[Phogge]

Q isn't the Stanford primary reason to build tech giants who will pour money back into the institution and at the same time underpay (in Charlie Rose's words) the "Little people."

[Phogge]

Q isn't the Stanford primary reason to build tech giants who will pour money back into the institution and at the same time underpay (in Charlie Rose's words) the "Little people."

[Phogge]

In the portal are Travis Dye of Oregon and five star WR Bru McCoy of USC.

[Phogge]

In the portal are Travis Dye of Oregon and five star WR Bru McCoy of USC.

[OutsiderFan]

Mixed feelings.  Not crazy about college free agency.  But I also think kids should be able to go where they want.

Stanford will inevitably lose in a world in which all commitment on the part of student athletes is obliterated.  Stanford will never be able to compete in the free agent game, because its academic standards sharply restrict "freedom of movement" between universities.  Complete free agency will ultimately make it impossible for Stanford to be competitive in revenue sports.  Let's hope it doesn't get that far.

Then there is the other matter.  Personally, I would not enjoy backing a team composed of carpetbaggers who did not share the Stanford experience with me and who come and go too quickly for me to become attached to them.  It is for this reason that I completely lost interest in professional sports.  Now I see college sports importing the same interest-killing innovation.

Fortunately, Stanford is good at a lot of non revenue sports, so there will still be teams for me to root for, since Stanford will retain its advantages in sports that were never about a payday.  But I fear deeply for football and MBB.

FWIW - I hope it does go that far.   The exploitation of student athletes in parts of the USA is very hard to watch.    These attempts to exploit the workforce will continue, but at least the athletes can get compensation for risking their bodies, and in some cases minds.

Even with the current use of the transfer portal it is hard to imagine Stanford thriving.   When there are even more organized NILs, substantial university salaries or potentially ticket revenue sharing from their gate, and it will be even harder for Stanford to stay competitive.

Still, I can't support the exploitation of student-athletes nationwide just for Stanford to do a bit better in football.  If the athletes can obtain economic benefit from their activities then that's what they should be allowed to do in our free market economy even if my alma mater ends up as a net loser in this more open compensation model.

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

As for what happens if the whole thing blows up, I have no idea. What I do know is history is nothing but a series of tales of people doing dumb things in an effort to hold on to or secure power by screwing people over, and themselves ultimately losing everything as the forces they sought to oppress fight back against them. Sometimes there is a war where both sides lose. It's ALWAYS the smartest move to compromise with others than be unyielding. You give people nothing to lose and they become an impossible force to defeat, unless you are OK taking brobdingnagian losses.

It's my experience that the best way to do things is to set standards and rules, and then let parties being governed by them, compete. Right now, the NCAA has no acceptable standards and rules that aren't underpinned by exploiting labor. That is a foundational problem that will always hamper the enterprise until it is adequately addressed.

[OutsiderFan]

Mixed feelings.  Not crazy about college free agency.  But I also think kids should be able to go where they want.

Stanford will inevitably lose in a world in which all commitment on the part of student athletes is obliterated.  Stanford will never be able to compete in the free agent game, because its academic standards sharply restrict "freedom of movement" between universities.  Complete free agency will ultimately make it impossible for Stanford to be competitive in revenue sports.  Let's hope it doesn't get that far.

Then there is the other matter.  Personally, I would not enjoy backing a team composed of carpetbaggers who did not share the Stanford experience with me and who come and go too quickly for me to become attached to them.  It is for this reason that I completely lost interest in professional sports.  Now I see college sports importing the same interest-killing innovation.

Fortunately, Stanford is good at a lot of non revenue sports, so there will still be teams for me to root for, since Stanford will retain its advantages in sports that were never about a payday.  But I fear deeply for football and MBB.

FWIW - I hope it does go that far.   The exploitation of student athletes in parts of the USA is very hard to watch.    These attempts to exploit the workforce will continue, but at least the athletes can get compensation for risking their bodies, and in some cases minds.

Even with the current use of the transfer portal it is hard to imagine Stanford thriving.   When there are even more organized NILs, substantial university salaries or potentially ticket revenue sharing from their gate, and it will be even harder for Stanford to stay competitive.

Still, I can't support the exploitation of student-athletes nationwide just for Stanford to do a bit better in football.  If the athletes can obtain economic benefit from their activities then that's what they should be allowed to do in our free market economy even if my alma mater ends up as a net loser in this more open compensation model.

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

As for what happens if the whole thing blows up, I have no idea. What I do know is history is nothing but a series of tales of people doing dumb things in an effort to hold on to or secure power by screwing people over, and themselves ultimately losing everything as the forces they sought to oppress fight back against them. Sometimes there is a war where both sides lose. It's ALWAYS the smartest move to compromise with others than be unyielding. You give people nothing to lose and they become an impossible force to defeat, unless you are OK taking brobdingnagian losses.

It's my experience that the best way to do things is to set standards and rules, and then let parties being governed by them, compete. Right now, the NCAA has no acceptable standards and rules that aren't underpinned by exploiting labor. That is a foundational problem that will always hamper the enterprise until it is adequately addressed.

[ca245]

How are scholarship payments to student-athletes treated income tax-wise? If the SA’s are reclassified as employees would the payments now be considered “wages” and subject to a different, possibly less favorable, tax treatment?

