Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Fuck The NCAA]-Aiding The Homeless Ruled Improper Benefits Edition

245678

Posts

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Forgot about this thread.

    I didn't want to bring Penn State up because there is a suggestion that the NCAA had no standing or jurisdiction or whatever to sanction them. Which is part of why they caved on that whole thing.

    But it does tie in that the NCAA is pretty fucked up in how it deals with anything. It was always pretty clear that the NCAA was looking for an excuse to punish USC, however.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Forgot about this thread.

    I didn't want to bring Penn State up because there is a suggestion that the NCAA had no standing or jurisdiction or whatever to sanction them. Which is part of why they caved on that whole thing.

    But it does tie in that the NCAA is pretty fucked up in how it deals with anything. It was always pretty clear that the NCAA was looking for an excuse to punish USC, however.

    The thing with Penn State is that making that argument would have been a double edged sword, which is why that I've argued that they've mangled their reputation with everything they've done.

    And it's becoming clear that NCAA enforcement is out of control. If Emmert is smart, he cleans house now. But I think it ties into the NCAA thinking that it can do as it pleases. They're finding out the hard way that nope, that's not how it works.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Also, treating McNair like they did was a stupid mistake. Your fall guys always, always get paid, son.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Krieghundprogramjunkie
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Even in profitable sports, at some point athletic compensation would start to be a drain on university finances.

    Not even close

    What would happen is that spending would shift from fancy dorms/facilities (like the above) and from crazy fucking expensive coaches to players. At the moment all the players salary essentially goes into coaches, facilities, and recruiting efforts. All that would change is that much of that money would shift to players

    I disagree, fancy-pants dorms and facilities probably wouldn't be subject to the cap, so what would probably happen is that the perks (and the insane coach salaries) would stay in place, and players' salaries would be an additional cost that's carved out of the money that should be going to that whole education thing that universities are supposed to be doing.

    It's a money game. You don't spend more than your revenue.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Even in profitable sports, at some point athletic compensation would start to be a drain on university finances.

    Not even close

    What would happen is that spending would shift from fancy dorms/facilities (like the above) and from crazy fucking expensive coaches to players. At the moment all the players salary essentially goes into coaches, facilities, and recruiting efforts. All that would change is that much of that money would shift to players

    I disagree, fancy-pants dorms and facilities probably wouldn't be subject to the cap, so what would probably happen is that the perks (and the insane coach salaries) would stay in place, and players' salaries would be an additional cost that's carved out of the money that should be going to that whole education thing that universities are supposed to be doing.

    It's a money game. You don't spend more than your revenue.

    Most college sports programs spend more than their revenue. The actual number of schools that make money on their programs is very small, but those schools make fortunes.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited March 2015
    Goumindong wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Even in profitable sports, at some point athletic compensation would start to be a drain on university finances.

    Not even close

    What would happen is that spending would shift from fancy dorms/facilities (like the above) and from crazy fucking expensive coaches to players. At the moment all the players salary essentially goes into coaches, facilities, and recruiting efforts. All that would change is that much of that money would shift to players

    I disagree, fancy-pants dorms and facilities probably wouldn't be subject to the cap, so what would probably happen is that the perks (and the insane coach salaries) would stay in place, and players' salaries would be an additional cost that's carved out of the money that should be going to that whole education thing that universities are supposed to be doing.

    It's a money game. You don't spend more than your revenue.

    Most college sports programs spend more than their revenue. The actual number of schools that make money on their programs is very small, but those schools make fortunes.

    Not really

    http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

    Most either break even or make some kind of money, top to bottom.

    Edit: Of course, if you remove the funds the school gives to the athletic department from their general funds and student fees and such, yeah a lot of them are losing money faster than a fast thing is fast.

    Veevee on
    steam_sig.png
    Julius
  • milskimilski ENDURE Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    Veevee wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Even in profitable sports, at some point athletic compensation would start to be a drain on university finances.

    Not even close

    What would happen is that spending would shift from fancy dorms/facilities (like the above) and from crazy fucking expensive coaches to players. At the moment all the players salary essentially goes into coaches, facilities, and recruiting efforts. All that would change is that much of that money would shift to players

    I disagree, fancy-pants dorms and facilities probably wouldn't be subject to the cap, so what would probably happen is that the perks (and the insane coach salaries) would stay in place, and players' salaries would be an additional cost that's carved out of the money that should be going to that whole education thing that universities are supposed to be doing.

