Started By
Message
re: Vandy lawyers up
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:24 pm to BamaGradinTn
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:24 pm to BamaGradinTn
It does set up for a nice fight between the Department of Education and NLRB, but I think your point is a pretty good rebuttal to the fools who think Obama wants to grow unions in this way. I suspect DC will slap down this Regional Director, and if they don't, the courts eventually will. All of that said, Northwestern just shutting it down in response to this would likely lead to them having to defend an unfair labor practice case. Now, whether the NCAA would have to kick out NW football is another matter.
0
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:38 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
Nothing good can come from college players unionizing.
These people produce one hell of a lot of money for these schools. This attitude is stupid - their college education is not an equitable payment for the amount of money that they produce.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:17 pm to RollTigers
quote:
These people produce one hell of a lot of money for these schools. This attitude is stupid - their college education is not an equitable payment for the amount of money that they produce.
Then how come they can't produce that money on their own?
If they were good enough, they would play in Canada where the average player makes $80K/yr.
However, that is against professionals. And professionals means bodies and skills that are much more developed than 18 year olds.
There isn't a market for 18 year old professionals. They wouldn't make it past the first cuts in a professional environment.
That's why semi-pro players play for the love of the game and would absolutely love to be able to get into college and take advantage of free room/board.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:19 pm to whiskeyjohn
I couldn't support a unionized team. Period.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:08 am to NathanL
So you don't like any of the Big 5 sports? They are all 100% union and every player pays union dues.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:22 am to parkjas2001
The interesting thing is that it does make sense to consider college men's basketball and football players employees in some ways. Clearly they are essential elements of a performance sport which is hugely popular and profitable.
Calling them employees in this sense is logical. Of course they are compensated in some ways already (between their scholarships and other benefits) so it isn't fair to claim they aren't already being paid at present IMO... but it might be fair to allow them to unionize and negotiate as a group RE: the level of benefits and assurances of support that they should receive.
Anyway, this line of thinking has a couple more major implications of note IMO:
1) Men's basketball and football should be considered as a different category of college athletics by virtue of their profitability. The major universities do considerably profit from them but this is not the case for other even moderately popular sports such as women's basketball, men's baseball, or men's hockey. Men's football and basketball are about money at the highest levels. They should be considered separately and the players participating in these sports should be compensated differently because the universities are compensated differently.
2) It doesn't make sense to apply both Title IX and the Union decision to men's football and men's basketball. If these are employees who deserve to be compensated at a higher level because their sports are popular and profitable then they should be - but this commercial enterprise should not then be restricted by Title IX on top of that. However, all of the other sports which are not money makers should still fall under Title IX IMO.
Calling them employees in this sense is logical. Of course they are compensated in some ways already (between their scholarships and other benefits) so it isn't fair to claim they aren't already being paid at present IMO... but it might be fair to allow them to unionize and negotiate as a group RE: the level of benefits and assurances of support that they should receive.
Anyway, this line of thinking has a couple more major implications of note IMO:
1) Men's basketball and football should be considered as a different category of college athletics by virtue of their profitability. The major universities do considerably profit from them but this is not the case for other even moderately popular sports such as women's basketball, men's baseball, or men's hockey. Men's football and basketball are about money at the highest levels. They should be considered separately and the players participating in these sports should be compensated differently because the universities are compensated differently.
2) It doesn't make sense to apply both Title IX and the Union decision to men's football and men's basketball. If these are employees who deserve to be compensated at a higher level because their sports are popular and profitable then they should be - but this commercial enterprise should not then be restricted by Title IX on top of that. However, all of the other sports which are not money makers should still fall under Title IX IMO.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 12:37 am to parkjas2001
Unions in anything are never a good thing.
Just a bunch of pussies trying to find something to complain about to get money.
Just a bunch of pussies trying to find something to complain about to get money.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:26 am to meansonny
quote:
There isn't a market for 18 year old professionals
What do you call college football? Don't try the whole 'they play for the love of the game' thing - that's true for some, but for players at most SEC schools, they are playing for exposure and out of hope that they can get to the NFL.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:40 am to RollTigers
quote:
What do you call college football? Don't try the whole 'they play for the love of the game' thing - that's true for some, but for players at most SEC schools, they are playing for exposure and out of hope that they can get to the NFL.
College football and college basketball are the defacto farm systems for the pros. Lost in all this pay for play discussion is (in addition to the scholarship and other benefits) are the tangible financial cost to expose the kids to an audience and a pro career. Johnny Football may have the talent to make it to the pros at some point he was still redshirted for a year and it would be interesting to see just how much TAMU spent to (in hard dollars) promote him (enhancing his NFL value) and how much soft dollars helped up what JFF gets in the pro's.
Part of the downside of 1 and done is declining fan interest (lower viewers during the season on TV and live) because you do not get more time to become bigger fans of specific players. Sure that kid at KU is done, but how many KU fans will buy his pro apparel vs how many more would have done so after a 3 or 4 year stint? I watch college baseball BECAUSE it is college baseball. As I get older I have more fun and enjoy more games played by colleges than by farm teams. I have a feeling I am not alone in this "consumer" behavior.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:45 am to matthew25
quote:
So you don't like any of the Big 5 sports? They are all 100% union and every player pays union dues.
No I do not. In case you haven't noticed the south is pretty anti union, especially when you get to the people who make up the big donors.
Also big difference in supporting a pro team buying a ticket once a year and cutting an athletic program a large check once a year to fund the athletic program.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 8:46 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:06 am to NathanL
quote:
big difference in supporting a pro team buying a ticket once a year and cutting an athletic program a large check once a year to fund the athletic program.
Hammer meets nail!
You "donate" to colleges as they usually represent a state. In pro sports the only thing you donate is the beer you piss later, and that is not tax deductible.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:14 am to Cheese Grits
yeah I wouldn't donate jack shite to a unionized athletics program
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:22 am to Tiguar
quote:
I wouldn't donate jack shite to a unionized athletics program
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:32 am to parkjas2001
Um, if the brainiacs are doing this shouldn't we all be doing it?
I feel like the sport will be ruined soon.
I feel like the sport will be ruined soon.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:57 am to cardboardboxer
Serious question, if they unionize will it bring other union related things as well? Like the union barganing for more breaks, less practice, representing a player in disputes like getting kicked off a team, seeing less play time etc...?
Pandoras box, we're about to open it.
Pandoras box, we're about to open it.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 2:35 pm to NathanL
Say Team A's players are unhappy about their coach/s & go to their union rep to file a grievance. If it cann't not be resolved, then players from Team A will ask players from Team B, C,D,E, etc to support their grievance by not playing a regular scheduled game.Once a union gets a foothold into a "company", they seek to reap (rape) all the benefits they can get. Primarily through litigation/work stoppages.And there are 100001 lawyers praying women are denied "equal rights" if this passes for men athletes only.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 3:06 pm to RollTigers
quote:
These people produce one hell of a lot of money for these schools. This attitude is stupid - their college education is not an equitable payment for the amount of money that they produce.
It is refreshing to see some thoughtful logic. Most posters on the rant have the collective IQ of a snow pea.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 3:12 pm to DonBro
quote:
Most posters on the rant have the collective IQ of a snow pea.
Well I'm with you fellers.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 6:31 pm to Cheese Grits
Oh Brother!
"I seen 'em first!"
How much did this guy steal from the Piggly Wiggly in Yazoo City?
"I seen 'em first!"
How much did this guy steal from the Piggly Wiggly in Yazoo City?
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News