Supreme Court To Take Case on Whether College Athletes are Employees or Students

[candycorn]

Supreme Court And Big-Time College Sports Meet For Potentially Big-Time Decision

The commercialization of big-time college sports has led to questions about whether the players are employees or student athletes.

www.npr.org

An Excerpt:


What could happen to the billions in revenue

A Supreme Court decision siding with the NCAA would likely fortify the NCAA's effort to maintain tighter restrictions on benefits for big-time college and basketball players. A decision holding that the NCAA has gone too far would likely lead to more benefits for players whose hard work and frequent injuries allow the schools they play for to reap billions in TV and other revenue.

----

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, it's clear that they bring in millions for schools. On the other hand, what determines how much someone gets paid? Would Trevor Lawrence (sp?) make the same as the third string tight end on Clemson?

Also telling was the following from the same source:

Last week 60 minutes reported that "at least 30 universities have cut almost 100 programs: soccer, squash, golf, gymnastics. Football powerhouse Clemson cut men's track and field. Stanford eliminated 11 sports. Schools are honoring existing scholarships, but more than 1,500 student-athletes, both men and women, will no longer have a team to compete for."

 

[pknopp]

Let them earn money but don't offer them scholarships. Save that for the students who work every bit as hard but are not able to work much but are every bit, or even more important to society.

We need scientists and doctors far more than defensive backs.

 

[TNHarley]

If they get scholarships, i dont see why they should get paid on top of that.
If they want to pay them, take away their scholarships. I guess if they suck, they will have to work on top of all the training. Thats a fucking great idea!

 

[Moonglow]

I want back pay for all the years I was a football player for free.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Supreme Court And Big-Time College Sports Meet For Potentially Big-Time Decision

The commercialization of big-time college sports has led to questions about whether the players are employees or student athletes.

www.npr.org

An Excerpt:


What could happen to the billions in revenue

A Supreme Court decision siding with the NCAA would likely fortify the NCAA's effort to maintain tighter restrictions on benefits for big-time college and basketball players. A decision holding that the NCAA has gone too far would likely lead to more benefits for players whose hard work and frequent injuries allow the schools they play for to reap billions in TV and other revenue.

----

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, it's clear that they bring in millions for schools. On the other hand, what determines how much someone gets paid? Would Trevor Lawrence (sp?) make the same as the third string tight end on Clemson?

Also telling was the following from the same source:

Last week 60 minutes reported that "at least 30 universities have cut almost 100 programs: soccer, squash, golf, gymnastics. Football powerhouse Clemson cut men's track and field. Stanford eliminated 11 sports. Schools are honoring existing scholarships, but more than 1,500 student-athletes, both men and women, will no longer have a team to compete for."

Just let the players profit from their name and likeness and let the market do its work.

 

[candycorn]

Supreme Court And Big-Time College Sports Meet For Potentially Big-Time Decision

The commercialization of big-time college sports has led to questions about whether the players are employees or student athletes.

www.npr.org

An Excerpt:


What could happen to the billions in revenue

A Supreme Court decision siding with the NCAA would likely fortify the NCAA's effort to maintain tighter restrictions on benefits for big-time college and basketball players. A decision holding that the NCAA has gone too far would likely lead to more benefits for players whose hard work and frequent injuries allow the schools they play for to reap billions in TV and other revenue.

----

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, it's clear that they bring in millions for schools. On the other hand, what determines how much someone gets paid? Would Trevor Lawrence (sp?) make the same as the third string tight end on Clemson?

Also telling was the following from the same source:

Last week 60 minutes reported that "at least 30 universities have cut almost 100 programs: soccer, squash, golf, gymnastics. Football powerhouse Clemson cut men's track and field. Stanford eliminated 11 sports. Schools are honoring existing scholarships, but more than 1,500 student-athletes, both men and women, will no longer have a team to compete for."

Just let the players profit from their name and likeness and let the market do its work.

Then the argument becomes, "Herschel Walker wouldn't have gotten those yards if I wasn't blocking for him." Or a QB is only as good as his receivers.

 

[candycorn]

Supreme Court And Big-Time College Sports Meet For Potentially Big-Time Decision

The commercialization of big-time college sports has led to questions about whether the players are employees or student athletes.

www.npr.org

An Excerpt:


What could happen to the billions in revenue

A Supreme Court decision siding with the NCAA would likely fortify the NCAA's effort to maintain tighter restrictions on benefits for big-time college and basketball players. A decision holding that the NCAA has gone too far would likely lead to more benefits for players whose hard work and frequent injuries allow the schools they play for to reap billions in TV and other revenue.

----

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, it's clear that they bring in millions for schools. On the other hand, what determines how much someone gets paid? Would Trevor Lawrence (sp?) make the same as the third string tight end on Clemson?