[ca245]

How are scholarship payments to student-athletes treated income tax-wise? If the SA’s are reclassified as employees would the payments now be considered “wages” and subject to a different, possibly less favorable, tax treatment?

[cardcrimson]

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

1. Isn't that the same with every student?
2. So what. It's a term that is common place in the US vernacular at all levels of school sports. A noun doesn't determine whether someone is an employee or not.

If college athletes are indeed employees, what about high school athletes? High school football games draw large crowds who pay to attend. Some schools even televise their games complete with commercials. Guess there employees, too. I've even had to pay to attend some of my daughter's water polo games. Guess she's an employee of her high school. 

What about work rules? They are so onerous in the state of California, school sports programs couldn't possibly adhere to them. The PAGA mills would litigate every program out of existence.

Regarding scholarships, it's time to start taxing them. After giving away so much free stuff the last couple of years, our government needs the money.

[cardcrimson]

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

1. Isn't that the same with every student?
2. So what. It's a term that is common place in the US vernacular at all levels of school sports. A noun doesn't determine whether someone is an employee or not.

If college athletes are indeed employees, what about high school athletes? High school football games draw large crowds who pay to attend. Some schools even televise their games complete with commercials. Guess there employees, too. I've even had to pay to attend some of my daughter's water polo games. Guess she's an employee of her high school. 

What about work rules? They are so onerous in the state of California, school sports programs couldn't possibly adhere to them. The PAGA mills would litigate every program out of existence.

Regarding scholarships, it's time to start taxing them. After giving away so much free stuff the last couple of years, our government needs the money.

[BigJohn043]

Mixed feelings.  Not crazy about college free agency.  But I also think kids should be able to go where they want.

Stanford will inevitably lose in a world in which all commitment on the part of student athletes is obliterated.  Stanford will never be able to compete in the free agent game, because its academic standards sharply restrict "freedom of movement" between universities.  Complete free agency will ultimately make it impossible for Stanford to be competitive in revenue sports.  Let's hope it doesn't get that far.

Then there is the other matter.  Personally, I would not enjoy backing a team composed of carpetbaggers who did not share the Stanford experience with me and who come and go too quickly for me to become attached to them.  It is for this reason that I completely lost interest in professional sports.  Now I see college sports importing the same interest-killing innovation.

Fortunately, Stanford is good at a lot of non revenue sports, so there will still be teams for me to root for, since Stanford will retain its advantages in sports that were never about a payday.  But I fear deeply for football and MBB.

FWIW - I hope it does go that far.   The exploitation of student athletes in parts of the USA is very hard to watch.    These attempts to exploit the workforce will continue, but at least the athletes can get compensation for risking their bodies, and in some cases minds.

Even with the current use of the transfer portal it is hard to imagine Stanford thriving.   When there are even more organized NILs, substantial university salaries or potentially ticket revenue sharing from their gate, and it will be even harder for Stanford to stay competitive.

Still, I can't support the exploitation of student-athletes nationwide just for Stanford to do a bit better in football.  If the athletes can obtain economic benefit from their activities then that's what they should be allowed to do in our free market economy even if my alma mater ends up as a net loser in this more open compensation model.

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

As for what happens if the whole thing blows up, I have no idea. What I do know is history is nothing but a series of tales of people doing dumb things in an effort to hold on to or secure power by screwing people over, and themselves ultimately losing everything as the forces they sought to oppress fight back against them. Sometimes there is a war where both sides lose. It's ALWAYS the smartest move to compromise with others than be unyielding. You give people nothing to lose and they become an impossible force to defeat, unless you are OK taking of immense proportions losses.

It's my experience that the best way to do things is to set standards and rules, and then let parties being governed by them, compete. Right now, the NCAA has no acceptable standards and rules that aren't underpinned by exploiting labor. That is a foundational problem that will always hamper the enterprise until it is adequately addressed.

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

[BigJohn043]

Mixed feelings.  Not crazy about college free agency.  But I also think kids should be able to go where they want.

Stanford will inevitably lose in a world in which all commitment on the part of student athletes is obliterated.  Stanford will never be able to compete in the free agent game, because its academic standards sharply restrict "freedom of movement" between universities.  Complete free agency will ultimately make it impossible for Stanford to be competitive in revenue sports.  Let's hope it doesn't get that far.

Then there is the other matter.  Personally, I would not enjoy backing a team composed of carpetbaggers who did not share the Stanford experience with me and who come and go too quickly for me to become attached to them.  It is for this reason that I completely lost interest in professional sports.  Now I see college sports importing the same interest-killing innovation.

Fortunately, Stanford is good at a lot of non revenue sports, so there will still be teams for me to root for, since Stanford will retain its advantages in sports that were never about a payday.  But I fear deeply for football and MBB.

FWIW - I hope it does go that far.   The exploitation of student athletes in parts of the USA is very hard to watch.    These attempts to exploit the workforce will continue, but at least the athletes can get compensation for risking their bodies, and in some cases minds.

Even with the current use of the transfer portal it is hard to imagine Stanford thriving.   When there are even more organized NILs, substantial university salaries or potentially ticket revenue sharing from their gate, and it will be even harder for Stanford to stay competitive.

