Is the NCAA under any obligation to provide a level playing field or is just going to be the Wild West where everyone is packing heat and if you want another teams wrestler you just shoot them.

[MPhillips]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

This account isn’t suspicious at all ha.  Although Warren Haynes is a cool band. 

Spelled, "parity" correctly (although I would have accepted parody). Warren Haynes is a person.

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Spelled, "parity" correctly (although I would have accepted parody). Warren Haynes is a person.

True.  Fair.   Love when he sings with string cheese 

Or panic.  Or mule

 

Edited Friday at 07:15 PM by Caveira

[Paul158]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

This account isn’t suspicious at all ha.  Although Warren Haynes is a cool band. 

 

So might it be just dressed up Ban B? Or who else might it be.

 

19 minutes ago, warren_haynes said:

Every time that any of this has ended up in court, the result has been the same. If these are students, then there is no legal way to stop them from making money or to stop them from attending whatever school they want. The only way that they could implement any changes would be to make them employees of the universities. 

I assume you never coached a day in your life. You may not have done any type of volunteer work.

[MPhillips]

Just now, Paul158 said:

I assume you never coached a day in your life. You may not have done any type of volunteer work.

Paul, you've lost me here...

[warren_haynes]

7 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

If you sign a contract to receive something (an education) ( value a lot) for your service for a year. You have to abide by said contract or you can lose your compensation. That sounds like an employee to me. 

And yet universities and the NCAA have repeatedly said that student athletes are just students and not employees. 

[billyhoyle]

48 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

"Is the NCAA under any obligation to provide a level playing field..."

it was. and it did. until a bunch of bone-headed nancies cried that players participating in an optional activity while getting free effing everything were being exploited. 

so a bunch of freedom fighting lawyers took them to the supreme court. and now you got what you got. 

bunch of absolute idiots. 

It's not that simple. The SEC schools have been paying their players for years even though it was against NCAA rules. The university presidents there didn't care, because at this point they are the only professional sports teams for states like Alabama/Mississippi/Kentucky/South Carolina/Oklahoma. 

 

So now they legalized the whole thing and it has turned the rest of the country and every other sport into SEC football. 

Edited Friday at 07:19 PM by billyhoyle

[warren_haynes]

13 minutes ago, Caveira said:

This account isn’t suspicious at all ha.  Although Warren Haynes is a cool band. 

 

What is suspicious? Gov't Mule kicks ass!

[WrestlingRasta]

21 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

If you sign a contract to receive something (an education) ( value a lot) for your service for a year. You have to abide by said contract or you can lose your compensation. That sounds like an employee to me. 

The thing you have to come to terms with, and I’m not trying to be a jerk here, is that “sounds like to me” in no way equals law.  Again, not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe learning more about how the letters of intent, scholarship contracts, and all of that work, to give you more insight to go on. 
 

You do realize there are business deals all around the world in every industry where individuals provide a service, for which they receive compensation, under which if they do not complete their obligation are not entitled to that compensation, and they are in no way employees of those who are paying for their services.   

#1099

Edited Friday at 07:31 PM by WrestlingRasta

[MPhillips]

14 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Love when he sings with string cheese 

They are an, Incident (like a band you could say).

[Paul158]

12 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Paul, you've lost me here...

I was just responding to someone who decided to enter politics into this thread. It wasn't you.

[warren_haynes]

23 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I was just responding to someone who decided to enter politics into this thread. It wasn't you.

Everyone has the ability to raise as much money as they want. How is this not fair? The fact that some schools have rich donors that wish to spend their money on securing athletes at their favorite school is the epitome of capitalism. In our system of economics there will be winners and losers. Having a rich family doesn't change that. Stop complaining and get to fundraising. 

[Paul158]

6 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

The thing you have to come to terms with, and I’m not trying to be a jerk here, is that “sounds like to me” in no way equals law.  Again, not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe learning more about how the letters of intent, scholarship contracts, and all of that work, to give you more insight to go on. 
 

You do realize there are business deals all around the world in every industry where individuals provide a service, for which they receive compensation, under which if they do not complete their obligation or not entitled to that compensation, and they are in no way employees of those who are paying for their services.   

#1099

Sort of like a sub-contractor. I'm not a lawyer. But you know when there have been hundreds of powerful lawyers involved sorting (Battling) these things out in courts, that this doesn't seem like a simple issue. Thats usually because there is a great deal of money and power involved. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that athletes may be considered employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. FSLA. Also NLRB has weighed in and suggesting college athletes could be considered employees under the National Labor Relations ct. Again, I'm not a lawyer.

[Paul158]

11 minutes ago, warren_haynes said:

Everyone has the ability to raise as much money as they want. How is this not fair? The fact that some schools have rich donors that wish to spend their money on securing athletes at their favorite school is the epitome of capitalism. In our system of economics there will be winners and losers. Having a rich family doesn't change that. Stop complaining and get to fundraising. 

