• The KillerFrogs

Time to start treating college players like contracted employees

TCUdirtbag

TCUdirtbag

Active Member
Sangria Wine said:
There is no doubt, head coaches breaking contracts to go to another school should become less common than it is. Guaranteed contracts should mean just that…and from both sides of things. Those are one way guarantees and it’s a little mind boggling how much the universities have become completely ok with that. Absent an NFL style collective bargaining agreement and league oversight I don’t know how any of it ever changes though.
Click to expand...
The coaching market has been incrementally adjusting to mega-media deals. Look at Alabama and Michigan coach pay in 2023, 2013, 2003, 1993, and 1983. Now compare to media revenue. Coaches saw available resources and demanded it for their services. Schools, wealthy with increasing media money, obliged. The contractual promises schools make are absolutely insane.

How do you go back? Share that revenue with the other folks producing it—the players. With more mouths to feed, the insane cycle of coach pay will get reined in by economic necessity.
 
W

Wexahu

Full Member
TCUdirtbag said:
Care to explain?
Click to expand...
OK, I'll explain.....sorry for the long-winded response, but I'm long-winded.

#1 - It's absolutely essential for competitive balance. Hopefully I don't need to explain why that it is the case.
#2 - Coaches, admins and staffers are professionals that almost by necessity need to move from job to job to climb the "corporate ladder" if you will. Look at GP's career path before he got to TCU. The vast majority of these coaches have paid their dues to some degree by constantly moving their families around, etc. It's not like all these guys have made $3M plus and cashed in buyouts their entire careers. College kids are theoretically supposed to be student-athletes, trying to convince me that a kid going to 2-3, even 4 different universities in 5 years is ultimately beneficial to the kid in the long run would be hard, unless the world is upside down. If college players think it's unfair that coaches get to move around and they don't, they can go be a coach after college.
#3 - Players pick schools for any number of reasons....could be location, could be a girlfriend situation, a recruiter, an O or D coordinator, could be a Head Coach. Heck, it could be for academics. Simply making their immediate eligibility elsewhere tied to the Head Coach is dumb, when it very well could be a case where he chose a school in spite of the Head Coach. Besides, what if a coach doesn't move on but is fired? Same rules apply?
#4 - This doesn't fall into the same category as 1-3, but part of playing sports at a high level (at any level, really) is occasionally being in a position to have to play for a coach who isn't your handpicked guy, or it might even be a guy you don't like. Players at all levels are required to do it all the time (if they in fact want to play). If a high school coach leaves to take a college job should the UIL just let all those kids that played for him go wherever they want? Of course not.

They took a situation where kids weren't allowed to make money on the side off their name, image and likeness and made such a massive overcorrection to where it's now a completely ridiculous, unsustainable structure for a "team sports league", or whatever you want to call it.
 
Zubaz

Zubaz

Member
Wexahu said:
OK, I'll explain.....sorry for the long-winded response, but I'm long-winded.

#1 - It's absolutely essential for competitive balance. Hopefully I don't need to explain why that it is the case.
#2 - Coaches, admins and staffers are professionals that almost by necessity need to move from job to job to climb the "corporate ladder" if you will. Look at GP's career path before he got to TCU. The vast majority of these coaches have paid their dues to some degree by constantly moving their families around, etc. It's not like all these guys have made $3M plus and cashed in buyouts their entire careers. College kids are theoretically supposed to be student-athletes, trying to convince me that a kid going to 2-3, even 4 different universities in 5 years is ultimately beneficial to the kid in the long run would be hard, unless the world is upside down. If college players think it's unfair that coaches get to move around and they don't, they can go be a coach after college.
#3 - Players pick schools for any number of reasons....could be location, could be a girlfriend situation, a recruiter, an O or D coordinator, could be a Head Coach. Heck, it could be for academics. Simply making their immediate eligibility elsewhere tied to the Head Coach is dumb, when it very well could be a case where he chose a school in spite of the Head Coach. Besides, what if a coach doesn't move on but is fired? Same rules apply?
#4 - This doesn't fall into the same category as 1-3, but part of playing sports at a high level (at any level, really) is occasionally being in a position to have to play for a coach who isn't your handpicked guy, or it might even be a guy you don't like. Players at all levels are required to do it all the time (if they in fact want to play). If a high school coach leaves to take a college job should the UIL just let all those kids that played for him go wherever they want? Of course not.

