jNW players win right to unionize

As others have astutely pointed out in here...this is the beginning of the end of college athletics...it may be only private schools now...but between this, the O'Bannon suit, and others...the other shoes will drop.

I for one won't continue with the same fanaticism of college sports as I have had if they turn it into semi-pro sports. They are getting a FREE education...and not very many of them go pro...so that's the "value" they are getting...a life without student debt.


The other thing I have always wondered about the "pay them" crowd...are they going to pay all athletes the same? Or how will that work...if I was a female athlete...and the football players got X-more money than me...I would have to think it there would be grounds for a lawsuit in there somewhere...or how do you value say a Fullback...compared to the QB? Or are they no longer student athletes at all, and just employees?

What a freaking joke.
 
LG210 said:
How much can you pay them, though? The NW scholly is $75,000 grand of compensation a year--none of which is cash. That alone would generate a significant tax bill that would have to be covered with a cash payment (which itself would be taxable).

The school would have to come out a ton of money before the athletes even see a benefit above and beyond what they currently receive.

Article says that the NLRB does not have any jurisdiction over state schools, but how long before that changes?
Click to expand...

It goes beyond a strait $75k. The university will put a premium cost on training table vs regular board. They will also assign a valued for medical, tuturing, other student services, training, access to the state of the art workout facility, and they will assign a value of the degree(for athletes), etc. There will be other things too. Annual comp will exceed 6 figures, and yes it should be taxable.

It will kill them competitively. The path of least resistance is to not offer as scholly, but pay them based on the things above, and bill them for time and services provided and utilized. They may choose to pay a ubill, pay for their training, so forth and so on. Non compliance isn't met with running steps, rather with a mediator hearing a grievance.

NW admin should play the hardest of hard ball
 
cecilB said:
It goes beyond a strait $75k. The university will put a premium cost on training table vs regular board. They will also assign a valued for medical, tuturing, other student services, training, access to the state of the art workout facility, and they will assign a value of the degree(for athletes), etc. There will be other things too. Annual comp will exceed 6 figures, and yes it should be taxable.

It will kill them competitively. The path of least resistance is to not offer as scholly, but pay them based on the things above, and bill them for time and services provided and utilized. They may choose to pay a ubill, pay for their training, so forth and so on. Non compliance isn't met with running steps, rather with a mediator hearing a grievance.

NW admin should play the hardest of hard ball
Click to expand...

Or the IRS could make up some bs opinion that they are not employees for federal income tax purposes. Or Congress could try to exempt them.

So there will either be income taxes or a logical inconsistency to "band-aid" the situation.
 
LG210 said:
Or the IRS could make up some bs opinion that they are not employees for federal income tax purposes. Or Congress could try to exempt them.

So there will either be income taxes or a logical inconsistency to "band-aid" the situation.
Click to expand...

Which union are they affiliating with? Someone is going to have to bank roll the fight
 
So what happens to the scabs, I mean walk-ons? Does this cause a rift between the union and non-union players just like it does in the ACTUAL workforce? Do the union reps bring in the Pinkertons to "talk" with the walk-ons?
 
The funny thing (if there is one) is that if this leads to pay for play athletics, it will cripple the very small private schools that pushed for this.
 
There are two possible outcomes that I see in 5 years:
1. College athletics becomes nascar with jerseys full of sponsors and every "student-athele" with an agent coming out of high school.
2. This completely backfires on the players wanting to unionize with a resurgence of true amaturism. Kids playing sports for the pride of their school.

Unfortunately, outcome 2 will pretty much never happen.
 
This ruling is far from being effective since title 9 makes it sure that women have to have even rulings.

Since there are no womens sports that can cover the revenue it aint going to make a difference,

excuse my typing i am drunk
 
If Northwestern's players are employees of the University, then they deserve to be laid off for their poor performance last year.
 
I've always felt college athletes SHOULD be paid, but I've also always felt there was no feasible way to do that. This isn't a good thing, especially if it eventually happens to public universities.
 
When it comes right down to it...I don't care if it's Chuck Long...the kid shouldn't be paid...he's getting a free education. I think Nate Kaeding posted something about how very few players make it to the pros...and that degree is what you have to make it on your own.

You see this in today's culture though, it used to be that kids played for the name on the jersey...now it's all about me, me, me. It's part of the reason why I don't follow the NFL as much except for my team.
 