Still, I can't support the exploitation of student-athletes nationwide just for Stanford to do a bit better in football.  If the athletes can obtain economic benefit from their activities then that's what they should be allowed to do in our free market economy even if my alma mater ends up as a net loser in this more open compensation model.

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

As for what happens if the whole thing blows up, I have no idea. What I do know is history is nothing but a series of tales of people doing dumb things in an effort to hold on to or secure power by screwing people over, and themselves ultimately losing everything as the forces they sought to oppress fight back against them. Sometimes there is a war where both sides lose. It's ALWAYS the smartest move to compromise with others than be unyielding. You give people nothing to lose and they become an impossible force to defeat, unless you are OK taking of immense proportions losses.

It's my experience that the best way to do things is to set standards and rules, and then let parties being governed by them, compete. Right now, the NCAA has no acceptable standards and rules that aren't underpinned by exploiting labor. That is a foundational problem that will always hamper the enterprise until it is adequately addressed.

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

[DC 86]

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

The NLRB statement was that "Players at academic institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control." The NLRB also focused more narrowly on revenue-generating sports, characterizing these as being akin to private businesses, thus making student-athletes akin to employees producing profit for the enterprise in exchange for compensation.

Ultimately this will be resolved in the courts, but certainly FBS football is not analogous to children's sports teams. College football players are being compensated and such compensation is contingent on working a substantial number of hours under supervision, and the operation as a whole is generating substantial revenue and being operated as a revenue-maximizing business.

[DC 86]

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

The NLRB statement was that "Players at academic institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control." The NLRB also focused more narrowly on revenue-generating sports, characterizing these as being akin to private businesses, thus making student-athletes akin to employees producing profit for the enterprise in exchange for compensation.

Ultimately this will be resolved in the courts, but certainly FBS football is not analogous to children's sports teams. College football players are being compensated and such compensation is contingent on working a substantial number of hours under supervision, and the operation as a whole is generating substantial revenue and being operated as a revenue-maximizing business.

[ca245]

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

The NLRB statement was that "Players at academic institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control." The NLRB also focused more narrowly on revenue-generating sports, characterizing these as being akin to private businesses, thus making student-athletes akin to employees producing profit for the enterprise in exchange for compensation.

Ultimately this will be resolved in the courts, but certainly FBS football is not analogous to children's sports teams. College football players are being compensated and such compensation is contingent on working a substantial number of hours under supervision, and the operation as a whole is generating substantial revenue and being operated as a revenue-maximizing business.

I get the focus on the revenue-generating sports, but if one wants to analogize to private business, does the analogy hold? Consider the case of a car company, where the luxury car division is raking in the money but the sub-compact division is a money loser and exists only to "show the flag." Would anyone argue that the workers at the subcompact division are not employees? If one views the entire business operation to be the athletic department, shouldn't SAs in non-revenue sports also be considered employees?

[ca245]

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

The NLRB statement was that "Players at academic institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control." The NLRB also focused more narrowly on revenue-generating sports, characterizing these as being akin to private businesses, thus making student-athletes akin to employees producing profit for the enterprise in exchange for compensation.

Ultimately this will be resolved in the courts, but certainly FBS football is not analogous to children's sports teams. College football players are being compensated and such compensation is contingent on working a substantial number of hours under supervision, and the operation as a whole is generating substantial revenue and being operated as a revenue-maximizing business.

I get the focus on the revenue-generating sports, but if one wants to analogize to private business, does the analogy hold? Consider the case of a car company, where the luxury car division is raking in the money but the sub-compact division is a money loser and exists only to "show the flag." Would anyone argue that the workers at the subcompact division are not employees? If one views the entire business operation to be the athletic department, shouldn't SAs in non-revenue sports also be considered employees?

[lex24]

Mixed feelings.  Not crazy about college free agency.  But I also think kids should be able to go where they want.

Stanford will inevitably lose in a world in which all commitment on the part of student athletes is obliterated.  Stanford will never be able to compete in the free agent game, because its academic standards sharply restrict "freedom of movement" between universities.  Complete free agency will ultimately make it impossible for Stanford to be competitive in revenue sports.  Let's hope it doesn't get that far.

Then there is the other matter.  Personally, I would not enjoy backing a team composed of carpetbaggers who did not share the Stanford experience with me and who come and go too quickly for me to become attached to them.  It is for this reason that I completely lost interest in professional sports.  Now I see college sports importing the same interest-killing innovation.

Fortunately, Stanford is good at a lot of non revenue sports, so there will still be teams for me to root for, since Stanford will retain its advantages in sports that were never about a payday.  But I fear deeply for football and MBB.

FWIW - I hope it does go that far.   The exploitation of student athletes in parts of the USA is very hard to watch.    These attempts to exploit the workforce will continue, but at least the athletes can get compensation for risking their bodies, and in some cases minds.

Even with the current use of the transfer portal it is hard to imagine Stanford thriving.   When there are even more organized NILs, substantial university salaries or potentially ticket revenue sharing from their gate, and it will be even harder for Stanford to stay competitive.

Still, I can't support the exploitation of student-athletes nationwide just for Stanford to do a bit better in football.  If the athletes can obtain economic benefit from their activities then that's what they should be allowed to do in our free market economy even if my alma mater ends up as a net loser in this more open compensation model.

