Given the recent anti trust court decision against the NCAA regarding NIL enforcement, the NCAA has suspended any "pay for play" violations. The outcome, as it stands now, is that boosters are salivating at throwing more money at players through NIL collectives which were not allowed. No question, this will make it more difficult for sch…
Given the recent anti trust court decision against the NCAA regarding NIL enforcement, the NCAA has suspended any "pay for play" violations. The outcome, as it stands now, is that boosters are salivating at throwing more money at players through NIL collectives which were not allowed. No question, this will make it more difficult for schools like UCLA to recruit top player. But this is a NIL/NCAA issue which Cronin can not control and I doubt any coach willing to coach at UCLA could turn around.
That's actually long-term great for UCLA, because the faster players unionize, the faster we get to collective bargaining and a salary cap paid for entirely by the schools and not through nebulous NIL collectives. UCLA being on an even playing field where all that money is coming from the school (thus making the normally-skittish UCLA boosters more comfortable because the school is getting their money instead of some collective they don't trust) would make things much better.
They are allowed to form a union because the NLRB regional directer, Mr. Sacks, ruled that they are employees of the school and therefore entitled to be a union. This would allow players to negotiate their salary (compensation), and conditions--including practice hours and travel. I do not know enough about how this would eventually impact the system but if the players are "employees of the university" as opposed to the NCAA's position of "student athlete", then college athletes are professionals by deffinition. From what I read, there is not enough detail to know how and what the unions will bargain for including a "salary cap". And even if there was such a cap, I would think that the rich schools still would be able to pay a higher salary to the top players than the less well funded schools so what mechanism would create a "even playing field"?
Given the recent anti trust court decision against the NCAA regarding NIL enforcement, the NCAA has suspended any "pay for play" violations. The outcome, as it stands now, is that boosters are salivating at throwing more money at players through NIL collectives which were not allowed. No question, this will make it more difficult for schools like UCLA to recruit top player. But this is a NIL/NCAA issue which Cronin can not control and I doubt any coach willing to coach at UCLA could turn around.
Dartmouth voting to unionize will also make the situation worse.
That's actually long-term great for UCLA, because the faster players unionize, the faster we get to collective bargaining and a salary cap paid for entirely by the schools and not through nebulous NIL collectives. UCLA being on an even playing field where all that money is coming from the school (thus making the normally-skittish UCLA boosters more comfortable because the school is getting their money instead of some collective they don't trust) would make things much better.
excellent analysis. Salary cap is desperately needed and transfer limits.
They are allowed to form a union because the NLRB regional directer, Mr. Sacks, ruled that they are employees of the school and therefore entitled to be a union. This would allow players to negotiate their salary (compensation), and conditions--including practice hours and travel. I do not know enough about how this would eventually impact the system but if the players are "employees of the university" as opposed to the NCAA's position of "student athlete", then college athletes are professionals by deffinition. From what I read, there is not enough detail to know how and what the unions will bargain for including a "salary cap". And even if there was such a cap, I would think that the rich schools still would be able to pay a higher salary to the top players than the less well funded schools so what mechanism would create a "even playing field"?