Northwestern Football Players attempting to become a union

[Eaglesfan27]

Kain Colter starts union movement
Tom Farrey [ARCHIVE]

ESPN.com | January 28, 2014
For the first time in the history of college sports, athletes are asking to be represented by a labor union, taking formal steps on Tuesday to begin the process of being recognized as employees, ESPN's "Outside The Lines" has learned.

Ramogi Huma, president of the National College Players Association, filed a petition in Chicago on behalf of football players at Northwestern University, submitting the form at the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board.

Backed by the United Steelworkers union, Huma also filed union cards signed by an undisclosed number of Northwestern players with the NLRB -- the federal statutory body that recognizes groups that seek collective bargaining rights.


Jerry Lai/USA TODAY Sports
Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter reached out to the National College Players Association last spring to ask for help in giving athletes representation in their effort to improve the conditions under which they play NCAA sports.
"This is about finally giving college athletes a seat at the table," said Huma, a former UCLA linebacker, who created the NCPA as an advocacy group in 2001. "Athletes deserve an equal voice when it comes to their physical, academic and financial protections."

Huma told "Outside The Lines" that the move to unionize players at Northwestern started with quarterback Kain Colter, who reached out to him last spring and asked for help in giving athletes representation in their effort to improve the conditions under which they play NCAA sports. Colter became a leading voice in regular NCPA-organized conference calls among players from around the country.

In a Sept. 21 game against Maine, Colter wore a black wristband with the hashtag "#APU" -- All Players United -- prominently scrawled in white marker as part of a quiet protest gesture. He was joined that day by about 10 teammates as well as players from Georgia and Georgia Tech. In all, players on seven teams in the five largest conferences displayed the #APU symbol, according to the NCPA.

Huma said he met with Northwestern players over the weekend on campus in Evanston, Ill., and took the next step in creating a collective voice for players. He said Colter introduced him to groups of players that Colter had talked with over the past couple of months about their interest in taking the unprecedented step of asking for union representation.

To have the NLRB consider a petition to be unionized, at least 30 percent of the members of a group serving an employer must sign union cards.

Huma declined to say how many Northwestern players signed cards other than the number was "overwhelming majority." To get to 30 percent, at least 26 of the 85 scholarship players had to sign.

The formal entity that would represent the players, if certified by the NLRB, is called the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA). It was created by Huma, Colter and Luke Bonner, a former U-Mass basketball player and brother of NBA player Matt Bonner, with technical support from the United Steelworkers, who will not receive union dues from players, said Huma, who is registered as president of the organization.

"When Ramogi first reached out to us years ago, we were like an overwhelming part of the population in that we figured athletes were lucky because they're getting an education," United Steelworkers president Leo Gerard said Tuesday. "But then we looked into it and realized it's a myth. Many don't get a true education and their scholarships aren't guaranteed."

The group has called a news conference at 11:30 a.m. CST on Tuesday at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Chicago where Kolter, Huma, Gerard and the union's national political director Tim Waters, the NCPA's liaison within the union, will speak.

"The NCAA is a train wreck waiting to happen," Waters said. "What brought them to this moment is they couldn't control their greed. They put all this money in the system."

Spokesmen for Northwestern, the Big Ten Conference and NCAA were not immediately available for comment.

Huma said the goals of the CAPA is the same as the NCPA. The group has pressed for better concussion and other medical protections, and for scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance.

Having already successfully advocated for the creation of multi-year scholarships, it now would like those scholarships to be guaranteed even if a player is no longer able to continue for injury or medical reasons. The group has also called for a trust fund that players could tap into after their NCAA eligibility expires to finish schooling or be rewarded for finishing schooling.

The NCPA has lobbied state legislatures, Congress and the NCAA on these issues over the years, and earlier this month hired airplanes to fly protest banners at the BCS Championship Game at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., and at the NCAA Convention in San Diego.

"It's become clear that relying on NCAA policymakers won't work, that they are never going to protect college athletes, and you can see that with their actions over the past decade," Huma said. "Look at their position on concussions. They say they have no legal obligation to protect players."

The initial goals of the CAPA do not include a call for schools to pay salaries, Huma said. However, he declined to rule out the possibility that CAPA would seek that type of compensation in the future and said he knows the public will begin speculating about scenarios in which players would receive a cut of the $5.15 billion in revenues currently generated by athletic departments in the five power conferences.

Those universities will be flush with new cash in the coming years due to the advent of the College Football Playoff which starts next year, and the signing of lucrative, long-term media contracts that will more than double in value by 2020, according to the SportsBusiness Journal.

At the outset, only Division I FBS football players and men's basketball players -- the athletes at the center of the commercial enterprise -- will be eligible to join CAPA because they are best situated to make a case to be treated as employees, Huma said. Over time, the CAPA may expand its scope to include other sports.

He said only scholarship players are eligible for inclusion, as they have are already being compensated by schools in the form of a "grant-in-aid" that is capped at the level of tuition, room and board, books and fees.

By filing the union cards with the NLRB, CAPA triggers a process that could take years to resolve. The first group that will consider the request will be the regional board of the NLRB, whose decision can be appealed to the national board.

Northwestern is expected to oppose the action on the grounds athletes are not employees, and the NCAA, the trade association representing the athletic interests of universities, will likely enter the fray as well.

Gerard said he would "not be surprised" if it ends up in the federal court system.

Athletes playing for university-based teams are not currently considered employees by any legal body. They haven't been since 1953, when the Colorado Supreme Court upheld a determination by the state Industrial Commission that a football player at the University of Denver was an "employee" within the context of the Colorado workers' compensation statute.

As a result, the university was responsible to provide workers' comp for his football injuries. The NCAA responded by coining the term "student-athlete" and mandating its use by universities. Use of that term, and other efforts to draw a enforce the idea that athletes cannot also be employees, ramped up as the NCAA a few years later introduced athletic scholarships, a form of compensation for services provided.

The distinction has held, though since then the courts have come to recognize other students who provide services to universities as employees. Graduate students who teach, for instance, are recognized as employees of universities under laws in many states. Academics such as Richard and Amy McCormick of Michigan State have argued that athletes are employees under the common law definition of the National Labor Relations Act.

The NLRA governs only private enterprises and does apply to public universities. As a private university, Northwestern University falls under its jurisdiction. Gerard said that based on labor law, any decision in favor of the players against Northwestern would apply to all private universities across the country in the FBS division. It would not apply to public universities, which are governed by state laws.

[Kodos]

Sounds like a good step for college athletes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sounds like the end of college athletics ... and I hope this absurd b.s. is bitchslapped all the way back to the pits of hell from whence it came.

[Desnudo]

It'll definitely create a dialogue which is important. When there's essentially a black market where athletes are getting paid six figure sums by boosters obviously there's something wrong with the system.

[Chief Rum]

The system is definitely flawed, and everyone knows it--but the billions generated support thousands of student-athletes and school programs besides football and basketball players.

I think something should be done to fix the issues with the system, but I am with JIMG that this sort of thing will be the death of college athletics.

[molson]

College sports is a billion dollar industry. The most important component of that industry, the players, of course should be attempting various ways to improve their lot within that business. Though I don't think this particular attempt will amount to anything. Nor do I understand how players trying to stick up for themselves could cause the death of a billion dollar industry.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Yeah, +2 here to the Jon/Chief thought. Despite the flawed system that sucks, it enables thousands of athletic programs that otherwise couldn't be afforded continue to exist. Track and field, baseball, softball, volleyball, swimming, water polo, etc - none of these would continue to exist without the money that the big sports produce.

[Eaglesfan27]

It'll definitely create a dialogue which is important. When there's essentially a black market where athletes are getting paid six figure sums by boosters obviously there's something wrong with the system.

Agreed. Along with talk that the 5 major conferences will split off from the NCAA, I believe change is coming.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The most important component of that industry, the players,

I'm not remotely sure that's the case at all, tbh.

Pull the top 1,000 athletes out of D1 college football tomorrow, move 1,000 up for each level ... I believe you've got roughly the same popularity.

They're the most easily replaceable part of the entire product.

[molson]

Track and field, baseball, softball, volleyball, swimming, water polo, etc - none of these would continue to exist without the money that the big sports produce.

Of course they could. High schools and small colleges have athletic programs with team sports.

[Lathum]

I'm all for some of the stuff they advocate, such as multi year scholarships, but overall I think its nonsense.

No one is forcing them to take a scholarship and play sports at school. They are welcome to take out loans and pay for school like the rest of us if they don't like it. Also, if they are "employees" I guess they should be taxed on their compensation like the rest of us are. The room, board, education, books, etc...

I agree there are issues with the NCAA and "amatures" but this isn't the fix.

[molson]

But why are we even talking about the impact of the end of college athletics. I don't get that hypothetical in the first place. Can someone explain how that would play out? Players can try to get more, whether that be money, insurance coverage, freedom to transfer and play immediately, whatever. The schools and TV networks can try to give less, to maximize their own benefits. Like every other negotiation. If the players request say, $50 million per player, and the schools agreed to it, than ya, it might make more financial sense to close down sports at that point, but obviously schools and networks aren't going to agree to terms that take away their entire cash cow. It's not like players have a ton of leverage.

[molson]

No one is forcing them to take a scholarship and play sports at school.

How does it follow from that that players should never be allowed to even ask for different conditions of their pseudo-employment? Should you also not be allowed to ever ask for a raise or time off, or for a new stapler? Nobody's forcing you to take the job in the first place.

[flounder]

No one is forcing schools to have football teams either.

[molson]

No one is forcing schools to have football teams either.

And nobody's forcing them to pay $5 million for someone to coach their amateur student-athletes.

[BillJasper]

I think it's fair that the players want a piece of the pie. Coaches get millions of dollars to stand on a sideline while the players risk actual physical injury that could impact them for the rest of their lives get room and board and a few seem to get an actual education.

