NLRB rules that Northwestern Players CAN unionize

16,514 Views | 148 Replies | Last: 12 yr ago by going4roses
KevBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear;842298211 said:

KB - all the good, standard arguments for unionization. So, have you been hollering about this off and on for the last what, oh, 30 years? Funny, I haven't noticed.


No, I've been selfish and wanted to keep this thing rolling for my own benefit. That doesn't change a thing.

Rushinbear said:

Seriously, though, this whole set up is a sewer. We all agree on that. But, dredging up another collective bargaining relief act to address a situation containing issues marginal to the sewer, at most, smacks of Saul Alinsky and his present day adherents.


What do you mean, "issues marginal to?"

Rushinbear said:

Is unionizing the best we can do? Really?


If they are practically employees, then it's not up to me and you. Organizing would be their right, whether we think it will lead to what we consider the best resolution or not.

Rushinbear said:

I suspect that the spectre of business agents interviewing malcontent players on the practice field, or players voting for a player rep to take time off from practice to conduct "union business" will be enough to get the NCAA and its members to get off their asses and propose something real.


I hope you're right. I don't think so, unfortunately.

Rushinbear said:

As far as my points are concerned, an ever increasing percentage of NFL players come from Div III schools.


Haha, "ever increasing." What, 1% up from 0.5%? Really RB, how many D3 players are there in the NFL right now?

Rushinbear said:

Aren't there teams in Eng, Germ, Japan, now?


Those countries have their own leagues, which have rules against US players. The GFL, for instance, allows no more than 10 non-European players on any team, and no more than two non-Euro players on the field at any time. And they don't make that much more than Arena players do.


Rushinbear said:

And, no one says that, because a kid thinks that the NFL is the best place for him, he has a right to employment there.


...Ok.

Rushinbear said:

Life, after all, isn't fair.


Cool, no reason to ever try to fix anything, I guess.
slider643
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KevBear;842298261 said:

No, I explained to you why this is not true in the other thread, an explanation you chose to ignore.

The brand power held by many FBS programs--brand power that no minor league franchise could realistically hope to match, gives college football far stronger marketing potential than any minor league. This is why college football has much higher revenue than a minor league would.

It therefore may be that college football programs represent the most lucrative market for 18 to 22 year old football players, but only if it is an open market, which it is not. The enterprise owners in the market--the Universities--have struck an agreement to not use wages to compete for talent.

This is why you cannot base an evaluation of the players' market value on the current system. The anti-competitive collusion between the schools has suppressed the players value within the college football market. How much money do you think USC would offer Josh Rosen to play for them if they were allowed to? I don't know either, but I'm certain it's a hell of a lot more than a scholarship is worth.


You're exactly right it's the brand that has the value.
SonOfCalVa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
59bear;842298250 said:

In other words, go back to the 1940s. Oh wait, even then (and before*) many players were students in name only, although the time commitment to the sport was vastly less than is the norm today.

*My stepfather used to recount this story: He graduated from Everett, WA HS in 1924. His former coach was Emmett Bagshaw who was then at UW and Bagshaw recruited him to play for the Huskies. When the subject of academics was raised, my stepdad was told "we'll get someone to go to class for you". Amazingly, he passed up that opportunity to work in a lumber processing job that paid $2. a day!


Recall that Hugh McElhenny said he took a paycut going from UW to the 49ers.
KevBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
slider643;842298272 said:

You're exactly right it's the brand that has the value.


And the wage fixing? You never have anything to say about that. It's what undercuts your whole bullshit position.
slider643
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KevBear;842298297 said:

And the wage fixing? You never have anything to say about that. It's what undercuts your whole bullshit position.


Are you mad that you just blew up your own argument because you admitted that the brand has the value?

Sorry to pop your balloon, but there are no wages paid. They're not professionals. They choose to remain amateurs and compete at that level. They make that tradeoff because the value of their scholarship and and all of their ancillary benefits, both academic and athletic, are worth more to them than a job at McDonalds. They choose to associate with the brand because the brand helps their prospects of eventually turning professional in the sport they play, much more so than having McDonalds on their resume.

Nobody else is stupid enough to think the players have enough value to create a minor league system for them. Make whatever argument you want, it's true. Schools have created their brand over decades, of course they'll have an advantage over a new minor league system. But if it was valuable enough to the NFL and NBA, they'd have a minor league system like MLB. Even then, many baseball players would rather play in college than get their market value in the minors.
FiatSlug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
59bear;842298250 said:

In other words, go back to the 1940s. Oh wait, even then (and before*) many players were students in name only, although the time commitment to the sport was vastly less than is the norm today.

