The president rejects the notion that Notre Dame is morally obliged to share its football revenue with those playing the game. “I don’t think there’s a compulsion or some demand of justice that we do it,” he says.
His position — his North Star, he calls it — may be dismissed by some as trite, even convenient, but here it is: Notre Dame is an educational institution, and athletics, while diverting and instructive in its own right, is meant to serve the educational purpose.
He believes that the drama and popularity of college athletics are rooted in the fact that the student-athletes are amateurs. “If they make mistakes, you know, it’s not like they’re professionals,” he says.
But if a pay-to-play dynamic is applied to college sports, he suggests, something is lost. “If you go that semipro route, we’ll see,” he says. “But I’m just not sure that we’ll not end up just a second-tier, uninteresting pro league.”
Father Jenkins says that he could see two separate collegiate athletic associations — one following the semiprofessional model, the other dedicated to preserving what he calls “the essential educational character of college athletics.” In belonging to the latter, he says, Notre Dame would be just fine, financially and otherwise.
Ley rightfully calls "put up or shut up":
Here’s a good way for Jenkins to prove his honesty: he can go right ahead and enact all of the hypotheticals he laid out to the Times. If he truly believes that football should not take precedence over education, that the university would be just fine without its TV contract and Under Armor sponsorship, and that money only cheapens college football, he can go right ahead and opt out of the machine. Nobody is stopping him from turning Notre Dame football into a club sport that doesn’t produce millions of dollars in revenue but does improve the educational experience of students who just want to get some physical activity while they learn about Aquinas and physics. If he doesn’t, it must be either because he doesn’t really want to, or he’s afraid to act on his convictions. Who can tell which it is?
Being someone who's long resented the preferential treatment that college athletes get already, i have a gut reaction to the idea of them getting paid on top of all the crazy perks they get. Plus it would mean even more of *my* tuition money is wasted on them when so many academic programs are starving for funds.
I mean, it's clearly just a semi-pro league for at least basketball and football. The relationship is mutually destructive for the most part; academics are hoops that the athletes and the departments have to jump through, and athletic departments are usually a drain on university funds on the whole.
I say create a series of independent entities which can borrow the names and trademarks of the universities, and which are held to some code of conduct standards (so that, say, if the Crimson Tide semipro team acts like a bunch of geese, it doesn't reflect poorly on the school, if the teams or players violate certain code-of-conduct stuff, then the team has to pay fines to the school to which they are affiliated). But aside from the use of the name and associated kickbacks thereto, the semi-pro team is a completely independent entity.
Gets this shit well away from academics (which both the teams and the schools seem to want), schools get money, athletes get money, programs get more independence.
But i really don't want to see colleges paying directly for these people; it's a surrender to the idea that athletics run colleges, and this must not happen.
Being someone who's long resented the preferential treatment that college athletes get already, i have a gut reaction to the idea of them getting paid on top of all the crazy perks they get. Plus it would mean even more of *my* tuition money is wasted on them when so many academic programs are starving for funds.
I mean, it's clearly just a semi-pro league for at least basketball and football. The relationship is mutually destructive for the most part; academics are hoops that the athletes and the departments have to jump through, and athletic departments are usually a drain on university funds on the whole.
I say create a series of independent entities which can borrow the names and trademarks of the universities, and which are held to some code of conduct standards (so that, say, if the Crimson Tide semipro team acts like a bunch of geese, it doesn't reflect poorly on the school, if the teams or players violate certain code-of-conduct stuff, then the team has to pay fines to the school to which they are affiliated). But aside from the use of the name and associated kickbacks thereto, the semi-pro team is a completely independent entity.
Gets this shit well away from academics (which both the teams and the schools seem to want), schools get money, athletes get money, programs get more independence.
But i really don't want to see colleges paying directly for these people; it's a surrender to the idea that athletics run colleges, and this must not happen.
I'd be all for destroying the concept of a student athlete. There could still be full-time students who play sports as a hobby, or full-time athletes who take courses in their spare time, but no one would ever attend an academic institution entirely so they can play a sport.
I'd be all for destroying the concept of a student athlete. There could still be full-time students who play sports as a hobby, or full-time athletes who take courses in their spare time, but no one would ever attend an academic institution entirely so they can play a sport.
Remember - the term "student-athlete" is a fiction created specifically to allow colleges to avoid paying workman's comp.
Being someone who's long resented the preferential treatment that college athletes get already, i have a gut reaction to the idea of them getting paid on top of all the crazy perks they get. Plus it would mean even more of *my* tuition money is wasted on them when so many academic programs are starving for funds.
I mean, it's clearly just a semi-pro league for at least basketball and football. The relationship is mutually destructive for the most part; academics are hoops that the athletes and the departments have to jump through, and athletic departments are usually a drain on university funds on the whole.
