Started By
Message
re: So. It seems there will be a College Players Union coming into fruition
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:00 pm to polydorr
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:00 pm to polydorr
quote:
Posted by polydorr quote: this won't stand in the courts. It already has. That's why we're talking about it.
No it hasn't. The Chicago NLRB ruled this. It is being appealed to the National level NLRB. These are both federal bureaus, not courts. If National upholds this ruling, look for it to head into the court system.
1
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:07 pm to goldennugget
You can't think straight because of all the concussions to your brain?I
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:28 pm to Prof
The players didn't kill amateurism in college football, the schools and conferences did.
Look at all the conference realignment and tv deals and coaches salary, it's gone insane over the last 20-30 years.
The revenue generated has skyrocketed something crazy.
Decisions are made entirely based on money, not what's good for the school or the players.
Look at all the conference realignment and tv deals and coaches salary, it's gone insane over the last 20-30 years.
The revenue generated has skyrocketed something crazy.
Decisions are made entirely based on money, not what's good for the school or the players.
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 8:29 pm
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:40 pm to IAmReality
quote:
The players didn't kill amateurism in college football, the schools and conferences did.
Agree
quote:
Look at all the conference realignment and tv deals and coaches salary, it's gone insane over the last 20-30 years.
Agree, but might add all the bloat in the AD's offices. If a coach costs 3 million, you can bet the waste in the administrative side costs just as much.
quote:
The revenue generated has skyrocketed something crazy.
Agree, but would add that spending has gone unchecked as well. It is like an arms race but nobody ever stops and asks if money spent is spent wisely.
quote:
Decisions are made entirely based on money, not what's good for the school or the players.
Agree, and might add the money decisions are shifting from the schools / conferences to the media folks who see only dollars they can spend in their own neighborhoods. Bob Iger was born and educated on the east coast. He lives and works on the west coast. Yet he controls the destiny of the SEC without ever having been immersed in it or to my knowledge, ever lived inside it's footprint.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:46 pm to Cheese Grits
Speaking of the media...
So will outlets like ESPN have to pay the union [also] to broadcast the games? And will the Union get a cut of the advertising revenues?
Seems to me that the people who have the most to lose, which would be the business who make a lot of money off these sports events, would try to at least position themselves to exercise some control over the Union(s).
So you may "work" for the university, but you answer to the Union... which may be controlled by CBS or ESPN (or similar).
Yeah, even more pitfalls.
So will outlets like ESPN have to pay the union [also] to broadcast the games? And will the Union get a cut of the advertising revenues?
Seems to me that the people who have the most to lose, which would be the business who make a lot of money off these sports events, would try to at least position themselves to exercise some control over the Union(s).
So you may "work" for the university, but you answer to the Union... which may be controlled by CBS or ESPN (or similar).
Yeah, even more pitfalls.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:50 pm to AllBamaDoesIsWin
quote:
Great news.
And what if NW drops their football program?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 8:54 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
If you start paying football players, you have to start paying everyone. Entire athletic programs would fold.
This because non revenue generating sports such as softball and track would be terminated. We would only have football, basketball, and maybe baseball.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:08 pm to I20goon
quote:
So will outlets like ESPN have to pay the union [also] to broadcast the games?
Depends on the setup in my best estimation. Since the B1G owns the BTN, and the PAC owns the PTN, my guess is yes. Since the SEC and ACC do not own the product and just sells it to ESPN, my guess is no.
quote:
And will the Union get a cut of the advertising revenues?
Same as before based on who owns the product. BTN and PTN are owners, but ACC and SEC are just providers. They get no back end and any excess revenue if the venture succeed accrues directly to IMG and Disney (parent of ESPN).
Will be interesting to see how it plays out because the Mouse probably is not willing to cut into its revenue stream to feed a cadre of lawyers and agents with part of their share.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:23 pm to Cheese Grits
"I look forward to Nick Saban announcing he coaches for the overall love of the sport, not to be paid."
So, no longer do we have student-athletes, we have employees paid to play football. Since they do not have to attend class, this makes sense.
So, no longer do we have student-athletes, we have employees paid to play football. Since they do not have to attend class, this makes sense.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:45 pm to Alahunter
As I mentioned a few pages back, the Department of Education will make sure that this goes nowhere.
But it certainly sets up the possibility for a huge confrontation between two of the Democrats' biggest constituents...feminists and organized labor. Not to mention one federal department against another. The USDOE will stop at nothing to make sure that this goes nowhere. When was the last time you saw two rival federal departments with competing interests actually cooperate? Jeez, look at the history of the FBI and CIA. The Department of Education will fight the Department of Labor tooth and toenail on this, and the Department of Justice will take the easy way out and just not get involved. No President or Congress will ever take on Title IX, because the political consequences of pissing off women...conservative and liberal together...not to mention all those daddies of female athletes...are far worse than that of pissing off organized labor.
