The CardBoard
On University athletes as employees - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: On University athletes as employees (/thread-7132.html)


On University athletes as employees - Mick - 05-09-2014

I realized that most D1 schools have athlete-students versus student-athletes for the money sports.  I also know that the dividing line between athletes-training-for-the-NFL-or-NBA versus University employees is gossamer thin, as those "non-employees" are responsible for millions of dollars in revenue that pay for 7-figure coaches and all NCAA employees and the rest of the University athletic program.  I can't say whether their compensation (free tuition, training, room and board, medical care and acceptance to a University that they most likely couldn't get into without football, if we're being honest) is essentially consideration for their services.  So one question is: are athlete-students already adequately compensated for their services?

Let's consider the lives of minor league athletes who ply their trade before sparse crowds and make sparse income.  A first-year Class A baseball player makes about $850/month in season, then $1,050 per month in his first full year.  AA players make about $1,500 per month.  AAA players make a minimum of $2,150 per month up to $12k to $25k per month for the most coveted free agents.  Average is about $3,833.

In basketball, it is worse.  The team-wide salary cap for the D league team is $173,000, actually down from $178,000.  Players play in three tiers, $25,500; $19,000 and $13,000 annually with $40 per day meal money.  There is some evidence that more highly compensated players can break the top tier and make up to $28,000.

In football, arena league players make about $830 a month.  Some teams subsidize housing.  When the AFL went bankrupt in 2009, the average player made $80,000.  Semi-pro leagues make next to nothing.  I do recall that their attendance is minimal, really next to nothing.

Which brings us to the question of the athletic experience from the fan's point of view and the value inherent in our experience as fans.  Like most of you, I knew a number of athletes on my campus, a few of whom were involved professionally in their sport after graduation.  With few exceptions, they were terrific people, and I was proud to be their fellow student and similarly proud to be a fellow alum.  I always marvel at their success in non-athletic life after college.  I feel a friendship, and a kinship to those people, and it was a thrill to watch them play and enjoy their skills.  We had the most common of common bonds.  I feel just as proud of Steve Nash as I do David Drummond or Ed Panelli or John Sobrato or Pat Gelsinger, etc.

But I don't feel any particular friendship or kinship to employees of the University.  I was close to a few dozen of them (in one capacity or another), but they had their role, and I had mine, and after graduation I never thought about them again (with the exception of 1/2 dozen favored professors and a few truly execrable ones) or felt any kinship or relationship.  I turned over the check, they turned over the services, we went our separate ways; and that goes for people for whom I was genuinely fond.  I posted a few weeks back about the sickening food (lower grade than penal system food) at my alma mater.  My junior year, I went to work at the faculty club, not so much for the barely-above-minimum-wage, but for the wonderful food they served.  The chef was once an alternate on the American Olympic cooking team, and he turned out some spectacular food.  Believe me, I took every shift I could get there (in part for the tips, I admit).

I was closer to that chef than any other employee at the University.  I don't recall his last name.  His first name was Carl or Karl.  And he was a great guy, lending me money when I was a little short once.  But I don't remember him, and I don't think I've mentioned him more than twice in the last thirty years.  Whereas I remember acutely about 1/3 of my fellow students, athletes and otherwise.

So I'm not certain what a college athletic employee should be making.  I am certain that it substantially changes the experience for me.  Employees aren't the same as students.  If this lawsuit succeeds, I would hope that Stanford would reject the model.  Because an employee isn't the same relationship as a friend or even a friendly acquaintance.  And their experience is different from mine, so I don't "feel" them as I would a fellow student.  So I wouldn't feel about them and wouldn't support them in the same way that I do today.  Or put another way, if Stanford were to pay their football players (on top of all their other consideration), I would attend as many Cardinal games, and watch as many Cardinal games on TV as I do the Santa Cruz Warriors.  Which is to say zero.

Re: On University athletes as employees - stupac2 - 05-09-2014

Which lawsuit are you talking about, and how are you defining "succeeds"?

Re: On University athletes as employees - g1313 - 05-09-2014

I'm not sure if the distinction you draw between student-athletes and full-time employees is valid. The chef (or any other full-time employee) is by definition not a student (in addition to likely being in a different age range and life stage). Wouldn't a better comparison be to any of your classmates that worked part-time while in school, like an RA, RCC, TA?