I say create a series of independent entities which can borrow the names and trademarks of the universities, and which are held to some code of conduct standards (so that, say, if the Crimson Tide semipro team acts like a bunch of geese, it doesn't reflect poorly on the school, if the teams or players violate certain code-of-conduct stuff, then the team has to pay fines to the school to which they are affiliated). But aside from the use of the name and associated kickbacks thereto, the semi-pro team is a completely independent entity.
Gets this shit well away from academics (which both the teams and the schools seem to want), schools get money, athletes get money, programs get more independence.
But i really don't want to see colleges paying directly for these people; it's a surrender to the idea that athletics run colleges, and this must not happen.
Mr Khan is talking about a different kind of reform though. While pushing sports back into academia to recreate a time that never existed is foolish, the argument here is to pull sport out completely, retaining only a few token superficialities.
Education is essentially a full time job, and sport, especially at this level, is also a full time job. While nobody should be banned from trying to work two full time jobs, we should recognize that it is not doable for most people and that colleges can not really offer both. The problem of athletes receiving a sham education will not go away just because they are paid, as it is a consequence of trying to stay competitive in sport.
Edit: I realize that such an end goal can also be achieved by ending the collusion to deny athletes pay. It will probably be beneficial for schools to abandon any pretence of their athletes being at heart students and just go with their semi-pro nature. There is nothing stopping from doing it in that case.
Being someone who's long resented the preferential treatment that college athletes get already, i have a gut reaction to the idea of them getting paid on top of all the crazy perks they get. Plus it would mean even more of *my* tuition money is wasted on them when so many academic programs are starving for funds.
I mean, it's clearly just a semi-pro league for at least basketball and football. The relationship is mutually destructive for the most part; academics are hoops that the athletes and the departments have to jump through, and athletic departments are usually a drain on university funds on the whole.
I say create a series of independent entities which can borrow the names and trademarks of the universities, and which are held to some code of conduct standards (so that, say, if the Crimson Tide semipro team acts like a bunch of geese, it doesn't reflect poorly on the school, if the teams or players violate certain code-of-conduct stuff, then the team has to pay fines to the school to which they are affiliated). But aside from the use of the name and associated kickbacks thereto, the semi-pro team is a completely independent entity.
Gets this shit well away from academics (which both the teams and the schools seem to want), schools get money, athletes get money, programs get more independence.
But i really don't want to see colleges paying directly for these people; it's a surrender to the idea that athletics run colleges, and this must not happen.
Mr Khan is talking about a different kind of reform though. While pushing sports back into academia to recreate a time that never existed is foolish, the argument here is to pull sport out completely, retaining only a few token superficialities.
Education is essentially a full time job, and sport, especially at this level, is also a full time job. While nobody should be banned from trying to work two full time jobs, we should recognize that it is not doable for most people and that colleges can not really offer both. The problem of athletes receiving a sham education will not go away just because they are paid, as it is a consequence of trying to stay competitive in sport.
Edit: I realize that such an end goal can also be achieved by ending the collusion to deny athletes pay. It will probably be beneficial for schools to abandon any pretence of their athletes being at heart students and just go with their semi-pro nature. There is nothing stopping from doing it in that case.
No, it's still the same argument, just taken on a different tack. The author has a good takedown of it as well:
I am not a member of Team Reform. It's not that I don't want to see schools provide better educational opportunities for athletes; I do! It's just that as a member of Team Market, I think there's nothing wrong with universities realizing that they have stumbled onto a very successful commercial product called college sports, and going out and commercializing it. I feel the same way about commercializing college sports as I do when a school's chemistry department invents a new, safer pesticide, applies for a patent, and seeks to commercialize that. I think commerce is wonderful, especially if it doesn't pollute the atmosphere, etc.
Being someone who's long resented the preferential treatment that college athletes get already, i have a gut reaction to the idea of them getting paid on top of all the crazy perks they get. Plus it would mean even more of *my* tuition money is wasted on them when so many academic programs are starving for funds.
I mean, it's clearly just a semi-pro league for at least basketball and football. The relationship is mutually destructive for the most part; academics are hoops that the athletes and the departments have to jump through, and athletic departments are usually a drain on university funds on the whole.
I say create a series of independent entities which can borrow the names and trademarks of the universities, and which are held to some code of conduct standards (so that, say, if the Crimson Tide semipro team acts like a bunch of geese, it doesn't reflect poorly on the school, if the teams or players violate certain code-of-conduct stuff, then the team has to pay fines to the school to which they are affiliated). But aside from the use of the name and associated kickbacks thereto, the semi-pro team is a completely independent entity.
Gets this shit well away from academics (which both the teams and the schools seem to want), schools get money, athletes get money, programs get more independence.
But i really don't want to see colleges paying directly for these people; it's a surrender to the idea that athletics run colleges, and this must not happen.
Mr Khan is talking about a different kind of reform though. While pushing sports back into academia to recreate a time that never existed is foolish, the argument here is to pull sport out completely, retaining only a few token superficialities.
