Cory Booker taking aim at NCAA

[OutsiderFan]

In a "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it," story, the NCAA went the Congress asking for intervention on the NIL issue and to clarify athlete rights, and Cory Booker started a revolution that NCAA members will hate.

https://www.si.com/college/2020/08/13/se...s-proposal

[paloalto]

If they go to an extreme on legislation controlling the NCAA, what probably happens is the Power 5 reject the NCAA and form their own organization. Although if it is federally mandated rules the Power 5 would have to abide by them anyway.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

[teejers1]

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.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

[Farm93]

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.

At this point I am hoping for changes that benefit the players across the entire NCAA rather than keep the status quo just to keep Stanford strong.  
The current system exploits a lot of student-athletes in so many ways that changes need to happen.
If changes (like USOC changes in 90s) gives athletes a bit of control and power, then I can live with that even if Stanford then becomes less of a D1/NCAA power.

[teejers1]

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.

At this point I am hoping for changes that benefit the players across the entire NCAA rather than keep the status quo just to keep Stanford strong.  
The current system exploits a lot of student-athletes in so many ways that changes need to happen.
If changes (like USOC changes in 90s) gives athletes a bit of control and power, then I can live with that even if Stanford then becomes less of a D1/NCAA power.

I love that word "exploitation" - it sounds so insidious and is meant to be a mic drop.  

The truth is that NCAA benefits far more student athletes than it exploits, and it's not even close.  Again, identify what bothers you and address THAT.  I'll bet what bothers you is that (a) the athletes don't make any $$ (beyond room, board, tuition, and quite possibly tutoring), while coaches and NCAA fat cats make millions.  Okay, impose caps on salary for coaching and NCAA positions.  And then roll over the $$ to the universities as a whole.  Would that address your concerns?

And if you're so concerned about the athletes getting paid, then advocate for an NFL D-League and have those whose singular goal is to get paid for their football services to go there.

P.S.  None of the above undermines giving players extended health care benefits, so long as it is across-the-board.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

[lex24]

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.

[Phogge]

I think it’s time to reiterate the no politics policy.

As for the NCAA perhaps it’s time to tear it down and build something better. I got to know the people doing the real work behind the Basketball Committee. Very hard to work with and we were PROVIDING their promotional product which always got critical raves in the press.

[lex24]

I think it’s time to reiterate the no politics policy.

As for the NCAA perhaps it’s time to tear it down and build something better. I got to know the people doing the real work behind the Basketball Committee. Very hard to work with and we were PROVIDING their promotional product which always got critical raves in the press.

Yes. Actually my comment on the Terry Rule was misplaced. This isn’t the Covid Section.  The selective enforcement of the policy is a bit tiring.

[paloalto]

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?

[Farm93]

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.

At this point I am hoping for changes that benefit the players across the entire NCAA rather than keep the status quo just to keep Stanford strong.  
The current system exploits a lot of student-athletes in so many ways that changes need to happen.
If changes (like USOC changes in 90s) gives athletes a bit of control and power, then I can live with that even if Stanford then becomes less of a D1/NCAA power.

I love that word "exploitation" - it sounds so insidious and is meant to be a mic drop.  

The truth is that NCAA benefits far more student athletes than it exploits, and it's not even close.  Again, identify what bothers you and address THAT.  I'll bet what bothers you is that (a) the athletes don't make any $$ (beyond room, board, tuition, and quite possibly tutoring), while coaches and NCAA fat cats make millions.  Okay, impose caps on salary for coaching and NCAA positions.  And then roll over the $$ to the universities as a whole.  Would that address your concerns?

And if you're so concerned about the athletes getting paid, then advocate for an NFL D-League and have those whose singular goal is to get paid for their football services to go there.

P.S.  None of the above undermines giving players extended health care benefits, so long as it is across-the-board.

Oddly I wasn't really referring only to the money.   I was also referring to schools that have had athletes come out and talk about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, racism, etc.   But let's focus on the money.

The power in this relationship has always been with the universities, and many universities have used the value of some athletes to then give funds and benefits to other students, coaches and administrators.   The schools are making use of a resource (FBS athletes) and deriving benefits (revenue) that have not been shared with those resource generators.  They are exploiting a resource. 

