BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Topic: RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Author

Message

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,901

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/13/2024 4:24:08 PM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

I feel for these young people who are being given poor advise from people who don't get it. The landscape has forever changed. And I do not see how making them employees will improve anything. Employees always want rasises, and these demands will still be out there. And you are correct, "Clown Activities"!

Employment markets are much more transparent than the NIL is. Why is this kid asking for 100k? Because nobody has any idea what NIL deals pay. But labor markets are much less opaque. Employees always want raises, yes. But they also are able to easily assess their market value.

And every 18-22 year old is a seasoned veteran at market economics and supply and demand. Nothing but progress for the athlete, especially long term. Because once they are an employee, why we have to pay a scholarship?

18-22 year olds participate in the labor market, dude. What is it, specifically, about 18-22 year olds who are good at sports that makes them incapable of it?

If you want to convince yourself that people making money is bad for them, knock yourself out. But it's completely illogical.

Why not just call a spade a spade? You like college sports how they are, and worry paying athletes will change a thing you like. That makes sense, and it's honest. But trying to pretend this is somehow about the best interests of the kids, and these poor, poor athletes can't understand how jobs work is patronizing nonsense.

Not sure you can point out where I ever said making money is bad for them. But keep reaching for it. My comment is more to the delusion of some with regards to their value and and perceived worth. Which is proven by how many enter the portal and never are heard from again.

Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,075

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/13/2024 5:26:01 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

These numbers support that statement very well as does this article.

Overall success rate for transfers:

When taking the total number of college transfers into consideration, only around five in 10 players are actually finding a new school to play for.

54% reported enrolling at a new school
41% have not found a new school, are still looking, transferred to a non-NCAA school, or left their sport completely
59% of scholarship transfers found a scholarship at a new FBS school
8% left their scholarships and became walk-ons at a new school

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football...

Jeff Johnson
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post Count: 178

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/13/2024 7:54:46 PM

Alan Swank wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

M.D.W.S.T wrote:

�While he didn�t name the player, 247 Sports does mention that backup running backs Antwain Littleton and Ramon Brown entered the transfer portal this offseason.

Littleton is now set to play for Temple, while Brown hasn�t landed with a new program.�

�Give me $100,000 or I walk! �

Walk then. Where do you think we�re getting $100K?

*Now without a team.*

Clown activities.

You think the other got that kind of cash at Temple :-)

I feel for these young people who are being given poor advise from people who don't get it. The landscape has forever changed. And I do not see how making them employees will improve anything. Employees always want rasises, and these demands will still be out there. And you are correct, "Clown Activities"!

So if they were to become employees, theoretically they could be fired or traded for non-performance or other contractural provisions. Remind me, what does that have to do with getting an education?

And in any case, if they are making kilobucks through NIL, they shouldn't be on scholarships, which should be reserved for those who are truly deserving (from an educational point of view) or in need!

Last Edited: 2/13/2024 8:03:40 PM by Jeff Johnson

Jeff Johnson '67, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Back in the Land of Enchantment

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,402

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/13/2024 8:25:49 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

By my count, not including players who entered the portal and then withdrew, 171 MAC players entered the portal in December. 20% moved up to a G5 team, and some of those no doubt got NIL money. 13% moved sideways to another G5 team, and they probably got little NIL money. Another 12% moved down to FCS. The majority, 55% of them, have yet to find a new position, and are probably not enrolled anywhere this spring. If they don't find another position fairly soon, their window of opportunity may close, and they may never be heard from again.

Last Edited: 2/13/2024 8:27:46 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,555

Status: Online

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/13/2024 8:28:03 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

It doesn't require me to reach for anything, man. The subtext is very, very clear.

Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,075

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/13/2024 9:52:12 PM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

It doesn't require me to reach for anything, man. The subtext is very, very clear.

Has 3Ball returned?

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,901

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/13/2024 10:20:02 PM

L.C. wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

You make this sound so simple, so why do so many have a problem with this simple math????

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,901

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/13/2024 10:25:10 PM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

It doesn't require me to reach for anything, man. The subtext is very, very clear.