*My stepfather used to recount this story: He graduated from Everett, WA HS in 1924. His former coach was Emmett Bagshaw who was then at UW and Bagshaw recruited him to play for the Huskies. When the subject of academics was raised, my stepdad was told "we'll get someone to go to class for you". Amazingly, he passed up that opportunity to work in a lumber processing job that paid $2. a day!


Just because a system has been around for a very, very long time does not mean that it isn't rotten.
KevBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
slider643;842298337 said:

Are you mad that you just blew up your own argument because you admitted that the brand has the value?

Sorry to pop your balloon, but there are no wages paid. They're not professionals. They choose to remain amateurs and compete at that level. They make that tradeoff because the value of their scholarship and and all of their ancillary benefits, both academic and athletic, are worth more to them than a job at McDonalds. They choose to associate with the brand because the brand helps their prospects of eventually turning professional in the sport they play, much more so than having McDonalds on their resume.

Nobody else is stupid enough to think the players have enough value to create a minor league system for them. Make whatever argument you want, it's true. Schools have created their brand over decades, of course they'll have an advantage over a new minor league system. But if it was valuable enough to the NFL and NBA, they'd have a minor league system like MLB. Even then, many baseball players would rather play in college than get their market value in the minors.


I pointed out the brand power of the FBS schools in the other thread. It changes nothing. In all practical respects, college football players are employees. This is a fact which you tacitly admitted in the other thread.

The simple truth is no amount of reason, however valid, is going to convince you. You said so yourself in the other thread.
MarylandBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One interesting idea I have not heard much of in this debate is what may amateur/Olympic sports did in the 70s: $$ being placed in a trust fund for the athlete's future use with withdrawals allowed for "legitimate" training (or educational) purposes, instead of straight up stipends or pay. The trust fund could be accessed in full when the athlete completes their eligibility (or declares pro). If I recall correctly this didn't progress all that well b/c it proved very difficult to regulate without very strong oversight and didn't last long, but who knows, it might be a middle ground that can compensate college revenue-generating athletes but still preserve college sports as we know it (to some degree).
Darby
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KevBear;842298413 said:

I pointed out the brand power of the FBS schools in the other thread. It changes nothing. In all practical respects, college football players are employees. This is a fact which you tacitly admitted in the other thread.

The simple truth is no amount of reason, however valid, is going to convince you. You said so yourself in the other thread.


If the student athletes are employees then so are the straw hat band, rally comm and all other students actively involved in IA. That is a ridiculous idea on it's face.

The simple truth, which you are ignoring in pursuit of your stick it to The Man hobby, is that jocks have not been scholars since the beginning of time. That fact of human nature has nothing to do with billion dollar TV contracts. It was a fact long before we were here and it will still be a fact when we are dead and gone.

It is clear by the comments I see that those pushing the deconstruction of modern FB/BB simply do not have the best interest of the student athletes in mind. They are simply uncomfortable with the large amount of money now involved in modern sports. They really don't care about the lost opportunities that will result from massively increasing the cost of revenue sports. The end result of all this pay for play would be a whole lot of lower income kids not getting educational opportunities they now get. So what. Right?
SonOfCalVa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Darby;842298421 said:

... The simple truth, which you are ignoring in pursuit of your stick it to The Man hobby, is that jocks have not been scholars since the beginning of time. That fact of human nature ...


I'd love to watch a video of you explaining your dumb jock theory to Mack and Brezinski, after you compare your academic credentials and honors with theirs .... and maybe your accomplishments as a "jock".

:rollinglaugh:
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Darby;842298421 said:

If the student athletes are employees then so are the straw hat band, rally comm and all other students actively involved in IA. That is a ridiculous idea on it's face.

The simple truth, which you are ignoring in pursuit of your stick it to The Man hobby, is that jocks have not been scholars since the beginning of time. That fact of human nature has nothing to do with billion dollar TV contracts. It was a fact long before we were here and it will still be a fact when we are dead and gone.

It is clear by the comments I see that those pushing the deconstruction of modern FB/BB simply do not have the best interest of the student athletes in mind. They are simply uncomfortable with the large amount of money now involved in modern sports. They really don't care about the lost opportunities that will result from massively increasing the cost of revenue sports. The end result of all this pay for play would be a whole lot of lower income kids not getting educational opportunities they now get. So what. Right?


No, it's lower income kids (and kids at every other level) not taking the educational opportunities that are given to them. How many of them have earned their place in education? OK, so most haven't, but it would be nice if they acted like they did...by studying and trying to become educated.

