alternate headline: man does job
we're going to have a picture of Kain Colter at this press conference from ALL THE ANGLES
BiSB's terrific post earlier today covers much of the ground I wanted to, except from a lawyer who actually knows what he's talking about. I did want to put my two cents in, because approximately 74% of the comments I've read in the aftermath of the NLRB's decision make me want to find the person and shake them, shouting something along the lines of "HAVE YOU EVER MADE A COHERENT ARGUMENT IN YOUR GODDAMNED LIFE?!?"
So let's address these things. These are actual MGoBlog user comments. I'd say I'm sorry if I picked yours, but I'm not.
THIS IS THE END
I could definitely see Northwestern arguging that football athletes shouldn't get special treatment over all the other sports, etc and just dropping it the way Chicago did.
So… your theory is that Northwestern will drop football, get kicked out of the Big Ten, lose about 99% of their athletics revenue, and pay for its nonrevenue sports out of its own pocket because the football players have the right to collectively bargain. The people making this decision will be throwing away countless hours of free marketing, making their school less attractive to prospective students, and essentially firing themselves.
Wow. Stupid. So long college sports as we know it.
"So long the Olympics as we know it." –this guy, 1992
No way is the third string back-up tackle as valuable as Jake Ryan or Devin Gardner. Why should a guy who contributes little to victory receive the same level of pay that a Gardner does?
Also, this will basically destroy the MAC and other small schools. They don't have the budget to negotiate anything. I foresee schools dropping football or going to non-scholarship.
This is an argument that the future system might be unfair because it treats all athletes the same when some of them are worth more than others. I'm sure if we think about this very hard for a very long time I can come up with a flaw in that.
The MAC may not be able to provide the same sort of financial support that bigger schools can. This will undoubtedly crater their recruiting, which features many head-to-head wins against the Big Ten.
Won't this cripple many athletic departments and force them to drop sports? Perhaps not Michigan, but schools of lesser stature?
Maryland recently dropped several sports.
There are broad swathes of schools playing NCAA sports, and most of them are going to be completely unaffected by this decision. To be an employee you have to be involved in economic activity, and most NCAA schools are spending, not making money. The top and vast bottom are going to be fine. There is a middle tier of schools that face a choice between narrowing their focus to keep up with the Joneses and abandoning their dreams of being Louisville.
The problem is: they already face that choice. They run with a D-I minimum of sports and throw their resources at the revenue generators. This won't "cripple" them any more than their already short resources do.
Maryland dropped several sports because it was run by an idiot, a problem orthogonal to this discussion.
if this decision stands they will have just walked tens of thousands of student athletes right out of college sports. title IX will be effectively gutted. your daughter that wanted to row/field hockey/basketball, etc, kiss that good bye. your son who wanted to play a sport that really doesn't generate revenue, say gymnastics, wrestling, and track, well that's all done too. nice job [insert expletives here].
There are 311 Division II institutions that make zero money on sports. There are 449 D III institutions. There are hundreds—thousands—of D-II and D-III field hockey, rowing, basketball, gymnastics, wrestling, and track programs. The chance that a high revenue program that has to deal with a player union is forced to drop sports is very low, and the overall number of opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics is not likely to change in any significant way.
And even if it did, I don't think there's any compelling reason to privilege generally wealthy nonrevenue athletes over the general student population and especially the relatively poor and underprivileged revenue athletes.
IT'S ALREADY FAIR
The athletes do not draw in the money. The name does. Michigan Football brings in the revenue. I didn't watch Denard any more closely than Sheridan. I don't watch Derrick Walton more often than Darius Morris. Have you ever said you were going to stop tuning in because a player left? Probably not, so it's not the players drawing in the money. The coaches play a big role, because they determine which players get recruited and how well the team performs (more fans watched Beilein than Amaker, for example).
Lots of players come and go every year, and the amount of revenue is not affected.
The hell you say. Traffic patterns during the last two football seasons here certainly indicate a correlation between success and engagement, and while football teams have a pile of goodwill built up all you have to do is look at ticket availability at Minnesota versus Wisconsin, or Northwestern, or Purdue, or Indiana to get an idea that the players make the name over a long period of time. If Michigan had a string of 3-9 seasons over the last 30 years, Michigan Stadium would be a decaying half-full wreck.
