| Author | Message | ||
     Fredfast |
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/fe deral-agency-gives-college-football-players-at-nor thwestern-university-right-unionize-032614 About time. | ||
| Stirz007 |
Only at Northwestern, and only because it's a private school. the NLRB has no jurisdiction over public universities. The argument that athletes generate income for the university really only applies to football, and then not at all schools. The vast majority of college athletic programs lose money, especially since Title 9. I think it's more of a money-grab by United Steel Workers (and what is their vested interest in this? - follow the money) than it is a protection for athletes. If the athlete doesn't want the terms and conditions of the scholarship, then they are more than free to go to school elsewhere or even to get a real job. I'm not anti-union per se (I have two union cards for off-campus jobs from when I worked my way through college), but college athletes as a group can hardly be considered 'professionals' even if they can play as well as one. It's a slippery slope. | ||
| Fredfast |
"The record makes clear that the employer's scholarship players are identified and recruited in the first instance because of their football prowess and not because of their academic achievement in high school," Ohr wrote. He also noted that among the evidence presented by Northwestern, "no examples were provided of scholarship players being permitted to miss entire practices and/or games to attend their studies." They can have an education as part of their compensation but the NLRB ruled that they are basically employees of the school, therefore they are allowed to bargain for additional compensation and/or benefits. | ||
| Stirz007 |
I'm not arguing the ruling's premise and I don't argue that a lot of the top athletes are recruited for one thing: play ball. The sub-genius types are even provided with tutors and special treatment to "pass" the academic requirements to remain eligible (LT couldn't read coming out of UNC). That said, the vast majority of college athletes (track, gymnastics, wrestling, whatever) use the scholarship as means to get a college education with the added bonus of being able to pursue their athletic passions on a larger stage. The top football and basketball athletes, for the most part, have no other marketable skills and use their college time as a ticket to the NFL or NBA - in those cases, it can also be argued that the athlete gets benefit from the university that far exceeds the value of the scholarship. Beyond that, I stand by my earlier post. | ||
| Fredfast |
The sports that you mentioned wouldn't exist without the revenue that football and basketball generate for the university. Probably many other academic programs benefit from the same revenue. That being the case, athletes in those two sports only may be under compensated. At Northwestern, the graduation rate for football players far exceeds many other private universities so there are other considerations beyond an academic scholarship. I applaud the move and am interested in watching the effects of this ruling and it's interpretations. Amatuer athletics are dead at the college level. The Olympics realized this years ago. Baseball has a farm system with paid "professional" players. What is the difference between them and Div. 1AA football players and basketball players who attend a university to play and not study? | ||
| Court |
Hahahaha . . . I went to a Big 8 school on an athletic scholarship and flunked out on my own. I didn't need no stink'n help. :-) | ||
| Stirz007 |
Court that's funny - I was a walk-on at an SEC school. After a year of getting the crap beat out of me on the scout squad, I realized my slow white boy status wasn't going to get me a spot so I got on with the real reason why I was there - to get my Engineering degree. None of us at the time felt like we should've been paid to play - it was considered a privilege. I guess there's much more of an entitlement culture these days. | ||
| Blake |
College football is a huge money making enterprise for the big name universities and the NCAA. It's about time the people most responsible for that are paid their due. I support freedom 100%, and the NCAA prohibiting athletes from earning a wage, especially for playing football, an incredibly dangerous sport, is nothing but tyranny. | ||
| Mtnmason |
UnF&*%ing-believable!!! Wait... coming from F/F, maybe not so much. Full scholarship athletes (D-1 and beyond) receive the following: free food (and TONS of it) free housing (pretty cushy at that - from what I've seen) free healthcare free "life counselors" and most importantly - a free education from an American university (perhaps one of the most valuable assets in the world) And this guy says that they are undercompensated and need unionization??? I hope every unionized college athlete loses every single competition they may ever be engaged in. | ||
| Stirz007 |
Tyranny is defined as: cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others. I don't think it really applies to college athletes (and we're really just talking football and basketball players here). I'd argue that many of these athletes are handed an opportunity when they willingly acquiesce to participate in Collegiate sports. What would they do otherwise if not afforded that opportunity? Most of these guys LOVE to play and the opportunity to play College ball is a dream gig. Injury is certainly part of the risk, but it is also true for intramural sports, skiing, riding motorcycles and a lot of other things that no one expects to be compensated for. The risks are accepted and not subject to additional compensation, IMO - that's what insurance is for. And I'd agree that the Athletic Programs, Universities, NCAA, and TV Networks are all making (lots of) money off College Sports. The schools also make money off of research grants, selling stuff to alumni, patents, and a litany of other things that don't necessarily equate to compensation to those who participate in the genesis of those things. If the logical and precedented progression of unionization is applied to college athletes ('regular' students won't be in this privileged group), several things will likely occur in my opinion: 1. A culture of distrust between student athletes and the school organization will be fostered, thus affecting team cohesion and overall performance - remember, we are talking about 18 to 22 year olds. Having the inmates in charge is not a good idea. 2. Title 9 and unprofitable sports will be curtailed or eliminated entirely, thus depriving non-football/basketball athletes opportunities to compete after High School. 3. Top-tier programs will find ways to cover costs and will continue to protect both the campus and alumni experience and their sports infrastructure investments. 4. Lesser programs may drop their unionized sports or go to FCS Division. Under most University rules a scholarship is premised upon performance whether it be academic or athletic. If students don't make their grades, does this mean they should unionize to fight the "tyranny" of academic requirements? Nope. Grambling football players staged a walk-out this year (and they had some valid reasons), but it really just threw the program into disarray and did more harm than good - largely because of bad timing on the part of the FB players. If the football players want to unionize, I'm not advocating deprivation of that right (if they indeed have a valid case), but I think they'll be shooting themselves in the foot. One solution would be to start a minor league program, like in baseball. If you don't want to play college ball under the rules and non-monetary compensation established as part of your scholarship, you can go to the minors and give that a shot. You can play ball, live on sub-poverty wages and hope you get good enough to go to the NFL without the benefit of world-class training facilities, housing, food and the other perks afforded to University athletes. | ||
