I'm not gonna say much suffice to say I think this may blow up in their faces. Here's the link: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/northwestern-players-rep...
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
The NCAA then will rule that they have lost their amateur status and it will get locked in legal limbo until well after any of these players involved would ever be able to play again unless the players get an injunction against the NCAA while the case is being handled. I don't believe the players actually took the NCAA to court in this case though, just Northwestern for now. None of its going to end well.
This to me was the most impactful part of the article for me:
This basically says they are football players first, students second. I am not disagreeing with it but it could effect all of college athletics moving forward because of the amount of revenue that would likely be sidetracked to pay football players, a lot of the non revenue sports would probably end up on the chopping block financially.
If they're unionized it doesn't matter what the ncaa says their status is. But yes, legal limbo here we come.
Sure it does, because if the NCAA says that they are ineligible to participate in college athletics than Northwestern essentially can not allow those athletes that join the union to participate or will have to forfeit any event that they do. If that's the case than Northwestern would either have to shutter its football program or find athletes willing to not join the union.
Nope. Unions are federally protected within the realm in which the members of said union participate, so if it stands there would be zero chance that the NCAA could make anyone ineligible by call them non-amateurs.
Expect the NCAA to fight this to the death because if they lose they will have lost one of their strongest powers to regulate its members and member institutions.
The NCAA can determine its membership. It could just ban Northwestern from participation as a whole unless it meets the membership requirements. Its one of the reasons that the players didn't sue the NCAA outright in this case.
If Northwestern loses, the athletes would then have to take on the NCAA. If the NCAA loses, you could likely see all of college athletics come to a halt because the costs would likely outweigh the means once its said and done. Most schools already struggle to balance the costs of athletics without having to additionally compensate athletes.
This will probably be a 15 to 20 year legal fight as it is.
Pretty sure this is right. The NCAA isn't saying Northwestern players can't play football, they're just saying they won't sanction a game that involves Northwestern. I'd be very surprised if NW found a way to force the NCAA to let them play which the NCAA couldn't get out of.
Once they are unionized the fact that they are members of the NCAA's controlled body will be one of the key elements to their protections. Even if the NCAA excommunicated the entire university of Northwestern these students in this union would still be protected to play NCAA sports. They are now protected.
Any move by the NCAA to make these unionized student-athletes ineligible will constitute a violation of their protected labor status.
The reason the students sued the school first was because the school has a moral obligation to the student-athlete. That's the easy win. Strategically you want that easy win first before you take on the NCAA because now you have precedent.
I get what your saying about costs, but I doubt the terms of payment will change much from what it is now. I do think unionized members will get more but I also believe that it will become mandated before it ever gets to free market status.
The NCAA doesn't have to make them ineligible, they just have to drop Northwestern as a member. The union will have a nightmare on its hand trying to take on a non profit for compensation issues trying to contest their ability to play. The NCAA would not be preventing these players from continuing to play football for Northwestern. Northwestern would just have the new challenge of finding opponents to play their team.
The NCAA would not be outside its right to bar Northwestern from playing and it would be outside the Unions protected rights because the NCAA has established membership requirements that were established prior to the formation of the union and Northwestern would now be in violation of these requirements.
yeah, I understand what you are saying. But I think you're looking at the causality of it too directly. Dropping Northwestern as a member violates this union's protective status because the NCAA will be attempting to use that to make them ineligible. Any move by the NCAA to affect the status of the union either directly or indirectly through penalty to the university would be a violation of it's protection. This is why it's so very important to the NCAA not to lose, because one of it's largest powers, dropping member institutions for whatever reason, will be rendered inept. They simply will not be able to do it without affecting the union, and thus will not be allowed to do it at all.
Regarding your second point, the formation of unions and the protections they grant include all existing conditions. Meaning that part of that protection is that the members of the union are also members of the NCAA. If they bar Northwestern they are effectively barring the union, which it cannot do. Any prior membership requirements will not take precedent over the union's protected status because the members of the union are already participating as "employees" for the university to play NCAA sanctioned athletics. The fact that they play NCAA athletics is now protected as much as anything else, provided this stands.
I will just agree to disagree about the legality of this point. I do think that the NCAA could drop Northwestern because they do not have a written agreement with any of these union members directly. All compensation agreement that these players have is with Northwestern.
I also could see all of these Universities moving to make clear that any scholarship is a grant and have the verbiage in all scholarship agreements that this compensation does not constitute employment. This would give any future athlete a choice. Agree to a scholarship or find another avenue to prepare yourself for a professional career that does not involve the university and the NCAA.
I also think you will find universities nationwide becoming very careful in how they document their dollars in regards to revenue versus cost. Look at our previous discussion regarding Marquette. They were spending $230,000.00 a player for the basketball program. That's nearly a million dollars spent on an athlete during their time at Marquette.
