College Players Union - No $$ Discussion
So the existing college players union thread seems to have gone straight to the "Theyre already paid" vs. " but Delany makes BILLIONS" argument, and I think the union goes deeper than that. Specifically, let's leave that money/stipend/pay-for-play discussion in the other thread and focus on what OTHER things NCAA athletes could attempt to bargain for.
Coulter commented that right now Athletes don't even have a seat at the bargaining table. Now, presumably, they will. If I'm an NCAA athlete I have a few things that I'd like to see:
1 - rewrite the LOI with protections for players. Currently LOIs are an extremely 1-way contract, as seen when Les Miles tells a kid who is moving into the dorms that he doesn't have a scholarship. I'd like to see universal transfer rules (eligible immediately if a coach leaves, able to go anywhere out-of-conference) and 4-5 year scholarships
2 - additional year of non-eligible scholarship education: All players get 1 additional year of tuition/room/board beyond their playing years (capped at 5 years). If the NCAA really is about educating college athletes, get them more education. If players are leaving for the pros doing what is best for them, keep them connected to their college and have the protection for the students if the pros doesn't work.
3 - streamlined compliance rules - seriously, bagels = OK, cream cheese = violation. Let's get some players in the room when those rules are being discussed.
4 - recruiting communication rules - same thing. Let the athletes discuss the rules as to how their lives will be changed.
Anything else? There are already practice time constraints. Should there be protections/benefits for interviews/photoshoots? How about player input on "countable hours"?
The players should have more of a voice over the rules of the game.
Working conditions are legitimate issues in collective bargaining. So a union could certainly bargain directly with their employer for changes to improve players' health and safety, such as game schedules and field conditions. But the NCAA isn't their employer.
March 26th, 2014 at 10:02 PM ^
This will kill football at any of the private institutions covered by the ruling, simply because it makes more sense for the NCAA and conferences to kick them out. I could only see ND and USC with a prayer of surviving as every-game-is-an-exhibition independents.
Its time for the well intentioned to stop and realize recreating the problem the NCAA was invented to solve isn't the answer. Paying players has been done. Caping coach, assistant and AD pay is a great start. Strongly reforming the rules to focus exclusively on acedemic and ametuerism violations comes next. Then actually enforcing the rules in an even handed manner and we're back to making progress. I certainly think the law can bend to have schools carry partial liabilty for injuries, but there's no need for a union to secure that.
March 27th, 2014 at 10:05 AM ^
of coaches and administrators? Pray tell, how did you get to there from a players right to bargain collectively, and why?
March 27th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
However, there is a NU: Northwestern University
That's like calling Michigan: MG
March 26th, 2014 at 10:16 PM ^
March 26th, 2014 at 10:40 PM ^
You are not required to join a union at any employer in any state. That is illegal. You have the right to associate as you please. In Right to Work states, employers and unions are free to enter into union security clauses as part of their CBAs. This ensures that all employees pay union dues as a condition of employment, but they still don't have to be union members to work. In RtW states, union security clauses are illegal.
March 26th, 2014 at 11:59 PM ^
March 27th, 2014 at 12:03 AM ^
March 27th, 2014 at 12:34 AM ^
I'm guessing a few of the reasons the players don't feel slighted might be:
1) Almost all Ivy League players know they aren't going to be a professional athlete. Thus, they truly are there to take advantage of the educational opportunities those institutions provide. Going to an Ivy League school provides them an opprtunity for a great education and the abiility to keep playing a sport they love.
2) They aren't playing in front of 70-90,000 people every saturday and seeing the univeristy/athletic program rake in millions of dollars in ticket and merchandising sales.
3) They aren't reading press clippings where the Ivy League commissioner is touting a new TV deal that was just negotiated and is going to generate 10-20 million in revenue for each school.
March 27th, 2014 at 10:30 AM ^
March 27th, 2014 at 12:37 AM ^
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.
March 27th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
Most of you know that the University of Chicago left what was then known as the Western Conference --- more commonly known as "the Big 10" --- immediately after WW II. The conference carried on with nine members for awhile. But Chicago's departure opened the door for STAEE, with strong support from a certain educational institution in Ohio, to enter the conference in 1949 as the newest 10th team.
The University of Chicago has not fielded a football team for almost 70 years. Has that fact in any way diminished Chicago's prestige or ability to attract top-caliber students? US News has it tied with Stanford as the fifth-best national university in the country. In this same list, NU is 12, Michigan is 28.
If universities are in fact compelled to recognize and bargain with football players over the terms and conditions of their employment as so-called student-athletes, some prestigious, private universities might conclude that the burdens of maintaining a football program outweigh the benefits, and either downgrade it or close it down. Of all the universities in the BIG, NU --- as several have already pointed out --- seems the most likely to do exactly that. Its academic prestige, like that of Chicago's, will in no way diminish; it will still attract top-quality students, many of whom won't give a flip if NU has a BCS-level football program or not. If NU now subsidizes the football program with general fund monies, it might suddenly have a few millions it could use to expand its educational mission. There'll be no football coaches to fight with the admissions office to allow entry to kids who otherwise would never set foot on the campus as students. And the students who actually matriculate at NU can play sports if they want to, but on either an intramural level or like the Ivy League, at a lower competitive level than previously: in other words, actual student-athletes.
So, Kain Colter and others, if this decision is affirmed, you might have wanted to be more careful about what you wished for. You might have ended up either greatly downgrading NU football or killing it altogether.
March 27th, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^
Although, to be fair, they are probably all actual "scholar-athletes."This sounds weird, but I'm genuinely curious: if players are now employees, and a school that's inclined to oversign pulls a scholarship from an otherwise eligible senior in favor of a freshman, would there be valid grounds for an age discrimination suit?