[Blackadar]

Coaches get millions of dollars to stand on a sideline while the players risk actual physical injury that could impact them for the rest of their lives get room and board and a few seem to get an actual education.

Not to mention the millions from endorsements and shoe contracts.

[Grover]

I guess a $30-40,000 a year scholarship to go to a university to study for a career isn't enough of a payday?

[molson]

I guess a $30-40,000 a year scholarship to go to a university to study for a career isn't enough of a payday?

What's enough for a head football coach? What's enough for a TV contract? What's enough for a video game licensing deal? Who decides these things? Isn't it usually negotiations between the parties?

[flounder]

I hope no one paid $30-40,000 a year for the fake classes at UNC.

[Chief Rum]

What's enough for a head football coach? What's enough for a TV contract? What's enough for a video game licensing deal? Who decides these things? Isn't it usually negotiations between the parties?

No, it's market forces for all of those things.

The value of a scholarship is much more complicated. Apples and oranges.

[molson]

No, it's market forces for all of those things.

The value of a scholarship is much more complicated. Apples and oranges.

Well, that's the debate, whether that status quo should remain. If you can shut down a market by offering a "complicated" scholarship, maybe that's all head coaches should get, and maybe TV contracts should just be paid for in scholarships. Hell, maybe an entire industry could collectively replace salary and labor laws with scholarships, and then you have something almost equivalent to the NCAA.

Edit: And this isn't solely about player compensation, a debate that has happened here a million times. Players have a limited voice and nobody to advocate for them in non-monetary issues as well. Regular students have more leverage, they can just attend a different school with different policies, and even participate in student government organizations that may have some ability to influence procedures and policy. An athlete is governed by the NCAA wherever they go.

[Grover]

What's enough for a head football coach? What's enough for a TV contract? What's enough for a video game licensing deal? Who decides these things? Isn't it usually negotiations between the parties?

True. I find it pretty abhorrent that most states in the country have a collegiate sports coach as the highest paid state employee.

[chadritt]

The paying players issue is obviously more complicated, hence why they aren't even talking about it yet, but to me muti-year scholarships guaranteed in case of injury seems like a no brainer and its sad those aren't the norm already.

[Logan]

No, it's market forces for all of those things.

The value of a scholarship is much more complicated. Apples and oranges.

But market forces could apply to players too (and we know they do, illegally). How much would Deshawn Hand, Jabril Peppers, Fournette, etc go for this year? Peppers' scholarship to Michigan is probably more valuable than Hand's scholarship to Alabama for their post-football lives. We don't see many players grab that much more valuable Duke scholarship over one to LSU.

[Logan]

True. I find it pretty abhorrent that most states in the country have a collegiate sports coach as the highest paid state employee.

Why? If that $3MM coach has a program successful enough where the AD is pulling in $50MM in revenues, who cares?

Is it all because of the fantasy that college football isn't an actual business?

Would all this go away if we didn't treat these programs as non-profits?

[Subby]

I love anything that comes from the pits of hell, so I'm all for this.

[digamma]

True. I find it pretty abhorrent that most states in the country have a collegiate sports coach as the highest paid state employee.

This is a fake stat, as though they are technically state employees, they are paid most often through privately funded foundations.

[jbergey22]

Going to need some of the big dogs (Alabama, Texas, Florida State, Notre Dame) to join forces with them to accomplish anything I am afraid.

[Izulde]

It wouldn't be the end of college sports if players started getting paid. What will happen though is even more lawsuits, this time from nonrevenue and women's sports, demanding the same treatment.

Also, the gulf between the wealthy programs and everyone else in terms of on-field product will continue to grow. Look for even more tuition hikes to boot, because universities aren't going to want to cut even deeper into academics than they already have, so they'll pass the buck on to the students.

[Izulde]

No, it's market forces for all of those things.

The value of a scholarship is much more complicated. Apples and oranges.

Except in revenue sports' players case, the value is actually diminished due to the amount of control their programs have their academics, right down to their majors and class selection (Read: Keep them eligible and as focused as the sport as much as possible).

[MacroGuru]

It wouldn't be the end of college sports if players started getting paid. What will happen though is even more lawsuits, this time from nonrevenue and women's sports, demanding the same treatment.
.

I would love to see this, Title IX and forcing the same or equal $ value that the football players will get. To me that should force a lot of backoff, because a lot of teams are pulling in a $ payday but it is the football $ that is covering a lot of the non rev sports.

[Chief Rum]

I would love to see this, Title IX and forcing the same or equal $ value that the football players will get. To me that should force a lot of backoff, because a lot of teams are pulling in a $ payday but it is the football $ that is covering a lot of the non rev sports.

It is the Title IX and non-revenue sports equality issues which will kill college athletics.

[molson]

It is the Title IX and non-revenue sports equality issues which will kill college athletics.

How? If it violates Title IX to compensate certain athletes more than others (which I doubt), then maybe schools will just not pay athletes, or maneuver around it, instead of shutting down an entire billion dollar industry. The players aren't going to be able to negotiate for something illegal.

There's so much money in this. It's not just going to all implode for all the involved entities if athletes try to have more of a say on monetary and non-monetary issues. That just makes no sense.

[molson]

Dola, but if Title IX requires schools receiving federal funding to treat all athletes the same, those suits should already be happening, because schools do directly and indirectly pay top athletes and provide them enhanced benefits. If those indirect payments from boosters don't count under a Title IX analysis, then just pull that whole process out of the darkness and let athletes receive those payments out in the open (and pay taxes on them). Problem solved, and now the schools don't have to dismantle a $5 billion industry (not that they would ever do that anyway), or even pay players themselves.

[RainMaker]

I guess a $30-40,000 a year scholarship to go to a university to study for a career isn't enough of a payday?

Not if you're skills are worth more.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, +2 here to the Jon/Chief thought. Despite the flawed system that sucks, it enables thousands of athletic programs that otherwise couldn't be afforded continue to exist. Track and field, baseball, softball, volleyball, swimming, water polo, etc - none of these would continue to exist without the money that the big sports produce.

Except the part where D2 and D3 schools have been able to field teams in sports like this without huge money.

[Chief Rum]

How? If it violates Title IX to compensate certain athletes more than others (which I doubt), then maybe schools will just not pay athletes, or maneuver around it, instead of shutting down an entire billion dollar industry. The players aren't going to be able to negotiate for something illegal.

There's so much money in this. It's not just going to all implode for all the involved entities if athletes try to have more of a say on monetary and non-monetary issues. That just makes no sense.

First of all, the whole point of this thread is that there is an attempt to set up an organization which would allow players to negotiate for pay. So by definition this means pay in some form. If "schools just aren't going to pay players", that is a hypothetical we're not discussing here and is not relevant. The prevailing assumption to "this will kill college athletics" is that players will be paid. If you posit to remove one, I posit to remove my assertion because one does not exist without the other.

Second, as to there being so much money... there are a LOT of student athletes in this country. The money won't go as far as you think.

Keep in mind, even with the current system not paying players, the vast majority of athletic departments need to be subsidized with school funds, and of the hundreds/thousands of universities currently under the NCAA umbrella, something like under 100 actually make a profit currently.

[Chief Rum]

Except the part where D2 and D3 schools have been able to field teams in sports like this without huge money.

By A) offering less scholarships, as per NCAA rules defining those levels, and B) massive subsidies from the general school funding.

[molson]

First of all, the whole point of this thread is that there is an attempt to set up an organization which would allow players to negotiate for pay. So by definition this means pay in some form. If "schools just aren't going to pay players", that is a hypothetical we're not discussing here and is not relevant. The prevailing assumption to "this will kill college athletics" is that players will be paid. If you posit to remove one, I posit to remove my assertion because one does not exist without the other.

Second, as to there being so much money... there are a LOT of student athletes in this country. The money won't go as far as you think.

Keep in mind, even with the current system not paying players, the vast majority of athletic departments need to be subsidized with school funds, and of the hundreds/thousands of universities currently under the NCAA umbrella, something like under 100 actually make a profit currently.

So your argument assumes that universities will agree to pay players even if it's illegal, and even if they can't possibly afford to do it? Why would the universities agree to do this, under your hypothetical?

Setting up an organization to have some kind of voice in the process doesn't guarantee that schools have to pay every player thousands of dollars overnight. They'll only agree to something that makes some sense for them, they're not going to agree to something that ends a billion dollar industry. Edit: That's one of the odder pro-management arguments I've heard. "We can't let the employees have a voice in the process because then we'll have no choice but to give them everything they want and we'll bankrupt ourselves and this entire industry."

[RainMaker]

By A) offering less scholarships, as per NCAA rules defining those levels, and B) massive subsidies from the general school funding.

They also don't have giant TV and licensing deals. Point is that this doesn't end sports at all, it's just a scare tactic. There would still be all those other sports just like there are in lower levels where money is much more scarce. Schools would simply have to budget differently.

[Matthean]

Let players seek endorsement deals. End of the issue.

[molson]

Let players seek endorsement deals. End of the issue.

And booster money, and licensing deals, and the ability to have jobs. This is just the kind of thing an organization like this could advocate for. And it might not even cause the end of college sports.

[digamma]

There are a few funny things about this, but perhaps the best is the reason why players are "forced" to go to college is because of other unions' collective bargaining agreements.

[Chief Rum]

So your argument assumes that universities will agree to pay players even if it's illegal, and even if they can't possibly afford to do it? Why would the universities agree to do this, under your hypothetical?

Setting up an organization to have some kind of voice in the process doesn't guarantee that schools have to pay every player thousands of dollars overnight. They'll only agree to something that makes some sense for them, they're not going to agree to something that ends a billion dollar industry. Edit: That's one of the odder pro-management arguments I've heard. "We can't let the employees have a voice in the process because then we'll have no choice but to give them everything they want and we'll bankrupt ourselves and this entire industry."