What is that worth in regards compensation? Do athletes now have to pay for strength and conditioning time? Do they have to pay for all their additional and higher than normal student meals? Do they have to pay for the additional tutors/academic help they receive? Do they have to pay for their clothing/equipment? Professionals have to pay for most of these if they are above the norm. Are these players now eligible to negotiate endorsements with companies?
yes, agree to disagree. But i'm still going to make some counterpoints.
When a recruit signs his LOI to a university the NCAA considers them in a binding contract to the university and to the NCAA. I believe that begins once they formally enroll in school. They are now a member abiding by all NCAA guidelines. So the members of the union are directly contracted with the NCAA.
The issue with the employment status has to do with the hours of work more so than the money involved. So it doesn't matter if the wording on the scholarship is different if the university still requires them to "work" the same hours to be a student-athlete, that would thereby classify them as an employee.
Besides, again, if the university or the NCAA attempts to circumvent the Union through altered contracts as you say they would be in violation of the union's protected status. Essentially like hiring scabs to try to break the union in the old days.
Regarding money. Again I think this part will come to be mandated and not free market. Even the government will want this part of it controlled.
Another layer of this is Right to Work laws. The students at any particular school would have to vote to form a union in the first place, and some students might choose not to join or form the union. It's like Boeing building their Dreamliner plant in Charleston vs. Seattle. Schools could offer their own incentives & initiative to create a more attractive environment ("come to Texas") - avoiding the union formation in the first place, or like as mentioned before, just "go out of business" on the affected sports. (provided NCAA rules allow said incentives)
Listening to the Junkies on 106.7 The Fan this morning, they had the Legal Analyst for ESPN on as a guest and the go out of business option he said is a real possibility based on his contacts with athletic departments, especially those that are already losing money.
It's a huge paradox. To get union status from the NLRB the players have to be considered professionals. To be eligible to particpate in NCAA athletics, the players have to be considered amateurs.
Think of it this way, only professionals are represented by unions, therefore union members cannot participate in NCAA sports.
Think of it another way though.
NCAA membership rules are not federally protected. The rights of unions are. The members of this union are employees "paid" to play NCAA sanctioned athletics. If you take the NCAA out of the equation it alters the status quo of the union which cannot happen.
And only employees are represented by unions, not specifically meaning professionals. You're from the design world, so think about it like this. You could conceivably have a union of junior unlicensed architects. They are employees of a "company" but are not yet considered professionals because they have not passed their licensing.
If they really thought they could do that then they would have presented the membership as a whole. They limited it to scholarship only athletes. They didn't allow walk-ons to participate because they weren't being compensated at all.
That might be the next step from a school status. All participation is voluntary. Good luck getting the attention of the NFL as an athlete if you aren't competing on Saturdays. The NFL rule is still in place for three years removed from High school before you are eligible. Have fun playing for sandlot leagues until then.
Cart before the horse IMO.
Why add walk-on's and non-scholarship athletes now? that's much more complex when trying to form the union and the litigation would have taken a lot longer. They were smart. Started with the one they knew would win easy. Now they will build on it.
I am a school teacher in the state of Virginia and I am not allowed to join a union. VEA is considered as close to a union as you can get but in this state if I decided to go out and protest as a government employee, I would lose my job. NCAA can regulate if they choose.
The NCAA and universities are going to read this as "we should practice less." In other words, we are going to end up with lower quality football and the elite kids will not have received as much coaching and won't be as prepared for the NFL.
Obviously, their education comes first. But, when the NCAA avoids paying money then practices will be minimized so that they become "primarily students."
There is a very good chance that this is the case. I find it interesting that the board only found in favor of the football players. There were basketball players involved in this case as well but it appears that they were excluded from the Labor Boards ruling so far.
I think this is referring to the National Labor Bureau's definition of what constitutes "employment", specifically the hours of work one must do for a particular "job". Not necessarily saying that they are professional football players and not students. The issue of pay beyond the scope of what is status quo will be an interesting litigation. Is there a minimum wage associated to being a student-athlete-employee? How many total hours must you be made to work? is there overtime? Do normal employment laws apply?
What I find important is that at this point the lawsuit is only against the university, which was smart by the students. The university has a moral obligation to the student-athletes. As I said previously this would be an easy win. Once the NCAA starts to weigh in that's when the fireworks will really start, but how much will the NCAA and other universities push Northwestern to fight on their own first, and for how long?
All very interesting.
The NCAA would likely be forced to act by the start of this next season though. If they allow Northwestern to take the field with these union members without contesting it would put them behind the legal eight ball.
most definitely. from a legal standpoint it is incredibly interesting.
well, what do you know. pretty sure someone on TKP said this would happen a long time ago despite vehement arguments to the contrary...
now on to the 1rst amendment issue with tweets
Agreed. I believe that his will not work out even remotely how they intend
i really dont have an issue with that. let's face it, the money has gotten out of hand and it cant happen without the athletes. everybody's seriously lining their pockets except the ones actually competing and putting themselves at risk. this isnt even the first step down the road we've started down, but i think its a big one. i dont know all the answers but the ncaa and their member institutions better accept the fact quick that the times they are a changin.
