ADVERTISEMENT

what are the "odds" ND

ch_seahawkfan

Fighting Irish Fanatic
Sep 25, 2007
2,354
61
48
what are the "odds" ND stays in the mix of Major CFB when players are treated as "employees" as they will without a doubt be.

"a workload for Notre Dame football players that’s beyond significant. Talking with former and current football players, a routine day was often times 15-hours from alarm clock to pillow, including a full class load, organized study hours, lifting, film study and practice that command far more time than any NCAA 20-hour weekly limit can fully encapsulate." http://bleacherreport.com/tb/dgGKx?...m=newsletter&utm_campaign=notre-dame-football

If athletes ruled employees, Notre Dame will seek new sports model, AD says http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...knight-commission-nlrb-labor-unions/27598219/
 
the USA today hack clearly is a ND hater- par for the course.

I think there would be a point where the Board of Regents just might step in and say this far and no farther and ND goes to playing the IVY League and the like.

And to be honest if College Football gets a lot worse (and this play for pay would indeed make it a lot worse) then I would have no problem going that route.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G_a_r_y
the USA today hack clearly is a ND hater- par for the course.

I think there would be a point where the Board of Regents just might step in and say this far and no farther and ND goes to playing the IVY League and the like.

And to be honest if College Football gets a lot worse (and this play for pay would indeed make it a lot worse) then I would have no problem going that route.

I'm not sure if I saw anything in the article that made him a hack or a hater.
 
the USA today hack clearly is a ND hater- par for the course.

I think there would be a point where the Board of Regents just might step in and say this far and no farther and ND goes to playing the IVY League and the like.

And to be honest if College Football gets a lot worse (and this play for pay would indeed make it a lot worse) then I would have no problem going that route.
if you had played you'd never, ever say that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bodizephax
what are the "odds" ND stays in the mix of Major CFB when players are treated as "employees" as they will without a doubt be.

"a workload for Notre Dame football players that’s beyond significant. Talking with former and current football players, a routine day was often times 15-hours from alarm clock to pillow, including a full class load, organized study hours, lifting, film study and practice that command far more time than any NCAA 20-hour weekly limit can fully encapsulate." http://bleacherreport.com/tb/dgGKx?...m=newsletter&utm_campaign=notre-dame-football

If athletes ruled employees, Notre Dame will seek new sports model, AD says http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...knight-commission-nlrb-labor-unions/27598219/
My average workday when I was there was typically 16-18 hours per day; I rarely got more than 6 hours sleep each day even through weekends. I worked a job (minimum 20 hrs per week) and did undergraduate research on top of classes. A 15 hour day is 8 AM to 11 PM each day; I am not convinced that this is much more than most students. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if most students are that busy during the semester.
 
the big difference in the jobs most students have on the side is ROI... Return on Investment is gigantic in CFB. Research and other stuff students do can be significant but there are no other areas of our "free market" economy where so much money is made from students efforts. They are employees by any definition and as pay becomes accepted I am confident ND will be able to find the way to compete and maintain high standards.
 
the big difference in the jobs most students have on the side is ROI... Return on Investment is gigantic in CFB. Research and other stuff students do can be significant but there are no other areas of our "free market" economy where so much money is made from students efforts. They are employees by any definition and as pay becomes accepted I am confident ND will be able to find the way to compete and maintain high standards.
That's an opinion not widely shared.
 
My sense is that if the NCAA did adopt a "payed employee" status for athletes, that most universities would drop out of the NCAA, and form their own league, where athletes are still students.

All that would be left of the NCAA would be SEC schools and a few others like FSU. Let's see how the pay-athlete schools would like that, with maybe 20 schools playing among themselves with basically "hired guns." My sense is that they would not like it very much, and interest in the "semi-pro-college football league" would be very low.
 
My sense is that if the NCAA did adopt a "payed employee" status for athletes, that most universities would drop out of the NCAA, and form their own league, where athletes are still students.

All that would be left of the NCAA would be SEC schools and a few others like FSU. Let's see how the pay-athlete schools would like that, with maybe 20 schools playing among themselves with basically "hired guns." My sense is that they would not like it very much, and interest in the "semi-pro-college football league" would be very low.