    It's a money game. You don't spend more than your revenue.

    Most college sports programs spend more than their revenue. The actual number of schools that make money on their programs is very small, but those schools make fortunes.

    Not really

    http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

    Most either break even or make some kind of money, top to bottom.

    Edit: Of course, if you remove the funds the school gives to the athletic department from their general funds and student fees and such, yeah a lot of them are losing money faster than a fast thing is fast.

    Barely any of them make money without subsidies; you'll note the large number of colleges that have high subsidy rates and a revenue of one dollar more than costs (or exactly their costs). Saying "if you remove the funds the school gives them, they're not profitable" is identical to saying they're not profitable; it is absolutely not "making money" if the money is coming from the university rather than through ticket sales or television deals or merchandising.

    Even those programs that do make money aren't exactly rolling in it; the best NCAA teams in terms of profit are only making maybe five times as much as the worst teams expend, which is pretty sad when you consider plenty of those teams are bad enough to warrant practically no coverage and have two win seasons at best. The highest subsidies are also far higher than the highest profit margins.

    College sports basically don't make money unless you're a nationally famous team with a devoted fanbase; even national champions Florida State lost a million dollars last year before getting seven million in subsidies.

    milski on
    Old night. Cold core. Iron, cooling. The Message: no more.
    shrykeprogramjunkie
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    They only don't make money because they spend a ton on useless (largely administrative) shit. Which is a general higher ed problem.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    Elldren
  • milskimilski ENDURE Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    In a lot of cases, they're losing money regardless of "useless shit." There are 33 teams with a real revenue (their revenue discounting their expenses) of less than two million dollars per year. More than a third of the league has less real revenue than the lowest reported expenses, and just under a third of the $2 billion dollars of the yearly loss comes from these crap-end teams.

    Even if you slashed the administrative costs of high end teams (which do need to spend more in a lot of ways on marketing, alumni outreach, equipment, stadiums, etc.), you couldn't make those teams profitable, and you'd have to slash an incredible amount of money out of the budgets of even mid-tier, "we might go to a bowl game if we're lucky" teams in order to argue the NCAA is remotely profitable.

    Yes, there's tons of bloat, but I seriously doubt there's so much bloat that a third of the league can slash their budget below that of a team that literally exists to win zero games and build momentum for teams that typically have maybe 0.333 records.

    milski on
    Old night. Cold core. Iron, cooling. The Message: no more.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Yeah, minor league sports aren't a huge business. And while the NCAA takes in a ton in TV rights, it gets split among a lot of teams and conferences (and the NCAA itself).

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So, I found this breakdown of the document dump in the McNair case that helps connect the dots. Basically, the thing was that to get the LOIC ruling, they needed to nail McNair by hook or by crook.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    Well, most athletic departments aren't turning a profit, but that's because the revenue generating football and basketball team have to carry a huge assortment of other teams' scholarships, travel, housing, training, staff, etc.

    The football team split off on its own would probably be profitable at basically every program in a power 5 conference. Likely basketball too. The rest of the athletic department? Not a chance in hell.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Men's Basketball.

    Title IX, is going to be a major hurdle for any compensation scheme for college sports.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    'We can't pay players because only men's sports make money!'

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    'We can't pay players because only men's sports make money!'

    Let's strip away the fiction. Student athletes are employees of the schools in effectively semi-pro leagues, and should be compensated for the revenue they bring to it.

    Whats the value to the employer of a competent-say top 25 nationally that year- QB? What's the value of a generational talent in women's volleyball?

    Okay those are different sports.

    What the difference in value between the best male point guard, and the best female? The answer is probably at least what ever the best male point guard is worth.

  • milskimilski ENDURE Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Well, most athletic departments aren't turning a profit, but that's because the revenue generating football and basketball team have to carry a huge assortment of other teams' scholarships, travel, housing, training, staff, etc.

    The football team split off on its own would probably be profitable at basically every program in a power 5 conference. Likely basketball too. The rest of the athletic department? Not a chance in hell.