The power imbalance in the relationship might have noble goals or charitable intent.   It might give tremendous benefit to others, but it is still using a resource for the benefit of others.

An athlete bill of rights might also allow players to try to tap into their true value in our economy and give them a bit more power in a relationship that is skewed toward the universities and coaches.   They might get nothing or ruin their sport in the process, but at least the Bill of Rights type deal would give them power and a chance for revenue. 

I sense those in DC believe the power imbalance in the Power 5 has taken too much out of the relationship at this point, and that it will adventageous for politicians to join the battle against this group. 

That's probably a net bad non-revenue sports and non-revenue sport student-athletes, but, almost by definition, those students and their sports have benefited from the exploitation of the revenue generating student-athletes for decades.

[Leftcoast]

Much of this sounds like a plan to throttle the golden egg laying goose. 

When players become free agents whose only connection to Stanford is they wear red on Saturdays then I'll join my neighbors and watch the NFL instead.

[CompSci87]

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?

The discussion in this thread of possible changes for scholarship athletes is interesting and relevant. But let's please keep partisan political digs out of it.

[lex24]

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.

At this point I am hoping for changes that benefit the players across the entire NCAA rather than keep the status quo just to keep Stanford strong.  
The current system exploits a lot of student-athletes in so many ways that changes need to happen.
If changes (like USOC changes in 90s) gives athletes a bit of control and power, then I can live with that even if Stanford then becomes less of a D1/NCAA power.

I love that word "exploitation" - it sounds so insidious and is meant to be a mic drop.  

The truth is that NCAA benefits far more student athletes than it exploits, and it's not even close.  Again, identify what bothers you and address THAT.  I'll bet what bothers you is that (a) the athletes don't make any $$ (beyond room, board, tuition, and quite possibly tutoring), while coaches and NCAA fat cats make millions.  Okay, impose caps on salary for coaching and NCAA positions.  And then roll over the $$ to the universities as a whole.  Would that address your concerns?

And if you're so concerned about the athletes getting paid, then advocate for an NFL D-League and have those whose singular goal is to get paid for their football services to go there.

P.S.  None of the above undermines giving players extended health care benefits, so long as it is across-the-board.

Oddly I wasn't really referring only to the money.   I was also referring to schools that have had athletes come out and talk about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, racism, etc.   But let's focus on the money.

The power in this relationship has always been with the universities, and many universities have used the value of some athletes to then give funds and benefits to other students, coaches and administrators.   The schools are making use of a resource (FBS athletes) and deriving benefits (revenue) that have not been shared with those resource generators.  They are exploiting a resource. 

The power imbalance in the relationship might have noble goals or charitable intent.   It might give tremendous benefit to others, but it is still using a resource for the benefit of others.

An athlete bill of rights might also allow players to try to tap into their true value in our economy and give them a bit more power in a relationship that is skewed toward the universities and coaches.   They might get nothing or ruin their sport in the process, but at least the Bill of Rights type deal would give them power and a chance for revenue. 

I sense those in DC believe the power imbalance in the Power 5 has taken too much out of the relationship at this point, and that it will adventageous for politicians to join the battle against this group. 

That's probably a net bad non-revenue sports and non-revenue sport student-athletes, but, almost by definition, those students and their sports have benefited from the exploitation of the revenue generating student-athletes for decades.

I get this.  But how do you “value” college athletes. Even in the revenue generating sports. The vast majority of these athletes are not going to even sniff professional sports. And that’s true even if you have a d-league for the NFL. To that extent I’ve always liked the baseball model.  But they have far more of a need for minor leagues.  And certainly for varied levels of a minor league.  So there is a true option for more talented players out of high school to immediately turn pro and get paid (although minor league baseball players are, for the most part very poorly paid).

What is the third spring tackle at Rice “worth”?  What is Trevor Lawrence “worth”. The former is, imo, “paid” more than market  by getting $250,000 worth in education and the potential contacts etc that come with it.  The latter is worth millions.  And will cash in upon graduation.  Maybe the harder calls are the glue guys, that play, are key contributors, but not NFL level.  So how to share the revenue, (which I think is a DOA concept anyway) is difficult to fathom within the sport. Much less between  them (compensation for non-revenue producing sports).

