Pac-12 Opt-Out

Edit: I added the opt-out notice above with original post below.

There was a thread on this a week-or-so ago, but the reporting from ESPN on a looming Pac-12 opt-out is much more substantial.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29578950/pac-12-player-...

A group of Pac-12 football players from multiple schools is threatening to opt out of both preseason camps and games until its negotiations with the league regarding concerns about racial injustice, their safety during the coronavirus pandemic and other demands are completed.

A text message obtained by ESPN says the group's goal is to "obtain a written contract with the Pac- 12 that legally ensures we are offered the following protections and benefits."

The group's list of demands, according to the text message, includes safe play amid the pandemic, fighting racial injustice, securing economic rights and fair compensation, protecting all sports and obtaining long-term health insurance.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

Whatever lawyers are helping with this are on the verge of making a lot of money.

Yes,that's the Hokie Bird riding a camel. Why'd you ask?

hell ya, this is the time to do it if you're an athlete

Leave it to the west coast to do this *throws road flare into ammunition room*

Amateur superstar and idiot extraordinaire.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/29565299/ncaa-allow-unifo...

he new rule will permit one patch on the front of a player's uniform and one on the back. On the front, the patch must not exceed 2ยผ inches and may be used as a "commemorative/memorial patch (names, mascots, nicknames, logos and marks) intended to celebrate or memorialize people, events or other causes."

Players can also replace their last names on the backs of their jerseys to honor a cause they support.

"The second location is on the back of the uniform where the player name is traditionally located and, as authorized by the school or conference, will allow names/words intended to celebrate or memorialize people, events or other causes," the NCAA announced. "The names or words may vary by team member.

In connection to what PAC12 athletes want I wonder what we will see allowed in other four conferences related to this new NCAA rule.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

The XFL was just ahead of it's time

I have heard from several VT boosters directly - 2 very high level- that social justice messages on VT uniforms will severely impact their current and future donations. This will have unintended consequences and they won't be positive.

If a donor has a problem with a black player wearing a BLM patch on their uniform, did we really want their money to begin with?

It's not binary or as simple as you imply- so let's not go there please, and yes we want their - very significant- money.

Thank you.

and yes we want their - very significant- money.

Who is this "we" you speak of? I'm a part of the Hokie Club and I don't want their money. Please don't speak for the group when you don't have the authority to do so.

I get where you are coming from but I dont think DC was trying to intentionally assert perspective for literally everyone. I think from an organizational perspective yes we want more money and funds. We know this improves competitiveness across collegiate programs and athletics.

But personally the dichotomy of where does this money come from and does it align with my ideals and beliefs is a tricky topic, and different for everyone.

Slightly OT: I really like trying to have strong discourse and conversation about many of these albeit complex and challenging topics, but on the internet where tone and diction are hard to articulate. But at the end of the day these discussions are inportant nonetheless!

VB born, class of '14

I agree with you, but the point to DC needed to be made based up on his past history of stating things as fact when they are clearly his personal opinion.

Believing we can change someone is a losing battle, so here's how I cope with DC:
I just envision he is Dwight Schrute And it suddenly makes what is an intense opinion stated as fact suddenly very entertaining:

FOSTERS: Australian for defense

This is amazing.

Come on man. Seriously.

Look at the pic. I'm a chick.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

My apologies. I know some avatars are not "accurate". Sincerely sorry. So "come on chica" !

"We" meaning VT athletics that is cash poor. Right? or is that no longer a thing. Drive for 25?

I agree it's not that simple. Many organizations who rely heavily on donations face some version of this challenge.

Twitter me

Doesn't include all of us.

No boosters should hold a program hostage. Also, play the scenario out a little bit. Not a good look when every other school recruits against Tech if they're behind the curve on social change. At that point, gobs of money ain't the most important thing in the room.

Excellent point. If you haven't heard of him, google Bobby Lowder and Auburn. A single (extremely wealthy) booster that caused so much chaos and infighting that at some point Auburn realized he wasn't worth it.

See also T. Boone Pickens. Or maybe a school in the PNW with a duck as a mascot.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Yes we do.

There are wolves and there are sheep, I am the sheep dog

Not picking on you DC here. I mean, I can technically understand where they are coming from. But the university motto us literally "that I may serve"... and if that means bringing social justice awareness then that is upholding university values whether people acknowledge it or not. Seems contradictory (to me) if those boosters want to support the university but only if "x" or "y" happens.

I understand that it's their donation money and they have the freedom to choose to donate or not, but I dont think this movement isnt going to be a short lived flash in the pan. Pro leagues both domestic and abroad are both recognizing the numerous societal challenges that span the country and the world right now.

If the argument is that college students or student athletes cant voice opinion because of all the revenue is involved, then maybe theres a larger issue.

VB born, class of '14

That's fair- but the bottom line is- like the NFL has seen- is that politics affects the bottom line- on both sides, that's why we try not to discuss politics at the dinner table, etc. And it will affect the hokie clubs bottom line too.

Yeah definitely. I think to a larger extent not acknowledging this fact is a bit of willful ignorance. But that shouldn't mean we don't strive for change. You're absolutely right, political topics will affect the bottom line no matter what opinions are.

VB born, class of '14

well, for starters, everything is politicized now so I think avoiding politics is becoming futile

secondly, treating human beings as human beings shouldn't be political...

If a tree falls in Scott Stadium does it make a sound?

It's also not really new. From the Greek Olympics to the Roman Gladiator games to NAZI held Olympics to using sports to desegregate the South under Jim Crow sports have always been political.
Example in NASCAR numerous political campaigns have purchased car sponsorships for a race or even a few but suddenly this year "it's political and I won't watch" crowd are all over. Maybe it's not they don't want politics in their sports it's they only want their political views in sports?

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Are you OK if one of the VT players wants "Make America Great Again" as his nameplate? Is that cool?

That's a registered political slogan. So no. Same if someone wanted "restore the soul" which is the other parties current campaign slogan.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

That is the point, not every person's good cause jives with another person's point of view. Keep it out to avoid division.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Agree- human beings should absolutely be treated equal and not murdered by police. Nobody with an IQ over 5 is going to argue those points. When players used to have "Smith" on the back of their jersey, and now it's "I can't breathe" You just made it political. IIWII. You are making a conscious decision to bring politics into a football game.

The issue is that many people fundamentally disagree that there is systemic social/criminal discrimination and those differences will diverge directly into a political discussion

Recruit Prosim

I'm curious to know more if you have some context. Why would any booster have an issue with anyone advocating for a justice/community cause?

I think Leonard tried to tip toe around this. First, ask yourself why we dont talk politics on here. The answer is it is inherently divisive. So supporting social change has the same potential. I can't say much more without stepping over the guidelines, which kinda proves the point.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

It's also a very nuanced and a broad movement and not monolithic like how the media portrays it. A booster (or anyone for that matter) may support some of the social change that's occurring but not all of it. Also a booster may support the original outrage over Floyd's death, but not some of the other issues brought up. People like to view everything as monolithic when what has occurred over the past few months has clearly been much more wide-sweeping than the initial outrage.

I am the heartbeat of Blacksburg. A fortress built out of stone but made with champions.

First off, thanks DC for providing that insight. It's good to get that kind of info from someone who has a finger on the pulse of some big donors and can read that room a bit. So what I'm about to say is not directed at you at all.

That kind of stand by those big donors is embarrassing AF. And if cutting ties with those sort of donors sets the program back, then so be it. It's the right thing to do.

If there's one thing I learned from watching Frank run this program as long as he did is that you do things the right way.

I found TKP after two rails from TOTS then walking back to my apartment and re-watching the 2012 Sugar Bowl. I woke up the next day with this username.

Why is that stance embarrassing? If the school allows players to put SJ organizations on their uniform the school is basically supporting it. It's the schools uniform not the players. If the donor does not support those organizations why should he keep supporting the school that is obviously now against what they believe?

