|
Paying players isn't even on the agenda for what the Northwestern players want. All this does is allow them the right to unionize and therefore bargain for fair conditions. Recall that the list of things that players want are things like a scholarship that covers full cost of attendance, not the estimated 80% that current athletic scholarships provide. They want things like a 4 year contract as opposed to year to year where they can be booted for any reason like injury, performance on the field, or even a Schianoesque "I just don't like you". Is this the first step towards paying players? Yes, but only in the sense that the first step to going to the moon is getting out of bed. There is still a lot more work to be done and before we arrive at the point of paying players, a lot more will be done to make the treatment of student athletes more fair.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Pretty sure the vast majority of schools would continue their CFB programs and trim off most of the others. Basically every womens sport but basketball and maaaybe softball and every mens but basketball and baseball and hockey in some areas (every sport that doesnt turn a profit)
smuggler fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:If a guy works at the stadium concession stand is he required to go to class??? If a girl works at the campus book store is she required to turn in her papers on time????
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Chiken n' Waffles posted:Where did you come up with the 61,000 a year? Well mainly I'm pulling it out of my rear end as an example. But also: mastershakeman posted:I'm glad that the decision addressed head on that they receive $61k+ of pay for what they do. Haven't read through the whole thing but it looks pretty sound. Anyone know how often lower NLRB boards get reversed by the DC one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:If a guy works at the stadium concession stand is he required to go to class??? If a girl works at the campus book store is she required to turn in her papers on time???? If those jobs are managed by the schools and designated as a "student" job then you do have to stay enrolled at the university to keep said job. I was a student manager at a residence dining hall, every semester I would have to do checks on the employees to ensure that they were taking the correct number of hours and were still enrolled in the university. If not I had to let them go. So if Athletes are designated student employees then yes. They would still have to go to class and turn in papers on time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Dexo posted:If those jobs are managed by the schools and designated as a "student" job then you do have to stay enrolled at the university to keep said job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:That's kind of the point I was making actually. My bad. Quoted the wrong post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Again, for all you people saying this is going to end college sports and result in paying players, here is an excellent article which goes over their stated goals: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/1/28/5354718/college-football-players-union-pay-for-play In case you are lazy, here are the bullet points: 1. Minimize college athletes' brain trauma risks. 2. Raise the scholarship amount. 3. Prevent players from being stuck paying sports-related medical expenses. 4. Increase graduation rates. 5. Protect educational opportunities for student-athletes in good standing. 6. Prohibit universities from using a permanent injury suffered during athletics as a reason to reduce/eliminate a scholarship. 7. Establish and enforce uniform safety guidelines in all sports to help prevent serious injuries and avoidable deaths. 8. Eliminate restrictions on legitimate employment and players ability to directly benefit from commercial opportunities. 9. Prohibit the punishment of college athletes that have not committed a violation. 10. Guarantee that college athletes are granted an athletic release from their university if they wish to transfer schools. 11. Allow college athletes of all sports the ability to transfer schools one time without punishment. edit: The only one I even partially object to, or I guess pause to think about is number 8, only because it can and likely will create an imbalance in recruiting. Even then the argument that it would happen isn't 100%. swickles fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Nah we want the students to get what they deserve, if the school can't handle it an the program dies, so be it. And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. You guys do realize that this will result in the college athlete world being almost exclusively big conference schools right? It will be the SEC, B1G, Pac 12, ACC, and Big 12 at most and even then lots of these schools will just fold their programs because they can't afford it anymore. March Madness will be dead, the CWS will be dead, and football will be the SEC and change. I don't think a lot of you have really thought this through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. Non one is asking for a salary. Maybe look at what they actually want (hint: look up two posts!) and then make a decision on it. Or you know, continue to poo poo post, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
swickles posted:
The schools with the money already have an imbalance in recruiting. Go look up the campus housing Kentucky Basketball players stay at, or the new facilities Alabama has for the football team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. So you think the athletes who do all the work deserve nothing, but those of use who sit on our couches and consume this poo poo deserve to have this product? Am I reading that right? Because what I'm gathering from your post is that you don't want the programs shutting down because (an assumption since you didn't explain more) you enjoy the product and feel you deserve the right to watch it. But they don't deserve the right to be paid for their performance because it conflicts with you deserving to watch it? *edit* What Swickles said also. I'm just confronting the straw man you've built.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
swickles posted:Again, for all you people saying this is going to end college sports and result in paying players, here is an excellent article which goes over their stated goals: I'm for it all except 10. I think 10 should be standardized where a student is granted an athletic release to any school not in the same conference. 9 is a little strange. The rest is fine by me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:So you think the athletes who do all the work deserve nothing, but those of use who sit on our couches and consume this poo poo deserve to have this product? <insert beer ad>