No, my argument is that this unionization attempt will result in an attempt to pay players, and if that happens and the courts rule that that must happen, big boy college athletics as we know it will end. Universities will be unable to field anything but the barest bones of teams as we currently know them.

In my opinion, that is figuratively the death of college sports, if not literally.

[Matthean]

And booster money, and licensing deals, and the ability to have jobs. This is just the kind of thing an organization like this could advocate for. And it might not even cause the end of college sports.

How would they have time for jobs on top of school and sports? It would seem like being a full-time athlete and student would be enough.

[Chief Rum]

And booster money, and licensing deals, and the ability to have jobs. This is just the kind of thing an organization like this could advocate for. And it might not even cause the end of college sports.

And eventually, it becomes baseball, with the Yankees of the NCAA winning it all every year, and smaller schools have no chance to compete.

[flounder]

And eventually, it becomes baseball, with the Yankees of the NCAA winning it all every year, and smaller schools have no chance to compete.

How is that different from the current state of affairs, though?

[Matthean]

How is that different from the current state of affairs, though?

In theory Texas would be better. :D

[molson]

And eventually, it becomes baseball, with the Yankees of the NCAA winning it all every year, and smaller schools have no chance to compete.

Is there more parity in college football than there is in baseball? (Alabama has won more championships than the Yankees in recent years).

But anyway, I don't think a desire for parity is a good reason to deprive someone the opportunity to earn money from an outside source. And I don't think that's even the NCAA's stated or real opposition to it. They just don't want to share licensing money.

[RainMaker]

No, my argument is that this unionization attempt will result in an attempt to pay players, and if that happens and the courts rule that that must happen, big boy college athletics as we know it will end. Universities will be unable to field anything but the barest bones of teams as we currently know them.

In my opinion, that is figuratively the death of college sports, if not literally.

Yet D2 and D3 can somehow avoid this problem that you feel D1 schools won't be able to figure out.

Also, these schools are still bringing in a shitload of money from TV, licensing, and ticket revenue. You're acting like all these schools are dirt poor and barely scraping by and you're adding a huge expense. And paying players doesn't have to be mandatory, some schools can, some schools can offer scholarships only, some can offer none. Not a big deal.

[RainMaker]

And eventually, it becomes baseball, with the Yankees of the NCAA winning it all every year, and smaller schools have no chance to compete.

Yeah because college sports as we know it is all about parity. School with $150 million budget plays school with $1 million budget.

[SackAttack]

If a coach thinks he can earn more money elsewhere, he can play the field, and nobody bats an eyelash. Oh, there's radio backlash over what it means for "the kids," but the coach is able to do his own thing. If he thinks he's underpaid, he can flirt with Texas (or whomever) or actually go there.

If a player thinks he isn't getting enough playing time, he can transfer...if his school will let him. Then he gets to sit out a year, in most cases, before he can actually play for the new school, which puts him behind the 8 ball in competing for playing time - unless, of course, he's a star player.

But if he were a star player, he'd have been starting in the first place.

It's easy to say "Oh, they get a scholarship, that should be enough for them," but the reality of the situation is that "big time" college athletics are essentially indentured servitude. If you sign the LOI, you're signing an employment contract that the school is under no obligation to abide by, but inside of which you have very little wiggle room to improve your situation.

Those like Jon who want to see the players advocating for change go to the "pits of hell where they belong" are, IMO, little better than the poor white Southern farmers in the 19th century who went to war because they might, someday, be able to afford to have slaves of their own.

That's all this is. It's a defense of oligarchy derived from sympathy with the oligarchs' goals. Either pay the players, or give them the same freedom the coaches already enjoy.

[RainMaker]

How would they have time for jobs on top of school and sports? It would seem like being a full-time athlete and student would be enough.

That's not really any of our business.

[SackAttack]

In my opinion, that is figuratively the death of college sports, if not literally.

And if college sports die, either figuratively or literally, the major professional leagues will establish something like baseball's minor league system, wherein players can be paid as they pursue playing at the highest level.

The sturm und drang from those not directly involved over the death of college athletics boils down to I'M ENTITLED TO SEE MY FAVORITE COLLEGE FIELD A TEAM IN THE SPORT OF MY CHOICE AND THESE WHINY KIDS ARE RUINING IT

It has nothing to do with what's actually good for either the schools or the athletes.

[molson]

How would they have time for jobs on top of school and sports? It would seem like being a full-time athlete and student would be enough.

That could be up to each player, coach, and each individual school, but we've seen that players have enough time to get in trouble off-campus on occasion, so they have enough time to say, make paid appearances for local car dealerships in the off season.

[chadritt]

That could be up to each player, coach, and each individual school, but we've seen that players have enough time to get in trouble off-campus on occasion, so they have enough time to say, make paid appearances for local car dealerships in the off season.

They could even make club appearances and get paid while getting in trouble. Seriously, imagine Leinart if this had been allowed. Im actually all for this because we've hit the point where its just silly they can't do this.

[molson]

They could even make club appearances and get paid while getting in trouble. Seriously, imagine Leinart if this had been allowed. Im actually all for this because we've hit the point where its just silly they can't do this.

And the thing is, I'm sure Leinart DID get money and stuff paid for all over L.A. I'm sure that's part of the draw of a big program in L.A. We just don't want to hear about it, I guess.

[RainMaker]

No one seems to throw a fit when an actor is filming movies and attending events while attending classes at a University. No one gives a shit if a student is working 2-3 jobs on the side to pay for rent.

[Chief Rum]

How is that different from the current state of affairs, though?

Currently, even with the SEC's dominance of late, there is still a good chance that any number of teams from the FBS level can win trhe national championships. I am going to guess some 25 teams, at least, have a legitimate shot at winning the national championship with the right coach and schedule, and that's probably being conservative, and not even considering the impact of the playoff.

In a system where it's pay as pay goes, a la baseball, there will probably 5-6 teams (USC, Texas, Notre Dame, a handful of SEC teams, maybe Michigan or Ohio State, that's it).

[Chief Rum]

Is there more parity in college football than there is in baseball? (Alabama has won more championships than the Yankees in recent years).

But anyway, I don't think a desire for parity is a good reason to deprive someone the opportunity to earn money from an outside source. And I don't think that's even the NCAA's stated or real opposition to it. They just don't want to share licensing money.

I believe there is. Alabama is on a historic run of success under perhaps the best college coach in history (or at least the best for the system as it is in place today).

I'm not arguing for the purity of the NCAA's motives. I am just noting, unless we're calling for a massive upheaval of what we know today as college sports, this is not a deisred outcome.

[Matthean]

In a system where it's pay as pay goes, a la baseball, there will probably 5-6 teams (USC, Texas, Notre Dame, a handful of SEC teams, maybe Michigan or Ohio State, that's it).

I think it is rather proven that Oregon would be on that list.

[Chief Rum]

Yet D2 and D3 can somehow avoid this problem that you feel D1 schools won't be able to figure out.

Also, these schools are still bringing in a shitload of money from TV, licensing, and ticket revenue. You're acting like all these schools are dirt poor and barely scraping by and you're adding a huge expense. And paying players doesn't have to be mandatory, some schools can, some schools can offer scholarships only, some can offer none. Not a big deal.

Again, D2 and D3 get by with very limited scholarships and are massively subsuidized by their school funds. What they make in merchandising and tickets ales and what not is a pittance of what is generated on the FBS level. And most schools at the FBS level are not generating a profit with their AD (much less lower than that).

If players demand pay at one school, what makes you think other schools will be able to get away with less, and that's even if the courts don't make it mandatory.

[Chief Rum]

Yeah because college sports as we know it is all about parity. School with $150 million budget plays school with $1 million budget.

In what sport and how often does that happen? If you're going to throw out an example, I would love to see how often such a disparity in a game between two similarly leveled schools happens.

[digamma]

No one seems to throw a fit when an actor is filming movies and attending events while attending classes at a University. No one gives a shit if a student is working 2-3 jobs on the side to pay for rent.

Likewise, no one throws a fit when the research assistant on a work study grant assigns all of his work product to the univeristy.

[Chief Rum]

And if college sports die, either figuratively or literally, the major professional leagues will establish something like baseball's minor league system, wherein players can be paid as they pursue playing at the highest level.

The sturm und drang from those not directly involved over the death of college athletics boils down to I'M ENTITLED TO SEE MY FAVORITE COLLEGE FIELD A TEAM IN THE SPORT OF MY CHOICE AND THESE WHINY KIDS ARE RUINING IT

It has nothing to do with what's actually good for either the schools or the athletes.

I agree, the pro sports will do that, because they have to. Not sure what point you're trying to make there with that. We're not talking about paid minor leagues, we're talking about the current system of college athletics.

Is it okay if I disagree with you, because I get the sense from your posts that I am evil and an oppressive person if I do?

Considering that the big money college athletics brings in supports thousands of student athletes who don't generate a penny for their schools, net total, I think the current system does tremendous good for those student athletes and those schools. And that's on top of the advertising/promotion they receive as schools which directly leads to a huge application levels at these schools from potential non-athlete students around the country.

And you and I will, I suppose, just not see eye to eye when I state I believe that sizable scholarships, room and board, and food stipends are plenty to pay for those athletes to represent their teams on the field. I certainly would have traded spots with any one of them, rather than having to work nearly a fulltime job to get myself through college.

[Chief Rum]

I think it is rather proven that Oregon would be on that list.

Touché. (And throw on Okie State, I suppose, too)

[RainMaker]

In what sport and how often does that happen? If you're going to throw out an example, I would love to see how often such a disparity in a game between two similarly leveled schools happens.

In all sports. Most of the schools below play at the same level.

USA Today | Sports | COLLEGE (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/)

How can you pretend to care about parity when schools with $100+ million budgets are playing schools with a $10 million budget? Is the SEC playing in the title game just total luck? Do the schools in the Sun Belt have a chance at that level too? Come on.

