On Dec 8,  9:08am, Eeyore wrote:
> Subject: Re: Dumb Jocks (was Re: Canadians & the RPI)
> Arthur Berman wrote:
>
> >at many schools athletes in the major sports
> >(which hockey may or may not be, but clearly is at schools such as BU or
> >Minnesota) are poorly paid employees whose payment (education) is
> >compromised by the terms of employment (a demanding practice and game
> >schedule.)
>
> This brings us to possibly the darkest travesty involved in college
> athletics: legally, the athletes are not employees.  In every way that I
> can figure, they behave just like employees, but that is not their status.
> This means that they are not covered by any number of basic guarantees that
> the rest of us take for granted on our jobs.  Scholarships can be revoked
> pretty much arbitrarily without recourse.  I'm not familiar enough with the
> Travis Roy situation to know how BU handled it, but there have been other
> cases where a school denies responsibility for covering medical expenses
> incurred in the course of athletic events.  Morally, I think this system is
> indefensible; legally, I suspect that it's on shaky ground.  I'm waiting
> for someone to challenge this set-up in court.  (Of course, one should note
> that I can't figure out how amateur drafts pass anti-trust muster either.)
> This is part of the cause of resistence to paying athletes any cash
> stipend, since that would work to strip the veneer away.
>   If such a development does occur, it will turn the world of college
> athletics upside down.  It might very well lead to a few schools
> essentially converting their programs into actual professional operations
> and the rest would move back closer to club sports.  Less entertaining,
> perhaps, but less hypocritical, too.
>
> J. Michael Jackson
>-- End of excerpt from Eeyore
 
I would agree that, to some extent, the current system is indefensible.
However, I don't base that so much on the exploitation of the student
athletes as I do on the fact the many universities approach these amateur
endeavors as professional enterprises.  The only reason we claim the
athletes are exploited is because, in some cases, universities make a
lot of money for the athletes performance and hard work, and don't pass
any of it along to the athlete.  But when we start talking about paying
college athletes, IMHO, we're headed in the exact wrong direction.  As
it stands right now, I honestly believe most student athletes have more,
not fewer, opportunities than the rest of us.
 
How about this; what say we institute changes that take the *money* out
of college athletics across the board.  No more Nike swooshes on football
jerseys, no more endorsements for coaches and no more big money TV contracts
for universities.  At the same time, we remove restrictions which keep capable
athletes from entering the professional ranks without going to college.
Include a wide variety of semi-pro leagues so those that need to mature
before getting to the top level will have that opportunity.  This way
universities go back to being educational institutions that also provide
athletics as part of a well rounded offering.  And talented athletes coming
out of high school can choose to market their talent professionally or
persue an education.  But they'll no longer have to worry about being
forced into college to follow their dream. Sound unrealistic?  Actually
it sounds like hockey as we have it right now.
 
--
Matt Wickey                                 LSSU '86
CIMLINC Inc.                                National Champs 88 92 94
[log in to unmask]                     Go LAKERS!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.