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Correct, and some people (millions) do not wish to mix any politics with their entertainment. Which is 100% their right to do. They don't issue you a social justice questionnaire or political questionnaire when you donate to the hokie club. Maybe they should- then people can know where they stand.

If this happen, then like the NFL, my college football fandom will plummet to nil.

Could you expand on why?

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I like the amateur nature of the sport and support our team specifically, not the causes the individual players believe in, whether I agree with them or not.

I also don't think anyone wants to open Pandora's box of why hypothetically a BLM sticker can go on a jersey but a MAGA one can't.

Recruit Prosim

pls let's not open that box

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

#38-0

Take that second "A" off "MAGA" and there's nothing inherently controversial about either statement.

#MAGBLM

I'd also like an expanded take. I feel like this is the perfect opportunity for players to rally for just compensation, which given the huge amounts of money involved in college football today I think it's totally justified And also make a stand for social change that's important. Given the uncertainty of the season at this point anyway, why not see what sticks?

The college money discussion needs to focus on profit, and not revenue. There are huge expenses in college sports. Revenue is a near meaningless number. If the players want to split profits in the framework of a free market- in other words, don't pay them out of Fuente's salary that he fairly negotiated with VT, then fine. But "revenue" and treating coaches salaries like they are in play in terms of money for players is hogwash and won't ever fly. Look at how much money the school actually makes. It's not as much as the players think.

yes, because the schools spend money on unnecessary shit to say they don't have money available

It's a no win scenario then. If VT's locker room sucked and there was no player lounge, you wouldn't get good players. If the weight room was at a public planet fitness, you wouldn't get good players. If by unecessary, you mean Dabo and Saban's 10 million dollar salaries- most of which is paid by private money, btw..- then there is an argument, although not to a capitalist.

I don't disagree with you that these luxury facilities have largely come about because student athletes apparently give a strong positive response to them but... 1) excess funds have no legitimate way to filter down to the student athletes in the current system and 2) let's not act like there's no middle ground between $100 million dollar facilities and a public Planet Fitness.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

Should royalties from research patents go to the undergrad lab assistants?

Recruit Prosim

yes yes yes and more yes. If you can license a patent, that should trickle down to the specific people who actually did the work. The university and the PI are entitled to a cut, the relevant grad students/postdocs should be entitled to a cut, and any other undergrad lab researchers who worked on the project should be entitled to some.

Instead, you often get small, one-time incentives to patent. A grad student might get a couple hundred bucks if her idea is patented and licensed.

At my company, a fully approved patent nets an inventor maybe $500-750 total. And often times across industry, the bench worker has to really fight to be included on the patent as having made an intellectual contribution instead of the middle and upper management claiming the patent.

What then happens for new technology? Company makes every effort to demonstrate that it's already covered by previous IP. No new filing/legal costs, no need to compensate employee for developing something novel.

I sure wish I could patent something and be compensated at 0.5-1% of licensing. But even though I have the PhD and I do the work, it's unlikely that I'd see even that much for the entirety of my career.

edit: the typical university IP arrangement is why you see so many science/engineering professors be C-level executive or president of a startup or seven. Professor steers work and is inventor on the patent ho can help steer university licensing for a cut, Professor starts startup, University licenses IP to the startup, professor manages to turn the IP into a secondary revenue stream (and often utilize the university resources early on to support the corporate development work), Professor/university profit from shared arrangement. Poor sad grad student gets nice steak dinner and something to put on resume :(

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

And if they are part of a big research victory, or a big patent, it should count for something. Like being all-conference or winning a conference title. That enables some players to go on to professional careers...the patent should be on their resume and allow them to leverage that to better pay in the future.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

smart organizations pay employees for what they actually do, not for what they've already done. That's how you get Kobe running around chucking shots for $35m/yr coming off a wrecked achilles.

Sports leagues have figured this out -- depress the salaries of young players via CBA (because current players in union don't really care about the rookies who aren't in the league yet), get years and years of production that's way above pay-grade, then ditch the player before the paycheck matches or exceeds the output.

It may not translate perfectly because VT having an All-American football player doesn't directly generate money, unless some org gives a bonus to the university that I'm not aware of.

Registering a patent and licensing it for $50k a year for the next 10 years is a direct income source. It rarely makes sense for anyone to trade money now for the potential of money later, especially when it's not a binary either-or. The resume experience and cachet that comes with being part of a successful research project is still there, why shouldn't the person who did the work (and in many cases actually wrote the patent) get some more reward?

Anyone who has ever done a PhD in STEM understands that grad students are basically volunteering to be exploited for several years, and many PIs have become incredibly efficient at squeezing every drop of value out of their research groups.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Agree with some of this except smart organizations in creative/innovative industries also pay people based on potential - and a lot of that is based on what they've already done.

Sure. A scientist's "prime years" are in a different stage of life than an athlete's

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Respectfully disagree

Recruit Prosim

I'm not so sure we want everyone to become money-grubbing little rent-seekers, and stabbing each other in the back over trying to get a .05% licensing fee of their contributions.

You have a point, life isn't fair. On the other hand, if you have that kind of value to a company, they probably pay you a salary and maybe a bonus.

But if I'm a shareholder in that company, I want some of those profits to roll back to me. After all, I'm putting up the capital.

And I'm paying your managers to locate and hire you, and hopefully keep you happy and loyal.

But if I'm a shareholder in that company, I want some of those profits to roll back to me.

like the other 95-98% after maybe a dozen people get their due? Imagine being such a money-grubbing little rent seeker that you'd sweat the 0.05% from someone's intellectual property

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

I don't know how to break this to you, but without the people investing in the infrastructure, other personnel, and facilities, the intellectual doesn't get the opportunity to realize their full potential.

You're bandying around a false premise here. You didn't build that.

So yeah, as an investor, I hire 100 promising people. I give them the facilities to do their research. One of them finds an answer. That they wouldn't have found, by the way, if I didn't surround them with the equipment, their colleagues and the competent support staff around them.

Yes, it's how capitalism works. I may lose money on the other 99 promising people who poked around and didn't discover the cure first. But I pay them just the same. In your case, you got to the invention/discovery/idea a month before someone else did. So I give you a retention bonus and I keep paying you a salary for your entire life. If you're particularly promising and have management potential, I give you a promotion - you probably know how to recruit other smart people and look for other invention/discovery/idea.

By the way, if you can do it on your own, you're welcome to take a risk and start your own company. More than likely, it fails. It takes a lot of investment and failure to create.

This is all the nature of capitalism.

Thanks Captain Obvious. Nobody asked for you to condescendingly explain what capitalism is.

I'm not advocating for sole ownership of the IP by the inventors as opposed to a more equitable arrangement of the money from an IP distribution. This isn't hard to understand.

"I gave you the opportunity so therefore I and I alone own your thoughts" is a bad system

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

I don't mind you negotiating your contract. But there's no free ride. I see this discussion being similar to a sales representative deciding whether they'd be willing to work for less guaranteed money if they get a commission on sales. It does complicate the compensation conversation.

The topic of IP is complicated, multi-faceted, and not just about "someone stealing your thoughts".

I have nearly a decade in the startup world and in my experience, the compensation/incentive paradigm is the least complicated thing about it. It's typically quite simple, different classes and quantities of shares are allocated to the various participants according to their role in the endeavor. There are a handful of variables - such as risk, effort, time, ability, achievement - and people expect to be compensated/incentivized based upon all or some combination of them.

If you're working on a successful patent in a design, engineering, or research capacity, your name goes on the patent and you're compensated for your achievement with shares, bonuses, etc...

Not sure why they couldn't do a similar thing in academia.

The idea that existing players in any industry should be able to set themselves up as gatekeepers and leverage their position such that they have access to a giant pool of free or below market rate labor is anti-competitive and anti-capitalist. I'm not sure if it classifies as rent seeking or what but "That's just the way it is kid" is an unacceptable answer and people are calling it out for the bullshit that it is.

That said, there is plenty of room for discussion about reasonable compensation/incentives.

With your decade in startups, you also know that being involved in one includes risk, and doesn't always pay off for the participants. In fact, most startups fail.