Meanwhile, I note you compared Derrick Walton to… uh… Darius Morris. I will expect a full report on the details of Gavin Groninger's career by Tuesday, in exacting detail.
So a 4 year full ride scholarship is not getting paid? This concept is a mockery of the system.
It may or may not be a 4 year full ride, and that full ride is not like getting an engineering degree (most of the time—I see you, Jordan Morgan). Many of the kids coming in are under-prepared to get a meaningful degree and have to spend 50 hours a week year round on their chosen sport. For many the value of their degree is approximately zero, both in terms of vocational knowledge gained and their ability to apply that to a real world job.
This is not because they did not "take advantage of their opportunity." It is because the opportunity was to play football and the rest of it was window dressing.
— Robert Klemko (@RobertKlemko) March 26, 2014
Also, CAPA was arguing that the scholarship is payment. The issue is that these players are compensated, making them employees, and the NCAA illegally colludes to cap compensation at a certain amount. That is not legal.
And the system is a mockery of you, man.
It's not free labor, they pay them in the form of education, meals, $1,200 month stipend, etc. Nobody is telling these kids that they can't go to college unless they play football, they can take the normal route and get student loans and be a normal student. That's what grinds my gears about the whole thing.
They are telling them that this is the deal, take it or leave it, if you want to get to the NFL. And oh by the way as you're embarking on your probably-failed quest to have an NFL career that's going to be about 3 years long even if you do make it, we are going to make millions of dollars off your single outstanding skill.
It is ludicrous that everyone in college is all about getting theirs and we bristle at the idea of the players doing the same. Any moral high ground the NCAA had—and they did try to cap assistant pay back in the day—is 20 years gone.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DETAILS
I wonder what cut the IRS will get from these Unionized employees
lets say 50000 a year for tuition, food, room, board, books and everything else
thats 50000 x .25 since thats 25 percent tax bracket = 12500 taxes
12500 x 4 = 50000 taxes owed
good luck kid
This was capably addressed by BiSB: the NLRB has nothing to do with the IRS and vice versa, and even if it did the way the law is currently written athletic scholarships should already be taxable. If anything, negotiating a provision that the scholarship still applies even if the player leaves the team puts the non-taxability of scholarship on more solid footing. Meanwhile, room and board money is already taxed.
What happens when needs aren't met? Strike? What happens then?
What prevents players from sitting down now?
If the medical benefits, etc. that these players want really comes to fruition, what is that going to do to ticket prices? The schools are going to try to come up with some sort of calculations as to what these new benefits to the players is going to cost and almost certainly try to figure out where the money is going to come from to fund the new player benefits. Odds are it's going to be the consumer (ie - fans) that are going to be asked to help fund the new player benefits.
If ticket prices had any relationship to the cost of supporting the athletic department they would not have quadrupled in real dollars since 2000. If NCAA athletic departments were not trying to wring out every last dime they can already, Rutgers and Maryland would not be joining the Big Ten next year to the outrage of 90% of current Big Ten fans. If athletic departments could not afford to shift some of their money towards the athletes under their care, coaching salaries would not have gone up 70% since 2006.
Does this mean that Northwestern can fire all of their underperforming players and replace them with better ones now?
THEY CAN ALREADY DO THIS. HAVE YOU EVER READ THIS BLOG?
Colter pulled a hamstring during this press conference
If you hadn’t heard, Northwestern’s football players won a court thingy yesterday. NLRB Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr ruled that Northwestern’s players meet the definition of employees, and can therefore form a union if they wish. You can read the ruling here, but why do that when I can summarize it for you with amusing banter?
Bring in the inquisitive bolded alter-ego!
Hey, you can’t tell me what to do. You’re not my boss.
Well that’s the question, isn’t it?
God you are insufferable. Okay, fine. I’ll play your game. GEE WHIZ, WHAT HAPPENED?
Well, to understand fully, we need to go back to 1935…
…when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act. Under the NLRA, private sector employees have the right to join unions and to collectively bargain for stuff like wages, salary, better candy in the vending machines, and for the boss to stop using words like “synergy” and “Tiger Team.” The catch is that it only applies to employees. The NLRA, for example, doesn’t give students the right to form a union. A person is an “employee” if they perform services in exchange for payment, and are under that person’s control. What the NLRB regional board ruled was that Northwestern’s players do football stuff for Northwestern, as directed by Northwestern* (in the form of the coaches), and in return are compensated with a scholarship and things. In short, Northwestern’s football players are employees of the University.
