After reading through the old threads a bit I was hoping that Kris would devour this one. Now all we need is Dave and Matt to back him up.

How many athletes directly provide revenue for schools? The starters and backups for football and basketball? I agree about making the compensation process as transparent as possible. Maybe you get money based on achievement or meeting certain criteria in your sport? You could always lay off a bunch of compliance officers and use their salaries to pay athletes.

The problem is this is basically what NCAA football is already, and it's a juggernaut. Are fans of schools like Nebraska and Michigan going to choose some USFL-lite product over the NCAA? Would any players even be willing to join? College football tradition just seems so entrenched to me that this sort of thing would never work. I think there's enough with TV deals, merch, and other things to provide some payment pretty easily.

Another thing I struggle to understand is people who say that their compensation should be tuition, room and board, meals ....

How does the consumer get to determine the compensation - I'm talking the type of compensation, not just the (lack) of amount. Does that occur at your job? Do the consumers that buy your services (financial, law, IT, etc..) say to you, the employee, that you can ONLY be compensated with housing, meals out and the skybox tickets?

And if not, what privileges you to determine this for college athletes?

Would anyone be in favor of a two-pronged system, where some of the athletes comprising college sports teams are student-athletes (those who are there on partial or full scholarships, who attend class, get stipends for books and meals and etc.) and the others are young athletes whom the schools hire to provide entertainment to the students and to raise the university's profile? There's already a divide between student-athletes and athletes-who-also-happen-to-go-to-class (the ratio at my school is probably 10-1, but it's still noticeable), and a system like this would reward those young people who value their education along with their athletics and take the other distractions out of the classroom. However, as I write this, I'm already not in favor of it: it's easy to imagine the predatory practices of universities who convince a young person they don't have to go to class, that they'll be in the NFL/NBA in a few years (those are the two sports we're talking about, let's be honest), and then boot them out the door 4 years later with a $0.00 bank account and no prospects and no education. So, yeah, nevermind.

GFY, Jim Boeheim.

http://deadspin.com/man-rich-thanks-to- ... 1440849251

The one class of people that should never be making this argument are college coaches.

His argument is fine with me, I well understand that side of it, but did he even address that the school and NCAA are basically taking their names and likenesses away from them while they play for the school? No.

The coach is going out and earning extra money doing coaching shows, clinics, signings, speaking etc. etc. The players aren't allowed to do that, and lets be fair here, playing and coaching aren't the same economic environment. It takes a long time coaching to become famous. It takes no time at all to become a famous player, and it's only there for a fleeting instant, so it's not the same thing.

It is not the players responsibility to pay for the rest of the athletic department to exist. A scholarship and all that comes with it has value as payment and I am totally fine with that argument. The school should not take away players ability to market themselves simply because they are a marketing ambassador for the school.

It is big business, based on their talents as much as they are Boeheims (sorry Boeheims ego) and they should have the right to profit on their individual abilities and talents as much as anyone else does.


College coaches have gained so much from the system being constructed this way that virtually every argument they make is invalid.

Read these arguments, and then go back and read every silly argument made about how FBS could never have a playoff.....the ego's of these guys are staggering. They just gloss over any facts that don't involve them making all the money.

Boeheim is also the guy that bullies reporters when his team flops.

The old guard of college sports has the most to lose from any change to the current system.

So now they can unionize @ NU....

Continue...

So, if athletes get paid outside of their scholarships will they have to pay income tax? If they unionize will they have to pay union dues?

I'd say yes and yes.

Can you imagine a union and the NCAA negotiating with each other?

let's get get some sobering, detached analysis from thodoks

This, and I'd also say, "so what?"

The thornier issue will come up if unionization only applies to private schools, which would put those schools at a disadvantage. Then again, if it takes Notre Dame football and Duke basketball down a notch, maybe that's a good thing.

All Notre Dame football has to do to bring it down a notch is play a bowl game

Would it? Unionized private schools could give players 4 year guaranteed scholarships and workmanship comp. Do you really want to play for Alabama when you could get a Northwestern degree and you don't lose your scholarship because you shredded your knee that they forget about 2 seconds after you leave Tuscaloosa?

We're way too ahead of this. This is about healthcare and using ones own name and likeness first.

Imagine an actual student athlete with the freedom to get the degree and internships they want. The power to tell a football or basketball coach to fuck off.

Imagine the NCAA having to live the existence they portray in commercials.

Thinking about this more seriously, I think if your situation arises, the public schools and NCAA will have to follow suit for sheer competitive balance reasons. But I would not be so naive to believe this won't be about money at some point. The things you listed are important and will make for good publicity for the union. But too many players are seeing the school and their coaches raking in millions and are going to wonder where piece of the pie is.

On another note, I'm starting to wonder that if the schools do lose their leverage, they can trade back by simply doing away with athletic scholarships. It is, after all, kind of perverse that someone can get a full ride scholarship for reasons that have nothing to do with education. We've talked about the advantage of liquid assets before--players can choose to pay off their tuition and loans, invest their earnings, or even blow it on typical college life. This might also weaken the Title IX argument a bit.