The Northwestern football players voted in accordance with the NLRB's allowance to do so, but for now the ballots were impounded until the board reaches a final decision to side with the players right to unionize. Very historic vote, but this will most likely be a very long process. Link: http://espn.go.com/chicago/college-football/story/_/id/10833981/northwestern-football-players-poised-historic-vote-whether-unionize
OT: NU players vote, ballots seized for now
I also hope that today's news re: McGary shows people that the interests of the fans and the interests of players are mostly the same. We fans will have better teams to watch if players want to be in college. And they'll want to be in college if they get more out of it and aren't treated like children.
...I would gladly put up with that for an improvement on the current system. The NCAA needs to be broken and driven into the sea, and the earth upon which it stood needs to be salted.
Do you really want to root for a sport that athletes want to leave as soon as they can and in which they're lives are potentially run off track because their behavior violates the code of ethics of people like Mark Emmert? The NCAA, NBA, and NFL are going to keep screwing kids unless they organize.
You realize that the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL all have CBA's in place that allow them to "run [players] off track if their behavior violates the code of ethics" of their commissioners, right? Just because Northwestern unionizes doesn't mean that someone on the other side isn't going to start demanding certain things in return for giving the players other things.
Unionization isn't going to fix anything for the players. It is just going to make them have to decide what things are most important to them, just like every other player's association in every major sport. My guess is that at some point, they would tackle the money question, and after that, negotiations will all be about much money it will take in order to offset the other working conditions they don't like.
NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL players don't lose entire seasons for testing positive for marijuana once.
Your point about unionization not fixing anything for players is belied by the history of the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL. Players became much better off as unions became stronger.
But the premise of your argument is that the current system is somehow better for the student-athletes even though there is little evidence other than those put forth by the NCAA.
I'm all for students getting a better situation out of it, but some people talk like unionization is going to magically fix what is broken, and students will get everything they deserve without having to give anything up.
Unionizing just means that they get to negotiate for what they want. There is going to be another side to that coin as well. Players want full medical coverage and guaranteed scholarships? The university is going to ask for something in return, we just don't know what it is going to be.
I think the players will get to a better situation, no matter which way the unionization thing goes, but they might lose a few things as well. Especially once money gets added to the equation.
and I particularly like your last sentence because its a feeling I've had for many years about the way I was treated in college...well, the AF Academy. You were expected to act like an adult, but we were always treated like children. Same thing here.
Summed up my feelings perfectly. Change is coming, the NCAA is a joke right now.
and not paying adjuncts a living wage, and they decide that they shouldn't be doing that, what exactly do you think happens?
The connection between college football and college is that football was an extracurricular activity for students and its become this astronomical enterprise. Once athletes are essentially deemed employees who have to take classes as part of their job, there's a blatant disregard for the reason these universities exist in the first place.
I know you can argue that this is kind of the case now, but once it's out in the open I expect you'll see private universities, especially ones losing money on football, consider dropping it. It's hard to justify an academic institution losing money so that they can have a professional football team.
It strikes me as pretty ridiculous to think that the end of exploitation of football players is going to be the thing that makes tenured and tenure-track faculty do something about adjuncts.
It'll just hurt football.
Oh, I see. I misunderstood your post--my bad. It's pretty obvious what you meant in context.
They won't do anything to help adjuncts.
They will use it as a reason to hurt athletic departments though.
A school like Bowling Green could chose to pay its players or not. Players could then go there knowing they would or wouldn't be paid. If BG doesn't pay, it will have a hard time competing in recruiting against teams that do, but BG can't compete with those teams in recruiting now.
Which is fine. You're also not talking about my point regarding the reasons that universities exist and how paying for a professional football team doesn't really jive with the mission of colleges. Universities don't exist to act as proxies for sports teams and the academic side is going to have a big problem if that's the direction this all goes.
That ship sailed long ago, as you somewhat acknowledge. Paying players (or even simply giving them better insurance) would just make the current system more equitable. I don't have any sympathy for a professor being pushed over the brink re: sports b/c players are payed - not when Nick Saban already makes north of $5 million per year.
BGSU mostly gets players that couldn't get a scholorship, or afford to walk on to a more prestigious school.
McGary situation when they were voting. Northwestern and the NCAA may have gotten a lucky break. I have to believe this would sway a few opinions.
