Coach Nell thanks the NCAA

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
This argument doesn’t make sense. People should have the right to pay players if they want, and players should have the right to accept it. They can be paid in free tuition and money. It’s America.

I don’t like the perceived results any more than you, but I still think the players have the right to get paid.
Of course the players have the right to be paid. By anyone that wants to hire them.

The question is whether the players have the right to force NCAA schools to let them play after they've decided to accept money from someone who wants to pay them.

Totally different question.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
23,302
Of course the players have the right to be paid. By anyone that wants to hire them.

The question is whether the players have the right to force NCAA schools to let them play after they've decided to accept money from someone who wants to pay them.

Totally different question.
A second, equally real question is whether the NCAA schools have the right to collectively agree not to compensate their athletes above a certain amount (room, board, education, etc.) or if that's a violation of antitrust law.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
A second, equally real question is whether the NCAA schools have the right to collectively agree not to compensate their athletes above a certain amount (room, board, education, etc.) or if that's a violation of antitrust law.
Sure, I got no problem with that, we can do the jurisprudence if you want. Are student-athletes employees?
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
23,302
Sure, I got no problem with that, we can do the jurisprudence if you want. Are student-athletes employees?
My intuition says that yes, they should be considered employees, at least the football players at Power 5 schools. The notion that they are truly students seems laughable when half of FSU's team can't read and UNC is literally creating fake classes so that their student-athletes can focus solely on football. To quote Cardale Jones, "I didn't come here to play school."

However, I won't pretend to know enough about the details of employment law to comment on the matter from a legal standpoint. I imagine it could vary by state too. The whole thing is/will be extremely messy, without a doubt.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,189
Of course the players have the right to be paid. By anyone that wants to hire them.

The question is whether the players have the right to force NCAA schools to let them play after they've decided to accept money from someone who wants to pay them.

Totally different question.
Some people say a man is made out of mud
A poor man’s made out of muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that’s weak and a back that’s strong

You load 16 tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,189
Sure, I got no problem with that, we can do the jurisprudence if you want. Are student-athletes employees?
Wait, we’re using union jurisprudence to dictate individual contract law? Something doesn’t make sense.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
My intuition says that yes, they should be considered employees, at least the football players at Power 5 schools. The notion that they are truly students seems laughable when half of FSU's team can't read and UNC is literally creating fake classes so that their student-athletes can focus solely on football. To quote Cardale Jones, "I didn't come here to play school."

However, I won't pretend to know enough about the details of employment law to comment on the matter from a legal standpoint. I imagine it could vary by state too. The whole thing is/will be extremely messy, without a doubt.
Fair enough. My opinion (as a lawyer who doesn't specialize in employment law) is that they're not employees. Employers have a much higher level of control over the daily activities of their employees than coaches do over athletes. In fact, part of what the NCAA mandates is limits over coaches' control of athletes' time. This is to say nothing of the fact that they're "compensated" without regard to job performance or seniority. Or that their mandated "work" is irregular. To say nothing of the enormous historical differences.

On another side note, this is another "goose that laid the golden egg" thing for these student-athletes. How many of us would watch GT football still if the players were professionals, didn't attend class, could transfer like free agents, were paid based on performance, etc. It would rob the joy out of the game, and you'd have a lot fewer young men getting the great deal they're getting now.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
Wait, we’re using union jurisprudence to dictate individual contract law? Something doesn’t make sense.
We can use any jurisprudence you want... they won't be employees under any legal standard, IMHO.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
3,824
A second, equally real question is whether the NCAA schools have the right to collectively agree not to compensate their athletes above a certain amount (room, board, education, etc.) or if that's a violation of antitrust law.
I hadn't heard about this aspect before, interesting. Usually with antitrust there's smaller companies being boxed out by the monopoly, right. Are there any colleges and universities that would want to be a part of a non-NCAA NCAA? I'm sympathetic to the idea that there could at least be an education + higher-pay choice for athletes, if there were any educational institutions interested in providing it.

Edit: Is there something that would at present prevent schools from starting an NCAA alternative and coexisting with the NCAA?
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
Some people say a man is made out of mud
A poor man’s made out of muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that’s weak and a back that’s strong

You load 16 tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store
You may not believe it but that was the song I sang to my daughter at bed time every night for a long time. She still asks me for it from time to time. She's especially fond of the final verse ('one fist of iron, the other of steel') because I would pretend to punch her in the head.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
3,824
On another side note, this is another "goose that laid the golden egg" thing for these student-athletes. How many of us would watch GT football still if the players were professionals, didn't attend class, could transfer like free agents, were paid based on performance, etc. It would rob the joy out of the game, and you'd have a lot fewer young men getting the great deal they're getting now.
I agree with this. I think this pro model would lose out to the amateur model. Or, if the amateur model is no longer allowed to exist for some reason, this pro model would lose out to the preexisting professional leagues.
 

BrentwoodJacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,567
Fair enough. My opinion (as a lawyer who doesn't specialize in employment law) is that they're not employees. Employers have a much higher level of control over the daily activities of their employees than coaches do over athletes. In fact, part of what the NCAA mandates is limits over coaches' control of athletes' time. This is to say nothing of the fact that they're "compensated" without regard to job performance or seniority. Or that their mandated "work" is irregular. To say nothing of the enormous historical differences.