You know this as well as I do.

The complication is not in setting up a compensation model. The complication is in the trade-offs for the participants. Do you want high job security or high profits? Your call. But you generally don't get both. If you get your compensation in shares, what happens when the company fails? Poof.

I'll be honest... I kinda' feel like you didn't really read what I wrote and are moving the goalposts by saying compensation package isn't complicated when the genesis of this sidebar was about why the existing incentive structure (or lack thereof) in academia made perfect sense and could not be altered. And is a sub-thread to an OP about compensating athletes.

I did read your comment.

I was just trying to point out that you're applying a compensation model from an environment where all the incentives are purely about profit to a non-profit setting.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying that there are trade-offs that neither you nor Gobble Chumps are acknowledging. You can expect some resistance because it's coming from an incompatible model. You have to start from a position of recognizing the value you're already receiving.

What's the value to the organization of changing the compensation structure? Does it make you more committed, or does it just create problems? Are you creating an environment where people are less inclined to work on a team or share ideas? Is it going to enhance productivity or results?

If you go in thinking "I just think I deserve more", then you're going to likely get the predicable result.

Some of these ideas do apply to the conversation about compensating athletes. First, we have to acknowledge that the athletes are already getting some compensation. Second, we need to acknowledge that if we change the compensation, we're also going to need to change the whole dynamic, set of expectations, and the way we view the participants.

In the startup world we issue shares. Why wouldn't this (or a similar model) work in the academic research world?

It's difficult due to the transient nature of academia. Who are your "stakeholders" and what's the minimum threshold to be considered one. It goes the same way with paper authorship sometimes. You can make an intellectual contribution or a physical contribution and both are necessary. I don't begrudge my PI for being an author on my papers for doing no physical work because there was an intellectual contribution.

Something as simple as a merit-based contribution compensation scheme is useful enough. The university typically gets majority and rightfully so. Typically PIs get the next biggest cut and rightfully so. There is usually very little for grad students or undergrad students who worked on it, which doesn't seem right.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

The way I've seen transience handled previously is to establish a vesting cycle... usually an initial cliff whereby a significant percentage of shares are granted in one lump (say, after a year or two) and the remaining grant vests over time for the length of a contract. If someone leaves before a year or before their contract is up, they forfeit the unvested balance of shares. Maybe it wouldn't work in that world but I would think achieving anything remotely patentable (let alone monetizable) in academia would take a significant amount of time and resources.

That could be doable. "Shares" in this case would just be available splits of a patent monetization which makes sense. Put some conditions on it like the undergrad has to complete at least one full semester of research, so on.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Good lord. "If I'm putting the money up, the money-grubbing rent seekers doing ALL the actual work better be happy with the pittance I give them," is maybe the epitome of saying the quiet part out loud.

But it's not really a pittance, is it, when you consider all the ideas that DON'T make it.

Remember, "Deserves got nothing to do with it."

Do you also want to not pay the people who didn't have a profitable idea?

But you missed the actual point.

The point was that I don't want all my employees stabbing each other in the back to get credit for ideas that may or may not be a big payout. I want them working together towards a common goal, and helping each other.

There are plenty of people who have good ideas, but don't have the sharp elbows to get all the credit for the idea.

Another great quote from that movie is "don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining." Seems appropriate here.

The point was that I don't want all my employees stabbing each other in the back to get credit for ideas that may or may not be a big payout. I want them working together towards a common goal, and helping each other.

It's pretty clear to me that you have never been on a team that has generated patent-worthy IP lmao. Everyone involved knows who contributed and who didn't. The technical product manager's name being on every single patent (when he doesn't find out about them until the first provisional draft crosses his inbox) instead of the lab technician is a sham.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

It's pretty clear to me that you have never been on a team that has generated patent-worthy IP lmao.

First rule of internet: Don't go making definitive statements about my experience when you don't have the first clue what my experience is. That you feel you need to go there says something about your argument.

I'm not totally against the kind profit sharing you're talking about. But I'm pointing out there's another side to the coin. I know the pitfalls, because I've seen those, too.

By the way, the technical product manager is a stakeholder, and generally has a LOT to do with success or failure of products. It takes skills and judgment that the technician often doesn't have. Do you want his job? Probably not.

But the real point here is that people always say they want the profits, but they want no part of the failures. They want a percentage of the proceeds of their intellectual property, but then want enough money to feed their families and retire on, and may even argue for more money than they made while employed, during the year when a virus shuts the company down.

So when I see players arguing to get paid, I wonder how many of them are ever going to play professionally. Some never will. It may well be that for a lot of them, getting a college degree and their living expenses paid is worth being on the team.

We could always restructure the finances of college athletics. Pay the male football and basketball players. But a lot of athletes under that system will see their sports cut, and their scholarships will go away.

You turned a conversation about undergraduate researchers getting compensation for patent contributions into a WeLL aCtUAlLy explanation of capitalism when the typical arrangement of all the things you're explaining isn't present in the way you're explaining it.

I'm not going argue this further but it's pretty clear from your comments that you're either a) on the management side who loves it when you can put your name on someone else's work or b) only speaking from an academic economic perspective that has little actual bearing on the conversation.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Yes, if they put in a significant amount of work then I'd say they have a earned a piece of the pie

And they get a piece of the pie. Even if it's not a straight percentage.

There are huge expenses in college sports. Revenue is a near meaningless number.

I would make the argument that profit is the near meaningless number, as for decades, expenses have been inflated due to increasing revenue without increasing the means of production (labor). Thus, the introduction of expenses that are completely out-of-whack with their benefits. If you tie the college money discussion to revenue, then those (future) crystal palace benefits won't be considered anymore, and expenses come back in line with revenues after sharing. May not be quickly, as some of these expenses are outlaid over years, but definitely within a decade.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

That's the whole reason for "amateur" sports and a level playing field in the first place. If VT stops building facilities and paying coaches market rates, UNC will still do it- with private money. Clemson will still build locker rooms with private money- which you can't control, and aren't considered "revenue".

It's not, ever, going to be a situation where one school is doing it and their rival is not. This is going to be a "shake up the whole system" event.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

The only thing on earth that I agree with Jim Beoheim on... We need to take a step back. How much money does a typical 20 year old in America make? A plumber? A college student? A musician? why are 20 year old amateur sports players entitled to huge salaries? why? take a hard look at that question from a macro economics point of view. It's a legit point. Does the consultant at booz allen right out of college at 22 years old make "a lot" of money? compared to a principal? nope. Remove any age requirements to turn pro.. let players go at 16 if an NFL team will pay them, and then take a hard look at why a 19 year old football player in college deserves 600K per year salary.

The counter to that arguement is: how much money does a typical 20 year old help generate? Elite D1 athletes are not typical in this instance.

1/3 of scholarship athletes will never contribute. Another 1/3 will be players that we can't remember the name of after graduation. The top 1/3 are great and remembered fondly. Our best player, Farley, will not play this year and assuming there is actually a season, it will not affect the revenue one bit. The value is collective. And there are hundreds of other athletes willing to take their place. But, ultimately, the value is in the institution itself.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

If the value is in the institution itself, why does the institution spend millions convincing high school athletes to come to VT?

Because it is a competitive sport. I would counter with why do the non-nfl professional leagues that have exponentially more talented rosters than college fail to make money?

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

So... you're saying that the institution has a vested interest in hiring recruiting the best athletes? So maybe they do have value?

They had value to their high school coaches too, but they weren't getting paid.

Whatever compensation a college player gets has to be equivalent across the board from backup long snapper to starting qb.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

The high schools don't make millions from football.

Let the elite athletes go to the NFL at age 16, if a team will sign them. Problem solved. Remove all age restrictions to turning pro. Let hoops players go to the G league and make 45K as opposed to college. Fine by me.

Yes. Also, let them earn money on the side while they are in college, like any other college student can do. Free market, right?

This is a done deal now right?