If I'm correct, I think the issue isn't necessarily that the NCAA would adopt a paid employee status, but that the NLRB would rule that student-athletes are employees. The latter would cover universities whether they're a part of the NCAA or not, assuming the general current model still stands.
 
i'm not worried because none of this is going to happen. you can't pay the john smith football player without paying the sally smith soccer player because of lawsuits that will be filed. I doubt schools like IU and Purdue from here in Indiana could afford to pay all athletes let alone small mac conference like schools
 
NDEwing18:

Thanks for that clarification; if indeed the Labor Board regards all athletes as employees, then I guess Universities would have to deal with that situation. I don't know what they would do; maybe the Universities don't in fact have to "pay" the players anything additional, given that they are already getting free tuition, room and board, and a stipend.

Maybe all that would be different would be that athletes, if they chose, could unionize (or not do this) at a given University, so as, if they unionize, to get better "working conditions."

Interesting stuff. I'll be very interested to see how this case comes out.
 
The state of Indiana has a "Right To Work" law which means no one can force an employee to join a union or pay union dues which means a union in the state schools would not be as strong as one might think. Athletes joining a union is the wrong way to go. They can organize their concerns through an "association" which means they are strong in numbers and represent themselves. All "association" dues go to their cause and not some union fat cat who doesn't have a clue and who doesn't care that he doesn't have a clue. My biggest concern for student athletes would be health coverage during and after the career is over. I have no problem with athletes organizing their concerns but they have to be careful not to be led down the wrong path. These lawyers and unions all have an angle and the best interest of these young people may not always be priority one. I never played college sports so it is hard for me to relate the time they put in for studies and team sessions but I can relate to grievances, unions, and organizing and its good points and its pitfalls.
 
As much as I enjoy College Sports the way they have been, it certain that the rules are going to change. Students can also be employees,,, happens all the time. Scholarship and pay. The income generating sports at the top conferences and independents will probably be asked to fund the other sports.


SC >
Sen. Marlon Kimpson, a Charleston Democrat, has pre-filed a bill that would require USC and Clemson to pay a weekly stipend of $150 to athletes who remain in good academic standing, up to $2,500 per semester. Additionally, the schools would have to allocate $5,000 each year for each athlete's trust fund. Upon graduation and the completion of a specified financial literacy course, the athlete could receive up to $25,000.

"My bill is a simple bill designed to show the student-athlete some consideration for the work they're doing on the field which is resulting in millions of dollars for the university," said Kimpson, <


UCLA coach says EG is a Mercenary > Hypocrite has taken Graduate Transfers >
“In order to have sustained success, in my estimation, you have to have a culture. If you bring in mercenaries, you fracture that culture. I think Everett is a great quarterback. Obviously, Jimbo Fisher disagrees with me. He’s won a national championship. I haven’t. That’s just my feeling.”

Mora also clarified that his use of the term “mercenary” simply reflected his attitude toward the use of graduate transfers, and did not imply that the Seminoles had committed NCAA violations in recruiting Golson.

UCLA had welcomed former Miami offensive lineman Malcolm Bunche as a graduate transfer last season, but Mora said that situation was different due to Bunche’s position. <

But Jimbo did say he and Everett were "negotiating" didn't he? Also, a friend I go to church with has a HSFB camp company, with events all over the country. He is of the opinion the Cam Newton story is not uncommon and he is convinced there is "Pay for Play" going on Rampant in CFB. I say rules should be reasonable and strictly enforced or they just encourage corruption.
 
Last edited:
I say rules should be reasonable and strictly enforced or they just encourage corruption.

As much as competition breeds success, it almost always leads to some form of cheating and corruption eventually. Always people willing to skirt rules to get ahead.
 
I think ND will always place it's mission statement on the premise that it is an educational institution.

If players are paid to play football, I will forego Sat. minor league apprentice football in favor of the actual professional football on Sun.

College football would be dead. The problems open up countless issues with the use of public monies for universities who hire 'football players',


Additionally I would cease providing free academic priviledge to 'mercenaries'.
 
Pay for play is not a new thing. It was happening in the early 1900s. Using "ringers" was a practice that some schools used for crying out loud. Just maybe stipends is a natural evolution of the sport we all love. Just like turf, facemasks, electric scoreboards, numbers on jerseys, calling plays from the pressbox, jumbos, TV revenue. None of us would even recognize the sport fifty years from now just like our grandparents watched a different game back in the 1930s. If any lawyer or union is going to offer their services to the players then something has to be in it for them. They are not going to help these kids out of the goodness of their heart.
 
