Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Cheriehoop, post: 1036584, member: 127"] My son and I were talking about this. It sure seems a conflict of interest that the government can make rules/laws for everyone but except themselves from these very same laws. I may be cynical but I can't believe that there will be an advantage for private schools in having their athletes considered "employees". It eliminates any semblance of a level playing field and I can foresee publics separating themselves from private universities competitively with that argument. Again it might just be my cynicism but I wonder if this was an agenda in the first place. The cost of athletics at private schools are already much higher than at public ones, so the effect of competing monetarily and benefit-wise for athletes could very well put these added costs at an unsustainable level. Private schools aren't subsidized operationally by taxpayers - would it be other students fully funding the load for these added expenses? Where does that money come from? How would this affect conferences? The ACC, the conference with the most private schools? Wouldn't it cause divisiveness within a conference? How long would 9 public universities stay in a conference where 5 (6 if you include Notre Dame) of its member's athletic departments play under a separate set of rules?(especially when ND already does :) ) Who would a split benefit? What about the NCAA if they want to stay relevant? Would it be the SEC, Big 10 who have only one private member each? Maybe I'm nuts and just reaching but it does make me wonder in this cut-throat competitive collegiate athletics war where it ends. Aren't there only 11 private BCS football schools and 6 are in the ACC? Strange times and hoping I'm so wrong Well I hope it ends with the NLRB reversing their decision. Sorry this is so long. Maybe I'm just in a crazy, conspiratorial mood and should just write a murder mystery instead. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?