Guaranteed scholarships in case of injury? No, your scholarship is tied in to your ability to play. Unless they have some major medical incident, this is ridiculous.
And incentives to graduate? It's called a diploma and job opportunities. The same reasons the rest of us went to college. You don't want one? Don't take a free college education.
that's cool, jerk a kid's scholly because someone else came along who was better. it's common practice, how else does the sec sign 40 kid recruiting classes every year? would a bio major lose their scholly if someone who was better at biology came along?
as far as the second statement, i hear you, and that's all well and good. but since i got promoted after i graduated i realized that not everybody is a go getter. and that's ok. some folks are very self motivated and they're easy to work with. most folks need at least some motivation, some need a lot. not everyone is from a home where they grew up with positive, hard working role models, so they may be in the in the latter group. it doesnt make them less worthy if they can do the work. so i have zero issue with there being carrots in place.
Actually, you do lose your bio scholly if you don't perform at a certain level.
I understand that, I guess I meant that if someone comes along and is better at biology than you, even though your still making your grades and whatnot your not gonna lose your spot as long as your still doing well just because this new guy is the better biologist.
Back to your original point, very few coaches yank a schollie based on injuries. In fact, the NCAA has rules in place that allow a kid to stay on scholarship but not count against the limit - like what happened to Mike Cole and Nick Acree. Also, this is probably more closely related to my friend's law school scholarship than a bio one. If he doesn't stay in the top 20% or so of his class, he loses it. Similar deal for football - there isn't some arbitrary, magical number a kid has to stay at. He needs to perform well relative to others at his position. If he doesn't, for whatever reason (other than a major injury), the scholarship goes to the more deserving player. As for carrots, I'm firmly in the camp of, "if you want it, go get it." If they want a useful degree after they graduate, it's up to them to put in the work, and the vast majority of schools have adequate academic resources to help athletes who want to go this route. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's not easy for the rest of us either. I played club rugby for Tech, and we were training/competing 6-7 days a week in both the fall and spring, without any academic support from the school (or a trainer for that matter. We had a manager who knew how to put ice in a bag and dial 911). It was on us to manage our time and put our lives in order so we could compete and graduate. And most of us had difficult, time-consuming majors too (our best player was an CS major and I'd say a solid majority were engineers). Varsity athletes may have a bit more of a time commitment, but they also have resources available to them that normal students and club athletes don't. Not to mention they go to school for free.
I don't know if its always the case, but a lot of colleges will still honor scholarship offers if a student athlete has to retire for medical reasons. I'm pretty sure that was the case with Michael Cole at VT and there was a story posted a few months back about a player that had received an Alabama offer whose scholarship was honored even though he suffered a career ending injury before setting foot on campus. Injured players who retire from their sport aren't counted towards scholarship limits so its probably a college by college decision that comes down to available money in the school's scholarship fund.
I don't have a problem with schools having the ability to pull scholarships based on performance, but I might create a caveat that if a student isn't on scholarship (walk-on or a pulled scholarship) then the athlete should be able to transfer without restrictions and play immediately similar to a player on an NFL practice squad being signed to the roster on another team.
Perhaps I misworded what I said. I totally agree that in cases like Michael Coleman exceptions can be made. It's not his fault he suffered a career-ending injury. That's all well and good.
I understood what you wrote, I was just saying that what the players are asking for is already at least somewhat common. Since they're asking for it, I assume it isn't universal, but at least two major D1 schools already follow that policy.
ESPN also weighs in.
This ruling certainly would preclude inclusion in any event that only allows amateur athletes.
Very interesting piece of information from the ESPN article.
I am not sure how many members of the NCAA are private but this division of players will give the NCAA another avenue to prevent this. A division of what these private universities could offer above public schools would make it an unfair advantage to recruiting/membership/competition.
Private schools will negotiate terms for a stipend and better insurance and the free market of recruiting will require the public schools to follow suit. This makes sense for football where the money exists to make this happen, but it doesn't with everything else. Because if Title 9, so many women's programs exist wholly to balance the 85 in football. Those women's programs just got a ton more expensive, football money can't cover it for many schools.
Could this indirectly lead to the 64 team super conferences? How many athletic programs will this desolate?
My biggest problem with this entire push is that Kain Colter was the driving force behind this effort, knowing that he had already maximized his college eligibility so regardless of the outcome of this case, it had no effect on him negatively. He also now stands to benefit financially as the founder of CABA and with any other agreements they might negotiate from this movement. Pretty cowardly for someone being touted as such a brave pathfinder.
This we both agree on
If anyone thinks the demands they are making now are anything more than simply a temporary placeholder, you are in for a nasty surprise.
The moment they start paying players is the moment I stop watching and supporting college athletics. I support students & student athletes.
I hope they get a legal bitchslap in the form of taxes. You want to be employees? Payroll taxes, Social Security, FICA, and all that jazz come along with it. I worked all four years of college, both in Blacksburg and in my parents' town, and you bet your ass I paid taxes on all of my income.
