you tell me. I was asking around about the schooling and tutoring kids in Canadian juniors and couldn't find anywhere they earned college degrees..is there an example of where they do? I would be glad to change this..
- Eklund

http://www.bestofbothworl...ca/ohl-scholarship-s12057

The athletes? I daresay the college would no longer be a college and would instead be a sporting franchise.
- wolfhounds

I'm under the belief that many of the big name schools are now. They are an academic institution that also runs a sports business.

Don't get me wrong many schools actually operate with integrity. Their student athletes are legitimately smart people who get good grades and will go on to be something. But there is a lot of corruption. And when the school gets busted for violations the coach splits and goes pro and keeps making millions per year.

Yup, but a ruling can't be applied to one sport only.
- wolfhounds

Agreed...which is what makes it so tough.

For football and basketball it is a joke though....so much revenue gained off the backs of the players, tough to argue they shouldn't see some of it. But then at what point does it become a job and not school?

They will be paid in Bratwurst!!

The NCAA makes money from every bowl game but the schools themselves only make money if they make it to a bowl game or tournament game etc. If you break it down by expense you wouldn't believe how much money goes into the game before they open the doors.

I know that a school's hockey team around here budget for officials is $40,000. That's just for the officials for the home games for a hockey team. Sports do cost schools a ton of money and not all of them make money.
- Stripes77

Here's an interesting article:

As the SEC’s top team, Alabama will earn its conference a hefty $23.6 million payout from the BCS. The independent Notre Dame doesn’t have a conference to share with, but it does have one of the best deals in college sports. The Fighting Irish will receive a unique $6.2 million payout for making a BCS bowl game this season (and the team even collects about $1.9 million in years it fails to qualify for a bowl). Tonight’s combined $30 million in reward money is worth roughly 25% of the BCS’s annual net revenue.

Don’t worry too much for the BCS, though, because it will have no problem making that money back thanks to wealthy TV deals with ESPN. The network pays more than $150 million per year for the rights to all five BCS bowls. And those paychecks will only get bigger as college football moves to a playoff system for the 2014 season. ESPN is in the process of securing the playoff TV rights, and many expect the network will eventually have to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 million annually for them.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...cs-national-championship/

The filing to start a union of college athletes (primarily football players) was not started because players want to be paid. First of all, it was started by players that go to Northwestern (a school notorious for treating their collegiate athletes well) and will never see the benefits of said union.

The main focus of wanting to unionize is healthcare. NCAA athletes are not given continuing healthcare through their lives. This is an issue with football because of the high number of concussions that have been leading to many professional players having long-term health problems. The athletes at Northwestern (and most NCAA athletes) believe that there should be some form of continuing healthcare throughout the lives of those players that do not go on to be professional football players, as they could have health issues that extend from their time as an athlete for a university.

I am sure that they wish to get paid for what they do, and I am not arguing they should or shouldn't, but the main purpose of the union has already been lost in the media. The focus is on players having the coverage they need so they aren't paying massive amounts for issues stemming from their time as an athlete in college.

Agreed...which is what makes it so tough.

For football and basketball it is a joke though....so much revenue gained off the backs of the players, tough to argue they shouldn't see some of it. But then at what point does it become a job and not school?
- The-O-G

Right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/0...-athletes-reading-scores/

I'm under the belief that many of the big name schools are now. They are an academic institution that also runs a sports business.

Don't get me wrong many schools actually operate with integrity. Their student athletes are legitimately smart people who get good grades and will go on to be something. But there is a lot of corruption. And when the school gets busted for violations the coach splits and goes pro and keeps making millions per year.
- Buffalo-Sabres

No doubt. I think it's complete and utter bullpoop.

Here's an interesting article:



http://www.forbes.com/sit...cs-national-championship/
- wolfhounds

Yeah I mean the big time programs at big time schools make tons of money. But what about say Mercer? Their basketball team knocked off Duke. But what about their baseball team or football team (if they have one). The issue here is looking at the few big time programs and then realize there are hundreds of schools that have sports but arent a big program. Are you going to pay those kids as well? Are they going to earn what the football players make? Its opening a huge can of worms here.

