Fo those who ardently protect the "student-athlete" model: | Syracusefan.com

Fo those who ardently protect the "student-athlete" model:

I don't think we agree on anything politically, but we align on two incredibly important things - a love of MASH and a distaste for the labor rights of college athletes.
 
Turns out it's a liability shield, nothing more.

"Student-Athlete" Is An NCAA-Created Legal Dodge
Time to consider again the student optional model!

Players don't have to go to school if they don't want to. Subject to school-devised rules of conduct and behavior, such players can live how they want to. If they don't enroll, they can take the full cost of attendance in cash.

Option to enroll exists every semester.

Dispense with the fiction.
 
Put pressure on NFL and NBA to invest (seriously) in their minor leagues. Allow kids who want to play for pay to go directly into these leagues. Let the pro leagues develop their own talent. Never ever allow pay for play in college. Over time colleges will mKe less cash on sports, and kids will value an education more.
 
If sports are separated from education, why should the colleges get the "franchises"?
 
Maybe I'm missing it, but how does this link demonstrate your point?
Only in the face of a devastating Worker's Comp claim, and future similar claims, which they would have lost, did they concoct the bogus Student Athlete category, rather than calling them employees, which they are.
Unfortunately for thousands of disabled young men, the courts bought it.
 
OK.

If we are going to change the basics we have two fundamental directions we can go in.

The first is where these people are employees on the University and are entitled to all the protections and responsibilities that entails. We hire them. They work for the school. They can be terminated. etc. etc. This sets up inside the University a separate "business" they are in. It's unconnected to the teaching and research parts of the University. It's not too different from the University acquiring a Big Box retailer and operating that, Except instead of COSTCO it would be 'SYRACUSECO.

The other direction is the Ivy League model. They are straight-up students. There are no athletic scholarships. The SATs and Class ranking of the athlete's in any incoming class have to mirror the rest of the student body's. It's called the Ivy Academic Index and it looks at SAT scores and Class Rank.

Revenue aside, the Presidents on the Universities that make up the NCAA might prefer the second option.
 
If sports are separated from education, why should the colleges get the "franchises"?

OrangeAl is correct and he points to the slippery slope this points the whole college sports thing to.
 
OK.

If we are going to change the basics we have two fundamental directions we can go in.
[snip]
The other direction is the Ivy League model. They are straight-up students. There are no athletic scholarships. The SATs and Class ranking of the athlete's in any incoming class have to mirror the rest of the student body's. It's called the Ivy Academic Index and it looks at SAT scores and Class Rank.

Revenue aside, the Presidents on the Universities that make up the NCAA might prefer the second option.
The academic side will choose the second model, with no question. They are tired of the discipline problems and how they've had to look the other way about the poor to terrible academic backgrounds of far too many athletes.

There is also the affordability of the semi-pro model. The only private schools I think could afford it are USC-w, probably Baylor, and possibly Miami. Notre Dame's academics will require their athletes to go to class. I think a number of legislatures also will forbid their state-run schools to follow the semi-pro model.
 
The academic side will choose the second model, with no question. They are tired of the discipline problems and how they've had to look the other way about the poor to terrible academic backgrounds of far too many athletes.

There is also the affordability of the semi-pro model. The only private schools I think could afford it are USC-w, probably Baylor, and possibly Miami. Notre Dame's academics will require their athletes to go to class. I think a number of legislatures also will forbid their state-run schools to follow the semi-pro model.

They are on the edge now as to the hypocrisy of big time sports. A shift could put many over the edge.
 
The Ivy model is the correct model. Students before athletes, academics before sports. I do believe that schools should arrange funds (insurance) for the injuries, especially permanent injuries, and if I recall, many do so via various means.

The NFL paying for a developmental league is the right way to handle the players in HS that are not academically ready for college nor physically ready for the NFL.
 
The Ivy model is the correct model. Students before athletes, academics before sports. I do believe that schools should arrange funds (insurance) for the injuries, especially permanent injuries, and if I recall, many do so via various means.

The NFL paying for a developmental league is the right way to handle the players in HS that are not academically ready for college nor physically ready for the NFL.

Millions love college football.

But the lawyers and politicians might kill it as we know it.
 
OK.

If we are going to change the basics we have two fundamental directions we can go in.

The first is where these people are employees on the University and are entitled to all the protections and responsibilities that entails. We hire them. They work for the school. They can be terminated. etc. etc. This sets up inside the University a separate "business" they are in. It's unconnected to the teaching and research parts of the University. It's not too different from the University acquiring a Big Box retailer and operating that, Except instead of COSTCO it would be 'SYRACUSECO.

The other direction is the Ivy League model. They are straight-up students. There are no athletic scholarships. The SATs and Class ranking of the athlete's in any incoming class have to mirror the rest of the student body's. It's called the Ivy Academic Index and it looks at SAT scores and Class Rank.

Revenue aside, the Presidents on the Universities that make up the NCAA might prefer the second option.
Or, just let the kids make some damn money for themselves.
 
Or, just let the kids make some damn money for themselves.

