221
Post by: Frazzled
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/03/26/college-football-players-can-unionize-federal-agency-says/
In a ruling that could revolutionize college athletics, a federal agency ruled Wednesday that college football players at Northwestern University can unionize.
The decision by a regional director of the National Labor Relations Board means it agrees football players at the Big Ten school qualify as employees under federal law and therefore can create the nation's first college athlete's union..
The Evanston, Ill-based university argued college athletes, as students, don't fit in the same category as factory workers, truck drivers and other unionized workers. The school plans to appeal to labor authorities in Washington, D.C.
"While we respect the NLRB process and the regional director's opinion, we disagree with it," a statement from Northwestern University read.
"Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students. Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes."
Outgoing Wildcats quarterback Kain Colter took a leading role in establishing the College Athletes Players Association, or CAPA, which would take the lead in organizing the players. The United Steelworkers union has been footing the legal bills.
Colter, whose eligibility has been exhausted and who has entered the NFL draft, said nearly all of the 85 scholarship players on the Wildcats roster backed the union bid, though only he expressed his support publicly.
CAPA attorneys argued that college football is, for all practical purposes, a commercial enterprise that relies on players' labor to generate billions of dollars in profits. That, they contend, makes the relationship of schools to players one of employers to employees.
In its endeavor to have college football players be recognized as essential workers, CAPA likened scholarships to employment pay -- too little pay from its point of view. Northwestern balked at that claim, describing scholarship as grants.
Giving college athletes employee status and allowing them to unionize, critics have argued, could hurt college sports in numerous ways -- including by raising the prospects of strikes by disgruntled players or lockouts by athletic departments.
The NCAA has been under increasing scrutiny over its amateurism rules and is fighting a class-action federal lawsuit by former players seeking a cut of the billions of dollars earned from live broadcasts, memorabilia sales and video games. Other lawsuits allege the NCAA failed to protect players from debilitating head injuries.
NCAA President Mark Emmert has pushed for a $2,000-per-player stipend to help athletes defray some of expenses. Critics say that isn't nearly enough, considering players help bring in millions of dollars to their schools and conferences.
CAPA's specific goals include guaranteeing coverage of sports-related medical expenses for current and former players, ensuring better procedures to reduce head injuries and potentially letting players pursue commercial sponsorships.
For now, the push is to unionize athletes at private schools, such as Northwestern, because the federal labor agency does not have jurisdiction over public universities.
During the NLRB's five days of hearings in February, Wildcats coach Pat Fitzgerald took the stand for union opponents, and his testimony sometimes was at odds with Colter's.
Colter told the hearing that players' performance on the field was more important to Northwestern than their in-class performance, saying, "You fulfill the football requirement and, if you can, you fit in academics." Asked why Northwestern gave him a scholarship of $75,000 a year, he responded: "To play football. To perform an athletic service."
But Fitzgerald said he tells players academics come first, saying, "We want them to be the best they can be ... to be a champion in life."
An attorney representing the university, Alex Barbour, noted Northwestern has one of the highest graduation rates for college football players in the nation, around 97 percent. Barbour insisted, "Northwestern is not a football factory."
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
I for one would be quite glad if college sports ceased to be a major thing and higher education returned to being a place of learning rather than another way for people to get their sports fix.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Agreed.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I hope Northwestern blocks any player that decides to unionize from their respective sport under the premise that, as union members, they're employees, and as employees, they're professionals.
And we all know no professionals in the NCAA.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 cincydooley wrote:I hope Northwestern blocks any player that decides to unionize from their respective sport under the premise that, as union members, they're employees, and as employees, they're professionals.
And we all know no professionals in the NCAA.
While the sentiment is nice, I don't think NW could survive without any of its sports programs. While theyre not a powerhouse by any stretch they, like so many other schools do depend on the money brought in through the sports programs.
I honestly think the NCAA is just about finished... They're the proverbial Ivan Drago. Right now, they're in their corner, bloodied saying "he's not a man, he's like hitting a piece of iron"
221
Post by: Frazzled
cincydooley wrote:I hope Northwestern blocks any player that decides to unionize from their respective sport under the premise that, as union members, they're employees, and as employees, they're professionals. And we all know no professionals in the NCAA.
I thought lockouts were illegal under current labor law.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Wait, Can College Sports have "Scrubs"? I doupt that they can hire cheap labor off the street for football games.
Also, What will their Union Dues come from?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Yeah, this whole situation screams what we in the army call a "Barracks Lawyer" probably some 3rd string football player, who is in pre-law or something and thought this would be a good idea.
Honestly, anything to bring down an organization as corrupt as the NCAA is good, but I dont know how effective this will be overall.
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
This has been a long time coming to be honest. The NCAA has made millions upon millions off the nation wide showing of collegiate level sports while denying the players a penny for their efforts. Unfortunately a lot of US Universities really on the income their sports programmes make to completely cut it off would be suicide, better to exploit a few to educate ten times their number than to not be able to educate them at all Automatically Appended Next Post:  hotsauceman1 wrote:Wait, Can College Sports have "Scrubs"? I doubt that they can hire cheap labour off the street for football games. Also, What will their Union Dues come from?
The term is a "Scab" Scrubs is what you wear in a hospital And College football teams have walk-on players already, usually just kickers or second string special teamers but they do exist, The assumption would be if the players went on strike the program could conceivably recruit from within their own student body. Union dues I would assume would come from the players being union members and all
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I mean, how would they PAY the Dues?
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
They can have part time jobs or use money their parents give them for living expenses while at college to pay for union dues
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Seems silly to join something like a Union you'd only be part of for a few years at most.
I doubt it would be anything like other unions, I can't tell if that would be good or bad though.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:This has been a long time coming to be honest.
The NCAA has made millions upon millions off the nation wide showing of collegiate level sports while denying the players a penny for their efforts. Unfortunately a lot of US Universities really on the income their sports programmes make to completely cut it off would be suicide, better to exploit a few to educate ten times their number than to not be able to educate them at all 0
Nonsense.
Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012.
Further, Northwestern's endowment is valued at nearly $8 BILLION as of 2013 and their Athletic department doesn't make a dime
Many athletic departments actually have to take subsidies to sustain their programs. Most recently, Rutgers had to take a $47 Million subsidy from it's general fund.
I guess what I'm saying is that your assertion that "a lot of US Universities [sic]rely on the income of their sports..." is laughably incorrect.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
They can have part time jobs or use money their parents give them for living expenses while at college to pay for union dues
Or roll it into tuition like you can with other school associated fees.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Would it be a lockout?
I mean, by rule of the NCAA they can't have professionals competing. By unionizing, they'd disqualify themselves.
Digging into this farther, are ALL scholarship students, including those on Academic or other merit based scholarships (marching band, for instance, at Ohio State), now considered employees of the university?