| Court |
Union membership . . .face it . . . is like being given a free ticket on Malaysian Airlines MH370. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/business/union-m embership-drops-despite-job-growth.html?_r=0  | ||
| Milt |
Sometimes Court repeats himself. | ||
| Fredfast |
Probably has something to do with memory loss. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Probably has something to do with memory loss. This, coming from somebody who claims not to have been somebody else... or maybe was. Who can tell these days? | ||
| Doz |
Oh great! another thread where everyone can get into a pissing match. (Court's reply was good though, reminds me of a time when....I'll tell you later) | ||
| Akbuell |
Isn't this the same NLRB that told Boeing (a corporation - basically a paper person) that they could not open a plant in South Carolina ? No different than telling me I can't move to another town/city/county/state if I want to ? Not that what the law says matters to some folks. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
"They can have an education as part of their compensation but the NLRB ruled that they are basically employees of the school, therefore they are allowed to bargain for additional compensation and/or benefits." At Northwestern, that "education as part of their compensation" is roughly $250,000.00(60,000.00 per year). That's pretty fair compensation to me, because what's going to happen is some kids (starters) are going to want more than the kids riding the bench. Then the QB's are going to want more than the starters.... Do you really want to see prima dona 19 year olds in the news every day screaming for more pay? | ||
| Strokizator |
What happens when they discover that women athletes make only 78% of their male counterparts? College sports is going to die. | ||
| Fredfast |
"Do you really want to see prima dona 19 year olds in the news every day screaming for more pay?" Don't take it to the extreme. This will shake itself out. Collective bargaining is just that. It won't do athletes any good if Northwestern or any other university drops a major sport and even with this ruling they will continue giving out scholarships as long as they are making money just not as much. Or maybe TV is going to have to pony up the extra. | ||
| Boltrider |
I don't know about paying the athletes because I'm not sure how that would work, but they should be able to profit off their own name. The so-called NCAA ownership rights to players' names is hugely hypocritical when on the one hand, the NCAA stresses the virtues and purity of amateur athletics, while on the other hand a school like Alabama declares a 22 million dollar university surplus in the wake of a 36 million dollar haul from football ticket sales. It's been one-sided for too long and if someone like Johnny Manziel wants to sell autographed memorabilia, he should be able to do that. (Message edited by boltrider on March 27, 2014) | ||
| Stirz007 |
Pay for Top 14 NCAA Executives Totaled Nearly $6-Million Last Year: https://chronicle.com/article/Pay-for-Top-14-NCAA- Executives/124358/ And that's three years ago - it's quite a bit more now. There's no doubt that the NCAA is one of the biggest hypocrites out there. I don't think unionizing will change that, though. I also believe that the NCAA should not be able to sell player-specific merchandise without some compensation to the player. And I agree that insurance should be part of a standard scholarship/player package - I'm not sure why that cannot be accommodated. The system is rigged - but it's a case of caveat emptor - if you don't like the deal, don't sigh the papers.... | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
"It's been one-sided for too long and if someone like Johnny Manziel wants to sell autographed memorabilia, he should be able to do that." I agree and disagree with that. I agree in that the athlete made a name for themselves, so why not profit from it, but I disagree in that when you let outside money control kids, those influences can control the kids themselves and quite possibly the outcome of games. I'd fear wide spread corruption. | ||
| Court |
It would also get us much better athletes as a result from the competition . . . you have 3 bad games. . "you're fired". | ||
| Strokizator |
Does this also mean the end of academic eligibility? Can you just be a pro football player for the university? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Wait... they get a free scholarship AND they get paid too?? I can see it now... different players getting different pay ... each thinking they deserve more than the other...? | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
I think it is just marvelous. The football player employees won't go to classes, of course just like any other employees of the University. That will allow the University to eliminate the "gut" course that were designed exclusively for football players, and the hypocrisy that the players were really students in the first place. Of course, nothing to stop them from attending classes if they want to pay the tuition of about $60,000 per year. Employees don't have scholarships, do they? Since most of them won't make that much as players, the whole employee thingy will soon be seen for what it is: pure baloney. | ||
| Court |
>>>Can you just be a pro football player for the university? It'll be like post-WWII when you had guys who had been pro players go to war . . come back, get the G. I. Bill and were suddenly college standouts. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
While I understand they want to make money (who wouldn't?), I see how they are being compensated by free education/housing/etc Tricky situation, curious how this will affect collegiate athletics in the future if this spreads | ||
| Blake |
Free education? Free??? >>> College sports is going to die. BRAVO!!! College sports should be about students who earn their entrance to a university competing against sports clubs from neighboring regional universities. Let the NFL or whomever run the professional farm team operations. Freedom is the ability to offer your services for what someone is willing to pay. Why should college football players be denied that right? Being prohibited from doing so is egregiously unfair, and at the hands of the NCAA, absolute tyranny. I can't believe the hand wringing over the likelihood that some players would earn more than others! What are you, freakin' Socialists? Kinda funny how the setting of college football corrupts the normally libertarian free-enterprise minded of some of us. Geesh guys. Don't even get me started on the artificially big govt inflated cost of college education. Court, that reminds me. Do you recall how Purdue's sports mascot/character came to be? The "boiler-makers" really were. | ||
| Strokizator |
So why stop at the collegiate level? High school football is dang near a religion in Texas. (Message edited by strokizator on March 27, 2014) |
