Will paying college football and basketball players mean the end to college XC and track?

Yes. You get BS like this

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/03/ohio-state-athletic-director-18000-bonus-wrestling/

"Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith will receive an $18,000 bonus triggered by Buckeyes wrestler Logan Stieber winning the 141-pound wrestling NCAA championship last week.

Ohio State is paying Urban Meyer $4 million per year to coach its football team. We just spent four straight days watching amateurs compete in a tournament that will bring the NCAA more than $10 billion in television rights fees. But an AD gets a small bonus and it feels like a wake-up call.

The news of the bonus has led to a predictable backlash from folks who can’t figure why an athletic director should be rewarded for the success of an individual athlete in a non-revenue sport (while that athlete is banned from cashing in on his athletic exploits)."

That's BS.

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

I'm generally in favor of college players getting paid. More power to them, really. However, the thought crossed my mind today. If schools will need to spend even more money on their big programs like football and basketball by paying the players, will that mean more cutting of XC and track programs? That might shift my opinion on the matter entirely. Anyone who is better informed than me care to weigh in here?

Thanks.

Hard to say.

Some schools will likely cut back on the "revenue" sports like football and basketball, leaving a larger athletic budget for things like track and cross.

Other schools might double down on the "revenue" sports and cut things like track and cross.

Think of the Ivies. All of them can afford track and cross because none of them really invest in a football program.

It is really the schools with failed aspirations to have successful teams in the revenue sports (e.g., Maryland, Delaware) that start cutting the non-revenue teams. The ones who are content with mediocre revenue sports continue to support their non-revenue teams.

No, it won't work this way. Look at how much administration already exists at any given university. A university president, and all of the immediate positions below that, do essentially nothing, and yet they make millions. The academic all-stars of the those same universities make nothing. Players will never get what they "deserve", especially in the the college environment.

Why are graduate-students not allowed to unionise? They clearly produce more for a university; they are essential to it, but they were blocked from it in 2004.

state wrote:

Why are graduate-students not allowed to unionise? They clearly produce more for a university; they are essential to it, but they were blocked from it in 2004.

Depends on where you are. Some graduate students are unionized.

The California University system has unionized grad students. 28 schools around the country also do.

The athletes at Northwestern are not asking to be paid per se. They would like to have the full cost of attendance covered (the grant-in-aid does not). Then there are additional benefits like long-term health care (although this could really be tricky).

Several NCAA ADs and presidents have wanted to increase grant-in-aid to cover the full cost of attendance, but the smaller schools were going to vote it down as they could not afford it.

I predict that there is going to be a revamping of the NCAA divisions to allow the Big 5 conferences (BCS if you will) to govern themselves and offer to cover more of the financial cost of attendance. If this happens, the athletes will be fine with it.

The NLRB member actually went against several court precedents in naming the football players (and keep in mind the decision only affects NU and the football team no other school or sport).

It will also create a bigger mess.

In the end, I think this will all get worked out without athletes becoming union members. But it will lead to a change in governance structure.

Rockette wrote:

Not all universities give scholarships.

few of these athletes get "scholarships" in fact they get "grants-in-aid". See NCAA manual.

d2xccoach wrote:

BigBird wrote:...I do think however, they should be allowed to sign autographs for extra money or get paid for making an appearance and the like.

On the surface this would seem to make sense, but the potential for abuse is huge. Let's say the NCAA allowed college players to sign autographs for money or get paid to make appearances. Let's say "State U" really wants a certain player. What would stop a booster from paying that player $1M for an autograph or to appear at their restaurant, just to get around the system?

Nothing would stop that and in fact that is exactly what would happen. It would be interesting to see in Johnny Manziel would take care of his O linemen with his take of the haul. After all, one guy "misses" a block and Johnny Football could be a hurtin' puppy.

So what is the hours per week criterion to be considered an employee? 20, 30, 40? Waiting for Ohr to answer that. Also, he went against court decisions that say that athletes are not employees although i think they are closer to being employees than they were in 1960.

I disagree that the pro leagues and NCAA have colluded on anything. In fact, I will go so far as to say if they had, it would result in a lawsuit that would truly rip the fabric of major sports.

Why should the NFL spend money on a development league when the colleges are doing a fine job for them at no cost and no risk? That makes no business sense at all.

Baseball minor leagues pre-date college baseball being a big deal.

The NBA has a development league, but it is a joke. Every player is there just to play and impress some pro scout to get a 10 day contract and then hopefully hang on. It is worse basketball than college ball. How many players from the D league ever get more than a few 10 day contracts?

