|
bawfuls posted:It doesn't matter if they should be or not for the purposes of this discussion. As long as the university is an entity that makes money off of sports like football, then the players who's labor is creating that value deserve to be compensated for doing so. I think you're right on that count and that I wasn't acknowledging that fact, that the teaching duties of grad students are contributing to the overall revenue in the sense that they allow schools to offer more classes and enroll more tuition-paying students. My hangup seems to be similar to King Hong Kong's, in that I can clearly see the link between the goal of a university (teaching students and conducting research) and graduate student instructors/researchers, but that the link between the goal of the university and its athletic programs seems more tenuous. The university is definitely exploiting the athletes in the current situation, but taking the athletes out of the university and putting them in semi-pro leagues of their own seems like a better solution than trying to turn them into university employees. Idiot Wind fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jan 29, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Coco13 posted:Pro click http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/1/28/5354718/college-football-players-union-pay-for-play This is a really great article. The only remotely controversial demand is #8. And I think when you realize that NCAA athletes can't seem to take any kind of job to earn money to do things their scholarship doesn't provide it's no longer controversial. I've heard about players being unable to afford food or other basic life necessities because they can't work a job due to their hours and yet their scholarship doesn't provide for those items.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
College athletes work at least 40 hours a week out of season at their sport of choice and 60 hours a week in-season, if not more. Those numbers might be inflated some if you count mandatory "tutoring" sessions as work, which I would because athletes are supposed to attend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
ya but football is fun where work is boring ergo...
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:I didn't say they were employees, I said what they are doing is clearly work, which you had disputed for some reason. As is alluded to above by Idiot Wind, while I certainly agree that football is labor in certain contexts - and should be treated as such in those contexts - it is not and should not be labor within the context of a university. To that end, I do not think that universities should endeavor to maximize profits from their athletic programs by means of exploiting their students, an aim which is contrary in spirit to universities' essential educational and research missions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
BigBoss posted:I think this is the biggest hurdle in the process. Title IX was one of those laws that had good intentions, but the consequences a few decades after its implementation are starting to become known. Given the unique nature of football due to the large roster and facility expense, Title IX needs to be adjusted to account for these expenses if successful unionization of football players goes forward. Starting to become known? Men's Wrestling, Gymnastics, soccer, etc... found out those consequences a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
LARGE THE HEAD posted:At all but about 30 or 40 institutions across the country, that money is all spent. I have no doubt the university knows where the money goes, but my point was that the money should go back into football, to pay the athletes, then this fantasy land where schools have no money disappears. Like maybe there wouldn't be an expense for a new Olympic pool and swimming team if there wasn't money left from football/basketball to build one? Then if the school wants that on their brochure, they pay for it themselves? There has been articles written about increased registration and such after a championship, sports and the attention it brings is a value to the school. I bet if football has to fight for it, they'll get a lot of donations ear marked to them that only they can spend; it could become a bunch of Green bay situations where the local area just comes to sponsor a team. So where is this "poor broke schools" narrative coming from? Because schools run bloated programs now because they can? It's like those Bowl CEOs who gave their friends and themselves huge salaries and fees in order to make the whole thing non-profit. How will you handle former players through, those that can't make it into the NFL, or flame out? How long do you let them play? King Hong Kong posted:As is alluded to above by Idiot Wind, while I certainly agree that football is labor in certain contexts - and should be treated as such in those contexts - it is not and should not be labor within the context of a university. To that end, I do not think that universities should endeavor to maximize profits from their athletic programs by means of exploiting their students, an aim which is contrary in spirit to universities' essential educational and research missions. Yeah, but the university invites players/coaches to donation events, and get more alumni interest when the team does well. They sell jerseys, merchandise, stadium seats, all with no compensation to the likeness of their players. The NFL is the dream, and college is how you get there, and universities are just exploiting the poo poo out of it. Regular students cost them money, so they gotta pay, football players make them money, but they also pay, in this "scholarship" crap, theie rights to use their name, and their work to prepare and play. You see from the above, the only ones that are DEFINTELY benefiting are the connected people able to put friends and families into administrative decision making positions, it's a giant old boys club basically, and this particular ones is exploiting our children, literally. Femur fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:As is alluded to above by Idiot Wind, while I certainly agree that football is labor in certain contexts - and should be treated as such in those contexts - it is not and should not be labor within the context of a university. To that end, I do not think that universities should endeavor to maximize profits from their athletic programs by means of exploiting their students, an aim which is contrary in spirit to universities' essential educational and research missions. Good luck with that second approach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Somehow he's trying to argue that this system is not work: Players (employees) put on outfits with a school's name on them and exert physical effort (services) in a contest for a for profit enterprise (corporation) that is paid by a tv network (client) to broadcast that contest and also sell clothing (goods) with their likenesses that are made valuable by their effort to fans (customers).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Wait wait, is someone really trying to argue against the fact that college athletes are exploited? Seriously? Ok, my loving brain hurts. These guys work far beyond regular college requirements and put their bodies on the line for 10-15 weeks a year and can't even sell their signatures without being suspended. I mean, loving really?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Fenrir posted:Wait wait, is someone really trying to argue against the fact that college athletes are exploited? Seriously? Ok, my loving brain hurts. These guys work far beyond regular college requirements and put their bodies on the line for 10-15 weeks a year and can't even sell their signatures without being suspended. I mean, loving really? Well you see, universities are enlightened places of learning. -future UT president Rick Perry