Everyone can learn, everyone. But, if all some student athletes want to learn is a playbook (and a few think they're such good athletes they don't even need to do that), they can do that outside a university. A kid's coordination gets him a chance that no other kid in his circumstances gets (not talking about those who get themselves educated in high school), but how do I continue to make accomodations for the kid if he doesn't do anything to help himself? He's not entitled.
slider643
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KevBear;842298413 said:

I pointed out the brand power of the FBS schools in the other thread. It changes nothing. In all practical respects, college football players are employees. This is a fact which you tacitly admitted in the other thread.

The simple truth is no amount of reason, however valid, is going to convince you. You said so yourself in the other thread.


Here's the problem with your argument. You're all wound up about athletes not being paid. I guarantee you that many of your possessions are made by virtual slave labor in third world countries who are actual employees and who are being exploited far worse than college athletes. Yet you continue to support such inequity consciously. The only reason you are so wound up about college athletes is because they are high profile compared to indentured servitude in Malaysia.
Darby
How long do you want to ignore this user?
slider643;842298436 said:

Here's the problem with your argument. You're all wound up about athletes not being paid. I guarantee you that many of your possessions are made by virtual slave labor in third world countries who are actual employees and who are being exploited far worse than college athletes. Yet you continue to support such inequity consciously. The only reason you are so wound up about college athletes is because they are high profile compared to indentured servitude in Malaysia.


No, they are all wound up about how much money is involved. The AD and NCAA people are getting overpaid, don't cha know. These folks don't care at all about the student athletes. If they did they wouldn't admit to being fine with seeing the revenue sports eliminated. Some how I don't think the student athletes being used to advance this agenda would be down for the struggle if they realized that.
59bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rottenness may be in the eye of the beholder. Much of the mission of the NCAA has been tied to the quest for an even playing field for the member institutions, creating some degree of parity if you will. In the process, as is often the case with institutions, it has probably grown more concerned with consolidating and enhancing it's own position than with other issues in the areas it oversees. It's pretty clear the welfare of the athletes is not one of it's highest priorities. If the NCAA is brought down or even significantly curtailed in the degree of control it exercises, might we not see other abuses arise in the power vacuum? I'm not sure a "free market" system in college sports is necessarily a good thing.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
59bear;842298472 said:

Rottenness may be in the eye of the beholder. Much of the mission of the NCAA has been tied to the quest for an even playing field for the member institutions, creating some degree of parity if you will. In the process, as is often the case with institutions, it has probably grown more concerned with consolidating and enhancing it's own position than with other issues in the areas it oversees. It's pretty clear the welfare of the athletes is not one of it's highest priorities. If the NCAA is brought down or even significantly curtailed in the degree of control it exercises, might we not see other abuses arise in the power vacuum? I'm not sure a "free market" system in college sports is necessarily a good thing.


A free market system is most decidedly not a good thing...unless you are on the win at all cost, more money, who cares about tradition, materialism rocket. A lot of people feel that way. I am not one. Declaring a definitive "winner"/champion and having college sports feel like a massive adrenaline rush and vicarious/symbolic arena for our own machismo and narcissism is not the most important thing to me.

I saw nothing wrong (other than the corruption of the voting and bid system) of the old bowl system and having multiple teams feel like their season was a success. When winning a bowl game or ending in the top 20 feels like victory it allows for much broader definitions of victory that have to do with character and tradition and growth of the individual. Not that the past was idyllic, but it was systemically better.

With the new playoff (which will be expanded in the future) we will see ongoing narrowing definition of success and narrowing focus on the haves and have-nots. We will have one team that won and everyone else who has lost. The winner in the aftermath will silently reflect and wonder if it was all worth it and what they really won--at the same time fighting with ferocity to do it again and again. And the losers will pay more, sacrifice more for the will o' wisp of victory.

The current system is badly flawed, where we are going is worse. A Player's Union and paying players is throwing more money and trying to fix the system by continuing to play the same game. It will just further entrench a corrupt and increasingly morally bankrupt enterprise.

The solution is not more money, it is less. I've said these things before:

1) Salaries made public for all persons who make money from amateur athletes with limits set by an independent board that includes amateur athletes. None of this seceret salary BS for NCAA administrators and bowl officials. This is where most of the excess and abuse lies. Clean that crap up.

2) All expenses associated with being a student-athlete are covered and paid by the University directly. And that scholarship can not be rescinded. It is a four year offering by University no matter what. No more athletes that can't afford decent housing or food (or even some travel to visit home) because of lack of scholarship money, but that is paid by University not cash to athletes. It is open accounting that is even across all schools (some balancing for cost of living variance by region).

3) A cap on all college coach's salaries and any punishment on their watch travels with them making them un-hireable by another college or the NFL. They can't dodge consequences.

4) Revenues from basketball and football feed pools of scholarship money for athletes at all schools in all sports. This is the priority. Facilities, admin and coach salaries, and all expenditures not earmarked for the development of the students is monitored and capped by independent board with the aim of keeping excess out of the sport and creating recruiting juggernauts that are plain and simple NFL development teams.