If they could, they'd tax your turkey legs.
That's it, time for an offshore account.
VTGuitarMan:
"I keep all my turkey legs in an undisclosed Swiss bank account"
I can neither confirm nor deny that statement. One thing is true, I keep my turkey legs in a giant smoker. The location of said smoker will remain undisclosed...
In due time, some poor lawyer is gonna have to read one of the strangest lines he's ever encountered in a will: "I leave my vast stores of turkey legs to..."
Swiss banks report back to the US...go for the Cayman's or other Caribbean locale...
VTGuitarMan = the 1%
I used to work for a Swiss bank... I can make that happen
That's fine. Take away their scholarships now that they're employees and make them pay their full tuition.
I never even considered that.
This is excellent! I wonder if they had to pay for their education, would they take it more seriously? I know there are some players who do take their education very seriously and I don't want to discredit them. That being said, I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we said a majority of the players are more concerned with their studies than getting a job in the NFL. We know that players manage to get through cup-cake degrees (or in UNC's case, made up ones) and it seems like there is a cheating scandal somewhere every other year or so. Again, I know there are real stand-up guys like Myron Rolle who was a Rhodes Scholar and our very own Facyson who is striving to be a brain surgeon, I believe, and that's awesome! But for each of those guys, there are a couple handfuls of guys who are doing relatively easy courses and skipping classes and using tutors to get grades. It happens at every university. It would be nice to see that trend reverse, where more players put more effort into their education. I'd like to think if they had to pay for it, they would take it more seriously...but I could be wrong.
AT VT, if they were considered full time salaried employees, then they could take up to 12 credit hours for free each year, part time salraried employees get up to 6 hours free:
http://www.hr.vt.edu/compensation/total_compensation/benefits_of_working...
Most other colleges whose benefits I've looked at have some level of free tuition/educational reimbursement for employees. I don't think what VT offers would be enough hours to be considered a full time student, but it would take care of close to half of their tuition costs.
Yep. If they were considered full-time employees, they'd still have to come out of pocket for their other 12 required hours. Part-time? Need to pay for 18 hours.
And then those fees. And if you live on campus, room and board. Sometimes those double your bill from student accounts.
Not to mention the number of kids that go out of state for school. The tuition bill just tripled, because I doubt players at Bama are going to appreciate it when the out of state kids make more than them. That or the out of state kids wont leave the state because they don't want to pay the tuition.
On the plus side, we likely would have landed Da'Shawn Hand and Derrick Nnadi if that were the case. But that's beside the point. lol
So if they are considered employees and their scholarships are their salaries, we will see how many of these guys want to join when they are taxed for $50,000 worth of income each year.
Northwestern is 75K. Pay those taxes...
If the school really wants to get serious, it wouldn't just be the tuition. It would also be the additional benefits.
Need to eat six meals a day? Pay for your meal plan or consider it income.
Need a tutor to get through school? Pay for it or consider it income.
Need additional time to work out in our closed facility? Here is the cost.
Need an actual employee of the university to help with that? Add this to it.
Need to see someone medically that is deemed outside of a football injury (See Antone Exum)? That is going to cost you.
Need to watch additional game film outside of NCAA requirement? Does it require special editing to make it? Additional income/cost
On and on the school could go with detailing out what should be considered a cost above scholarship that these players receive.
I wouldn't be surprised if the income total on average could be pegged to somewhere in the $150-$200K range.
Let em choose their own medical plans, and then they can deal with the deductibles just like the working world does.
They're in for a RUDE awakening if they follow through with this. They have it pretty damn good right now, and they're on the cusp of ruining it all for everyone. Right now they get a free education, free food, free room and board, free clothing, free transportation to events, free tutoring, free textbooks, free training for the field they hope to make a living in.... And they don't have to pay a dime for any of it, or even file taxes for any of it.
If they think that suddenly being able to unionize is going to fix everything, they're getting a blanket pulled over their eyes. Only a VERY select few will come out of this better than they were before. For the rest of the collegiate sporting world, they'll end up losing money, or potentially worse, they'll have their sport wiped from the college landscape because no athletic department can afford to fund it anymore.
This basically points out the biggest reason I'm against this whole paying players and unionizing them, besides killing most other college sports. This will hurt so many players more than it will benefit. Yes the Johnny Manziels, Clowneys, and handful of super star players every year can make out like bandits. But that second string lineman will get screwed.
Are we really surprised that college students are making stupid financial decisions in an attempt to get easy money from an institution?
Not at all. They probably need a class on this.
One they can pay taxes on.
T.J. Moe with some interesting points:
Moe's comments on players getting endorsement deals would result in the same disaster he is claiming unions will cause. Endorsements will be graduated by exposure. Therefore the conference with the best tv deal will have all the 5 star recruits. College football will be ruined, probably faster than unions would do it.
"Thoughtful, well-reasoned Twitter dissertation"
Twitter, really? Hey look, there goes your credibility.