Education is essentially a full time job, and sport, especially at this level, is also a full time job. While nobody should be banned from trying to work two full time jobs, we should recognize that it is not doable for most people and that colleges can not really offer both. The problem of athletes receiving a sham education will not go away just because they are paid, as it is a consequence of trying to stay competitive in sport.
Edit: I realize that such an end goal can also be achieved by ending the collusion to deny athletes pay. It will probably be beneficial for schools to abandon any pretence of their athletes being at heart students and just go with their semi-pro nature. There is nothing stopping from doing it in that case.
No, it's still the same argument, just taken on a different tack. The author has a good takedown of it as well:
I am not a member of Team Reform. It's not that I don't want to see schools provide better educational opportunities for athletes; I do! It's just that as a member of Team Market, I think there's nothing wrong with universities realizing that they have stumbled onto a very successful commercial product called college sports, and going out and commercializing it. I feel the same way about commercializing college sports as I do when a school's chemistry department invents a new, safer pesticide, applies for a patent, and seeks to commercialize that. I think commerce is wonderful, especially if it doesn't pollute the atmosphere, etc.
The key to separating it out needs to come with a guarantee that athletic expenditures are siloed from the general fund. Profits should go back to the school, but losses should be born entirely by the program (capital expenditures can be borrowed from the school, but have to be repaid like commercial loans).
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Being someone who's long resented the preferential treatment that college athletes get already, i have a gut reaction to the idea of them getting paid on top of all the crazy perks they get. Plus it would mean even more of *my* tuition money is wasted on them when so many academic programs are starving for funds.
I mean, it's clearly just a semi-pro league for at least basketball and football. The relationship is mutually destructive for the most part; academics are hoops that the athletes and the departments have to jump through, and athletic departments are usually a drain on university funds on the whole.
I say create a series of independent entities which can borrow the names and trademarks of the universities, and which are held to some code of conduct standards (so that, say, if the Crimson Tide semipro team acts like a bunch of geese, it doesn't reflect poorly on the school, if the teams or players violate certain code-of-conduct stuff, then the team has to pay fines to the school to which they are affiliated). But aside from the use of the name and associated kickbacks thereto, the semi-pro team is a completely independent entity.
Gets this shit well away from academics (which both the teams and the schools seem to want), schools get money, athletes get money, programs get more independence.
But i really don't want to see colleges paying directly for these people; it's a surrender to the idea that athletics run colleges, and this must not happen.
Mr Khan is talking about a different kind of reform though. While pushing sports back into academia to recreate a time that never existed is foolish, the argument here is to pull sport out completely, retaining only a few token superficialities.
Education is essentially a full time job, and sport, especially at this level, is also a full time job. While nobody should be banned from trying to work two full time jobs, we should recognize that it is not doable for most people and that colleges can not really offer both. The problem of athletes receiving a sham education will not go away just because they are paid, as it is a consequence of trying to stay competitive in sport.
Edit: I realize that such an end goal can also be achieved by ending the collusion to deny athletes pay. It will probably be beneficial for schools to abandon any pretence of their athletes being at heart students and just go with their semi-pro nature. There is nothing stopping from doing it in that case.
No, it's still the same argument, just taken on a different tack. The author has a good takedown of it as well:
I am not a member of Team Reform. It's not that I don't want to see schools provide better educational opportunities for athletes; I do! It's just that as a member of Team Market, I think there's nothing wrong with universities realizing that they have stumbled onto a very successful commercial product called college sports, and going out and commercializing it. I feel the same way about commercializing college sports as I do when a school's chemistry department invents a new, safer pesticide, applies for a patent, and seeks to commercialize that. I think commerce is wonderful, especially if it doesn't pollute the atmosphere, etc.
Not that I want to tell you guys how to run your shit, but I'm not as enamoured of the increased commercialization of higher education as you seem to be. To characterize this as universities somehow stumbling into a successful product, as if by accident, ignores the actual work and policy put into creating that product. It is intentional, it in fact being one of the reasons the current situation is so bullshit.
When a school's chemistry department invents a moneymaker, the school will inevitable pressure that department (and all other departments) to invent more moneymakers. When you want moneymakers you will eventually start to look at everything at your school in that light, and proceed to cut where the money isn't being made. Philosophy departments don't come up with moneymakers, the humanities are unlikely to come up with moneymakers, all that teaching is probably getting in the way of moneymaking.
Also is the last line meant to imply that commerce is wonderful even when it does pollute the atmosphere?
Being someone who's long resented the preferential treatment that college athletes get already, i have a gut reaction to the idea of them getting paid on top of all the crazy perks they get. Plus it would mean even more of *my* tuition money is wasted on them when so many academic programs are starving for funds.
I mean, it's clearly just a semi-pro league for at least basketball and football. The relationship is mutually destructive for the most part; academics are hoops that the athletes and the departments have to jump through, and athletic departments are usually a drain on university funds on the whole.
