd add is that all of this will become a lot easier when (not if, IMO), the football and basketball P5 programs formally break off from the NCAA. Once that occurs, we'll see a commissioner and a players' union. Everything will get simplified and acknowledge reality. The Olympic sports will operate under the NCAA but with the likeness/sponsor issue resolved. At this point, the NCAA does not add any value. The schools fund the scholarships and operating costs as is. Break off football and basketball, pare down the NCAA, and restore sanity.

[wgdsr]

That's cool. I'm simply saying I'm not the one deciding what is fair....I'm using the yardstick that LandM gave me to decide what is "fair".

I haven't the wisdom to decide what a "fair" wage is for thousands of players.

I'd rather the free market sort it out. Let that decide what is "fair". And deal with all the consequences.

The back and forth about whether the players are/are not paid enough completely misses the point in my view. You can make fine economic arguments that the current level of pay is way too low or way too high. Zion Williamson of Duke hoops perhaps is massively under-compensated at a $75k full ride to Duke. Or maybe he's getting paid just fine, since his exposure with Duke hoops is easily monetized into a fat shoe contract. And maybe the field hockey player at Duke getting a full ride a WAAAYYYY overpaid. But the core issue is not economic, it is imo a civil rights issue.

Meaning the players have no say in how their compensation is determined. Because the top employers in the industry (i.e. the Power 5 teams under the NCAA auspices) are allowed to determine unilaterally what's fair. When I was coming out of law school, it would have been patently illegal for the top 300 law firms in the U.S. to all collude together and decide how much my pay as a young lawyer would be. Yet the 300 D1 hoops teams are allowed to do just that.
correct. why do you think that is? they've been able to do it for decades/over a hundred years. could it be that it's not so clear that student/athletes are employees and it's not a clean parallel to the work force?
And the lamest argument is -- hey, you don't have to play D1 hoops if you don't like it. Go to the D League or overseas. That would be like telling me that the price fixing among the top law firms was just fine -- since I was still free to go work for legal aid or hang out my own shingle.
again, that would be true if it was the same as getting employed at law firms. which it's not. you can call it lame. for a very long time, that lameness has held ground legally. so there is law involved.
i'm not sure everyone knows --- the d league has just set up $125k minimum salaries. and you can sign your own shoe deal, and push lambos on IG if you want, too.
The right answer was the Northwestern football case (until it got overturned). The right answer is to let players (through a union) have representation and negotiate for what their pay should be. In that structure, what is "fair" or "adequate" isn't a question of high or low, it is a question of what you agree to.
one regional director made a call, and the full board overturned it. maybe there is no "right" answer.
Very likely that the players wouldn't negotiate for outright salaries. They might target enhanced education and medical benefits instead. Or limits on the amount of time required to be spent on sports. Or the right to do endorsements (which was permitted back in the olden days of college football). Or something else. And the schools would be entitled to negotiate for how they want their "amateur" product to be structured.

As with the rest of life, it is fair if you agreed to it. It is not fair if someone tells you -- you get what I tell you and you will like it. Which is why it is about representation and civil rights, not economics at the core. So instead of mandating the Fair Pay Play Act, just let the schools and player union work it out.
saying i as a player negotiated for something, or agreed to it in a different fashion than what's in place now, is not accurate. someone that supposedly had my interests did. so it's going from one group to another. if i'm zion williamson, and i'm not your typical line worker, who's to say i'm any better represented by some player's union that came before me than i was before? or at least i could be on my own? not buying the union panacea. nor (as the nlrb ruling suggests) --- will it be easy to implement.

[ggait]

Agree with what you're saying. The only thing I'd add is that all of this will become a lot easier when (not if, IMO), the football and basketball P5 programs formally break off from the NCAA.

Doing this for football is pretty straightforward and, to a large degree, already exists. The BCS/CFP is pretty much owned by the P5 schools and they've negotiated for a lot of independence from the NCAA already. For P5 football, the NCAA is mostly reduced to a minor regulatory function. The NCAA in no way runs/owns major college football.

D1 hoops is a different animal. While D1 football has many layers (FCS, lower FBS, Power 5) basketball has one layer of 350 D1 teams that all overlap and play each other. While the top tier is dominated by the P5 schools, you've also got top tier hoops programs from non-P5 schools like Gonzaga, Nova, Gtown. And the tournament (unlike the Bowl games and the CFP) is OWNED directly by the NCAA.