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Yes and no. If I was a booster for Virginia Tech and had a ton of money, I would open up a consulting business off campus and could offer potential players whatever fee I wanted to come work for me if they attended Virginia Tech. Lump sum signing bonus up front upon executed LOI. Free market economics will not work if applied to an educational entity that fields a team of amateur athletes. I don't see how we can pay players any significant sum and continue to operate under the pretense of a student athlete, I think it's got to be one or the other. If you're paid to play, what actual ties to Virginia Tech do the student athletes have? If they're only here to get paid, why are they representing the University? As an employee or student? How can that model work for an institute of higher learning?

Again, what a mess. I think a developmental league is the best option for the athletes, but I don't think the market would support it and it would fail. The brand needs the players and the players need the brand. Who needs each other more? I think a major shakeup is going to fundamentally change the relationship, and I'm not sure what it would look like.

Did you attend school with some students that were broke and others that had tons of money? I sure did. It didn't affect the fact that all of us were students.

And who cares if the players are "only here to get paid"? I suspect that many people that have attended VT over the years did it solely to get a job and get paid.

I don't see what the financial background of the student has to do with this discussion. But yes, like you, I saw students that were broke and others that were wealthy.

Students attend VT to get an education so that they can enter the job market and get paid. That's the primary benefit of education. Faculty and staff are employed by the university to get paid directly. They are not the same.

To get paid, to learn a trade, to get educated.

And hopefully, eventually, to serve.

I don't really follow your point here, if there is a high demand for their services then they will be compensated more regardless of age. It's not about entitlement it's about how much value they provide.

This touches on a point that has not been addressed - will all athletes be paid the same, or will better athletes be paid more? Do they renegotiate what they are to be paid each season, so a 5 star that's a bust can be taken off the payroll and a 2 star that's a starter can be fairly compensated?

I don't see a path to this thing working to be honest. There's a lot of truth to every facet of the conversation, but a lot of assumptions that may not play out in the long run. At this juncture I would rather have the NFL form a developmental league and pay the players whatever they can negotiate, and have VT field a varsity team from the student body. High School football 2.0. Level of play may suck, but it would be better than high school football, which I'd rather watch than pro sports these days. It's simply entertainment. I know there's a ton at stake for the parties involved, but my contribution is going to a game and drinking a few beers or turning on the TV. At some point I'll likely opt out, which is a lose lose for all parties involved.

What a mess.

Yeah I'm in favor of better compensation/benefits for players but I won't pretend I have great insight about the logistics of it. The whole college athletics system (at least for the profitable sports) is such a mess, the landscape of it will probably look pretty different 10 years from now.

And what is that value? That's Beoheim's point. The 12th guy on the bench is a nameless faceless 100% expendable practice player. The best player is free to turn pro at any working age in my scenario. The middle guy on the roster.. The Hunter Catoor's and Keyshon Artis's. The Caleb Smith's, the Ojiako's.. why are they entitled to 6 figure salaries at age 20?

This is interesting and to be honest is really the correct answer. This may be a little OT but the NFL has long benefited from basically using big time college football as their personal Farm system. Make the NFL get set up same as MLB, and have several farm teams, A, AA, and AAA and then remove the age requirement to get drafted, or maybe make it 16 like DC suggest (or however the do it with baseball).

Yes, this would be a huge change and would severely lower the level of college football, but it really the only way if you truly want things to be fair.

Bingo.

Or maybe have the NFL subsidize the college system instead of making the fans do it.

But it would be much cleaner to have the professional minor leagues available to as an option for players who aren't interested in getting a degree or the college football experience.

I'm assuming this has to do with the fact that they are student athletes, and education and academics should come first, and pop this athletic bubble.

Just a wild guess.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

Please, do tell why. People using their leverage to get better working conditions is a tale as old as time.

People overestimating their leverage and killing the goose that laid the golden egg is roughly as old a tale...

I'd like some examples of this actually.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

History is full of both negotiation, and overplaying one's hand.

I don't think this particular set of demands is feasible but I can't say I understand the desire to stan for coaches, administrators, and middle men with multi-million dollar salaries over the student-athletes. I actually think the value of a scholarship might be somewhat under appreciated while also recognizing that the NCAA system is deeply corrupt and broken.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

I mean what does an assistant coach make versus the value of a scholarship? How many elite coaches are there versus elite D-ends? What if neither is elite. Bottom line, college coaching salaries inflated to draw in the most skilled coaches. If we take the value of a player too far, I would rather see a minor league system. Of course every one of those has failed because fans need emotional attachment to a team to waste tons of time and money to watch and discuss.

Edit: with your edit we probably aren't far off in thinking. I am not rigid and think the athletes could be treated better while still maintaining student athlete status, but honestly I get a real bad personal reaction when I see individual players holding the sport hostage when 3/4 will be forgotten in a few years, which doesn't make them unimportant but they are overlaying the hand.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Really? Look at the non-fictional names in your tagline for an example

Hahaha. Coach Jags. What an idiot. This is actually a good catch. Nicely done.

And also, Fuck Matt Ryan.

Leonard. Duh.

Disagree. Jeff Jagodzinski overestimated his leverage and it cost him his job. The job of one individual is absolutely not the goose that lays the golden egg though- that would be BC's football program in this example, which was not significantly affected by the ordeal.

So yeah, it was a nice attempt at a gotcha but it's logically flawed.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

Nice attempt at a gotcha but it's logically flawed only if think of it in narrow terms. He undoubtedly killed his own golden egg by overplaying his hand with Boston College.

Nevertheless, there are many examples of labor unions who overplayed their cards and not only destroyed industries and companies, but killed their union and personal golden eggs. And this Pac10 player thing is a de facto labor union - and one which could kill their personal golden goose and the larger goose too.

Players are 100% recycled after 4-5 years. There are hundreds of kids that will also gladly take their scholarships. Will you stop rooting for VT if Hooker is replaced by someone willing to play by amateur rules? Because there are many lining up to do so, some very talented as well. Their "leverage" is overstated, IMO.

For those who are asking about my position, I cannot give an answer that will not violate the guideline and angering/offending some posters here, so that's my answer.

Then why say anything in the first place? Your original comment was unprompted

Now we are just left assuming what you meant. It's not a good look for you either way

This.

IDGAF.

Then why be concerned w guidelines? Just saying.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Clearly.

As I said, still a bad look. Worse now...to be honest

What...part...of...I...don't...give...a...fuck...do...you...not...get? Maybe you have a dissonance disorder that needs to be addressed by a professional psychologist or 10, but when I said I did not want to violate the guideline based on some very strong feelings about football, I meant it, but instead, all you want to yammer about is "Not a good look."

Maybe to you it is not a good look, but I prefer to keep my mouth shut on what I really think/feel about going on, but clearly you and other who upvoted you in your echo chamber are just being tone deaf.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Never mind. Unhelpful.

Seems like the NCAA is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If you don't play the season most athletic departments will fold. If they do play I think the position that players are justly compensated for the risks they take is going to be hard to defend which could also bring down the ncaa.

I haven't heard a good plan for paying players. Has anybody heard of one that details out how payments are made and how much and how parity is reached across schools? For social injustice, will that extend to political positions outside of black lives matter? Who approves messages?
Safe play and long term healthcare are interesting, I just don't know how you afford it unless you want to severely restrict the number of teams playing.

Ultimately I don't think there's a season this year but I wish there were some serious conversations about this stuff rather than thoughts from people that haven't really thought about how it works or how it changes things.

how parity is reached across schools

what would you call what there currently is in college football?

They are paid (scholarship), I'm assuming that some just dont feel like its enough enough compensation. The average annual tuition for the 2019-2020 year ranged from ~22k to ~50k annually. For the sake of argument, lets say the average tuition across the board is $35k annually, and the average hours worked per year is 1920. That comes out to an hourly rate of $18.23 and hour, before taxes, etc. Included in those benefits is medical care.

Now, I can certainly see an argument where their pay is not sufficient when considering the revenue generated by their specific sport. However, their sport (football) makes up a very significant amount of revenue generated by each athletic department that goes back in to supporting the non-revenue sports.