5) NFL sets up their own minor league. You accept a scholarship, you are committed to college for 4 years...or go play pro in the minors.

6) Recruiting window reduced to 3 months in the summer after the junior year. No other contact allowed by colleges. Let the athletes independently gain interest in schools from afar and initiate the invitations to be approached--go visit the few schools that interest them and decide. Kill this cottage industry of recruiting which starts the whole wheel of corruption in motion. When I picked a college, I knew the few I was interested in and I visited a couple and applied. Let's not over complicate this and try and make it close to a normal application as possible. Have more local kids go the local school they know and feel comfortable with rather than this ridiculous mercenary system.

7) No agent of the NFL ever allowed contact with a college athlete or on a college campus. No agent of a college or NFL allowed contact with an athlete until after their junior year of high school.

8) An academic progress test administered once a year by the NCAA across all schools. Failure to pass means they must take a year off from sport. This is a standardized test that assures that each university is actually teaching these kids something. No more reliance on the college grade system. Too easily fixed and not standardized. You must be hitting benchmarks in learning for the privilege of participating in sport--otherwise hit the books and get some tutoring.

Some of these steps get into some messy legal areas, but there has to be a way to step back and not get tangled in bureaucracy and the woo of money to make common sense decisions that see the big picture and aim for some kind of return to a purer athletic endeavor, fairer to all, with the goal of self-improvement and the ongoing celebration of the college community--and not "show me the money" or "if you're not cheating you're not trying" or the current hypocritical landscape of filthy rich coaches and cling-ons who exploit the athletes who are no longer really students by any stretch of the term.
FiatSlug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
59bear;842298472 said:

Rottenness may be in the eye of the beholder. Much of the mission of the NCAA has been tied to the quest for an even playing field for the member institutions, creating some degree of parity if you will. In the process, as is often the case with institutions, it has probably grown more concerned with consolidating and enhancing it's own position than with other issues in the areas it oversees. It's pretty clear the welfare of the athletes is not one of it's highest priorities. If the NCAA is brought down or even significantly curtailed in the degree of control it exercises, might we not see other abuses arise in the power vacuum? I'm not sure a "free market" system in college sports is necessarily a good thing.


That's an interesting perspective re: the NCAA's mission, but I think it is wrong. You're forgetting that the NCAA is not just a institution for policing and policy enforcement, its membership are the very folks it is intended to police. That seems awfully chummy, does it not?

The NCAA, per se, is not the problem here. The problem is the money in the system and the way it is run on behalf of the institutions with the greatest budgets and consequently the most muscle in the NCAA. The money flows from folks who represent ESPN, NFL, and the major product advertisers who sponsor bowl games.

Each of those entities has skin in the game, and they use college football players and coaches in a very calculated and cynical way to make even more money. Fans pay much of the fiscal freight with ticket prices, travel costs, and donations to dear alma mater. Players pay the physical and psychic freight in injuries and lost educational opportunities for a single chance at snagging a brass ring (read: a chance at an NFL career).

You're basically arguing for the devil you know. I think the players would argue for a better system. A system that includes transparency and a commitment to education that matches the rhetoric.
SanseiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SoCalBear323;842296895 said:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-northwestern-union-bid-20140326,0,6454823.story


[URL="http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140330__Labor_official_who_sided_with_players_began_career_in_isles.html?id=253084421"][U]Link.[/U][/URL]

If above link doesn't work, here's the article:

"The regional director of the National Labor Relations Board who issued a controversial ruling last week giving a group of Northwestern University football players the right to unionize says he would not have been in the position to make that decision if it wasn't for his time living in Hawaii.

The decision by Peter Sung Ohr could have implications for similar private universities around the country.

In the case, the College Athletes Players Association, which petitioned the NLRB on behalf of the players, argued that college football is a commercial enterprise that relies on players' labor to generate billions in profits, making the relationship of schools to players one of employers to employees.

Ohr, 46, who lived in Hawaii for 12 years, agreed to speak with the Star-Advertiser as long as it wasn't about the ruling, which is still facing an appeal.

Born in Seoul, Ohr came to the United States at age 3 and graduated with a law degree in 1994 from Pepperdine University School of Law, where he met his wife, Julie, an Aiea native. He came to Hawaii because his wife wanted to return home after graduating.

His first job after law school was as an investigator for the Hawaiian Claims Office, a now defunct program that helped Native Hawaiians settle claims against the Hawaiian Home Lands program. Working closely with Native Hawaiians, Ohr appreciated how they viewed the islands and how they treated one another, he said.

He recalled how people who had been mistreated for generations still remained respectful.