    Football and men's basketball teams are probably part of it, but they're also huge portions of the cost. Sure, on higher end schools it might be the difference between a slight profit (overall) and a decent profit (men's basketball and football), but tons of low and mid tier athletic programs aren't generating enough total revenue to reasonably afford maintaining and staffing aging football stadiums and basketball arenas, and paying their athletic scholarships.

    Even if we only counted football and basketball expenses and revenues (which would be really difficult since many student ticketing systems are bundles or complex), I'd still be willing to bet that the NCAA programs are overall significantly in the red; it just might be that the top 30% are subsidizing the bottom 70%, rather than the top 10% subsidizing the bottom 90%.
    'We can't pay players because only men's sports make money!'

    Let's strip away the fiction. Student athletes are employees of the schools in effectively semi-pro leagues, and should be compensated for the revenue they bring to it.

    Whats the value to the employer of a competent-say top 25 nationally that year- QB? What's the value of a generational talent in women's volleyball?

    Okay those are different sports.

    What the difference in value between the best male point guard, and the best female? The answer is probably at least what ever the best male point guard is worth.

    I'm not directly arguing against your post, so I'm sorry if I misinterpret what position you are going for.

    Anyway, the problem with Title IX isn't what the players are valued at, it's the wording of Title IX. By requiring that benefits cannot be withheld or limited on the basis of sex, it gets very tricky to argue for consistently paying men's teams more than women's teams, in much the same way that the overall number of athletic scholarships at a given school can't be significantly imbalanced by sex. So regardless of what the player's actual value is, which in some cases could hundreds of thousands of dollars (Johnny Football, if we count his media presence) or less than the value of the scholarship, direct compensation for athletes would probably be subject to Title IX restrictions very seriously.

    Of course, removing indirect compensation limits (let them get free swag from fans/alumni) would probably be less affected by Title IX, provided the school didn't try to e.g. consistently donate university funds to the alumni foundation, which consistently donated $100,000 to the star QB.

    milski on
    Old night. Cold core. Iron, cooling. The Message: no more.
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Well, most athletic departments aren't turning a profit, but that's because the revenue generating football and basketball team have to carry a huge assortment of other teams' scholarships, travel, housing, training, staff, etc.

    The football team split off on its own would probably be profitable at basically every program in a power 5 conference. Likely basketball too. The rest of the athletic department? Not a chance in hell.

    Football and men's basketball teams are probably part of it, but they're also huge portions of the cost. Sure, on higher end schools it might be the difference between a slight profit (overall) and a decent profit (men's basketball and football), but tons of low and mid tier athletic programs aren't generating enough total revenue to reasonably afford maintaining and staffing aging football stadiums and basketball arenas, and paying their athletic scholarships.

    Even if we only counted football and basketball expenses and revenues (which would be really difficult since many student ticketing systems are bundles or complex), I'd still be willing to bet that the NCAA programs are overall significantly in the red; it just might be that the top 30% are subsidizing the bottom 70%, rather than the top 10% subsidizing the bottom 90%.
    'We can't pay players because only men's sports make money!'

    Let's strip away the fiction. Student athletes are employees of the schools in effectively semi-pro leagues, and should be compensated for the revenue they bring to it.

    Whats the value to the employer of a competent-say top 25 nationally that year- QB? What's the value of a generational talent in women's volleyball?

    Okay those are different sports.

    What the difference in value between the best male point guard, and the best female? The answer is probably at least what ever the best male point guard is worth.

    I'm not directly arguing against your post, so I'm sorry if I misinterpret what position you are going for.

    Anyway, the problem with Title IX isn't what the players are valued at, it's the wording of Title IX. By requiring that benefits cannot be withheld or limited on the basis of sex, it gets very tricky to argue for consistently paying men's teams more than women's teams, in much the same way that the overall number of athletic scholarships at a given school can't be significantly imbalanced by sex. So regardless of what the player's actual value is, which in some cases could hundreds of thousands of dollars (Johnny Football, if we count his media presence) or less than the value of the scholarship, direct compensation for athletes would probably be subject to Title IX restrictions very seriously.

    Of course, removing indirect compensation limits (let them get free swag from fans/alumni) would probably be less affected by Title IX, provided the school didn't try to e.g. consistently donate university funds to the alumni foundation, which consistently donated $100,000 to the star QB.