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:I'm for it all except 10. I think 10 should be standardized where a student is granted an athletic release to any school not in the same conference. 9 is a little strange. The rest is fine by me. Nine is basically saying don't punish players for the violations committed by the coaching staff or athletic department or other players on the team. Things like bowl bans and scholarship reductions hurt the players. Instead, the coach should be fined/suspended/show caused based on the severity of his crime, and the people who work in the athletic department should be somehow held to a higher standard to make sure they do what they are supposed to. If a player commits violations, punish the player more severely but leave the rest of the team alone. Also, I don't see why there should be any restriction on transferring. I mean, I understand the "oh, we will have to play them!" argument, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Especially when players transfer its either because they can't crack the depth chart or for family reasons. Well, if they can't crack your depth chart, then why are you afraid of playing them? If its for family reasons, chances are the next school that is geographically close is also going to be in your conference (Big 12 aside).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:I'm for it all except 10. I think 10 should be standardized where a student is granted an athletic release to any school not in the same conference. 9 is a little strange. The rest is fine by me. 11 bugs me a little bit too. Its a little unbalanced to be like "school you have to be 100% committed to keeping me here, but I can bolt at any time!" Plus, given the brevity of the college playing career...I don't know, something just seems off about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
swickles posted:Again, for all you people saying this is going to end college sports and result in paying players, here is an excellent article which goes over their stated goals: If universities didn't want to pay their student athletes this ruling doesn't stop that at all. What this ruling says is that universities can't have their cake and eat it too. They can't use scholarships as leverage over student-athletes, using them to compel an absurd workload under threat of removing compensation, and then turn around and say that student athletes have no bargaining power. If Northwestern simply completely separated the two, making scholarships entirely dependent on academics for example, that would head this off and make this ruling useless. But then they risk a student accepting the scholarship and later quitting the football team to get their education. Or athletes deciding they don't want to do crazy practices or whatever other non-football team things the school wants from them, with the only threat being expulsion from the football team, rather than removal of compensation. I would imagine severely reducing the working conditions so that student athletes are in fact students first and athletics are a secondary endeavour would also work, though that's not as clear cut.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
swickles posted:Nine is basically saying don't punish players for the violations committed by the coaching staff or athletic department or other players on the team. Things like bowl bans and scholarship reductions hurt the players. Instead, the coach should be fined/suspended/show caused based on the severity of his crime, and the people who work in the athletic department should be somehow held to a higher standard to make sure they do what they are supposed to. If a player commits violations, punish the player more severely but leave the rest of the team alone. It's the whole "spy" thing. That player knows your entire playbook and how you look at film and it wouldn't be too hard to share things that you'd prefer to keep quiet about your game planning. Also it'd be pretty poor if your team just up and left if you've had a bad season or if your coach leaves and your new coach comes in to a 30 man roster after players jump ship. There are reasons for limitations on transfer. Right now, the ones who actually do transfer are those who have a legit reason (buried on the depth chart and are willing to sit out a year, family issues, etc), but I can see the source of the fear that if open transfers are allowed, that will change very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:It's the whole "spy" thing. That player knows your entire playbook and how you look at film and it wouldn't be too hard to share things that you'd prefer to keep quiet about your game planning. I understand that reasoning in the NFL, but in college, I am not buying into it as much. I don't think its as huge an advantage as you think it is. Its kind of paranoia that assuming letting players transfer once that there will suddenly be a bunch of moles that go to a school for a year then jump ship. Even if that was the case, its something every school could engage in equally which would nullify any advantage gained.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:Also it'd be pretty poor if your team just up and left if you've had a bad season or if your coach leaves and your new coach comes in to a 30 man roster after players jump ship. I'm admittedly more of a casual fan of college football, but I don't see the problem with players jumping ship if there's a coaching change. If a coach leaves in the middle of the night while the players are at Olive Garden, I wouldn't have a problem with the players getting a chance to move somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. I don't think you've thought this through at all. The players are looking for the right to bargain. That means that D3 teams and tennis players don't deserve anything beyond basic rights that they don't currently have. If they aren't bringing in profit, there's little to bargain over. No schools would shut down poo poo over this. If you're paying the coach and athletic director millions of dollars a year, why the hell do the players deserve nothing? How much profit did having the rights to Johnny Manziel™ bring TAMU? Probably enough to pay the whole conference a reasonable salary and benefits. But we're supposed to act like schools shutting down educational programs to give the team more funding, because that's the real profit engine, are too hard up to pay for basic profit sharing? Shut up please. If anything, this is at least a step against the NCAA and corruption in school funds, which is the real issue behind schools being football teams with educational institutions on the side rather than vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:which is the real issue behind schools being football teams with educational institutions on the side rather than vice versa. This is absurd hyperbole though. Look at one of the biggest dogs in the fight: In 2011-2012, Penn State spent $107 million on athletics and had $108 million in revenue. In the same year, the operating budget of the university system exceeded $4 billion. Nearly $600 million was spent on research alone. Still want to call that a football team with an educational institution on the side?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Sash! posted:This is absurd hyperbole though. Look at one of the biggest dogs in the fight: If people give enough poo poo about football to get the president fired it certainly has a bit of pull.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