Re: On University athletes as employees - Mick - 05-09-2014

(05-09-2014, 11:40 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Which lawsuit are you talking about, and how are you defining "succeeds"?

I was referring to the class-action suit brought by Jeff Kessler, chair of the antitrust department at powerhouse firm Winston & Strawn.  W&S was named "Sports Law Firm of the Year" in 2013.  Among many other sports litigations, Kessler litigated McNeil v. NFL which established free agency and Brady v. NFL which ended the lockout.  His current suit accuses the major conferences in the NCAA of participating in a price-fixing association, essentially a cartel; one which prevents earned revenue from reaching the performing athletes.  This lawsuit is separate from Northwestern's players petition to unionize and separate from Ed O'Bannon's suit to his rights and likeness. 

Here's Kessler's bio.  Lots of teeth:
http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/kessler-jeffrey-l.html

The narrowest definition of a successful outcome of this case would result in the athletes reaping financial rewards apart from the consideration they are currently receiving.  A broader definition of success would lead to a systemic transformation.  Here's an interview with Kessler that outlines the foundation of the suit:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidparnell/2014/05/08/the-ncaas-cartel-activity-has-awakened-a-sleeping-giant/

Re: On University athletes as employees - Mick - 05-09-2014

(05-09-2014, 12:21 PM)g1313 link Wrote:I'm not sure if the distinction you draw between student-athletes and full-time employees is valid. The chef (or any other full-time employee) is by definition not a student (in addition to likely being in a different age range and life stage). Wouldn't a better comparison be to any of your classmates that worked part-time while in school, like an RA, RCC, TA?

SCU didn't have teaching assistants when I attended it.  The RA's there received room & board, unlike the football players who received tuition, room and board.  They received no separate compensation.  I don't know what an RCC is.  If that means Resident Community Coordinator, I never ran across one there.

The athletes are entertainers who work 40+ hours per week at their craft.  The veneer of amateurism is very thin, barely thin enough to recognize those individuals as just-one-of-us fellow students.

Student athletes are student entertainers.  When I was in school, student-actors didn't get paid for the plays, neither did the dancers, neither did the students in the fine arts department who created paintings or sculptures that were ultimately put on display.  I paid $15 for a ticket to a play at my son's school, but my son sure as heck didn't get paid.  But you bring up a good point.  Along those lines, there is a professional actor who does get paid well, who does attend school there.  He is not particularly close to the amateurs in the University's theater department, and when they refer to their fellow actors, they aren't referring to him.

Re: On University athletes as employees - Farm93 - 05-09-2014

I was a student AND a university employee.  I developed wonderful and enduring relationships with co-workers that were student-employees and those that were full-time staff.  I don't think students that did not work for the university treated me differently because I pulled paychecks from the university, but I guess it is possible.

I didn't treat students that were not employees differently, and I suspect that most students didn't treat the hundreds of student-employees differently than students without Stanford paychecks.  The University hires students in a wide range of roles and has for quite some time.  Hiring a few as student-athlete-employees would likely not change much at all on campus.  I don't know how a university could determine pay rates for different teams but the idea of paying a few students is actually not new, and would not create big problems in the social fabric IMHO.

I am sure most universities will fight to keep student-athletes from collecting compensation, but I believe Stanford university will survive even if it is forced to provide lifetime health care, a weekly paycheck and/or a percentage of the gate to the student-athlete-employees.

Stanford has drawn a line in the sand - Redrum - 05-09-2014

Quote:I am sure most universities will fight to keep student-athletes from collecting compensation, but I believe Stanford university will survive even if it is forced to provide lifetime health care, a weekly paycheck and/or a percentage of the gate to the student-athlete-employees.

The question is, will Stanford survive as a Div. 3 equivalent program if pay-for-play is instituted. Our AD Muir is on record with that threat. 

But the question is:  Do you believe him?  Once you start tearing down the frame, how much of the building remains standing?  With reduced revenues,  does the athletically "pure" program remain at its same size in sports and number of athletes participating.  At the top end, it theoretically means that Stanford would leave the Pac12.  Walk away from that revenue stream, those rivalries and that  prestige?  I tend to think not, but at that point it might be just Revenge of the Academicians, refusing to accept that much more money flowing out to the Athletic Dept. (although, actually it would mostly just flow through the AD,  not from the rest of the university. 

I would say that some sort of "stipend" system for athletes is more likely on a national level, but it will be a temporary fallback position that won't stand long against the momentum for substantial compensation at some "Super division" level.  That point is where Stanford will step off the train.

