[BostonCard]

When I was there, in the mid-90's, Stanford required proof of insurance to enroll.  You could get that through your parents' employer, if they offered dependent coverage, or you could get relatively inexpensive insurance (20-year olds have a pretty favorable risk profile) through Stanford.

BC

[BostonCard]

When I was there, in the mid-90's, Stanford required proof of insurance to enroll.  You could get that through your parents' employer, if they offered dependent coverage, or you could get relatively inexpensive insurance (20-year olds have a pretty favorable risk profile) through Stanford.

BC

[Goose]

I would say other athletes certainly do take this risk.

Agree absolutely. Football may be the most inherently violent, but people do get injured in ways that have long term consequences playing other sports. For instance, concussions are not uncommon in volleyball. Perhaps not obvious at first, but it is true.

[Goose]

I would say other athletes certainly do take this risk.

Agree absolutely. Football may be the most inherently violent, but people do get injured in ways that have long term consequences playing other sports. For instance, concussions are not uncommon in volleyball. Perhaps not obvious at first, but it is true.

[OutsiderFan]

I would say other athletes certainly do take this risk.

Agree absolutely. Football may be the most inherently violent, but people do get injured in ways that have long term consequences playing other sports. For instance, concussions are not uncommon in volleyball. Perhaps not obvious at first, but it is true.

As someone who got a concussion playing volleyball, I endorse this post. 

Another sport that can be debilitating that nobody thinks about is cheerleading. This isn’t like the Dollies, but those who tumble and get thrown in air. Gymnasts are another. Soccer and Field Hockey. LaCrosse and more. It isn’t just football players who get hurt and might endure lifelong complications from injuries the get from college sports.

[OutsiderFan]

I would say other athletes certainly do take this risk.

Agree absolutely. Football may be the most inherently violent, but people do get injured in ways that have long term consequences playing other sports. For instance, concussions are not uncommon in volleyball. Perhaps not obvious at first, but it is true.

As someone who got a concussion playing volleyball, I endorse this post. 

Another sport that can be debilitating that nobody thinks about is cheerleading. This isn’t like the Dollies, but those who tumble and get thrown in air. Gymnasts are another. Soccer and Field Hockey. LaCrosse and more. It isn’t just football players who get hurt and might endure lifelong complications from injuries the get from college sports.

[2006alum]

Just a few clarifications:

Stanford has and does offer health insurance for students. But post-graduation, student athletes aren't eligible to stay on those plans, and they are often more expensive than remaining on a parent's health insurance plan during (and after) college, so many do not use it.

University health plans are often less than fully generous, especially for catastrophic injuries. The NCAA does have a supplemental catastrophic insurance, but it is itself limited and again, doesn't cover post-graduation expenses.

Many of these plans suffer from issues related to out-of-network treatment, which can be especially problematic when an athlete is injured while at an away site. For those of you who follow WBB more generally, the story of Sedona Prince is a case study in the failure to cover student athletes. I'm not sure exactly where the blame lies between UT, the NCAA, and/or USA Basketball, but the point is that w/o universal coverage for student athletes, these kinds of gaps in coverage do and will exist.

So to summarize: the one point for which I am fully sympathetic to protesting/organizing student-athletes is that their health insurance should not be school-dependent, should not be regionally in/out-of-network-dependent, should not expire at graduation, and should require them to go out of pocket for anything. If they put their mental and physical health at risk on behalf of their university, their university should fully cover the costs of risk associated with that, and those costs do not always curtail immediately upon graduation.

[2006alum]

Just a few clarifications:

Stanford has and does offer health insurance for students. But post-graduation, student athletes aren't eligible to stay on those plans, and they are often more expensive than remaining on a parent's health insurance plan during (and after) college, so many do not use it.

University health plans are often less than fully generous, especially for catastrophic injuries. The NCAA does have a supplemental catastrophic insurance, but it is itself limited and again, doesn't cover post-graduation expenses.

Many of these plans suffer from issues related to out-of-network treatment, which can be especially problematic when an athlete is injured while at an away site. For those of you who follow WBB more generally, the story of Sedona Prince is a case study in the failure to cover student athletes. I'm not sure exactly where the blame lies between UT, the NCAA, and/or USA Basketball, but the point is that w/o universal coverage for student athletes, these kinds of gaps in coverage do and will exist.