The subtext is you be struggling, I know some folks here who can write you an IEP. That's ok, you have this ultimate form of Capitalist Theory, which just don't exist. Some wiLL make money, many more (long term stats) 1/3rd will have removed themselves from a free education. But no worries, once they become unionized they will lobby for their own rules to protect their class against the next group.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,901

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/13/2024 10:27:07 PM

L.C. wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

FUNNY, BLSS will totally ignore your facts, which all support my statements, only to insult me. You can't make some of this stuff up!!!!

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,555

Status: Online

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 3:24:58 AM

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

It doesn't require me to reach for anything, man. The subtext is very, very clear.

I'm very aware that your comment is about "the delusion of some with regards to their value"; that's why I suggested there is a benefit to an actual labor market instead of the completely opaque NIL. Do you think a third string running back would be asking for $100k of he could see the going rate was a quarter of that? Transparency is a good thing.

You're ranting about how a bunch of kids are delusional about their value. I'm suggesting a solution to that. And then you're ranting some more about how jobs are "an ultimate form of Capitalist Theory that doesn't exist", and somehow brought up unions and protected classes.

If part of the reason people are transferring is they think there's a financial windfall out there and there's not, make it clear there's not a financial windfall out there. A labor market is a way to help with that. Why do you think that NCAAs proposal is to run NIL deals through the schools? It's for reporting and transparency.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,402

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 7:12:34 AM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

It's not so simple. Various places are collecting guesstimates about how much NIL money is available. For example ON3 estimates that Kurtis was worth $153,000, while Bangura was $0. They estimate that maybe 10-15 running backs in the portal were worth $100k NIL. So, even if the information isn't 100% accurate, it is out there. The problem comes in the abilities of athletes to self-evaluate. No athlete can thrive in any sport without self-confidence. Thus, I don't think that the third string RB thought that all RB are worth $100k NIL; I suspect that he believed that he could be a starter and a star if he finds the right opportunity, and maybe he can be. Or, maybe he just deluded himself, and made a poor career choice.

This isn't just a problem for athletes, by the way, nor a problem for just the NIL system. I've known many people who had good jobs that could lead themselves to long term success, who thought they were worth more, left that job, and ended up worse off. Any system free enough to create opportunities to do well also creates opportunities to choose poorly.

Here's one good thing about the NIL system. Because of all the people getting extra Covid years, there are a lot extra people still playing football who would otherwise have already used up their eligibility. That, in turn, would mean less scholarships available for Freshmen. Those 55% of MAC players who voluntarily gave up their scholarship to enter the game of musical chairs known as "the portal", and lost, created new openings of scholarships available to be given to Freshmen. For example, Ohio signed 17 Freshmen this year, pretty much a normal year. Eight Ohio players are still in the portal and have not reported new destinations (Tristan Cox, Allison, Kitrell, Quinn, Rhone, Burton, Ben Johnson, Wilburn). Without those voluntary departures, Ohio would have only been able to take 9 Freshmen. Most people playing football are going to find another line of work after college, and so it's not the end of the world for those that don't find a new college to play for. They just need to move on in life to another type of opportunity, and I hope they all succeed.

I'm neither pro-portal nor anti-portal. I'm just an observer, watching to see what happens as the system evolves. Some will benefit from the new system, while other will be worse off. Either way, Pandora's box is open now, and we can only go forward, not back.

Last Edited: 2/14/2024 7:22:28 AM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

M.D.W.S.T
General User

Member Since: 12/23/2021
Post Count: 2,376

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 11:14:58 AM

Alan Swank wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

I'm sure people weren't tracking it as closely prior to the poral, but I wonder what the attrition rate was year-to-year before all this. 46% turnover is huge.

stockercat
General User

Member Since: 8/12/2012
Post Count: 20

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 11:38:30 AM

The numbers quoted above in the SI article are from 2020 and 2021.

On3 is showing 2275 entered in the current round. 1281 have committed and another 102 have withdrawn. That leaves 912 players still in the portal.

https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/wire/football/2024 /

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,402

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 11:51:16 AM

I would guess that P5 players are fairly successful at finding new opportunities, G5 players less so, and that FCS players have the lowest success rate. I would also guess that at the G5 level, all-conference players usually find a new home, and that starters are also fairly successful. I suspect that less than half the backups find new homes, and that third string and below are rarely successful.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,555

Status: Online

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 1:55:40 PM

L.C. wrote:

I'm not suggesting that it's simple, or that employment would be a full solution. But it would be incremental progress towards more pay transparency for athletes. Does it solve 100% of the problem? Of course not. But would actual employment provide more insight to inform transfer decisions? Undoubtedly.