My guess is Muir didn't sign on to be the leader who surrendered Div. 1 status, so he and many other athletic directors and NCAA big wigs will try to define themselves into some sort of compromise.  I reckon there are two interactive probability calculations: At NCAA level and individual school's level.  I give full-blown compensation and individual athlete promotional rights about a 50% chance of happening at the NCAA level.  At Stanford's internal policy level I see a > 50% chance of bailing off the escalator if the pay-for-play scheme advances.  Perhaps -- as many schools will-- trying to implement split-tiered competition domains, with the sports outside of football, basketball and baseball  dropping to the equivalent of Div. 3 status (no pay or very limited pay).  That split-tier approach might be the way the NCAA keeps the whole thing from flying apart and that organization losing its power and control to new, commercially-centric organizations ( Think Mega-BCS type org).  On any individual school's level, it will suck to be a "small sport" athlete.

Re: On University athletes as employees - stupac2 - 05-09-2014

Athletes will be receiving stipends very, very soon. From the sound of things the breakaway mini-conference made of the PAC, ACC, Big/B1G, and SEC is coming this summer and will allow the paying of stipends via some automatic formula. Will that take effect this year? Hard to say, but the writing is on the wall there.

It's clear that college athletics are going to change pretty drastically here soon. I think there are solutions to the potential problems that address the concerns of Mick and those like him, while still allowing players to get some fair compensation (I like trust funds that are linked to graduation, personally). But right now there are too many variables for how it'll all shake out to really be able to say anything meaningful.

As for Muir, I'm sure Stanford would drop down to D3 (or whatever) if the system changed into something where you could do whatever you wanted with money. But that's just not going to happen. Everyone realizes that paying players "market value" would erode their market value. It's a catch-22. No one wants to see school-labeled semi-pro teams, so the athletes only have value if they're not allowed to fully capture that value. I strongly suspect that the solution will be some kind of trust fund that's based on jersey sales and the like and is only turned over after graduation or similar.

Re: Stanford has drawn a line in the sand - oman - 05-09-2014

(05-09-2014, 01:20 PM)Redrum link Wrote:The question is, will Stanford survive as a Div. 3 equivalent program if pay-for-play is instituted. Our AD Muir is on record with that threat. 

I'm bringing the tacos to the inevitable Stanford/Trinity U. playoff games in San Antonio.....

[Image: rice_visit.jpg]

Re: On University athletes as employees - CTcard - 05-09-2014

(05-09-2014, 12:36 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:I was a student AND a university employee.  ...

I am sure most universities will fight to keep student-athletes from collecting compensation, but I believe Stanford university will survive even if it is forced to provide lifetime health care, a weekly paycheck and/or a percentage of the gate to the student-athlete-employees.


There are a bunch of different things being conflated here.

You don't mention what you were doing as a University employee, but I strongly suspect that you were not a University employee in a category that would have allowed you to form a union - most likely because you were a temporary employee. And for that matter, apparently Mick was as well (see faculty club story).

The current situation, and the comment in the original post about athletes as employees, seems to only be that Northwestern football players have been declared employees who can form a union. There is no ruling that Northwestern has to provide them with lifetime healthcare, a weekly paycheck, a percentage of the gate, or anything else. Indeed, as things currently stand, coming to such an agreement in collective bargaining would  immediately make the players ineligible for NCAA competition - which I would think would lower everyone's incentive to reach that deal. In fact, I think Northwestern claims that they offer everything allowable under NCAA rules. If true, then by themselves they cannot really agree to anything else.

My guess remains that unionization, at least by itself, won't lead to big changes soon.

The Kessler suit seems to me to pose much bigger potential for brobdingnagian changes, and much bigger danger in driving Stanford out. Kessler says, "We are seeking to remove the NCAA’s anti-competitive restrictions to let the schools decided for themselves, and let competition and free markets determine the outcome." If indeed it came to that, then I could see some schools choosing to pursue and treat players in a manner that Stanford would likely choose not to compete against.