So to summarize: the one point for which I am fully sympathetic to protesting/organizing student-athletes is that their health insurance should not be school-dependent, should not be regionally in/out-of-network-dependent, should not expire at graduation, and should require them to go out of pocket for anything. If they put their mental and physical health at risk on behalf of their university, their university should fully cover the costs of risk associated with that, and those costs do not always curtail immediately upon graduation.

[Mudhead]

By "breathtaking" I mean the speed of change we see.

Did you read the article I linked?  Cory Booker was an athlete at Stanford. I'm pretty sure he understands what would and wouldn't be acceptable at Stanford in terms of athlete rights. The highlights:

1. NIL compensation will be allowed
2. Athletes will be able to enter into marketing rights agreements with conferences that allow for things like EA College Football deals to be struck
3. Athletes would benefit from an advisory council looking out for their interests; a step shy of a union
4. The portion of LOI that binds players to schools will be gone, allowing immediate transfers

These all seem imminently reasonable concepts to me. None of them include direct compensation to athletes above and beyond scholarship, room, board, etc.  The only provision schools will rail hard against is unimpeded transfer rights. Coaches are afraid of freedom of movement, but the reality is, that creates an incentive for them to make their athletes happy, and what is wrong with that?

If athletes want to get paid to play, they can play in the G League or others should they develop. I do think athletes will accept the proposed changes without direct compensation from the schools, with maybe some medical insurance guarantees thrown in. It's better for all involved if the federal government passes a law that sets the standards for everyone, so there is no need for athletes to negotiate with conferences or schools for more rights.

With respect to Booker who has many more irons in the fire than what is good for Stanford athletics, Federal intervention will in fact be the end of college sports at Stanford. I’d rather have Trump or Biden focus on something else, thank you.

[Mudhead]

By "breathtaking" I mean the speed of change we see.

Did you read the article I linked?  Cory Booker was an athlete at Stanford. I'm pretty sure he understands what would and wouldn't be acceptable at Stanford in terms of athlete rights. The highlights:

1. NIL compensation will be allowed
2. Athletes will be able to enter into marketing rights agreements with conferences that allow for things like EA College Football deals to be struck
3. Athletes would benefit from an advisory council looking out for their interests; a step shy of a union
4. The portion of LOI that binds players to schools will be gone, allowing immediate transfers

These all seem imminently reasonable concepts to me. None of them include direct compensation to athletes above and beyond scholarship, room, board, etc.  The only provision schools will rail hard against is unimpeded transfer rights. Coaches are afraid of freedom of movement, but the reality is, that creates an incentive for them to make their athletes happy, and what is wrong with that?

If athletes want to get paid to play, they can play in the G League or others should they develop. I do think athletes will accept the proposed changes without direct compensation from the schools, with maybe some medical insurance guarantees thrown in. It's better for all involved if the federal government passes a law that sets the standards for everyone, so there is no need for athletes to negotiate with conferences or schools for more rights.

With respect to Booker who has many more irons in the fire than what is good for Stanford athletics, Federal intervention will in fact be the end of college sports at Stanford. I’d rather have Trump or Biden focus on something else, thank you.

[BigJohn043]

We can talk all we want about how players deserve more.  I don't really agree with that but at the end of the day this is a zero sum game.  Give the high profile sports players more benefits (which cost money) and it has to come from somewhere.  It is likely going to come from the minor sports.  So if you are going to advocate for more benefits at least admit who you want to take them from....

[BigJohn043]

We can talk all we want about how players deserve more.  I don't really agree with that but at the end of the day this is a zero sum game.  Give the high profile sports players more benefits (which cost money) and it has to come from somewhere.  It is likely going to come from the minor sports.  So if you are going to advocate for more benefits at least admit who you want to take them from....

[BostonCard]

We can talk all we want about how players deserve more.  I don't really agree with that but at the end of the day this is a zero sum game.  Give the high profile sports players more benefits (which cost money) and it has to come from somewhere.  It is likely going to come from the minor sports.  So if you are going to advocate for more benefits at least admit who you want to take them from....

It will be interesting to see how COVID-19 affects collegiate sports.  As revenue will decline significantly, we will see where it comes from.  Some will come from minor sports, and I expect we will see more sports cancellations.  But we might also see some reigning in of things like coach salaries, athletic department personnel, non-coach football personnel (director of sports performance), salaries of conference commissioners and staff, less luxurious amenities (locker rooms, for example) and a general decline of the "football industrial complex".  Years of expanding revenue has led to a lot of money sloshing around, much of which could be curtailed if athletic departments are forced to do so.