[Chief Rum]

FWIW, I do see these issues with the current system, and I would love to see them solved (the boosters, players getting a bigger cut of the money they generate, disparities from school to school and sport to sport, etc.). But I just don't believe out and out paying the players is doable unless you simply want to scrap the whole system entirely.

[RainMaker]

Again, D2 and D3 get by with very limited scholarships and are massively subsuidized by their school funds. What they make in merchandising and tickets ales and what not is a pittance of what is generated on the FBS level. And most schools at the FBS level are not generating a profit with their AD (much less lower than that).

If players demand pay at one school, what makes you think other schools will be able to get away with less, and that's even if the courts don't make it mandatory.

I'm not for forcing schools to play players. If a school wants to, they can. If a school can't afford it, they won't. Not much different than how it is now. Some schools can afford to pay a coach $5 million, most can't. Some schools can afford a $50 million training facility, some can't.

Each school can determine where they want their money to go and what level they want to play at. Schools pay students for jobs on campus all the time. This isn't some unheard of concept.

[Chief Rum]

In all sports. Most of the schools below play at the same level.

USA Today | Sports | COLLEGE (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/)

How can you pretend to care about parity when schools with $100+ million budgets are playing schools with a $10 million budget? Is the SEC playing in the title game just total luck? Do the schools in the Sun Belt have a chance at that level too? Come on.

First of all, you offered $150 M to $1 M, not $10 M. And even at $10 M, you go down all the way to #192 in this revenue list before you get to a school that is below $10 M in revenue (Austin Peay). AP is not even in the FBS. These schools are not on the same level of any sort, and every fall, we excoriate SEC teams (and others) for playing schools on a level of Austin Peay.

It's an easy strawman to throw out $10 M as your bottom end on a scale of schools if you don't acknowledge schools at that level don't even play on the same level as the big schools, eh?

Just eyeballing this list, I am going to guess most FBS schools are within $50 M of each other in total revenue at worst. There is certainly a disparity between big schools and smaller schools, even at the FBS level, but it's not on the level of baseball, where the Astros are supposed to be passed off as entirely the same "level" as the Yankees.

And, BTW, thanks for providing a list that also shows how most of these schools, even some of the biggest revenue schools, need to be subsidized by their school funds.

[Sun Tzu]

Hold the phone. Did I read that college athletes on a sports scholarship will get their scholarships revoked if they can no longer play due to injuries?

[molson]

But I just don't believe out and out paying the players is doable unless you simply want to scrap the whole system entirely.

So you don't want the school to pay players because you believe the schools will overextend themselves to the extent that college sports will cease to exist. And you don't want outside forces to pay players because you're worried about parity. Is that a fair summary? Is there any other reasons that connect those two things, like, you just don't think athletes should get paid because they get enough anyway? It feels like that's an underlying issue for a lot of the public's opposition.

Edit: And what about the non-monetary stuff that is also driving these calls for organization and obtaining a voice for the players? Like the injury issue? It sounds like you're saying that they shouldn't even be allowed to organize and advocate for stuff like that, because it's too risky, because the next thing you'll know they're asking for money.

[chadritt]

Hold the phone. Did I read that college athletes on a sports scholarship will get their scholarships revoked if they can no longer play due to injuries?

Yes. There was apparently a concern that Kevin Ware could be kicked out of school AND stuck with the medical bills when he destroyed his leg playing for Louisville.

Kevin Ware injury could put scholarship at risk - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-ware-injury-could-put-scholarship-at-risk/)

[Chief Rum]

I'm not for forcing schools to play players. If a school wants to, they can. If a school can't afford it, they won't. Not much different than how it is now. Some schools can afford to pay a coach $5 million, most can't. Some schools can afford a $50 million training facility, some can't.

Each school can determine where they want their money to go and what level they want to play at. Schools pay students for jobs on campus all the time. This isn't some unheard of concept.

I think that's the disconnect there. You see a choice. I don't. I don't see schools having a choice when it comes to this issue because I don't think players will go to schools that don't pay more than scholarships unless they don't have the ability/talent to do so. And that's even if the courts allow schools to not pay, which they may not, if the matter is brought before a judge.

The schools that pay will have to massively cut down their ADs and the sports they offer and the number of student athletes they can support or hike up student tuitions to a ridiculous level to compensate. The other schools (the ones which can't pay) will be forced to drop back to D2 or D3 level, and that's assuming scholarships will be allowed then (and pay is not required). If pay is required, smaller schools will pretty much drop athletics altogether.

[molson]

And that's even if the courts allow schools to not pay, which they may not, if the matter is brought before a judge.


The courts aren't going to require a small school to spend money on player compensation just because Texas does. There's just no interpretation of Title IX that would require that. Title IX is about gender discrimination, and its not confined only to athletics.

[Sun Tzu]

Yes. There was apparently a concern that Kevin Ware could be kicked out of school AND stuck with the medical bills when he destroyed his leg playing for Louisville.

Kevin Ware injury could put scholarship at risk - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-ware-injury-could-put-scholarship-at-risk/)

That rule alone is atrocious. So, basically the NCAA is saying this:

"Come play for our school! Risk your life every time you come onto the field, and we'll make millions of dollars on your name! If you get hurt, you'll live in pain for the rest of your life, we won't pay your medical bills, and you'll get kicked out of school!"

Nice.

[RainMaker]

They almost all play on the same in the other 20 or so sports that are competed in at the college level. Austin Peay is Division 1 and plays for the same championship Ohio State plays for in those other sports. There is a reason the schools at the top of that list are winning much more than the one's at the bottom.

If you or anyone else who cries about parity actually cared about parity, you'd be demanding more revenue sharing among schools when it comes to TV contracts. You'd be demanding limits to how much a school can spend on their athletic department, or at least basing the divisions on it. You'd be against huge gaps in training facilities and coaches salaries. You'd be screaming about big schools never playing road games against small schools.

College sports has never had parity. It's always had it's powerhouse and it's weaklings. And no one seems to give a shit about it accept when it's used as some kind of scare tactic to not pay players. I get it if you don't want them being paid, but lets keep the parity bullshit out of it because college fans don't give a shit about parity.

[chadritt]

That rule alone is atrocious. So, basically the NCAA is saying this:

"Come play for our school! Risk your life every time you come onto the field, and we'll make millions of dollars on your name! If you get hurt, you'll live in pain for the rest of your life, we won't pay your medical bills, and you'll get kicked out of school!"

Nice.

You'll notice the northwestern players aren't actually talking about getting paid, they're talking about things like this.

[Chief Rum]

So you don't want the school to pay players because you believe the schools will overextend themselves to the extent that college sports will cease to exist. And you don't want outside forces to pay players because you're worried about parity. Is that a fair summary? Is there any other reasons that connect those two things, like, you just don't think athletes should get paid because they get enough anyway? It feels like that's an underlying issue for a lot of the public's opposition.

Edit: And what about the non-monetary stuff that is also driving these calls for organization and obtaining a voice for the players? Like the injury issue? It sounds like you're saying that they shouldn't even be allowed to organize and advocate for stuff like that, because it's too risky, because the next thing you'll know they're asking for money.

I actually state above that I believe athletes receive enough for what they do through the scholarship system, along with room, board and food, for that to be an acceptable payment for being allowed to play on the college sports squad.

But, yes, your first two points accurately represent my point, as it relates to those specific issues.

I'm not against player advocacy or organizations arguing for them, as a general rule. It's just that I am not naive enough to believe that the point of those organizations is simply to handle inequities among players or smaller issues than pay. I believe that this is being set up primarily to result in pay for play and that that is its only logical conclusion.

I would love to see adjustments to the system that don't involve pay which would settle matters such as injury issues or giving a voice to players. I have yet to see any such attempt, though, that isn't just a veil for pay for play.

[CU Tiger]

True. I find it pretty abhorrent that most states in the country have a collegiate sports coach as the highest paid state employee.

Red Herring. AD and Boosters pay the coaches NOT the state.


How? If it violates Title IX to compensate certain athletes more than others (which I doubt), then maybe schools will just not pay athletes, or maneuver around it, instead of shutting down an entire billion dollar industry. The players aren't going to be able to negotiate for something illegal.

There's so much money in this. It's not just going to all implode for all the involved entities if athletes try to have more of a say on monetary and non-monetary issues. That just makes no sense.

There are already "abort mission" plans at every major D1 program in the works.

For example, Football and Men's basketball make money. Men's BBall head count is offset with Women's BBall and the facilities are the same.

Add 100 females to sports with low overhead (Tennis, Golf and rowing come to mind locally) and dissolve EVERY OTHER MEN's and WOMEN's Sport immediately. The AD is still profitable, only now about 200 students per school don't get scholarships.


Do we even want to peel the onion back to Pell grants?
Atletic Scholarships dont get counted towards Pell Grant eligibility. Thats $5k/year to MOST student athletes. Plus the NCAA SAOF which gets abused EVERYWHERE.

Student athletes dont have it as good as most think with mandatory practices, class structures etc. They also have it much better than many realize.

The NCAA allows a $200/year clothing allowance. A Nike hoodie costs .89 to manufacture according to Nike documents. So an athlete could for example get ~200 of these hoodies with a $50 MSRP....now cut that in half for a quick sale to the local sports apparel shop and you have $5,000 extra right there. Strangely enough these athlete direct clothing articles come with tags on them and every college campus in America has more than 1 clothing shop near by. Its all about how the transaction is managed.

[digamma]

That rule alone is atrocious. So, basically the NCAA is saying this:

"Come play for our school! Risk your life every time you come onto the field, and we'll make millions of dollars on your name! If you get hurt, you'll live in pain for the rest of your life, we won't pay your medical bills, and you'll get kicked out of school!"