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

As for what happens if the whole thing blows up, I have no idea. What I do know is history is nothing but a series of tales of people doing dumb things in an effort to hold on to or secure power by screwing people over, and themselves ultimately losing everything as the forces they sought to oppress fight back against them. Sometimes there is a war where both sides lose. It's ALWAYS the smartest move to compromise with others than be unyielding. You give people nothing to lose and they become an impossible force to defeat, unless you are OK taking of immense proportions losses.

It's my experience that the best way to do things is to set standards and rules, and then let parties being governed by them, compete. Right now, the NCAA has no acceptable standards and rules that aren't underpinned by exploiting labor. That is a foundational problem that will always hamper the enterprise until it is adequately addressed.

I’ll demonstrate why.  They are students.  Engaged in an extracurricular activity. Schools didn’t “collude” not to pay wages.  It was an accepted system. They didn’t have to collude.  Do high school’s collude by not paying their athletes. They are also directed to follow orders.  They don’t control  their own schedules either.

Answer my question - how are universities going to pay students for participating in sports?  Where do they get the money?  Oh, I got it, they can raise tuition!  That will work!  

Essentially, this debate is about football (and  mens basketball) at a small percentage of schools.  But if a football player is an employee, so is everyone on the rowing team.  

 And answer my second question - what replaces the current system.  Because there is no way schools can or will pay salaries to student athletes.  Or for that matter, the band, the school symphony, the artist that appear in school plays etc etc etc.

Get rid of all extracurricular activities.  They exploit those kids.

BTW- one obligation that the schools have is to provide the assistance needed to help them graduate. I would be all for scholarship numbers being tied to grad rates - with exceptions for those that leave to play a professional sport. The rate should equal that of the general population at that school. At least.

[lex24]

Mixed feelings.  Not crazy about college free agency.  But I also think kids should be able to go where they want.

Stanford will inevitably lose in a world in which all commitment on the part of student athletes is obliterated.  Stanford will never be able to compete in the free agent game, because its academic standards sharply restrict "freedom of movement" between universities.  Complete free agency will ultimately make it impossible for Stanford to be competitive in revenue sports.  Let's hope it doesn't get that far.

Then there is the other matter.  Personally, I would not enjoy backing a team composed of carpetbaggers who did not share the Stanford experience with me and who come and go too quickly for me to become attached to them.  It is for this reason that I completely lost interest in professional sports.  Now I see college sports importing the same interest-killing innovation.

Fortunately, Stanford is good at a lot of non revenue sports, so there will still be teams for me to root for, since Stanford will retain its advantages in sports that were never about a payday.  But I fear deeply for football and MBB.

FWIW - I hope it does go that far.   The exploitation of student athletes in parts of the USA is very hard to watch.    These attempts to exploit the workforce will continue, but at least the athletes can get compensation for risking their bodies, and in some cases minds.

Even with the current use of the transfer portal it is hard to imagine Stanford thriving.   When there are even more organized NILs, substantial university salaries or potentially ticket revenue sharing from their gate, and it will be even harder for Stanford to stay competitive.

Still, I can't support the exploitation of student-athletes nationwide just for Stanford to do a bit better in football.  If the athletes can obtain economic benefit from their activities then that's what they should be allowed to do in our free market economy even if my alma mater ends up as a net loser in this more open compensation model.

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

As for what happens if the whole thing blows up, I have no idea. What I do know is history is nothing but a series of tales of people doing dumb things in an effort to hold on to or secure power by screwing people over, and themselves ultimately losing everything as the forces they sought to oppress fight back against them. Sometimes there is a war where both sides lose. It's ALWAYS the smartest move to compromise with others than be unyielding. You give people nothing to lose and they become an impossible force to defeat, unless you are OK taking of immense proportions losses.

It's my experience that the best way to do things is to set standards and rules, and then let parties being governed by them, compete. Right now, the NCAA has no acceptable standards and rules that aren't underpinned by exploiting labor. That is a foundational problem that will always hamper the enterprise until it is adequately addressed.

I’ll demonstrate why.  They are students.  Engaged in an extracurricular activity. Schools didn’t “collude” not to pay wages.  It was an accepted system. They didn’t have to collude.  Do high school’s collude by not paying their athletes. They are also directed to follow orders.  They don’t control  their own schedules either.

Answer my question - how are universities going to pay students for participating in sports?  Where do they get the money?  Oh, I got it, they can raise tuition!  That will work!  

Essentially, this debate is about football (and  mens basketball) at a small percentage of schools.  But if a football player is an employee, so is everyone on the rowing team.  

 And answer my second question - what replaces the current system.  Because there is no way schools can or will pay salaries to student athletes.  Or for that matter, the band, the school symphony, the artist that appear in school plays etc etc etc.

Get rid of all extracurricular activities.  They exploit those kids.

BTW- one obligation that the schools have is to provide the assistance needed to help them graduate. I would be all for scholarship numbers being tied to grad rates - with exceptions for those that leave to play a professional sport. The rate should equal that of the general population at that school. At least.

[DC 86]

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

The NLRB statement was that "Players at academic institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control." The NLRB also focused more narrowly on revenue-generating sports, characterizing these as being akin to private businesses, thus making student-athletes akin to employees producing profit for the enterprise in exchange for compensation.