If they want some form of revenue sharing, they need to start with dismantling Title IX requirements, and I think that is a very, very bad idea. To get what they want in terms of revenue sharing they need to redo / rethink a lot of systemic issues and dependencies.

To be frank, I think they'll have an easier time creating a professional minor league for the NFL, and if history is any indicator that will not work out well for them either.

Now, I can certainly see an argument where their pay is not sufficient when considering the revenue generated by their specific sport.

No, I think most arguments are along the lines of their pay is not sufficient because (most of it) is not fungible. Having to suspend athletes because they got a dinner from somebody or were given a suit to wear to a friend's funeral, or be required to pay back the value from their very limited funds.

Employers aren't allowed to do that, there are several laws against it, usually going back to the "mill town store" concept where people were paid in store credit at the mill store, something which has value but is not able to be used as currency elsewhere. That concept led to people being trapped in their jobs, and is illegal nowadays. If you apply any standard of current labor laws to college football, the NCAA arguments would be laughed out of court.

The "student athlete" concept was originally created to eliminate payment to players at a time when there wasn't enough money to sustain the sport. That time is long past.

Edit: And yes, there is an element of pay being not sufficient compared to revenue generated.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

They are paid (scholarship), I'm assuming that some just dont feel like its enough compensation.

This is my thing - I think the scholarship is fair compensation for work. I don't think it's fair that a college athlete is restricted from earning money elsewhere. That's why I believe that players should get to own their NIL. I know that's different than what the P12 players are asking, but I think the Olympic model is perfect - the school is giving you $20k-$50k/year in scholarship money. If Nike wants to give you an extra $20k to share an instagram post, I say go for it.

I think part of the issue is that people use the phrase 'pay the players' quite loosely without understanding that there are ways for players to earn money without taking revenue from the school.

Twitter me

I agree, but I also think those players accepting money from outside should be required to pay taxes on it. There should be a system set up to make sure these players are recording the money and facing the taxes the rest of the country has to pay. That bag man is going to get a receipt now.

I agree with that. Shouldn't be that difficult.

Twitter me

The schools don't have to pay the players directly, just keep the scholarships, and allow them to be paid by 3rd parties.

I would call that bluff quickly. Put out a press release that says the conference supports any player opting out for safety or other reason.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

I stand by this statement after reading the demands. There are things that the NCAA needs to work on but I would call the bluff. I have long said that the school name is exponentially more important in terms of revenue and yet the players keep insinuating that it is their value bringing the fans. Squash the power play then move onto some of the very good points that are in the letter. Do not present it as a negotiation. The players are free to walk at any time.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

I'm fine if the schools or NCAA want to have a meaningful discussion and work out the issues presented by these players, but good luck having success when you make "demands" and threaten to walk away if you don't get EVERYTHING you want. Life doesn't work that way and I hope they learn that fast. If you want something, then put out a forceful argument why it should happen, not demand "x, y, and z" occur or you'll walk away, that's just a poor and petty negotiation tactic.

I am the heartbeat of Blacksburg. A fortress built out of stone but made with champions.

I guess this is a good thing but if these players are successful you'll see the end of college football. I just think the liability will become too great for universities to continue football programs, especially the smaller schools.

I think this might bring about the end of college football *as we know it*, which is a good thing if it brings about a better system where players are treated more fairly.

Define "treated more fairly"?

you heard about iowa yet?

Yes I have. That doesn't answer the question broadly.

There's a lot of things that go on behind closed doors that put players in awkward situations. Here's some I've heard of:

  • There's a booster who pays a player from a poor family. That player is slammed during the season with football and class, but this booster wants you to make an appearance at his sons birthday party for a few hours so he can look cool in front of his friends. The player may not have the time to do this, but he has no leverage here; he can't risk losing the money, but he also doesn't want his grades to slip.
  • Players being forced to play through injuries or risk losing their scholarship
  • The 'sharecropping' that happens when coaches push students towards easier majors, and/or encourage students to just 'get through' college instead of actually learning something, just so those players will graduate and have no other options but going into high school coaching, and funnel recruits back to the school

College football has transformed the lives of some players, but there's an ugly underbelly to the sport. A lot of kids from bad socio-economic situations get stuck in rough situations because they have to keep their scholarship or stay paid. On top of that, there's an (at best) weird racial dynamic where the people writing the checks are mostly wealthy and white, and the players are mostly poor and black.

Twitter me

50% of revenue to players, 2% to social justice initiatives, 6 year guaranteed scholarships, 6 years of medical insurance AFTER eligibility expires, and NIL rights? While demanding that all sports remain fully funded?

I mean... I completely agree that salaries and facilities have gone way overboard in the revenue sports and that money would be better spent supporting student athletes but these demands are beyond unrealistic. It would only take a few minutes of crunching the numbers for this to fall apart.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

While demanding that all sports remain fully funded?

There's a difficulty to this as different schools fund differing numbers of sports.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

Which job in America- anywhere- pays you for 2 years after you stop working there? Which job in America ports your health insurance to your next job for 6 years? Fucking laughable.

you heard of pension plans?

Of course I have. They are on their death bed, btw.. very few companies offer them, and most are earned after 20 years- not 4...

You mean an outdated plan that very very and I mean select few still do? With health insurance as high as it is these days its an unrealistic expectation.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

It's only "outdated" here in the US.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

And the NCAA football is played in the US? Are they going to move the league and all to canada then?

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

So because it's the way we have always done it here we should never look at how others around the world deal with issues and maybe decide we don't do it best?

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

I'm not going to have a debate on how we do our healthcare here vs. the world, this is not the place nor time to do that. Simply put I'd love it if we could reform healthcare but fact is it will not be something the PAC-12 players will do nor the NCAA, this league is in the US, and thats how it is here.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

the question was "what job does that?" i pointed out that jobs do in fact do that via pension plans. both responses have now been agreeing that they exist but are few and far between (be careful, we're almost giving the game away guys!)

this is what the youth call "moving the goal posts"... thank you for coming to my ted talk

Citing a typical pension plan- which requires union membership and 20 plus years of service to get a pitance of your actual salary is also moving the goal posts. What job pays you your full salary and benefits after 4 years of service? I'm all ears, seriously curious. Let's make a valid comparison. The only I can think of are C-suite guys that have that in their "contracts"- a 2 year severance is not unheard of for a very select few. Other than that?

you asked for examples and i gave them

you are now saying that college football players are equivalent to normal jobs which i don't agree with and neither does the ncaa for that matter. again moving the goal posts/redefining parameters to fit your argument

So no valid comparison? Agree

the NFL requires you to be on the active roster for 3-4 games for 3-4 seasons in order to be eligible for the pension plan. i don't see why that can't be translated to the college game, were they allowed to unionize.

i also know you won't agree and will continue to move the goal posts to prove your point

I'm fine with the NFL model in college, sure. Remove scholarships, standardize admission requirements, have player unions, and pay the players salaries. Fine. I can choose or no choose to support that as a fan. But keep in mind, when you go to the pro model, you go to pro model. Players can be cut mid week, players can be released for injuries, players pay taxes on income, players can be asked to play for a reduced salary after their freshman hype doesn't materialize. You want them to be pros? treat them like pros. fine with me.

The idea that unionizing/professionalizing necessarily means copy and pasting NFL working conditions seems to mostly show a lack of imagination. There are plenty of ways for scholarships to be locked in and honored, which I'm sure is something a college athletics union would be able to negotiate for.

As a CFP(r), I will simply comment that your understanding of pension plans is lacking. Neither requirement of your initial strawman statement is accurate.

If you find your retirement situation that dire, I will give you the advice that Dear Leader's daughter Ivanka had to share...just "find something new"

They still qualify for parents insurance and we are gonna give them a pension? I do think there is some room to give here, but I think it should have to be a diagnosed condition while playing to be covered.

