OT: Pat Fitzgerald Urges Against Union
Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald has come out against the union, and is urging his players to vote no April 25th. He had been silent since the issue began, and I assumed this meant he tacitly supported the effort. He does not.
Perhaps this board is tired of the debate, and no more may be necessary here, but from a football standpoint this seems a serious distraction. In the ESPN article there are quotes from QB Trevor Siemian and RB Venric Mark indicating they oppose the union, as well as senior center Brandon Vitabile. Division between a head coach and some of his players, versus a former QB and other of his players, on any issue, seems only likely to disrupt a common goal. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/college-football/story/_/id/10734087/pat-fit…
Well, not always, but I don't want to say anything to avoid getting into politics lol
but if he's against it he's not unbiased.
...but this much shouldn't be controversial: If you want a disinterested opinion on the wisdom of forming or joining a union, your boss is not a person you should be looking to.
His opinion might be interesting, it might be useful, it certainly might be worth hearing, but it won't be disinterested.
I hope NU has retained very capable labor counsel. I also hope Fitzgerald is the kind of leader who can also be told what to do.
Would it be a violation if NU decided to give players free football related health care for life after they couldn't play anymore? And signed a contract outside the NCAA LOI guaranteeing a 4 year scholarship? Then push for the cost of living scholarship money increase and they have met all of the players' demands.
And if free lifetime related healthcare after playing was against NCAA rules I'd love to see them implement it and dare the NCAA to stop them in the current culture of worry over football injuries.
My understanding of "the rules" boils down to this: a student athlete cannot receive a benefit related to their status as an athlete that a non-athlete student could not receive.
If you open up something that is "lifetime insurance covering any injury from when you are in college for free" every half-way intelligent person in college would sign up for it because why wouldn't they?
If you open up "student athletes get lifetime insurance covering any injury related to their sport for free" then they are getting some the normal student can't get and are getting it only because they play a sport.
My understanding anyway. Could be wrong.
What if it were made available to any student-athlete at the school playing intervollegiately in any sport whatsoever? Scholarship or non-scholarship, varsity or club?
If that doesn't go far enough, how about covering injuries suffered in intramural athletics as well?
That wouldn't change things all that much in practice because with few exceptions it's the scholarship athletes in the revenue sports that stand to lose future earnings when they get hurt. But it would make the benefit available to all, wouldn't it?
I personally am all for covering injuries related to playing sports so I don't really have a solution outside of that.
If we want to keep the "no benefit a non-athlete student can have" idea of the rule it becomes how much burden should we expect the schools to cover.
Revenue players = 100-150/year?
Non revenue players = 800-900/year?
Club/varsity = 1000s/year?
Obviously the universities, espeically the smaller ones, are going are going to either 1) fight each step due to cost or 2) cut club/non-revenue sports.
I don't really like 1 or 2.
Some schools already offer them and the Big Ten is on record recommending their schools do.
He's taking the University's line on this, and that's pretty much to be expected.
They earn those scholarships, it is far from "free" in my opinon.
but I never say I get a "free" income for the work I do. Your original comment down plays (in a subtle way) the work that goes into being a student athlete.
is that many people, despite earning paychecks, enjoy collectively bargaining for stuff like health care and workplace/safety standards.
Well, that's because unions already collectively bargained for those things. They're now considered non-negotiable.
I think he means terms laid out in employment legislation that sets the minimum standrads for health/safety and compensation. These minimum standards are a basis for a collective agreement. That is how it is in Canada at least :P
As someone who manages represented employees and himself came from those ranks, I don't know if you can say this as if it were universally true. Perhaps it is simply where you work or what end of the business you're part of, but from my own experience, we have represented employees that are leading safety, engineering and other initiatives and are happy to do it - we're happy that they are that engaged too. I deal with the same issues you do perhaps when it comes to labor relations, but I think you might be describing cultural issues endemic to your neck of the woods, not something that is true of the represented workforce everywhere.
It's also different for the top end students when they come out of high school. They can see which school is offering the best aid packages and scholarships. Football players are currently forced to accept the prearranged deal that the NCAA has set up.
And how is the 3 year ban from the NFL a NCAA issue?
If someone can convince that is the case I will totally be on board. Otherwise your compensation is your college education which has quite the value associated with it.
Forming a union is...not entitlement. I'm not even sure how you could reach that conclusion. Forming a union is leveling the playing field between individual workers, who have very little bargaining power and management, which has a great deal of bargaining power. It also provides a significant increase in quality of work life for every other employee within a city with a major employment union due to the competition for workers with the union shop.
i'm sorry. i'm confused. are you currently an athlete in a collegiate athletic program? because if not i cannot for the life of me figure out why you have such a strong opinion about something that you are not a part of.
i'm sorry. i'm confused. do you currently anything of vaule to add to this coversation? because if not i cannot for the life of me figure out why you have such a strong need to comment about something that you are not a part of.
Saying the only people who are allowed to have an opinion are athletes and the schools is silly. We are after all on a discussion board where people are going to, oh I don't know, discuss their opinions?
Now I get it.
But when I saw the OP title, thought Fitzgerald was a secessionist and/or anarchist.
Kain Colter's body lies a-moulderin' on the field
FOOTBAW
Outside the fray
above the fray
not involved in a particular argument The president will try to stay above the political fray.
Usage notes: often used with stay, keep, or remain: He's remarkably good at remaining above the fray at the office.
See also: above, fray
Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003. Reproduced with permission.
I think it puts an awkward feel in the locker room. Especially with players also taking sides. Again, difficult to see how this doesn't lead to distraction.
Reading the comments section - always a dicey decision on ESPN, as with many sites - the most upvoted said "company man says don't vote against company". It probably should have been expected
But you can anticipate a possible outcome and still feel awkward when it occurs. As much as the players knew he could oppose the union, at least several probably hoped he would be with them.
Current players have a lot more to risk than alums. If this goes the way of the NCAA taking action they can declare Colter inelligible. Basically little risk for him since he has already played out all his years.
If that happens with current players the NCAA could threaten to rule them inelligible which could impact their status at NW. Its extremely unlikely the NCAA would do this because of the media backlash that would come with it but it protects the current players nontheless.
"Division between a head coach and some of his players, versus a former QB and other of his players, on any issue, seems only likely to disrupt a common goal."
I'm curious to hear what the common goal is that everyone involved is trying to achieve? Sounds like two sides who want the exact opposite to me.
winning games