To a large extent the “problem” is that college football and basketball have become so successful and so popular that they are now generating enormous sums of money. And the question of course becomes how that money gets divided. (I have no problem, btw, with coaches salaries)

The so-called bill of rights (and the term bugs me – because there is absolutely no right to play college sports,  it’s a privilege pure and simple)  it’s obviously a point for discussion. And I’m all for players being paid for the use of their name and likeness. But that really is only going to benefit the superstars of the NCAA. The third string tackle is not going to be having his jersey displayed for sale.  

Increasing the stipend for all sports makes some sense. But that’s not gonna be a large sum of money and it shouldn’t be. Health care being extended for athletes in a high risk sports also should be extended.  I like increasing scholarships to 6 years - for grad purposes.  Without changing the 4 in 5 general rule.  Donating some significant portion of the profits to various causes is a good idea - until politics get in the way.  

Exploitation, to me, involves necessity.  Coal miners and farm laborers may claim they are exploited. Particularly given that many if not most have no other way to put food on their family table. College football players choose to play a game while attending school. Thats not exploitation.

[cardcrimson]

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.

[lex24]

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.

At this point I am hoping for changes that benefit the players across the entire NCAA rather than keep the status quo just to keep Stanford strong.  
The current system exploits a lot of student-athletes in so many ways that changes need to happen.
If changes (like USOC changes in 90s) gives athletes a bit of control and power, then I can live with that even if Stanford then becomes less of a D1/NCAA power.

I love that word "exploitation" - it sounds so insidious and is meant to be a mic drop.  

The truth is that NCAA benefits far more student athletes than it exploits, and it's not even close.  Again, identify what bothers you and address THAT.  I'll bet what bothers you is that (a) the athletes don't make any $$ (beyond room, board, tuition, and quite possibly tutoring), while coaches and NCAA fat cats make millions.  Okay, impose caps on salary for coaching and NCAA positions.  And then roll over the $$ to the universities as a whole.  Would that address your concerns?

And if you're so concerned about the athletes getting paid, then advocate for an NFL D-League and have those whose singular goal is to get paid for their football services to go there.

P.S.  None of the above undermines giving players extended health care benefits, so long as it is across-the-board.

Oddly I wasn't really referring only to the money.   I was also referring to schools that have had athletes come out and talk about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, racism, etc.   But let's focus on the money.

The power in this relationship has always been with the universities, and many universities have used the value of some athletes to then give funds and benefits to other students, coaches and administrators.   The schools are making use of a resource (FBS athletes) and deriving benefits (revenue) that have not been shared with those resource generators.  They are exploiting a resource. 

The power imbalance in the relationship might have noble goals or charitable intent.   It might give tremendous benefit to others, but it is still using a resource for the benefit of others.

An athlete bill of rights might also allow players to try to tap into their true value in our economy and give them a bit more power in a relationship that is skewed toward the universities and coaches.   They might get nothing or ruin their sport in the process, but at least the Bill of Rights type deal would give them power and a chance for revenue. 

I sense those in DC believe the power imbalance in the Power 5 has taken too much out of the relationship at this point, and that it will adventageous for politicians to join the battle against this group. 

That's probably a net bad non-revenue sports and non-revenue sport student-athletes, but, almost by definition, those students and their sports have benefited from the exploitation of the revenue generating student-athletes for decades.

I get this.  But how do you “value” college athletes. Even in the revenue generating sports. The vast majority of these athletes are not going to even sniff professional sports. And that’s true even if you have a d-league for the NFL. To that extent I’ve always liked the baseball model.  But they have far more of a need for minor leagues.  And certainly for varied levels of a minor league.  So there is a true option for more  talented players out of high school  to immediately turn pro and get paid (although minor league baseball players are, for the most part very poorly paid).

What is the third spring tackle at Rice “worth”?  What is Trevor Lawrence “worth”. The former is, imo, “paid” more than market  by getting $250,000 worth in education and the potential contacts etc that come with it.  The latter is worth millions.  And will cash in upon graduation.  Maybe the harder calls are the glue guys, that play, are key contributors, but not NFL level.  So how to share the revenue, (which I think is a DOA concept anyway) is difficult to fathom within the sport. Much less between  them (compensation for non-revenue producing sports).