Why not release the results of the vote? If they vote now then the NLRB can drop the case and NW carries on as usual. If they vote yes then the NLRB and NW knows what is in store in terms of the process.
It's a Heisenberg uncertainty issue: knowledge of the result changes things. Either way.
The cat's dead, and the NCAA killed it.
1.the principle that the momentum and position of a particle cannot both be precisely determined at the same time.
Once it gets appealed, it's no longer really about resolving the specific case, it's about setting precedent for colleges across the country. The NLRB's decision will potentially change the way everywhere can work. Even if NW voted no, the NLRB would have to continue with the case.
But if they voted no they can let NW know and still come up with there precedent without keeping NW in limbo.
In addition to the fact that the knowledge of how it would play out changes things, there's also a precedent of organizations retaliating against people attempting to unionize and by keeping the vote secret, if the ruling is overturned there's no reason to retaliate when nobody knows if they voted no.
The "long process" is good for the players no matter how they voted. I'm agnostic about what is best for them, but the specter of "They may have voted to unionize!" Will continue to hang over the NCAA and continue to drive the sweeping changes we are already seeing. If they voted "no" and the result was revealed, this would all die down. But the ballots are seized, so the fear is still there.
It's further evidence that Brians' "people in charge of things are just in charge of them, for no reason" line is accurate.
Since it's in the title, I'd correct it.
and methinks a ninja MOD fixed it. I went in to do so and it was already done. *FREAKED out man...
Unionize and force change.
There were also several pieces in varioua publications that documented how Northwestern has spent substantial time and effort in what could be described as a marketing blitz of sorts to get players to vote against the union. From what I saw, it seems like what they did was tweak the old arguments that have always been put forth in other situations - rising costs, the threat of the businesses (i.e., programs, in this case) leaving altogether, trying to frame the school as the party with their best interests in mind, etc... - as the basis for their own campaign against the prospect. It also involved Pat Fitzgerald writing personal letters to players and their families at one point, I believe.
Fitzgerald, or any other coach, should keep completely out of it. They're already paid a handsome sum of money...they don't need to be perceived being mixed up in a situation that they already benefit from.
This looks bad:
Coach A: You kids shouldn't try to get better healthcare or more spending money...BTW, you putting your health on the line by playing football lets me make 2.5 million dollars per year. So thanks for that.
If what happened to McGary today didn't make it clear that the players need to unionize, I don't know what will. The NCAA is a fucking joke and needs to be fought against at every turn.
All you people in favor of the union are ok with being able to fire player as well? In the real world when employees don't perform well, they are fired.
First of all, that happens in the world of college football now, too, it just doesn't happen in the middle of a one-year scholarship agreement.
Second, a union would be able to negotiate the terms of dismissal to some degree, so at a minimum the terms would likely be more favorable than they are now.
Third, the NCAA recently changed policy to allow multi-year scholarships, precisely to reduce the likelihood of termination for poor athletic performance. They haven't universally caught on, but that fact that the current rules allow them would certainly be a bargaining point in union negotiations, related to my second point above.
Fourth, schools that routinely try to dump players for not living up to expected athletic potential would hurt themselves in recruiting, unless those schools happen to be called "Alabama".
How would it hurt them with recruiting? A school is paying the kid to perform well. If he doesn't perform well he deserves to be fired. What kid isn't competitive enough to be ok with that?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. If I were a parent of a kid being recruited by D1 schools I would push him towards the best commitment from the coach and school I trusted the most.
oh really? i never knew that a college player could lose his scholorship because he wasn't performing the way the program wanted them to.. oh wait they do that all of the time.
furthermore. what kind of ridiculous comment is "the real world"? i hate to break it to you, but we are always in the real world.
I absolutely despise unions.
that is certianly your opinion, and you are welcome to it. but just because someone like you, or an organization that makes millions of dollars off it's non-union employees despises unions doesn't mean they shouldn't, or can't exist.
Then they bargain for the school to give them something like lifetime medical insurance and a $250/mo stipend. Is there anything that stops the NCAA from just declaring the entire team ineligible?
I look forward to the day that a university cuts someones scholarship because they aren't performing at their expectation and the cries of "It's not fair" starts. Im all for the NCAA getting their nuts kicked, but this isn't the boot that should do it. If this fails and the NCAA comes around and treats the players the way they should, I think that'll be a very good thing.
Then again, it may come down to schools paying their players and that puts Michigan in a prime spot as one of the top income universities in the nation.