BC

[BostonCard]

We can talk all we want about how players deserve more.  I don't really agree with that but at the end of the day this is a zero sum game.  Give the high profile sports players more benefits (which cost money) and it has to come from somewhere.  It is likely going to come from the minor sports.  So if you are going to advocate for more benefits at least admit who you want to take them from....

It will be interesting to see how COVID-19 affects collegiate sports.  As revenue will decline significantly, we will see where it comes from.  Some will come from minor sports, and I expect we will see more sports cancellations.  But we might also see some reigning in of things like coach salaries, athletic department personnel, non-coach football personnel (director of sports performance), salaries of conference commissioners and staff, less luxurious amenities (locker rooms, for example) and a general decline of the "football industrial complex".  Years of expanding revenue has led to a lot of money sloshing around, much of which could be curtailed if athletic departments are forced to do so.

BC

[Mudhead]

I fear former slave states with GOP MOCs will make this into a partisan issue - to keep mostly Black athletes from gaining more rights in favor of white power structure - not a human rights one. I hope I’m wrong and this reform sails through Congress and into law.

Why do moderators allow this on a sports message board?

Please outline what is wrong with what I said?  I do fear the GOP will make it a partisan issue. FFS, they are making the freaking Post Office and your right to vote a political issue right now.  Before we know it, we won't be able to discuss anything because everything in our lives will be politicized.  And yes, you may not like it, but the move to give college athletes more rights is absolutely about giving mostly Black youth more rights. Any time this happens the white power structure resists. This is just an irrefutable truth when you look at history. Do you think it is any coincidence that the Senator pushing this movement for a college athlete Bill of Rights is a Black former college athlete?  

I'm just being honest about what is going on and am not afraid to face reality. It may not be comfortable. It may not be the truth I or you prefer, but nothing I said is wrong. It's either my opinion or demonstrated by facts. To have meaningful discussions, we must include reality.

---

teejers1 - I’m not equating these things as equally wrong, just to draw parallels...

You would have heard slave owners who justified slavery because they treated their slaves well, and if they were somewhere else those slaves would have been worse off. This is the same exact mentality that claims NCAA athletes have it great right now and misses the point of giving college athletes rights they don’t currently have. It’s about more than money.

Like slaves, NCAA athletes have no agency or say in the conditions under which they must labor. Moreover, assuming all is well is based on accepting the surrounding society’s practices as the way it is, was, and always will be. The reality is the world is what we and those who fight to change it want it to be.

I understand the visceral need to hold on to a way of life with which you identify or rely on in some way, but the world is always changing for better or worse. It’s a constant battle for rights and resources. There are really no right or wrong answers about what they are and how they are distributed, just what the market wants and is willing to pay for it. In this case, there is now a market for the idea college athletes deserve to have more rights.

The Booker proposal seems to be giving rights and agency to them as a first step, so they have more freedom and a framework with which to seek improvements to the conditions under which they labor for schools. Just this step is a very large move and may placate athletes seeking to be paid by schools, in large measure because these new rights would allow them to capitalize on their value instead of signing away the rights to capitalize on it to schools. Will probably also allow athletes on scholarship to hold jobs and get paid too, something now prohibited.

Prior to this year I would have thought a Bill of Rights for athletes that provides rights to exploit the free market would be a bedrock conservative principle and such a bill would sail through Congress like shit through a Goose. But today, with the GOP apparently working to take voting rights from every American and cashiering every value it ever claimed, I have no idea what the prospects are for such a bill gaining bi-partisan support. I fear former slave states with GOP MOCs will make this into a partisan issue - to keep mostly Black athletes from gaining more rights in favor of white power structure - not a human rights one. I hope I’m wrong and this reform sails through Congress and into law.

Any attempt to draw “parallels” between slavery and the NCAA borders on pornographic. Simply put no one is forcing anyone to play a sport. They “must” not “labor”. They choose to play.  It’s dramatic , of course, as is the “exploitation” label.  

I’ve never been a fan of the NCAA as an organization.  And some changes should more forward - extended health Care, name and likeness compensation, make it easier to transfer (although it should be no easier than any other students ability to transfer) and I like the idea of a Pct of profits going to educationally related charities - although political make that messy.

The NFL can have a D league. Although I’m not sure that would be a better option for a kid - at least it provides a choice.

I’d respond to your nonsense relating to the GOP but I don’t want to violate the Terry Rule.  Even though you just did.

