Started By
Message
locked post

Sporting News: Undoing the Northwestern Union Decision

Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:08 pm
Posted by undecided
Member since May 2012
15492 posts
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:08 pm
This article from John Infante with Sporting News higlights some areas in which the NCAA can preemptively challenge the NLRB ruling. However, while I think they are all valid suggestions I think there would be an equal outcry should the NCAA attempt to institute them
quote:

Cut Back on Athletic Time Commitment. The NCAA allows schools to have 20 hours per week of required athletically related activity during the season, with one day off required each week. But as Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby pointed out, that number is at least stretched by coaches if not falsified outright. To that, athletes add another 20-30 hours of extra work that runs the spectrum from truly voluntary to strongly suggested. This could be cut by eliminating the tricks used to extend the 20-hour limit, limiting athlete’s access to facilities for voluntary workouts, and cutting back on offseason and summer workouts.

quote:

Reduce Control by Coaches. The way coaches control the lives of student-athletes, through teams rules, curfews, class checks, and monitoring hurts the argument against employee status in two ways. First, it makes them look like bosses rather than coaches. And second, it shows that they — not the faculty — are primarily overseeing the players. Outside of the(potentially reduced) amount of time players spend on athletics, coaches should have little or no control over their lives. Any team rules that are established should be created by or with faculty members who can sign off on their academic benefit.

quote:

Guarantee Scholarships. Athletic scholarships are always going to be awarded based on athletic skill. But once they are, athletics should be removed from the equation. Scholarships should only be canceled for the same reasons that academic scholarships are taken away. The NLRB’s decision takes this very far though. It may mean preventing institutions from canceling aid even when athletes fall academically ineligible (but not kicked out of school) and allowing athletes to keep their scholarships even after they quit the team.

quote:

Create an Athletics Major. An athletics major, either in athletics performance or athletics education (i.e. coaching), wraps up all the elements of the previous solutions. An athletics major reduces the overall time commitment and gives an academic nexus to athletic time demands. It turns coaches into faculty members, meaning they are directing students rather than controlling players. And it ties an athletic scholarship more closely to a athlete's education. In short, an athletics major both solves some of the problems raised by the NLRB while at the same time provides a justification for avoiding other radical changes to college athletics.
Posted by nc14
La Jolla
Member since Jan 2012
28193 posts
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:09 pm to
Don't change the subject. Oh, and wrong board.
Posted by undecided
Member since May 2012
15492 posts
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:11 pm to
Vanderbilt is a private university and ultimately the NLRB ruling affects all of college athletics which makes this article appropriate for tRant
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy
Alabama
Member since Feb 2013
7905 posts
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:59 pm to
I got a better idea, just kick the private schools out of the NCAA or better yet, stop giving scholarships for football, basketball or amy other sport, then sit back and watch those liberal POS lawyers back track, saying , no, please no, we are sorry, please give back the scholarships.


Call the SOBs bluff.
Posted by matthew25
Member since Jun 2012
9425 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:02 am to
Lou Holtz had the best response: he said the Northwestern QB lied on the stand when he testified under oath that some weeks he practiced, meetings, etc for up to 60 hours. Lou said the NCAA limits time to 20 hours so the QB lied and should be tried as a criminal for perjury.
Posted by KoolHndLuke
Texas
Member since Mar 2014
115 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 1:43 am to
Unionizing CFB is such a horrible concept.
Posted by BrocraticMethod
a dumpster
Member since Sep 2011
2326 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 2:38 am to
Didn't two of Dr Lou's programs get ncaa sanctions? There's a guy who knows a thing or two about coaches following rules
Posted by NewtonReb
Member since Aug 2011
737 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:32 am to
Ahh, kick all the private schools out!

What a great argument.

Here goes Duke, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Miami, Southern Cal, Northwestern, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Boston College, etc.