What is even the point of CFB? I mean if it's about tradition and pride, so what if you go broke winning? Isn't that the point? CFB right now, it's like you want to watch ringers playing on your behalf, but not paying them like the ringers they are. Why? And if it's a business enterprise, there's free labor because?? .. They're freaks and have no where else go to? Chichevache posted:I don't play division 1 football, but are they not providing medical care for them already? Like, when Lattimore loving demolished his knee did Carolina just toss him out like an old eskimo on an iceflow? Is there a general rule to this? I want to say that from the few documentaries I've watched and articles posted here, it seems like you're out of luck once you leave the school. So if your knee starts hurting after you graduate or whatever, you just become the taxpayer's problem. I think there was a court case won by the school to state this. If schools were liable, then players would be employees and are hosed on this whole student athlete thing. As far as the school is concerned, players are just horsing around in between classes, nothing to do with them. This crap flies in court, that's how awesome inertia is. Femur fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. That is not what they "deserve". I am perfectly okay with destroying it. I like college football but I do not care for it so much that I am okay with exploiting the athletes. I don't think I hold anything in that high a regard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:Great job trivializing slavery there
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. It's actually rather vague as to whether Title IX requires that. And even if it does requiring things like insurance and worker's comp should be standard, and the fact that they're not is shameful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. That strawman you constructed is bigger than the Aggie Bonfire. Crazy Ted fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. Nobody knows how Title IX will work with this decision - if it even stands - but it's likely that Title IX will only allow female athletes to also unionize, or will make the bargaining unit larger. Also, again, nobody is asking to be paid a salary. They're asking for standardized employment benefits and profit sharing in licensing and TV revenue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
I guess this makes Obama filling the empty spots in the NLRB one of the more positive things that he's done so far in his administration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. I don't want to pile on since you already have a dozen people hammering at you, but I think you're being unfair. There are definitely going to be negative consequences to this, but the current system as it stands is so hosed up that the fallout of that is better than having a system where coaches make millions while star football players get suspended for signing autographs for money. It's not only pretty outrageously unfair, but it practically begs for corruption. (See: Miami football scandal where that one booster was literally handing out cash for strip clubs. Nevis I think?) quote:Nobody knows how Title IX will work with this decision - if it even stands - but it's likely that Title IX will only allow female athletes to also unionize, or will make the bargaining unit larger. That is still going to be a large outlay of cash for a lot of programs that are already in the red. However you feel about the issue, it's going to have an appreciable impact on a lot of smaller D1 and down programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
superaielman posted:I don't want to pile on since you already have a dozen people hammering at you, but I think you're being unfair. There are definitely going to be negative consequences to this, but the current system as it stands is so hosed up that the fallout of that is better than having a system where coaches make millions while star football players get suspended for signing autographs for money. It's not only pretty outrageously unfair, but it practically begs for corruption. (See: Miami football scandal where that one booster was literally handing out cash for strip clubs. Nevis I think?) What will be interesting is, if this goes forward, what consequences will emerge for schools refusing to negotiate with players. Will they go on strike? It could be that only football teams have enough clout (and generate enough revenue) to actually bargain for benefits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
superaielman posted:I don't want to pile on since you already have a dozen people hammering at you, but I think you're being unfair. There are definitely going to be negative consequences to this, but the current system as it stands is so hosed up that the fallout of that is better than having a system where coaches make millions while star football players get suspended for signing autographs for money. It's not only pretty outrageously unfair, but it practically begs for corruption. (See: Miami football scandal where that one booster was literally handing out cash for strip clubs. Nevis I think?) The rules don't exist just for the hell of it. They themselves are solutions to previous problems. Corruption has existed in college football since it was invented. Blaming the rules for the problems is getting the causation backwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
The rules are there to protect the NCAA, not the athletes. This is an extreme example, but:Arian Foster posted:
Any system where this is a logical outcome has some pretty terribly designed rules. The system was not designed to deal with the moneymaker that some of college sports has become.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
superaielman posted:The rules are there to protect the NCAA, not the athletes. This is an extreme example, but: College football has always been a huge moneymaker and the source of endless corruption. These are not new issues. Complaints about the amount of money football was making started about 1885, almost as soon as the sport was invented. Drop by the football history thread sometime. The rules could probably use a good overhaul, but whatever problems the rules cause, they prevent even worse ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:What will be interesting is, if this goes forward, what consequences will emerge for schools refusing to negotiate with players. Will they go on strike? It could be that only football teams have enough clout (and generate enough revenue) to actually bargain for benefits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:College football has always been a huge moneymaker and the source of endless corruption. These are not new issues. Complaints about the amount of money football was making started about 1885, almost as soon as the sport was invented. Drop by the football history thread sometime. What are the worse problems that are being prevented?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:What are the worse problems that are being prevented? Well, at one time 30-year-old "freshmen" who had played college football for 10 years without ever attending a class was fairly common.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
I am going to guess competitive balance, then I am going to laugh. Edit: I saw your post, that isn't to different from now. They aren't thirty but the basic concept is the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Well, at one time 30-year-old "freshmen" who had played college football for 10 years without ever attending a class was fairly common.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:02
|
|