Yeah I mean the big time programs at big time schools make tons of money. But what about say Mercer? Their basketball team knocked off Duke. But what about their baseball team or football team (if they have one). The issue here is looking at the few big time programs and then realize there are hundreds of schools that have sports but arent a big program. Are you going to pay those kids as well? Are they going to earn what the football players make? Its opening a huge can of worms here.
- Stripes77

Agreed. No easy answer, but at least the discussion is happening.

Yeah I mean the big time programs at big time schools make tons of money. But what about say Mercer? Their basketball team knocked off Duke. But what about their baseball team or football team (if they have one). The issue here is looking at the few big time programs and then realize there are hundreds of schools that have sports but arent a big program. Are you going to pay those kids as well? Are they going to earn what the football players make? Its opening a huge can of worms here.
- Stripes77

There are huge issues with the reporting of numbers by collegiate athletic departments. A lot more athletic departments make money than is often cited in argument against paying players. Not to say the Mercer argument isn't a good one, but I think they are throwing around a number like 24 athletic departments make money, and that is wildly inaccurate.

You also have to take into account the fact that students want to go to schools with good athletics. That increase in revenue through tuition cannot be calculated, but is definitely a way in which an athletic department is making a school money but isn't reported.

If I"m Colleges, and this goes through, I do the following..

1) Hire them as independent contractors. They'd have to pay their own taxes, medical and all other expenses including housing and food.

2) Sign a contract for 2 years. If they want to leave early, they must pay an opt out fee. If the school doesn't want them, they get a buyout fee. Bad behavior gets them booted off the team, College to get reimbursed for money paid to them.

3) If they give away any part of the uniform, they must reimburse the school.

4) They must pay 50,000 U.S. tuition fees minimum, per year.

So many other things that would be added that they'd make almost nothing!
And what would stop one of these kids from getting hurt and filing a Workers Comp claim? I can go on and on. I love how this WASN'T very well thought out by college kids. And getting a UNION? LMAO. Union's are a sure fire way to strike and lose jobs! I won't work at a place that has a union
- twpguy

You could do that. In response, I'll offer a much sweeter deal, and they'll all come sign for my school, and I'll have a great team.

That's what the free market would dictate, in theory. In practice, who knows?

Soon NCAA players could be getting paid.
- Eklund

No. Not anytime soon. The courts decision on Northwestern affects 17 private schools. No state universities.

And this will be overturned at the next level.

Much ado about nothing.

There are huge issues with the reporting of numbers by collegiate athletic departments. A lot more athletic departments make money than is often cited in argument against paying players. Not to say the Mercer argument isn't a good one, but I think they are throwing around a number like 24 athletic departments make money, and that is wildly inaccurate.

You also have to take into account the fact that students want to go to schools with good athletics. That increase in revenue through tuition cannot be calculated, but is definitely a way in which an athletic department is making a school money but isn't reported.
- SolidGoldBricks

The books need to be opened for anyone to be able to make an sense of it all. I just think that it could have a negative effect on the non major sports at these schools and those student athletes that are going there because they were offered a scholarship to play a game and get an education are going to be the ones suffering

For "more" players to leave the CHL to play in the NCAA, the NCAA would have to change the rules that CHL players are ineligible to play in the NCAA because the NCAA considers CHL players to be "pros" because of the stipend and educational compensation they receive(plus CHL players that are on entry-level deals with NHL clubs). So there's that.

CHL vs. NCAA isn't an "is one better" argument. It depends on the player and where they might be going in terms of their development, and the players should be informed as possible when making their decision on what route to take.