And they choose where they want to play, assuming a kid gets more than one offer. The relation to slavery has to be one of the dumber comments I've heard in a long time. Only to be surpassed by the comment that the White GOP are trying to keep the Black athlete down. Simply stunning.

---

College sports is going to be unrecognizable to what it is today within a couple years. The pace of change relative to what has been until now, is going to be breathtaking.

If by breathtaking, you mean "a lot fewer schools and teams competing," then I agree.

If by breathtaking, you mean players will be paid (beyond the comp they already get), then I hope you are wrong.  That would be death knell for Stanford in upper echelon of sports competition.

Breathtaking meaning that varsity sports besides football and perhaps women's and men's basketball will be taking their last breaths very soon.

Dude, I made a disclaimer in my post that I wasn't equating college athletes with slaves. I was using slavery to demonstrate a parallel to the mentality of people who claim they should be happy with what they get, when they have no agency and rights everyone else has taken away. I never said college athletes are forced to play, but it is a fact they don't have a say in their working conditions or how they can earn compensation, through their sport or even through other endeavors.

The College Athletes Bill of Rights aims to provide players all the rights regular students have. And it doesn't even involve universities in having to pay additional compensation to them. It just sets up structures to either make the topic moot or allow negotiations over compensation to happen.

But you're right. The GOP isn't trying to keep Black athletes down. They are trying to keep any non-white male down. My mistake.

Don’t

Believe what you want and say what you want. But please, don’t bore us with your narrowness... and don’t expect substantive responses to juvenile rants.

[Mudhead]

I fear former slave states with GOP MOCs will make this into a partisan issue - to keep mostly Black athletes from gaining more rights in favor of white power structure - not a human rights one. I hope I’m wrong and this reform sails through Congress and into law.

Why do moderators allow this on a sports message board?

Please outline what is wrong with what I said?  I do fear the GOP will make it a partisan issue. FFS, they are making the freaking Post Office and your right to vote a political issue right now.  Before we know it, we won't be able to discuss anything because everything in our lives will be politicized.  And yes, you may not like it, but the move to give college athletes more rights is absolutely about giving mostly Black youth more rights. Any time this happens the white power structure resists. This is just an irrefutable truth when you look at history. Do you think it is any coincidence that the Senator pushing this movement for a college athlete Bill of Rights is a Black former college athlete?  

I'm just being honest about what is going on and am not afraid to face reality. It may not be comfortable. It may not be the truth I or you prefer, but nothing I said is wrong. It's either my opinion or demonstrated by facts. To have meaningful discussions, we must include reality.

---

teejers1 - I’m not equating these things as equally wrong, just to draw parallels...

You would have heard slave owners who justified slavery because they treated their slaves well, and if they were somewhere else those slaves would have been worse off. This is the same exact mentality that claims NCAA athletes have it great right now and misses the point of giving college athletes rights they don’t currently have. It’s about more than money.

Like slaves, NCAA athletes have no agency or say in the conditions under which they must labor. Moreover, assuming all is well is based on accepting the surrounding society’s practices as the way it is, was, and always will be. The reality is the world is what we and those who fight to change it want it to be.

I understand the visceral need to hold on to a way of life with which you identify or rely on in some way, but the world is always changing for better or worse. It’s a constant battle for rights and resources. There are really no right or wrong answers about what they are and how they are distributed, just what the market wants and is willing to pay for it. In this case, there is now a market for the idea college athletes deserve to have more rights.

The Booker proposal seems to be giving rights and agency to them as a first step, so they have more freedom and a framework with which to seek improvements to the conditions under which they labor for schools. Just this step is a very large move and may placate athletes seeking to be paid by schools, in large measure because these new rights would allow them to capitalize on their value instead of signing away the rights to capitalize on it to schools. Will probably also allow athletes on scholarship to hold jobs and get paid too, something now prohibited.

Prior to this year I would have thought a Bill of Rights for athletes that provides rights to exploit the free market would be a bedrock conservative principle and such a bill would sail through Congress like shit through a Goose. But today, with the GOP apparently working to take voting rights from every American and cashiering every value it ever claimed, I have no idea what the prospects are for such a bill gaining bi-partisan support. I fear former slave states with GOP MOCs will make this into a partisan issue - to keep mostly Black athletes from gaining more rights in favor of white power structure - not a human rights one. I hope I’m wrong and this reform sails through Congress and into law.

