T1B

In its endeavor to have college football players be recognized as essential workers, CAPA likened scholarships to employment pay -- too little pay from its point of view.

That "too little" is about to get even less now that their scholarships are going to become taxable income.

mvscal wrote:

In its endeavor to have college football players be recognized as essential workers, CAPA likened scholarships to employment pay -- too little pay from its point of view.

That "too little" is about to get even less now that their scholarships are going to become taxable income.

Yep. And seeing as how they aren't having any taxes withheld from this "pay", they are going to get a nice fat fucking bill from the IRS, due in whole by April 15th.

Hmmm. The biggest bombshell in the history of college athletics and only three responses?

BTPCF my ass.

Mvscal,

I have kept my mouth shut on this for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that I am a member of a group of former players who is working with the NCAA to change the LOI and scholarship documents. A few of our members have also given briefs and testimony in the Ed O case.

Our goal is to completely rewrite the scholarship docs so that the schools make a four year commitment to players and in turn the players give up all rights to salary, endorsements, likeness, etc, etc, etc to the school for the length of their scholarship. A similar agreement without the free tuition would be drafted for walk on players.

Wow, 11 scholarships? That's criminal. So how do the teams divy them out? Full rides to 11 best players or halfies to as many as possible?

Schools are free to divide those 11 as they see fit.

Most divide them into Room, Board, Books and tuition. Then there are 44 pieces to hand out.


Schmick, most schools signed onto this baseball limitation to help with the Title IX issues of football having so many scholarships. Any discussion about adding scholarships must include the title IX considerations.

Not sure what point you are trying to make with the private school line. I am going to guess that you are trying to say that private schools cost more and therefore they can't attract the same talent because of that. I would counter that with the notion that most private schools have larger financial aid packages and larger aid packages in general.

Most schools already give cheer scholarships so...


I agree that baseball needs more scholarships, but I don't see it happening soon.

Cheerleading isn't recognized as a sport, so scholarships have no bearing on Title IX issues.

Lefty, good luck with that. I think all scholarships should be 4 year agreements. The fact that they aren't is absurd.

Union College hockey just made its second Frozen Four in three years and they don't do scholarships. Why can't private school baseball teams overcome that hurdle?

You should do a little reading on cheerleading and why it is labeled a "sport." It is very interesting.

See this page for more info. Varsity status or NCAA championship status has little bearing on Civil Rights or Title IX compliance.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inc ... orts-women

So clearly you didn't read the few words in the link I posted.

NCAA championship status, varsity status, etc may not have any bearing on Title IX status.

At least know what you are talking about when making your arguement.

Back to the union vote coming up at Northwestern.

This is going to be an issue at private schools mostly to start. The recent ruling said athletes are employees. At State schools that would make them public employees. Some states do not allow collective bargaining at all for state employees. Others place limits on them.

Left Seater wrote:Some states do not allow collective bargaining at all for state employees. Others place limits on them.

In Oregon, collective bargaining by state employee unions has a limit -- the sky.

schmick wrote:Well good, if they're going to be state employees they should have to prep in the state that they will be state employees for when they become college athletes

Right. Because all college graduates go on to be employees of the state they graduated from.

schmick wrote:Well good, if they're going to be state employees they should have to prep in the state that they will be state employees for when they become college athletes

That doesn't make sense on any level. In fact it is monumentally stupid. How about coaches? College professors? Any other state employee?

schmick wrote:firm believer that people should not move from the state they were born in... mainly because that would make a lot of people in California have to move away

If that rule had always been in place, you wouldn't live in Cali anyway. Moron.