Boston tries to be first city with 'College Athlete Bill of Rights'

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24567279/boston-tries-to-be-1st-city-with-college-athlete-bill-of-rights


• Athletes would receive as much as a fifth full year of institutional financial aid if they haven't graduated yet, assuming they are not academically ineligible or did not violate the university's student disciplinary policy. If an athletic scholarship is not renewed for a reason other than ineligibility or discipline, the university would have to provide an equivalent scholarship for up to five years.
• Universities would provide “comprehensive” year-round health insurance to all of its athletes so it “adequately covers their participation in the athletic program.” Also, universities would be responsible for athletes' post-college medical expenses or care resulting from a college injury.
• An independent neurotrauma consultant would assist the home and visiting team's medical staff in diagnosing head, neck or spine injuries. An athlete with concussion symptoms couldn't participate in Boston until cleared by a health care professional as determined by the Boston Public Health Commissioner. Athletes would have to provide the authorization to his or her athletic director.


1. Would these three combined items, if passed, break the bank at BU, BC, and Northeastern in terms of athletic budget?

2. Would the Beanpot be discontinued? I can't see these concussion rules flying in regards to men's hockey?

3. Would this preclude Northeastern and BU from ever sponsoring FCS football again?

4. Would this possibly cause BC to even discontinue the sport of football?

5. What does this mean for the Patriot League, CAA and ACC in regards to competitions at BU, BC, and Northeastern? Would the visiting ADs need to fly up there for competitions, just in case someone is diagnosed with a concussion?

[Dane96]

Josh Zakim is a Mo-Ron. No way Walsh would lose the political support of the local universities. So, unless the schools want this Bill in effect, it won't happen. Furthermore, someone should mention to Josh that BC would NOT be tied into this in some cases, if at all, concussion rules or otherwise. BC is in Chestnut Hill, which is a village that has three different municipalities: Boston/W. Roxbury, Newton, and Brookline.

BC Field Hockey and Soccer is up in Newton.

The curious issue would be the rest of athletics. It's a close border call but I think the complexes are on the Brookline and Newton sides. Brookline has it's own executive government.

Either way, Zakim is living off the family name. He's where he is because of daddy, Lenny!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Once people realize how this will affect hockey, I think all three Universities will come out foursquare against it.

[NHwildEcat]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24567279/boston-tries-to-be-1st-city-with-college-athlete-bill-of-rights



1. Would these three combined items, if passed, break the bank at BU, BC, and Northeastern in terms of athletic budget?

2. Would the Beanpot be discontinued? I can't see these concussion rules flying in regards to men's hockey?

3. Would this preclude Northeastern and BU from ever sponsoring FCS football again?

4. Would this possibly cause BC to even discontinue the sport of football?

5. What does this mean for the Patriot League, CAA and ACC in regards to competitions at BU, BC, and Northeastern? Would the visiting ADs need to fly up there for competitions, just in case someone is diagnosed with a concussion?


1 BC, BU & Northeastern have PLENTY of money if they so choose to spend it. Would they? BC would for sure. They view athletics as a huge part of the college experience. BU doesn't care about athletics aside from hockey. No baseball or football team shows the lack of commitment that have for athletics. Northeastern, wouldn't change much. The latter two schools are HUGE. Those there that care about athletics is minimal.

2. Beanpot will never die...so this "Bill of Rights" has no chance of happening.

3. Anyone who things there is a shot of Northeastern or BU starting football back up is in serious denial and should seek medical support.

4. BC will never drop football. They'd just move their games outside of Boston.

5. Good question. Still unlikely this happens IMO.

[bluehenbillk]

Maybe I'm missing something: Isn't this already basically happening now across America? Heck, our local high schools have like rules to this across the state of PA.

"An athlete with concussion symptoms couldn't participate in Boston until cleared by a health care professional as determined by the Boston Public Health Commissioner. "

[TheBoyWhoSeaWolf]

The question to ask is, how are these rules not already in place? I mean honestly, these are not outrageous demands.

[walliver]

One of the problems with the internet age, is that hot topics lead to rushed decisions and legislation. Instead of headline-grabbing legislation, we need thoughtful deliberation.

Every one of these items has consequences.

BC has ACC TV money and can afford this, but BU and Northeastern do not.

Do 5-year scholarships for non-playing athletes apply against the NCAA maximums? What about partial scholarships? What about athletes who choose not to commit to sports, do they still get a free ride? Is their a grievance process?

Liability for lifetime medical coverage could be quite expensive. When former athletes have hip and knee replacements 30-40 years later, do the schools pick up the tab?

"Comprehensive" year-round medical coverage sounds like an employee benefit. Would the schools have to buy an Obamacare policy? Would the schools be liable for deductibles and co-pays?

The real losers, if these policies are adopted, will be non-revenue sports. Non-Big5 schools would have to drop most non-revenue sports to pay for football, basketball (and hockey). Unless NCAA policy changes, most FCS programs would be forced to drop football or drop to D-2 due to not supporting enough programs.

Well-intended, but rushed, policies frequently do not yield positive results.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

One of the problems with the internet age, is that hot topics lead to rushed decisions and legislation. Instead of headline-grabbing legislation, we need thoughtful deliberation.

Every one of these items has consequences.

BC has ACC TV money and can afford this, but BU and Northeastern do not.

Do 5-year scholarships for non-playing athletes apply against the NCAA maximums? What about partial scholarships? What about athletes who choose not to commit to sports, do they still get a free ride? Is their a grievance process?

Liability for lifetime medical coverage could be quite expensive. When former athletes have hip and knee replacements 30-40 years later, do the schools pick up the tab?

"Comprehensive" year-round medical coverage sounds like an employee benefit. Would the schools have to buy an Obamacare policy? Would the schools be liable for deductibles and co-pays?

The real losers, if these policies are adopted, will be non-revenue sports. Non-Big5 schools would have to drop most non-revenue sports to pay for football, basketball (and hockey). Unless NCAA policy changes, most FCS programs would be forced to drop football or drop to D-2 due to not supporting enough programs.

Well-intended, but rushed, policies frequently do not yield positive results.

Worthy of mention is that BU has 21 varsity-level teams, 9 men's, and 12 women's. NU has 17. At both schools, the one true revenue-driving sport is men's ice hockey. Both have discontinued football in the past twenty years, and BU discontinued men's wrestling after last season.

Hockey will not be able to support all of this extra spending on non-revenue sports.

NU, as a member of the CAA, has a temporary influx of NCAA money from men's BB shares, but there's a lot of question as to whether the CAA will be able to generate those again now that the conference's membership has changed.