181
Post by: gorgon
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: cincydooley wrote:I hope Northwestern blocks any player that decides to unionize from their respective sport under the premise that, as union members, they're employees, and as employees, they're professionals.
And we all know no professionals in the NCAA.
While the sentiment is nice, I don't think NW could survive without any of its sports programs. While theyre not a powerhouse by any stretch they, like so many other schools do depend on the money brought in through the sports programs.
LOL.  Northwestern has something like a $2 BILLION budget. The most profitable athletic departments in the NCAA only make $10-20 million profit, and there's only a handful of those. Many only hover around breakeven.
If the revenue sports (football and men's basketball) disappeared tomorrow, the pain would be felt by the other sports, which rely on football and basketball money to operate. But it's very wrong to think that a major research institution is somehow reliant on sports programs to pay the bills.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 gorgon wrote:The most profitable athletic departments in the NCAA only make $10-20 million profit, and there's only a handful of those. Many only hover around breakeven.
And how much of this "low profit" is due to investing all of the revenue right back into obscene salaries (and benefits) for coaches, expensive new stadiums/workout facilities, etc?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Too much
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Enlightened. Wow. Thanks for adding so, so very much to the conversation.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
No need to be a smartass
241
Post by: Ahtman
This next is accounting for State colleges, and not private:
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
The second graph. That isnt sad t depressing AT ALL
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yeah, whats with a freaking Hockey coach getting paid more than a Football coach?
Clearly the Canadians have been covertly subverting Vermont's youth!
42144
Post by: cincydooley
No, it isn't.
Those basketball and football programs FUND THE ENTIRE athletic departments for their respective universities.
At Ohio State, for example, that includes 34 Sports that operate at a deficit and over 800 other student athlete scholarships.
The head football coach at Ohio State, or Alabama, or USC, or Texas is probably worth more than they're actually getting paid.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote:
No, it isn't.
Those basketball and football programs FUND THE ENTIRE athletic departments for their respective universities.
At Ohio State, for example, that includes 34 Sports that operate at a deficit and over 800 other student athlete scholarships.
The head football coach at Ohio State, or Alabama, or USC, or Texas is probably worth more than they're actually getting paid.
I consider the coach making more then the teachers sad.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
And listen: I think the NCAA is about as corrupt as FIFA, but I don't think the players are entitled to any pay from the universities.
What I DO think they should be allowed to get endorsements that follow similar guidelines to what Olympians do. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay? Great? Tons of people make more money than teachers.
I'm a former teacher and I don't think teachers should get paid what a tier-1 coach at a power university does.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
That isnt what im talking about, what im talking about is those coaches making more money then teachers, all the money getting funded INTO the athletic department and no where else. My school just got brand new workout equipment, but for some reason im a a class with no proper overhead, No air conditioning and a class of 40 in a room meant to hold 25. I feel No sympathy there for football players who complain
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
The term is a "Scab" Scrubs is what you wear in a hospital
And College football teams have walk-on players already, usually just kickers or second string special teamers but they do exist, The assumption would be if the players went on strike the program could conceivably recruit from within their own student body.
He was using the term scrub in reference to using sports players who have no business playing at that level.
And the term "walk on", especially for football is slightly wrong or at least, out dated. Generally speaking, when you have larger schools, such as USC, Oregon, Bama, etc. and they have limited number of scholarships, or they think that with some work, you could end up playing on their team by your senior year, they will send out an invite to "walk on" to the tryouts. If I just showed up to the first day of spring/fall training and said, " Im here to play ball" theyd laugh at me, call security and remove me from the area. Basically, almost none of us on this site could simply walk up to a college team's practice around tryouts, talk to a coach and say that you want to try out, doesnt work that way.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:That isnt what im talking about, what im talking about is those coaches making more money then teachers, all the money getting funded INTO the athletic department and no where else.
Except that isn't true. I mean, did you click on a single link that I posted above? While nearly all of the athletic departments do get subsidies from their universities, they're incredibly small amounts compared to a university's general operating budget and endowment, ESPECIALLY at AAU member schools.
My school just got brand new workout equipment, but for some reason im a a class with no proper overhead, No air conditioning and a class of 40 in a room meant to hold 25. I feel No sympathy there for football players who complain
And? I'm failing to see what the point of this complaint is. Heaven forbid the university promote healthy activities for the student body, right? No air conditioning? OH NO! Whatever will you do?!?! All those summer classes when the whole student population is in Session in those hot Late July and August months. Oh wait.. What? General classes typically aren't in session then? Huh......
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
You dont live in cali do you? Many times, especially in my area, it can reach 90-92 IN JANUARY
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:You dont live in cali do you? Many times, especially in my area, it can reach 90-92 IN JANUARY
Oh no! It's hot! Whatever will you do!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
My school just got brand new workout equipment, but for some reason im a a class with no proper overhead, No air conditioning and a class of 40 in a room meant to hold 25. I feel No sympathy there for football players who complain
Honestly man... I PREFER having a gym that is "old school" No A/C, no windows (or bars/grating over them), duct tape on any/all "seating"/benches, etc. the beginnings of oxidation on most of the plates, the smell of old sweat, and bars in squat racks that have a permanent bend in them from the amount of weight thrown on them... yeah, THATS a gym, none of that 24 hour fitness, hospital sterile places that people seem to demand nowadays.
And also... that football team that has a "private" gym....they're in there a minimum of 5 days a week. How often do you go to the gym, 2-3, for an hour or two? I will agree with you on the point of, if I heard a college football player complaining about their gym accomodations, yeah, Id have no sympathy either.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Honestly man... I PREFER having a gym that is "old school" No A/C, no windows (or bars/grating over them), duct tape on any/all "seating"/benches, etc. the beginnings of oxidation on most of the plates, the smell of old sweat, and bars in squat racks that have a permanent bend in them from the amount of weight thrown on them... yeah, THATS a gym
Couldn't agree more. I almost always have to wear sweats when I workout at one of the gyms I belong to because it's always freezing inside and when I'm hitting it I want to sweat.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Listen I know you hate colleges, but stuffing 30-40 students in a class with no AC iis just wrong. But nope, The water polo team needs to import more players from Serbia, NO AC FOR YOU
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Listen I know you hate colleges, but stuffing 30-40 students in a class with no AC iis just wrong. But nope, The water polo team needs to import more players from Serbia, NO AC FOR YOU
I don't hate colleges. For the umpteenth time.
But this complaint is incredibly childish.
And feel lucky you only have 30-40. There are plenty of classrooms in old buildings in old universities that house 200 students and don't have AC.
Seriously. You're gonna bitch about A/C?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
YES I am. You arent in the class where the heat is so bad, two people(Including me) have passed out
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cincydooley wrote:And listen: I think the NCAA is about as corrupt as FIFA, but I don't think the players are entitled to any pay from the universities.
