How about the ~200 D1 schools that don't make money?
Then they'll probably remain at the same competitive deficit that they've always been at. I mean, EMU never really competed with UM or Alabama for talent, and that's okay. Maybe they're scholarship packages look less appealing, but it's all relative. Yes, Jabrill Peppers wouldn't even consider going to, I don't know, Kent St. without some additional scholarship money, but it's not like he considered those schools when the scholarships were theoretically all the same. The argument being made that "how are schools going to keep up" died decades ago when bowl sponsorships, TV money, stadium revenue, etc. really took hold and schools with wealthy alumni and big endowments started investing even more heavily into facilities and other factors that encourage teenage boys to want to play a game for them every Saturday or a couple nights a week in front of thousands of paying fans. I'm sure it will suck for Boise St. that they can't offer a kid as much as USC financially, but they'll just need to double down on other benefits (more playing time, more appealing offensive/defensive philosophy, better coaching, etc.), the same as they've been doing for years.
Well if its a union there is a set amount of additional cost that will have to be paid for every revenue athlete.
What you are referring to is more of a free market (which is what some of the current lawsuits are about but this topic is specifically about the unionization of college athletes).
So if the college football players unionize and collectively bargin for an overall increase of $10,000 per student (for whatever those costs may be) a team which is currently losing money (like EMU) will be forced to find $850,000 putting them more in the hole. The most likely scenario is non-revenue athletes losing their scholarships.
To me it just isn't acceptable for someone to lose what might be their only chance at school because someone else wants extra spending money. And maybe this makes me a terrible person but I don't really care if that is "fair" or not.
That said I am completely on board with the health care part of it as well as the scholarship continance for players who get injured, which again no one can produce a single example of that ever not happening.
Relevant fact: there is not going to be one big union bargaining with the NCAA over issues like compensation. There are plenty of unions of university employees in this country, and they operate on a school by school basis. If you ignore that fact about how unions will work, you will have a hard time coming to a reasonable view of the matter.
\calm
Most unionized university employees are either:
1) AFSCME - a national union
2) AAUP - a national "trade association"
While they "negotiate" on a school by school basis, they are national organizations and the various "chapters" DO work together.
Reply to Jon06. Sorry misclicked you instead.
If they are not in the same union negotiating the same benefits then it turns into a total pay for play system. Every year the schools will up their "compensation" and try to one-up all their rivals paying more and more to incoming college freshmen that haven't done a single thing to prove they earn it.
You would be better off just removing all NCAA rules and letting the boosters pay the kids.
"I don't buy that taking a percentage out of the two largest revenue sports to compensate the players in those two sports will negatively affect any of the other sports."
Less than half of D1 football teams turn a profit.
Most D1 basketball teams lose money.
In 2011-12, athletics programs at 23 of 228 Division I public schools generated enough money from media rights contracts, ticket sales, donations and other sources (not including subsidies from institutional or government support or student fees) to cover their expenses.
The athletic department couls stop sponsoring the rowing team because they do not provide an economic benefit. People aren't dumb, the rowing team won't push for a salary.
Very simply, Wolverine Devotee, because what you're imagining is just not how this union thing works. Don't get confused by the naysayers here. If student-athletes at any given school form a union, they'll have a seat at the table to negotiate with the school. The NCAA will be forced to reform its bylaws so that schools have room to negotiate. But having a seat at the table is not the same thing as being able to demand money in a way that anybody has to care about, especially if you have no claim to that money.
I don't know if a players' union is the answer, but the NCAA needs some institutional reform. As this video and this blog point out quite frequently, the NCAA consistently makes unfair, bizarre decisions that hurt innocent people in significant ways. Furthermore,there are systemic problems that are clearly anathema to the idea of a student-athlete (e.g. over-signing by a large number of programs).
College sports become pro....Ill have to watch more high school. Will not watch professional sports....school affiliated or not.