GesterHawk said:
There are two possible outcomes that I see in 5 years:
1. College athletics becomes nascar with jerseys full of sponsors and every "student-athele" with an agent coming out of high school.
2. This completely backfires on the players wanting to unionize with a resurgence of true amaturism. Kids playing sports for the pride of their school.

Unfortunately, outcome 2 will pretty much never happen.
Click to expand...

This.
 
uihawk82 said:
This ruling is far from being effective since title 9 makes it sure that women have to have even rulings.

Since there are no womens sports that can cover the revenue it aint going to make a difference,

excuse my typing i am drunk
Click to expand...

There is no requirement that you be profitable to unionize.

Also, ISU baseball says hello (or, perhaps, goodbye).
 
As a college sports fan, this all makes me very nervous. Stepping back and looking at it objectively, this seems like the basic principles of economics in action. College football seems to be awash with cash - look at facilities, coaches salaries, multi billion dollar TV contracts, etc - but we've managed to keep players satisfied with (1) free education and (2) school pride. I don't mean to degrade the value of a free education (I get the impression a lot of college athletes probably under-appreciate what they are getting there), but if you put yourself in the player's shoes - you're putting in 40+ hrs a week and it seems like every month there's somebody getting a big raise or a fancy new weight facility going up or a big TV deal being signed...you'd start to wonder, I think.

Personally, if they are going to unionize, I would like to see them (1) get their post-career medical needs taken care of for anything resulting from their playing career and (2) get a reduction in the number of hours they spend in-season. If they are really being asked to do 40-50 hrs of work during the school year, that is totally unacceptable (no wonder they don't all recognize the value of the free education, because the school doesn't seem to value education at all by making them put in ridiculous hours on top of their school work). They need to re-do the traditional calendar - have the kids do 40-50 hrs a week during the summer, then cut those hours way down (to like, 25 maybe) during the school year and let them have the spring off in preparation for summer camp to start up again.
 
Schools will do what they can to protect their revenue stream. This means they need players out there playing and TV's tuned in . It makes sense that they'll work with the union to the extent that they have to. When the cost exceeds benefit, they'll call no joy and take away schollys.

On a slightly different note. After witnessing he competitive balance in the NCAA bb tourney, I am less excited about CFB in genera - same teams always on top
 
528646 said:
As a college sports fan, this all makes me very nervous. Stepping back and looking at it objectively, this seems like the basic principles of economics in action. College football seems to be awash with cash - look at facilities, coaches salaries, multi billion dollar TV contracts, etc - but we've managed to keep players satisfied with (1) free education and (2) school pride. I don't mean to degrade the value of a free education (I get the impression a lot of college athletes probably under-appreciate what they are getting there), but if you put yourself in the player's shoes - you're putting in 40+ hrs a week and it seems like every month there's somebody getting a big raise or a fancy new weight facility going up or a big TV deal being signed...you'd start to wonder, I think.

Personally, if they are going to unionize, I would like to see them (1) get their post-career medical needs taken care of for anything resulting from their playing career and (2) get a reduction in the number of hours they spend in-season. If they are really being asked to do 40-50 hrs of work during the school year, that is totally unacceptable (no wonder they don't all recognize the value of the free education, because the school doesn't seem to value education at all by making them put in ridiculous hours on top of their school work). They need to re-do the traditional calendar - have the kids do 40-50 hrs a week during the summer, then cut those hours way down (to like, 25 maybe) during the school year and let them have the spring off in preparation for summer camp to start up again.
Click to expand...

There is a misconception that athletic departments are awash with cash. Granted, AD's and coaches make a decent chunk of change, but there is only a small fraction of athletic departments that are even self-sustaining.

"Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/
 
LG210 said:
There is a misconception that athletic departments are awash with cash. Granted, AD's and coaches make a decent chunk of change, but there is only a small fraction of athletic departments that are even self-sustaining.

"Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/
Click to expand...

First of all, a lot of coaches and administrators could stand to take a pay cut. Like Jay Bilas said yesterday, the NCAA/colleges/administrators could be in charge of the Sahara, and they'd say there's not enough sand for the athletes. And secondly, I'd imagine there would be an uptick in donor contributions. It's one thing to donate with the hopes that better facilities will lead to better recruiting results. It's another thing entirely if they donate with the hopes of raising funds for signing recruits. I think there are probably quite a few people out there who would happily donate more, if it were going toward signing an elite recruit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top