I think the reality is that BTCs stance here is pretty incomprehensible. He won't say he doesn't think athletes should get paid, but he complains about athletes making bad choices because of the NIL, but also is very anti-employment because "18-22 year olds aren't seasoned veterans of market economics."

Not exactly sure where that leaves us, but it's certainly not with a solution.

L.C. wrote:

This isn't just a problem for athletes, by the way, nor a problem for just the NIL system. I've known many people who had good jobs that could lead themselves to long term success, who thought they were worth more, left that job, and ended up worse off. Any system free enough to create opportunities to do well also creates opportunities to choose poorly.

Of course. Billy insists I think labor markets are the "perfect capitalist" whatever he said, but that's just a strawman argument and his putting words in my mouth. Labor markets aren't perfect, and people make dumb decisions in the labor market all the time. But the task here isn't to legislate away dumb decisions. And if you want to limit transfers, in my view a good approach is to create more transparency not less.

L.C. wrote:

Either way, Pandora's box is open now, and we can only go forward, not back.

Agree with this completely.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,901

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 3:56:01 PM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

It doesn't require me to reach for anything, man. The subtext is very, very clear.

One can state an opinion and not be "ranting". And statistics do show that roughly 50% swing and miss badly on this. And I really can't even begin to follow you side road of Capitalist Theory that doesn't exist. Beginning to think all you like to do is look for an argument. Which you will not get one from me. I see your opinion, and welcome you to have it. My point regarding making athletes employees is that universities will simply drop athletics. We run at a deficit as it is, add 535 more employees, with benefits, and how do you support an athletic department? Do more resources flow in once we make athletes employees. That is my entire and ONLY point about the drawback of creating a laborforce.

Last Edited: 2/14/2024 4:00:38 PM by BillyTheCat

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,901

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 3:56:25 PM

L.C. wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

Exactly!

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,901

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 3:58:26 PM

M.D.W.S.T wrote:

Alan Swank wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

I'm sure people weren't tracking it as closely prior to the poral, but I wonder what the attrition rate was year-to-year before all this. 46% turnover is huge.

I have seen the data for both football and basketball since the beginning of the Portal, and the attrition % has been remarkably consistent.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,555

Status: Online

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 4:38:30 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

You're really not following along here at all, man. I'm not sure what to tell you at this point.

Your entire point here is that the NIL results in kids making rash decisions and transferring too often. I'm not disputing that. So the statistics that you think prove your point aren't actually counter to what I'm saying at all. Upthread you said I'd ignore the "FACTS" -- but I'm not ignoring them at all. I am, in fact, suggesting that employment might help mitigate that.

The only point I replied to was you saying that you don't think employment would change things. I suggested in might help by creating more transparency because I think most labor markets operate far more efficiently than the completely opaque, wild west of the NIL. That's not "Capitalist Theory" or whatever you think it is. It's not me claiming labor markets are perfect. It's just a very basic acknowledgement of what a labor market is, and how it differs from whatever the hell the NIL is.

And that's why you seem like you're just ranting here. Because I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you actually think. You think kids transfer too much because they get bad advice about what they can earn in NIL money, but that if they're employees, they'll still transfer too much because 18-22 year olds aren't labor economists, but also when I said you didn't want players to get paid you said you thought they should get paid. Your point seems to be that you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And that 18 year olds transfer too much. So what's your proposal? Not letting them transfer? Not gonna hold up in the courts without, you know, an employment agreement with a non-disclosure agreement.

So yeah, forgive me if I mistake your constant posts on this subject -- basically all of which include you saying "I told you all, be careful what you wished for" -- as rants. As far as I'm aware, you haven't actually stated any opinions about how to fix any of those. You just complain. A lot. How many posts would you say you have about this topic? And how many does one need before "rant" becomes a solid descriptor?

BillyTheCat wrote:

My point regarding making athletes employees is that universities will simply drop athletics. We run at a deficit as it is, add 535 more employees, with benefits, and how do you support an athletic department? Do more resources flow in once we make athletes employees. That is my entire and ONLY point about the drawback of creating a laborforce.

