jNW players win right to unionize

tm3308 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe in the big 4 conferences, but what about other schools? Do you think they can afford it?

It may be the case that donations would increase, but that is pure speculation on your part. I'm not 100% sure that donations would increase. I think that there could be a lot of folks disappointed with the abandonment of legitimate amateur status and that could result in decreased donations from a segment of the fan base.

Don't you think the schools will be required to pay the female rowers the same as the football players? Sounds pretty expensive to me.
 
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...

Well, in that case, I guess the old "can't get blood from a turnip" adage applies here. Something will have to give if departments want to stay alive - coaching/admin salaries will have to drop, facilities will need to be a notch less luxurious, recruiting budgets will need to be trimmed, etc.

The situation really almost calls for a minor league system to be setup for football/hoops just like it does for baseball. Most of the top players in baseball go right down the pay-for-play route and then the next tier goes the college route to get free or discounted tuition (not sure off the top of my head if college baseball has 1/2 schollies or not) and "play for school pride" :)

A lot of college football/bball prospects really have no academic desires/goals and are really only interested in what kind of exposure they can get with the NFL/NBA/etc, so setup a minor league system and let them get paid whatever the market will bear. The kids who really value the education (or just brimming with "school pride") can go the traditional route.
 
LG210 said:
Maybe in the big 4 conferences, but what about other schools? Do you think they can afford it?

It may be the case that donations would increase, but that is pure speculation on your part. I'm not 100% sure that donations would increase. I think that there could be a lot of folks disappointed with the abandonment of legitimate amateur status and that could result in decreased donations from a segment of the fan base.

Don't you think the schools will be required to pay the female rowers the same as the football players? Sounds pretty expensive to me.
Click to expand...

Not if they were to do a free market system. They aren't doing the same "job" for the university. The rowing team brings in zero revenue, while football pays the bills at most schools (or at least the lion's share of them). A stewardess with an airline doesn't make as much as the pilots.

And the legitimate amateur status went out the window as soon as college sports became a legitimate money maker. When it was founded, there wasn't as much money to be made. But it's a multi-billion dollar enterprise today.
 
528646 said:
Well, in that case, I guess the old "can't get blood from a turnip" adage applies here. Something will have to give if departments want to stay alive - coaching/admin salaries will have to drop, facilities will need to be a notch less luxurious, recruiting budgets will need to be trimmed, etc.

The situation really almost calls for a minor league system to be setup for football/hoops just like it does for baseball. Most of the top players in baseball go right down the pay-for-play route and then the next tier goes the college route to get free or discounted tuition (not sure off the top of my head if college baseball has 1/2 schollies or not) and "play for school pride" :)

A lot of college football/bball prospects really have no academic desires/goals and are really only interested in what kind of exposure they can get with the NFL/NBA/etc, so setup a minor league system and let them get paid whatever the market will bear. The kids who really value the education (or just brimming with "school pride") can go the traditional route.
Click to expand...

The NFL isn't going to set up a minor league system. Not when they've already got one that they don't pay a single dime to maintain. The NBA already has one (sort of), and it's not particularly successful (how many current NBA players started out in the D-League?). Baseball's farm system was born out of necessity, because it didn't have the college feeder system already in place like the NFL and NBA did.
 
tm3308 said:
Not if they were to do a free market system. They aren't doing the same "job" for the university. The rowing team brings in zero revenue, while football pays the bills at most schools (or at least the lion's share of them). A stewardess with an airline doesn't make as much as the pilots.

And the legitimate amateur status went out the window as soon as college sports became a legitimate money maker. When it was founded, there wasn't as much money to be made. But it's a multi-billion dollar enterprise today.
Click to expand...

If college sports were anything near a free market, schools would only have men's basketball, football, and maybe baseball/wrestling. No women's sports at all. However, that is not the case because schools are required by law to have equal athletic opportunities for female athletes.