If I'm correct, I think the issue isn't necessarily that the NCAA would adopt a paid employee status, but that the NLRB would rule that student-athletes are employees. The latter would cover universities whether they're a part of the NCAA or not, assuming the general current model still stands.
Umm, no.
All that has to happen and will happen is if that athlete is to be paid by some asinine rule, then the university can merely say fine...here is your tuition bill. In all reality how much is tuition, room/board, meals etc over the course of 4 years? 100k plus? Most definitely at some schools. So the player just got 25,000 dollars equivalence per year for playing a sport. Odds are the player will not make the professional league but has just received a pristine degree that he or she can use to start a great career and start making a nice income. Got that degree with no dime out of pocket just a return for their athletic services.
Moreover the moment they would impose a "pay for" policy then the door opens for the impossible situation of how much and to who? Example...Johnny manziel ...one could say he should be worth a lot ...let's say more than the right guard. Not true but you know how people are.
The arguments could be endless the moment they say "pay for". Football is the big money maker so should the other athletes concede to a lower pay because they are not playing football? Same token do you think the football player should be paid only as much as the swimmer?
Where on earth do you draw the line?
There are too many things to address for that to happen.
Just shut up, get your degree for your athletic services and enjoy the next step in life.
 
Umm, no.
All that has to happen and will happen is if that athlete is to be paid by some asinine rule, then the university can merely say fine...here is your tuition bill. In all reality how much is tuition, room/board, meals etc over the course of 4 years? 100k plus? Most definitely at some schools. So the player just got 25,000 dollars equivalence per year for playing a sport. Odds are the player will not make the professional league but has just received a pristine degree that he or she can use to start a great career and start making a nice income. Got that degree with no dime out of pocket just a return for their athletic services.
Moreover the moment they would impose a "pay for" policy then the door opens for the impossible situation of how much and to who? Example...Johnny manziel ...one could say he should be worth a lot ...let's say more than the right guard. Not true but you know how people are.
The arguments could be endless the moment they say "pay for". Football is the big money maker so should the other athletes concede to a lower pay because they are not playing football? Same token do you think the football player should be paid only as much as the swimmer?
Where on earth do you draw the line?
There are too many things to address for that to happen.
Just shut up, get your degree for your athletic services and enjoy the next step in life.

I don't think you understood my post.

For what it's worth, "where on earth do you draw the line?" is never a particularly good argument, or support for an argument.
 
I don't think you understood my post.

For what it's worth, "where on earth do you draw the line?" is never a particularly good argument, or support for an argument.
I understood just fine. My response was in regard to the labor board getting involved. Hypothetically if they imposed something stating the athletes need paid you automatically open up pandoras box. An impossible one. You know it won't take but 5 minutes before the student athlete begins to state I should be worth more than this player or athlete of a lesser exposed sport. It will even be said player "x" is worth more than player "y" not only of the same sport but the same team. The arguments become endless and equality becomes impossible in only trying to be equal and fair...which would be the labor board's stance and slogan here.

As I said above the monetary value of the trade between education and athletic service will be driven home.
The mess this would become.
 
I understood just fine. My response was in regard to the labor board getting involved. Hypothetically if they imposed something stating the athletes need paid you automatically open up pandoras box. An impossible one. You know it won't take but 5 minutes before the student athlete begins to state I should be worth more than this player or athlete of a lesser exposed sport. It will even be said player "x" is worth more than player "y" not only of the same sport but the same team. The arguments become endless and equality becomes impossible in only trying to be equal and fair...which would be the labor board's stance and slogan here.

As I said above the monetary value of the trade between education and athletic service will be driven home.
The mess this would become.
Yet there appears to be some CFB fans rooting for it to happen. Strange.
 
I understood just fine. My response was in regard to the labor board getting involved. Hypothetically if they imposed something stating the athletes need paid you automatically open up pandoras box. An impossible one. You know it won't take but 5 minutes before the student athlete begins to state I should be worth more than this player or athlete of a lesser exposed sport. It will even be said player "x" is worth more than player "y" not only of the same sport but the same team. The arguments become endless and equality becomes impossible in only trying to be equal and fair...which would be the labor board's stance and slogan here.

As I said above the monetary value of the trade between education and athletic service will be driven home.
The mess this would become.

I don't understand why people seem to have no issues with coaches, athletic directors, universities, TV networks, bowls, and corporate sponsors getting fat off of college athletics, but the moment that student-athletes pipe up and want a bigger slice of the pie, that's all of a sudden an issue.

I don't particularly have an issue with student-athletes getting some additional form of compensation. We don't seem to have an issue with coaches, athletic directors and schools making money hand over fist or having discrepancies in the amount of money paid to Ohio State vs. Louisiana-Lafayette.
 
ADVERTISEMENT