I was going to say the same thing, "Thoughtful, reasoned, twitter dissertation" is an oxymoron.
Compared to some of the unintelligible crap laden with mysterious symbols and non-words that appear on many Twitter feeds, Moe's statements come off making him look like a Rhodes Scholar. But yes, the juxtaposition of those words struck me as hilarious, too.
they understand that if they are recognized as employees, they pay taxes. if they dont, their lawyers do, and have advised them accordingly. for everybody talking about how they worked through school, that's their entire point. what they are doing is going beyond what someone who is say, on a full ride to study biology, is doing. certainly they both work hard in their respective areas, but at the end of the day the bio major can a) still make money however they choose (which will be taxed) and b) isn't part of this machine that generates billions of dollars annually.
the tipping point has been passed with all the tv money and its nothing but right that the people who are actually risking the personal well being see a larger piece of that pie. it's naive to moralize about how student athletes must be true amateurs while we cream our collective pants about how much buzz is being payed. look, i appreciate how much a year of school costs, i'm still paying my student loans, but the monster has gotten too big, and that beloved invisible hand is moving things this way.
i know i'm in the minority on this. they formed this union because they felt like they had no recourse. if you really think that all this money should just go to coaches and administrators than ok, but i disagree.
I have to disagree with you on this. They formed the union because a group of lawyers supported by the Steel Workers Union has been pressing players to attempt this for quite some time. Kain Colter and the players at Northwestern took them up on it. Its a money grab of the highest order. Who stands to benefit the most long term from this union? The lawyers, the top guys at the Steel Workers Union and the couple of players that become high rollers because they legally established Collegiate Athletes Players Association. They will be able to sit at the head of the money train as its divided amongst the players, billing for their time and efforts through any challenges. Colter doesn't even have any eligibility left so he has nothing at risk if this ultimately fails. The Union leaders just get another union they can help "lead" with enormous salaries, and the players get whatever comes down from that. Colter as a founder of CABA will probably get one of these leadership jobs and also make a ton of money.
If the sticking point on what is and isn't an Athlete-student versus Student-athlete becomes the time required for activities, you will see new NCAA mandates put down limiting required activities.
What do those limits do? As was mentioned above by another poster, it will be less developed product on the field and less prepared eventually for professional sports. You will probably see a higher number of injuries because the preparation necessary to play at this level wont have happened.
I'm not saying the union is the way to go, and yes I understand football subsidizes all the other sports. I guess my point was this is the way things are headed. This, the O'Bannon case, and the other case against the big 5 conferences over personal likenesses are all going forward. Yes, they'll be stuck in legal limbo for a long time but the tide is turning. I just think its in the best interests of those in power now to understand that and be ready for it.
Coach Choppin Wood is not a fan:
this is a good read too
It might be the death of every other college sport but football and the handful of women's programs needed to balance footballs 85.
The thing I don't understand is how people don't understand how Athletic Department funding works. Yes the football program makes gobs of money and maybe even the basketball program. However, the track, soccor, volleyball, baseball, softball, rowing, sailing, cross country, tennis, wresting, swimming, diving, lacrosse, etc. don't make money. It's not like the AD and BoV runs around making it rain on strippers with that money.
The mere fact that a handful of departments are even close to in the black shows how much of an issue paying the players will create. If a school can barely pay it's departments bills how is it going to afford to pay 85 football players on top of everything else.
And even then, the several redshirted players who don't see the field... do you pay them too?
Of course, under the pretense that they do football related stuff for 60+ hours a week. Redshirted players still practice and some travel to games, so they get paid.
Which further solidifies your case that this extra $2.04M+ per school (85 players @ $2000/mo for 12 months, not even including redshirts) is going to be a complete strain on athletic departments that operate at a loss each year. Not every board of visitors is going to want to subsidize this.
And these programs don't just not make money, they're solidly in the red.
does the NCAA do anything useful? Why not just get rid of the NCAA and their archaic rules? I don't think we should pay players, but I would be perfectly fine with them gaining additional profits from the use of their likeness. If they were allowed to benefit from sponsors I think everyone would win. The players who get sponsored would have additional compensation. The sponsors would benefit from additional sales. Universities would probably make more money off Jersey sales. You better believe I would be more inclined to purchase a $70 jersey that has a player's name on it instead of just a generic number. I would also probably buy new jersey's every 4 years or so for different players. More money for the players, more money for the sponsors, more money for the universities...everyone loves more money...I don't see any problems with that.
but, I'm sure there are a ton of smart people on TKP who can and will shoot all sorts of holes in this. Fire away!
