Schofield Tweet

#376
#376
If athletes are going to be employees, should they be limited to 4/5 years of employment? Why would they not have unlimited eligibility? Do they get unemployment benefits when they are terminated? Is healthcare a benefit? Should meals be taxed?

I assume that those not declaring all of their compensation will go to jail for tax evasion. What could possibly go wrong? How will it go over when federal law enforcers arrest star players before big games?

What happens when players cannibalize the revenue that was going to schools and was divided among coaches and administrators? Will players have their own TV shows and take advertising dollars away from schools, coaches, and administrators?

Should the best high school athletes be paid?

Will players have agents?

Will athletes be independent contractors, university employees, employees of boosters, or something else? Will public schools be permitted to use public funds to promote the athletes? Will institutions lose their tax exempt status?

There should be additional benefits related to football player's health no matter how this plays out. If they experience chronic, disabling injuries those things should be covered forever. Have a "tax" levied by the NCAA on coach's and adminstrator's salaries to fund zero deductable insurance to cover treatment for the rest of their lives. Actually every athlete should be covered. Soccer players have lots of concussions. But... what about pre-existing conditions?

The people that can't decide if Uros Plavsic gets to play at TN will figure all of this out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: golfballs and cardvolfan
#377
#377
Schools provide the platform. They get to make the rules. Athletes don't have to participate if they don't want to.

Employers have plenty of rules on employees. Many can't drink or smoke. There are rules about working part time for competitors. There are non-compete clauses in agreements. If you work for Coke you can lose your job if seen drinking a Pepsi.

Don't forget the gambling aspect. There aren't billions of dollars changing hands by the general public based on whether or not the micro-biology or chemistry majors patent new drugs.
 
#379
#379
BTW, Johnny Majors, Don Devoe, and their predecessors weren't allowed to promote products or businesses due to school policy. And they were "professional" coaches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardvolfan
#380
#380
JoAllan said:
Lol keep trying

You wanted to know where the “fairness” starts.

I said exactly where it is supposed to start. I have said in many posts it isn’t necessarily that way......yet it should be.

Amateur sports is “amateur” for the sole purpose of “fairness.”
Click to expand...

Oh. You re buying the idea that the AA is even worried about fair out side of a slogan no one that world there remembers.
And here I thought you were joking.
Apparently they are coming around to the idea after a some persuasion.
 
#381
#381
aaronvol said:
Everyone may think it's a great idea now, but wait until the market sets in. UGA will be able to hit the Atlanta market, USC/UCLA will have the L.A. market, Texas the Austin/San Antonio market, TCU the Dallas market, etc. It is an instant advantage to those schools that find themselves located in larger cities. Much easier to recruit to those kinds of places when the market of more people/more money is available. It will decimate schools like Auburn, Ole Miss, VT, USC jr, and so on. If you're ready for the biggest flip in power programs in the history of college football then hold on because here it comes. Bama will slide, Clemson will slide, Miami will have an instant advantage over FSU and UF, and Vandy will have an advantage over UT. So...fair or not, this is going to get weird. I think of all the schools in all of college football that this helps the most is UGA and USC.
Click to expand...

IYO, how might this affect the Locker Room / Team ? EG will the "successful" RB's, QB's and WR's take it all, or will they have side-contracts, so as to share their earnings with their OL (LB's with DL) ?
 
#383
#383
JoAllan said:
I never said that was the definition.

But amateurism is solely for fairness. That is exactly why we have amateur sports. Sure now days it’s turned into a huge business, but it exists to give fair opportunities.

I still don’t understand why an athlete who has the ability to play professionally and make money, isn’t always allowed to do so.......this is seriously what makes no sense and what needs to be fixed.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that our rules for athletes “turning pro” are unconstitutional restraints of trade. Every citizen has the right to earn a living by any legal means which others find valuable. Which gets to the crux of some of the athletics issues that IMO have an undeniable racial aspect - we treat some people like they can’t decide what’s best for them so we must protect them from working certain occupations despite being 18. I don’t want to go down that road on the chit chat board but you can enter a dangerous profession or go make as much money as you want as an 18yr old - unless you are a highly talented FB or BB player. Weird...
 