Ultimately this will be resolved in the courts, but certainly FBS football is not analogous to children's sports teams. College football players are being compensated and such compensation is contingent on working a substantial number of hours under supervision, and the operation as a whole is generating substantial revenue and being operated as a revenue-maximizing business.

I get the focus on the revenue-generating sports, but if one wants to analogize to private business, does the analogy hold? Consider the case of a car company, where the luxury car division is raking in the money but the sub-compact division is a money loser and exists only to "show the flag." Would anyone argue that the workers at the subcompact division are not employees? If one views the entire business operation to be the athletic department, shouldn't SAs in non-revenue sports also be considered employees?

Indeed, that may be the eventual outcome. I was responding to the comparison between a six year old soccer team and an FBS program where players receive scholarships and stipends but are required to put in substantial work hours. The revenue aspect just makes it clearer but it's certainly possible that non-revenue sports will get swept in somehow.

[DC 86]

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

The NLRB statement was that "Players at academic institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control." The NLRB also focused more narrowly on revenue-generating sports, characterizing these as being akin to private businesses, thus making student-athletes akin to employees producing profit for the enterprise in exchange for compensation.

Ultimately this will be resolved in the courts, but certainly FBS football is not analogous to children's sports teams. College football players are being compensated and such compensation is contingent on working a substantial number of hours under supervision, and the operation as a whole is generating substantial revenue and being operated as a revenue-maximizing business.

I get the focus on the revenue-generating sports, but if one wants to analogize to private business, does the analogy hold? Consider the case of a car company, where the luxury car division is raking in the money but the sub-compact division is a money loser and exists only to "show the flag." Would anyone argue that the workers at the subcompact division are not employees? If one views the entire business operation to be the athletic department, shouldn't SAs in non-revenue sports also be considered employees?

Indeed, that may be the eventual outcome. I was responding to the comparison between a six year old soccer team and an FBS program where players receive scholarships and stipends but are required to put in substantial work hours. The revenue aspect just makes it clearer but it's certainly possible that non-revenue sports will get swept in somehow.

[Phogge]

Everybody has to make up their own mind. I stopped buying tickets and holy moly the world hasn’t ended. If you don’t like what’s happening don’t contribute anymore either by adding to the gigantic university endowment or at the ticket counter. Don’t watch ESPN and don’t patronize their advertisers.

Or you could go on bitching about a system gone amok.

[Phogge]

Everybody has to make up their own mind. I stopped buying tickets and holy moly the world hasn’t ended. If you don’t like what’s happening don’t contribute anymore either by adding to the gigantic university endowment or at the ticket counter. Don’t watch ESPN and don’t patronize their advertisers.

Or you could go on bitching about a system gone amok.

[lex24]

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

The NLRB statement was that "Players at academic institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control." The NLRB also focused more narrowly on revenue-generating sports, characterizing these as being akin to private businesses, thus making student-athletes akin to employees producing profit for the enterprise in exchange for compensation.

Ultimately this will be resolved in the courts, but certainly FBS football is not analogous to children's sports teams. College football players are being compensated and such compensation is contingent on working a substantial number of hours under supervision, and the operation as a whole is generating substantial revenue and being operated as a revenue-maximizing business.

I get the focus on the revenue-generating sports, but if one wants to analogize to private business, does the analogy hold? Consider the case of a car company, where the luxury car division is raking in the money but the sub-compact division is a money loser and exists only to "show the flag." Would anyone argue that the workers at the subcompact division are not employees? If one views the entire business operation to be the athletic department, shouldn't SAs in non-revenue sports also be considered employees?

Indeed, that may be the eventual outcome. I was responding to the comparison between a six year old soccer team and an FBS program where players receive scholarships and stipends but are required to put in substantial work hours. The revenue aspect just makes it clearer but it's certainly possible that non-revenue sports will get swept in somehow.

Non revenue sports absolutely would be treated the same. Title IX assures that.  You can’t pay men playing revenue generating sports and not pay women playing non revenue generating sports.  

And I repeat, this would not only apply to sports.

---

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

The NLRB statement was that "Players at academic institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control." The NLRB also focused more narrowly on revenue-generating sports, characterizing these as being akin to private businesses, thus making student-athletes akin to employees producing profit for the enterprise in exchange for compensation.

Ultimately this will be resolved in the courts, but certainly FBS football is not analogous to children's sports teams. College football players are being compensated and such compensation is contingent on working a substantial number of hours under supervision, and the operation as a whole is generating substantial revenue and being operated as a revenue-maximizing business.

My guess is Congress steps in.

---

Everybody has to make up their own mind. I stopped buying tickets and holy moly the world hasn’t ended. If you don’t like what’s happening don’t contribute anymore either by adding to the gigantic university endowment or at the ticket counter. Don’t watch ESPN and don’t patronize their advertisers.

Or you could go on bitching about a system gone amok.

In the eyes of many, all athletes are “exploited”. (We will hear that term plenty as the MLB lockout moves forward). Even professional players making 10’s or 100’s of millions.  If I was to buy that notion I’d stop watching all college and pro sports. But as it’s nonsense, I’m not so inclined…..