They aren't entitled to pay. What they are entitled to is the ability to negotiate for pay. You know what I see in the whole "they're amateurs, they can't get paid argument"? Fear. Fear of losing the rules that let them give a tiny cut of the revenue from sports to the people doing all of the work, and fear that the free market value of those athletes is considerably more than the scholarship offers they receive. And so the minor-league football programs will cling to their obsolete rules about "student athletes" and try desperately to avoid letting their employees negotiate for better pay.
5534
Post by: dogma
Or, at the very least, how much time they are forced to spend playing or training. By rule NCAA coaches can only require their players to devote 20 hours of time to the program, in practice it ends up being ~40.
Student-athletes became athlete-students a long time ago.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Peregrine wrote: cincydooley wrote:And listen: I think the NCAA is about as corrupt as FIFA, but I don't think the players are entitled to any pay from the universities.
They aren't entitled to pay. What they are entitled to is the ability to negotiate for pay. You know what I see in the whole "they're amateurs, they can't get paid argument"? Fear. Fear of losing the rules that let them give a tiny cut of the revenue from sports to the people doing all of the work, and fear that the free market value of those athletes is considerably more than the scholarship offers they receive. And so the minor-league football programs will cling to their obsolete rules about "student athletes" and try desperately to avoid letting their employees negotiate for better pay.
Hey, If the NFL wants to create its own D-League then do it. We all know that's essentially what NCAA football is.
Again, I'm fine with letting the athletes seek endorsements.
Is probably even agree that a small percentage of the athletes (the Winston's, the manziels, the mccarrons) are worth more than their scholarships are "valued at," but if they were able to "negotiate for pay" how do you reconcile the other 98% of the players? Do you allow say, Alabama to eschew all of their non-profitable sports and decide to dedicate all that money to signing football players? It would put even more with the haves and create an even larger gap between them and the have nots.
But it comes down to a fundamental disagreement about them being employees. I don't give a gak what the corrupt as hell NLRB says (especially in Chicago) but they're not employees. Automatically Appended Next Post: hotsauceman1 wrote:YES I am. You arent in the class where the heat is so bad, two people(Including me) have passed out
Sniffles for you.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cincydooley wrote:Is probably even agree that a small percentage of the athletes (the Winston's, the manziels, the mccarrons) are worth more than their scholarships are "valued at," but if they were able to "negotiate for pay" how do you reconcile the other 98% of the players?
Let the free market decide what minor-league athletes are worth. The other 98% are free to negotiate their salaries as well.
And no, I don't think that 98% of minor-league football players are worth less than their current salaries. Nor do I think you could replace them easily without sacrificing competitiveness against other teams that pay their "other 98%" players better, since nobody will play for a team that offers below-average salaries for their level of talent. I think this is exactly what these "schools" are afraid of: if the athletes can negotiate for better pay then the teams will be forced to give it to them or watch all of their recruits go play elsewhere and their value to the university collapse.
Do you allow say, Alabama to eschew all of their non-profitable sports and decide to dedicate all that money to signing football players?
If that's what they think is a good plan, then sure, do that. I doubt they will, because even though football is important those other sports add enough value to the school that they're willing to invest in them.
But it comes down to a fundamental disagreement about them being employees. I don't give a gak what the corrupt as hell NLRB says (especially in Chicago) but they're not employees.
Under what definition are they not employees? They're performing a service for pay. All this ruling does is make it official and allow them to negotiate as employees.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Grey Templar wrote:Seems silly to join something like a Union you'd only be part of for a few years at most.
I doubt it would be anything like other unions, I can't tell if that would be good or bad though.
Just like the NFL.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
On the one hand, I'm overjoyed that my expectations of college jocks are met and that they'll happily shoot themselves in the foot with their inflated egos. On the other hand, kind of disappointed that the majority of college athletes who are okay people might get cut out of their scholarships.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I say we do pay them all athletes actually and make them pay for their college like everyone else
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Actually, that can be a health hazard. hotsauceman1, Where to you live? 
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Peregrine wrote:
If that's what they think is a good plan, then sure, do that. I doubt they will, because even though football is important those other sports add enough value to the school that they're willing to invest in them.
What value is that, exactly? It certainly isn't financial.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Sports teams existed at the college level for two main reasons; advertising and cultural tradition. Sports teams are often used to identify the student body's 'identity' and are a major part of campus culture/pride. Think of schools as having nationalism and their sports team is their military. It doesn't make them much money, but they take pride in being able to trott the team around and beat up the neighbors.
As for cultural reason, human beings like sports and think they're worthwhile even if you're not being paid for it.
I personally doubt the NCAA will survive having to pay athletes. Most schools already need to be paid to show up to get trounced by the big schools they can't possibly beat at large events. They don't make profit. If they have to start competing for players with pay I suspect many will just quit and the remaining teams will be too few to continue drawing national interest.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
cincydooley wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:
Listen I know you hate colleges, but stuffing 30-40 students in a class with no AC iis just wrong. But nope, The water polo team needs to import more players from Serbia, NO AC FOR YOU
I don't hate colleges. For the umpteenth time.
But this complaint is incredibly childish.
And feel lucky you only have 30-40. There are plenty of classrooms in old buildings in old universities that house 200 students and don't have AC.
Seriously. You're gonna bitch about A/C?
Childish that he is complaining about tempratures in classrooms getting dangerously high, to the point people are passing out? Ye. Thats realy childish and wingey. If his school are putting money in to sports (which you claim schools do) at the cost of basic safty of students then there is something very wrong.
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either schools are putting money in to sports, in which case when the sports have massive budgets they should be putting the students first and cutting budgets rather than taking money out of general budgets, or the sports are pulling in allot of money and are living off the player students.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Steve steveson wrote: cincydooley wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:
Listen I know you hate colleges, but stuffing 30-40 students in a class with no AC iis just wrong. But nope, The water polo team needs to import more players from Serbia, NO AC FOR YOU
I don't hate colleges. For the umpteenth time.
But this complaint is incredibly childish.
And feel lucky you only have 30-40. There are plenty of classrooms in old buildings in old universities that house 200 students and don't have AC.
Seriously. You're gonna bitch about A/C?
Childish that he is complaining about tempratures in classrooms getting dangerously high, to the point people are passing out? Ye. Thats realy childish and wingey. If his school are putting money in to sports (which you claim schools do) at the cost of basic safty of students then there is something very wrong.
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either schools are putting money in to sports, in which case when the sports have massive budgets they should be putting the students first and cutting budgets rather than taking money out of general budgets, or the sports are pulling in allot of money and are living off the player students.
Usually it doesn't work that way...
The budgets for the schools are distinctly separate from the sports department. At least, that's how the public Universities are structured. I have no fething clue on Private institutions though.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Ensis Ferrae wrote: cincydooley wrote:I hope Northwestern blocks any player that decides to unionize from their respective sport under the premise that, as union members, they're employees, and as employees, they're professionals.
And we all know no professionals in the NCAA.