#384
#384
UT-Rex said:
IYO, how might this affect the Locker Room / Team ? EG will the "successful" RB's, QB's and WR's take it all, or will they have side-contracts, so as to share their earnings with their OL (LB's with DL) ?
Click to expand...

i think you're kind of making my point for me in some way. This is not a snarky comment I assure you. We are focusing on the money that the student-athlete will make. I am focusing on the market of particular cities and seeing that those cities will have a massive advantage because of the size of their market. Atlanta's market with UGA is much bigger than any other market in the SEC. Think of it like this. How will Starkville or Oxford or Auburn attract kids to come play at their schools when the market of those towns is so small in terms of what the market can pay a kid to come and play? If I were a stud player and I could go and market my image/likeness in Auburn, Alabama or Atlanta, GA...well I am going to Athens/Atlanta. Tennessee can dip into four cities (Knoxville, Chatt, Nash, Memphis...even though less for Memphis). But think of USC and UCLA. Holy Cow. The market there for kids is huge. This is what coaches will promote, "If you can make money doing this, where will you make the most?" Other schools with huge advantages...Ohio State in Columbus (most populated city in Ohio), Texas in the whole state of Texas. And, I am only thinking football...
 
#386
#386
Thunder Good-Oil said:
If athletes are going to be employees, should they be limited to 4/5 years of employment? Why would they not have unlimited eligibility? Do they get unemployment benefits when they are terminated? Is healthcare a benefit? Should meals be taxed?

I assume that those not declaring all of their compensation will go to jail for tax evasion. What could possibly go wrong? How will it go over when federal law enforcers arrest star players before big games?

What happens when players cannibalize the revenue that was going to schools and was divided among coaches and administrators? Will players have their own TV shows and take advertising dollars away from schools, coaches, and administrators?

Should the best high school athletes be paid?

Will players have agents?

Will athletes be independent contractors, university employees, employees of boosters, or something else? Will public schools be permitted to use public funds to promote the athletes? Will institutions lose their tax exempt status?

There should be additional benefits related to football player's health no matter how this plays out. If they experience chronic, disabling injuries those things should be covered forever. Have a "tax" levied by the NCAA on coach's and adminstrator's salaries to fund zero deductable insurance to cover treatment for the rest of their lives. Actually every athlete should be covered. Soccer players have lots of concussions. But... what about pre-existing conditions?

The people that can't decide if Uros Plavsic gets to play at TN will figure all of this out.
Click to expand...

Have you even read about the rule change? It has nothing to do with the SAs becoming employees of the university.
 
#387
#387
aaronvol said:
i think you're kind of making my point for me in some way. This is not a snarky comment I assure you. We are focusing on the money that the student-athlete will make. I am focusing on the market of particular cities and seeing that those cities will have a massive advantage because of the size of their market. Atlanta's market with UGA is much bigger than any other market in the SEC. Think of it like this. How will Starkville or Oxford or Auburn attract kids to come play at their schools when the market of those towns is so small in terms of what the market can pay a kid to come and play? If I were a stud player and I could go and market my image/likeness in Auburn, Alabama or Atlanta, GA...well I am going to Athens/Atlanta. Tennessee can dip into four cities (Knoxville, Chatt, Nash, Memphis...even though less for Memphis). But think of USC and UCLA. Holy Cow. The market there for kids is huge. This is what coaches will promote, "If you can make money doing this, where will you make the most?" Other schools with huge advantages...Ohio State in Columbus (most populated city in Ohio), Texas in the whole state of Texas. And, I am only thinking football...
Click to expand...
Will the top 4 HS QBs in the southeast every year all sign with UGA now?
 
#388
#388
It's hilarious that people are using the balance of power argument, stating that college athletics will only be for the rich and that programs like Clemson, Alabama, and Ohio State will benefit. Wake up. This is already happening. We've had the same 3 teams (AL, Clem, Okla) in the playoff two years in a row. Ohio State, Georgia, LSU, Notre Dame, etc. are already destroying every other program in recruiting and leaving others to pick up the scraps. College football has become so predictable. Everyone knew before the season started that Alabama and Clemson would make the playoff for the 5th straight year, and that the other usual suspects would be competing for the final two spots.

But let's be concerned that the balance of power will tip out of Tennessee's favor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 95 Vol Alum and allvol123
#389
#389
No one should be able to make money off your face without your consent and without paying you a percentage of the profit. If this was any other job, it wouldn't fly.

IF you dont agree with SAs getting paid, go tell your boss that you'll work without compensation as long as they give you tuition assistance and access to basic healthcare. We dont expect anyone else to do this, except SAs. College sports is a multi-billion dollar business built on the backs of 18-22 year old kids. They deserve to get some compensation for the use of their likeness and name.
 