    By Title IX, would football be fine to be "employed" since it would be a benefit based off of the sport, not mens vs womens?

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    They could possibly decide that by removing football and men's basketball from 'athletics' and in fact start paying them, since they're paying less to maintain other sports, then the argument becomes how they could eliminate sports (on both sides) to keep up with Title IX.

    Right now, football and basketball are practically subsidising compliance with Title IX. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if they get it through their heads they could practically gut it simply by finding a way to exempt the big sports that make all the money.

  • milskimilski ENDURE Registered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Well, most athletic departments aren't turning a profit, but that's because the revenue generating football and basketball team have to carry a huge assortment of other teams' scholarships, travel, housing, training, staff, etc.

    The football team split off on its own would probably be profitable at basically every program in a power 5 conference. Likely basketball too. The rest of the athletic department? Not a chance in hell.

    Football and men's basketball teams are probably part of it, but they're also huge portions of the cost. Sure, on higher end schools it might be the difference between a slight profit (overall) and a decent profit (men's basketball and football), but tons of low and mid tier athletic programs aren't generating enough total revenue to reasonably afford maintaining and staffing aging football stadiums and basketball arenas, and paying their athletic scholarships.

    Even if we only counted football and basketball expenses and revenues (which would be really difficult since many student ticketing systems are bundles or complex), I'd still be willing to bet that the NCAA programs are overall significantly in the red; it just might be that the top 30% are subsidizing the bottom 70%, rather than the top 10% subsidizing the bottom 90%.
    'We can't pay players because only men's sports make money!'

    Let's strip away the fiction. Student athletes are employees of the schools in effectively semi-pro leagues, and should be compensated for the revenue they bring to it.

    Whats the value to the employer of a competent-say top 25 nationally that year- QB? What's the value of a generational talent in women's volleyball?

    Okay those are different sports.

    What the difference in value between the best male point guard, and the best female? The answer is probably at least what ever the best male point guard is worth.

    I'm not directly arguing against your post, so I'm sorry if I misinterpret what position you are going for.

    Anyway, the problem with Title IX isn't what the players are valued at, it's the wording of Title IX. By requiring that benefits cannot be withheld or limited on the basis of sex, it gets very tricky to argue for consistently paying men's teams more than women's teams, in much the same way that the overall number of athletic scholarships at a given school can't be significantly imbalanced by sex. So regardless of what the player's actual value is, which in some cases could hundreds of thousands of dollars (Johnny Football, if we count his media presence) or less than the value of the scholarship, direct compensation for athletes would probably be subject to Title IX restrictions very seriously.

    Of course, removing indirect compensation limits (let them get free swag from fans/alumni) would probably be less affected by Title IX, provided the school didn't try to e.g. consistently donate university funds to the alumni foundation, which consistently donated $100,000 to the star QB.

    By Title IX, would football be fine to be "employed" since it would be a benefit based off of the sport, not mens vs womens?

    This is tricky. Football gets away with giving out far more scholarships than other sports, but the reverse of your situation has occured; a school with a female dominated athletics program managed to enter Title IX compliance by creating a men's football team, evening out the scholarship opportunities. It'd be up to the lawyers, but my gut feeling says that wouldn't fly, since athletics in general seems to be what they focus on with Title IX compliance, not individual sports (e.g. the numerous schools that only have women's soccer/volleyball teams, partially to counterbalance football scholarships).
    They could possibly decide that by removing football and men's basketball from 'athletics' and in fact start paying them, since they're paying less to maintain other sports, then the argument becomes how they could eliminate sports (on both sides) to keep up with Title IX.

    Right now, football and basketball are practically subsidising compliance with Title IX. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if they get it through their heads they could practically gut it simply by finding a way to exempt the big sports that make all the money.

    There's a ton of issues with this idea. They couldn't simply "remove" football and basketball from being considered university athletics programs, and there is already a pretty strong legal precedent for them being relevant to Title IX. Plus, I seriously doubt any school is actually looking at eliminating all athletics but football in order to turn a slightly higher profit, for a number of reasons. Finally, even if that did occur, they'd still be Title IX noncompliant because Title IX doesn't just apply to athletics, and so you could make a slam-dunk argument that a school that has a large number of high-paying jobs set aside specifically for men is Title IX noncompliant.