[lex24]

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

The NLRB statement was that "Players at academic institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control." The NLRB also focused more narrowly on revenue-generating sports, characterizing these as being akin to private businesses, thus making student-athletes akin to employees producing profit for the enterprise in exchange for compensation.

Ultimately this will be resolved in the courts, but certainly FBS football is not analogous to children's sports teams. College football players are being compensated and such compensation is contingent on working a substantial number of hours under supervision, and the operation as a whole is generating substantial revenue and being operated as a revenue-maximizing business.

I get the focus on the revenue-generating sports, but if one wants to analogize to private business, does the analogy hold? Consider the case of a car company, where the luxury car division is raking in the money but the sub-compact division is a money loser and exists only to "show the flag." Would anyone argue that the workers at the subcompact division are not employees? If one views the entire business operation to be the athletic department, shouldn't SAs in non-revenue sports also be considered employees?

Indeed, that may be the eventual outcome. I was responding to the comparison between a six year old soccer team and an FBS program where players receive scholarships and stipends but are required to put in substantial work hours. The revenue aspect just makes it clearer but it's certainly possible that non-revenue sports will get swept in somehow.

Non revenue sports absolutely would be treated the same. Title IX assures that.  You can’t pay men playing revenue generating sports and not pay women playing non revenue generating sports.  

And I repeat, this would not only apply to sports.

---

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

The NLRB statement was that "Players at academic institutions perform services for institutions in return for compensation and subject to their control." The NLRB also focused more narrowly on revenue-generating sports, characterizing these as being akin to private businesses, thus making student-athletes akin to employees producing profit for the enterprise in exchange for compensation.

Ultimately this will be resolved in the courts, but certainly FBS football is not analogous to children's sports teams. College football players are being compensated and such compensation is contingent on working a substantial number of hours under supervision, and the operation as a whole is generating substantial revenue and being operated as a revenue-maximizing business.

My guess is Congress steps in.

---

Everybody has to make up their own mind. I stopped buying tickets and holy moly the world hasn’t ended. If you don’t like what’s happening don’t contribute anymore either by adding to the gigantic university endowment or at the ticket counter. Don’t watch ESPN and don’t patronize their advertisers.

Or you could go on bitching about a system gone amok.

In the eyes of many, all athletes are “exploited”. (We will hear that term plenty as the MLB lockout moves forward). Even professional players making 10’s or 100’s of millions.  If I was to buy that notion I’d stop watching all college and pro sports. But as it’s nonsense, I’m not so inclined…..

[Goose]

My guess is Congress steps in.

That would make some sense, but as things stand it won't happen. Since everything in Congress these days appears to be a political calculation they will only act if there is a consensus "correct side" to support. If such a position could be created then something might be done. The NCAA has had every opportunity to do exactly this and has avoided it like the plague. Since that train has left the station I don't believe the remaining "stakeholders" have enough organization or consensus to get Congress to do anything. What the Universities want and what the Athletes want is ill defined, undoubtedly different, and a moving target. What ESPN wants unfortunately also matters. Add the conferences, the player agents, rich donors, faculty senates etc. and it is going to be difficult to get anything done. The issue needed to be "fixed" before it blew up. It wasn't, making fixing it by act of Congress unlikely IMHO.

[Goose]

My guess is Congress steps in.

That would make some sense, but as things stand it won't happen. Since everything in Congress these days appears to be a political calculation they will only act if there is a consensus "correct side" to support. If such a position could be created then something might be done. The NCAA has had every opportunity to do exactly this and has avoided it like the plague. Since that train has left the station I don't believe the remaining "stakeholders" have enough organization or consensus to get Congress to do anything. What the Universities want and what the Athletes want is ill defined, undoubtedly different, and a moving target. What ESPN wants unfortunately also matters. Add the conferences, the player agents, rich donors, faculty senates etc. and it is going to be difficult to get anything done. The issue needed to be "fixed" before it blew up. It wasn't, making fixing it by act of Congress unlikely IMHO.

[OutsiderFan]

I’ll demonstrate why.  They are students.  Engaged in an extracurricular activity. Schools didn’t “collude” not to pay wages.  It was an accepted system. They didn’t have to collude.  Do high school’s collude by not paying their athletes. They are also directed to follow orders.  They don’t control  their own schedules either.

This is really reaching, man.  High schools don't generate significant revenue by selling a product that relies on unpaid labor. And there are other differences between high school and top level college sports, pointed out by someone else in this thread.

Do you really think - I mean really think - that if a school could pay athletes directly to get better ones, that one wouldn't do it. The reason they don't is because "it was an accepted system" not to pay athletes. By whom? Just because athletes sign LOIs to accept the terms they are given it doesn't mean they don't want more. The only reason they can't get more is because the schools have agreed not to pay them. That by definition is collusion, which by definition violates anti-trust laws.

Answer my question - how are universities going to pay students for participating in sports?  Where do they get the money?  Oh, I got it, they can raise tuition!  That will work!  

And answer my second question - what replaces the current system.  Because there is no way schools can or will pay salaries to student athletes.  Or for that matter, the band, the school symphony, the artist that appear in school plays etc etc etc.

Get rid of all extracurricular activities.  They exploit those kids.

There are many different ways the system can be re-engineered. I've posted some in this or other threads on this board. None of these are easy matters to resolve. And I do understand the concern over the non-revenue generating sports  being funded.  