#390
#390
VEKZY said:
Have you even read about the rule change? It has nothing to do with the SAs becoming employees of the university.
Click to expand...

They'd be employees or ICs for somebody if they get paid. If they aren't actually student athletes any longer, why would they have to leave after 4/5 years? The schools will be preventing them from making a living if they don't allow them to play as long as they are able.
 
#391
#391
BeecherVol said:
Will the top 4 HS QBs in the southeast every year all sign with UGA now?
Click to expand...

No. And I don't think your response is a meaningful one. You aren't asking a valid question and you are aware of it as well. What I am thinking is something more like this... A school like USC, even though they aren't a "powerhouse" right now has a MUCH greater chance to get that top recruit because of the market value of L.A. It will hurt some traditional powerhouse schools as well. How will Auburn fair? I can see it hurting schools like Nebraska. how will A&M be able to compete for in-state talent against the likes of TCU and Texas? These are some of the concerns I have. We can only wait and see how the markets determine player placement. Do you not think that this gives an advantage to schools with bigger money markets? Look...there is a lot more money to be made from businesses in Atlanta than Tuscaloosa...it has to have some sort of impact.
 
#393
#393
VEKZY said:
I don't think Admiral is saying anything against the university. Just saying that being able to profit off of his own image/likeness would be much more valuable than a college degree he will likely never use.

I don't see anything wrong with him wishing that he was able to make money / start profiting earlier.
Click to expand...
And that is the problem with this idea. If a kid gets 100K for an endorsement, why are they going to focus on a criminal justice degree? The whole student/athlete model will not survive this.
 
#394
#394
NASCAR had a good thing going but decided cookie cutter cars running on cookie cutter tracks all around the country was a good idea.
 
#395
#395
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The point is they worked under agreements and UT's policy was that if they wanted to coach UT then they couldn't have income from businesses. Nice try playing a race card though.
Click to expand...

Not a race card. It was the dont play the "well this is how things used to be" card to you. Because that is a dumb card.
 
#396
#396
Doctrippin said:
And that is the problem with this idea. If a kid gets 100K for an endorsement, why are they going to focus on a criminal justice degree? The whole student/athlete model will not survive this.
Click to expand...

When they split their time between generating income and developing their ability to play their sport, how will they find time to pass classes? When they flunk out is the school liable for any lost income if they have a rule requiring SAs pass a minimal amount of hours periodically?
 
#397
#397
aaronvol said:
i think you're kind of making my point for me in some way. This is not a snarky comment I assure you. We are focusing on the money that the student-athlete will make. I am focusing on the market of particular cities and seeing that those cities will have a massive advantage because of the size of their market. Atlanta's market with UGA is much bigger than any other market in the SEC. Think of it like this. How will Starkville or Oxford or Auburn attract kids to come play at their schools when the market of those towns is so small in terms of what the market can pay a kid to come and play? If I were a stud player and I could go and market my image/likeness in Auburn, Alabama or Atlanta, GA...well I am going to Athens/Atlanta. Tennessee can dip into four cities (Knoxville, Chatt, Nash, Memphis...even though less for Memphis). But think of USC and UCLA. Holy Cow. The market there for kids is huge. This is what coaches will promote, "If you can make money doing this, where will you make the most?" Other schools with huge advantages...Ohio State in Columbus (most populated city in Ohio), Texas in the whole state of Texas. And, I am only thinking football...
Click to expand...
You're not thinking deep enough here. Saban will be able to reach state-wide and get all the endorsement money he needs. Boosters will make sure of it. What's going to happen is they will be able to Guarantee a high school recruit an endorsement just to come play at AL. Now Kirby comes behind Saban and guarantees them even more money in paid endoresments, even before they have played one snap. Opening the door a crack here is going to create so many unintended consequences they have never considered. I see this getting totally out of control very quickly, and college sports will face it's biggest threat. The political left will begin the campaign to unionize the players and then it's a huge mess.
 
#398
#398
allvol123 said:
Not a race card. It was the dont play the "well this is how things used to be" card to you. Because that is a dumb card.
Click to expand...

I just pointed out a fact related to contracts in college athletics. You put something that I never said in quotes. Actually it changed because of school policy, not because the NCAA struck it down. Your injection of race is dumb.
 
#400
#400
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I just pointed out a fact related to contracts in college athletics. You put something that I never said in quotes. Actually it changed because of school policy, not because the NCAA struck it down. Your injection of race is dumb.
Click to expand...

And your defensiveness is comical.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top