While the sentiment is nice, I don't think NW could survive without any of its sports programs. While theyre not a powerhouse by any stretch they, like so many other schools do depend on the money brought in through the sports programs.
I honestly think the NCAA is just about finished... They're the proverbial Ivan Drago. Right now, they're in their corner, bloodied saying "he's not a man, he's like hitting a piece of iron"
Depend on money brought in by sports??? As if ridiculously high tuitions weren't a thing...
The NCAA has made millions upon millions off the nation wide showing of collegiate level sports while denying the players a penny for their efforts.
Because most of those athletes aren't getting degrees for free or anything...
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, whats with a freaking Hockey coach getting paid more than a Football coach?
Clearly the Canadians have been covertly subverting Vermont's youth!
And apparently our educational system, bro thats New Hampshire, not Vermont. And I say, good on them, Hockey is a superior sport.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
 whembly wrote:Usually it doesn't work that way...
The budgets for the schools are distinctly separate from the sports department. At least, that's how the public Universities are structured. I have no fething clue on Private institutions though.
Cincydooley and Hotsauce were both claiming that sports are subsidised by the universities. No idea if that is true, possibly not, but I was just thought the argument was stupid and Cincydooley was being rather unfair on Hotsauce and his language was uncalled for.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
chaos0xomega wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, whats with a freaking Hockey coach getting paid more than a Football coach?
Clearly the Canadians have been covertly subverting Vermont's youth!
And apparently our educational system, bro thats New Hampshire, not Vermont. And I say, good on them, Hockey is a superior sport.
2 basically identically shaped states right next to each other. Big deal I mixed them up 
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Steve steveson wrote: whembly wrote:Usually it doesn't work that way...
The budgets for the schools are distinctly separate from the sports department. At least, that's how the public Universities are structured. I have no fething clue on Private institutions though.
Cincydooley and Hotsauce were both claiming that sports are subsidised by the universities. No idea if that is true, possibly not, but I was just thought the argument was stupid and Cincydooley was being rather unfair on Hotsauce and his language was uncalled for.
You have no idea if it's true because you didn't bother to look at a single link I provided.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Actually, that can be a health hazard.
hotsauceman1, Where to you live?
Bay area, Typically its mild(Low 70s) but we can have fluke days where it reaches 90s in January. And the way the classes are built(Large windows with the the directly on them most of the day, 30+ students in the size of like four cars the heat can get bad)
42144
Post by: cincydooley
So they should install expensive central a/c to accommodate for these "fluke" days. Makes sense.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Its not just the fluke days(Those are the worst) Even on mild days it is bad because the sun is directly going through those window, like a magnyfying glass.
Listen Cincy, You are just trolling now.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:Its not just the fluke days(Those are the worst) Even on mild days it is bad because the sun is directly going through those window, like a magnyfying glass.
Listen Cincy, You are just trolling now.
I'm not trolling. I think your complaint is a pretty clear case of first world problems and is a really, really petty complaint.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
cincydooley wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Its not just the fluke days(Those are the worst) Even on mild days it is bad because the sun is directly going through those window, like a magnyfying glass.
Listen Cincy, You are just trolling now.
I'm not trolling. I think your complaint is a pretty clear case of first world problems and is a really, really petty complaint.
In cramped, un-cooled classrooms with little ventilation it is a health hazard.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
And the complaint of Concussions from football is just as stupid 
Jesus, im done. You cant be reasoned with.
7637
Post by: Sasori
hotsauceman1 wrote:YES I am. You arent in the class where the heat is so bad, two people(Including me) have passed out
Go to a better college.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
I fought for two years in Iraq in order to go to college and they have to play football. I feel no sympathy for the players.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
And if he has already paid? Or if he wasn't accepted to a different college.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I actually just got accepted into UC SC. But my point still stands. It is horrible to subject students to that
7637
Post by: Sasori
Co'tor Shas wrote:
And if he has already paid? Or if he wasn't accepted to a different college.
Then it's his fault in some way, shape or form.
37231
Post by: d-usa
cincydooley wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Its not just the fluke days(Those are the worst) Even on mild days it is bad because the sun is directly going through those window, like a magnyfying glass.
Listen Cincy, You are just trolling now.
I'm not trolling. I think your complaint is a pretty clear case of first world problems and is a really, really petty complaint.
And "I'm pissed as hell because college football players are unionizing" isn't a first world problem?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its still an overall budget for the University.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cincydooley wrote: Peregrine wrote:
If that's what they think is a good plan, then sure, do that. I doubt they will, because even though football is important those other sports add enough value to the school that they're willing to invest in them.
What value is that, exactly? It certainly isn't financial.
Prestige. Schools continue to subsidize less-profitable sports for the prestige of having a winning team, instead of just dumping that money into buying a nicer stadium or hiring better coaches for the football team. This isn't going to change just because the football players are getting paid.
chaos0xomega wrote:Because most of those athletes aren't getting degrees for free or anything...
You do realize we're talking about an industry full of academic fraud, right? Where important athletes take "classes" that never meet, have no assignments, and just give a passing grade at the end of it? Where athletes with the reading level of a small child have "tutors" write all of their papers? Where anyone with professional-level talent plays a couple years in "college" and then leaves for the professional draft, without any intent of ever completing their "degree"? Where even the programs that aren't full of blatant fraud have "students" getting useless "degrees" like "leisure studies" or "recreation management" or whatever, for the sole purpose of meeting academic eligibility requirements?
I'm sure some athletes are making good use of their academic opportunities, but we shouldn't pretend that this is all about legitimate students who just happen to play a fun game in their spare time.
34390
Post by: whembly
Actually... the NFL may not want this either.
Think... if starting college players are allowed endorsements and such...and banking money. Why would there be a rush to leave for the NFL?
I'm actually in favor of this, because it seems that the NCAA/Schools are grossly profiteering at the expense of the student-athletes.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
whembly wrote:
I'm actually in favor of this, because it seems that the NCAA/Schools are grossly profiteering at the expense of the student-athletes.
Not only that, but there are certainly programs out there (Florida State) who have Mafia like powers on their campuses... Their football players can do no wrong, from "minor" things like not actually passing courses, to actively threatening instructors for grades, etc. While a Union won't solve these sorts of problems, it should get rid of the NCAA who, depending on the school, just turn a blind eye to these sorts of things.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Oh yes. Unionizing will definitely get rid of any mafia like tendencies.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
cincydooley wrote:Oh yes. Unionizing will definitely get rid of any mafia like tendencies.
The 1970s called, they want you mob-controlled unions back... also, send some bell-bottoms and platform shoes, they are running dangerously low.
On a semi-related note, this is the funniest thing I've seen concerning this story since it first made news:
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I mean, sure:
http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly/news&id=245994371
God bless the 70s, eh?
Oh gak? That's from this year? Whoops.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I'm glad that college fans never do any of those things...