There are more issues to all this than athlete compensation and other sports. There is competitive balance, how grad rates figure into it all, and other things that have to be addressed as well, in order to have a healthy college sports economic ecosystem. But IMO, the current system is awful. I would tear it down and start completely over.

[OutsiderFan]

I’ll demonstrate why.  They are students.  Engaged in an extracurricular activity. Schools didn’t “collude” not to pay wages.  It was an accepted system. They didn’t have to collude.  Do high school’s collude by not paying their athletes. They are also directed to follow orders.  They don’t control  their own schedules either.

This is really reaching, man.  High schools don't generate significant revenue by selling a product that relies on unpaid labor. And there are other differences between high school and top level college sports, pointed out by someone else in this thread.

Do you really think - I mean really think - that if a school could pay athletes directly to get better ones, that one wouldn't do it. The reason they don't is because "it was an accepted system" not to pay athletes. By whom? Just because athletes sign LOIs to accept the terms they are given it doesn't mean they don't want more. The only reason they can't get more is because the schools have agreed not to pay them. That by definition is collusion, which by definition violates anti-trust laws.

Answer my question - how are universities going to pay students for participating in sports?  Where do they get the money?  Oh, I got it, they can raise tuition!  That will work!  

And answer my second question - what replaces the current system.  Because there is no way schools can or will pay salaries to student athletes.  Or for that matter, the band, the school symphony, the artist that appear in school plays etc etc etc.

Get rid of all extracurricular activities.  They exploit those kids.

There are many different ways the system can be re-engineered. I've posted some in this or other threads on this board. None of these are easy matters to resolve. And I do understand the concern over the non-revenue generating sports  being funded.  

There are more issues to all this than athlete compensation and other sports. There is competitive balance, how grad rates figure into it all, and other things that have to be addressed as well, in order to have a healthy college sports economic ecosystem. But IMO, the current system is awful. I would tear it down and start completely over.

[Maple Leaf]

In the portal are Travis Dye of Oregon and five star WR Bru McCoy of USC.

Broussard the RB from Colorado has now declared his free agency status.

Cal has pick up a QB from Purdue, 4* LB from Washington and 4* DL from Utah.  

UCLA got good news with their starting QB and RB returning in lieu of declaring for the draft.  The draft, boy I remember those days, I was a lottery pick I think #7 IIRC.

[Maple Leaf]

In the portal are Travis Dye of Oregon and five star WR Bru McCoy of USC.

Broussard the RB from Colorado has now declared his free agency status.

Cal has pick up a QB from Purdue, 4* LB from Washington and 4* DL from Utah.  

UCLA got good news with their starting QB and RB returning in lieu of declaring for the draft.  The draft, boy I remember those days, I was a lottery pick I think #7 IIRC.

[cardcrimson]

This is really reaching, man.  High schools don't generate significant revenue by selling a product that relies on unpaid labor. And there are other differences between high school and top level college sports, pointed out by someone else in this thread.

Ever been to a high school game in Texas? How about one here in the Bay Area, a De La Salle game. They certainly bring in a ton of revenue for the schools, big crowds and live TV. Heck, even ESPN had a live broadcast of a De La game this fall. . . .

No comments from anyone on the PAGA consequences of treating them as employees? The lawyers will have a field day.

[cardcrimson]

This is really reaching, man.  High schools don't generate significant revenue by selling a product that relies on unpaid labor. And there are other differences between high school and top level college sports, pointed out by someone else in this thread.

Ever been to a high school game in Texas? How about one here in the Bay Area, a De La Salle game. They certainly bring in a ton of revenue for the schools, big crowds and live TV. Heck, even ESPN had a live broadcast of a De La game this fall. . . .

No comments from anyone on the PAGA consequences of treating them as employees? The lawyers will have a field day.

[Phogge]

I also was #7 in the draft. I enlisted in the Navy instead. Somebody told me the food was better.

[Phogge]

I also was #7 in the draft. I enlisted in the Navy instead. Somebody told me the food was better.

[Goose]

UCLA got good news with their starting QB and RB returning in lieu of declaring for the draft.  The draft, boy I remember those days, I was a lottery pick I think #7 IIRC.

I am not so sure DTR returning is actually good news for UCLA. You might see Garbers in the portal next. I suspect Kal would find a spot for him.

[Goose]

UCLA got good news with their starting QB and RB returning in lieu of declaring for the draft.  The draft, boy I remember those days, I was a lottery pick I think #7 IIRC.

I am not so sure DTR returning is actually good news for UCLA. You might see Garbers in the portal next. I suspect Kal would find a spot for him.

[lex24]

I’ll demonstrate why.  They are students.  Engaged in an extracurricular activity. Schools didn’t “collude” not to pay wages.  It was an accepted system. They didn’t have to collude.  Do high school’s collude by not paying their athletes. They are also directed to follow orders.  They don’t control  their own schedules either.

This is really reaching, man.  High schools don't generate significant revenue by selling a product that relies on unpaid labor. And there are other differences between high school and top level college sports, pointed out by someone else in this thread.

Do you really think - I mean really think - that if a school could pay athletes directly to get better ones, that one wouldn't do it. The reason they don't is because "it was an accepted system" not to pay athletes. By whom? Just because athletes sign LOIs to accept the terms they are given it doesn't mean they don't want more. The only reason they can't get more is because the schools have agreed not to pay them. That by definition is collusion, which by definition violates anti-trust laws.