So it would be a much more major restructuring for the P5 to set up its own P5-only Final Four tournament. And such tournament would lose a lot of interest since so many schools would be excluded. Under the current set up, most non-P5 teams will ever make the final four. But they live to make the tournament and get a chance to pull one of those crazy Cinderella upsets.

[ggait]

correct. why do you think that is? they've been able to do it for decades/over a hundred years. could it be that it's not so clear that student/athletes are employees and it's not a clean parallel to the work force?

FYI, the NLRB ruling says about 25 times that they did not determine that the athletes weren't employees. They siad clearly they were not deciding that issue. But their opinion strongly implies that, if they were to decide that issue, they'd find that the players were in fact employees (which is what the regional judge said). Because it is pretty obvious that they are under any legal test.

The NLRB instead "declined jurisdiction" on the entire case since the issue was novel and complicated and would be better left to Congress and the states to figure out. The major jurisdictional issue was that many of the employers (but not Northwestern) are state universities, and the NLRA does by its terms not apply state and local governments.

[wgdsr]

correct. why do you think that is? they've been able to do it for decades/over a hundred years. could it be that it's not so clear that student/athletes are employees and it's not a clean parallel to the work force?

FYI, the NLRB ruling says about 25 times that they did not determine that the athletes weren't employees. They siad clearly they were not deciding that issue. But their opinion strongly implies that, if they were to decide that issue, they'd find that the players were in fact employees (which is what the regional judge said). Because it is pretty obvious that they are under any legal test.

The NLRB instead "declined jurisdiction" on the entire case since the issue was novel and complicated and would be better left to Congress and the states to figure out. The major jurisdictional issue was that many of the employers (but not Northwestern) are state universities, and the NLRA does by its terms not apply state and local governments.

i'm aware of most of this (other than presuming what their legal opinion implied). my response was in reply to your contention that a regional director has it right. his own board reversed it, illustrating how complicated this would be in the first place.

one of, if not the most recent cases i linked earlier:
https://www.si.com/college-football/201 ... on-jenkins

is a "loss" for the nc$$ for now. i didn't read the 104 page ruling, but the condensed synopsis has the judge saying they can't limit education scholarships, computers and pianos, but they can still limit how much cash is made available. and if i read it right, she wants conferences to handle it. sounds like they still have some anti-trust provisions.

they now just have to give out, or be allowed to give out, more "stuff". not many employees get paid in "stuff". still, i suspect that the mo is firmly on the players' side. i do wonder how women are going to come out smelling when it's over.

[a fan]

The back and forth about whether the players are/are not paid enough completely misses the point in my view. You can make fine economic arguments that the current level of pay is way too low or way too high. Zion Williamson of Duke hoops perhaps is massively under-compensated at a $75k full ride to Duke. Or maybe he's getting paid just fine, since his exposure with Duke hoops is easily monetized into a fat shoe contract.

I'm specifically saying that we----meaning posters, writers, sportsfans-----shouldn't be the judge as to how much Zion Williamson gets from Nike or Champion or Dove soap.

We should let the free market decide. As it does for all other workers in the US. Our entire economy is based on this simple principle.

[ggait]

WD -- I'd say the representation/union solution is imo the fair/appropriate/good way to handle this issue. Rather than mandated/correct under current law, which is not possible under current law since the NLRA doesn't apply to state governments/state universities.

Judge Wilkins has found multiple times that the NCAA has collusively violated antitrust law. She's ruled that big time college sports is a business and that the NCAA structure on player compensation is illegal price-fixing.

But so far, Wilkin's rulings against the NCAA have turned into pretty big NCAA wins because her mandated remdies have been so muted.

In the prior case, she raised the NCAA cap on player comp so that a full ride could include modest stipends up to the full COA at the school. That's comp increase is chicken-feed for P5 programs. In this case, she now raises the cap again, but restricts the increases to non-cash education-related stuff. So again, chicken-feed and another big win as a practical matter for the NCAA.

While I understand her analysis on the basic anti-trust issues, I have a hard time seeing where she's getting her remedies from.