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Oh noes! Some shady ironworkers from one of the most goony cities in America (sorry Philly...) got charged with racketeering? I guess that means everyone in organized labor is a mafioso in your imaginary universe of absolutes.
Next...
34390
Post by: whembly
 d-usa wrote:I'm glad that college fans never do any of those things...
wut? 
Did I miss something?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Oh noes! Some shady ironworkers from one of the most goony cities in America (sorry Philly...) got charged with racketeering? I guess that means everyone in organized labor is a mafioso in your imaginary universe of absolutes.
I wasn't the one dealing in absolutes.
I'm not the one that said, "the 70s called and blah blah blah."
So let's not claim that I did, or claim that Union intimidation and good tactics don't still exist. Are they as rampant? No. But neither is "threatening instructors for grades, etc" rampant, as was used in the example, either.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Nobody gets cray-cray like soccer hooligans get cray-cray 
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Peregrine wrote:
Prestige. Schools continue to subsidize less-profitable sports for the prestige of having a winning team, instead of just dumping that money into buying a nicer stadium or hiring better coaches for the football team. This isn't going to change just because the football players are getting paid.
If you think there's any prestige outside of the two revenue sports, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Who won the all-sports trophy last year?
How about women's field hockey?
Now ask those two questions, along with "who won the BCS championship" and "who won the NCAA Tournament" to a few people. Your average consumer of college athletics will be able to tell you the last two, but not the first two.
As to academics:
Let them major in their sports. Let their weight training and practice count towards their degree, because for many of them their chosen profession is....SPORTS! Then fill out the rest of that curriculum with classes like brand management, marketing, personal finance and accounting, public speaking, etc. You know, gak that will actually matter to them when they're professional athletes. Then give them the option to specialize in something like broadcasting or coaching. Not allowing them to major in something pertinent to their chosen profession LIKE EVERY OTHER STUDENT is a problem. And it's fixable.
As to pay:
Normally I'd be all about letting them 'negotiate for their individual value' (though I do happen to think unions still aren't necessary for this), but f you do that will college football and college basketball, it will have repercussions that reach much farther than those two sports. There's already a huge gap between the type of players Ohio State and Alabama and USC can get vs. the type of player Ohio University, Grambling, and San Diego State can get. Give those universities the opportunity to pay for players officially? That gap will widen even further and it'll kill any semblance of competition that still exists in the sport.
I'm not against giving athletes from revenue producing sports (or even all, really) a stipend. I think they should be able to profit from their likeness (as is the issue in the O'Bannon lawsuit) and through third party endorsement deals along the lines of Olympic athletes. I'm hypothetically fine with them getting jobs, but there would need to be some oversight to ensure that said player was actually "earning" their paycheck. And there's the problem, as the NCAA has proven time and time again that they couldn't oversee their way out of a cardboard box.
Do I personally think the scholarships, free meals, free room and board, free clothing, free shoes, etc. are more than enough. I do. My friends and family that played Division 1 sports also do (best man in my wedding played football at Bowling Green, good friend from HS Pitched at Michigan and got drafted, Uncle played football at Ohio State; Uncle played football at Kentucky; cousin played football at Kent State; cousin presently playing at Miami Ohio). But thats all subjective and anecdotal.
Another solution is obviously to force the NFL to create their own "farm system" like the NBA, NHL, and MLB have. Is that feasible? I don't know.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
181
Post by: gorgon
I could go on about this for quite a while. It's very complicated.
The revenue sports have become a ridiculous arms race, especially in football. I think people thought that all the realignment into 5 major conferences created the haves and have-nots, but it's even more stratified than that. Look at Texas compared to the rest of the Big 12 schools. The reality is that even if you're in one of the big 5, you might end up pouring all that big TV money back into your revenue sports in an effort to keep up with the Joneses in your conference and elsewhere.
So YES, the overall money has gotten obscene, but most programs are only barely breaking even. So you're seeing schools cut programs. The trend is NOT in favor of non-revenue sports. Temple right here in Philly is a perfect example.
http://articles.philly.com/2014-02-26/news/47674851_1_temple-university-fred-turoff-temple-board
Have you guys seen the facilities and services these athletes have now at bigger schools? They often don't have the same rooms as normal students, they definitely don't eat the same as regular students, and they have access to their own tutors, doctors, etc. Their experience is less and less like that of a regular student all the time.
And as far as money goes, some have more than you think. Did you know that they get a dollar amount for their housing if they want to live off-campus? So what they do is find an apartment, room together, split the costs, and end with with a few hundred a month in their pockets.
I don't feel that bad for them regarding finances. It does seem unfair for the star athletes that the schools can make so much off their likenesses, etc. On the other hand, this opens a Pandora's box. If the star athletes are worth more to the schools and so deserve more compensation, what happens to the backups? Partial scholarships?
One thing that I think truly stinks for these athletes is that "4-year scholarships" don't really exist. They get renewed on a yearly basis. So coaches and programs can strip scholarships away from players whenever they want. Usually they'll just encourage the athlete to transfer elsewhere where there might be a scholarship for them. I think there should legitimately be 4-year scholarships that can't be cancelled except for misconduct or whatever.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Cool story. The North Carolina grades scandal is pretty well documented. This is nothing people didn't already know.
This also isn't the case at every university. At all.
I mean, we get it. Athletes were mean to you when you were in high school so you've got a stereotypical nerds vs. jocks attitude.
Read those links I posted earlier, yet? Automatically Appended Next Post: gorgon wrote:
One thing that I think truly stinks for these athletes is that "4-year scholarships" don't really exist. They get renewed on a yearly basis. So coaches and programs can strip scholarships away from players whenever they want. Usually they'll just encourage the athlete to transfer elsewhere where there might be a scholarship for them. I think there should legitimately be 4-year scholarships that can't be cancelled except for misconduct or whatever.
This is especially a problem in the SEC with grey shirting.
I know most of the better academic institutions (Northwestern, Stanford, ) guarantee their scholarships for the life of the player's eligibility, regardless of whether or not they can play. I know Ohio State also encourages it's players to continue their educations, and has begun to grant scholarships to athletes that do graduate to continue their graduate studies.
9982
Post by: dementedwombat
cincydooley wrote:As to academics: Let them major in their sports. Let their weight training and practice count towards their degree, because for many of them their chosen profession is....SPORTS! Then fill out the rest of that curriculum with classes like brand management, marketing, personal finance and accounting, public speaking, etc. You know, gak that will actually matter to them when they're professional athletes. Then give them the option to specialize in something like broadcasting or coaching. Not allowing them to major in something pertinent to their chosen profession LIKE EVERY OTHER STUDENT is a problem. And it's fixable
You know, this actually seems to be the best option to me. Of course you then run into issues about pay, since they would be just another student getting a major (I personally think that paying someone to throw a ball around is the height of ignorance and professional sports shouldn't be a thing, but that doesn't mean that other people think the same way). I guess they could just be treated like any other student working a student job being employed for the university, and bet paid for time spent playing the sport. Also I am a tutor for student athletes at a university at the moment. Fortunately I'm an engineer and tutor engineering classes, so I mainly get people from the fencing and rowing teams who play sports because they enjoy it and are reasonably good at it, but plan on getting an engineering job once they graduate. Not going to lie, it's kinda a 50/50 split even in that group between people who are some of the smartest most motivated people I have ever met, and people who are dumber than a bag of hammers but yet somehow manage to not fail. I can't even imagine what the percentage is for people in "big" sports who might actually have some shot at continuing to play sports after college. Kind of a side note, but the 50/50 split I mentioned earlier has almost universally in my experience been divided up between ladies who are motivated and dumb guys. I don't know why...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote:
Cool story. The North Carolina grades scandal is pretty well documented. This is nothing people didn't already know.
This also isn't the case at every university. At all.
I mean, we get it. Athletes were mean to you when you were in high school so you've got a stereotypical nerds vs. jocks attitude.
Read those links I posted earlier, yet?
1: It was just a story I found, to avoid making a similiar topic I posted this
2: Athletes where actually quite nice, most kept to themselves. Some where asses, but they had the personalities to be asses even if they where not athletes
3: I hate the schools, a place for learning, promote such stupid and destructive behavior within. The link I posted hurts the Athlete as much as much as others. What if he doesnt go pro? He just wasted a big part of his life
4: You posted links? Must have missed them.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:
3: I hate the schools, a place for learning, promote such stupid and destructive behavior within. The link I posted hurts the Athlete as much as much as others. What if he doesnt go pro? He just wasted a big part of his life
You mean like admitting people that probably shouldn't be there in the first place? Because we admit so many mediocre people today, universities, save for the top 20 or so in the country, are expensive vocational schools with the express purpose of preparing people for the profession they want to enter. Believe it or not, you don't need to know gak about African American studies to be a successful football or basketball player, nor will the knowledge of Rosa Parks' ride help you when you're trying to gain endorsement deals after getting drafted.
It's like anything else in education: make the class relevant and applicable to the student and what they want to do and they're more likely to put forth the effort needed to learn and retain the information you're trying to teach.
4: You posted links? Must have missed them.
Multiple. You ignored them earlier when I pointed them out, too.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I honestly have not seen what links you are refering too.
And No, If we where to ONLY learn things that pertained to our interests, we would have a stagnating society, not to mention a boring one, where the only thing people are qualified to know are tthe stuff the learned for their job. What sports are SUPPOSED to be in college is a side thing for students to do while they get something useful, not an actual career.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:
And No, If we where to ONLY learn things that pertained to our interests, we would have a stagnating society, not to mention a boring one, where the only thing people are qualified to know are tthe stuff the learned for their job. What sports are SUPPOSED to be in college is a side thing for students to do while they get something useful, not an actual career.
I'd say "Pro Football Player" is far more useful than "Art History Major."
And it seems like you may be unaware, but 'Professional Athlete' is an actual career these days.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Id say pro foot ball players doesnt add much to Society.
And really, out of ALL the athletes there are in schools, who end up and Pros?
71171
Post by: Ironwill13791
Isn't that what college is about? Learning the things that pertain to your greater interests. Studying for some ultimate goal for...you know... a job. That is what I go to class for. I want to be a physicist. So I kind of would like to learn mainly physics.
That is why I am inclined to agree with cincydooley on this one. If the student athlete has the goal of being a professional athlete (or working in professional athletics in some fashion) and this goal is attainable (like you are at Ohio State), then the university should offer some form of major to facilitate this. This might help to encourage the athletes to be more productive academically (if they weren't already).
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
hotsauceman1 wrote:
1: It was just a story I found, to avoid making a similiar topic I posted this
Actually mate, it's already got its own thread a while back... Not that article in particular, but that whole situation... Basically, the one lady was contracted by the school to conduct a study of it's "student"-athletes, and attempted to take legal actions or some such against her when her report and findings went contrary to what they obviously wanted to see.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I know, I just found it know, thought it would be a good example of college sports. Plus, No necroing.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Isn't part of school accreditation dependent on hiring of graduates? If you up with lots of "sports" majors not getting hired it would make the university look less than stellar. But then I wonder about the hiring rate of athletes on general (mainly the football and basketball ones).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cincydooley wrote:If you think there's any prestige outside of the two revenue sports, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Prestige with the general population? Not really. Prestige with certain people? Yes. Why else do you think schools dump money into those sports? Selfless love of the ideal of athletic competition?
Let them major in their sports. Let their weight training and practice count towards their degree, because for many of them their chosen profession is....SPORTS! Then fill out the rest of that curriculum with classes like brand management, marketing, personal finance and accounting, public speaking, etc. You know, gak that will actually matter to them when they're professional athletes. Then give them the option to specialize in something like broadcasting or coaching. Not allowing them to major in something pertinent to their chosen profession LIKE EVERY OTHER STUDENT is a problem. And it's fixable.
I don't see anything in this that merits a university degree. Those degrees are supposed to reward academic success, not just working really hard in the gym or scoring lots of points in a game.
And let's be honest here, even if you can speculate about some theoretical sports degree that is more than a certificate of eligibility to play minor-league football you know perfectly well that the academic standards for that degree in the real world will be nowhere near the ideal standard. You're going to have coaching "classes" that consist of playing more football and getting whatever grade the athlete needs to keep their eligibility.
That gap will widen even further and it'll kill any semblance of competition that still exists in the sport.
Tell someone who cares. I fail to see any reason why "competition" is worth supporting blatant violations of minimum wage laws and pretending that paid employees are magically not employees if you call them "students". Whether or not the business of minor league sports succeeds in creating an enjoyable product is entirely in their hands, they should be treated just like any other business instead of getting special favors. You know, just like how professional sports leagues are on their own and don't get to claim "competitiveness" as an excuse for violating labor laws. If the NFL fails to be competitive enough that people want to watch it then the NFL will go out of business, and that's how it should be.
Do I personally think the scholarships, free meals, free room and board, free clothing, free shoes, etc. are more than enough.
But what you or I think is "enough" is irrelevant. What matters is the fair-market value of their labor, and they are currently denied the ability to negotiate for better pay. Take away the absurd "amateur" rules and let the market decide how much an athlete is worth.
Another solution is obviously to force the NFL to create their own "farm system" like the NBA, NHL, and MLB have. Is that feasible? I don't know.
Who exactly is going to do this "forcing" and with what justification? Automatically Appended Next Post:
Every university? Of course not. But you're incredibly optimistic if you think that UNC is the only school that is guilty of this kind of stuff. UNC just made the mistake of cheating too blatantly in a town where football isn't all that important. The football program gets to be the scapegoat and let UNC talk loudly about how Things Are Being Done About This, while the basketball team is supposedly innocent and continues business as usual. Now tell me this: do you honestly think that the basketball team was innocent, or is the real reason nothing is being done the fact that basketball is religion in Chapel Hill and nobody cares how much the players are cheating as long as they beat Duke?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Peregrine wrote: cincydooley wrote:If you think there's any prestige outside of the two revenue sports, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Prestige with the general population? Not really. Prestige with certain people? Yes. Why else do you think schools dump money into those sports? Selfless love of the ideal of athletic competition?
For once I agree with Peregrine.... not many people know who the top Track and Field programs are in the NCAA, but as a guy who once ran track I know that Oregon (which also happens to be my home state) is usually one of, if not the best programs year after year.
As a rugby fan, I know that BYU, Cal, and Life University are three of the top perennial powerhouse programs in the country (its a shame they'll never really face each other... Well, I think Cal and BYU can, in the playoffs, but Life is in a whole different system)
I'm sure that guys who live college baseball can tell you who the most prestigious programs are for that sport... Just like I'm sure that hockey fans could tell me whether Minnesota, Boston or some other school is on top. There are obviously going to be some schools that excel in sports that aren't the "money makers" like football or basketball, I mean, look at many of the Iowa schools, or schools in that part of the country where wrestling is everything.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
What matters is the fair-market value of their labor, and they are currently denied the ability to negotiate for better pay. Take away the absurd "amateur" rules and let the market decide how much an athlete is worth.
Arguably their already getting that. Market value isn't just what some thinks their work is worth but what the person giving the the work thinks its worth. You don't need collective bargaining to get your market worth (if anything, collective bargaining in numerous cases has resulted in workers market worth being inflated beyond its real value).
College athletes are likely in for a rude awakening when they realize they're just not worth as much as they think they are. I think most schools will be unwilling to indulge the idea of paying players (not without taking away other side benefits which would defeat the purpose imo).
221
Post by: Frazzled
How much do they get in the baseball and hockey minor leagues/farm teams? They're worth that prorated for the defferential between NFL average salaries and those average salaries.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Frazzled wrote:How much do they get in the baseball and hockey minor leagues/farm teams? They're worth that prorated for the defferential between NFL average salaries and those average salaries.
If we look at it from that area, the best thing to use in the United States is probably the NBA D-League salaries, which quote:
Salaries remain flat: $25,500, $19,000 and $13,000 for the league's three player classifications. Which means D-League players are virtually playing for free -- and a modest per diem on the road of $40 compared to $120 in the NBA -- although they do receive housing and insurance benefits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'm sure that guys who live college baseball can tell you who the most prestigious programs are for that sport... Just like I'm sure that hockey fans could tell me whether Minnesota, Boston or some other school is on top. There are obviously going to be some schools that excel in sports that aren't the "money makers" like football or basketball, I mean, look at many of the Iowa schools, or schools in that part of the country where wrestling is everything.
Who cares if a person interested in the sport can tell you. Of course they can. They actively follow it. What matters is Joe Casual fan.
And we'll roll with Iowa, since that's the example you used.
Iowa wrestling (which BTW isn't even a Top 3 B1G team anymore) operates at over a half million dollar loss.
Iowa Basketball (one of the profit sports) basically breaks even between the Men's and Women's programs.
The Football Team's $24MM profit supports all of these programs. If universities have to start cutting into that "profit" to pay Football and Basketball players, other programs that lose money will get cut.
Will Iowa Wrestling survive longer than Iowa Women's Field Hockey (operating at an $800,000 loss) because of that prestige? Most likely. But it still doesn't prevent other programs from being cut. This isn't that dissimilar from when NCAA wrestling was decimated due to title IX; tons of universities (the SEC, in particular) decided it was in their best interest to simply cut the program rather than spend the money to start another women's program. You can yap about 'prestige' all you want, but at the end of the day it's down to dollar bills.
*Note: USA Today would indicate that Iowa's athletic department, as a whole, actually operates at a loss
9982
Post by: dementedwombat
I've seen a breakdown for my university as well (Notre Dame). Men's football makes massive profit (as one would expect) and I think either men's or women's basketball makes a little cash. The rest either barely break even or are pretty massive money sinks.
I did calculate this out though. Apparently our football and basketball revenue makes back almost the cost of all our other sports programs (I forget the exact percentage and couldn't find the graph again I'm afraid). We were still operating at net loss though.
Is there any university where the sports programs all operate at a positive profit margin? I'm kinda curious.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 dementedwombat wrote:
I've seen a breakdown for my university as well (Notre Dame). Men's football makes massive profit (as one would expect) and I think either men's or women's basketball makes a little cash. The rest either barely break even or are pretty massive money sinks.
I did calculate this out though. Apparently our football and basketball revenue makes back almost the cost of all our other sports programs (I forget the exact percentage and couldn't find the graph again I'm afraid). We were still operating at net loss though.
Is there any university where the sports programs all operate at a positive profit margin? I'm kinda curious.
I think there's a few that do it without taking any subsidies: Texas, Ohio State, LSU I know are three. I don't think the list is very large, though.
181
Post by: gorgon
The non-revenue sports almost can't make money, if you think about it. How can you sell enough tickets?
Women's basketball occurred to me as something that might have a chance at certain schools, and indeed 43 out of 341 programs ended up in the black per one article I found. Which still means 87% of WBB programs needed support from the revenue sports.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  LordofHats wrote:What matters is the fair-market value of their labor, and they are currently denied the ability to negotiate for better pay. Take away the absurd "amateur" rules and let the market decide how much an athlete is worth.
Arguably their already getting that. Market value isn't just what some thinks their work is worth but what the person giving the the work thinks its worth. You don't need collective bargaining to get your market worth (if anything, collective bargaining in numerous cases has resulted in workers market worth being inflated beyond its real value).
College athletes are likely in for a rude awakening when they realize they're just not worth as much as they think they are. I think most schools will be unwilling to indulge the idea of paying players (not without taking away other side benefits which would defeat the purpose imo).
Again, what happens to the 3rd string fullback in a "free market" college FB system?
There are some legitimate grievances, but I don't think the players in support of this have thought through the implications. Or maybe they just don't care. *shrug*
42144
Post by: cincydooley
gorgon wrote:The non-revenue sports almost can't make money, if you think about it. How can you sell enough tickets?
Women's basketball occurred to me as something that might have a chance at certain schools, and indeed 43 out of 341 programs ended up in the black per one article I found. Which still means 87% of WBB programs needed support from the revenue sports.
That is a brutal number. And here's the link because I know some people will want it.
Also from the article:
"Only four women’s teams reported revenue over $4 million to the Department of Education last year, and none had a profit over $500,000."
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
gorgon wrote:The non-revenue sports almost can't make money, if you think about it. How can you sell enough tickets?
