menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: USA Today: NCAA sends California governor letter calling name, likeness bill 'unconstitutional'
Page: 2 of 11
mail
person
cc-cat
9/16/2019 10:29 AM
No they don't work for free - they get the "opportunity" to get an education.

In a major that can be determined by their boss - the coach
Their scholarship is renewed at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach
Their offer for "employment" can be rescinded at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach (see Ohio basketball recruitment board)
Long-term medical issues are left to their responsibility, not their employer - or their boss - the coach

The situation is most distorted in the "money" sports and much less so in sports such as wrestling or soccer.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 10:47 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Student athletes are working for free? They get nothing in return for their work? Huh.
Honest question: what value does this add to the conversation?

There are open questions posed in this thread that opponents of compensating athletes/this particular legislation are avoiding like the plague, and you choose to participate by making a semantic argument and doing so sarcastically.

You clearly understand my point. Whenever you want to engage around it or any of the questions I've posed multiple times in this thread, you're welcome to.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 10:53 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Hundreds of people have to work for free because you don't want to have to reconsider how you spend your Saturdays for a fifth of the year? It's really childish.
You suggest athletes are working "for free." I questioned that. You get upset. Some things never change.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 10:57 AM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
In a major that can be determined by their boss - the coach [/QUOTE] Not required. Many athletes, including football players, major in what they want. If the coach won't permit it, the athlete is free to go elsewhere.

Their scholarship is renewed at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

[QUOTE=cc-cat]Their offer for "employment" can be rescinded at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach (see Ohio basketball recruitment board)
Long-term medical issues are left to their responsibility, not their employer - or their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 10:58 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Hundreds of people have to work for free because you don't want to have to reconsider how you spend your Saturdays for a fifth of the year? It's really childish.
You suggest athletes are working "for free." I questioned that. You get upset. Some things never change.
Yep, you're right. Some things never change. And everybody here is aware of what those things are except you.

As usual, my man, I'm happy to engage on substance. Whenever you want to do that, feel free.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 10:59 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
In a major that can be determined by their boss - the coach
Not required. Many athletes, including football players, major in what they want. If the coach won't permit it, the athlete is free to go elsewhere.

Their scholarship is renewed at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

Their offer for "employment" can be rescinded at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach (see Ohio basketball recruitment board)
Long-term medical issues are left to their responsibility, not their employer - or their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

Sounds like you're making the argument these are employees, no?
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 11:00:24 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 11:01 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
In a major that can be determined by their boss - the coach
Not required. Many athletes, including football players, major in what they want. If the coach won't permit it, the athlete is free to go elsewhere.

Their scholarship is renewed at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

Their offer for "employment" can be rescinded at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach (see Ohio basketball recruitment board)
Long-term medical issues are left to their responsibility, not their employer - or their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

Sounds like you're making the argument these are employees, no?
I thought you didn't want to engage? Anyway, I'm making the argument that the athletes are being paid, just not a salary.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 11:03 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Yep, you're right. Some things never change. And everybody here is aware of what those things are except you.
Nice shot at me, by the way. Way to keep it civil.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 11:07 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
In a major that can be determined by their boss - the coach
Not required. Many athletes, including football players, major in what they want. If the coach won't permit it, the athlete is free to go elsewhere.

Their scholarship is renewed at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

Their offer for "employment" can be rescinded at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach (see Ohio basketball recruitment board)
Long-term medical issues are left to their responsibility, not their employer - or their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

Sounds like you're making the argument these are employees, no?
I thought you didn't want to engage? Anyway, I'm making the argument that the athletes are being paid, just not a salary.
Yeah, man. I know. And I'm pointing out that if you consider their education compensation, than what keeps other labor laws from applying? If these are employees, it opens up a range of compliance issues.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 11:08 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Yep, you're right. Some things never change. And everybody here is aware of what those things are except you.
Nice shot at me, by the way. Way to keep it civil.
I repeated back to you what you said to me.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 11:09 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Yep, you're right. Some things never change. And everybody here is aware of what those things are except you.
Nice shot at me, by the way. Way to keep it civil.
I repeated back to you what you said to me.
What did I say to you?
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 11:11 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Yep, you're right. Some things never change. And everybody here is aware of what those things are except you.
Nice shot at me, by the way. Way to keep it civil.
I repeated back to you what you said to me.
What did I say to you?
You accused me of getting upset and said "some things never change." I said, you're right. Some things never change.

Then you got upset.

Pot, kettle, etc.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 11:11 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
In a major that can be determined by their boss - the coach
Not required. Many athletes, including football players, major in what they want. If the coach won't permit it, the athlete is free to go elsewhere.