In fact, this is an inherent problem for a sports league made up of nominally individual, competing businesses: you cannot have meaningful competition without a set of rules all agree to but competing businesses cannot in general agree to rules. Most of the pro leagues get around this by having a CBA with a single union.  I wonder whether that model is feasible for colleges: whether a single union could cover all Division 1, or even all FBS football players, that would then negotiate with the NCAA over what rules would exist. First of all, FBS schools cover private and public insitutions that fall under different labour laws, somewhere around 51 different versions (okay a little less - Alaska doesn't have a Div 1 football team). Some of those forbid public-sector unions. Would this not be a barrier to finding an overall NCAA CBA?  Universities also fall under a host of federal and state laws that the NFL does not. The most famous of these is Title IX, but that is only one. Those legal obligations will complicate any push for significant extra compensation from the universities.

I don't really know about any of this, not knowing much about labour laws. Anyone here who does should tell us how this might all work out.

Re: On University athletes as employees - Farm93 - 05-10-2014

Worked for DAPER and Office of Development at different times.  I even did game day stuff a few times and that operations group really could unionize.

I agree the NCAA rules are a barrier, but my guess is the NCAA will need to change soon or face more government oversight.  In any event, Mick's original post implied that payment and compensation would change the way students see student-athletes.  And my point was a little compensation is unlikely to change much at all because Stanford already has student-employees.  Perhaps more importantly, Stanford already has wealthy students and they are not idolized in a way that would make me think a few student-athletes getting paid by the university would create some new social class that would be isolated from the others on campus.

In the end, I think Stanford would survive if the athletes were paid $20 per hour and got lifetime health care.  Just a hunch obviously, though I suspect we will see something like it in the next 10 years.

I think some other private schools would not be able to absorb that impact of a few benefits as easily, so that should be a positive for Stanford.  On the public university front many states have unions that demand, and get, whatever is the best benefit package available to any employee group in the state.  My guess is many states would not be able to provide what the Northwestern players are demanding because it could impact state and municipal budgets.

Certainly it is all just a set of hypotheticals.  Still I doubt Stanford drops D1 if athletes get an annual stipend or lifetime health care and I doubt the athletes would be stigmatized in such a way that they could no longer develop the same type of friendships with non-athletes they enjoy today. 

Re: On University athletes as employees - CTcard - 05-10-2014

(05-10-2014, 07:02 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:In the end, I think Stanford would survive if the athletes were paid $20 per hour and got lifetime health care.  Just a hunch obviously, though I suspect we will see something like it in the next 10 years.

Two thoughts.

I have seen things like "lifetime health care" thrown about a lot. Does anyone know just what that really means? An actual health care policy that then covers athletes for the rest of their life? Does anyone offer such a benefit? Maybe the armed forces?
I don't think that the NFL or any of the pro leagues do. Here is a web page outlining NFL benefits.
http://www.nfl.com/careers/benefits


On payment, as long as it is plausible, both sides will try to keep compensation to scholarships to try to avoid taxation. The current idea floating around is that there is some "full cost of attendance" that could allow an increase of about $4000 that scholarships could be increased without leading to taxes. Though in the end, lots of people pay taxes and that is no real barrier.

How far Stanford would go is an interesting question. My guess is it would go pretty far in following a uniform set of rules - like a blanket $20 per hour for athletes. However, if the system in fact becomes that no rules are allowed as described by Kessler in that interview, that all universities can do whatever they want to attract and keep athletes, then I think that Stanford would opt not to play at the level that "Some Exceptional Colleges" would choose to do. 

Re: On University athletes as employees - stupac2 - 05-10-2014

(05-10-2014, 07:42 AM)CTcard link Wrote:I have seen things like "lifetime health care" thrown about a lot. Does anyone know just what that really means? An actual health care policy that then covers athletes for the rest of their life? Does anyone offer such a benefit? Maybe the armed forces?
I don't think that the NFL or any of the pro leagues do. Here is a web page outlining NFL benefits.
http://www.nfl.com/careers/benefits

I think the idea is lifetime treatment for injuries sustained while playing. You could also imagine some kind of limited thing lasting only, say, 5 years. But we need something, because the stories of people getting injured then being kicked to the curb are so brutally unfair. (Of course, that doesn't happen at Stanford AFAIK.)

Re: On University athletes as employees - M T - 05-10-2014

Does anyone here think that whatever might come to pass would involve paying, say, the wrestling team members to play?  No?  Well, how many sports would get paid?  I think just one.  Maybe two.    If Stanford took the road to avoid becoming a Pro Football minor league team, then it will certainly disrupt the economics of the athletic department, but as far as actually playing, probably only one sport is directly affected.