I say create a series of independent entities which can borrow the names and trademarks of the universities, and which are held to some code of conduct standards (so that, say, if the Crimson Tide semipro team acts like a bunch of geese, it doesn't reflect poorly on the school, if the teams or players violate certain code-of-conduct stuff, then the team has to pay fines to the school to which they are affiliated). But aside from the use of the name and associated kickbacks thereto, the semi-pro team is a completely independent entity.
Gets this shit well away from academics (which both the teams and the schools seem to want), schools get money, athletes get money, programs get more independence.
But i really don't want to see colleges paying directly for these people; it's a surrender to the idea that athletics run colleges, and this must not happen.
Mr Khan is talking about a different kind of reform though. While pushing sports back into academia to recreate a time that never existed is foolish, the argument here is to pull sport out completely, retaining only a few token superficialities.
Education is essentially a full time job, and sport, especially at this level, is also a full time job. While nobody should be banned from trying to work two full time jobs, we should recognize that it is not doable for most people and that colleges can not really offer both. The problem of athletes receiving a sham education will not go away just because they are paid, as it is a consequence of trying to stay competitive in sport.
Edit: I realize that such an end goal can also be achieved by ending the collusion to deny athletes pay. It will probably be beneficial for schools to abandon any pretence of their athletes being at heart students and just go with their semi-pro nature. There is nothing stopping from doing it in that case.
No, it's still the same argument, just taken on a different tack. The author has a good takedown of it as well:
I am not a member of Team Reform. It's not that I don't want to see schools provide better educational opportunities for athletes; I do! It's just that as a member of Team Market, I think there's nothing wrong with universities realizing that they have stumbled onto a very successful commercial product called college sports, and going out and commercializing it. I feel the same way about commercializing college sports as I do when a school's chemistry department invents a new, safer pesticide, applies for a patent, and seeks to commercialize that. I think commerce is wonderful, especially if it doesn't pollute the atmosphere, etc.
Not that I want to tell you guys how to run your shit, but I'm not as enamoured of the increased commercialization of higher education as you seem to be. To characterize this as universities somehow stumbling into a successful product, as if by accident, ignores the actual work and policy put into creating that product. It is intentional, it in fact being one of the reasons the current situation is so bullshit.
When a school's chemistry department invents a moneymaker, the school will inevitable pressure that department (and all other departments) to invent more moneymakers. When you want moneymakers you will eventually start to look at everything at your school in that light, and proceed to cut where the money isn't being made. Philosophy departments don't come up with moneymakers, the humanities are unlikely to come up with moneymakers, all that teaching is probably getting in the way of moneymaking.
Also is the last line meant to imply that commerce is wonderful even when it does pollute the atmosphere?
Being someone who's long resented the preferential treatment that college athletes get already, i have a gut reaction to the idea of them getting paid on top of all the crazy perks they get. Plus it would mean even more of *my* tuition money is wasted on them when so many academic programs are starving for funds.
I mean, it's clearly just a semi-pro league for at least basketball and football. The relationship is mutually destructive for the most part; academics are hoops that the athletes and the departments have to jump through, and athletic departments are usually a drain on university funds on the whole.
I say create a series of independent entities which can borrow the names and trademarks of the universities, and which are held to some code of conduct standards (so that, say, if the Crimson Tide semipro team acts like a bunch of geese, it doesn't reflect poorly on the school, if the teams or players violate certain code-of-conduct stuff, then the team has to pay fines to the school to which they are affiliated). But aside from the use of the name and associated kickbacks thereto, the semi-pro team is a completely independent entity.
Gets this shit well away from academics (which both the teams and the schools seem to want), schools get money, athletes get money, programs get more independence.
But i really don't want to see colleges paying directly for these people; it's a surrender to the idea that athletics run colleges, and this must not happen.
Mr Khan is talking about a different kind of reform though. While pushing sports back into academia to recreate a time that never existed is foolish, the argument here is to pull sport out completely, retaining only a few token superficialities.
Education is essentially a full time job, and sport, especially at this level, is also a full time job. While nobody should be banned from trying to work two full time jobs, we should recognize that it is not doable for most people and that colleges can not really offer both. The problem of athletes receiving a sham education will not go away just because they are paid, as it is a consequence of trying to stay competitive in sport.
Edit: I realize that such an end goal can also be achieved by ending the collusion to deny athletes pay. It will probably be beneficial for schools to abandon any pretence of their athletes being at heart students and just go with their semi-pro nature. There is nothing stopping from doing it in that case.
No, it's still the same argument, just taken on a different tack. The author has a good takedown of it as well:
I am not a member of Team Reform. It's not that I don't want to see schools provide better educational opportunities for athletes; I do! It's just that as a member of Team Market, I think there's nothing wrong with universities realizing that they have stumbled onto a very successful commercial product called college sports, and going out and commercializing it. I feel the same way about commercializing college sports as I do when a school's chemistry department invents a new, safer pesticide, applies for a patent, and seeks to commercialize that. I think commerce is wonderful, especially if it doesn't pollute the atmosphere, etc.
Not that I want to tell you guys how to run your shit, but I'm not as enamoured of the increased commercialization of higher education as you seem to be. To characterize this as universities somehow stumbling into a successful product, as if by accident, ignores the actual work and policy put into creating that product. It is intentional, it in fact being one of the reasons the current situation is so bullshit.
When a school's chemistry department invents a moneymaker, the school will inevitable pressure that department (and all other departments) to invent more moneymakers. When you want moneymakers you will eventually start to look at everything at your school in that light, and proceed to cut where the money isn't being made. Philosophy departments don't come up with moneymakers, the humanities are unlikely to come up with moneymakers, all that teaching is probably getting in the way of moneymaking.
Also is the last line meant to imply that commerce is wonderful even when it does pollute the atmosphere?
I'm with you on the general take on the commercialization of college sports but if we are gonna commercialize them anyway (and I see no way to stop that in the US) then pay the kids making the product.
That's sort of the general idea of what he's saying I think.
I feel the best reform proposal is the one I have heard to separate the time players spend 'playing' for the university from the time they spend studying at the university. So players would be signed by a program, and then attend the university only to do that sports program. They could attend classes for free if their schedule allowed and they wanted to, but would not be required to. Each year they would receive payment in two forms...
Minimum wage for the time spent playing for the team and participating in team events which are required (like training, going on tours etc)
1 year of college tuition which can be used at any school in their division. This 'tuition voucher' could be saved and used at any time in their lives.
They would also be guaranteed full healthcare benefits during their time at the school, and if they were cut from the team due to injury sustained during play they would be eligible for the full years scholarship payment.
The school could then do whatever it pleased with the rest of the money within its own charter. There are MANY required reforms in terms of payments for stadiums and head coaches and whatnot, but those are all a distraction from the 'not paying the athletes with anything of real value' problem.
If student-athletes got to be real students, then paying them with education has real value. The current system is broken because they are not paid with real education. It's like saying that dollars have real value, and then saying you aren't making people work for free since you are paying them with Monopoly dollars.
When I was a lab tutor at university I got paid for it. I suppose that made me a professional lab tutor. I was still a student at the same time. I didntw explode nor did the whole fabric of the University shatter.
I do not see why anyone would have any problems with paying students to do some work.
When I was a lab tutor at university I got paid for it. I suppose that made me a professional lab tutor. I was still a student at the same time. I didntw explode nor did the whole fabric of the University shatter.
I do not see why anyone would have any problems with paying students to do some work.
I'd argue the problem is not with paying the students, the problem is that the job you are requiring them to do is too time consuming to allow them to also be students. So you should play first, and be a student later.
Being someone who's long resented the preferential treatment that college athletes get already, i have a gut reaction to the idea of them getting paid on top of all the crazy perks they get. Plus it would mean even more of *my* tuition money is wasted on them when so many academic programs are starving for funds.
I mean, it's clearly just a semi-pro league for at least basketball and football. The relationship is mutually destructive for the most part; academics are hoops that the athletes and the departments have to jump through, and athletic departments are usually a drain on university funds on the whole.
I say create a series of independent entities which can borrow the names and trademarks of the universities, and which are held to some code of conduct standards (so that, say, if the Crimson Tide semipro team acts like a bunch of geese, it doesn't reflect poorly on the school, if the teams or players violate certain code-of-conduct stuff, then the team has to pay fines to the school to which they are affiliated). But aside from the use of the name and associated kickbacks thereto, the semi-pro team is a completely independent entity.
Gets this shit well away from academics (which both the teams and the schools seem to want), schools get money, athletes get money, programs get more independence.
But i really don't want to see colleges paying directly for these people; it's a surrender to the idea that athletics run colleges, and this must not happen.
Mr Khan is talking about a different kind of reform though. While pushing sports back into academia to recreate a time that never existed is foolish, the argument here is to pull sport out completely, retaining only a few token superficialities.
Education is essentially a full time job, and sport, especially at this level, is also a full time job. While nobody should be banned from trying to work two full time jobs, we should recognize that it is not doable for most people and that colleges can not really offer both. The problem of athletes receiving a sham education will not go away just because they are paid, as it is a consequence of trying to stay competitive in sport.
Edit: I realize that such an end goal can also be achieved by ending the collusion to deny athletes pay. It will probably be beneficial for schools to abandon any pretence of their athletes being at heart students and just go with their semi-pro nature. There is nothing stopping from doing it in that case.
No, it's still the same argument, just taken on a different tack. The author has a good takedown of it as well:
I am not a member of Team Reform. It's not that I don't want to see schools provide better educational opportunities for athletes; I do! It's just that as a member of Team Market, I think there's nothing wrong with universities realizing that they have stumbled onto a very successful commercial product called college sports, and going out and commercializing it. I feel the same way about commercializing college sports as I do when a school's chemistry department invents a new, safer pesticide, applies for a patent, and seeks to commercialize that. I think commerce is wonderful, especially if it doesn't pollute the atmosphere, etc.
That is kind of a bad takedown. Team market should be both pro union and pro "paying workers"
When I was a lab tutor at university I got paid for it. I suppose that made me a professional lab tutor. I was still a student at the same time. I didntw explode nor did the whole fabric of the University shatter.
I do not see why anyone would have any problems with paying students to do some work.
But some students get paid in tuition remission for their campus work, which is already the case for most athletes. In my grad school, me getting actually paid is the exception, most of my colleagues who work for the school get paid in financial aid.
When I was a lab tutor at university I got paid for it. I suppose that made me a professional lab tutor. I was still a student at the same time. I didntw explode nor did the whole fabric of the University shatter.
I do not see why anyone would have any problems with paying students to do some work.
But some students get paid in tuition remission for their campus work, which is already the case for most athletes. In my grad school, me getting actually paid is the exception, most of my colleagues who work for the school get paid in financial aid.
You can also go get side jobs, sell your property, etc. These are significantly restricted or outright prohibited for college athletes.
When I was a lab tutor at university I got paid for it. I suppose that made me a professional lab tutor. I was still a student at the same time. I didntw explode nor did the whole fabric of the University shatter.
I do not see why anyone would have any problems with paying students to do some work.
I'd argue the problem is not with paying the students, the problem is that the job you are requiring them to do is too time consuming to allow them to also be students. So you should play first, and be a student later.
Or maybe find a schedule that allows for both. It's feasible to work a full time job while taking college classes (okay, taking a full course load would reduce you to eat/sleep/work/study but) - but I'm fairly sure college athletics eats up significantly more of their schedule than a standard full-time job would. You may have to sacrifice the notion of a four-year program (finishing in four I mean) to make it work... I dunno what their schedules actually look like though.
When I was a lab tutor at university I got paid for it. I suppose that made me a professional lab tutor. I was still a student at the same time. I didntw explode nor did the whole fabric of the University shatter.
I do not see why anyone would have any problems with paying students to do some work.
But some students get paid in tuition remission for their campus work, which is already the case for most athletes. In my grad school, me getting actually paid is the exception, most of my colleagues who work for the school get paid in financial aid.
You can also go get side jobs, sell your property, etc. These are significantly restricted or outright prohibited for college athletes.
That whole Ohio State nonsense a few years ago was because the players were trading or selling gear or awards.
EA Sports announced on Thursday they are pulling more than a dozen players from the new women’s soccer feature on FIFA 16 because their inclusion in the game could violate NCAA eligibility rules. The statement by Electronic Arts slams the NCAA for the decision. From EA.com:
The NCAA recently informed EA SPORTS that these 13 student-athletes would be risking their eligibility for collegiate athletics by being included in FIFA 16.
We do not agree with this position. All rights were secured following standard protocol with national governing bodies and federations, and none of these NCAA student-athletes or potential student athletes were to be individually compensated by EA SPORTS for their inclusion in the game.
We believe this decision denies these 13 athletes the opportunity to represent their countries in the game, but we have removed them from FIFA 16 to ensure there is no risk to their eligibility.
[...]
Here is the list, per EA, of the players pulled from the game in advance of Tuesday’s release: Kadeisha Buchanan, Canada; Jessie Fleming, Canada; Ashley Lawrence, Canada; Janine Beckie, Canada; Rebecca Quinn, Canada; Sura Yekka, Canada; Celia Jiménez, Spain; Tanya Samarzich, Mexico; Greta Espinoza, Mexico; Christina Murillo, Mexico; Amanda Perez, Mexico; Emily Alvarado, Mexico; Maria Sanchez, Mexico.
Proceeds from the player shirts will be placed in trust. He's keeping the profit on the Emmert shirt, though.
You have to love his response on the subject, too:
BL: Why did you decide to make a t-shirt of NCAA president Mark Emmert?
CP: Well, I just graduated college in May. And while I was in college, my entire four years, I was affiliated or I was even a member of the NCAA institution. And Mark Emmert, you know, he’s the president of that governing body. He was always a role model to me. When I graduated — you go through a stage in your life where you’re like, “What’s next? What am I gonna do?” These are times you have to look up to your mentors, to your role models.
I looked up to mine. I said, ‘What would Mark Emmert do right now?’ I said, ‘You know what, what he would probably do is find some people or find one person and then take their image and their ability and skill and just make as much money as possible off them, and then not give it to them.’ You know what I’m saying? I’m just out here trying to follow in his footsteps. Now, have I started a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, and am I making a million dollars or more in annual salary yet? No, I’m not. But I’m still following in his footsteps. Hopefully, I’ll be there one day.
In short, they upheld O'Bannon, though they ruled the plan to push for a $5k payment was beyond the scope of the ruling. This also gives Jeff "Roger Goodell Is My Bitch" Kessler more ammo in his lawsuit aimed at the black heart of the NCAA.
Basically, the NCAA may have won the battle (gotten the $5k compensation argument removed), but lost the war (the court held that the NCAA does not have an anti-trust exemption).
So, I put this in the old thread, and meant it to go here:
So, it's worth mentioning that after this weekend's activities in the state of Missouri, the not so good folks in Indianapolis are having a rough couple of days, as one of their nightmare scenarios has just played out.
Make no mistake, the fact that the Mizzou football team threatened to not play unless the head of the UM system resigned and that he did so is not going unnoticed. There had been a threat of a similar strike by a team during the NCAA DI basketball tournament a few years back, but this is the first time you've really seen college players flex their muscles like this.
But the best part is that the NCAA is firmly speared on Morton's Fork here. The players are acting like students and supporting other students in their cause. Trying to punish or muzzle them will just add more ammunition to the case that the relationship between athletes and schools is that of employees and employer, but at the same time, it is unlikely that this will be the last time we see players wield their power to effect change.
In short, Emmert has had a very bad weekend, and that makes me happy.
it's worth mentioning that data about AD 'profits' can be somewhat misleading, because as the article points out midway through, ADs have no incentive to actually attempt to turn a profit. They have no stock to buy back, no shareholders to whom to return dividends, and little in the way of executive bonuses compared to what corporations of similar size/profitability would get. So what they do is reinvest those profits, in facilities, new hiring, etc.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Navy is 9-1, you're looking at last year's record.
My bad. Just for fun, I checked the football coach salaries of the AAC.
SCHOOL HEAD COACH SCHOOL PAY
Cincinnati Tommy Tuberville $2,200,000
Central Florida George O'Leary $1,890,000
Navy Ken Niumatalolo $1,637,803
Connecticut Bob Diaco $1,550,000
Houston Tom Herman $1,450,000
East Carolina Ruffin McNeill $1,414,610
Memphis Justin Fuente $1,400,000
South Florida Willie Taggart $1,150,000
Tulane Curtis Johnson $926,000
Temple Matt Rhule $648,633
Tulsa Philip Montgomery --
Southern Methodist Chad Morris --
A bunch of those guys also are eligible for something around $500k in bonuses. I can't imagine why athletic programs aren't making money for their schools.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Posts
Ley rightfully calls "put up or shut up":
I mean, it's clearly just a semi-pro league for at least basketball and football. The relationship is mutually destructive for the most part; academics are hoops that the athletes and the departments have to jump through, and athletic departments are usually a drain on university funds on the whole.
I say create a series of independent entities which can borrow the names and trademarks of the universities, and which are held to some code of conduct standards (so that, say, if the Crimson Tide semipro team acts like a bunch of geese, it doesn't reflect poorly on the school, if the teams or players violate certain code-of-conduct stuff, then the team has to pay fines to the school to which they are affiliated). But aside from the use of the name and associated kickbacks thereto, the semi-pro team is a completely independent entity.
Gets this shit well away from academics (which both the teams and the schools seem to want), schools get money, athletes get money, programs get more independence.
But i really don't want to see colleges paying directly for these people; it's a surrender to the idea that athletics run colleges, and this must not happen.
That ship's long since sailed.
Remember - the term "student-athlete" is a fiction created specifically to allow colleges to avoid paying workman's comp.
Mr Khan is talking about a different kind of reform though. While pushing sports back into academia to recreate a time that never existed is foolish, the argument here is to pull sport out completely, retaining only a few token superficialities.
Education is essentially a full time job, and sport, especially at this level, is also a full time job. While nobody should be banned from trying to work two full time jobs, we should recognize that it is not doable for most people and that colleges can not really offer both. The problem of athletes receiving a sham education will not go away just because they are paid, as it is a consequence of trying to stay competitive in sport.
Edit: I realize that such an end goal can also be achieved by ending the collusion to deny athletes pay. It will probably be beneficial for schools to abandon any pretence of their athletes being at heart students and just go with their semi-pro nature. There is nothing stopping from doing it in that case.
No, it's still the same argument, just taken on a different tack. The author has a good takedown of it as well:
The key to separating it out needs to come with a guarantee that athletic expenditures are siloed from the general fund. Profits should go back to the school, but losses should be born entirely by the program (capital expenditures can be borrowed from the school, but have to be repaid like commercial loans).
Not that I want to tell you guys how to run your shit, but I'm not as enamoured of the increased commercialization of higher education as you seem to be. To characterize this as universities somehow stumbling into a successful product, as if by accident, ignores the actual work and policy put into creating that product. It is intentional, it in fact being one of the reasons the current situation is so bullshit.
When a school's chemistry department invents a moneymaker, the school will inevitable pressure that department (and all other departments) to invent more moneymakers. When you want moneymakers you will eventually start to look at everything at your school in that light, and proceed to cut where the money isn't being made. Philosophy departments don't come up with moneymakers, the humanities are unlikely to come up with moneymakers, all that teaching is probably getting in the way of moneymaking.