Their scholarship is renewed at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

Their offer for "employment" can be rescinded at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach (see Ohio basketball recruitment board)
Long-term medical issues are left to their responsibility, not their employer - or their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

Sounds like you're making the argument these are employees, no?
I thought you didn't want to engage? Anyway, I'm making the argument that the athletes are being paid, just not a salary.
Yeah, man. I know. And I'm pointing out that if you consider their education compensation, than what keeps other labor laws from applying? If these are employees, it opens up a range of compliance issues.
My point has nothing to do with labor law. My response was prompted by your accusation that athletes were "working for free." Is that your position?
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 11:12 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Yep, you're right. Some things never change. And everybody here is aware of what those things are except you.
Nice shot at me, by the way. Way to keep it civil.
I repeated back to you what you said to me.
What did I say to you?
You accused me of getting upset and said "some things never change." I said, you're right. Some things never change.

Then you got upset.

Pot, kettle, etc.
Right. I guess you saw that as a personal shot. Ok.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 11:43 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
In a major that can be determined by their boss - the coach
Not required. Many athletes, including football players, major in what they want. If the coach won't permit it, the athlete is free to go elsewhere.

Their scholarship is renewed at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

Their offer for "employment" can be rescinded at the complete discretion of their boss - the coach (see Ohio basketball recruitment board)
Long-term medical issues are left to their responsibility, not their employer - or their boss - the coach
Sounds like my job.

Sounds like you're making the argument these are employees, no?
I thought you didn't want to engage? Anyway, I'm making the argument that the athletes are being paid, just not a salary.
Yeah, man. I know. And I'm pointing out that if you consider their education compensation, than what keeps other labor laws from applying? If these are employees, it opens up a range of compliance issues.
My point has nothing to do with labor law. My response was prompted by your accusation that athletes were "working for free." Is that your position?
You compared athletes' compensation and the way they're treated by the universities to your own employment situation, essentially making the point that the scholarships are compensation and the employment's "at-will." My point is that that comparison necessarily brings labor law into the equation. If these were students first and athletes second, would their access to education be dependent of their performance as athletes?

It's pretty clear we're in agreement that athletes are obviously working and thus workers. They're compensated with athletic scholarships, but given the value many create (and the obvious fact that the most valuable athletes should be majoring in being athletes) that compensation's not adequate.

Further, my stance is that once you acknowledge the scholarships as compensation, you're in turn acknowledging the athletes as employees. And once you do so, labor law comes into play and it's hard for me to not see the NCAA as being in violation of all sorts of labor laws as a result.

Which is why this bill should be seen as a saving grace for the NCAA, who idiotically is opposing it. This is a way for them to have their cake while letting athletes support themselves otherwise where possible. And from a labor law perspective, it would actually be super helpful for the NCAA's case if athletes are earning second source of income elsewhere.

OCF seems to think the opposite: that athletes getting compensated by a third party for a separate set of services is what would lead to the classification as employees. I'm confused by that.
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 12:38:12 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
cc-cat
9/16/2019 12:02 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Sounds like my job. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Robert Fox] Sounds like my job.


So at your place of employment all employees make the same salary / compensated the same amount regardless of the impact or value they have on the company's bottom line? Where do you work - Socialism R Us?
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 12:09:31 PM by cc-cat
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 12:10 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Further, my stance is that once you acknowledge the scholarships as compensation, you're in turn acknowledging the athletes as employees.
So your position is that any scholarship received is actually no different from pay. Is that correct? Do you make an exception for academic scholarships? Why? You also do not believe, apparently, in any sort of quid pro quo.

Not sure why you are in position to argue whether or not a full scholarship is adequate compensation. Wouldn't that be the decision of the athletes themselves?
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 12:21 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
Sounds like my job.


Sounds like my job.


So at your place of employment all employees make the same salary / compensated the same amount regardless of the impact or value they have on the company's bottom line? Where do you work - Socialism R Us?
You're changing the argument into one of equality. You were making a claim that didn't hold any water. Now you are changing the argument.
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 12:22:46 PM by Robert Fox
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 12:25 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Further, my stance is that once you acknowledge the scholarships as compensation, you're in turn acknowledging the athletes as employees.
So your position is that any scholarship received is actually no different from pay. Is that correct? Do you make an exception for academic scholarships? Why? You also do not believe, apparently, in any sort of quid pro quo.

Not sure why you are in position to argue whether or not a full scholarship is adequate compensation. Wouldn't that be the decision of the athletes themselves?

[/QUOTE]I'm not sure where you get the impression I don't believe in any sort of quid pro quo. I'm actually not arguing in favor of changing the relationship between universities and players in any way other than removing the limitations on athletes' ability to earn money based on their own talents on the free market.

I would be perfectly happy if the NCAA treated athletic scholarships as no different than athletic scholarships. But in practice, the NCAA places far greater restrictions on recipients of athletic scholarships than they do on recipients of academic scholarships and completely limits their ability to earn outside income. It's those limitations that this law is attempting to remove.

