Aye, that was the NCAA using the CoA to try to sweeten the pot for the players so they’d shut up for the 1-4 years they’d be in college, IMO. Once they’re out of college sports, it’d be harder for them file suit, so who cares what they think at that point? Just shut them up while they’re useful to the NCAA.
You skipped some questions I had in the post you quoted.
Everyone at a fast food restaurant gets paid. Only a handful of star athletes would. Apples and oranges. And paying male athletes while not paying female athletes…
Are students on scholarships employees? :dubious:
Unlike true professionals, SA’s can’t be sold or traded. They are not taxed and the government does not recognize them as employees. The so-called profits go back into the university system to help others. Its better than having a few siphon off cash for their own personal interests. When it comes to autographs and commercials, I can see some room for compromise.
If you think in a million years the Dems will ever budge on Title IX…
The only “apples to oranges” here is the way that you claim to know “only a handful of star athletes would”. Anyone wanting to field a team would find a way to compensate the players they needed, or they wouldn’t field a team. Why is that wrong?
And now you’re arguing Title IX again, even tho I pointed out that as an argument it has no weight and no bearing on the subject at hand; Title IX can be changed to reflect the corrections in compensation structure.
It’s a red herring because you’re talking about why the current laws very existence, which were put in place under, and in response to, the current cartel structure, mean we can’t change that very structure. It’s a circular argument.
The NLRB ruled that they were and that ruling has not been overturned, so yes, they are employees.
So they perform their services as volunteers? :dubious:
No; they don’t. They are compensated with scholarships. Do you dispute that characterization? I mean, can we start by agreeing or not agreeing on that point?
“So-called”? Why is this here? Are you seriously in doubt as to whether or not the NCAA and it’s member schools make profits? What kind of evidence would convince you that the profits are actual and not “so-called”?
What other professions do you feel this way about? In general, do you think it is better for income to be controlled and distributed to a workforce uniformly, in amounts arbitrarily determined by the person disbursing the funds?
Well that’s refreshing!
Again: arguing that changing the status quo will be difficult and so it shouldn’t be done is not an argument that carries much weight, if any.
Most NCAA schools don’t make profits, in any sport. Which doesn’t stop them for paying big bucks to coaches, for some reason.
It seems that part of the reason there are so little profits showing is partly because of those high salaries.
It’s like the non-profit charity that pays it’s director $10M/year but only disburses $20k in actual charity, citing a lack of funds to do more.
I just found the whole tweet, but it was this response that really caught my eye:
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Good burn, Mr. Butler; good burn! 
This whole issue of paying college athletes could be avoided if there were football and basketball minor leagues similar to what baseball has. The colleges could then have athletes that are legitimate amateurs and the ones that are likely to go pro won’t have to mess with college, they can go straight to the minor league like baseball players do.
How does that apply to the Adidas employees? They didn’t accept federal grant funds.
What bothers me is the use of the term “fraud.” I don’t understand who has been defrauded in any way. Yes, it is a violation of NCAA rules to pay players, but nobody is being lied to in order to induce him to do something. That’t the traditional definition of fraud which I am not seeing here.
According to the fed’s charges, the universities were defrauded by being denied the honest services of their employees.
On the theory that they hired people with the understanding that they would follow NCAA regulations? That seems spurious.
If an employee stays out too late and is too hungover to come into work, I could see that being an internal disciplinary proceeding, but under this law, the employer could argue that they have been defrauded.
Which is why critics of the FBI’s actions are accusing the Bureau of carrying the schools’ water for them – they are kinda sorta entrenching the NCAA rulebook into the criminal code.
Changing gears, I’m glad Bo brought up the circular argument charge. “You can’t pay them because this is amatuer sports” is almost the definition of circular arguments. It’s this last vestige of “amateurism” which is under scrutiny and legal attack. The amateur requirement was abolished by the Olympics and it is probably only a matter of time until it’s a non-factor in college athletics as well.
I still don’t understand how people spend their earnings or how other people might react to higher skilled people receiving higher earnings is (1) uniquely applicable somehow to college athletes and (2) justification for denying an individual the same commercial rights enjoyed by every other American adult. These arguments fly in the face of everyday experience.
:dubious::rolleyes:
So, the NCAA has established a blue collar commission to conduct a wide ranging investigation of shenanigans in college revenue sports while instructing said commission that the concept of amateurism is not up for debate. This is a little like investigating gangland murders in 1927 Chicago without examining the influence of Prohibition.
Pardon me for asking, but where did you see this? Although the concept of amateurism is not mentioned in the committee’s charter, it also isn’t expressly prohibited, and I have a feeling that Grant Hill and/or David Robinson are going to bring up the concept of money.
Meanwhile, nobody seems to think that this sort of a thing is a problem in football as well…
More like investigating gangland murders while denying that any such thing as “gangs” exist.
Did you mean blue ribbon instead of blue collar?
The idea of a blue collar commission is intriguing. I wonder what they would determine?
“Because college ball can be really boring, The Blue Collar Commission recommends that the Harlem Globetrotters be admitted as a Division 1 program.”