I have no idea what you are driving at.

Do you want the kids to profit off their own images, etc. Do you want players to be able to take jobs at the businesses of boosters?

What do you want?

The NCAA --- as flawed as it is --- has tried to keep a lid on things. Rules like Total Number of Scholarships prevents, to a degree, schools like Alabama from stockpiling all the good players in an area. Rules on the number of coaches, the involvement of boosters, etc are in place in an attempt to make things more competitive.

Every change you can think of that removes restrictions plays in the favor of the richest, biggest schools. A club that SU is not a part of.
 
I have no idea what you are driving at.

Do you want the kids to profit off their own images, etc. Do you want players to be able to take jobs at the businesses of boosters?

What do you want?

The NCAA --- as flawed as it is --- has tried to keep a lid on things. Rules like Total Number of Scholarships prevents, to a degree, schools like Alabama from stockpiling all the good players in an area. Rules on the number of coaches, the involvement of boosters, etc are in place in an attempt to make things more competitive.

Every change you can think of that removes restrictions plays in the favor of the richest, biggest schools. A club that SU is not a part of.
Re: the bolded part...

That. Does. Not. Matter. The issue is not what's fair for Syracuse. The issue is what's fair for the student-athlete. Frankly, it pisses the shiz out of me that people have their priorities so backwards on this. And yeah, the view from this high horse is MAGNIFICENT.

Yes, let kids profit from their own name and images. Yes, let kids take jobs at the businesses of the boosters. If rich people want to blow their money making their athletic programs better in a way that puts cash directly into the hands of the student-athletes and their families, that's a good outcome.

The best athletic departments will need other athletic departments to compete against in order to have a product. Nobody's buying tickets to see the Kentucky Wildcats play the Washington Generals 30 times a season. Boosters aren't going to pay through the nose for guys that ride the pine after very long.

Defending the status quo we have in the name of some kind of illusional fairness is stupid.
 
It's certainly an education for the players as to what to expect in the real world: the powers that be want to maximize their profits while paying as little as possible to the people who make them possible. Therefore there's no point in loyalty. You've got to look out for #1. And people wonder why we lose so many players to the pros. .
 
Re: the bolded part...

That. Does. Not. Matter. The issue is not what's fair for Syracuse. The issue is what's fair for the student-athlete. Frankly, it pisses the shiz out of me that people have their priorities so backwards on this. And yeah, the view from this high horse is MAGNIFICENT.

Yes, let kids profit from their own name and images. Yes, let kids take jobs at the businesses of the boosters. If rich people want to blow their money making their athletic programs better in a way that puts cash directly into the hands of the student-athletes and their families, that's a good outcome.

The best athletic departments will need other athletic departments to compete against in order to have a product. Nobody's buying tickets to see the Kentucky Wildcats play the Washington Generals 30 times a season. Boosters aren't going to pay through the nose for guys that ride the pine after very long.

Defending the status quo we have in the name of some kind of illusional fairness is stupid.


I don't understand the position that you can only regulate if you deny compensation to anyone. Can't you allow players to profit from their own image or get some form of compensation, (at least a cost of living stipend and insurance against injuries) and regulate it in such a way that it won't be only the richest schools that get the best players, (which happens under the current system anyway)? It seems to me you can set rates for cost of living stipends and insist that salaries be commensurate with what a non-athlete would get for the same job. As far as endorsements, I would think that athletes might get better deals at a school where they can be the star than at schools where a 4 star recruit is a walk-on.
 
if you pay the kids and remove the college loyalty then dont you just become minor league sports and who goes to watch that at any level?

pay every kid 50K across the board in every sport that gets a scholie and have them pay for room/board/tuition like everyone else, then everyone wins.
 
if you pay the kids and remove the college loyalty then dont you just become minor league sports and who goes to watch that at any level?

pay every kid 50K across the board in every sport that gets a scholie and have them pay for room/board/tuition like everyone else, then everyone wins.
uh... no
 
I don't understand the position that you can only regulate if you deny compensation to anyone. Can't you allow players to profit from their own image or get some form of compensation, (at least a cost of living stipend and insurance against injuries) and regulate it in such a way that it won't be only the richest schools that get the best players, (which happens under the current system anyway)? It seems to me you can set rates for cost of living stipends and insist that salaries be commensurate with what a non-athlete would get for the same job. As far as endorsements, I would think that athletes might get better deals at a school where they can be the star than at schools where a 4 star recruit is a walk-on.
I'm with you, except for the salary part. I think it's a slippery slope to mix education funding with pay to play.

Part of the elegance of the "let them make their own money" solution is that it doesn't corrupt education budgets in the name of sports.
 
I'm with you, except for the salary part. I think it's a slippery slope to mix education funding with pay to play.

Part of the elegance of the "let them make their own money" solution is that it doesn't corrupt education budgets in the name of sports.


The reference to salaries was to outside employment.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,128
Messages
4,681,686
Members
5,900
Latest member
DizzyNY

Online statistics

Members online
280
Guests online
2,125
Total visitors
2,405


Top Bottom