I don't know how much money goes from the football program into the other sports.  The facilities are named after donors, not the football program, so I don't know if those have their major benefit from the football.  When I hear the WBB players or coaches announced with the name of a particular donor, I don't know how much football contributes to their scholarships.  On the other hand, I can imagine that football revenues do contribute significantly, but I don't understand just how much.

Suppose that for whatever reason, Stanford no longer had a football program.  Would Stanford be forced to drop its other sports?  I doubt it.  Would those sports be scaled back.  Probably.  Would Stanford be able to maintain its high quality of sports performance?  I actually think so, but I'm not sure.

Would the PAC-12 become a football-only conference and so Stanford would not be part of the PAC-12?  I don't care.  MPSF is not a football conference and covers some of our sports.  Great.

Obviously most people on this board enjoy football as a (now) spectator sport and a social focus.  Great for you.  If Stanford were to drop football, it would be a great loss to you.  But will sports survive at Stanford? I hope so.  Personally, I participated in sports at a school where no athletic scholarships were given, and sports was a significant part of my college years.

You might ask yourself, where will collegiate sports be in 20 or 40 years?  Will our society/legal system push away from those sports that are most associated with injuries?  Can colleges argue that football is something they want associated with their name in the face of possibly increasing litigation & expenses from covering long term injuries?  I see those as bigger threats to collegiate football than salaries.

I found this 1968 reference to the last throes of collegiate boxing: http://cnnsi.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1080950/index.htm  Of course, boxing was never the money-maker that football is, so the outcome may be different. 


Then you might ask yourself why not divest the football teams from the universities?  Well, the NCAA would no longer have any responsibility or authority for them.  You could imagine a new pro football league, consisting of the Alabama Tide, the Florida Gators, etc. that allowed itself to employ anyone who has reached the age of 18.  Why do we send the promising football players to a situation where they are forced to take classes?  Let them be in their own league.  If some of the employees see the wisdom in pursing a college education, that could be at arm's length from their employment.  I'd have no problem with their employer paying for their education, but they'd have to really take courses and turn in papers and earn a degree.

The path from here to there is not clear to me.  I'm sure it would be rocky, but I would not be surprised if we wound up at that situation. Or perhaps a similar one where the NFL creates such a league.




Re: On University athletes as employees - teejers1 - 05-12-2014

I've said this elsewhere (maybe even here).  The solution is not that hard.

1.  Require the NFL to form a development league as there is in NBA and baseball.  That can and should be reserved for those who have no interest in college and/or demand to be paid for their services;

2.  For those who want to go the college route, do that - and play by NCAA rules (that means scholarship and perhaps a small stipend and perhaps some kind of medical insurance for life-long injuries sustained while playing college ball - but that's it); and

3.  Here's the kicker:  the NCAA should negotiate the TV deal globally and then allocate funds equitably across the entire university landscape.  (Oh, and impose a pay limit on coaches - at say $1.5 or $2M per year).

THAT SHOULD BE THE PRICE OF ADMISSION FOR PLAYING IN THE NCAA ARENA.  IF YOU DON'T LIKE THOSE RULES, THEN PLAY IN THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE.

The truth is that the Tuscaloosa Titans of the NFL D-League would not have nearly the fanatical support that the Crimson Tide does.  The "value generation" is the affiliation with the college/university.  That's just the truth (for now and forseeable future).  And if you accept that fact, then there is no reason why the colleges (read:  NCAA) should not be allowed to impose rules/regulations for participation in that arena.  Paying athletes, unionization, etc. will lead down the slippery slope of destroying college sports - or at least college football, as most of us have come to appreciate it over the years.

So, the final issue is what to do with "The Factories" - you know, those schools who will do anything (pay players, keep them eligible, build statutues to "students" who attend the place for only one semester, etc.) to keep the Golden Goose laying those eggs for them.  Here is my response to that:  ISOLATION.  Let most of the SEC, tOSU, and a handful of other "Football Rules" schools do their own thing.  Maybe they can get a lucrative TV deal, play their own round-robin schedule, and then claim to be the champion of . . . what exactly?  "The 2016 Champion of School Affiliated with Southern Schools?"  I'm telling you, that train would run out of steam quickly.  What makes "college football" the successful/passionate/fan-crazy thing that it is, is the "college" part of it.