    Old night. Cold core. Iron, cooling. The Message: no more.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    Expresses concern is a very low bar. I mean yay they're not supporting but when they move their headquarters I'll be impressed.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    JihadJesusprogramjunkie
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So, Dean Smith, in one last act of class, left in his will money for every one of his lettermen to go have dinner on him.

    Needless to say, accepting the money is most likely against NCAA bylines, regardless of if the player is still in college.

    Of course, there's the point that if the NCAA does go after the players, it would wind up being a massive PR fiasco.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
  • DocshiftyDocshifty Registered User regular
    So, Dean Smith, in one last act of class, left in his will money for every one of his lettermen to go have dinner on him.

    Needless to say, accepting the money is most likely against NCAA bylines, regardless of if the player is still in college.

    Of course, there's the point that if the NCAA does go after the players, it would wind up being a massive PR fiasco.

    Then again, following the letter of the law and not the spirit is like, really in their wheelhouse.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    Regina FongElldren
  • PolaritiePolaritie Oh I didn't see this box. Registered User regular
    So, Dean Smith, in one last act of class, left in his will money for every one of his lettermen to go have dinner on him.

    Needless to say, accepting the money is most likely against NCAA bylines, regardless of if the player is still in college.

    Of course, there's the point that if the NCAA does go after the players, it would wind up being a massive PR fiasco.

    I want to awesome this post for that clause in the will.

    But then there's the NCAA bit.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    PSN: AbEntropy
    ShadowenMan in the MistsZombie HeroElldren
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Looks like the NCAA has already said they don't believe it's something they'd enforce.

    But god help you if you're a current player and homeless.

    What is this I don't even.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Dear NCAA,

    Please do not piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Everyone can see that the documents you released show that your enforcement arm is out of control, and the fact that you held back 200 pages has everyone wondering how damaging the contents are. You should be figuring out how you are going to deal with both McNair and USC, who both have a case against you in a court of law.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    NCAA: It's not our job to enforce educational quality:
    After years of making the case that the education of athletes is paramount, the NCAA now says it has no legal responsibility to make sure education is actually delivered.

    On its website, the NCAA prominently states, "It's our commitment -- and our responsibility -- to give young people opportunities to learn, play and succeed." And later, it says that "in the collegiate model of sports, the young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second."

    But the NCAA is taking a very different position in response to a lawsuit filed by former University of North Carolina athletes. The lawsuit claimed the students didn't get an education because they were caught up in the largest known academic fraud scandal in NCAA history.

    In its response, the NCAA says it has no legal responsibility "to ensure the academic integrity of the courses offered to student-athletes at its member institutions."

    Holy fuck.

    Burn it to the ground.

    Once and forever, fuck the motherfucking NCAA.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    shrykemcdermottShadowenJuliusMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusJihadJesusElldrenShadowfireprogramjunkieGnizmoJohnny ChopsockyKamarfugacityMetzger Meister
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    NCAA: It's not our job to enforce educational quality:
    After years of making the case that the education of athletes is paramount, the NCAA now says it has no legal responsibility to make sure education is actually delivered.

    On its website, the NCAA prominently states, "It's our commitment -- and our responsibility -- to give young people opportunities to learn, play and succeed." And later, it says that "in the collegiate model of sports, the young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second."

    But the NCAA is taking a very different position in response to a lawsuit filed by former University of North Carolina athletes. The lawsuit claimed the students didn't get an education because they were caught up in the largest known academic fraud scandal in NCAA history.

    In its response, the NCAA says it has no legal responsibility "to ensure the academic integrity of the courses offered to student-athletes at its member institutions."

    Holy fuck.

    Burn it to the ground.

    Once and forever, fuck the motherfucking NCAA.

    At least they are now being honest.

    Sorta just exposes how ridiculous the idea of college sports is.

    Panda4YouSmrtnik
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2015
    From now on they may no longer refer to them as "student-athletes." They may however still use the nomenclature "athlete-student."

    mcdermott on
    AngelHedgieJihadJesusSo It Goes
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    NCAA: It's not our job to enforce educational quality:
    After years of making the case that the education of athletes is paramount, the NCAA now says it has no legal responsibility to make sure education is actually delivered.