Well, the problem is, how many of the remaining sports are individual sports? I mean, track and wrestling both "require" meets where a whole conference is competing at once. Things like fencing, rowing and others are sports which don't lend themselves well to viewers. You really can't make much or any money with a set up where you must split revenues 10 or 12 ways.
Of course, some sporting events are held in places where charging admission is quite impossible. For instance, the University of Oregon's rugby club's home field is one of the city parks, not a stadium or a place where tickets can be sold... so even if they do allow for good spectating, it's hard to make money off of them through at least that one revenue source.
5534
Post by: dogma
cincydooley wrote:
Salaries remain flat: $25,500, $19,000 and $13,000 for the league's three player classifications. Which means D-League players are virtually playing for free -- and a modest per diem on the road of $40 compared to $120 in the NBA -- although they do receive housing and insurance benefits.
I could see a collective bargaining organization arguing for insurance benefits, especially given the joke that is the NCAA catastrophic injury program.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
LordofHats wrote:Arguably their already getting that. Market value isn't just what some thinks their work is worth but what the person giving the the work thinks its worth. You don't need collective bargaining to get your market worth (if anything, collective bargaining in numerous cases has resulted in workers market worth being inflated beyond its real value).
Except there's no market right now. Minor-league teams are engaging in anti-competitive behavior by forming an agreement that players can not be paid beyond a certain approved scholarship, and effectively banning anyone who doesn't agree to those terms from ever working in the industry. Get rid of the NCAA's monopoly and force each team to negotiate individually as a separate business and then you can talk about players already having a fair situation.
And that's on top of the general issues with businesses trying to crush unions. There's a very good reason that anti-union policies are often illegal, and advocates of "right to work" laws are considered corrupt  s who care more about Walmart's profit margins than the people they're supposed to be representing. Remove the ridiculous pretense of athletes being "amateurs" and not paid employees and what the NCAA is doing would be illegal in a lot of states.
College athletes are likely in for a rude awakening when they realize they're just not worth as much as they think they are.
I think you're wrong about that. If you just look at the housing/food/etc athletes get (since the "education" they get is of limited value at best) it's not a very impressive salary. Do you really think that a key player on a team that brings in millions of dollars in revenue is really worth less money than the average burger flipper?
And sure, they might lose some scholarships, but I suspect many of them won't care at all because those "scholarships" are nothing more than fake classes to meet the NCAA's eligibility requirement. In fact, they'd probably be happier if they didn't have to waste time pretending to be a student and just collected a normal paycheck.
I think most schools will be unwilling to indulge the idea of paying players (not without taking away other side benefits which would defeat the purpose imo).
Sure, most schools won't be willing at first. But when their precious football teams start losing because all of their potential recruits are going to schools with better pay the important alumni are going to call and tell the athletic department to start signing some paychecks or start looking for a new job. The current situation only "works" because anyone who starts offering their athletes a better deal is immediately banned from the industry. Take away the NCAA's monopoly position and that's no longer true.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Peregrine wrote:
I think you're wrong about that. If you just look at the housing/food/etc athletes get (since the "education" they get is of limited value at best) it's not a very impressive salary. Do you really think that a key player on a team that brings in millions of dollars in revenue is really worth less money than the average burger flipper?
I think you don't have a very good grasp on the benefits a D1 Football player receives.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cincydooley wrote:I think you don't have a very good grasp on the benefits a D1 Football player receives.
Alright, so total up the cash value of those benefits and let's see them. And don't include inflated costs for things like overpriced dorm room rent, or tuition that goes to "classes" that exist for the sole purpose of maintaining eligibility to play sports.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Peregrine wrote:
I think you're wrong about that. If you just look at the housing/food/etc athletes get (since the "education" they get is of limited value at best) it's not a very impressive salary. Do you really think that a key player on a team that brings in millions of dollars in revenue is really worth less money than the average burger flipper?
And how many schools actually have such players? The bulk of actual talent in college sports is concentrated in a few programs and held by a small number of the players.
And sure, they might lose some scholarships, but I suspect many of them won't care at all because those "scholarships" are nothing more than fake classes to meet the NCAA's eligibility requirement. In fact, they'd probably be happier if they didn't have to waste time pretending to be a student and just collected a normal paycheck.
They'll probably be less happy with their being no college sports at all, or with when the vast majority of them end up out of school with no NFL contract and no education. Schools should not be in the business of not educating people (yeah yeah, I know, they already don't educate them so too often, but at least right now that can stand up and say they try).
Sure, most schools won't be willing at first.
Most schools won't be willing period because they're already losing money on the program. Throw in that they now have to compete for players with other schools via pay (as in "pay me as more than this school will") and they'll just bow out entirely. The NCAA already has to spend millions a year to encourage many schools to keep their programs going. The NCAA isn't making enough bank to bite that cost and schools aren't going to want to either. Especially when the majority of schools just leave and the remaining schools have no one to really play against and the NCAA just falls over when the rest of the country stops caring.
As I said the last time we had this debate, not every school is University of Texas. The Longhorns are an oddity, not the standard. There is no where near as much profit in college sports as people fantasize there is.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
LordofHats wrote:And how many schools actually have such players? The bulk of actual talent in college sports is concentrated in a few programs and held by a small number of the players.
I'm not disputing that. I'm sure there are lots of schools where the athletes are legitimate students who sometimes play a sport for fun between classes, and the "amateur" label is appropriate. But we're talking about the big-money sports and teams where it's a business and the athletes are paid employees in all but name.
They'll probably be less happy with their being no college sports at all, or with when the vast majority of them end up out of school with no NFL contract and no education.
College sports aren't going anywhere. Big-money sports with million-dollar coaching salaries, huge stadiums, big TV contracts, etc, might die because they can't compete with the NFL without getting free labor from their employees. But people will still play sports, and there will still be money for it because of the value it adds in attracting students. The people who would be hurt the most if the college sports industry disappeared are the people who can't get into college on their academic merits, and those people aren't getting an education anyway.
Most schools won't be willing period because they're already losing money on the program. Throw in that they now have to compete for players with other schools via pay (as in "pay me as more than this school will") and they'll just bow out entirely. The NCAA already has to spend millions a year to encourage many schools to keep their programs going. The NCAA isn't making enough bank to bite that cost and schools aren't going to want to either. Especially when the majority of schools just leave and the remaining schools have no one to really play against and the NCAA just falls over when the rest of the country stops caring.
Ok, let's say this happens. Let's say the profit margins on the system are so narrow that paying the athletes would completely break it. Let's not even consider things like cutting the salaries of absurdly overpaid coaches or playing in cheaper stadiums as a way to free up the money. My question now: so what? What exactly is the college sports industry providing that is so important that the NCAA and its member schools should be allowed to violate practically every labor law in existence in order to stay in business? Why should we be so terrified of the possibility of college football disappearing that we have to avoid that risk at all costs?
|
|