Nice.

The far more common practice is for coaches to cut some chaff by moving players to medical scholarships that don't count against the team's scholarship limit. They honor the kid's scholarship, but he can't play intercollegiate sports anymore.

[RainMaker]

I think that's the disconnect there. You see a choice. I don't. I don't see schools having a choice when it comes to this issue because I don't think players will go to schools that don't pay more than scholarships unless they don't have the ability/talent to do so. And that's even if the courts allow schools to not pay, which they may not, if the matter is brought before a judge.

The schools that pay will have to massively cut down their ADs and the sports they offer and the number of student athletes they can support or hike up student tuitions to a ridiculous level to compensate. The other schools (the ones which can't pay) will be forced to drop back to D2 or D3 level, and that's assuming scholarships will be allowed then (and pay is not required). If pay is required, smaller schools will pretty much drop athletics altogether.

Players go to schools that don't offer scholarships and play there. And schools choose not to offer scholarships and still have a bevy of sports.

Schools may have to cut areas. They may not be able to spend $50 million on a football training facility. They may not be able to spend $7 million on a head coach. But this won't require them to drop all their sports. They still have an insane amount of revenue coming in and schools at the D2 and D3 level have been doing it just fine without those revenues.

And pay is not going to be required. There is nothing in the legal decisions that would force every school to pay their players. Those who choose to will and those who won't won't. No different from any of the other expenses an athletic department has to choose to make every year.

[Chief Rum]

They almost all play on the same in the other 20 or so sports that are competed in at the college level. Austin Peay is Division 1 and plays for the same championship Ohio State plays for in those other sports. There is a reason the schools at the top of that list are winning much more than the one's at the bottom.

If you or anyone else who cries about parity actually cared about parity, you'd be demanding more revenue sharing among schools when it comes to TV contracts. You'd be demanding limits to how much a school can spend on their athletic department, or at least basing the divisions on it. You'd be against huge gaps in training facilities and coaches salaries. You'd be screaming about big schools never playing road games against small schools.

College sports has never had parity. It's always had it's powerhouse and it's weaklings. And no one seems to give a shit about it accept when it's used as some kind of scare tactic to not pay players. I get it if you don't want them being paid, but lets keep the parity bullshit out of it because college fans don't give a shit about parity.

I am going to guess that the budgets for those other sports are a lot more comparable than they are in football. Just because an athletic department generates a large amount of money doesn't mean it gives a similar percentage increase to other sports. Especially considering that the big boy sports engender costs which you don't see in other sports, such as the coaches salaries, the more expensive facilities and stadiums, the recruiting and increased travel, etc.

[RainMaker]

I actually state above that I believe athletes receive enough for what they do through the scholarship system, along with room, board and food, for that to be an acceptable payment for being allowed to play on the college sports squad.


You think Johnny Manziel received fair market value for his services? That his value in a free market is whatever a year at Texas A&M costs?

[RainMaker]

I am going to guess that the budgets for those other sports are a lot more comparable than they are in football. Just because an athletic department generates a large amount of money doesn't mean it gives a similar percentage increase to other sports. Especially considering that the big boy sports engender costs which you don't see in other sports, such as the coaches salaries, the more expensive facilities and stadiums, the recruiting and increased travel, etc.

Are you really trying to argue that there is parity in college sports?

[CU Tiger]

Hold the phone. Did I read that college athletes on a sports scholarship will get their scholarships revoked if they can no longer play due to injuries?

I cant speak for every school on this, but I can tell you I personally am an exception to this anecdote. And I was a non depth chart OL...my multiple knee surgeries (5 in total) were picked up in full and my scholarship was picked up by the booster organization. I did not count against the numbers and was not on an athletic 'ship but I was a special student scholar exemption...at any point there were 8-10 of these guys . The nicer coaches even use this "program" for evaluation misses or busts.

Now if you dont do your part and remain academically eligible or violate the good faith clauses then you got walked off.

[CU Tiger]

You think Johnny Manziel received fair market value for his services? That his value in a free market is whatever a year at Texas A&M costs?

And what is the value of the free publicity and exposure he received BECAUSE of aTm national prominence and existing media deals.

[RainMaker]

And what is the value of the free publicity and exposure he received BECAUSE of aTm national prominence and existing media deals.

His bank account would say $0 at the moment. He doesn't get paid for any of that.

[Matthean]

His bank account would say $0 at the moment. He doesn't get paid for any of that.

Now try saying that in April.

[Chief Rum]

Players go to schools that don't offer scholarships and play there. And schools choose not to offer scholarships and still have a bevy of sports.

Schools may have to cut areas. They may not be able to spend $50 million on a football training facility. They may not be able to spend $7 million on a head coach. But this won't require them to drop all their sports. They still have an insane amount of revenue coming in and schools at the D2 and D3 level have been doing it just fine without those revenues.

And pay is not going to be required. There is nothing in the legal decisions that would force every school to pay their players. Those who choose to will and those who won't won't. No different from any of the other expenses an athletic department has to choose to make every year.

Again, non-scholarship sports (which is all sports below most of the top end schools) is ALL paid by a school's general fund and the student body in general. There isn't some magical revenue somewhere for D2 or D3 schools. So not only do the athletes themselves pay their own way there, but the rest of the school, which doesn't even participate in those sports, also pays for those athletes to play.

Can it be done? Of course. But only if you want big time college sports as we know it to say goodbye. No more March Madness. No more BCS. No College World Series. Nothing that requires extensive travel or year round support.

So, if you're advocating for the elimination, of all that, then I guess I understand where you're coming from. I personally don't want to see that happen, so I am not for this.

[Chief Rum]

Are you really trying to argue that there is parity in college sports?

Define parity. Of course the playing field is not equal. But I would argue it is more equal than baseball or international club soccer (and not as equal as the sal cap pro leagues).

[chadritt]

Now try saying that in April.

I'll be able to say it if he blows his leg out or gets in a serious car accident. He's already provided A&M extraordinary value for which he still may never receive compensation other than glory.

[RainMaker]

Again, non-scholarship sports (which is all sports below most of the top end schools) is ALL paid by a school's general fund and the student body in general. There isn't some magical revenue somewhere for D2 or D3 schools. So not only do the athletes themselves pay their own way there, but the rest of the school, which doesn't even participate in those sports, also pays for those athletes to play.

Can it be done? Of course. But only if you want big time college sports as we know it to say goodbye. No more March Madness. No more BCS. No College World Series. Nothing that requires extensive travel or year round support.

So, if you're advocating for the elimination, of all that, then I guess I understand where you're coming from. I personally don't want to see that happen, so I am not for this.

This makes zero sense. If you allow schools to have the choice to pay players, they will all decide to eliminate events that generate billions of dollars? That sounds like the dumbest strategy ever.

[Chief Rum]

You think Johnny Manziel received fair market value for his services? That his value in a free market is whatever a year at Texas A&M costs?

I didn't say players should receive fair market value.

[Chief Rum]

This makes zero sense. If you allow schools to have the choice to pay players, they will all decide to eliminate events that generate billions of dollars? That sounds like the dumbest strategy ever.

Did you actually look at the link of revenues you posted? How many schools do you see there showing a profit, even with these events generating billions of dollars?

[CU Tiger]

His bank account would say $0 at the moment. He doesn't get paid for any of that.



Actually he has already been paid in advance by his agent...(well he hasn't because he doesn't need it, his dad is a millionaire..but every other declared to be drafted player has.)

But aside from that what is his marketability to Nike/Adidas/Reebok the day he leaves aTm compared to the day he arrived?

If he went straight to the NFL (for example) in 3 years he would not get the PT and subsequent recognition he did in college. That is the fallacy in the argument IMHO, its not the stars that lose out. On the contrary the benefit nicely in the increased early media exposure and endorsement opportunities. Its the run of the mill guys who get ground up spit out and never make a dime.

[RainMaker]

Did you actually look at the link of revenues you posted? How many schools do you see there showing a profit, even with these events generating billions of dollars?

Athletic departments aren't designed to generate profits. They don't have shareholders.

[CU Tiger]

Athletic departments aren't designed to generate profits. They don't have shareholders.

Neither do private companies..

[RainMaker]

If he went straight to the NFL (for example) in 3 years he would not get the PT and subsequent recognition he did in college. That is the fallacy in the argument IMHO, its not the stars that lose out. On the contrary the benefit nicely in the increased early media exposure and endorsement opportunities. Its the run of the mill guys who get ground up spit out and never make a dime.

The fallacy is this idea that future earnings should allow for price fixing.

It's saying that Kristen Stewart shouldn't be paid for her role in the Twilight movies because it's good publicity and she'll get money down the line as the series makes her popular.

We all would laugh at that concept in every other industry. But when it comes to college sports you have to do a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify it.

[molson]

If he went straight to the NFL (for example) in 3 years he would not get the PT and subsequent recognition he did in college. That is the fallacy in the argument IMHO, its not the stars that lose out. On the contrary the benefit nicely in the increased early media exposure and endorsement opportunities. Its the run of the mill guys who get ground up spit out and never make a dime.

I agree with that, that the guys who really miss out the most are the local sports heroes that don't have next-level talent. Like a Gerry McNamara at Syracuse. He had the opportunity to get local endorsements after he was done, and he parlayed his playing career into an assistant coaching job, but it just seems odd that the one time he's not allowed to receive any financial benefit is his prime when he's actually playing. The guy still got a great deal, a scholarship, the chance to play basketball games on TV, and a shot to play college basketball overseas. I'm not saying the guy was like a 1930s coal miner or anything. I just don't think it would have been the end of the world if he was allowed to pursue some degree of financial benefit while still in school, and more importantly, I don't think there's any valid reason that justifies taking that away from him. The real reason he didn't have it is just greed and lack of organization, all these other reasons are just window dressing excuses to keep the all money going to the right places.