Yes let them have the same rights as AA baseball. No S&C coaches, no training table and rides in a 20 yr old bus. The pros can pay for their minor leagues and the Blacksburg Hokes can play the Charlottesville Hoos at Blacksburg HS because the state will not allow a professional team use state property or they will have to build the Squirels and theTides a stadium. When they move up to AAA they can get a 10 yr old bus. There will be a few bonus babies, but not many. No money until they make the Show. NoTV unless NFL lets them have the Australian Rules Football and Demoltion Derby time slots (just like the good ol ESPN). NFL will spread out games into Saturday and maybe add a few teams.
okay, okay...not get rid of NCAA....reform it or replace it
And another from Coach Choppin Wood:
I wish I could just link Coach Moorehead's entire twitter feed on here right now. He is answering every tweet he gets complaining about his take on this. If you have a chance give it a look. I really like this guy.
Awesome
So if college athletes become employees, will the jobs be posted? Just wanting to get my app ready, just in case.
Did you ever see this? I can't make it up.
One of the points made by the NLRB was that the football activities weren't required by an academic program... Crazy idea, give class credits for varsity sports... enough to earn a minor, or maybe even make double majoring in [varsity sport] & [tradional degree program] a requirement of the varsity sport scholarships.
What are colleges if not places to advance your knowledge of a subject so you can apply that skull professionally? Scholarships with ongoing eligibility requirements already exist for the traditionally'academic' side of the house.
I actually love this idea for multiple reasons. You could easily integrate their knowledge of sport with a communications degree, a business degree, or something similar. I don't think you would even need to take it to the double major requirement because Tech offers the Interdisciplinary Study degree, where you can incorporate some core classes with three minors to get a degree. Have it be the standard route. The change required though would be in how to incorporate the activities into actual classes. If this had been available to the regular student body, I would imagine it would fast become one of the most popular set of classes on campus.
seems like if they are "employees" the their scholarships represent a taxable benefit.
Moorehead is right....this could be the end of college football as we know it. These guys really just got played by the union lawyers.
1) Did anybody actually expect the regional National Labor Relations Board in Chicago to deny any group the right to form a Union? Do you think this would have passed in Virginia or any other southern right to work state?
2) Northwestern has already appealed to the NLRB as a whole, the next level up. So the players don't currently have the right to form a union.
3) It was evident that during the hearing that the former QB Colter had an axe to grind and most of the other players were shying away from him then.
4) Until more than 50% of the current players vote for a union, there will be none. Does this vote have to be taken every year or are incoming freshman informed that they must join?
5) As raised previously, if they are now employees and their "scholarship" is in effect wages then each player is going to be responsible for taxes on said income.
6) The NCAA is going to rule that every game that Northwestern plays is an automatic forfeit under their existing guidelines that prevent professionals from playing. Northwestern would probably rather yank every scholarship from said union players and face the individual court battles from players than face this.
Just a minor point on #4. Its only 30% required.
I think the 30% number is what you have to reach to hold an election. I'm relatively sure that the union would have to have at least a majority to form.
Actually they are both right.
Only 30% is required to file the petition to form a union by NLRB organized election.
Upon the election the employer has the chance to challenge each authorization card issued by NLRB for the union members to challenge the 30% rule. However if there is 50% the members can request a "card check election" from the NLRB directly whereby the employer cannot contest the results if all cards are accounted for.
I guess my key point is that due to the fluid and rotating nature of membership what happens if next years class doesn't have enough interest to maintain the card check numbers.
I missed this comment before. yeah, this is the thing I think the NCAA will try to do at first. Tie this up in litigation until the existing members graduate, hoping that new recruits don't join the union.
This is only going to make the NCAA stronger, not weaker, and I don't think anyone realizes this.
The very first thing you're going to see is that they'll declare all unionized players ineligible to play, as they will have voluntarily forfeited their amateur status. If they press the issue, and Northwestern goes to bat for them, they'll strip Northwestern's NCAA membership, in at least football. It won't prevent any of their athletes from playing, but if the NCAA isn't going to sanction the games, good luck finding anyone to play you. And don't think that athletic departments across the country are going to be chomping at the bit to unionize their players. Only a select few can run in the black as it is, so if you throw salaries on top of it all, they'll go under. Nobody is going to want this, and you're going to see a pretty significant stonewall from the colleges themselves against the union players. They'll basically form a bloc saying "you can have a union if you want, but you're not welcome to play for us", and the union will be rendered worthless.
If you ask me, this is just Step 1 of the eventual process of the NFL creating some kind of development league for its players, where these players can join minor leagues and collect a salary. Will it be anywhere near as nice as college football? Absolutely not, but these kids are getting what they're asking for.
Another route this could go is making their sport a degree at each university, with the understanding that these athletes have to pull a double major or at least a minor in something else. If you see that happen, it would cut the athlete's argument off at the knees.
I have been calling for the NFL to create a developmental league for years.
My two step plan for restoring the integrity of collegiate athletics:
1. Create a developmental league for football
2. Eliminate attending college for 'x' number of years as a draft prerequisite (for football and basketball) and start drafting kids out of high school.
I don't expect to ever see it happen as long as the NFL can use Division 1 programs as a de facto developmental league at no cost (and they actually make money off their "developmental league" with coverage of the draft and whatnot).
It would solve a lot of problems, though.