"That kind of shapes how you see the rest of your experience in Hawaii," he said. "They were so incredibly generous with their thoughts and how patient they were, just a calmness. It's almost a religion in a way you're supposed to act."

Melody MacKenzie, who was the executive director of the Hawaiian Claims Office, recalled Ohr was a hard worker, toiling long hours to study documents, do community outreach, and interview claimants.

"He was very passionate about his work," she said. "A really good guy."

MacKenzie, who is also an associate professor at the University of Hawaii's William S. Richardson School of Law, said she was shocked when she heard on National Public Radio that Ohr was the person who had made the Northwestern decision.

"I thought it was great that he had taken the position that he had," she said. "It's another example of standing up for people who are in some sense voiceless."

Ohr became a field attorney for the NLRB in Hawaii in 1997, working on high-profile cases such as sweatshops in Saipan and American Samoa.

Tom Cestare, officer in charge at the NLRB office in Hawaii and Ohr's friend, said he spoke with Ohr after the ruling.

Ohr told him it wasn't a hard decision to make and was "the right thing to do," he said.

"Sometimes doing the right thing takes a lot of bravery," Cestare said. "He's a good man."

Ohr left in 2005 to work for the NLRB in Washington, D.C., and became regional director of the NLRB's Chicago office in 2011.

But after 12 years in Hawaii, where he started his practice, got married and had two of his three children, he says he still feels the imprint of the islands in his work and through his wife. In Chicago, he tries to develop the close relationships that he saw were successful in the islands.

"Ultimately, you want relationships to be good so things get done," he said.

Most importantly, Hawaii helped Ohr overcame a reservation that as an Asian-American "perhaps I was not fully an American," he said.

"If I did not start my career in Hawaii and have that kind of assurance and footing as a person, I highly doubt I'd be as fortunate as I am right now in what position I hold," he said. "If I stayed in Los Angeles, I would have gotten lost and still never had that assurance."
KevBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
slider643;842298436 said:

Here's the problem with your argument. You're all wound up about athletes not being paid. I guarantee you that many of your possessions are made by virtual slave labor in third world countries who are actual employees and who are being exploited far worse than college athletes. Yet you continue to support such inequity consciously. The only reason you are so wound up about college athletes is because they are high profile compared to indentured servitude in Malaysia.


That's not a problem with my argument.

I can recognize that there are worse injustices than anything I might be taking issue with at any given moment and that does absolutely nothing to the validity of my claims. This thing here is bad, even if there are other things elsewhere that are much worse. We don't deal with things in a line.

What does it matter if I'm doing nothing to help people in Malaysia? It has no bearing on the facts of this issue. I could be the grossest hypocrite in the world and it would not matter so long as the two sides of my hypocrisy are not causally linked.

Now, here's the problem with your argument: it does not respond to reason. It rests solely on the belief in the student-athlete paradigm, a paradigm that exists in big time college sports only as a sham. It is a belief whose validity you are not willing to subject to the rigors of empiricism.

College football players are supposed to be amateur student-athletes. Being committed to that principle, you refuse to address the practical respects in which they are demonstrably employees. That's what makes your position garbage, that you refuse to attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies. You have defined them as one thing and refuse to recognize the behavior that contradicts your definition.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KevBear;842298153 said:

Of course, since home owners do not receive their subsidies from Bank of America in exchange for services which are explicitly directed by Bank of America and from which Bank of America derives financial value, the comparison is daft.


Does this definition also apply to students on a music or theater scholarship? Those students get money from the university and are only eligible for that money if they perform certain services, as dictated by the university. Musical performances and plays charge for admission, and can lead to the department getting grants and donations. The university doesn't make as much off of them as they do off of football, but a business doesn't have to make money for its employees to be considered employees. If football players are employees, I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion that all students on scholarship are as well.
KevBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842298807 said:

Does this definition also apply to students on a music or theater scholarship? Those students get money from the university and are only eligible for that money if they perform certain services, as dictated by the university. Musical performances and plays charge for admission, and can lead to the department getting grants and donations. The university doesn't make as much off of them as they do off of football, but a business doesn't have to make money for its employees to be considered employees. If football players are employees, I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion that all students on scholarship are as well.


In all cases, we should look at the nature of the enterprise. I don't know anything about music or theater at universities, but we all know what football is at these schools. At this point, does anyone deny them as bonafide commercial enterprises? Massive and highly professionalized athletic administrations replete with corporate marketing staffs, coaches making millions of dollars, athletic infrastructure projects overwhelmingly centered around football and basketball whose costs range in the hundreds of millions of dollars--sure, scale isn't everything, but it's often a tell tale for purpose. Can your analogies of music and theater provide analogous characteristics here?