[RainMaker]

Neither do private companies..

They have owners who are generating the profits for themselves. Same principle. Has nothing in common with an athletic department.

[CU Tiger]

The fallacy is this idea that future earnings should allow for price fixing.

It's saying that Kristen Stewart shouldn't be paid for her role in the Twilight movies because it's good publicity and she'll get money down the line as the series makes her popular.

We all would laugh at that concept in every other industry. But when it comes to college sports you have to do a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify it.


What about those evil elementary schools that exploited her? Some even charged admission to their holiday plays.

[CU Tiger]

They have owners who are generating the profits for themselves. Same principle. Has nothing in common with an athletic department.

To be fair a lot of my comments are devil's advocate but...

Many colleges are for profit entities...even the state supported ones.
What about the Math dept. They have 1,500 students and only 10 professors what about the profit they turn?

[Blackadar]

What about those evil elementary schools that exploited her? Some even charged admission to their holiday plays.

Seriously? Your "arguments" (and to a lesser extent Chief Rum's) over the last page or so have been really poor. They don't even make sense, never mind a reasonable point.

[molson]

What about those evil elementary schools that exploited her? Some even charged admission to their holiday plays.

This would be a passable analogy if those holiday plays were part of a $5 billion business that made everyone except the actors rich, and if she was required to participate in them if she was going to have any real chance at acting after elementary school. That would result in 60 Minutes investigative journalism type stuff if that happened.

[Chief Rum]

Seriously? Your "arguments" (and to a lesser extent Chief Rum's) over the last page or so have been really poor. They don't even make sense, never mind a reasonable point.

That's your contribution to this thread? Go back to sleep, Blackadar.

[CU Tiger]

This would be a passable analogy if those holiday plays were part of a $5 billion business that made everyone except the actors rich, and if she was required to participate in them if she was going to have any real chance at acting after elementary school. That would result in 60 Minutes investigative journalism type stuff if that happened.



Ok...just so I understand your point.

If a PTO makes $500 its ok, but if a college makes $5 million its bad.

So you are not opposed to the concept of exploitation, its the magnitude?

[CU Tiger]

Seriously? Your "arguments" (and to a lesser extent Chief Rum's) over the last page or so have been really poor. They don't even make sense, never mind a reasonable point.

Yawn.
Typical Blackadar post.
No substance but insult someone.

[molson]

Ok...just so I understand your point.

If a PTO makes $500 its ok, but if a college makes $5 million its bad.

So you are not opposed to the concept of exploitation, its the magnitude?

I guess it's the magnitude that puts it on my radar. But it's hard to compare it to anything else because there really is nothing else like it in any other business or even any student/school arrangement. But ya, if there were a national organization that all elementary schools belonged to, and by attending any elementary school, you had to give the school permission to make as much money as they could off of your likeness and talents, and you weren't allowed to make any money off of your own likeness in any other out-of-school context, then I wouldn't be a fan of that either, regardless of how much money they made.

[digamma]

I can't believe these fucking assholes at Michigan are preventing their research assistants from unionizing and sharing in their BILLION PLUS in grant money (http://michiganradio.org/post/snyder-signs-bill-prohibits-u-m-graduate-research-assistant-union).

SHARE MY OUTRAGE.

[RainMaker]

I also want to add that I think some of you are falling for scare tactics thrown out by people who have huge salaries at stake in this. I really don't think anything bad would happen. In fact, I think a lot of it would be good.

For instance, I don't see schools doling out a ton of money. Most players are not worth much more than a scholarship, even at major schools. There are a handful of stars that are, but the RG for NC State isn't generating a 6-figure payday. The big schools with big revenues will be able to offer up an additional stipend for their players, and more for top recruits/players, but I don't think it's what most of you think it would be.

The money would primarily come from endorsements and boosters. Which I don't see why anyone would have an issue with. Who gives a shit if Jabari Parker gets paid to be in a Gatorade commercial? Or Johnny Manziel makes a few bucks signing footballs? And if some booster slips a player some money or wants to lease them a car, what skin is it off your back?

In fact, I think it makes college athletics better. Players wouldn't feel the need to jump to the pros early as much. If you've locked in a couple endorsements, you're better off staying an extra year and increasing your draft stock. You've basically made non-March basketball watchable again and increased the talent pool throughout football overnight.

And for all the cries about parity, I think this actually might help it. It gives non-traditional powers a chance to compete.

[digamma]

Who gives a shit if Jabari Parker gets paid to be in a Gatorade commercial?



So, this is actually a really interesting example. In basketball, there is nothing preventing a high school senior from playing in Europe or the D-League or anywhere else. A big name like Wiggins or Parker could easily ink a deal with a sponsor in that year.

We've seen a few kids try this route, but we've seen most choose to take a scholarship and the terms and conditions that go with it.

[chadritt]

Imagine if Maurice Clarett could have done endorsements. I wonder if his life turns out differently if he's got some money in his pockets.

[Blackadar]

That's your contribution to this thread? Go back to sleep, Blackadar.

Sorry Rum, but those are the facts. Let's look at some of the comments over the last page:

I believe athletes receive enough for what they do through the scholarship system, along with room, board and food, for that to be an acceptable payment for being allowed to play on the college sports squad.

It's nice that YOU believe it, but that's not really relevant, is it? You don't get to determine everyone else's wages and compensation.

I would love to see adjustments to the system that don't involve pay which would settle matters such as injury issues or giving a voice to players.

Translation: We'll let you in the restaurant, but you'll have to beg for scraps at the back door and give you whatever we want.

But only if you want big time college sports as we know it to say goodbye. No more March Madness. No more BCS. No College World Series. Nothing that requires extensive travel or year round support.

You've claimed it multiple times without any substantiation. You've also failed to address how D2 and D3 schools have the same sports without the massive revenue streams. You seem to be claiming there's not enough money to go around, when there apparently is. Go look up how much some of these big schools make off of football and basketball. Those revenues are rarely poured back into the college general funds.


And let's look at some head-shaking comments by CU Tiger:

Actually he has already been paid in advance by his agent...

Only because he LEFT school.

If he went straight to the NFL (for example) in 3 years he would not get the PT and subsequent recognition he did in college.

Lebron James would beg to differ. We've had that experiment with NBA players. They made huge money without colleges. In fact, the highest NBA players ever didn't go to college.

Neither do private companies..

Ever heard of a C-Corp? In fact, most small companies have shareholders. I should know, I see their books.

What about those evil elementary schools that exploited her? Some even charged admission to their holiday plays.

*facepalm*

Want to be a Devil's Advocate? Then post something that makes logical sense.


I'm not a big fan of an outright free market solution for these players. That's what the pro leagues are for. But at the same time the NCAA is a corrupt monopolistic corporation that is milking these kids for all they're worth in collusion with the pro leagues (rules that they can't go pro) and the big schools. Massive amounts of revenue is being generated and these kids don't really see much of it at all. They can't go pro, can't freely transfer, can't take a part-time job, can't sell their autograph, can't license their image...they can't make a fucking dime while billions are being made off of them. It's akin to sharecropping or involuntary servitude.

The argument "they don't have to play" doesn't work either. There are many careers that require a college degree - yet none beyond these big sports have these kind of restrictive rules while generating huge revenues off the backs of their labor.

It seems to me the only argument for this system being made boils down to "I don't want to lose my precious football games so it's all right to continue to fuck over these kids".

[Crapshoot]

Great start. Anything that causes the disgusting fucking institution known as the NCAA to tremble is a good thing; as with the BS'ers who think college athletes alone should be fucked over while everyone else is allowed to get rich of them.

[Crapshoot]

And if college sports die, either figuratively or literally, the major professional leagues will establish something like baseball's minor league system, wherein players can be paid as they pursue playing at the highest level.

The sturm und drang from those not directly involved over the death of college athletics boils down to I'M ENTITLED TO SEE MY FAVORITE COLLEGE FIELD A TEAM IN THE SPORT OF MY CHOICE AND THESE WHINY KIDS ARE RUINING IT

It has nothing to do with what's actually good for either the schools or the athletes.

"". This, a 1000x this. Its the "WHY WONT THEY PLAY FOR THE LOVE OF THE SPORT I AM SHIT I WOULD DO SO" philosophy.

[Blackadar]

"". This, a 1000x this. Its the "WHY WONT THEY PLAY FOR THE LOVE OF THE SPORT I AM SHIT I WOULD DO SO" philosophy.

I agree. Sack pretty much nails it.

[RainMaker]

So, this is actually a really interesting example. In basketball, there is nothing preventing a high school senior from playing in Europe or the D-League or anywhere else. A big name like Wiggins or Parker could easily ink a deal with a sponsor in that year.

We've seen a few kids try this route, but we've seen most choose to take a scholarship and the terms and conditions that go with it.

Europe isn't really looking to sign kids to 1-year deals too often. I don't think it's really a viable option for a top player. And outside of the Spanish league, the leagues aren't the same level you'd find in D1 college basketball.

It'll be interesting to see if it happens more though as those other leagues get better. And as more players have success. Brandon Jennings did it and it turned out alright. Jeremy Tyler is in the league too.

[digamma]

Only because he LEFT school.



Lebron James would beg to differ. We've had that experiment with NBA players. They made huge money without colleges. In fact, the highest NBA players ever didn't go to college.

Right. Isn't this the point? The college players have a right to leave school. It's their choice. It's also their choice to enter school.




The argument "they don't have to play" doesn't work either. There are many careers that require a college degree - yet none beyond these big sports have these kind of restrictive rules while generating huge revenues off the backs of their labor.

OK, you lost me here. Sure, I can sit for the bar exam and pass it in a lot of states, but I'm sure not going to get hired by a big law firm and make a decent salary on getting my law license. Instead, I have to go to law school, generating huge revenues for schools, in order to be marketable to a law firm. Same for medicine, probably accounting and others.