As I said, this makes the NCAA more powerful. They can just declare the entire lot of unionized players ineligible and have it at that. They can then turn around and say they're just abiding by their bylaws that have been in place since the beginning of time, which they have NEVER allowed to even be bent. And they can fall back on the "its not our fault the NFL has an arbitrary age limit" as their defense for doing so, and you know what... they'd be right.
By the time this is all said and done, the NFL is going to come out of this looking like the ultimate bad guy, and the NCAA will just be seen as being caught between a rock and a hard place.
Not quite sure how this would restore the integrity of college athletics. All the very best players would go to the development league. I suppose you wouldn't need to separate schools by divisions anymore because everyone would be DII or DII level.
To me, the integrity of the sport has nothing to do with the quality of play. I have absolutely no qualms about seeing the talent level drop if it means the collegiate programs are no longer being used as a developmental league. A professional developmental league independent of post-secondary education system is good. An amateur league where student-athletes can actually be student-atheletes is good. In my opinion, the integrity is lost by trying to create some bastardized hybrid.
Gotcha. Yeah, I can understand where you're coming from. +1
On the up side, if this were true in my day, I would have had a decent shot at actually playing for the Hokies.
Has everyone forgotten that the NFL has already tried this (sans the time limit) and shuttered it? NFL Europe was specifically designed to be the farm system while also giving the NFL a more global fan base. It cost the NFL an exorbitant amount of money every year and they had only transitioned a handful of players eventually to the NFL ranks. The dollars invested didn't equate to much talent acquired so they shut it down. I could see this maybe being successful if done in the US, but from the NFL perspective, they might be diluting their fan base as it stands. What days would a league like this play? Saturdays? Directly competing with college football if that's the case.
I am a fan of the proposal, don't get me wrong. This article about Mark Cubans thoughts on college basketball and how the D League there could be vastly improved upon are along the same lines.
http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/10538276/mark-cuban-says-nba-d-...
Yeah, from a solely monetary standpoint, it doesn't make any sense. The NFL would lose a ton of money trying to keep a D-league afloat, and I imagine broadcasting companies would lose a ton of money too. I wouldn't expect D-league or talent-reduced college games to garner anywhere near the viewership that the current college format does.
The problem is what's good for business for the NFL and broadcasting companies is bad for the student athletes. The current system as it is, is perfect for the NFL and TV. A movement to keep college athletics amateur with no developmental league option isn't fair to athletes who don't want or need a college education but have no way to market themselves for 3 years. A shift to the other end of the spectrum, which we're seeing now, isn't fair to the "true" student athletes who will never be able to market themselves as professional athletes and want/need the education. The only way the kids win (that I can see) is if the people who are making billions of dollars from college sports take the financial hit on ethical grounds and keep professional and college athletics separate. Which will never happen.
Yes, as well as completely annihilate any employment opportunities post-football. What if a guy like Clowney comes in knowing he's going to be a star in the NFL, makes football his major, jacks up his neck and can't play anymore? I think a bigger focus needs to be put on giving players legitimate degrees they can actually use after they leave the league (after what? 3-5 years or so?). And yes, I'm staring right at you, UNC.
Hear, Hear.
Unintended consequences.
These athletes want everything now. They don't realize they'll destroying the future of the sport and opportunities for numerous athletes across all sports in the future for their money grab now. Its becoming clear that a lot of these kids don't give 2 rips about learning anything while in college, so give em what they want. When they can't get any work post-playing because they have no skills outside of playing a sport, they'll only have themselves to blame.
On a related note, I'm also personally against supplying addicts with crack so they can have what they want.
I'm mostly kidding, but you see the point. These are 17/18 year old kids making huge life decisions. Giving them an easy way out is not the answer. Giving them the help they need to be set up for success 10, 20, 30 years down the line is what will benefit them the most. You could argue that half of the kids enrolled in college don't give 2 rips about learning anything. Does that mean we should have a degree program for sitting on your couch playing video games with a hand down your pants? Of course not! We already see enough athletes washing out and declaring bankruptcy within a few years of exiting the league (or failing to get into the league right out of college). The answer is not to give them even less of a chance to earn a living post-football.
Yes, but these 17 & 18 year old kids are now not just making decisions for themselves, but for everyone to come. They're throwing a tantrum, but instead of doing it in the process that has been the norm of just whining to mom and dad, they're now making it a HUGE legal case that has the potential to cost far more people than they're realizing just for the short term gain of their own.
I have no idea how this ties into your other points, but yes, THIS I agree with. Also, completely unrelated, your avatar makes me feel like I'm arguing with Buzz Williams, which makes this about 100x more fun and makes me feel important. So thanks for that.
That's a Stick It In move, if I ever saw one!
Not all players are in college with no desire for a degree. I am very proud of every player I see listed pursuing a degree other than straight liberal arts. Engineering, pre-med, Computer Science, Business, etc.
And they'll still have that opportunity. For those serious about getting a degree elsewhere, their sport will just show as a double major.