They took a situation where kids weren't allowed to make money on the side off their name, image and likeness and made such a massive overcorrection to where it's now a completely ridiculous, unsustainable structure for a "team sports league", or whatever you want to call it.
Click to expand...
The thing I always come back to is, even in this post (which I do appreciate, btw), it feels like we are trying to have it both ways. These kids are amateurs participating in extra-curricular interscholastic athletics when it's convenient for them to be, but they are athletes in a sports league that includes an acceptable corporate ladder for coaches, and we need to restrict their ability to play where they want to play in order to protect the competitive balance and maximize the profitability of the league.

It can't be both. If it's a sports league, which I think everyone sees it very clearly is, then recognize that it's a sports league, get the players signed to contracts the same as any other sports league, and be done with it. Done, easy, players can't switch teams if they are still under contract. If instead it's just inter-scholastic athletics that's secondary to their education journey, a consideration for their school attendance of roughly the same importance as where their girlfriend goes to school, then the well-being of the student is the primary concern over competitive balance, and transfer restrictions can't really be justified.

Most importantly though: This just doesn't really address the elephant in the room, which is that it is very unlikely that restricting transfers would hold up legally in today's environment. The conservative SCOTUS showed they were not very sympathetic to the NCAA attempting to restrict athletes ability to maximize their revenue, and we've seen over the last few months the legal challenges that the NCAA's transfer rules are under, including even just today the Democratic-led Justice Department joined the lawsuit from several other states (liberal and conservative) challenging the NCAA's requirements that players sit if they want to transfer a second time.

In 2024, when you've somehow gotten conservatives and liberals to agree that what you're doing is bad, you know you've really screwed up.
 
hometown frog

hometown frog

Active Member
Wexahu said:
OK, I'll explain.....sorry for the long-winded response, but I'm long-winded.

#1 - It's absolutely essential for competitive balance. Hopefully I don't need to explain why that it is the case.
#2 - Coaches, admins and staffers are professionals that almost by necessity need to move from job to job to climb the "corporate ladder" if you will. Look at GP's career path before he got to TCU. The vast majority of these coaches have paid their dues to some degree by constantly moving their families around, etc. It's not like all these guys have made $3M plus and cashed in buyouts their entire careers. College kids are theoretically supposed to be student-athletes, trying to convince me that a kid going to 2-3, even 4 different universities in 5 years is ultimately beneficial to the kid in the long run would be hard, unless the world is upside down. If college players think it's unfair that coaches get to move around and they don't, they can go be a coach after college.
#3 - Players pick schools for any number of reasons....could be location, could be a girlfriend situation, a recruiter, an O or D coordinator, could be a Head Coach. Heck, it could be for academics. Simply making their immediate eligibility elsewhere tied to the Head Coach is dumb, when it very well could be a case where he chose a school in spite of the Head Coach. Besides, what if a coach doesn't move on but is fired? Same rules apply?
#4 - This doesn't fall into the same category as 1-3, but part of playing sports at a high level (at any level, really) is occasionally being in a position to have to play for a coach who isn't your handpicked guy, or it might even be a guy you don't like. Players at all levels are required to do it all the time (if they in fact want to play). If a high school coach leaves to take a college job should the UIL just let all those kids that played for him go wherever they want? Of course not.

They took a situation where kids weren't allowed to make money on the side off their name, image and likeness and made such a massive overcorrection to where it's now a completely ridiculous, unsustainable structure for a "team sports league", or whatever you want to call it.
Click to expand...
So you want to limit or restrict free enterprise actions by the student athletes? To what (or who’s) benefit? The fans? The schools? I certainly don’t see an argument that says those restrictions are for the benefit of the student athlete.

as a fan, I certainly FEEL like I prefer having the same players on roster for 3/4/5 years because I think I can like them more and cheer for them more with that added familiarity. But my feels really should have zero influence on their ability to make career establishing (and financially impactful) decisions. That really seems to be the basis for a lot of the arguments out there.

i keep going back to this: it’s a multi billion dollar industry built of the skills of the players. So anything that gives them more control over their portion of that industry, I’m a fan of it.
 
W

Wexahu

Full Member
hometown frog said:
So you want to limit or restrict free enterprise actions by the student athletes? To what (or who’s) benefit? The fans? The schools? I certainly don’t see an argument that says those restrictions are for the benefit of the student athlete.

as a fan, I certainly FEEL like I prefer having the same players on roster for 3/4/5 years because I think I can like them more and cheer for them more with that added familiarity. But my feels really should have zero influence on their ability to make career establishing (and financially impactful) decisions. That really seems to be the basis for a lot of the arguments out there.

i keep going back to this: it’s a multi billion dollar industry built of the skills of the players. So anything that gives them more control over their portion of that industry, I’m a fan of it.
Click to expand...
I mean, if we're not going to restrict these kids, why not let a QB (or any player) switch teams mid-season to the highest bidder? What is the sanctity of a single season and why are there any cut-offs as far as players moving around? Certainly a kid like Arch Manning or Quin Ewers (whoever loses the job at UT next fall) would benefit by being able to jump ship in September and go somewhere where they'd start. Or take over for a kid who gets hurt, say, at a given blue blood school, in Week 6 of next year. For that matter, why make a kid go to class or make grades? For sure making a kid ineligible to play based on that would restrict his earnings potential, right? Why should a kid's grades have any effect on his ability to make money as an athlete?

I'm being ridiculous, but am I? These two scenarios fit solidly into the arguments a lot of people are making about this.
 
hometown frog

hometown frog

Active Member
Wexahu said:
I mean, if we're not going to restrict these kids, why not let a QB (or any player) switch teams mid-season to the highest bidder? What is the sanctity of a single season and why are there any cut-offs as far as players moving around? Certainly a kid like Arch Manning or Quin Ewers (whoever loses the job at UT next fall) would benefit by being able to jump ship in September and go somewhere where they'd start. Or take over for a kid who gets hurt, say, at a given blue blood school, in Week 6 of next year. For that matter, why make a kid go to class or make grades? For sure making a kid ineligible to play based on that would restrict his earnings potential, right? Why should a kid's grades have any effect on his ability to make money as an athlete?

I'm being ridiculous, but am I? These two scenarios fit solidly into the arguments a lot of people are making about this.
Click to expand...
Except both of those directly violate the student handbook policies that all college students must abide by for each semester. I don’t want any additional or special rules for athletes beyond what all other students at that school must abide by.

now if you go the full distance and the athletes become employees of the schools and not student athletes, then they would have to follow whatever employee policies are in place and you could invoke additional duration and or “non compete” clauses at that point.
 
W

Wexahu

Full Member
hometown frog said:
Except both of those directly violate the student handbook policies that all college students must abide by for each semester. I don’t want any additional or special rules for athletes beyond what all other students at that school must abide by.

now if you go the full distance and the athletes become employees of the schools and not student athletes, then they would have to follow whatever employee policies are in place and you could invoke additional duration and or “non compete” clauses at that point.
Click to expand...
So you’d be in favor of unlimited free transfers?
 
W

Wexahu

Full Member
ShreveFrog said:
Biden Justice Department sides with states suing the NCAA for trying to rein in the portal:
Click to expand...
So unlimited free transfers it is.

As a fan, the game has lost about 95% of it's appeal. Hard to believe how plugged in I was to college football 5-6 years ago vs today. And hard to imagine anyone sticking with this dumb sport, but I suppose it'll be marketed and promoted to death to where they'll get decent ratings and keep money flowing.
 
W

Wexahu

Full Member
2016 - Redshirt
2017 - Played 13 games
2018 - Injured
2019 - Injured
2020 - COVID
2021 - Injured 2 weeks into season
2022 - Played 13 games
2023 - Played full season
2024 - I guess he'll be a Senior?

LOL, what a joke. He'll be 26 in April.

www.espn.com

Miami TE McCormick given 9th year of eligibility

Miami tight end Cam McCormick will return to play for the Hurricanes in 2024 -- his ninth season of college football.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
LVH

LVH

Active Member
I was a lowly walk on but I never felt like I was exploited. My question is where does it end.

I got 3 concussions during my time at TCU playing scout team. What if me and the other scout teamers banded together demanding compensation considering we put our bodies on the line just as much, only in practice instead of in games, and that the team can't get ready for games without our services.
 
Zubaz

Zubaz

Member
"Athletes and collectives are free to negotiate deals as they please."
apocalypse now horror GIF by Maudit
 

Latest posts

Top