But it certainly sets up the possibility for a huge confrontation between two of the Democrats' biggest constituents...feminists and organized labor. Not to mention one federal department against another. The USDOE will stop at nothing to make sure that this goes nowhere. When was the last time you saw two rival federal departments with competing interests actually cooperate? Jeez, look at the history of the FBI and CIA. The Department of Education will fight the Department of Labor tooth and toenail on this, and the Department of Justice will take the easy way out and just not get involved. No President or Congress will ever take on Title IX, because the political consequences of pissing off women...conservative and liberal together...not to mention all those daddies of female athletes...are far worse than that of pissing off organized labor.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:06 pm to deltaland
quote:
deltaland
So. It seems there will be a College Players Union coming into fruition
quote:
If you start paying football players, you have to start paying everyone. Entire athletic programs would fold.
This because non revenue generating sports such as softball and track would be terminated. We would only have football, basketball, and maybe baseball.
You don't understand Title IX. What you're suggesting is an impossibility. In addition, in rectifying an inequality, it is illegal to lower the bar. For example, if you have 5 paid men's basketball assistants and only two paid women's assistants, you have to raise the women's total to five, not lower the men's total to two, nor meet in the middle. Furthermore, the USDOE doesn't care where the money comes from. You have to find it somewhere.
As long as there are 85 men receiving football scholarships, there will be 85 corresponding women playing some sport somewhere on campus. Why in the hell does Alabama have up to 20 women on rowing scholarships? Are we fricking Harvard? Can't afford those women's scholarships? Tough shite. Pay the president less. Dump a few English professors. The DOE doesn't care how you fix it...that's the university's problem. You just have to fix it...and you aren't allowed to fix it by weakening men's athletics.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:07 pm to BamaGradinTn
Where will colleges find the money to pay for worker's comp injuries? Hmmm . . .
"That said, it's a pittance compared to what coaches make. Average salary for top-25 head coaches: $3.7M per year. A far cry for being warehoused in "Leisure Management Studies" when you're not practicing."
"That said, it's a pittance compared to what coaches make. Average salary for top-25 head coaches: $3.7M per year. A far cry for being warehoused in "Leisure Management Studies" when you're not practicing."
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:11 pm to matthew25
What should happen is that coaches, AD's, and conferences should end up taking a pay cut and give that money to the player's.
Of course they'll fight that tooth and nail.
I'm sure instead they'll add more commericals to the games and increase ticket prices or some shite like that.
Of course they'll fight that tooth and nail.
I'm sure instead they'll add more commericals to the games and increase ticket prices or some shite like that.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:19 pm to IAmReality
Does this mean all high school sports are breaking child labor laws?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:43 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:Wait, can you flesh that out?
The private schools affect their conferences more that most people imagine. Each major conference has at least 1 private school so the conference as a whole can avoid "sunshine" laws. If say Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Southern California, Baylor, and TCU were to drop out of their respective conferences then it would immediately subject all the conferences to the open records laws.
Ponder that for a moment.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:05 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Most schools lose money on college athletics. Just drop NCAA football, allow semi pro leagues to form and colleges can go back to club level, non scholarship football.
then what happens to all schools that have built the stadium additions and renovations. You think ppl will donate major $$ to fund a 100K stadium at LSU, BAMA, A&M to watch club football?
TAF gives back atleast 5-7 million dollars a year to the school. This will really hurt not athletics but the schools as well.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 4:05 am to TideJoe
quote:Imagine that.
turn into a minor league farm for the NFL
Posted on 3/27/14 at 5:50 am to gwilging
quote:
Wait, can you flesh that out?
Conferences (the organizations) are not public institutions. This is due to exclusions granted because at least 1 member institution is not public. Having a private exempts the entire organization as the shield afforded the private is extended to the entire conference. Take for example communications between ESPN and a state school vs communications between ESPN and a conference.
Go back to the height of conference realignment in June of 2010. ESPN reported realignment had come to a screeching halt because a "secret group" had forced it. It was a brief blurb on ESPN and no follow up media coverage. Where else in the national press would such a story hold water without some congressional inquiry being called? Here is an excerpt from the ESPN article LINK :
In an unprecedented move, a number of influential people inside and outside of college athletics mobilized over the past week to save the Big 12 Conference, stave off the Pac-10's move to expand to 16 schools and prevent a massive reorganization of college athletics.
The source said the people involved were business executives, conference commissioners, athletic directors, network executives with ties throughout college athletics, administrators at many levels throughout the NCAA membership and a "fair number of them without a dog in the hunt."
To this day no followup was ever reported and no particulars were ever disclosed on who all these mysterious people were. Can you imagine any other such action missing the mainstream press without FOIA request going out to all kinds of folks and major stories being written? Could it be possible it was really only ESPN / FOX / Conferences / Corporations involved who could all skit the sunshine laws? Texas as Texas would certainly be subject to sunshine laws but Texas as The Big 12 is exempt.
Hell, the mob had a similar meeting in Apalachin, New York and look at the media sh*tstorm that ensued.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:59 am to beachreb61
Beachreb is correct. This is far far from a done deal. It's the equivalent of a bill passing a legislative committee and everyone freaking out that the bill is now law. I highly doubt anything will come from this. The incentive is all on the Chicago office to pass this and let the national office handle it.
quote:
Posted by polydorr quote: this won't stand in the courts. It already has. That's why we're talking about it.
No it hasn't. The Chicago NLRB ruled this. It is being appealed to the National level NLRB. These are both federal bureaus, not courts. If National upholds this ruling, look for it to head into the court system.
Page 6 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News