I think the NBA was silly to do away with allowing HSers to enter the league. I get that the PR was bad when kids would declare and not get drafted. Most of those kids were given bad advice even when the NBA told them they would not get drafted. But that is a fair system.

state wrote:

No, it won't work this way. Look at how much administration already exists at any given university. A university president, and all of the immediate positions below that, do essentially nothing, and yet they make millions. The academic all-stars of the those same universities make nothing. Players will never get what they "deserve", especially in the the college environment.

Why are graduate-students not allowed to unionise? They clearly produce more for a university; they are essential to it, but they were blocked from it in 2004.

A college president is there to raise money.

Also some grad students are unionized, depends on whether it is a public or private U and state law. (Some states do not allow state employees to unionize).

It should follow that the age restrictions, limitation of playing seasons, and academic requirements should soon be dropped.

Just hire the pros and put them in college uniforms. They are employees now, basically like the Building and Grounds people - they work for the university, they need not be students.

luv2run wrote:

The NLRB member actually went against several court precedents in naming the football players employees.

You keep mentioning this, but court decisions aren't the sole basis for the NLRB judgements.

The NCAA won most of those court decisions in a radically different time - one where big money was not prevalent in college sports.

The original case that inspired the "student-athlete" was a case of a player from Fort Lewis A&M in the 1950s who died on the field. The NCAA pretty much invented the term for that case, and it was successful.

I'm not sure what the Fort Lewis A&M football team was like then, but I can assure you they didn't make $50 million a year for their school.

The NCAA has settled the most recent lawsuits, and faces a host of other ones where the prospects don't look as rosy.

The NLRB considered things like:

time the players spent devoted to sports

time the players spent devoted to academics

restrictions on the players time & schedules imposed by football

supervisors (coaches) and their relationship with players

the educational value of their football related activities

the compensation (scholarships) and whether it was related to academics or athletics.

A much different world than 1950s rural college football.

Drop all D1 sports and go to a club system "for proffit". Then they can pay their players and they can focus on that as a career option until they grow up and get a reall career that actually contributes something to society beyond entertainment. The fan base will shift their allegiences to the 2nd tier pro-clubs fast enough.

This will also thin the herd of non-qualified students getting a free pass through admissions and open up some spots for underprivledged, economically disadvantaged students that will work harder in the classroom anyway.

Keep scholarships at D2 schools and continue the non-scholarship programs at the D3 schools. These people don't mind playing for a little financial assistance or for free and have a broader focus than the time consuming D1 programs with a high number of underwater basket weaving majors taking 12 credits per semester and 5 years to get a degree if they actually finish.

This will never happen as the university lines their pockets with the revenue generated off the backs of the students. D1 coaches are ridiculously overpaid egomaniacs as well.

luv2run wrote:

I disagree that the pro leagues and NCAA have colluded on anything. In fact, I will go so far as to say if they had, it would result in a lawsuit that would truly rip the fabric of major sports.

Why should the NFL spend money on a development league when the colleges are doing a fine job for them at no cost and no risk? That makes no business sense at all.

.

You have to be delusional if you don't think the NCAA and the pro leagues are colluding. There is way too much money involved not to be.

Of course the NFL doesn't want to start a development league. That's EXACTLY why they BAR athletes from the league until they would HAVE BEEN OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL FOR 3 YEARS. Essentially they are FORCING those athletes to go to college because there is NO other choice.

What 15:00 5K runner gets a free ride. I didn't get one.

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

I'm generally in favor of college players getting paid. More power to them, really. However, the thought crossed my mind today. If schools will need to spend even more money on their big programs like football and basketball by paying the players, will that mean more cutting of XC and track programs? That might shift my opinion on the matter entirely. Anyone who is better informed than me care to weigh in here?

Thanks.

NCAA D-I football and basketball is already a corrupt stew. And the practice of paying "student-athletes" will only prove to be more problematic for universities who move in this direction.

Good post.

My opinion is that xc and track can survive, but they will need to innovate.

I'd be interested to learn if any xc teams in any division support their own budgets 100% through any combination of meet revenues, alumni donations and fund raising efforts.

As far as T&F goes schools are funding it now and T&f dont turn any kind of profit, so I dont see what really changes for us.

Also if you read the ruling they use a number of criteria to determine that the fball players are employees, one of those was the marketability and dollars brought into the school by their labor. T&F, women's basketball, and most other sports do not meet that bar.

Will schools that are barely breaking even on football now drop it? Between the concussions, violence, academic issues and now player union issues including workman compensation, my guess is some of the low FBS and FCS schools may eventually drop football. There was a UMass study showing that only a few programs had a profit but then UMass moved to FBS. Basketball seems to have the money without the numbers or off-court issues.

It will be fun to watch the large football programs to see how they will distribute the pay among the players.