I do have a question though. Does the University cover major medical costs for players after graduation? Lets say it is something obvious like a terrible knee injury to a senior in a bowl game...would the school cover through rehabilitation?

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Those people you mentioned are people who serve public safety and thus deserve such, if theres no football and sports dont exhist the world would get along, painfully I may add but we would live. No firefighters, emts, and such and it wouldnt go well.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

a) pension plans other than Congress(don't get me started on that subject!) generally aren't vested at all until 1-5 years of service depending on the company and don't begin to accumulate to ANY significant $ til many many years of service (my company ended its previous pension plan about 15 years into my tenure with them and amounts to about $600/month(from a salary that at the time had averaged $50-75k annually (so less than ten percent of most recent salary) and cannot be taken until your years of service and age total 55-65(though some are more generous like military or first responders sometimes)

b) the reason most pensions have ceased to be offered is that they are defined benefit plans meaning there is no way to know whether the company will have to pay out for 1 year or 40. When pensions were common (and for that manner when social security began) the average life expectancy was 65 so people didn't receive it for very long on average. With life expectancies now approaching 80 and many living into their 90s the funds needed to be set aside to guarantee lifetime pensions are astronomical. Which is why companies went to defined contribution plans instead. Many companies DO still put some money aside(whether as matching 401K contributions or even separately in addition to that) because there is a certainty in the fiscal outlay which allows for better long term planning. The thing companies have the hardest time dealing with is uncertainty which causes their investors to be hesitant to risk their capital not knowing what return they will get on it.

As a believer in capitalism(which I am but know that not everyone agrees with) I have no issue with the changes as long as they are clearly explained and understood when accepting employment with a company.

From the 2018 VT-uva game-"This is when LEGENDS are made!"

Not really, if you sustain an on-the-job injury, treatment is covered even after you're no longer employed there. Or it damn well should be.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

An on the job injury- a workers comp claim or a disability- is not the same thing as "health insurance". Not at all.

Jobs like professional firefighter or police officer or military service member do this but for life (as long as you stay long enough). If you're risking bodily harm for other people, it's not unreasonable to ask to be compensated for it beyond the time you work there

In my opinion, those are in no way comparable to a 4 year stint on a college football team. And we think tuition prices are high now. If the players want the military model, ok- after 4 years, colleges will give them 30% of their scholarship cost- not room/board or books, btw. - for 2 more years. That would be the military pension model- best case.

uh...how about college coaches and their insane buyout clauses allowing them to be paid for years after they leave a school...

HH4455

Welp, sports was fun while it lasted.

There are wolves and there are sheep, I am the sheep dog

If they actually go through with this I think every other conference will respond with some middle ground once the conference ADs and players see the Pac-12 implode. What we're looking at is mutually assured destruction otherwise, and the whole college football empire will come crashing down hard.

Where media, lawyers, and politicians converge, generally the unattended consequences is where we end up.

I thought this was an interesting point, about non-revenue sports actually as a net positive for universities before all the seemingly extravagant expenses. (I can't wait until someone crunches all the numbers.)

I think then you would see inflation in the "student athletic fees?" Now instead of football and basketball funding non revenue, you're increasing the cost of education for everyone on campus which is already growing at a rate much higher then inflation.

Additionally, in the real world of professions that have work hazards to them, I.e construction, you do everything you can to eliminate risk and liability. If you introduce additional insurance and liability to football, it will crush any profits. You'd be splitting $0 with the athletes.

Also, the current health care law allows for "minor" children to be on their parents insurance until age 26. Why would universities take on this responsibility?

Also, the current health care law allows for "minor" children to be on their parents insurance until age 26. Why would universities take on this responsibility?

This assumes their parents have health insurance.

It's a fairly safe assumption

It's Time to go to Work

Maybe pre-covid

The athletic ran the numbers recently. Take a sport like Baseball, that has 30-some players, only 11(?) scholarships. That's 20ish players paying full tuition.

Twitter me

For anyone who watched the ICC Seasons of Last Chance U they said the quiet part out loud there too.

Part of the reason a nowhere Community College in small town Kansas was trying to get more into football was dozens and dozens of non scholarship players who would all be writing tuition checks to the school.

And that is why ODU cutting wrestling was bad for them financially.

It's Time to go to Work

All of this is turning me off to sports. I've already quit baseball football and basketball. I'm speaking strictly pro here.

"Hey Bud, you wont have to hold the opponent to 17 points anymore."

why?

Because shut up and dribble

"That kid you're talking to right there, I think he played his nuts off! And you can quote me on that shit!" -Bud Foster

Or be honest and let the consumer decide. The NFL and NBA should publish their political agenda's openly, and let their fans decide if they want to buy tickets, watch on TV, or play fantasy sports. If you are more than a sports league, more than a "dribbler", let's hear it. Let's hear the politics up front, so we can decide.

The NBA is pretty upfront and they are as popular as they have ever been. That is because of the makeup of the fan base here, but more importantly its appeal overseas. NBA superstars hold more leverage than any other athletic group.

I'm pretty sure the NFL's political agenda is simply "Get. All. The. Money." The NFL still has a bunch of fans stuck in the dark ages though, so who knows. If anyone has a problem with that statement, its more a reflection on you than on the NFL

Ironically, up until this season, the NBA had a league policy that you MUST stand for the anthem. Let's see if kneeling affects them like it did the NFL.

So, that's the thing. People took a stance that they were done with the NFL, and wouldn't watch again. Here's the chart for viewership numbers.
NFL Viewers
The numbers have grown for the past 2 seasons...

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Net growth does not mean they didn't lose viewers/demographics. There are many other factors. Something to watch for sure.


You understand that while they may have lost a few, they gained more, right? That's what makes the increase...

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

Maybe the games were more compelling? Maybe more casino's opened in states? Maybe streaming numbers are being counted? Fact is, they lost an appreciable amount of viewers over the anthem flap. Some that will never come back. Those are facts.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

it's a losing proposition to try to have this conversation by presenting it as qualitative statements as opposed to presenting it in numbers

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Or perhaps the NBA made a business decision after realizing that continuing that stance would be bad for business. Before this year it might not have been something that they were spending a whole lot of time on, but now they are.

Or we could go with your hot take....

If people don't want to watch sports because they can not understand why athletes are kneeling, that is a deep seeded problem that they have. The professional leagues are starting to make it clear that they don't care about that outdated way of thinking.

The real irony is going to be all of the folks with backwards thinking left to wonder why there are no sports left to watch because the owners won't pay up to the people that we actually tune in to see.

(I'm aware I am going over the community guidelines, but some things are just more important than whether or not a blog will let me post)

Standing for the Anthem is backward and outdated? Lol. OK.

Forced partiotism is fascist and nationalist and has no place in America.

Justice Robert H. Jackson stated the obvious: "To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds

That's from 1943 FYI

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Funny- I attend a ton of live sporting events. At literally every one of those, 99.9% of people stand for the anthem. I'd venture to say its closer to 100% at Lane Stadium in my experience - 20 years of season tickets. Yet nobody is "forced" to do it, and never have been. If standing for the National Anthem is backwards, then 99% of people are. At the height of Kaepernick, over 95% of NFL players stood for the anthem. Backwards? wrong? laughable. Nobody is forced to stand.

Ironically, up until this season, the NBA had a league policy that you MUST stand for the anthem

Did you forget you posted this. Yes people were forced to stand. Not only that but the NFL took millions of dollars from the DOD to have huge "patriotic" displays before games.
If Fuente allowed his players to kneel during the anthem or you saw band members doing it on the field what would be your response to the school? I can already see your angry email.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

"People" were not forced to stand. A private league had a company policy. Period. No American was forced to stand up by law or against their will. Nobody. Ever. You comparison is bunk. It was a league policy, collectively bargained by the players to avoid media distractions the NFL was dealing with. The players agreed to it. And it wasn't a law- Players violate the drug policy all of the time for example and are suspended for it.

