Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This…so very this.I see it as a more serious blow to non revenue producing sports.
now They don’t have to graduate to make a living.
Never wish on a monkey's paw.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.
No scholarship for Ivys.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.
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.No scholarship for Ivys.
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.Say goodbye to most men's Olympic sports. Women's sports still need those for Title IX.
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.
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.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..
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 sportsCollege athletics has become a sad joke
This…so very this.
“Student athletes” 🤭 phhhht!
Yeah, just like NIL payments.
Could open a can of worms should this go through.Does this mean that band members that perform at games are also employees? The school paper reporters and editors?
Does this mean that band members that perform at games are also employees? The school paper reporters and editors?
Depending on how it structured the band would not necessarily be affected.Does this mean that band members that perform at games are also employees? The school paper reporters and editors?
"Go play intramurals, brother!"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
Once they unionize, please strike for more money.
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.College athletics has become a sad joke
they do. in most cases the revenue sports just lose a multiple of what non revenue sports lose.Not sure why this would impact "non-revneue sports"
This just makes the actual school make a commitment to non-revenue sports.
Finally time for the administration and "taxpayers" to put up or shut up.
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).
I made this exact argument last week in the latest Far Koko thread on Rutgers athletic spendingSchools 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.
they do. in most cases the revenue sports just lose a multiple of what non revenue sports lose.
Heck how soon until the students are employees? LOLOL