Eklund: Should US College Hockey Players Get Paid? Would More Leave Juniors?
- Eklund

Is the NCAA better than Juniors?
Wrll i would reply with, when was the last time an 18 year old superstar emerged from the NCAA to take te NHL by the storm, it just doesnt happen, most college "superstars come in to the league in their early twenties, certainly they have had more time to hone their skills, but the elite still come from juniors for the most part, even the euro superstars come in their 20s because theyve also taken more time, nothing wrong with taking more time to hone skills and probably even better in the long run especially for a two way game, but the above average players who are gifted still come from juniors

No. Not anytime soon. The courts decision on Northwestern affects 17 private schools. No state universities.

And this will be overturned at the next level.

Much ado about nothing.
- bcallaway

Why do you figure that?

My idea:

Discontinue all athletic scholarships.

A player will be awared a scholarship based only on academics. If he is smart and plays on a team he should get paid the amount his college will cost year by year. (So he has a full ride plus money)

If a player does not get much scholarship from his academics but plays on a team, he will still be paid the amount that college will cost year by year.

Lets say school costs 40k per year.

So if you are smart and playing D1 hockey for example, you have a full ride and get paid 40k per year

If you are an average student (half ride) you will owe 20k per year. Playing D1 hockey though pays you 40k a year. You can choose to pay the school 20k and keep 20k spending cash per year or you could take out 20k in loans and keep the 40k for yourself.

This would be very interesting in other sports as well like football and basketball.

We would then see academically savy athletes getting paid more than an average athlete who would really only get paid a chunk due to his academics not being as great. It forces the students to think of academics first and not just being an athlete. By screwing up grades you could lose that scholarship and owe more money.

EDIT: And there has to be a cap to make all schools even

The filing to start a union of college athletes (primarily football players) was not started because players want to be paid. First of all, it was started by players that go to Northwestern (a school notorious for treating their collegiate athletes well) and will never see the benefits of said union.

The main focus of wanting to unionize is healthcare. NCAA athletes are not given continuing healthcare through their lives. This is an issue with football because of the high number of concussions that have been leading to many professional players having long-term health problems. The athletes at Northwestern (and most NCAA athletes) believe that there should be some form of continuing healthcare throughout the lives of those players that do not go on to be professional football players, as they could have health issues that extend from their time as an athlete for a university.

I am sure that they wish to get paid for what they do, and I am not arguing they should or shouldn't, but the main purpose of the union has already been lost in the media. The focus is on players having the coverage they need so they aren't paying massive amounts for issues stemming from their time as an athlete in college.
- SolidGoldBricks

You should ask the football programs in the big 5 what they really care about. It isn't health care.

Yes, pay college athletes. It is not nearly as complicated as Ek makes out. College athletes in the US already receive compensation as Ek and everyone knows. College tuition and any other support given is not cheap anymore. Tens of thousands of dollars a year at least.

You can divide the benefit in terms of revenue into several categories. Individuals, teams, schools and league(s). Obviously the issue is how to divide the revenue in the highest earning sports - this is where the greatest imbalances happen. Players earning revenue for schools who collect huge amounts over and above benefits given to players making it unfair.

So in those leagues, do you make a different fee payment for starters and backup players? Probably. Do you pay more for some leagues and not others? That is up for negotiation but in the business world economics rule, so probably in this case as well. Higher revenues, some higher payments. Do you pay star players more than other players? Again, there are precedents that can be negotiated.

Now, if you wanted to preserve the balance of the university or college, it is possible a reasonable compromise may lead to the player having the option to defer payments until after they finish school - graduated or not. But the legal opinions of how and when that may happen is unknown to me, a non-lawyer. But if a reasonably fair system is decided, I'm sure courts will go along.

Something is seriously messed up with the NCAA and college sports...

Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies

Even with $10.3 million in subsidies, Arizona State, a member of the Pacific-12, fell more than $5.7 million short of covering its expenses — the fourth consecutive year in which it has had an overall annual operating deficit.