I would never send Fuente an email, as he doesn't read his public email. I would never send Whit an email, as he doesn't read his public email. If there are some players on VT that want to kneel for the anthem, so be it. I don't care. To pretend that the vast majority of players that stand up for the anthem are backwards and wrong is BS virtue signaling propaganda. In terms of the band, I bet you a beer that no members of the Corps of Cadets or Highty Tighties will kneel during the anthem. Ever.

I bet you a beer that no members of the Corps of Cadets or Highty Tighties will kneel during the anthem. Ever.

Buy him a beer.

As far as I know, there is no actual law that says you are required to stand for the anthem. Shoot, America is literally the only country that plays its national anthem before every sports contest. Most countries reserve the playing of their anthem for when the national team is actually one of the competitors.

And I never said that standing for it was backward or outdated. I clearly said that the people that think its a requirement to stand are the ones that are backward and outdated.

DC we all get your MO at this point. Perhaps you should spend a bit more time reading what people in fact say

I can't fathom a non-political answer here. There's no ground to stand on if your gripe is player compensation.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

wasn't really anticipating an answer to be honest

generally speaking, what kills me about college football, and college athletics generally, is that people will claim to love these kids/young adults when they suit up and make plays (ie this is home, #hokienation, etc) but the second these young people ask for change or suggest something to make you mildly uncomfortable it's "oh hell nah i'm out"

Or there could be more complicated thoughts on the matter. Like recognizing that the money most people think is available actually isn't. Or, like thinking the kids are not forced into the arrangement they find themselves in. I am all for increased insurance and stipends but there aren't millions to be thrown around or else the entire collegiate sports makeup falls apart.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

there aren't millions to be thrown around or else the entire collegiate sports makeup falls apart.

One could make the argument that instead of paying for ridiculously nice weight rooms and locker rooms (that are nicer than any pro sports facilities), schools could use that revenue to (directly) pay players.

Twitter me

Agreed but as long as recruiting is a beauty contest, money will be wasted to make an impression. Non revenue sports wil be what falls apart first. Not that there probably isn't some waste there as well but they are essentially destined to not be self sustainable.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Agreed but as long as recruiting is a beauty contest, money will be wasted to make an impression.

I think the idea is that recruiting becomes less of a beauty contest if you pay players.

Non revenue sports will be what falls apart first. Not that there probably isn't some waste there as well but they are essentially destined to not be self sustainable.

As discussed elsewhere in this thread, 'non-revenue sports' are non revenue for the athletic dept, not necessarily the university. Some might be able to stick around

Twitter me

In this case the poster explicitly stated

I'm speaking strictly pro here.

So that rules out essentially all of the things you discussed.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

Yes and many of the college football fans have given up on pro sports due to the me first attitude. I have said there is plenty that college can work on, but hopefully the name on the front of the jersey remains the priority.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Because "me first" players didn't exist in the pros until the last few years?

Also interesting how college fans didn't seem to complain this much when Johnny "Money" Manziel came around in 2012.

Wonder why.

Joffrey, Cersei, Ilyn Payne, the Hound, Jeff Jagodzinski, Paul Johnson, Pat Narduzzi.

I personally can separate pro and collegiate and enjoy both. I do despise the ten second trademarked dance for make a tackle after a four yard gain on 3rd and 3. But I respect that they are in a business and it is what it is. We don't have to let college sports become such a business. I mean the worst anybody can say is colleges overpay on facility quality for the players. It isn't like some owner is pocketing money off their likeness. Colleges cant even compete without charitable donations on top of the ridiculous revenues.

Johnny was a craze because he was the kryptonite for Bama but I think there was as much hate following as love following.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

It's not the me-first attitude, it's the corporate attitude. NFL football feels like a chain restaurant; you know what you're going to get every time. It might be a good chain restaurant, maybe even a Ruth Chris, but the fact that it's a chain restaurant, and its exactly the same in every city, leaves it void of any personality. College football is a collection of hole-in-a-wall restaurants; every school is wildly different. Like a hole-in-wall restaurant, a school tends to become your favorite due to the personality, not the quality of the food.

Twitter me

Well said. The business side of the NFL is ruthless as well. But for some reason people remember the hold outs and forget the cuts and trades. I personally still enjoy the NFL product, but it has become harder to feel invested in the individual teams. I have become more of a casual fan than a die hard fan of a single team. Although being a team to be named later fan has some to do with it as well. There have been some downright unwatchable years in DC.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Amen. Not to mention the literal penalties called on every other play now, and replay making games nearly unwatchable. I enjoy college football much more.

Full disclosure, no I do not drive to Blacksburg, get a hotel, buy tailgate stuff and set up for an hour to watch chemistry experiments or math debates or look in on turf research. Yes, I do in fact go to watch football- which is a choice presented to me by the university. They have a football team, I choose to support them with donations and tickets. If and when that event becomes a political rally, or the players are professionals, I have every right to reconsider my forms of entertainment.

Ditto.

Off the cuff, I'd say the 50% revenue split is way too high. NFL and the NBA don't even get that and they are superior products. The stuff about health insurance and longer scholarships are right on in my opinion. These kids can face serious injury, I'd think that both would be totally doable and something that the players have earned.

I would think that maybe like a 80-20% split plus the NIL rights and scholarships for the players would be a pretty good deal all the way around. The AD will still have enough money to float the rest of the AD, salaries will probably come back into line with what they should be, and the players are paid to an appropriate level.

Some requests are on the right track but there's too much nonsense mixed in.

It's Time to go to Work

Who could have possibly predicted that one arm of the school begging for donations to pay another arm and call that enough compensation wasnt gonna be sustainable long term?

Let's just go back to amateurs playing in college, and pros playing professional ball.

If they want to start a minor league, that's fine, too.

I like college football, but the ridiculous money involved is sucking the life out of it.

Agree. Let kids go pro whenever they want. Might move a lot of the elite athletes out of college sports but that might end up leveling the playing field in college football even more and creating more parity. We have seen with the playoff system the top six teams are basically the same now. Create parity by fielding teams of three star and occasional 4 star football players and we see more parity like in other college sports while the 5 star players go onto the minor league football squads or developmental teams.

Sigh. I hate UVA.

I absolutely support this. Maybe it's just the history and culture of blue collar coal mining that runs in my blood for generations (and believe me, there's so much history of miners rising up, banding together, using their leverage, fighting for a bigger piece of the pie, etc.) but when I see stuff like this, or the attempt for Northwestern's football players to form a union a couple years ago, it instantly has my support.

I found TKP after two rails from TOTS then walking back to my apartment and re-watching the 2012 Sugar Bowl. I woke up the next day with this username.

I find this really fascinating, the demands seem to range from no-brainer such as more clarity and better practices surrounding COVID, NIL Rights, reduced coach/administrator/facility spending to easily doable such as the racial injustice requests to probably not gonna work such as using the endowments for college sports, the 50% revenue request, I wonder how much is staking out positions with intention on negotiating vs what are hard lines. I also wonder if the 50% revenue was put on the table, you would have to count the value of scholarships in that 50% right? I haven't done the math but that may make a huge difference, obviously on a per player basis basketball may bring in more than football, how does that change things? You also have, as was pointed out above, huge Title IX implications.

Edit: typo

VT '17

If the conference starts negotiating, it already lost.

"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?"

Yeah, Title IX implications... like 50% revenue sharing would turn out to be pretty much illegal under current federal law.

Someone above brought up a good social justice point. Obviously, these players are talking about the current BLM movement/cause that they want to support. What about down the road if, say... maybe a religious based school wants to wear patches and kneel because they support the "Baby Lives Matter" pro-life movement? Would they be given the same consideration and support?

Let's not spout beliefs on certain religious institutions, abortion, or BLM. I'm just trying to point that it's all good right now when you're holding the gun, but one day that pesky rabbit just might get his hands on a gun too.

Leonard. Duh.

Leonard: [brings up a point about abortion]
Also Leonard:

Let's not spout beliefs on certain religious institutions, abortion, or BLM.