*other than the defensive secondary, which the NLRB noted “did not seem to understand what a ‘deep half’ was supposed to look like, and displayed an utter disregard for the coaches’ directions to, quote, ‘just look for the other color jersey and guard someone, anyone, goddammit.’”
But the players aren’t paid. They just got to go to school for free and eat some free food and stuff. How are they any different than a normal scholarship student who does biology things the way the biology department says?
That was the University’s main argument. They claimed that the players were more like Graduate Assistants, who aren’t considered employees under a previous NLRB decision (Brown University, 342 NLRB 483 (2004)). The court said that the difference was that GAs aren’t employees because their relationship to their various universities is primarily educational. In other words, your PoliSci GA is simultaneously teaching and studying PoliSci, so they don’t count him as an employee for the teaching part.
The ‘work’done by football players, on the other hand, is completely unrelated to the educational mission of the school and to the athletes’ studies. The university doesn’t get any educational advancement from what football players do (though Northwestern seriously tried to make the argument that playing sports enriches the student experience, and sports are therefore educational, which is exactly as bad of an argument as it sounds).
Instead the school receives gigantic piles of money from what football players do. The school’s interest is economic, not educational. Moreover, they said that the players are not “primarily students,” as they spend up to 50-60 hours per week** on football duties.
Cool to see so many people excited about education
**Real hours. No one other than the NCAA gives a flying crap about the hilarious differentiation between “countable hours” and “non-countable hours.” Mike Rosenberg still sucks.
[AFTER THE JUMP: More union talk. Plus a Sad Pat Fitzgerald GIF]
Both of these teams swept Tennessee. One is good. One is not.
Tennessee is such a strange team—capable of beating Virginia by 35 or getting swept by Texas A&M—that a look at a game or two of film seemed like a potentially huge waste of time. Instead, I went through the box scores and available highlights of each of the Volunteers's 12 losses in an effort to find some common threads. Without further ado, here's the breakdown of each game, with a Michigan-centric overview at the end of the post.
All rankings reflect the current KenPom standings, which have Tennessee at #6.
#59 XAVIER 67, TENNESSEE 63 (Nov. 12, Away)
Key Tennessee stats: 16/38 2-pt, 8/19 3-pt, 7/19 FT, 35% OR, 17% TO
Key Xavier stats: 24/46 2-pt, 2/8 3-pt, 13/24 FT, 41% OR, 25% TO
Breakdown: Xavier led wire-to-wire in Tennessee's season opener despite missing two starters. They were helped by terrible shooting inside the arc by the Vols, as well as significant foul trouble for Tennessee's two bigs—Jarnell Stokes fouled out in 20 minutes and Jeronne Maymon had four fouls in 27. Xavier exploited this by generating a ton of shots inside the arc and rebounding far better than Tennessee's opponents normally do. The Volunteer bench, meanwhile, scored just six points in 57 minutes of playing time. Score one for "get the bigs in foul trouble" as a huge key to beating UT.
#96 UTEP 78, TENNESSEE 70 (Nov. 28, Neutral Site)
Key Tennessee stats: 19/42 2-pt, 3/21 3-pt, 23/39 FT, 54% OR, 21% TO
Key UTEP stats: 26/40 2-pt, 3/10 3-pt, 17/26 FT, 23% OR, 19% TO
Breakdown: Once again, shooting struggles got Tennessee into an early hole. Once again, foul trouble didn't help, as Maymon fouled out of this one in 22 minutes — he'd been bad anyway, going 1/6 from the field. I don't know if there's much to analyze from this, especially from Michigan's perspective. The Vols shot poorly enough that rebounding over half their misses didn't help much, and UTEP is one of the tallest teams in the country—they played five players standing at least 6'8" for 10+ minutes in this game.
[Hit THE JUMP for ten more losses and my takeaways from a Michigan perspective.]
Hey, look, a recruit. Now that the drought...
So the Spring Game is in a week. What should we be looking...
