I'm sure everyone here remembers the effort a few years ago that began at Northwestern to pay college athletes. And I am aware that many see this as the solution to corruption in college sports.
Personally, I remain unconvinced about this, but I'll save that for another day. Today, here is something I'll bet they didn't think about at NU, a few years ago.
If we start paying college athletes, then, legally, they are university employees as much as they are students. And there are certain things that go along with that which I'm pretty sure no one has considered.
Let's take Mr. Ellison's case, just because he is the most recent example.
He allegedly did something -- what, we do not know -- and CTA decided it was serious enough to suspend him indefinitely. And that is that.
But, if the university paid Mr. Ellison, CTA could not just up and suspend him. Instead, he would have to hold what's called an executive session of some committee -- probably CTA and at least a few, if not all of his assistants. He would have to properly advertise that closed-door meeting and send notices to every media outlet requesting such notices.
Then, he would have to wait at least two days before holding this meeting. At the meeting, the coaches/committee could discuss any allegations involving Mr. Ellison -- and nothing else. They would have to keep a record of that discussion, although that record would be minimal and offer no real details.
Then, CTA would have to advertise an open meeting of the committee/coaches and advertise that meeting and send notices to all media outlets requesting it. At that meeting, the committee/coaches would have to vote, on the record and in public, on Mr. Ellison's status as an athlete/employee of the university. That would happen in a meeting open to the public and anyone who wished could attend that meeting and record the vote.
And Mr. Ellison's status as an athlete/employee would not change until that public vote was taken.
Just something to think about when we consider paying college athletes.
Personally, I remain unconvinced about this, but I'll save that for another day. Today, here is something I'll bet they didn't think about at NU, a few years ago.
If we start paying college athletes, then, legally, they are university employees as much as they are students. And there are certain things that go along with that which I'm pretty sure no one has considered.
Let's take Mr. Ellison's case, just because he is the most recent example.
He allegedly did something -- what, we do not know -- and CTA decided it was serious enough to suspend him indefinitely. And that is that.
But, if the university paid Mr. Ellison, CTA could not just up and suspend him. Instead, he would have to hold what's called an executive session of some committee -- probably CTA and at least a few, if not all of his assistants. He would have to properly advertise that closed-door meeting and send notices to every media outlet requesting such notices.
Then, he would have to wait at least two days before holding this meeting. At the meeting, the coaches/committee could discuss any allegations involving Mr. Ellison -- and nothing else. They would have to keep a record of that discussion, although that record would be minimal and offer no real details.
Then, CTA would have to advertise an open meeting of the committee/coaches and advertise that meeting and send notices to all media outlets requesting it. At that meeting, the committee/coaches would have to vote, on the record and in public, on Mr. Ellison's status as an athlete/employee of the university. That would happen in a meeting open to the public and anyone who wished could attend that meeting and record the vote.
And Mr. Ellison's status as an athlete/employee would not change until that public vote was taken.
Just something to think about when we consider paying college athletes.