I don't think your comparison is completely inapt, but what I think you're missing here is the potential value of any remedy. Included in the argument made by football and basketball players is not only that the relationship between them and the university constitutes de facto employment, but that the denial of their status as employees has permitted the universities to suppress their market value. Given the size of the profits raked in by FBS football and Division I basketball schools, and considering the fact that the cost of scholarships represents a far smaller slice of the revenue pie for FBS football and D1 basketball programs than player salaries do for their professional counterpart leagues, that suppression is an easy case to make.

Can music and theater students make the same case? Does the financial value of their talents even make the university a net profit when the cost of their scholarships are applied against the revenue they bring in?
KevBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Darby;842298421 said:

If the student athletes are employees then so are the straw hat band, rally comm and all other students actively involved in IA. That is a ridiculous idea on it's face.


No, as I explained in the other thread--and you never replied to this--the straw hat band, rally com and other students involved in IA do not receive scholarships for their participation. There is no quid pro quo. They are not members of the commercial enterprise.

Darby said:

The simple truth, which you are ignoring in pursuit of your stick it to The Man hobby, is that jocks have not been scholars since the beginning of time. That fact of human nature has nothing to do with billion dollar TV contracts. It was a fact long before we were here and it will still be a fact when we are dead and gone.


And? This bears on the argument how?

Darby said:

It is clear by the comments I see that those pushing the deconstruction of modern FB/BB simply do not have the best interest of the student athletes in mind. They are simply uncomfortable with the large amount of money now involved in modern sports. They really don't care about the lost opportunities that will result from massively increasing the cost of revenue sports. The end result of all this pay for play would be a whole lot of lower income kids not getting educational opportunities they now get. So what. Right?


Paternalism is how exploitation is often excused. "Because I know what's best for you" is not a valid reason to deny an adult something they are principally entitled to.

And as for my motives: you really have no idea what they are, but they do not matter. Neither do yours. Being well meaning does not make someone correct, nor does being ill-intentioned make someone wrong.
59bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think the NCAA's policing of its membership is necessarily bad. Isn't that the way most professional organizations (e. g., ABA, AMA) operate? I do agree that much of the corruption we see in college athletics exists because of the huge amounts of money generated by football and men's basketball. Certainly sharing more of it with the athletes is one way to address abuses in the system but might that not simply open the door to a new set of issues? I suppose what I really can't reconcile myself to is the notion that colleges will take on the mantle of employer of student athletes. I've been a fan of college football and basketball for nearly 70 years and I'd like for there to be a way for it to continue much as it has (minus exploitation of the athletes). Unhappily, it probably require changes that are unlikely to happen (e. g., reversion to club sport status without scholarships) to get the genie back in the bottle. I think there is a real possibility we will see schools eliminate the sports.
slider643
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KevBear;842298806 said:

That's not a problem with my argument.

I can recognize that there are worse injustices than anything I might be taking issue with at any given moment and that does absolutely nothing to the validity of my claims. This thing here is bad, even if there are other things elsewhere that are much worse. We don't deal with things in a line.

What does it matter if I'm doing nothing to help people in Malaysia? It has no bearing on the facts of this issue. I could be the grossest hypocrite in the world and it would not matter so long as the two sides of my hypocrisy are not causally linked.

Now, here's the problem with your argument: it does not respond to reason. It rests solely on the belief in the student-athlete paradigm, a paradigm that exists in big time college sports only as a sham. It is a belief whose validity you are not willing to subject to the rigors of empiricism.

College football players are supposed to be amateur student-athletes. Being committed to that principle, you refuse to address the practical respects in which they are demonstrably employees. That's what makes your position garbage, that you refuse to attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies. You have defined them as one thing and refuse to recognize the behavior that contradicts your definition.


There are no inconsistencies in my argument. They are student athletes. They are on scholarship. They are amateurs. Those are facts. You're entitled to your opinion that they are professionals, but that is not a fact. Frame it any way you want and it is still an opinion until they are deemed employees and are paid to play. When that happens, you and others can do all those wonderful things to unlock all the hidden value the players have and make money off of them while still paying them in a free market. Until that happens, you can rail all want, but it won't change that these are amateur student athletes on scholarship.

The Malaysia example is just to show your hypocrisy.
FiatSlug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842298807 said:

Does this definition also apply to students on a music or theater scholarship? Those students get money from the university and are only eligible for that money if they perform certain services, as dictated by the university. Musical performances and plays charge for admission, and can lead to the department getting grants and donations. The university doesn't make as much off of them as they do off of football, but a business doesn't have to make money for its employees to be considered employees. If football players are employees, I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion that all students on scholarship are as well.