If you are going to come in and try to take my wrestler that my staff and I have put 3 years of development into and now is an all-American. I have a problem with that. We are already giving him a full scholarship and a very good NIL package. I feel if you want to take him you need to compensate (or buy-0ut) to get him. My coaching staff's ability to develop the athlete for 3 years has value. The education he received for 3 years has value. I'm just asking for compensation. My argument is you didn't recruit him out of high school. You took no risk; you have no time involved and you have no money involved. But now that he is an all-American you want him. The NCAA will hopefully address this or only 7 or 8 teams will have 80 percent of the top talent. Maybe that is what you want. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

6 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

If you are going to come in and try to take my wrestler that my staff and I have put 3 years of development into and now is an all-American. I have a problem with that. We are already giving him a full scholarship and a very good NIL package. I feel if you want to take him you need to compensate (or buy-0ut) to get him. My coaching staff's ability to develop the athlete for 3 years has value. The education he received for 3 years has value. I'm just asking for compensation. My argument is you didn't recruit him out of high school. You took no risk; you have no time involved and you have no money involved. But now that he is an all-American you want him. The NCAA will hopefully address this or only 7 or 8 teams will have 80 percent of the top talent. Maybe that is what you want. 

First, the NCAA has faught tooth and nail to say they are not employees. And so far they have succeeded at that. They do not want to offer health insurance or allow the athletes to unionize. Second, the athletes are not property or investments. Therefore, the schools are not owed compensation if they leave.

But even if they become employees it will be employmemt at will, meaning the schools are free to fire them any time and the athletes are free to quit at any time. If they sign contracts that say otherwise, then those terms will govern.

But you cannot expect compensation for losing something you never owned.

Edited Friday at 08:33 PM by Wrestleknownothing

[BigRedFan]

2 hours ago, Dogbone said:

At the end  of the day, it's better if its a free market.   A lot of the issues we are seeing will work themselves out over a longer period of time. 

Of course, an unregulated free market results in monopolies.

[Paul158]

18 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

First, the NCAA has faught tooth and nail to say they are not employees. And so far they have succeeded at that. They do not want to offer health insurance or allow the athletes to unionize. Second, the athletes are not property or investments. Therefore, the schools are not owed compensation if they leave.

But even if they become employees it will be employmemt at will, meaning the schools are free to fire them any time and the athletes are free to quit at any time. If they sign contracts that say otherwise, then those terms will govern.

But you cannot expect compensation for losing something you never owned.

Did you read about the ruling from The Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the NLRB ? Its 2 comments back.

Edited Friday at 08:51 PM by Paul158
missed a word

[Paul158]

15 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

Of course, an unregulated free market results in monopolies.

Aren't those illegal?

[Wrestleknownothing]

17 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Did you read about the ruling from The Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the NLRB ? Its 2 comments back.

I read the post, but haven't read the ruling yet.

[Wrestleknownothing]

29 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Did you read about the ruling from The Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the NLRB ? Its 2 comments back.

I just looked it up. All the court has done so far is deny the NCAAs motion to dismiss the case.

Here is a good summary from a law firm

https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2025/01/johnson-v-ncaa-student-athlete-employment#:~:text=As we've previously written,institutions pursuant to the FLSA.

From the article:

On July 11, 2024, the Third Circuit affirmed, in part, the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying the NCAA's motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit agreed with the district court that the former student athletes could potentially be classified as employees under the FLSA, but remanded the case and directed the district court to apply the multi-factor economic realities test to determine if the former student athletes were properly classified as employees. 

So, not employees yet, but could potentially be in the future.

Edited Friday at 09:20 PM by Wrestleknownothing

[macwoodfleet]

6 hours ago, Paul158 said:

Why not a buyout clause for the school who is losing the wrestler. I would say 1 million dollars for a 5 star, 800K for a 4 star, etc. etc.

They might slow some of this down.

That would be a violation of federal law. 

[macwoodfleet]

3 hours ago, Paul158 said:

We all didn't say so back then. Most of us wanted some change without taking away all the good things about NCAA Wrestling. I was for across-the-board stipends,(to start with) that are very similar to what the military academies have been getting for years. Try it for a few years then access things and see what can be done better.  

Also illegal

[macwoodfleet]

3 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

"Is the NCAA under any obligation to provide a level playing field..."

it was. and it did. until a bunch of bone-headed nancies cried that players participating in an optional activity while getting free effing everything were being exploited. 

so a bunch of freedom fighting lawyers took them to the supreme court. and now you got what you got. 

bunch of absolute idiots. 

Cmon Willie, didn’t have you as a communist. You can’t restrict the earnings of a person because they play college sports. That’s a clear cut American principle 

[macwoodfleet]

2 hours ago, Paul158 said:

If you sign a contract to receive something (an education) ( value a lot) for your service for a year. You have to abide by said contract or you can lose your compensation. That sounds like an employee to me. 

Schools want to avoid their athletes becoming employees at all costs due to workers comp, labor law, etc etc. it’s a non starter 

[Dogbone]

1 hour ago, BigRedFan said:

Of course, an unregulated free market results in monopolies.

College Wrestling by its nature results in monopolies as well even with regulations.    In the last 30 years, every championship team has repeated at least once with the only exceptions being Minnesota in 2007 and Ohio State in 2015 to not win back to back titles. (Iowa in 2021 as well but they were the overwhelming favorite in 2020).

You could also argue the RTCs and the HWC (pre RTCs) were unregulated with regard to the impact on the NCAA team.