Answer my question - how are universities going to pay students for participating in sports?  Where do they get the money?  Oh, I got it, they can raise tuition!  That will work!  

And answer my second question - what replaces the current system.  Because there is no way schools can or will pay salaries to student athletes.  Or for that matter, the band, the school symphony, the artist that appear in school plays etc etc etc.

Get rid of all extracurricular activities.  They exploit those kids.

There are many different ways the system can be re-engineered. I've posted some in this or other threads on this board. None of these are easy matters to resolve. And I do understand the concern over the non-revenue generating sports  being funded.  

There are more issues to all this than athlete compensation and other sports. There is competitive balance, how grad rates figure into it all, and other things that have to be addressed as well, in order to have a healthy college sports economic ecosystem. But IMO, the current system is awful. I would tear it down and start completely over.

Yes, I really, I mean really, think that Universities will not pay salaries to athletes.  For a host of reasons:  1.  They don’t have the money.  2. Other non-athletic groups that are involved in extra curricular activities that involve public performances will (legitimately) push for compensation as well.  3.  It further bastardizes the notion of students first, athletes second.  Which is true in most sports and at most levels.  That it is not for football and mens hoops- at the highest levels - doesn’t change that ideal in general.

You keep coming back to revenue generation. But that has nothing to do with the two points you initially raised as “evidence” of employment - control and Walter Byers coining the term “student-athelete” in ‘64.  As to the former, it’s a traditional element in the analysis of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.  Any extra curricular activity at a college is going to involve an element of “control”. Practice times, methods, dress, etc.  But to apply that to extra curricular student activity is a stretch.  

As for Byers, the argument is sophistry.  The system was in place for years.  The term was used in response to a workers compensation claim. Tragically a player was killed.  His survivor tried to bring a WC claim. And lost.  There was no hue and cry in ‘64 to pay athletes.  Heck, that was a time when amateurs still (kind of) existed. 

Finally, Title IX assures that if football players are paid salaries, so are field hockey players. It would kill college sports.

(And that university’s have not paid in the past is not evidence of collusion. For most of the history of college sports, it wasn’t an issue. They didn’t have to collude.).

[lex24]

I’ll demonstrate why.  They are students.  Engaged in an extracurricular activity. Schools didn’t “collude” not to pay wages.  It was an accepted system. They didn’t have to collude.  Do high school’s collude by not paying their athletes. They are also directed to follow orders.  They don’t control  their own schedules either.

This is really reaching, man.  High schools don't generate significant revenue by selling a product that relies on unpaid labor. And there are other differences between high school and top level college sports, pointed out by someone else in this thread.

Do you really think - I mean really think - that if a school could pay athletes directly to get better ones, that one wouldn't do it. The reason they don't is because "it was an accepted system" not to pay athletes. By whom? Just because athletes sign LOIs to accept the terms they are given it doesn't mean they don't want more. The only reason they can't get more is because the schools have agreed not to pay them. That by definition is collusion, which by definition violates anti-trust laws.

Answer my question - how are universities going to pay students for participating in sports?  Where do they get the money?  Oh, I got it, they can raise tuition!  That will work!  

And answer my second question - what replaces the current system.  Because there is no way schools can or will pay salaries to student athletes.  Or for that matter, the band, the school symphony, the artist that appear in school plays etc etc etc.

Get rid of all extracurricular activities.  They exploit those kids.

There are many different ways the system can be re-engineered. I've posted some in this or other threads on this board. None of these are easy matters to resolve. And I do understand the concern over the non-revenue generating sports  being funded.  

There are more issues to all this than athlete compensation and other sports. There is competitive balance, how grad rates figure into it all, and other things that have to be addressed as well, in order to have a healthy college sports economic ecosystem. But IMO, the current system is awful. I would tear it down and start completely over.

Yes, I really, I mean really, think that Universities will not pay salaries to athletes.  For a host of reasons:  1.  They don’t have the money.  2. Other non-athletic groups that are involved in extra curricular activities that involve public performances will (legitimately) push for compensation as well.  3.  It further bastardizes the notion of students first, athletes second.  Which is true in most sports and at most levels.  That it is not for football and mens hoops- at the highest levels - doesn’t change that ideal in general.

You keep coming back to revenue generation. But that has nothing to do with the two points you initially raised as “evidence” of employment - control and Walter Byers coining the term “student-athelete” in ‘64.  As to the former, it’s a traditional element in the analysis of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.  Any extra curricular activity at a college is going to involve an element of “control”. Practice times, methods, dress, etc.  But to apply that to extra curricular student activity is a stretch.  

As for Byers, the argument is sophistry.  The system was in place for years.  The term was used in response to a workers compensation claim. Tragically a player was killed.  His survivor tried to bring a WC claim. And lost.  There was no hue and cry in ‘64 to pay athletes.  Heck, that was a time when amateurs still (kind of) existed. 

Finally, Title IX assures that if football players are paid salaries, so are field hockey players. It would kill college sports.

(And that university’s have not paid in the past is not evidence of collusion. For most of the history of college sports, it wasn’t an issue. They didn’t have to collude.).