To a large extent the “problem” is that college football and basketball have become so successful and so popular that they are now generating enormous sums of money. And the question of course becomes how that money gets divided. (I have no problem, btw, with coaches salaries)

The so-called bill of rights (and the term bugs me – because there is absolutely no right to play college sports,  it’s a privilege pure and simple)  is obviously a point for discussion. And I’m all for players being paid for the use of their name and likeness. But that really is only going to benefit the superstars of the NCAA. The third string tackle is not going to be having his jersey displayed for sale.  

Increasing the stipend for all sports makes some sense. But that’s not gonna be a large sum of money and it shouldn’t be. Health care being extended for athletes in a high risk sport also should be extended.  I like increasing scholarships to 6 years - for grad purposes.  Without changing the 4 in 5 general rule.  Donating some significant portion of the profits to various causes is a good idea - until politics get in the way.  

Exploitation, to me, involves necessity.  Coal miners and farm laborers may claim they are exploited.Particularly given that many if not most  have no other way to put food on their family table. As are people working overseas in countries that shall remain nameless in sweatshops being paid a pittance by multi billion dollar corporations that exploit this cheap labor and then sell athletic clothing and pay athletes enormous sums of money to hock the product that was made by these exploited workers. 

 College football players choose to play a game while attending school. Thats not exploitation.

[teejers1]

Oddly I wasn't really referring only to the money.   I was also referring to schools that have had athletes come out and talk about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, racism, etc.   But let's focus on the money.

[THIS IS A NO-BRAINER, AND NO ONE OPPOSES EXTINGUISHING THIS MISCONDUCT]

The power in this relationship has always been with the universities, and many universities have used the value of some athletes to then give funds and benefits to other students, coaches and administrators.   The schools are making use of a resource (FBS athletes) and deriving benefits (revenue) that have not been shared with those resource generators.  They are exploiting a resource. 

RESPONSE:  You assume that the resource generation comes from the athletes for their individual performances.  I submit that the name on the front of the jersey is far more responsible for the revenue generated than the individual player wearing the uni.  But even though I believe that, I'll grant you that's its likely that some increment of that "generated value" may be attributable to exceptional performers (i..e, more people will pay to see Andrew Luck as opposed to Keller Chryst . . . the same probably holds for coaches, too).   So the question is, should those athletes be compensated for that incremental value, or should it just be "part of the deal" of playing college ball in a revenue generating sport?  I obviously think the latter.  But I also want to give athletes choice.  Thus, if $$ is what drives them then go play D-League ball and get paid and forego college].

The power imbalance in the relationship might have noble goals or charitable intent.   It might give tremendous benefit to others, but it is still using a resource for the benefit of others.

An athlete bill of rights might also allow players to try to tap into their true value in our economy and give them a bit more power in a relationship that is skewed toward the universities and coaches.   They might get nothing or ruin their sport in the process, but at least the Bill of Rights type deal would give them power and a chance for revenue. 

RESPONSE:  NFL D-League would show these athletes what their "true value" is in our economy, and I'm pretty sure for the overwhelming number of them, that amount is less than the benefits of college (room, board, tuition, academic assistance, and all the other intangible benefits of attending college that they would not enjoy but for their sports-playing abilities).  But by all means, give them choice.  And that's where an NFL D-League comes into play (already have it for MLB and NBA).

I sense those in DC believe the power imbalance in the Power 5 has taken too much out of the relationship at this point, and that it will adventageous for politicians to join the battle against this group. 

That's probably a net bad non-revenue sports and non-revenue sport student-athletes, but, almost by definition, those students and their sports have benefited from the exploitation of the revenue generating student-athletes for decades.


RESPONSE:  It's no doubt a net-bad for non-revenue sports and their athletes.  But again, not one you need to deal with if those choosing college do so knowing full well that this is "part of the deal."

One last add: I'm not opposed to some moderate stipend for all athletes - if it can be distributed equally and in compliance with Title IX. Of course, even that would lead to dropped sports, etc.

[OutsiderFan]

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.