If Congress has already mandated (in practical effect) that a substantial amount of revenue generated by football and, to a lesser extent, men's basketball be spent on female athletics, why would you believe that it would not mandate "Equal Pay for Equal Play"? Congress has demonstrated that it places equal opportunity for female athletes over the free market. Why do you think this would be different?
 
tm3308 said:
Not if they were to do a free market system. They aren't doing the same "job" the university. The rowing team brings in zero revenue, while football pays the bills at most schools (or at least the lion's share of them). A stewardess with an airline doesn't make as much as the pilots.

And the legitimate amateur status went out the window as soon as college sports became a legitimate money maker. When it was founded, there wasn't as much money to be made. But it's a multi-billion dollar enterprise today.
Click to expand...

Why does the fact that money is made off of college sports mean that the athletes can no longer be amateurs? Is it because they feel entitled to a piece of the pie? If they don't like being amateurs, there are thousands of other high school kids that would be happy with a free education and a chance to play for their favorite school.

No one is forcing these kids to play college sports. They are choosing it for themselves. If they don't want to be "exploited" then don't play ball. If they are only looking at it as a chance to go pro, then they should realize how much they actually get as far as training and exposure. The college makes millions of dollars a year as compensation for the training and exposure it gives football players.
 
LG210 said:
If college sports were anything near a free market, schools would only have men's basketball, football, and maybe baseball/wrestling. No women's sports at all. However, that is not the case because schools are required by law to have equal athletic opportunities for female athletes.

If Congress has already mandated (in practical effect) that a substantial amount of revenue generated by football and, to a lesser extent, men's basketball be spent on female athletics, why would you believe that it would not mandate "Equal Pay for Equal Play"? Congress has demonstrated that it places equal opportunity for female athletes over the free market. Why do you think this would be different?
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly...good luck trying to sell the "well they are employees so we can pay them differently..." to the supreme court...

Wait...isn't there already a precedence that the court ruled they were NOT employees?
 
So my take on it is if the private schools (the one's this currently affects right now) are to consider their players as "employees" then let them. I haven't heard that NW athletes were dirctly going after pay in this situation, but if they are so be it. Give them enough to cover the costs of their scholarships and an additional stipend. Then as a university, charge the employee for meals, boarding, facilities, and have them sign in to an agreement that they will be there for "x" amount of years, since it will be contractual, or put in a buy out clause in the event they want to leave early.

If this is about insurance then I understand it, but if I'm the private schools out there, the second that it becomes about money I tighten the reigns so that the quest for athletes getting paid is squashed in its path and never shows its face in the public university sector.
 
GesterHawk said:
Why does the fact that money is made off of college sports mean that the athletes can no longer be amateurs? Is it because they feel entitled to a piece of the pie? If they don't like being amateurs, there are thousands of other high school kids that would be happy with a free education and a chance to play for their favorite school.

No one is forcing these kids to play college sports. They are choosing it for themselves. If they don't want to be "exploited" then don't play ball. If they are only looking at it as a chance to go pro, then they should realize how much they actually get as far as training and exposure. The college makes millions of dollars a year as compensation for the training and exposure it gives football players.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the only "pay for play" model I would be in favor is one that gave them a check...then gave them an itemized bill for EVERYTHING they are taking advantage of...they can keep the pennies that are left over. A dedicated tutoring center? Private weight training facility? Top notch coaching and trainers? Plus a top of the line education?

Yeah....some exploitation...it's just sickening...

For the record...as a graduate fresh out of college....my university could have "exploited" me all they want.
 
SonofaSailor said:
Exactly, the only "pay for play" model I would be in favor is one that gave them a check...then gave them an itemized bill for EVERYTHING they are taking advantage of...they can keep the pennies that are left over. A dedicated tutoring center? Private weight training facility? Top notch coaching and trainers? Plus a top of the line education?

Yeah....some exploitation...it's just sickening...

For the record...as a graduate fresh out of college....my university could have "exploited" me all they want.
Click to expand...