You didn't read the NLRB ruling, did you? I say this because the NLRB ruling does, if somewhat indirectly, address the situation you describe.
FiatSlug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think that the policing relatinship you describe is necessarily bad, but it is chummy and, therefore, prone to corrupting influences. That's all I meant to imply.

Sharing revenue with football players-students is one possible solution to the current situation.

Another possible solution, as you note, is restoring balance in the schedules of these athletes so that we can honestly and with full understanding of their lives call them student-athletes (with emphasis on "student"). It is the right thing to do, even if it irrevocably changes college football. We're fooling ourselves if we allow the current situation to continue as it has for decades.

Will we see schools eliminate sports? It seems unavoidable. But remember, the current system is built upon exploitation of football players to generate revenues that fund other sports. Let's not forget that the situation that describes college football at Northwestern probably also almost certainly applies to college basketball (both men's and women's I would think). Does it apply to other sports? I don't know. But that's not the problem at the moment, is it?

America shouldn't tolerate injustice. Especially when we're talking about injustice in the name of entertainment. America should be better than this.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FiatSlug;842298927 said:

I don't think that the policing relatinship you describe is necessarily bad, but it is chummy and, therefore, prone to corrupting influences. That's all I meant to imply.

Sharing revenue with football players-students is one possible solution to the current situation.

Another possible solution, as you note, is restoring balance in the schedules of these athletes so that we can honestly and with full understanding of their lives call them student-athletes (with emphasis on "student"). It is the right thing to do, even if it irrevocably changes college football. We're fooling ourselves if we allow the current situation to continue as it has for decades.

Will we see schools eliminate sports? It seems unavoidable. But remember, the current system is built upon exploitation of football players to generate revenues that fund other sports. Let's not forget that the situation that describes college football at Northwestern probably also almost certainly applies to college basketball (both men's and women's I would think). Does it apply to other sports? I don't know. But that's not the problem at the moment, is it?

America shouldn't tolerate injustice. Especially when we're talking about injustice in the name of entertainment. America should be better than this.


I'm all for paying someone $75,000 a year who work for the NCAA and is a compliance officer and player advocate at each NCAA D1 school. He or she makes sure that the players are being treated fairly and that their academic needs are fulfilled.

Recruiting windows should be minimized. Basically, the job exists to make sure that players are not being exploited, and the value of their degrees are not being diminished.
KevBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
slider643;842298867 said:

There are no inconsistencies in my argument. They are student athletes. They are on scholarship. They are amateurs. Those are facts.


In this entire exchange you have refused to address the logic behind the amateur/professional dispute. It's telling, because you have tried--and failed--to provide rationale for other parts of your argument, but when it comes to the issue of whether the players are de facto employees, you have nothing to offer. It casts suspicion on your ability to do so.

I'll go one step simpler: would you agree that a thing is what its properties and effects are, not what we call it?
slider643
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KevBear;842299224 said:

In this entire exchange you have refused to address the logic behind the amateur/professional dispute. It's telling, because you have tried--and failed--to provide rationale for other parts of your argument, but when it comes to the issue of whether the players are de facto employees, you have nothing to offer. It casts suspicion on your ability to do so.

I'll go one step simpler: would you agree that a thing is what its properties and effects are, not what we call it?


As I said before, you can make whatever arguments you want, they're still amateurs. Your desire to pay them doesn't change that. The amount of money that is being made off of their efforts doesn't change that. They signed on and agreed to be amateurs as defined by the NCAA. It's a choice they make. They're free to not take the scholarship and do something else with their lives.

There are no minor leagues for them, but that isn't the NCAA's problem. You and all the others who feel that collegiate athletes aren't receiving their fair market value can go and start the minor leagues for them. I'll be sure to short the company if they go public.

By your arguments, Little Leaguers should be paid because they make money for everyone involved in the LLWS. The damn greedy league and network won't pay the kids a damn thing. All they get is travel expenses and room and board for the duration of the tournament.
FiatSlug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
slider643;842299289 said:

By your arguments, Little Leaguers should be paid because they make money for everyone involved in the LLWS. The damn greedy league and network won't pay the kids a damn thing. All they get is travel expenses and room and board for the duration of the tournament.


Fat lot you know about Little League. There is no employer-employee relationship between the players and Little League.

Apples to oranges, sir.
KevBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
slider643;842299289 said:

As I said before, you can make whatever arguments you want, they're still amateurs. Your desire to pay them doesn't change that. The amount of money that is being made off of their efforts doesn't change that. They signed on and agreed to be amateurs as defined by the NCAA. It's a choice they make. They're free to not take the scholarship and do something else with their lives.

There are no minor leagues for them, but that isn't the NCAA's problem. You and all the others who feel that collegiate athletes aren't receiving their fair market value can go and start the minor leagues for them. I'll be sure to short the company if they go public.