    On its website, the NCAA prominently states, "It's our commitment -- and our responsibility -- to give young people opportunities to learn, play and succeed." And later, it says that "in the collegiate model of sports, the young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second."

    But the NCAA is taking a very different position in response to a lawsuit filed by former University of North Carolina athletes. The lawsuit claimed the students didn't get an education because they were caught up in the largest known academic fraud scandal in NCAA history.

    In its response, the NCAA says it has no legal responsibility "to ensure the academic integrity of the courses offered to student-athletes at its member institutions."

    Holy fuck.

    Burn it to the ground.

    Once and forever, fuck the motherfucking NCAA.

    It is really great how all these lawsuits are working in complement to make them repudiate their defense in each one while making their defense in the others.

    Elldren
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    Not to defend the NCAA too much here, but there are practical issues here and that responsibility rightfully belongs with the actual government.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Not to defend the NCAA too much here, but there are practical issues here and that responsibility rightfully belongs with the actual government.

    Except that, you know, this is the linchpin in their whole argument for why they should be allowed to limit player compensation.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    programjunkie
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    Not to defend the NCAA too much here, but there are practical issues here and that responsibility rightfully belongs with the actual government.

    Except that, you know, this is the linchpin in their whole argument for why they should be allowed to limit player compensation.

    Well yeah. They're hypocrites but we know that. I'm just saying that the side of the mouth that is speaking in this case is actually right.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So, the WaPo makes an excellent point: the NCAA needs to fix its abysmal diversity numbers.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    And the NCAA is claiming that their enforcement arm members have been subject to "vicious threats" after the initial release of documents in the McNair case, as part of their argument for not releasing the remaining 200 pages under seal.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    North Carolina: Doomed as doomed can be!
    The seemingly endless saga of North Carolina’s academic fraud scandal continued on Thursday, as the school finally released a 59-page notice of allegations from the NCAA. The document levied five serious charges against the school, including a lack of institutional control for a lack of oversight of an academic department regularly used by athletes.

    [...]

    The NCAA levied the dreaded “lack of institutional control” charge on UNC, claiming the school didn’t do enough to monitor the AFAM department nor the academic support program for athletes. Counselors were able to use “irregular courses” to keep at-risk athletes eligible. The NCAA claims those benefits were given mostly to men’s and women’s basketball players and members of the football team.

    All five charges are considered Level I violations, which the NCAA defines as a “severe breach of conduct.” This is serious stuff and I can’t see North Carolina getting out of this with just a slap on the wrist.

    I'm sure an invitation into the SEC is just around the corner.

  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    This is serious stuff and I can’t see North Carolina getting out of this with just a slap on the wrist.

    The NCAA is involved in investigating it, you can count on it! (Yes, irony, etc, etc).

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    I just want to say that I didn't type that. I quoted it. For clarity.


    The question kind of is whether or not they get sanctioned on the level that USC did.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    The NCAA was drug kicking and screaming to even investigate UNC, after they ignored and minimized this scandal for as long as they could. While it would be hard for them to get around severe sanctions after this report, no one should forget that the NCAA really wants to avoid upsetting the huge moneymaker that is the Duke/UNC rivalry.

    What UNC is really scared of is the coming report from SACSCOC, their accreditation body. That's a group that has less financial skin in the game, so there's a much greater chance for heavy sanctions.

    AngelHedgie
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    The National Labor Relations Board reversed its decision that athletes in private colleges could unionise.
    The main issue in the board's eyes? Deciding on the difference between public and private schools, since public schools would not be covered under this ruling:
    Even if the scholarship players were statutory employees (which, again, is an issue we do not decide), it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.

    Because of the nature of sports leagues (namely the control exercised by the leagues over the individual teams) and the composition and structure of FBS football (in which the overwhelming majority of competitors are public colleges and universities over which the Board cannot assert jurisdiction), it would not promote stability in labor relations to assert jurisdiction.

    Translation: It would give an unfair advantage to private colleges if they could pay their athletes. Suddenly the NLRB is concerned about competitive balance.

Sign In or Register to comment.