Yes, I know. But I think the people who make this point suffer from an inability to imagine college sports looking different than they do today. I suspect the outcome is far more tiering, a reversion to true amateurism at multiple levels, differences between sports at schools, and a "premier league" in certain sports that become professionals affiliated with their universities.

The common refrain is "but Title IX" but the Supreme Court didn't seem particularly concerned with Title IX when they proactively called the NCAA a monopoly and told the world how they'd rule on this particular issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Title IX is a very direct result of the fact thart schools and the NCAA insisted that scholarships were educational benefits and not compensation. Title IX is specifically about educational benefits; the moment schools make players employees I don't see how Title IX applies, and I think the courts will treat it exactly how they treat the discrepancy in pay between a Men's Basketball Coach and a Women's Basketball Coach.

Last Edited: 2/14/2024 4:42:21 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,116

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 4:38:51 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

It doesn't require me to reach for anything, man. The subtext is very, very clear.

BTC, just curious what you think a school like Ohio or other smaller programs may do in this situation you've outlined above? I'm under the impression those programs would more or less ban together and go back to the true model (lower division basically or merge with current FCS) and have student-athletes rather than employees. I'd see that before I see them drop athletics altogether.

But I guess the flip side of that is, where does one draw the line? What schools are considered traditional college athletics and what schools would be more employee-focused labor. Is there an application process to move up? It's going to be an interesting next 5-10 years.

*EDIT: posted this before I saw BLSS response saying the same thing.

Last Edited: 2/14/2024 4:39:48 PM by GoCats105

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,402

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 5:05:35 PM

There is a whole lot of discussion on this thread that talks around the main point of disagreement without directly addressing it. Both sides agree that kids are making bad choices. BLSS says they would make less bad choices if they were employees. Perhaps, or perhaps not. BTC says that making them employees is impossible because it would bankrupt the system, and that schools would simply give up athletics, which is probably true. Thus, the solution that would satisfy everyone seems to be to just make them employees, then have the schools drop athletics, after which there will no longer be a problem with kids making bad choices. Er, well, at least, not these particular bad choices.

The only question left then, is whether to apply this solution just to football, or perhaps to football and basketball? Or, should we apply it to all varsity sports? Schools can continue to offer club sports, of course. They don't need to have varsity sports and schools can get by with just club sports and intramural sports. And, having no varsity sports also solves the problem of highly paid coaches. See? Everyone will be happy.

Last Edited: 2/14/2024 5:07:01 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,901

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 5:41:11 PM

GoCats105 wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

It doesn't require me to reach for anything, man. The subtext is very, very clear.

Going FCS, what will FCS be or look like? I mean they are still employees, and would in their optimum world be unionized. And you still have to have 100 on the team, you are still going to have women's sports. I think you are still adding millions to the cost of running your athletic department. So what does that look like? To me, it doesn't look sustainable. Just go to other fact based threads here like the one on declining enrollment, the taste for mid-level college athletics will be in serious trouble based simply on the cost. To your last point, if they are made employees by the courts or the legislature, Universityies will not have a choice! They will be employees at Dennison, just like they are at OSU. One will not simply be able to choose whether they want to pay, no more than one McDonald's can choose to pay a wage while the other chooses not too. Now, they can pay different wages, but there are minimum standards. And don't think, every hour will now be subject to being paid. Just in Ohio with minimum wage going to $15.00 an hour, you are adding millions to the departments expenses. So where does that money come from. I keep asking that question, but no one seems to want to answer it. If you can show me how paying athletes as employees makes OHIO money and isn't cost prohibitive, then, I'm wrong. But no one has shown me.

M.D.W.S.T
General User

Member Since: 12/23/2021
Post Count: 2,376

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 8:17:12 PM

L.C. wrote:

The worst part of all of this will be the dissolution of (most) collegiate sports.

I unfortunately fell down a rabbit hole of nonsense with someone over Ohio State should be the first to draw the line. Ohio State Football(TM) is no longer associated with the Ohio State Athletic Department and others (Texas, Alabama, Clemson, etc) should follow suit. Ohio State only has one sport that generates revenue. Doesn't matter. Ohio State Football(TM) is no longer in charge of subsidizing any other sports. Those sports are now either funded through student fees, or donations. And this was the argument for all others to follow. Cut the fat.