How is that so different from athletics?

Further, if I can afford it, I can pay my way to college. Then I can get a job on the side and have a lot more leeway. See Wilson, Russell.



It seems to me the only argument for this system being made boils down to "I don't want to lose my precious football games so it's all right to continue to fuck over these kids".

Well that and the fact that some of the people saying that are actually paying for the programs through contributions, tickets or sweatshirts. If that goes away, so does the ability to give scholarships or pay a stipend or possibly field a team. Not stockholders, but certainly stakeholders. And I have to keep my stakeholders happy if I want to keep my organization running.

[digamma]

Dola

And I'm only half joking about the research stuff above. Michigan gets over 1 billion a year in research grants. That's a hell of a lot more than the 170 million their athletic department generates in revenue.

I have seen several contracts for various roles in universities over the years, and they pretty much all require the employee to assign rights to inventions or other work product generated during the research to the university. Now, some may be able to negotiate around this or do things on the side, and maybe that's a freedom athletes don't have, but the point is, the athletics department isn't quite as unique as people think.

[molson]

R

OK, you lost me here. Sure, I can sit for the bar exam and pass it in a lot of states, but I'm sure not going to get hired by a big law firm and make a decent salary on getting my law license. Instead, I have to go to law school, generating huge revenues for schools, in order to be marketable to a law firm. Same for medicine, probably accounting and others.

How is that so different from athletics?



For one thing, when I was in law school, I made money working full-time both summers with entities that had nothing to do with the school.

[cuervo72]

I'm still rooting for free market. If Kentucky wanted to pay LeBron James $10M to play there, let them. If Auburn wants to pay Cam Newton $1M, let them.

Only a few special players are really going to be able to demand very much. The others are still going to be landing at the best program they can for free (scholarship). I mean, take those 4th string linemen like CU Tiger. If they make a demand for much more than a scholarship, a coach tells him to shove off - and moves on to the other couple of hundred players vying for that spot. Schools still have to fill out their rosters, and that's still a better option for the vast majority of players than not playing anywhere (or playing for Eastern Western Nebraska A&T or Temple). I doubt even Texas or Oregon or T Boone U are going to pay for players who will never see the field. Will there be competition for top recruits? Ayup. But not for everybody.

[digamma]

For one thing, when I was in law school, I made money working full-time both summers with entities that had nothing to do with the school.

And like I said, if I want to pay my own way, I can do that as a college athlete too. I can even do it on scholarship with some restrictions. Same thing as with an academic scholarship. There are terms and conditions which I choose to accept if I want the scholarship.

[molson]

And like I said, if I want to pay my own way, I can do that as a college athlete too. I can even do it on scholarship with some restrictions. Same thing as with an academic scholarship. There are terms and conditions which I choose to accept if I want the scholarship.

Wouldn't working for the local dealership and making licensing deals with Nike make a player ineligible to play, regardless of who's paying the tuition?

[RainMaker]

OK, you lost me here. Sure, I can sit for the bar exam and pass it in a lot of states, but I'm sure not going to get hired by a big law firm and make a decent salary on getting my law license. Instead, I have to go to law school, generating huge revenues for schools, in order to be marketable to a law firm. Same for medicine, probably accounting and others.

How is that so different from athletics?

Those people can get jobs, can earn money from outside sources, can have someone lease them a car, can have a faculty member buy them a cup of coffee, and a whole slew of other stuff prohibited by the NCAA.

[digamma]

Wouldn't working for the local dealership and making licensing deals with Nike make a player ineligible to play, regardless of who's paying the tuition?

I think it depends, and shockingly the NCAA is not very consistent here. On the one hand, they've allowed a lot of leeway with two sport athletes--guys who play minor league baseball, for instance, and still play football or basketball. They also allow a lot of professional internships with no real inquiry--hell they herald those Morgan Stanley interns.

On the other hand, they took away Jeremy Bloom's eligibility at Colorado because they said he was taking advantage of his situation and branding himself.

So, sure there would still be some rules, but you have a much wider berth.

[chadritt]

It just seems like the eventual solution almost has to be: Full scholarships guaranteed, IN WRITING, in case of injury, ability to have outside jobs, and ability to get an endorsement if offered. I could see endorsement opportunities being restricted a bit so a 19 year old is not endorsing beer or something but still it seems like a fairly basic compromise.

Edit: maybe even have to split the endorsement money with the school or the NCAA somehow but I'm not super into that idea.

[molson]

I think it depends, and shockingly the NCAA is not very consistent here. On the one hand, they've allowed a lot of leeway with two sport athletes--guys who play minor league baseball, for instance, and still play football or basketball. They also allow a lot of professional internships with no real inquiry--hell they herald those Morgan Stanley interns.

On the other hand, they took away Jeremy Bloom's eligibility at Colorado because they said he was taking advantage of his situation and branding himself.

So, sure there would still be some rules, but you have a much wider berth.

So why doesn't a law school make it a term of any financial aid award that you can't receive unauthorized financial benefits when at school? I mean, nobody's forcing you to go to law school, so they can put whatever they want in there as long as they can attract a full class. The reason is obvious - that has no value to them. The NCAA of course, can make money off your likeness, and they can make more if that right to do so is exclusive. That's the only reason. So I understand why THEY want the status quo, I just don't understand why there's so much public support for them to keep it, and to prevent the students from even attempting to procure better terms, whether they be monetary or not. "Nobody's forcing you to." I mean, I'm a financially conservative, pro-business guy, but that phrase still gives me the creeps when it comes to management. You can use it try to justify any abuse or exploitation of any employee or student. No labor law survives if "nobody's forcing you" is a persuasive argument.

[ISiddiqui]

You know, I'm glad that this is happening. I mean, I don't think it'll do all that much in the long run, but I do think some of the nonsensical stuff, such as not being able to have a separate job, etc., will get looked at and reversed. I think the players having an organization to be able to make their cases on these issues is a good thing.

[molson]

I think the idea that the entire billion-dollar college athletic complex will die over this is preposterous, but one possible extreme outcome way down the line that I would love is to take the "student" out of the student/athlete equation at the big schools. It makes no sense that these guys have to go class, it's not why they're there. They should be paid employees first. If part of the compensation includes discounted or free course credits for those who actually qualify for admission academically, then great. Or guys could work a couple of years as a player and then attend another school that they can actually get into.

Edit: And I think it was someone on this board from another country that once expressed his bewilderment that academics and athletics in the U.S. is so intertwined. Every since then, I've seen the same thing. It really makes no sense. Guys who can barely read are sitting in college classrooms all over the country because they're good at a sport. It's crazy when you think about it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Great start. Anything that causes the disgusting fucking institution known as the NCAA to tremble is a good thing; as with the BS'ers who think college athletes alone should be fucked over while everyone else is allowed to get rich of them.

Agreed.

If it means the end of college athletics as we know it, so be it.

There's no constitutional right to college athletics last I checked.

[CU Tiger]

Wouldn't working for the local dealership and making licensing deals with Nike make a player ineligible to play, regardless of who's paying the tuition?

A scholarship athlete can have a job and be paid for said job. He just has to be paid a wage consistent with what everyone else makes. And the employer better not only employ athletes.

I think Ive told the story before. I had a gig while playing football washing cars for a local used car dealer. We all got paid in envelopes each day worked. We got regular payroll checks with taxes deducted and everything....allegedly if you were good (cough, Trevor Pryce, cough) there may be 10-15 100s in your envelope as well...and he employed lots of not athletes who were students as well...in fact he found very attractive young females to help us wash cars on weekend out of season...

Wait you think 30 guys to wash 4 cars and it takes them 8 hours is absurd...have you ever seen how distracting coeds can be?

[EagleFan]

If athletes get paid, scholarships go up and the rest of the student body suffers through student loan debt for an even longer time period hoping to make up the money lost... if they can even afford to go to college to begin with.

Hell, why stop at college? What about those high school athletes too? Look at the money Little League makes from the LLWS, maybe those kids should get paid too.

Let's just teach our kids to only do something for money, not for the love of doing it.

The world continues to go to hell in a handbag...

[SackAttack]

I agree, the pro sports will do that, because they have to. Not sure what point you're trying to make there with that. We're not talking about paid minor leagues, we're talking about the current system of college athletics.

And the argument being made is that paying players in the revenue sports will destroy the support system for athletes in non-revenue sports. What makes non-revenue athletes so special that they deserve a subsidy on the backs of the revenue-generating athletes?

The argument about amateurism was dead and buried the minute the schools and NCAA accepted sponsorship deals with Nike/Adidas, licensing fees to have their logos/fight songs appear in video games, broadcast fees for their events, etc.

There is nothing so inherently pure about college athletes - even/especially those in "non-revenue" sports - that it justifies a system where players are indentured servants - their room and board is covered, as long as the program thinks that player is the best they can do. The player has no recourse if the coach he committed to playing for leaves, but the school can pull his scholarship at any time, so even that benefit he's supposed to be thrilled to get in exchange for his athletic talents is at the coach's pleasure.

Is it okay if I disagree with you, because I get the sense from your posts that I am evil and an oppressive person if I do?

You're welcome to disagree. You're not an "evil and oppressive person" unless your take on the matter is, and I'm paraphrasing, that any effort by the athletes or any other entity on behalf of the athletes to secure compensation is an act of the devil.

The system, as set up, is effectively indentured servitude, and people who scream about "makers/takers" in a taxation environment are often the first to line up to defend the college athletics system as it exists. It's hypocrisy that redounds right back to, as I said, the idea that said defendant feels entitled to watch college football with a six-pack on Saturday afternoons.

Considering that the big money college athletics brings in supports thousands of student athletes who don't generate a penny for their schools, net total, I think the current system does tremendous good for those student athletes and those schools.