By your arguments, Little Leaguers should be paid because they make money for everyone involved in the LLWS. The damn greedy league and network won't pay the kids a damn thing. All they get is travel expenses and room and board for the duration of the tournament.


I'm tired of answering your posts line by line without you giving me the courtesy of directly answering me. It's a simple question: would you agree that a thing is what its practical properties and effects are, not what we call it?
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FiatSlug;842298909 said:

You didn't read the NLRB ruling, did you? I say this because the NLRB ruling does, if somewhat indirectly, address the situation you describe.


Now I have. I looked around briefly, and it seems that (1) Cal band members don't get units for being in the band, and (2) there are scholarships (although not full scholarships) for select band members based on "excellence through performance and commitment to the organization," whatever that means. Band members are also encouraged to schedule classes around rehearsal times (anyone who knows can comment on how this may or may not be enforced), and being in the band requires a significant time commitment including but not limited to substantial travel, adherence to a code of conduct when traveling, the way they have to dress at these events, etc.

(1) means that being in the band doesn't advance your progress toward degree, which was a key component in the NLRB ruling. The exact nature of (2) determines how similar the cases are. Does anyone who was in the band know how this works? Are "excellence through performance and commitment to the organization" standards that you have to meet in order to receive these scholarships? Or do they just hand you a few thousand dollars and hope that you don't quit/flake out? If you are required to maintain a certain level of activity in order to receive your scholarship, I'm not sure that the cases differ appreciably, especially since the band makes money for the University according to several of the criteria brought up in the NLRB ruling; the school charges money for certain band events, such as pre-game alumni tail-gates, and the band increases alumni connections to the university and impacts giving rates. I found that with 45 seconds of googling, so can we assume that somewhere out there there are scholarships outside of athletics that put the recipient in the same status as a football player?

Of course none of this necessarily means that such a band member isn't an "employee." It does mean that some of the slippery-slope concerns over the future of non-football/basketball scholarships are worth discussing, though. For that matter, nothing in the NLRB differentiates football players from cross country runners as far as I can tell.
slider643
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FiatSlug;842299309 said:

Fat lot you know about Little League. There is no employer-employee relationship between the players and Little League.

Apples to oranges, sir.


Just like in college athletics. Thank you.
FiatSlug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
slider643;842299372 said:

Just like in college athletics. Thank you.


Well, no one can prevent you from being actively wrong, so I guess I should stop trying.
FiatSlug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842299326 said:

Now I have. I looked around briefly, and it seems that (1) Cal band members don't get units for being in the band, and (2) there are scholarships (although not full scholarships) for select band members based on "excellence through performance and commitment to the organization," whatever that means. Band members are also encouraged to schedule classes around rehearsal times (anyone who knows can comment on how this may or may not be enforced), and being in the band requires a significant time commitment including but not limited to substantial travel, adherence to a code of conduct when traveling, the way they have to dress at these events, etc.

(1) means that being in the band doesn't advance your progress toward degree, which was a key component in the NLRB ruling. The exact nature of (2) determines how similar the cases are. Does anyone who was in the band know how this works? Are "excellence through performance and commitment to the organization" standards that you have to meet in order to receive these scholarships? Or do they just hand you a few thousand dollars and hope that you don't quit/flake out? If you are required to maintain a certain level of activity in order to receive your scholarship, I'm not sure that the cases differ appreciably, especially since the band makes money for the University according to several of the criteria brought up in the NLRB ruling; the school charges money for certain band events, such as pre-game alumni tail-gates, and the band increases alumni connections to the university and impacts giving rates. I found that with 45 seconds of googling, so can we assume that somewhere out there there are scholarships outside of athletics that put the recipient in the same status as a football player?

Of course none of this necessarily means that such a band member isn't an "employee." It does mean that some of the slippery-slope concerns over the future of non-football/basketball scholarships are worth discussing, though. For that matter, nothing in the NLRB differentiates football players from cross country runners as far as I can tell.


And yet there's no demonstration that being a band member requires a time commitment that exceeds that of being a student.

Further, the band is a voluntary organization. A student's status as a member of the band will not impinge upon their status as a student, unlike a scholarship football player.

Also, University staff does not book the Marching Band; the Student Director performs that function. Indeed, the Band is a student-run organization. So, oversight is by the students themselves.

I think it would be hard to show an employer-employee relationship in this instance.
59bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Football is a voluntary activity for some, perhaps all if you consider the player has to voluntarily accept the scholarship offer for it to be granted. Presumably there are 2 classes of football players under this ruling: 1) scholarship players who are employees and 2) non-scholarship players who are not employees.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.