As an example: The founder of Imgur was an Ohio University student at the time of its founding. Let's say he was on an academic scholarship studying Computer Science. Would you have been okay with Ohio University saying that they owned the rights to any money earned by Imgur while said founder was on scholarship? What if the university forbade him from working on other projects altogether? Would you be okay with that? Because that's exactly how athletic scholarships currently work.


As for this. . .

[QUOTE=Robert Fox]
Not sure why you are in position to argue whether or not a full scholarship is adequate compensation. Wouldn't that be the decision of the athletes themselves?
isn't that an argument for just shutting down this message board altogether? Why are in any of us in a position to argue any of the things we argue?

But more directly, I don't think I need access to the Duke Athletic Department's books to know that the semester of tuition they paid to Zion Williamson was greatly eclipsed by the money Zion earned them.
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 12:43:30 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
cc-cat
9/16/2019 12:32 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Sounds like my job.


Sounds like my job.


So at your place of employment all employees make the same salary / compensated the same amount regardless of the impact or value they have on the company's bottom line? Where do you work - Socialism R Us?
You're changing the argument into one of equality. You were making a claim that didn't hold any water. Now you are changing the argument.
My argument was they are employees - to your point compensated - but with limited power and control (if you leave or are fired do you have to sit out a year?) - and ARE ALL compensated the same regardless of value - a point you have no issue with - or else you would believe in allowing them to add to their compensation. So bottom line. Do you believe athletes should all be compensated the same (aka socialism) or do you feel that in America those that contribute a greater value should be compensated a greater value?
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 1:03:00 PM by cc-cat
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 1:01 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
As an example: The founder of Imgur was an Ohio University student at the time of its founding. Let's say he was on an academic scholarship studying Computer Science. Would you have been okay with Ohio University saying that they owned the rights to any money earned by Imgur while said founder was on scholarship? What if the university forbade him from working on other projects altogether? Would you be okay with that? Because that's exactly how athletic scholarships currently work.
[/QUOTE]The athletes retain full "rights" to their own, future employability--be it athletic, professional or otherwise. They do not retain rights to the Ohio University Bobcats football team, nor should they. Just as the founder of Imgur had rights to his brainchild, but not rights to the Computer Science Department.

As for this. . .

[QUOTE=Robert Fox]
Not sure why you are in position to argue whether or not a full scholarship is adequate compensation. Wouldn't that be the decision of the athletes themselves?
isn't that an argument for just shutting down this message board altogether? Why are in any of us in a position to argue any of the things we argue?

But more directly, I don't think I need access to the Duke Athletic Department's books to know that the semester of tuition they paid to Zion Williamson was greatly eclipsed by the money Zion earned them.
No. Because I believe this attempt to make things better will actually have the reverse effect. And it's worth noting that I don't hear all that many current athletes grumbling so much as I hear politicos grumbling. You're all working to supposedly look out for "the little guy." Meanwhile, your solution could sh!t can the whole thing.
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 1:05:36 PM by Robert Fox
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 1:05 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
Sounds like my job.


Sounds like my job.


So at your place of employment all employees make the same salary / compensated the same amount regardless of the impact or value they have on the company's bottom line? Where do you work - Socialism R Us?
You're changing the argument into one of equality. You were making a claim that didn't hold any water. Now you are changing the argument.
My argument was they are employees - to your point compensated - but with limited power and control - and ARE ALL compensated the same regardless of value - a point you have no issue with - or else you would believe in allowing them to add to their compensation. So bottom line. Do you believe athletes should all be compensated the same (aka socialism) or do you feel that in America those that contribute a greater value should be compensated a greater value?
My argument is they are not employees. I do argue they get compensated, as I consider four years of tuition quite a good compensation. I also argue they are, or should be, classified as amateur athletes, and therefore are not paid a salary. Given that, I think they should be treated equally, i.e., receive the same benefit--scholarship.
mail
person
Robert Fox
9/16/2019 1:08 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I'm not sure where you get the impression I don't believe in any sort of quid pro quo.
Maybe because you started this whole thing off by saying the athletes were working "for free." Seems to me, you don't recognize the value of a free education, and therefore would not consider that a quid pro quo.
mail
person
cc-cat
9/16/2019 1:09 PM
Interesting - can you put others in this group of compensated but not employees category? Who would be such beings? Are they also paid a flat rate regardless of value? I would guess a contractor or free-lancer - but they are paid according to their worth? Who else lives in this compensated but not an employee world?
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
9/16/2019 1:13 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
I'm not sure where you get the impression I don't believe in any sort of quid pro quo.
Maybe because you started this whole thing off by saying the athletes were working "for free." Seems to me, you don't recognize the value of a free education, and therefore would not consider that a quid pro quo.
So after 5 additional posts and another 250 words of explanation you're back to seizing on a phrase from my initial post and making a semantic argument?

What was the point of my explaining myself further if that's all you wanted to do? We just exchanged 6 posts about how scholarships equate to compensation and you're back to trying to play 'gotcha' on my initial post. Cool.
Last Edited: 9/16/2019 1:16:40 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 252
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)