All this comes at a time when academic spending at many schools is declining or not increasing at the same pace as athletics spending, according to a recent report by the Delta Cost Project at the non-profit American Institutes for Research. That report was based on data from the Education Department and data collected by USA TODAY Sports for its annual College Athletics Finances Database.

http://www.usatoday.com/s...nances-subsidies/2142443/


NCAA had record $71 million surplus in fiscal 2012

The new financial statement -- dated Nov. 29, 2012 – also includes a item that reiterates the NCAA's oft-expressed confidence in its ability to prevail in an anti-trust lawsuit concerning the use of football and men's basketball players' names, images and likenesses.

Here is an easy way to get the ball rolling in the direction the the big 5 conferences really want:

If you want to be a part of the BCS or NCAA tourney, then you, the school, must agree to pay taxable stipends. If you agree to that, you will be a part of the new D1 of the NCAA.
The NCAA will allot a percentage of gross revenues from non gate receipts, minus the amount to run said tournament/bowl that those institutions opting into the new D1 MUST use on athlete stipends. That money may not be used for salaries or any other institutional funding.

just a starting point, but believe me, this is what the big boys want. and the only way it happens is to get rid of the rest of us out of D1, because when this kind of thing comes to a vote, we "small" institutions vote against it.

And make no mistake, if this makes it past this initial level and actually takes hold, it will have a dramatic impact on ALL of the non revenue sports, which is everything outside of basketball and football.

And just wait until they try to pay just those two teams and exclude the women.

Here is an easy way to get the ball rolling in the direction the the big 5 conferences really want:

If you want to be a part of the BCS or NCAA tourney, then you, the school, must agree to pay taxable stipends. If you agree to that, you will be a part of the new D1 of the NCAA.
The NCAA will allot a percentage of gross revenues from non gate receipts, minus the amount to run said tournament/bowl that those institutions opting into the new D1 MUST use on athlete stipends. That money may not be used for salaries or any other institutional funding.

just a starting point, but believe me, this is what the big boys want. and the only way it happens is to get rid of the rest of us out of D1, because when this kind of thing comes to a vote, we "small" institutions vote against it.

And make no mistake, if this makes it past this initial level and actually takes hold, it will have a dramatic impact on ALL of the non revenue sports, which is everything outside of basketball and football.

And just wait until they try to pay just those two teams and exclude the women.
- nails[/quote]

That's where it gets complicated. 2 money sports vs. all the dead weight the other sports carry.

Something is seriously messed up with the NCAA and college sports...



http://www.usatoday.com/s...nances-subsidies/2142443/


NCAA had record $71 million surplus in fiscal 2012
- wolfhounds

You think this is bad, check out Tennessee.
And I would caution on one thing...a lot of the studies use capital expenses for athletics as well as operating costs. It costs a lot more to build a new basketball arena than it does to build a new library. Also, those schools that have big time football AND basketball are paying the 2 head coaches more than an entire department of professors are making. some of that is a supply and demand thing just as much as overpaying for a coach.

[quote=nails]Here is an easy way to get the ball rolling in the direction the the big 5 conferences really want:

If you want to be a part of the BCS or NCAA tourney, then you, the school, must agree to pay taxable stipends. If you agree to that, you will be a part of the new D1 of the NCAA.
The NCAA will allot a percentage of gross revenues from non gate receipts, minus the amount to run said tournament/bowl that those institutions opting into the new D1 MUST use on athlete stipends. That money may not be used for salaries or any other institutional funding.

just a starting point, but believe me, this is what the big boys want. and the only way it happens is to get rid of the rest of us out of D1, because when this kind of thing comes to a vote, we "small" institutions vote against it.

And make no mistake, if this makes it past this initial level and actually takes hold, it will have a dramatic impact on ALL of the non revenue sports, which is everything outside of basketball and football.

And just wait until they try to pay just those two teams and exclude the women.
- Buffalo-Sabres[/quote]

That's where it gets complicated. 2 money sports vs. all the dead weight the other sports carry.

I am one of those dead weight sports.
so is hockey.

My guess is that we end up with a D1 subdivision that operates as the current d1 does.
When the student athlete signs the NLI, they will also waive their right to unionize at that institution.