Making them pay for the facilities they work in would be ridiculous. I don't get charged for my office space, my employer does. Making them pay for the tutoring, though, wouldn't be a bad idea.
 
Does this mean that any student who.is on scholarship and can or will provide revenue for jNW should be considered an employee? What about theater students on scholarship? They are in plays and shows that bring in money for the school.
What about kids with scholarships that do research in labs for credit?

Slippery slope.
 
I wish I could have paid for my college with an athletic scholarship, I'd be happy to have been exploited. This is faaaaaaar from over. If they are truly "employees" then as many people have mentioned above, they should be taxed on the total value of their "compensation." This includes classes, books, training table, tutors, medical care, physical therapy, housing, and whatever else they receive as a benefit that the average student has to pay for. I imagine the IRS would definitely be in favor of taxing their compensation if they are classified as employees.

Who's going to pay for their union dues?

If they are an employee, and still classified as a student athlete, then academics should be included as part of their employment contract. Failure to maintain a minimum GPA, attend class, and make standard progress towards a degree will all be grounds for termination or mediation.

What about playing time? Could a player file a grievance with the union if he feels he is not getting enough playing time?

Stupid jNW. Very very bad idea by the players. Surprisingly they actually have 12 people on NFL rosters according to ESPiN. As a scholarship player there, you managed to get a degree(hopefully) worth $75k a year from Northwestern. A degree from there will get your foot in a lot of doors that a degree from most state schools would not. How many of them would have been able to get into jNW without football, not to mention being able to pay for it?
 
LG210 said:
Does this mean that the value of their scholarships and other items received will be taxable as employee wages?

If so, I doubt many players will be happy with that outcome.
Click to expand...

Yes it should all be considered as compensation and therefore taxable income.
 
The other thing that isn't being considered in this ruling is that the football programs and basketball programs that are typically the money makers in college athletics don't operate in isolation. Their profits are thrown in the athletic departments money pool to help pay for all the other programs. Very few collegiate athletic departments make a profit.
 
This reminds me of a line from Jurassic Park. They're so absorbed with whether they could.... they didn't stop to think whether they should.

Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
This reminds me of a line from Jurassic Park. They're so absorbed with whether they could.... they didn't stop to think whether they should.

Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Click to expand...

Except, IMO anyway, that's got it backwards. I think they should, but don't really know if they can.
 
This is crazy short sided by the players. You really think jNW would pay each of their scholarship players $75K a year to be on that team? HAHAHA. Get used to being offered $15K a year, so they can go out and pay a QB $1 mil a year.

Plus kiss all other college athletics goodbye, including basketball programs. Sure some basketball programs would survive, but it would be like college wrestling or college hockey where only select numbers of them would still be around.
 
Remember, you are talking about the NLRB making a ruling here. Already, the NLRB has had several rulings overturned, so it may well happen with this particular ruling.

People talk about "corruption" in college sports. The NLRB DEFINES "corruption".

That said, there ARE limits to how much time student-athletes practice each week. Extra time is on their own. It's their choice.

I find it hard to believe all the stories about how athletes can't possibly be expected to go to class, etc., but yet hear stories about how smart a Jake Rudock is, or how many moped/bar/club sightings there are.

Should athletes benefit "more" because they produce revenue for the university? Maybe. But if I'm the NCAA, I make some leading statements that GPAs, test scores, academic progress may have to be increased, scholarships cut, etc. We'll see the rubber hit the road at that point.
 
The decision in the Northwestern case affects only private universities. Any attempt by players to form a union at, say, Ohio State, or Nebraska, would be governed by the specific state's laws on unions of public employees (teachers, firefighters, police.) It is different in each state. But there would seem to be little doubt that athletes at these public schools will be watching what happens to determine whether they want to do something similar. Large public employee unions like the SEIU or AFSCME may be willing to help these athletes in the same way the United Steelworkers helped Colter and the Northwestern players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top