With the landmark decision handed down yesterday that is allowing players at Northwestern to move forward with their unionization efforts the stage is set. Soon NCAA players could be getting paid. Of course this is far from a definite. The ruling comes from regional office of the National Labor Relations Board and the NCAA will appeal with many feeling this is destined for the US Supreme Court.
Should college players get paid?
It is definitely an extremely complex situation. We have all heard the arguments. They are getting a free education, but of course not all of them are on full scholarships. And then of course should the players on the Notre Dame football team, that rakes in millions upon millions, be making the same amount as the ice hockey team which makes some money for sure....how about the field hockey team?
And then it all comes down to what a union is? If all NCAA athletes unionized shouldn't the money be evenly distributed among money making sports and sports that lose money? That is the way MOST unions would work....except of course other sports unions like the NHLPA...just as an example.
It has always felt completely unfair that a football player at a university like Michigan isn't getting paid. 100,000 fans are paying to see them each time they play a game. Many wearing the jerseys with the players names on them...bought at $100+ a pop....and the player whose name is being used is seeing nothing?
That said...where do you draw these lines and if those lines are drawn based on revenues the sports make aren't e going to just see more athletes choosing those sports. Football and Basketball drive the NCAA. NCAA Baseball isn't a money maker..Hockey makes money in some places...Soccer doesn't. Volleyball....etc. You get the point.
Also, there is the valid argument that the money made from the football team helps support those other sports....allowing for more student athletes.. Or should incredibly high tuitions take care of that?
Many players who are generating huge sums for big schools are getting and education, but many are really not nearly as focused on that education as a normal student would be due to all the practices and travel and workouts required to compete at the highest levels. They are putting their bodies on the line and after 4 years 99.9% won't ever get paid to play football or basketball or hockey.
How does this affect college hockey vs. juniors?
The Canadian junior leagues have long been the place for the best prospects in the world to play hockey. The US College hockey teams have made great strides however and we are seeing more and more star players emerge from the ranks.
Both leagues offer very different concepts.
The Canadian Junior teams play more games, practice less, travel more. The kids often live with families and while they get their hockey equipment and a meal stipend paid for they don't get paid while some of the junior teams draw some pretty nice crowds as well. Some draw better than some pro AHL teams. They get 'some" schooling but nowhere near a college degree.
The College players on the other hand play far less games and practice more often. They don't get paid at all and in fact could be thrown out for accepting any help financially at all. They do get a degree of course, assuming they finish four years and the requirements.
When all is said and done it is interesting how we tend to see the benefits of college hockey and more practices through players who enter the NHL more well-rounded and mature...but not often more highly skilled since the superstar kids are more often in Juniors.
It is a stereotype of course, but there is no doubt the trends can be seen and because of the greater number of kids making the jump from college hockey to the NHL there are many parents of budding superstars giving the college programs a longer look...some saying it is toss up.
But what if college hockey players were to also get paid? Would more players come to the colleges? Would the Canadian junior Leagues have to take note?
What do you think?
Join the Discussion:
»