A vast majority of CFB players never have a chance to make it anywhere with a post college football career and probably wouldn't choose that path. I'm sure that offering would be taken by the Clowneys, Manziels, Hands, Richardsons, etc because they'll be gone in two years anyway. Not to mention if they tweak their neck before their rookie contract can be renegotiated they're in the same boat as you mentioned.
I think the problem would be the ego of the 17 year old. Every kid wants to believe he'll make it big. You'd see hundreds of kids going with the college football major, coming out of "school," not making it in the NFL and trying to reenter society essentially with just a high school diploma at the age of 23. Then, if they want to actually make something of themselves (not saying you can't with just a high school diploma - my uncle never went to college, owns his own contracting company and is getting set to retire at a lovely place in Washington state this coming year - but it's more difficult), they'll have to go back to school and pay for it themselves.
This jsut makes the case for Football or Baseball or Diving or Track) being considered a minor. There is the potential for "useful in life after playing sports" majors being paired with a varsity sport "major" stuff like athletics admin, coaching, broadcasting, sports nutrition, etc.
I think a lot of college athletes with a strong chance of playing professionally already purchase insurance for the case of suffering a career ending injury. Athletes who suffer a career ending injury can always use money from insurance to pursue a different degree more relevant degree or do other things to secure their future like starting a business.
I've already commented on why the NCAA wouldn't be able to just declare everyone ineligible above so no need to rehash that. But I have a question on your first sentence. If this makes the NCAA stronger then why are they so against it from happening? Why are they so shit scared that it happened? I'm quite certain they would realize that it makes them stronger.
And the vast majority of us disagree with your opinion on the NCAA.
I'm not sure if he has a valid point or not. Any lawyers in the house?
The courts will ultimately be deciding if the NCAA has the power or not.
Well yeah, but the college football playoff will ultimately determine who the best team in college football is, and we're still talking about that, aren't we?
yeah, you're entitled to your opinion as much as I am mine. I'm fine being in the minority. When I said the NW players would win this case and the NCAA had huge issues with right to assembly and collective bargaining, most everyone said I was wrong then as well. Doesn't mean I'm right this time. Time will tell, but I feel pretty confident I understand the complexity of the issue.
I'm still (non-sarcastically) interested in my question to you though.
I never said it would make the NCAA stronger. I think this action might force some reform even if the union gambit ultimately fails. That is a good thing.
Sorry. Two people named "Alum". I was speaking to Alum07 about NCAA being stronger.
Yes, i agree with what you are saying. I hope the ultimate result is reform. Would be the best case scenario.
Agree. If you an employee you are no longer an amateur. You are also not a student. No more scholarships and all sports become club sports?
NERD ALERT: Am I the only person that keeps reading this thread topic and thinking "when were college players ionized in the first place?"
No, you're not a nerd. You're just a chemist at heart.
wow.
Had to stop my self and pronounce "unionized" slowly in my head a few times. Glad I'm not the only one.
The ionized college players have no charges, and the un-ionized players will have lots of charges.
Their increase in charges will make the basic NCAA much more acidic and reactive, precipitating out inert sports programs in the process.
SA (+3) + NO$ + NCAA ---> NO NCAA (and don't bother asking where the Student Athlete and the $ went... )
Such reaction. Very win. Appreciation. Turkey leg ++.
I am chemist by profession and I officially endorse this thread.
And I thought I was doing something great in class this morning by mentioning that I remembered the chemical formula for a bicarbonate ion, complete with charge.
And I teach Spanish.
Yes, but could write the chemical formula en espanol?
You're forgetting the catalyst; the rest just settles out. (Where AS = athlete-student)
SA(+3) + AS + NO$ + NCAA ------> NO NCAA + $(-3) + A-ASS
The bottom line will be how to resolve the term "Student-Athlete" (oxymoron in my opinion). This ruling changed it to Athlete-Student.
Is it bad that I read this as un-ionized? All the chemistry majors in the house say hey!
You're late to the party
Dammit and I thought I was being original.
That just confirms my theory that Chemists can't read words that are longer than two letters :p
We prefer to call them 'symbols'.
Another interesting point that came up on 106.7 this afternoon. What happens when an athlete gets in trouble on campus? Are they an employee or a student? Is the school liable for their actions?
Ah crap... hello lawsuits. Can you imagine the legal trouble that would come down on FSU if Winston was an employee? That's to say nothing about the countless drunken brawls football players (us and others) find themselves in over the course of a college career.
The guy talking about it said it would kind of depend on the circumstances. As with any job, if it happened directly related to a football event then the school could be in trouble. The problem will be determining what is and isn't a football event.
Well considering most of these kids get in trouble with bar fights, drinking and driving, drug deals, and similar things outside of practice hours and mostly during the off season I'd venture to say they'd also need their own lawyers too.
I mean just within the past year or so I don't think Holmes or Journell would get a company lawyer for what they did.
I have a few thoughts on the tax issue. The players should be able to exclude the value of lodging and meals from gross income.
source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/119