On another side note, this is another "goose that laid the golden egg" thing for these student-athletes. How many of us would watch GT football still if the players were professionals, didn't attend class, could transfer like free agents, were paid based on performance, etc. It would rob the joy out of the game, and you'd have a lot fewer young men getting the great deal they're getting now.
It seems you would end up with a two-tiered system of paid mercenaries along with unpaid student athletes. The number of paid mercenaries would vary significantly by school. Does this path lead to annual negotiations for all players.
What happens when more male basketball players are paid than female basketball players? Or do salaries and numbers have to be equivalent?
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
It seems you would end up with a two-tiered system of paid mercenaries along with unpaid student athletes. The number of paid mercenaries would vary significantly by school. Does this path lead to annual negotiations for all players.
What happens when more male basketball players are paid than female basketball players? Or do salaries and numbers have to be equivalent?
Yeah, there's an inherent tension between "male S/A's are generating revenue, it's only fair to share the revenue with them" and "female S/A's aren't generating revenue, but it's only fair to share the revenue with them." Like most of the narratives the MSM spins trying to argue for social change, it's internally inconsistent.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,189
We can use any jurisprudence you want... they won't be employees under any legal standard, IMHO.
My critique was not on your knowledge of labor law. Whether they are employees is not the question. The question is whether they can receive pay from someone who wants to pay them.

My yard man is not my employee but I can still agree to pay him to cut my grass.

The strange thing about using labor law to say they can’t enter into a contract is that labor law was argued to be necessary because the contracts were so one sided.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
My critique was not on your knowledge of labor law. Whether they are employees is not the question. The question is whether they can receive pay from someone who wants to pay them.
Well, I was responding to someone who thought the issue was whether they were employees. But they're not independent contractors either, to your yard man example.

I've already noted my disagreement with your broader point, so there's no reason for me to belabor the point. There's definitely no law preventing any athlete who wants to get paid to play from seeking out such an arrangement. They just can't compete in NCAA amateur athletics after that.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,189
Fair enough. My opinion (as a lawyer who doesn't specialize in employment law) is that they're not employees. Employers have a much higher level of control over the daily activities of their employees than coaches do over athletes. In fact, part of what the NCAA mandates is limits over coaches' control of athletes' time. This is to say nothing of the fact that they're "compensated" without regard to job performance or seniority. Or that their mandated "work" is irregular. To say nothing of the enormous historical differences.

On another side note, this is another "goose that laid the golden egg" thing for these student-athletes. How many of us would watch GT football still if the players were professionals, didn't attend class, could transfer like free agents, were paid based on performance, etc. It would rob the joy out of the game, and you'd have a lot fewer young men getting the great deal they're getting now.
“Are they employees” is a question that’s been litigated in front of the NLRB. It’s a labor law question that must be answered affirmatively in order for them to form a union. Labor law and employment law are not the same thing.

On your side note, I agree. That’s no reason to allow them to not get paid though. But, to look at your points a little deeper, when you look at schools like Alabama, unc, Clemson, etc, do the players get treated and act like professionals? Do they attend class? Can they transfer like free agents?
What you’re talking about is already going on, it’s just done under the table. And it’s ruining the sport.
 

BuzzLaw

I hope it rains at my funeral
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
9,189
Well, I was responding to someone who thought the issue was whether they were employees. But they're not independent contractors either, to your yard man example.

I've already noted my disagreement with your broader point, so there's no reason for me to belabor the point. There's definitely no law preventing any athlete who wants to get paid to play from seeking out such an arrangement. They just can't compete in NCAA amateur athletics after that.
Isn’t the rule that they can’t go straight to the nfl? They have to play at least 3 years of college ball? Didn’t Maurice Clarett try to do that?
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,430
“Are they employees” is a question that’s been litigated in front of the NLRB. It’s a labor law question that must be answered affirmatively in order for them to form a union. Labor law and employment law are not the same thing.
I'm not exactly sure why you're repeating this point. I agree that labor law and employment law are different. But whether someone is an employee is a question at issue in labor law, employment law, tax law, tort law, lots of different fields of law. I was just responding to the question that was raised earlier ITT – I don't think we have to shoehorn students into any employment category. Students are students.

But, to look at your points a little deeper, when you look at schools like Alabama, unc, Clemson, etc, do the players get treated and act like professionals? Do they attend class? Can they transfer like free agents?
What you’re talking about is already going on, it’s just done under the table. And it’s ruining the sport.
I don't think this is true. Players do have to go to class, take tests, etc. Sadly you are correct that transferring is becoming a lot more common, and to discourage it I'd like to see the NCAA maintain the rule that you have to sit out a year. Otherwise kids will chase playing time instead of all the other reasons they should be choosing a school, a team, teammates, coaches, etc.

But I agree that the professionalization of the sport is ruining it. And the NCAA is basically the only entity that's trying to keep a check on it, even though so many uninformed cynical posters on this board assume they 'look the other way' for everyone but Tech.
 
Top