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Somehow he's trying to argue that this system is not work: Universities - or at least any university you would want to go to - are not "for profit" enterprises, at least not technically. You can argue it should be treated as work, which is fine, I do not really care whether it currently is or not according to whatever our working definition of "work" is because I do not think it actually should be work for these students. If they want to be paid for football, they should be able to do that outside of college. Edit: In essence, I think colleges are exploiting students and my solution to that problem is an idealistic alternative to the one generally proposed in this thread. King Hong Kong fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Femur posted:Well you see, universities are enlightened places of learning. Rick Perry would rather die than work for UT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Well, too late. It already is, and College Football is a massive and quite profitable industry. We can either accept this reality and allow for unionization to bring some balance and justice to the situation, or we can abolish athletic scholarships and profit-seeking in NCAA football completely. Or maybe the NFL and NBA could, I don't know, have their own minor league systems that don't interfere with the operation of educational institutions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Idiot Wind posted:Or maybe the NFL and NBA could, I don't know, have their own minor league systems that don't interfere with the operation of educational institutions? Because right now the NFL and NCAA have zero incentive to scrap the current system for a true minor league set up. The NFL gets to reap the benefits of a huge player scouting and development system without paying a dime, while the NCAA gets to profit off their end of the operation. Give the players some power, allow them to collectively bargain, and the end result may eventually be a more appropriate minor league system. This avenue seems much more practical than trying to convince the NFL and NBA to set up minor league systems out of the goodness of their hearts. bawfuls fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
swickles posted:Rick Perry would rather die than work for UT. Rick Perry would do for UT what he wanted to do to the federal government: Strip it down to a skeleton and sell off the pieces to his friends at deep discounts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
LARGE THE HEAD posted:Rick Perry would do for UT what he wanted to do to the federal government: Strip it down to a skeleton and sell off the pieces to his friends at deep discounts. Sounds familiar...
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:I would argue that allowing these players to unionize could in fact hasten the arrival of such a framework. Yeah, I think as long as this moves in that direction unionizing will have been a good thing both for the universities and for the athletes involved. Of course, there's the incentive you mentioned in your last post, the massive existing cash cow of college sports, that will exert a powerful influence on keeping the money where it is. Simply defining student-athletes as employees is not the same thing as creating a new framework to address the issues caused by a modern sports industry interwoven with the educational system, though it may be a start. E: Sorry, quoted before your edit. I think we're on the same page though, as far as the power structure of the leagues is concerned 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:I would argue that allowing these players to unionize could in fact hasten the arrival of such a framework. The NBA is certainly closer to that ideal than the NFL is, although you are right that neither the NCAA nor the NFL have any incentive to start spending money on a minor league system when they have one in practice at minimal expense. I'm skeptical that unionization will proceed particularly far, although any pressure put on the NCAA in its current state is worthwhile. Edit: Beaten.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:Universities - or at least any university you would want to go to - are not "for profit" enterprises, at least not technically. You must not live in the U.S. if you don't think higher education is for profit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:You must not live in the U.S. if you don't think higher education is for profit. I wonder why I said "not technically." In the end, partial agreement is really the worst position for someone to take. King Hong Kong fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:I wonder why I said "not technically." Probably because you realize you've lost an obvious argument to like five people and are falling back on semantics and pedantic responses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
D&D is leaking again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:I wonder why I said "not technically." So before colleges, you had apprenticeships, which was also a system wherein the student paid money to the master to impart their knowledge. So at what time did this free education reality of yours exist?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