It's good for the schools. It's good for the non-revenue student athletes. It's not good for the revenue-generating athletes. You're making a utilitarian argument there, that the revenue athletes should just suck it up because the fact that they make other people money is good for a larger group of people than if they were able to make money for themselves.

And that's on top of the advertising/promotion they receive as schools which directly leads to a huge application levels at these schools from potential non-athlete students around the country.

And again, it benefits the schools. Great. That does absolutely zero to justify why the revenue-generating athletes should be happy with, and continue to go along with, the system as it currently exists. It's an argument that those athletes should STFD and STFU because the schools are happy with the way things are.

Which is bullshit.

And you and I will, I suppose, just not see eye to eye when I state I believe that sizable scholarships, room and board, and food stipends are plenty to pay for those athletes to represent their teams on the field. I certainly would have traded spots with any one of them, rather than having to work nearly a fulltime job to get myself through college.

And if you had, maybe you'd be on the other side of that argument. Again, remember, those scholarships/room-and-board are at the pleasure of the coach. The rule currently mandates that scholarships are annual, and must be renewed. That means a player can attend a school, play for that school under the conditions you suggest he should be happy to play for, and the next year be told "Yeah, thanks, but if you want to stay, you need to come up with $20,000+/year for your tuition and other expenses, and oh-by-the-way, you're still under the same restrictions your fellow athletes are in terms of making money to pay for this."

It's indentured servitude without the benefit of a safety net if the school to whom they're "apprenticed" decides they are no longer in need of the player's services.

You want the conditions under which I'd be willing to accept athletes not getting paid?

1) Give them the same free agency (or lack thereof) as the coaches. If a coach can leave at any time without restrictions on his movement, permit that to the players as well. Don't allow coaches to say "you can't transfer within the conference," don't require them to sit out a year. The only thing that does is hurt the ability of the player to try to improve his lot for a post-college playing career. Sure, the argument is that if you allow players to change schools, that major programs will start paying players to transfer, but let's be honest: does anybody making that argument seriously think that cash handshakes don't already happen in other facets of the system?

2) Give them the leeway to work outside jobs, or else a stipend that will allow them to participate in a social life with their peers. Require, if you must, a paper trail to document that work. Require their employers to sign an agreement that they will provide accurate documentation in order for the player to work that job. If said employer reneges or falsifies documents, you've got them for breach of contract and possibly fraud. Let the NCAA drop on them like a ton of bricks.

3) Athletic scholarships in revenue sports become full rides. You can drop a player from the team if you want to bring in another recruit, but that former players has the right to continue to pursue their education on the school's dime so long as they remain academically eligible. Count some portion of that scholarship against the limit to prevent coaches from just rotating players out. If the player has two years of eligibility left, he counts as a half-scholarship against the limit. Three years, 3/4 of a scholarship. One year, 1/4 of a scholarship. For the benefit of incoming student athletes, round down at 1/2 and up at 3/4. If a team has an 80-scholarship limit and 65.5 scholarships between current players and former players still at the school, then they have 15 scholarships to hand out. If they're at 65.75, they can hand out 14. No more "at the pleasure of the coach" on scholarships. Give the players a safety net so that if they're injured or the coach just decides "I don't want you anymore," they can finish that paid-for education that's supposed to mean so much.

[cuervo72]

If athletes get paid, scholarships go up and the rest of the student body suffers through student loan debt for an even longer time period hoping to make up the money lost... if they can even afford to go to college to begin with.

But I thought having a kickass football team meant people flocked to those schools? Anyway, if a school such as that becomes too expensive (even under the assumption that they would be paying for player salaries, which I don't think you can assume), then students have the option to go to cheaper schools. There are many, many public schools in PA for example that don't have D-I football teams.

Hell, why stop at college? What about those high school athletes too?

You mean besides academies who already pick players from far and wide to go to their fine learning institutions?

Look at the money Little League makes from the LLWS, maybe those kids should get paid too.

Let's just teach our kids to only do something for money, not for the love of doing it.

The world continues to go to hell in a handbag...

Yes. Little League is totally comparable. One year (13) where a few of how many teams make it far enough to be on TV?

Again, kids play at D3 for the love of the sport. And I think plenty of kids do play for money already. Top prospects go to schools they think can help their draft status. Kids leave school early. Because THEY WANT MONEY. NOW.

And yeah, this is totally the thing that is going to send the pristine world of college sports to hell. :rolleyes:

[Groundhog]

I love college basketball. But........

Before this season, Wiggins was considered a can't-miss, all-world NBA prospect. Because he can't declare for the draft due to the fact that he's American, he's lost out on a #1 pick's salary. Sure, he'll still be a high selection, but his star is certainly shining less brightly now than 6 months ago.

Imagine if, instead of being forced to pretend to be a student/athlete, he'd been drafted 12 months ago, and spent the year playing in some kind of Development league that is geared towards developing young talent without the distraction of university, playing with other young players under close supervision of a team of professional coaches and guardians.

As an outsider, I think that's one possible future that makes a lot of sense for both professional teams and the athletes themselves.

[RainMaker]

If athletes get paid, scholarships go up and the rest of the student body suffers through student loan debt for an even longer time period hoping to make up the money lost... if they can even afford to go to college to begin with.

Schools aren't required to pay the athletes. They just have the option if they want to. Í'm sure they can snag some money from the head coach salary, athletic director salary, and maybe not building $50 million training facilities for one sport.

It's no different than how it is now. Each school has their athletic budget and they figure out how they want to distribute that money.

Let's just teach our kids to only do something for money, not for the love of doing it.

Yeah go tell your boss tomorrow that he doesn't need to pay you this year. It's not about the money. For the kids after all.

[RainMaker]

A scholarship athlete can have a job and be paid for said job. He just has to be paid a wage consistent with what everyone else makes. And the employer better not only employ athletes.

Why do you give a shit how much an employer chooses to pay his employee? Why is it any of your business?

And why is this salary police only for college athletes? Why not make sure the business major isn't getting a cushy job from his Uncle that pays him more than the average person?

[ISiddiqui]

I think the idea that the entire billion-dollar college athletic complex will die over this is preposterous, but one possible extreme outcome way down the line that I would love is to take the "student" out of the student/athlete equation at the big schools. It makes no sense that these guys have to go class, it's not why they're there. They should be paid employees first. If part of the compensation includes discounted or free course credits for those who actually qualify for admission academically, then great. Or guys could work a couple of years as a player and then attend another school that they can actually get into.

Edit: And I think it was someone on this board from another country that once expressed his bewilderment that academics and athletics in the U.S. is so intertwined. Every since then, I've seen the same thing. It really makes no sense. Guys who can barely read are sitting in college classrooms all over the country because they're good at a sport. It's crazy when you think about it.

As pointed out by someone upthread, the irony is that the push for college athlete union is due to professional league unions keeping younger players out. Then again, the professional leagues are all too willing to go along with that - after all, college football stars are going to make the NFL a lot more money than a Football Minor League star in marketing.

And you are right, companies ALWAYS say that a union is going to destroy the industry. It hardly ever happens, but they always have to hyperbole that way (it'd be a lot better if they made reasonable arguments).

[RainMaker]

I don't know why it's ironic. Unions look out for their members, not for other unions.

[ISiddiqui]

The irony being that they aren't being screwed by companies as much as by other workers.

[molson]

This may be way deeper than anyone wants to go into this, but if you're up for a interesting skim, this is a law review article that makes the argument that many "student-athletes" qualify as employees under the NLRA, and thus have the right to collectively bargain. The NCAA created, and required the use of, the term "student-athlete" to get around this designation, and somehow, it's worked so far.

http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/262/81washlrev71.pdf

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Dola

And I'm only half joking about the research stuff above. Michigan gets over 1 billion a year in research grants. That's a hell of a lot more than the 170 million their athletic department generates in revenue.

I have seen several contracts for various roles in universities over the years, and they pretty much all require the employee to assign rights to inventions or other work product generated during the research to the university. Now, some may be able to negotiate around this or do things on the side, and maybe that's a freedom athletes don't have, but the point is, the athletics department isn't quite as unique as people think.

Those grad students can go work in biotech and get paid fair market value. They trade a smaller salary because they want to be in academia and possibly get their own lab one day.

So, I guess your comparison would make sense if college football and basketball players were able to enter a competing marketplace (NFL, NBA) but that has been restricted from them.

[JPhillips]

NCAA athletics could be radically changed with one simple rule change; make them independent of the university general budget. If they had to balance the books without subsidies and student fees things would be greatly different for most schools. The big boys, not including the SEC, mostly work that way currently, but the bulk of NCAA schools would have to radically alter their athletic departments.

[Logan]

Northwestern University football players cannot form a union, the National Labor Relations Board ruled, overturning a March 2014 decision and ending the players’ bid to change the college sports landscape.

In its unanimous decision, the labor board skirted the issue of whether the players are employees and left open the door to other college athletes winning the right to unionize.

The board cited the unique nature of college sports in saying it would foster instability to permit Northwestern football players to form a union while players elsewhere in the National Collegiate Athletic Association are not.

Northwestern Football Players Cannot Form Union, NLRB Rules - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-17/northwestern-football-players-cannot-form-a-union-nlrb-rules)

[Dutch]

If we make inroads towards unions and shit like that, just ban college sports and make farm leagues. Or, make them truly what they are supposed to be, fun extra-curricular activities. No more TV, no more championship games....just local teams having fun playing against regional rivals.

We, the consumer will save BILLIONS of dollars that we could use elsewhere anyway.

[BillJasper]

This would seem to kill college sports video games as companies like EA will have no one to negotiate with on the athlete side of the equation.

[miami_fan]

I don't want to derail the coaching hiring thread with this story. An interesting piece in light of recent events and the role or lack thereof that a coach should or should not play in them.

Log In - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/sports/ncaafootball/purdue-fires-a-champion-of-athletes-rights.html?_r=0)