Any attempt to draw “parallels” between slavery and the NCAA borders on pornographic. Simply put no one is forcing anyone to play a sport. They “must” not “labor”. They choose to play.  It’s dramatic , of course, as is the “exploitation” label.  

I’ve never been a fan of the NCAA as an organization.  And some changes should more forward - extended health Care, name and likeness compensation, make it easier to transfer (although it should be no easier than any other students ability to transfer) and I like the idea of a Pct of profits going to educationally related charities - although political make that messy.

The NFL can have a D league. Although I’m not sure that would be a better option for a kid - at least it provides a choice.

I’d respond to your nonsense relating to the GOP but I don’t want to violate the Terry Rule.  Even though you just did.

And they choose where they want to play, assuming a kid gets more than one offer. The relation to slavery has to be one of the dumber comments I've heard in a long time. Only to be surpassed by the comment that the White GOP are trying to keep the Black athlete down. Simply stunning.

---

College sports is going to be unrecognizable to what it is today within a couple years. The pace of change relative to what has been until now, is going to be breathtaking.

If by breathtaking, you mean "a lot fewer schools and teams competing," then I agree.

If by breathtaking, you mean players will be paid (beyond the comp they already get), then I hope you are wrong.  That would be death knell for Stanford in upper echelon of sports competition.

Breathtaking meaning that varsity sports besides football and perhaps women's and men's basketball will be taking their last breaths very soon.

Dude, I made a disclaimer in my post that I wasn't equating college athletes with slaves. I was using slavery to demonstrate a parallel to the mentality of people who claim they should be happy with what they get, when they have no agency and rights everyone else has taken away. I never said college athletes are forced to play, but it is a fact they don't have a say in their working conditions or how they can earn compensation, through their sport or even through other endeavors.

The College Athletes Bill of Rights aims to provide players all the rights regular students have. And it doesn't even involve universities in having to pay additional compensation to them. It just sets up structures to either make the topic moot or allow negotiations over compensation to happen.

But you're right. The GOP isn't trying to keep Black athletes down. They are trying to keep any non-white male down. My mistake.

Don’t

Believe what you want and say what you want. But please, don’t bore us with your narrowness... and don’t expect substantive responses to juvenile rants.

[BigJohn043]

We can talk all we want about how players deserve more.  I don't really agree with that but at the end of the day this is a zero sum game.  Give the high profile sports players more benefits (which cost money) and it has to come from somewhere.  It is likely going to come from the minor sports.  So if you are going to advocate for more benefits at least admit who you want to take them from....

It will be interesting to see how COVID-19 affects collegiate sports.  As revenue will decline significantly, we will see where it comes from.  Some will come from minor sports, and I expect we will see more sports cancellations.  But we might also see some reigning in of things like coach salaries, athletic department personnel, non-coach football personnel (director of sports performance), salaries of conference commissioners and staff, less luxurious amenities (locker rooms, for example) and a general decline of the "football industrial complex".  Years of expanding revenue has led to a lot of money sloshing around, much of which could be curtailed if athletic departments are forced to do so.

BC

Note that many of these things impact the players.  Facilities that are not as nice.  Fewer non-coach football personnel whose sole role is to help the players.

My view is that ADs are unlikely to invest less in their money making sports.  That just hurts revenues and budgets going forward.  They are going to cut their money losers.

[BigJohn043]

We can talk all we want about how players deserve more.  I don't really agree with that but at the end of the day this is a zero sum game.  Give the high profile sports players more benefits (which cost money) and it has to come from somewhere.  It is likely going to come from the minor sports.  So if you are going to advocate for more benefits at least admit who you want to take them from....

It will be interesting to see how COVID-19 affects collegiate sports.  As revenue will decline significantly, we will see where it comes from.  Some will come from minor sports, and I expect we will see more sports cancellations.  But we might also see some reigning in of things like coach salaries, athletic department personnel, non-coach football personnel (director of sports performance), salaries of conference commissioners and staff, less luxurious amenities (locker rooms, for example) and a general decline of the "football industrial complex".  Years of expanding revenue has led to a lot of money sloshing around, much of which could be curtailed if athletic departments are forced to do so.

BC

Note that many of these things impact the players.  Facilities that are not as nice.  Fewer non-coach football personnel whose sole role is to help the players.

My view is that ADs are unlikely to invest less in their money making sports.  That just hurts revenues and budgets going forward.  They are going to cut their money losers.