Please, do hold your breath.
Posted by RT1941
Member since May 2007
30160 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:02 am to
This is all just a bunch of off-season bullshyte for the sake of having something to debate and discuss. Nothing will come of this.
Posted by Cheese Grits
Wherever I lay my hat is my home
Member since Apr 2012
54587 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:06 am to
quote:

Ahh, kick all the private schools out!

What a great argument.

Here goes Duke, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Miami, Southern Cal, Northwestern, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Boston College, etc.


The day the privates drop out is the day conferences are subject to sunshine laws. Not going to happen.
Posted by Person of interest
The Hill
Member since Jan 2014
1786 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:08 am to
quote:

stop giving scholarships for football, basketball or amy other sport


This actually works for the Ivy League.
Posted by Cheese Grits
Wherever I lay my hat is my home
Member since Apr 2012
54587 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:11 am to
quote:

This actually works for the Ivy League.


Not for poor kids wanting an MIT education.
Posted by RT1941
Member since May 2007
30160 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:14 am to
quote:

This actually works for the Ivy League.
Yeah - I wonder how many stud 5*'s from Florida/Alabama/Lousisiana/Mississippi would get into the Ivy's?
Posted by Cheese Grits
Wherever I lay my hat is my home
Member since Apr 2012
54587 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:22 am to
quote:

Yeah - I wonder how many stud 5*'s from Florida/Alabama/Lousisiana/Mississippi would get into the Ivy's?


The issue is good vs great and the value of inherited money

In the rest of the country poor kids can use college athletics to actually springboard to better academic educations. In the Ivy's (without sports scholarships) it is the same trust fund gene pool to make up the student bodies. And they think kids in the south are inbred!
Posted by Person of interest
The Hill
Member since Jan 2014
1786 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:30 am to
quote:

Not for poor kids wanting an MIT education.


Poor kids get a free ride if they qualify academically, same as all students. Edit I mean all students can apply for financial aid and get it according to need.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 10:40 am
Posted by Person of interest
The Hill
Member since Jan 2014
1786 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:32 am to
quote:

Yeah - I wonder how many stud 5*'s from Florida/Alabama/Lousisiana/Mississippi would get into the Ivy's?


If all schools adopted this model it would negate the lawsuits. Treat them as students not athletes.
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy
Alabama
Member since Feb 2013
7905 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:51 pm to
You missed the point.

Once this gets voted in, the punk lawyers will fold their weak hand.

Just the threat of taking these scholarships away will have the desired effect.

If we had to ultimately do this, I am sure kids could get government grants to go to school and then could play ball, personally I don't give a shyt, maybe this would weed out some of the morons.

And those saying we can't vote to exclude private institutions !!!
WHY, we damn sure can have 18 teams that pay and the rest who don't.

Let's face it, these players aren't employees, it's a silly ruling by a bunch of commies.
Posted by Dr RC
The Money Pit
Member since Aug 2011
58028 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 1:04 pm to
quote:

Guarantee Scholarships. Athletic scholarships are always going to be awarded based on athletic skill. But once they are, athletics should be removed from the equation. Scholarships should only be canceled for the same reasons that academic scholarships are taken away. The NLRB’s decision takes this very far though. It may mean preventing institutions from canceling aid even when athletes fall academically ineligible (but not kicked out of school) and allowing athletes to keep their scholarships even after they quit the team.



of all the suggestions I think this is the most realistic and fair.

Posted by undecided
Member since May 2012
15492 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 1:22 pm to
I was partial to reduce control by coaches. Particularly the idea of making the professors more involved in the lives of the "student" athlete. He was very astute in saying coaches do look like employers with the amount of control the exercise over players
Posted by Keltic Tiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2006
19230 posts
Posted on 4/1/14 at 2:20 pm to
Just how is a university going to get professors more involved in student athletes? Many of the larger universities have classes with 200-300 students. And won't the professor ask for more money to go along with new, additional duties? And there are many professors who are anti athletics; do you think that professor who hates football will go out of his way to help a player in his class? Or could he possibly do something to sabotage that player's academic standing? But, either way, this is not going away & it won't remain a private school issue for much longer.
Page 1 2
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter