Dartmouth Delivers Potential Serious Blow To NCAA
- Thread starter bigmatt718
- Start date
I see it as a more serious blow to non revenue producing sports.
now They don’t have to graduate to make a living.
There seems to be the potential for a lot of unintended consequences in this.
As mentioned, it will negatively impact non revenue sports.
A lot of athletes even in revenue sports won’t be making a lot of money, but now everything they get (including the value of the scholarship) could be an employment benefit they will owe income taxes on.
I’m sure there are others.
As mentioned, it will negatively impact non revenue sports.
A lot of athletes even in revenue sports won’t be making a lot of money, but now everything they get (including the value of the scholarship) could be an employment benefit they will owe income taxes on.
I’m sure there are others.
Don't know what will happen, but doubt it will be good.
Seeing how programs (" boosters") are using NILs to acquire talent
I'm sure once players are considered employees we'll see salary and benefits will be involved when programs bring in talent.
As far as non revenue sports, some schools won't be able to afford them even if the players don't get paid.
Seeing how programs (" boosters") are using NILs to acquire talent
I'm sure once players are considered employees we'll see salary and benefits will be involved when programs bring in talent.
As far as non revenue sports, some schools won't be able to afford them even if the players don't get paid.
It was never a surprise the player/union thing began with Chicago/Northwestern
Last edited:
Take away their scholarships and give them a salary. Let the universities pay for their amateur athletes rather than expecting fans to buy their services. Sounds reasonable to me.
Schools should either drop most non revenue producing sports or drop those sports out of the power conferences. Does girls field hockey, softball, tennis, soccer, baseball really need to travel across country to play in a $50 million stadium in front of 125 fans? It is absurd.
Schools can still have those sports if they wish but I dont see the point in a non revenue sport with no fans traveling a thousand miles to play a non rival. Schools can go back to playing the actual geographical rivals from the old conferences. When you play local teams the attendance and interest would probably go UP. Both sets of fans can then attend a game. It cuts costs.
The sports that actually make big money can still be in the power conference.
Schools can still have those sports if they wish but I dont see the point in a non revenue sport with no fans traveling a thousand miles to play a non rival. Schools can go back to playing the actual geographical rivals from the old conferences. When you play local teams the attendance and interest would probably go UP. Both sets of fans can then attend a game. It cuts costs.
The sports that actually make big money can still be in the power conference.
I always bristle at your comment. For one, I was a student athlete so I take it as an insult. I also spend time with current athletes discussing resumes, how to prepare for job interviews, what work like is about, etc. By far and away the majority of the athletes at Rutgers are student athletes who are not only succeeding on the athletic fields and arenas but also in the academics. I'm sure you will now trot out an example like the Chris Washburns of the world that still is not sufficient to lend credence to your comment.This…so very this.
“Student athletes”phhhht!
Not for athletics, but they give them for academics. And a good athletes probably get "academic" money pumped their way. And don't forget endowment money that might cover their entire tuition (I'm not fully aware of how it all works, just surmising based on what I read/hear). And anyway, I was thinking along the lines the Dartmouth ruling would open the flood gates for non Ivy schools.
I’m not so sure that will be true if athletes are all considered employees and the scholarship is treated like any other employment benefit.
Colleges don’t currently have to make sure their staff is balanced like they do their athletes..
Good point. So, then it just becomes an accounting of how much players make to what sports you cut to keep the budget in check. The cut list now goes from biggest money loser to least. Bye, Bye Women's Basketball you're 1st on the list. That should ruffle quite a few feathers.
Imagine being an athlete of a non revenue sport and playing your sport for the love of the game and then having your sport cut because of revenue sports
This…so very this.
“Student athletes”
Interesting in that not only do the Ivies not have athletic scholarships but I believe they do not permit NIL payments. I wonder what what the appeal process is.
Obviously need to learn a lot more. If no distinction btw divisions can also see a lot of D2 and D3 schools dropping sports.
Does this mean that band members that perform at games are also employees? The school paper reporters and editors?
Heck how soon until the students are employees? LOLOL
Depending on how it structured the band would not necessarily be affected.
My son is in the band at the University of Maine. Technically each band (marching band, pep band, etc.) is a one credit course each semester and the only real expenditure by the school is the director and some buses once in a while when they perform at an off campus event (they don’t do away games).
Why, so you can threaten to boycott again, then not follow through for one game?
To be fair, I can't blame players for wanting a piece of the action when their coaches get 7 figures even for doing a bad job, schools get millions of media dollars to spend on anything they want and the players, always at risk of career ending injuries, get room, board and tuition.
they do. in most cases the revenue sports just lose a multiple of what non revenue sports lose.
A credit could be considered compensation, at least by the NLRB.
I made this exact argument last week in the latest Far Koko thread on Rutgers athletic spending
Do the non revenue sports charge admissions to to their games? They're in the same boat.
Not until they charge admission to watch them take exams.
Last edited:
How is this different than the Northwestern case years ago? I thought they also found the athletes could be considered employees and therefore unionize, but the scope of NLRB meant it would only hold for private institutions. Dartmouth is private so whats different this time?