59bear;842299505 said:

---

Football is a voluntary activity for some, perhaps all if you consider the player has to voluntarily accept the scholarship offer for it to be granted. Presumably there are 2 classes of football players under this ruling: 1) scholarship players who are employees and 2) non-scholarship players who are not employees.

---

How is it voluntary if a scholarship football player signs a contract (National Letter of Intent) with an institution to play for the duration of his eligibility?

If a scholarship player transfers to another institution, he effectively loses a year of eligibility; he must not play for a year after transferring. That's not "voluntary" at all.

What you posit is some sort of linguistic contortion to make the current situation fit the definition of "voluntary". Let's avoid all that and simply acknowledge what should be obvious: scholarship football players are, in fact, employees of the institutions they represent.

FiatSlug;842299531 said:

---

How is it voluntary if a scholarship football player signs a contract (National Letter of Intent) with an institution to play for the duration of his eligibility?

If a scholarship player transfers to another institution, he effectively loses a year of eligibility; he must not play for a year after transferring. That's not "voluntary" at all.

What you posit is some sort of linguistic contortion to make the current situation fit the definition of "voluntary". Let's avoid all that and simply acknowledge what should be obvious: scholarship football players are, in fact, employees of the institutions they represent.

---

After all that hocus-pocus, I would next like to see you explain to the "employees" how they will pay the considerable income taxes that they will owe. Not to mention the union dues, and FICA withholding. They'll feel sooooo vindicated by your rhetorical legerdemain. You are, after all, looking out for THEIR interests, aren't you, despite having put the IRS on their tails. Oh, how lovely is a theoretical argument that purports to prove a point...in a vacuum.

Rushinbear;842299560 said:

---

After all that hocus-pocus, I would next like to see you explain to the "employees" how they will pay the considerable income taxes that they will owe. Not to mention the union dues, and FICA withholding. They'll feel sooooo vindicated by your rhetorical legerdemain. You are, after all, looking out for THEIR interests, aren't you, despite having put the IRS on their tails. Oh, how lovely is a theoretical argument that purports to prove a point...in a vacuum.

---

Why am I going to explain that? I'm not advocating for paying players.

I'm advocating for college football players to actually be students first, and athletes second unlike the current conditions.

Let the NFL found and support their own minor leagues.

"...I'm not advocating for paying players."

"I'm advocating for college football players to actually be students first, and athletes second unlike the current conditions."
We're on the same page on these 2 ideas. How do we get there?

Let the NFL found and support their own minor leagues.

This will happen when Hell freezes over. More likely, some other entity/ies will arise to provide this option. Maybe each of the major bowl committees can form/operate satellite minor leagues to fill their New Year schedules.

FiatSlug;842299531 said:

---

How is it voluntary if a scholarship football player signs a contract (National Letter of Intent) with an institution to play for the duration of his eligibility?

If a scholarship player transfers to another institution, he effectively loses a year of eligibility; he must not play for a year after transferring. That's not "voluntary" at all.

What you posit is some sort of linguistic contortion to make the current situation fit the definition of "voluntary". Let's avoid all that and simply acknowledge what should be obvious: scholarship football players are, in fact, employees of the institutions they represent.

---

It's voluntary because they don't have to agree to the scholarship terms and don't have to sign that contract.

For the most part, we are on the same page. College athletes shouldn't be paid and should be students first. Minor leagues should be established but won't because nobody with financial acumen can make that model work.

I don't believe it is up to colleges and the NCAA to become a minor league systems for the benefit of the small percentage of players who will go on to professional careers. IMO, this is the tail wagging the dog. You're catering to the very few to the detriment of >99% of college athletes.

59bear;842299629 said:

---

"...I'm not advocating for paying players."

"I'm advocating for college football players to actually be students first, and athletes second unlike the current conditions."
We're on the same page on these 2 ideas. How do we get there?

---

I'd go back to the NLRB ruling for a starting point. Specifically, the ruling indicates that scholarship athletes are not under the supervision of an academic faculty member (when comparing the Northwestern University case with the Brown University grad students case). This suggests to me that academic-administrative personnel must maintain oversight of athletics at any university that accepts federal funds (research grants, grants-in-aid to students, etc.). Further, all athletic donors will come under the purview and oversight of the academic-administrative personnel responsible for Athletic Department oversight.

Restrict practices, team meetings, and training to 8 hours per week in-season and 10 hours per week out-of-season. Practices, meetings, and training can only occur during the morning (e.g., 6:00 AM to 8:00 AM) and afternoon (e.g., 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM); which is to say outside of lecture, lab, and section hours and still allow student athletes time to study during their busy day.

My sons played rugby during their high school years as part of a club not sponsored or associated with their high school. Each week their schedule in-season was practice on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM with a 1 hour meeting on Wednesdays (5:00 PM to 6:00 PM) to review film. Pre-season practice was on Saturday mornings from 9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon. Games were typically on Saturdays during the same slot, only there were two games during that time (Varsity and JV).

Their commitment was more extensive than that, but it wasn't as much as double that of their in-season commitment and they were still able to succeed academically and have a social life.

The athletics system has been so out of whack for so long that something reasonable will look like extreme change. Let's also remember that as late as the 1970s all-star athletes had off-season jobs. That's no longer the case and it has affected the lives of college athletes, high school athletes, and sometimes athletes who are even younger.

slider643;842299643 said:

---

It's voluntary because they don't have to agree to the scholarship terms and don't have to sign that contract.

For the most part, we are on the same page. College athletes shouldn't be paid and should be students first. Minor leagues should be established but won't because nobody with financial acumen can make that model work.

I don't believe it is up to colleges and the NCAA to become a minor league systems for the benefit of the small percentage of players who will go on to professional careers. IMO, this is the tail wagging the dog. You're catering to the very few to the detriment of >99% of college athletes.

---

Wading in late but you do realize that a huge point of labor law is that there are certain contracts, even if you have 2 willing partners, which can not be entered into? Thus I can not willingly enter a contract to work for $5 a hour, even if I wanted to....nor forgo overtime after working an 8 hour day (in CA) or a 40 hour week (most of the rest of the nation)?

http://bostonherald.com/sports/college/college_football/2014/03/stanford_coach_questions_unionization_movement