Also is the last line meant to imply that commerce is wonderful even when it does pollute the atmosphere?
As someone who has worked on the medical side of the university, it also creates a really perverse loop where supposedly objective researchers have a direct financial interest in their results coming out a certain way. It's how you get situation like the Duke cancer doctor who was lying about giving patients an experimental drug because he stood to lose millions if the clinical trial failed.
I'm with you on the general take on the commercialization of college sports but if we are gonna commercialize them anyway (and I see no way to stop that in the US) then pay the kids making the product.
That's sort of the general idea of what he's saying I think.
Minimum wage for the time spent playing for the team and participating in team events which are required (like training, going on tours etc)
1 year of college tuition which can be used at any school in their division. This 'tuition voucher' could be saved and used at any time in their lives.
They would also be guaranteed full healthcare benefits during their time at the school, and if they were cut from the team due to injury sustained during play they would be eligible for the full years scholarship payment.
The school could then do whatever it pleased with the rest of the money within its own charter. There are MANY required reforms in terms of payments for stadiums and head coaches and whatnot, but those are all a distraction from the 'not paying the athletes with anything of real value' problem.
If student-athletes got to be real students, then paying them with education has real value. The current system is broken because they are not paid with real education. It's like saying that dollars have real value, and then saying you aren't making people work for free since you are paying them with Monopoly dollars.
I do not see why anyone would have any problems with paying students to do some work.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I'd argue the problem is not with paying the students, the problem is that the job you are requiring them to do is too time consuming to allow them to also be students. So you should play first, and be a student later.
That is kind of a bad takedown. Team market should be both pro union and pro "paying workers"
But some students get paid in tuition remission for their campus work, which is already the case for most athletes. In my grad school, me getting actually paid is the exception, most of my colleagues who work for the school get paid in financial aid.
You can also go get side jobs, sell your property, etc. These are significantly restricted or outright prohibited for college athletes.
Or maybe find a schedule that allows for both. It's feasible to work a full time job while taking college classes (okay, taking a full course load would reduce you to eat/sleep/work/study but) - but I'm fairly sure college athletics eats up significantly more of their schedule than a standard full-time job would. You may have to sacrifice the notion of a four-year program (finishing in four I mean) to make it work... I dunno what their schedules actually look like though.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
That whole Ohio State nonsense a few years ago was because the players were trading or selling gear or awards.
Way to go!
Proceeds from the player shirts will be placed in trust. He's keeping the profit on the Emmert shirt, though.
You have to love his response on the subject, too:
In short, they upheld O'Bannon, though they ruled the plan to push for a $5k payment was beyond the scope of the ruling. This also gives Jeff "Roger Goodell Is My Bitch" Kessler more ammo in his lawsuit aimed at the black heart of the NCAA.
Expect the NCAA to be requesting cert.
It was from the original ruling, as a system to compensate players for their likenesses.
More on the matter.
More here as well.
Witness testimony, from what I understand.
So, it's worth mentioning that after this weekend's activities in the state of Missouri, the not so good folks in Indianapolis are having a rough couple of days, as one of their nightmare scenarios has just played out.
Make no mistake, the fact that the Mizzou football team threatened to not play unless the head of the UM system resigned and that he did so is not going unnoticed. There had been a threat of a similar strike by a team during the NCAA DI basketball tournament a few years back, but this is the first time you've really seen college players flex their muscles like this.
But the best part is that the NCAA is firmly speared on Morton's Fork here. The players are acting like students and supporting other students in their cause. Trying to punish or muzzle them will just add more ammunition to the case that the relationship between athletes and schools is that of employees and employer, but at the same time, it is unlikely that this will be the last time we see players wield their power to effect change.
In short, Emmert has had a very bad weekend, and that makes me happy.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Also, fun fact - who is the highest compensated federal government employee?
If you said President Obama, you're wrong. His $400k/year salary only puts him at fourth on the list.
If you said Navy football coach Ken Niumatalolo, you win! At $1,574,810, he makes almost four times what the leader of the free world does.
My bad. Just for fun, I checked the football coach salaries of the AAC.
SCHOOL HEAD COACH SCHOOL PAY
Cincinnati Tommy Tuberville $2,200,000
Central Florida George O'Leary $1,890,000
Navy Ken Niumatalolo $1,637,803
Connecticut Bob Diaco $1,550,000
Houston Tom Herman $1,450,000
East Carolina Ruffin McNeill $1,414,610
Memphis Justin Fuente $1,400,000
South Florida Willie Taggart $1,150,000
Tulane Curtis Johnson $926,000
Temple Matt Rhule $648,633
Tulsa Philip Montgomery --
Southern Methodist Chad Morris --
A bunch of those guys also are eligible for something around $500k in bonuses. I can't imagine why athletic programs aren't making money for their schools.