Also telling was the following from the same source:

Last week 60 minutes reported that "at least 30 universities have cut almost 100 programs: soccer, squash, golf, gymnastics. Football powerhouse Clemson cut men's track and field. Stanford eliminated 11 sports. Schools are honoring existing scholarships, but more than 1,500 student-athletes, both men and women, will no longer have a team to compete for."

Just let the players profit from their name and likeness and let the market do its work.

Then the argument becomes, "Herschel Walker wouldn't have gotten those yards if I wasn't blocking for him." Or a QB is only as good as his receivers.

Also, we set up a sub-economy to where players will go where they go to schools with better television contracts via their conferences.

But at the end of the day, it's a box within a box within another box.

John Q. Taxpayer pays X amount of taxes per year (state income tax, property tax, etc...) so that State U can build a football stadium, John Doe goes to school there so that he can play football. John Q. Taxpayer ends up paying Doe to play football. Unlike paying National Guard Soldiers or Highway Patrol Officers or firefighters or game wardens, there is no direct or indirect benefit to John Q. Taxpayer's outlay of money for John Doe.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Supreme Court And Big-Time College Sports Meet For Potentially Big-Time Decision

The commercialization of big-time college sports has led to questions about whether the players are employees or student athletes.

www.npr.org

An Excerpt:


What could happen to the billions in revenue

A Supreme Court decision siding with the NCAA would likely fortify the NCAA's effort to maintain tighter restrictions on benefits for big-time college and basketball players. A decision holding that the NCAA has gone too far would likely lead to more benefits for players whose hard work and frequent injuries allow the schools they play for to reap billions in TV and other revenue.

----

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, it's clear that they bring in millions for schools. On the other hand, what determines how much someone gets paid? Would Trevor Lawrence (sp?) make the same as the third string tight end on Clemson?

Also telling was the following from the same source:

Last week 60 minutes reported that "at least 30 universities have cut almost 100 programs: soccer, squash, golf, gymnastics. Football powerhouse Clemson cut men's track and field. Stanford eliminated 11 sports. Schools are honoring existing scholarships, but more than 1,500 student-athletes, both men and women, will no longer have a team to compete for."

Just let the players profit from their name and likeness and let the market do its work.

Then the argument becomes, "Herschel Walker wouldn't have gotten those yards if I wasn't blocking for him." Or a QB is only as good as his receivers.

Then, the counter-argument is, market yourself. Another is TOUGH SHIT. Not everyone is equal no matter how commie you try to be.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Supreme Court And Big-Time College Sports Meet For Potentially Big-Time Decision

The commercialization of big-time college sports has led to questions about whether the players are employees or student athletes.

www.npr.org

An Excerpt:


What could happen to the billions in revenue

A Supreme Court decision siding with the NCAA would likely fortify the NCAA's effort to maintain tighter restrictions on benefits for big-time college and basketball players. A decision holding that the NCAA has gone too far would likely lead to more benefits for players whose hard work and frequent injuries allow the schools they play for to reap billions in TV and other revenue.

----

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, it's clear that they bring in millions for schools. On the other hand, what determines how much someone gets paid? Would Trevor Lawrence (sp?) make the same as the third string tight end on Clemson?

Also telling was the following from the same source:

Last week 60 minutes reported that "at least 30 universities have cut almost 100 programs: soccer, squash, golf, gymnastics. Football powerhouse Clemson cut men's track and field. Stanford eliminated 11 sports. Schools are honoring existing scholarships, but more than 1,500 student-athletes, both men and women, will no longer have a team to compete for."

Just let the players profit from their name and likeness and let the market do its work.

Then the argument becomes, "Herschel Walker wouldn't have gotten those yards if I wasn't blocking for him." Or a QB is only as good as his receivers.

Also, we set up a sub-economy to where players will go where they go to schools with better television contracts via their conferences.

But at the end of the day, it's a box within a box within another box.

John Q. Taxpayer pays X amount of taxes per year (state income tax, property tax, etc...) so that State U can build a football stadium, John Doe goes to school there so that he can play football. John Q. Taxpayer ends up paying Doe to play football. Unlike paying National Guard Soldiers or Highway Patrol Officers or firefighters or game wardens, there is no direct or indirect benefit to John Q. Taxpayer's outlay of money for John Doe.

Sounds like you have a problem with value, worth, and ability. Sports are the ultimate meritocracy, just like life. If it were easy to become a college athlete worth millions to DI schools, everyone would do it. This is a good illustration for why Marxism does not work. Marx was an economy retard.

 

[Correll]

Well it is obvious that controlling the game to keep it from being dominated by the wealthier programs,

on the other hand, if there is no drama in the game because one or two schools always win, then the overall league suffers.


