|
Post by silkyice on Mar 31, 2023 14:19:26 GMT -6
When I saw the article, I knew you would be posting LOL. FACTS I have zero concept of labor laws etc also. BUT, I still don't understand how the proposed plan of making scholarships 1, 2, 3, or 4 years long is different from the current scholarship plan as far as labor laws go. I get that they are really employees and the the current Supreme Court is more on the students/athletes side (rightfully so). Are you just saying that with any type of change, it makes it more likely that SCOTUS will make a huge change?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 31, 2023 19:32:20 GMT -6
Contracts always have escape clauses, buyouts, etc. I am sure the coaches and schools are abiding by those or lawsuits will happen or the lawsuit isn’t worth it and they drop the matter. Yes, but keep in mind that Gundy's comments were made because he believes that the transfer portal is the cause of instability (for him..as a coach). However he seems to ignore that the constant movement of coaches is the cause of instability for the players, the program, the institution etc. Again, Lincoln Riley boasted that USC was about to be the mecca of college football just a few days after making the same claim in Norman. And Brian Kelly left ND WHILE IT WAS STILL VERY MUCH in the hunt for the national championship. There was a very realistic chance that an interim HC could have led ND in the CFP. So in order to achieve the desired effect, these scholarship "contracts" would have to be written with some form of non compete preventing the student from participating. Otherwise why wouldn't your above statement hold true for the agreements with the players? Which could then likely lead to the best of the best recruits saying "uh, not me"- I am not signing any of that-potentially leading to some being offered agreements without limitations etc. When I saw the article, I knew you would be posting LOL. FACTS I have zero concept of labor laws etc also. BUT, I still don't understand how the proposed plan of making scholarships 1, 2, 3, or 4 years long is different from the current scholarship plan as far as labor laws go. I get that they are really employees and the the current Supreme Court is more on the students/athletes side (rightfully so). Are you just saying that with any type of change, it makes it more likely that SCOTUS will make a huge change? A few things: 1) the SCOTUS can't "make" any changes. What they can do is codify any court cases brought against the NCAA. They have made it crystal clear that they disagree with the NCAA's 70 year old claim that cogs in the multi-billion dollar collegiate sports industry are "student athletes". 2) Currently scholarships don't fall under labor laws because the idea of "student athlete" is still in place. But to maintain that, the NCAA had to actually put in place some policies to make the façade a bit better. So, just like someone who is studying chemistry at Florida can up and decide to go study chemistry at UGA instead, students who happen to play sports can reopen their recruitment (that is what the transfer portal really is) and now the revenue sports can also transfer one time without sitting out just like every other sport has been able to do for quite some time. The difference is that nobody ever hears about a water polo player transferring from Stanford to Pepperdine to play water polo. So, if Gundy (and your) idea came to fruition, I don't think it would take labor lawyers very long to immediately use that once and for all end the idea that the players are not employees. The NCAA fears the idea that athletes are employees far greater than they worry bout Mike Gundy not being sure who is coming back on his team after the season. The NCAA's revenue sports have become multi billion dollar operations over the past several decades on the back of free labor provided by employees who aren't recognized as employees. The false narrative that they are not employees is falling apart, and in a last ditch effort to keep that in place the wave of options and opportunities of these players because they "are not employees" has been increasing. What Gundy and other coaches are really complaining about and struggling with is lack of control caused by the NCAA trying to maintain this image. The coaches in revenue sports are struggling because before they had all the power and control but currently do not, as they can't control "students" from wanting to go "study" elsewhere. So it makes sense from Gundy's point of view to just drop the facade, and make them employees.
|
|