axeil posted:This is a really great article. The only remotely controversial demand is #8. And I think when you realize that NCAA athletes can't seem to take any kind of job to earn money to do things their scholarship doesn't provide it's no longer controversial. I've heard about players being unable to afford food or other basic life necessities because they can't work a job due to their hours and yet their scholarship doesn't provide for those items. I have a slight issue with #10. This should be limited to not within a conference or to an opponent on the next 2 year's schedule. Formalize that tradition to a rule and then allow open transfers elsewhere. Also think that a lot of this could be funded through licensing of player names/likenesses, and the union could be the start of being able to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Open transfer in general is a tough subject because if you don't limit it in some way teams would have to just be assembled from free agents every season.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:D&D is leaking again. This whole discussion is basically a D&D discussion with a football shell. It can't be avoided really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Open transfer in general is a tough subject because if you don't limit it in some way teams would have to just be assembled from free agents every season. Hard to say, really. Everyone at Penn State could have transferred in 2012, but only a few did. I think that the sense of community that a football team brings is stronger than the draw of constantly transferring to better teams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Komet posted:Hard to say, really. Everyone at Penn State could have transferred in 2012, but only a few did. I think that the sense of community that a football team brings is stronger than the draw of constantly transferring to better teams. I guess the real fear for smaller colleges would be that star players would gravitate away from them toward programs that maximize their opportunity for success. Average players would stick around sure, but they don't sell as many jerseys/put butts in seats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:D&D is leaking again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Open transfer in general is a tough subject because if you don't limit it in some way teams would have to just be assembled from free agents every season. Well, they did say you would only have a one-time chance. So you can transfer anywhere once without penalty, but afterwards maybe they would institute the sit out a year part. Actually, that might work. Say you go to Texas for your first year and are red-shirted. It becomes clear that you aren't going to be a starter or see much time, so year two you transfer and can play immediately at TCU. If you don't like it, then you would have to sit out your junior year and play your senior year at Nebraska. The tricky part is that credits don't always transfer and such, but I think that would be one way of doing it. I think maybe (emphasis on maybe, not sure yet) that a ban on transferring within conference or a scheduled opponent in the next two years wouldn't be a bad idea. I mean, schemes in college do change a lot, so I doubt you would see teams picking up players just for the inside info, but I can see how tampering on the side of the coaches might become an issue, and you want to insulate the kid from that. I think if a player wanted to go to a scheduled school, he should be able to appeal to some body and say why. Often times players are transferring to be closer to family, and a guy shouldn't be forced to play at Arkansas St. when he can easily play at Arkansas. I just think the rules on transferring need to be changed significantly and the player should have a little more freedom where he goes without sacrficing his potential as a professional athlete.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
swickles posted:Well, they did say you would only have a one-time chance. So you can transfer anywhere once without penalty, but afterwards maybe they would institute the sit out a year part. Actually, that might work. Say you go to Texas for your first year and are red-shirted. It becomes clear that you aren't going to be a starter or see much time, so year two you transfer and can play immediately at TCU. I'm more thinking about the opposite situation. You go to, say, Houston and redshirt, and then have a breakout sophomore year. Suddenly you're getting calls from A&M and Texas about transferring up to the big leagues. So then Houston suddenly needs to replace you and starts recruiting a key guy from North Texas. And so on and so forth. Except a couple hundred schools all doing this at the same time all with different needs that shift as they get guys recruited away or pull in a new transfer. Thoguh fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I'm more thinking about the opposite situation. You go to, say, Houston and redshirt, and then have a breakout sophomore year. Suddenly you're getting calls from A&M and Texas about transferring up to the big leagues. Ahh, yeah, that part could be an issue. Maybe a rule could be made that if you are a starter you have to demonstrate why you want to transfer to a joint committee. Or just say if you are a starter, or played a full season (or certain percentage of a season) then you have to sit out a year. Also, I think the potential of making scholarships 4 years instead of year to year would help mitigate that. If you are that good that teams are recruiting, you have a pretty good shot at getting drafted and most guys are going to choose money over the small chance they can win a NCG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Or how about every other job. If you get a better offer somewhere you can leave your old job and then start a new one. Why pretend that pro sports are a good model for employment freedom
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Simplex posted:Or how about every other job. If you get a better offer somewhere you can leave your old job and then start a new one. Not if you signed a non-compete.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Not if you signed a non-compete. Haha you think Non-Compete's actually hold up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
There's one thing that I have learned about American College Football, it's that no matter how corrupt/exploitive the system, how bad the team, how terrible the scandals the program is responsible for, how much bullshit surrounds everything; fans will ALWAYS buy tickets, tv subscriptions, merchandise, etc to support their school. That is never going to change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Bliggers- posted:There's one thing that I have learned about American College Football, it's that no matter how corrupt/exploitive the system, how bad the team, how terrible the scandals the program is responsible for, how much bullshit surrounds everything; fans will ALWAYS buy tickets, tv subscriptions, merchandise, etc to support their school. That is never going to change. Completely divorce them from being students and I think it would change. Especially given that at some point you along the line the ability for donations to be tax deductible would go away if you're donating to an openly semi pro team rather than a school athletic department. Thoguh fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Haha you think Non-Compete's actually hold up. Depends on the state and the industry. But yes, I've seen them do their thing in my own house.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Sash! posted:Depends on the state and the industry. But yes, I've seen them do their thing in my own house. It depends on the state yes, but a non-compete in Pennsylvania isn't going to hold water at Ohio State outside of their road games played at Penn State. It's why they don't even bother with them for coaches and instead just focus on the buy-out portion of the contract. The coach can leave whenever he wants and there's nothing the school can do about it except try to get paid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 21:13
|
|