You have heard tell of the Beilein Factor, a bracket variable mathematically expressed as "" that allegedly extends the tourney life of Beilein-coached teams. Do you believe in ? What causes ? Is it more dangerous to meet a -factor team where 's time to prepare for you > 5 days, or is the converse true, wherein <2 days to prepare for = greater chance of tournament death?
Brian: We are dealing with small sample sizes here, but since it's all we have to go on... yeah, there does seem to be something about meeting John Beilein in the tournament that makes things go poorly for their opponents.
|Theory: If you'd never seen the 1-3-1 and were expecting to play the Mountaineers' 1st round opponent, it can be tough to crack it in 2 days of practice. [Courtesy WVU Sports Communications]|
Before his Michigan days, you could chalk that up to the weirdness of coming up against the 1-3-1 zone. The easy theory was that conference opponents had a grasp on how to attack it and few others did. Ditto getting Pittsnogled. While it's more common these days, a decade ago the specter of a 6'11" guy raining on you was enough to create a verb.
These days Beilein runs man to man and Dirk Nowitski exists, so big guys who can shoot are just uncommon, not insane. I mean, MSU--the platonic opposite of Beilein basketball--has two bigs who shoot threes. And yet, Beilein has taken Michigan to the tourney five times, solidly exceeding expectations three of those times with one first-round upset and the fifth still pending.
The reasons are a bit more obscure these days, other than the usual "John Beilein is a genius seriously" tag. The general difficulty of getting everything covered in Beilein's offense of cuts and reads and options is a large part of it, of course. The other part is player development. Michigan guys get a lot better, and while the leaps are most notable between seasons that unusual rate of improvement is happening throughout the year. Michigan teaches constantly, and by the end of the year they're incrementally better than the teams they played early in the season are.
That's my best guess, anyway.
[Jump for more guesses]
Aaand Alex Guptill took about 30 seconds to follow Phil Di Giuseppe out the door:
— Mark Edwards (@MarkEdwardsHP) March 26, 2014
Guptill was the bar-none most frustrating player I can remember in 15 years of Michigan hockey. Talent coming out his ears that he displayed on nearly every shot; a useless slug without the puck. The former saw him score about a PPG for his career. The latter made Red scratch him on the regular despite the PPG thing. I thought that having Copp as his center would force him into something approximating defensive responsibility. This was not the case.
You can directly trace this season's failure to reach the tournament to Guptill cluelessly poking his stick in the general direction of a Penn State player he had every opportunity to stop from having a breakaway and did not. One Penn State goal later they were back in a game they would later win in OT. That specifically prevented Michigan from reaching the tournament and emblematically represented the lack of give-a-shit that characterized Guptill's career, an attitude that bled over into various other players on the team.
I'll miss that guy's hands. Not so much the rest of his game. Next year will be a fascinating test to see how extreme the anti-leadership emanating from the two departures was.
Winger Phil Di Giuseppe has signed with Carolina:
Michigan's Phil Di Giuseppe has signed with the Carolina Hurricanes, voiding his final year of eligibility.
— Michael Spath (@Spath_Wolverine) March 26, 2014
It's something of a blow to lose a senior-to-be who had a 13-11-24 line and some talent, but I'm putting together a post on the hockey team that inevitably looks at what they should have next year and it's obvious that Michigan was anticipating some attrition. PDG in particular was the subject of OHL rumors after his first year and never really seemed that into the whole Michigan thing.
Ah, hell. Might as well say it: whatever problems Michigan had that caused Red to say that this team had underachieved and it drove him nuts fall squarely on the scoring-line type wingers who were outpaced by Copp, Motte, and Compher not only in the scoring department but the defensive responsibility one. Unfortunately, Michigan doesn't have a Corsi stat or anything like that so your one potential indicator of defensive GAF is blocked shots. And that's pretty stark. Compher + Copp: 56. Moffatt + Guptill + PDG: 32.
Attempts at stats fail. The eyeball test had me groaning about giving a crap for large sections of the year. Whatever culture issues the team has seem centered in an older cohort, and I'm not sure losing them is much of a blow. And now I don't have to figure out how to spell his name 50 times a year.
Michigan is still waiting on a decision from Guptill; no one else seems like a likely departure.