If Michigan, Texas, ND, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, Vandy and other universities - all of whom have a reputation for being great universities (that happen to also field football teams) - say "no" to the path that many think inevitable, then this ship can be righted before it is too late.  If these and other universities say:  "We're going to draw the line at paying players anything beyond a scholie and small stipend" - if they want more, then they must go elsewhere - then I think that position would ultimately prevail.   

The solution is not that hard to envision.  It's just having the will to get there that is the hard part.

BTW, I'm dubious of the legal challenges, especially if there is a professional league for those claiming poverty/unfairness.  There is no constitutional right to get paid while playing college sports.  If you choose to play in that environment, then you play by those rules. 

Again, why is this hard, or even controversial?

Re: On University athletes as employees - CTcard - 05-12-2014

(05-12-2014, 10:07 AM)teejers1 link Wrote:I've said this elsewhere (maybe even here).  The solution is not that hard.

1.  Require the NFL to form a development league as there is in NBA and baseball.  That can and should be reserved for those who have no interest in college and/or demand to be paid for their services;

2.  For those who want to go the college route, do that - and play by NCAA rules (that means scholarship and perhaps a small stipend and perhaps some kind of medical insurance for life-long injuries sustained while playing college ball - but that's it); and

3.  Here's the kicker:  the NCAA should negotiate the TV deal globally and then allocate funds equitably across the entire university landscape.  (Oh, and impose a pay limit on coaches - at say $1.5 or $2M per year).


Again, why is this hard, or even controversial?

Those would probably be very good changes, though nothing ever solves everything.

But why this is hard is not too tough to figure out.

"1. Require the NFL to form a development league. "

Who is going to do the requiring?

Certainly the NCAA or individual colleges cannot. I suppose the federal government could - though it is pretty hard to imagine the government requiring one specific business to get into another specific business.

Next, while probably a good idea overall, it certainly would not be a panacea. I don't see that the NBA Development league has solved all the NCAA-related problems in mens basketball. If anything the problems with basketball are worse - lower graduation rates than football for example and more agent-related scandals.

"2.  For those who want to go the college route, do that - and play by NCAA rules "

This one isn't hard in theory, it is the case right now - plus or minus just how big the scholarship is and the details of medical plans.

However, points #1 and #2 together are not going to stop the desire of various boosters to cheat to win, or various would-be agents to try to secure potential clients as early as possible. So, the opportunities to skirt the NCAA rules would likely still be there. Whether the desire to do so remains would probably depend on just how many go to the proposed D League and how good the conditions are there.

"3.  Here's the kicker:  the NCAA should negotiate the TV deal globally and then allocate funds equitably across the entire university landscape. "

Of course you realize that this used to be the case. Then in the early 1980s the Univ of Oklahoma, backed by UGa, sued the NCAA over this monopoly of TV rights as a violation of the Sherman and Clayton antitrust laws. The case went to the supreme court where Okla won, and the TV free for-all began. While I guess it would be nominally possible for all of the Universities to voluntarily cede their TV rights back to the NCAA, it is not going to happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Board_of_Regents_of_the_University_of_Oklahoma

I would also love the coach's salary cap. But, I also suspect that would go to the courts as an anti-trust violation and hard to see how coaches would not win their case.

-------------------
I feel like a giant kill-joy writing that, because for the broadest health of the system those would probably be good changes. But #1 and #3 just ain't gonna happen.


Re: On University athletes as employees - teejers1 - 05-13-2014

1.  If the colleges/universities across the land just said "we're not playing football until the NFL establishes a D-League," don't you think the NFL would do just that?  I agree that it is almost inconceivable, but I think it possible (if that makes any sense).  And really, why should colleges be the NFL's training grounds?  In hoops and baseball, there are minor leage pro teams as well as college teams.  The NFL shouldn't enjoy some privileged position on this front.

2.  With a D-league, I don't think the NLRB would have much of a push to establish college athletes as "employees."  I actually think there is some difficulty on that front now.  BTW, unionization is the worst approach to addressing athlete inequities, imo, at least if anyone is concerned at all about preserving college sports as we have come to know them.  Because I think that is rather obvious to anyone who even looks at the issue for a moment, I ultimately think the unionization of college athletes as a "global answer" will fail.

3.  It will take sweeping changes (like an NFL D-League in football) to preserve any modicum of amateurism in college sports.  And if that preservation goes, then so will Stanford's participation in same.  I agree with redrum vis a vis when Stanford will step off the train (i.e., when athletes start getting paid anything beyond very modest stipend).