There is a real benefit from the monopoly for the whole sport.


But how to balance that with the Rights of the "Students"?


This is one small part the mess that is our Higher Education.


Maintain "amateur status"? What a load of crap. They are a professional minor league that is using the pretense of non-profit schools to hide from normal business taxes and regulations, and to gin up donations and subsidies.

 

[candycorn]

Supreme Court And Big-Time College Sports Meet For Potentially Big-Time Decision

The commercialization of big-time college sports has led to questions about whether the players are employees or student athletes.

www.npr.org

An Excerpt:


What could happen to the billions in revenue

A Supreme Court decision siding with the NCAA would likely fortify the NCAA's effort to maintain tighter restrictions on benefits for big-time college and basketball players. A decision holding that the NCAA has gone too far would likely lead to more benefits for players whose hard work and frequent injuries allow the schools they play for to reap billions in TV and other revenue.

----

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, it's clear that they bring in millions for schools. On the other hand, what determines how much someone gets paid? Would Trevor Lawrence (sp?) make the same as the third string tight end on Clemson?

Also telling was the following from the same source:

Last week 60 minutes reported that "at least 30 universities have cut almost 100 programs: soccer, squash, golf, gymnastics. Football powerhouse Clemson cut men's track and field. Stanford eliminated 11 sports. Schools are honoring existing scholarships, but more than 1,500 student-athletes, both men and women, will no longer have a team to compete for."

Just let the players profit from their name and likeness and let the market do its work.

Then the argument becomes, "Herschel Walker wouldn't have gotten those yards if I wasn't blocking for him." Or a QB is only as good as his receivers.

Also, we set up a sub-economy to where players will go where they go to schools with better television contracts via their conferences.

But at the end of the day, it's a box within a box within another box.

John Q. Taxpayer pays X amount of taxes per year (state income tax, property tax, etc...) so that State U can build a football stadium, John Doe goes to school there so that he can play football. John Q. Taxpayer ends up paying Doe to play football. Unlike paying National Guard Soldiers or Highway Patrol Officers or firefighters or game wardens, there is no direct or indirect benefit to John Q. Taxpayer's outlay of money for John Doe.

Sounds like you have a problem with value, worth, and ability. Sports are the ultimate meritocracy, just like life. If it were easy to become a college athlete worth millions to DI schools, everyone would do it. This is a good illustration for why Marxism does not work. Marx was an economy retard.

Sounds like you're just taking another opportunity to make an ass of yourself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Supreme Court And Big-Time College Sports Meet For Potentially Big-Time Decision

The commercialization of big-time college sports has led to questions about whether the players are employees or student athletes.

www.npr.org

An Excerpt:


What could happen to the billions in revenue

A Supreme Court decision siding with the NCAA would likely fortify the NCAA's effort to maintain tighter restrictions on benefits for big-time college and basketball players. A decision holding that the NCAA has gone too far would likely lead to more benefits for players whose hard work and frequent injuries allow the schools they play for to reap billions in TV and other revenue.

----

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, it's clear that they bring in millions for schools. On the other hand, what determines how much someone gets paid? Would Trevor Lawrence (sp?) make the same as the third string tight end on Clemson?

Also telling was the following from the same source:

Last week 60 minutes reported that "at least 30 universities have cut almost 100 programs: soccer, squash, golf, gymnastics. Football powerhouse Clemson cut men's track and field. Stanford eliminated 11 sports. Schools are honoring existing scholarships, but more than 1,500 student-athletes, both men and women, will no longer have a team to compete for."

Just let the players profit from their name and likeness and let the market do its work.

Then the argument becomes, "Herschel Walker wouldn't have gotten those yards if I wasn't blocking for him." Or a QB is only as good as his receivers.

Also, we set up a sub-economy to where players will go where they go to schools with better television contracts via their conferences.

But at the end of the day, it's a box within a box within another box.

John Q. Taxpayer pays X amount of taxes per year (state income tax, property tax, etc...) so that State U can build a football stadium, John Doe goes to school there so that he can play football. John Q. Taxpayer ends up paying Doe to play football. Unlike paying National Guard Soldiers or Highway Patrol Officers or firefighters or game wardens, there is no direct or indirect benefit to John Q. Taxpayer's outlay of money for John Doe.

Sounds like you have a problem with value, worth, and ability. Sports are the ultimate meritocracy, just like life. If it were easy to become a college athlete worth millions to DI schools, everyone would do it. This is a good illustration for why Marxism does not work. Marx was an economy retard.

Sounds like you're just taking another opportunity to make an ass of yourself.

Always.


But, that doesn't mean I am wrong. If everyone could play football, they would. If everyone held the spotlight, no one would. Some people are more interesting, talented, and valuable than others. Would you go see a movie with me in it? I wouldn't.