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

I see what he was getting at with his comment. Everyone is okay with movements for different things, but there's always something they won't agree with. Then this becomes another heated and ugly discussion and no one wins.

can we please not

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Another thing that I read this morning which I think is legally not allowable - one of the demands was to reinstate sports using university endowments to pay for those sports. Endowments are not an open savings account for a university. They are donations made by corporations and individuals that are earmarked for specific purposes. It's not something a university can "tap" to pay for a specific athletic purpose unless the endowment donation was earmarked for that sport.

This proposal kind of reminds me of the climate change legislation that was submitted a year ago. Full of big dreams and big action proposals, but thin on actual implementation planning (this isn't meant to be a political comment, but if you read the legislation as I have the goals are admirable but the execution of a lot of the legislation was questionable, regardless of how you feel politically about the issues or the legislators who presented it). I understand the want to make big, sweeping changes but sometimes you get better progress with smaller, incremental changes that are well thought out.

Just to clarify though their is "open" money in endowments. For example for Stanford it's right around 20% can be used for any purpose.

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Good point, but that open endowment number is a lot smaller for schools other than Stanford.

That may be, but you may see a change to endowment fundraising. If a revenue sharing model is implemented, and there is less funds flowing to non-revs as a result, then you may see some fundraisers attempting to get people to donate endowment funds for specific nonrevs.

"John, here's what your endowment donation will get you: two fully funded scholarships to women's softball, plus X amount of equipment funds annually."

If you're not sure if my comment warrants a "/s", it probably does.

At what point do we see potentially having an attempt to form a union happen? As someone who works in a heavily unionized trade this feels like where this is heading and before you know it we will have a very NFLPA and NFL stand off situation.
Unions are great for employee safety and looking after its members but my issue with them is they tend to overvalue themselves simply because they always want more and more. If they had more reasonable demands then 50% they would more than likely find more welcoming arms for this size change. I'd also love to know what the average endowment most university's have and what kind of dfference there is for public versus private. Not everyone is like Stanford with their large endowment.
With the insane hike in college attendance these days with minimal correlation to inflation it peeves me a bit that the scholarship continues to be belittled and tossed aside as if it isnt enough to be worth something.

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

Seems like WSU might be walking from the team some players who have voiced support for this?

However I double checked and the few WSU players who tweeted the #weareunited image are still on the football roster as found on the WSU website.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29587843/washington-sta...

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Pain is Temporary, Chicks Dig Scars
Glory is Forever, Let's Go Hokies!!

Woods opted out for this year because of having sickle cell and the worry with Covid. Then he asked if he could still work out with the team....and was told no. Not sure that's "clean out your locker" talk. If someone isn't on the team, they don't get those perks. He gets to keep the scholarship, but not do all the other things the players do, so in essence he's just a normal student. At that point, he can support what he wants. The coach just said it would affect how he's seen in the future, since he'd be coming back as a Redshirt Sophomore if they consider this year a redshirt. (Either way, he'd have 3 more years of eligibility.)

But this is the disturbing part from the coach:

"That's going to be an issue if you align with them as far as future stuff," Rolovich said, according to the Morning News. "The COVID stuff is one thing. But joining this group ... it's going to be different. If you say, 'I'm opting out 'cause of COVID and health and safety,' I'm good. But this group is going to change how things go in the future for everybody, at least at our school."

That kid, single handedly, doesn't have the pull to alter everything for the school. And just because it's been like that, doesn't mean that change is a bad thing... (Not saying it will be the bees knees either, just that he is a stick in the mud that is adverse to change.) And if he's OK opting out because of Covid, then he's part of the student body. What happens after that shouldn't be the concern of the coach.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

I agree with the part of him not being able to practice if he's going to opt out of the season tbh. The part about joining the movement and it affecting his future with the program is very troubling though.

That is very misleading tweet compared to the ESPN story. According to the story he opted out for health, a decision that nobody is going to argue. Once opted out, he would be required to separate from the team entirely. You can't continue to train and exercise with a team if you separated for health purposes.

I'm completely onboard with Sections I through III and most of IV. I think that the players having a say in the "health & safety standards" is a sane request, putting an end to the overspending on College Football is warranted and should have been done a long time ago, and the racial injustice issues should be addressed as well.

Even then, the "Economic Freedom" requests aren't that crazy. I can get onboard with the medical expense coverage for 5 years after college BUT it would require semi-annual physicals at a facility of the universities choice. Fail to go to a physical and you lose the coverage. It would also only cover injuries stemming from the time spent as an athlete. Being able to secure sponsorships? That's fine, but it needs to be limited, i.e. no commercials or advertisements. You want to be paid for every jersey that's sold by a 3rd party? No problem. Items 3-6 of the Fair Market stuff is fine.

That said, 50% is a deal breaker and should be stricken from any attempt. Olympic sports athletes aren't going to see a dime of this...it's going to Football & Basketball players and that's it.

Students are compensated for their on-the-field efforts with a scholarship valued in the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those few individuals who are good enough to make it to the next level know that it's a necessary stepping stone to success. The others should see it for what it is...a means to a degree where you don't walk away weighed down in debt. The NCAA should be told to fuck off when it comes to penalizing players for transferring schools, getting a little bit of extra money on the side, etc. but there needs to be a limit and the people making the big money need to pull their heads out of their asses and figure out what it is.

How many of y'all have up your Hokie Club donations to support such things? Just wondering.

Seems to me that if college football essentially goes professional, we won't need to donate.

It should sustain itself, all around.

It would make no sense for alumni to donate to their school team so that some folks can get rich. Though on further reflection, this is sort of how it works now.

I would be more in favor of the athletes who are just training for a football career to go that route earlier, and the ones who want to play college football for a scholarship staying in the college system. The wheels are going to come off of this at some point.

You've in effect just pointed out the hypocrisy of the whole system.

Boosters only really want to give money towards getting kids that they would literally pay to see play for their college team. They arn't going to pony up to watch walk on/scholarship players out on the field.

So what is the actual difference between high level college football and the NFL?

I agree with you, by the way. Anyone that would sit here and say they want to watch college football at a high level, but is not for paying players, needs to decide. It can't work both ways for much longer

Edit: I love(d) college football but as bad as VT has been, and with everything else going on in the world, it's hard to view what it's become as anything more significant than a metaphorical penis pump for middle aged insurance salesmen and a revenue generator for ESPN. It's not really about the kids or the school or the game. And it's certainly not about the fan. While I think these demands are unrealistic, I also think this situation was inevitable. And I'm not at all shocked or offended by it.

in today's lesson kids, we are going to learn about the word "extortion"!

"Take care of the little things and the big things will come."

There are some really awesome discussions on here.

If COVID has taught me anything, our economic power structure needs a change. If that starts with "amateur" college football, then so be it.

(this is for context, mods can remove if it's toeing the line of CG) We have 40mil unemployed, but the stock market is up. There will be mass evictions and foreclosures here in the next 2 months. We want to see college football, but the players are legitimately not trying to get a virus we have no vaccine to combat. And that is on top of a massive social justice movement we haven't seen since the 1960s.

We are living through a major historical moment. But boosters are upset over a BLM sticker on a jersey? These same boosters must have been upset with the Stick it In chant, too.

TKPhi Damn Proud
BSME 2009

But boosters are upset over a BLM sticker on a jersey? These same boosters must have been upset with the Stick it In chant, too.

Probably not all of them. Have you read what BLM stands for? Do you agree with them? Do agree with their founders saying they are trained marxists? It's a political organization with a name that people here and think they can support. I would be upset with a BLM sticker, patch whatever on a VT uniform. That shows that the school supports the organization, which many Americans don't agree with.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

A lot of good demands in here, some not so well thought out. Does this mean they would technically be employees, and can be terminated? I'm not certain anyone wants to see how that plays out. As for endowments, those dollars were donated with purpose in mind, regardless of the size. Reallocating funds given by individuals to a purpose they did not intend? "I donated to [charity X], but they decided to reallocate that money to [charity Y]."

@hokie_rd

WAAAY too much disrepect in this thread.

Well, we tried!