The whole idea makes me sad. I've never went to an OU baseball game, but the idea OU would have to drop every single sport except for football and basketball (would we / could we figure it out?) is just a sad prospect. We have to drop the program that produced an MLB hall of famer, because the numbers just don't work anymore. Every womens sport. Every non-revenue generating sport... gone. What a bummer.

Top 20 Richest Athletic Departments:
https://collegesportswire.usatoday.com/lists/college-athl... /

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,555

Status: Online

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/14/2024 8:48:36 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

I keep asking that question, but no one seems to want to answer it. If you can show me how paying athletes as employees makes OHIO money and isn't cost prohibitive, then, I'm wrong. But no one has shown me.

You are ignoring points that people are making and then making broad assumptions to support your points. If you took a deep breath and actually acknowledged what others were saying, I think you'd see the sky isn't falling.

BillyTheCat wrote:

I mean they are still employees, and would in their optimum world be unionized. And you still have to have 100 on the team, you are still going to have women's sports.

Two assumptions in two sentences: unionization and that this will apply equally to men's and women's sports. We don't even know what "this" is yet; how're you making so many assertions about it.

You're also implying that a union is a bad thing. It's a smart path for all parties here. Collective bargaining can, I think, actually create an easy mechanism for workers too waive certain labor policies like minimum wage, OT, sick leave, etc.

That's what I'd expect this to look like; effectively a revenue share, with an acknowledgement that that may well be 0 in some cases, and fall well below minimum wage. I believe (I'm a bit rusty on Union shit) that unions can waive certain rights.

BillyTheCat wrote:

I think you are still adding millions to the cost of running your athletic department.

I don't think you are, unless you want to.

BillyTheCat wrote:

To your last point, if they are made employees by the courts or the legislature, Universityies will not have a choice! They will be employees at Dennison, just like they are at OSU. One will not simply be able to choose whether they want to pay, no more than one McDonald's can choose to pay a wage while the other chooses not too.

This is where I think you show the least understanding of labor law in the United States. Across industries and across all range of labor policy there are carve outs, exceptions, purposefully gray areas, and all range of other things to accommodate certain industries, jobs, types of organizations (non-profit vs. for profit, etc), and a whole range of other policies that differ by size of the organization.

BillyTheCat wrote:

Now, they can pay different wages, but there are minimum standards.

There are, but even these are carved out by industry. There are jobs where you basically have the ability to pay nothing in terms of wage.

BillyTheCat wrote:

And don't think, every hour will now be subject to being paid. Just in Ohio with minimum wage going to $15.00 an hour, you are adding millions to the departments expenses.

It's entirely possible and actually pretty common for certain professions to be exempt from various policy and requirements. It's naive to assume that every hour will be compensated at at least minimum wage. That's a very, very unlikely outcome here. There are all sorts of carve outs for OT eligibility, jobs where lump sum/salaried payments overwrite certain wage and hour laws, and paths where workers can agree to waive certain federal/state minimums.

BillyTheCat wrote:

So where does that money come from. I keep asking that question, but no one seems to want to answer it.

We don't know how much money, we don't know who it will go to, we don't know how it will be paid to them. You're making broad assertions that are almost certain to be wrong and acting like 1) You know what you're talking about and 2) These are all inevitable.

Put very directly: nobody involved in this process has any incentive to shut down college athletics. The Universities don't want it, state governments don't want it, the Federal government doesn't want it, students don't want it, and athletes don't want it. That you think it's a certainty despite that is pretty odd to me. Who do you think's going to write this legislation? Lobbyists, folks with expertise in NCAA athletics, and representatives from all parties.

Last Edited: 2/14/2024 9:15:46 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

giacomo
General User

Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,688

Status: Offline

RE: 3rd String RB wants $100k NIL - You can't make this stuff up

Posted: 2/15/2024 8:04:11 PM

In a capitalist society you can succeed and you can fail. You can have a Bill Gates and a guy begging on a street corner. Some talk of �freedom�. Well, freedom means you can fail, as some will in the current environment.

Showing Replies:	26 - 50 of 52 Posts
Jump to Page:	< Previous 1 \| 2 \| 3 Next >

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 389 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

383 Guests
6 Registered Users:
	LuckySparrow, Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame, IceCat76, Terry Lee, Mike Coleman, El Gato Roberto

There are no other users looking at this page.