|01/04/2018 - 10:37am||OSU and Michigan hoops history summaries||
Alas, Ohio State has a pretty good basketball history. 11 Final Fours (39, 44,45,46, 60, 61, 62, 68,99, 07, 12: 99 vacated), 5 championship games (39, 60, 61, 62, 07), and one national title (1960). Within the Big Ten, they have won or shared 20 regular season championships (2 vacated - 00 and 02).
For Michigan, those numbers are: 7 FF (64, 65, 76, 89, 92, 93, 13: 92 and 93 vacated), 6 championship games (65, 76, 89, 92, 93, 13: 92 and 93 vacated), and one national title (1989). Michigan has won or shared 14 regular season Big Ten championships.
|02/08/2017 - 12:21pm||Mark the Prophet?||
Did pride come before this fall?
|12/04/2014 - 12:49pm||Law talking||
"Seems like work is work and a legislature can't wave a wand and declare it not so, but I'm just a common sense type guy, not a law-talkin' one."
The University of Michigan is a public university; therefore, it is not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA is the statute used by the football players at Northwestern. Each state has the ability to allow (or disallow) unionization of state and local employees or subclasses thereof. Michigan has a statute, the Public Employment Relations Act that allows some public employees to unionize. This bill would define public employee to specifically exclude football players from those that can unionize.
Further, it is not a requirement that mandatory bargaining unionization be allowed in the private sector. Theoretically, Congress could repeal the NLRA and other federal statutes that allow unionization (the NLRA is the big one, the airlines and railroads have their own statute, and some federal workers have limited collective bargaining rights).
The difficulty with college football unionization is that only your private universities like Notre Dames, Stanfords, and Northwesterns would be under the NLRA. The various state universities would be a quiltwork of whatever law their respective legislatures enact (good luck unionizing the SEC states). It is possible that Congress could enact a law allowing unionization of college football players, but that is exteremely unlikely. Another possibility is that the NCAA could require it, but there would be significant political and legal hurdles to this as well.
|02/20/2014 - 12:55pm||State and its subdivisions not under NLRA||
You are correct that the state and its subdivisions are not covered by the NLRA:
(2) The term "employer" includes any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.], as amended from time to time, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.\
29 U.S.C. section 152(2).
Therefore, for those at state schools to unionize, there must be a state statute permitting it. Michigan does have one of those statutes - the Public Employment Relations Act. The question is whether football players would be considered employees under that statute.
|02/20/2014 - 12:49pm||You are welcome. One thing to||
You are welcome. One thing to be aware of. Private universities would unionize under the National Labor Relations Act, a federal law. A state university would only be able to unionize if there was a state law allowing public sector unions. Michigan has such a law, the Public Employees Relations Act. Therefore, if student athletes could meet the defintion of "public employee" under that statute, they could petition the Michigan Employment Relations Commission to unionize. Just as is going on in regard to Northwestern in front of the NLRB, there would probably be a factual hearing at MERC to determine whether the athletes were employees. If so, it would be up to a vote of the athletes within the bargaining units (ie the football players themselves) whether to unionize.
With Clemson and South Carolina, both are public universities. Therefore, those in favor of unionization need a state statute allowing for public sector unionization. South Carolina explicitly does not have a law allowing public sector unionization. Therefore, the concept can't take place at either university at this point.
|02/20/2014 - 12:09pm||RTW and unionization||
Right to Work laws essentially outlaws the common form of a union security clause placed in collective bargaining agreements that mandates that an employee pay union dues (or for political objectors agency fees). Unions contend these right to work laws are unfair because they allow each individual to decide how much (if any) support to give to a union. The unions operate under something known as the duty of fair representation, which is a court created concept that orignally was a cure to racial discrimination in railroad unions, but is now a staple of labor law - this duty requires the union to represent all members within the bargaining agreement equally. Thus, those schools within right to work states are less likely to unionize since the unions would consider it less likely that they will generate dues. Despite the above, although Michigan is now a right to work state, there is a decent shot U of M would still be a unionization target since it is such a high profile school and its unionization would help solidify the concept of student-athlete unions.
|09/03/2013 - 8:26pm||Speaking of prejudice . . .||
Notre Dame affacianados are quick to point to Yost's alleged bigotry, but rarely note that blacks were not welcome at ND for almost a century. The below excerpt is from an official ND website that is linked at the bottom of this post. Given this history, it is somewhat hard to accept the casual ND fan's indignation about alleged bigotry from over a century ago.
1842 - The University of Notre Dame is founded by Father Edward Sorin, CSC.
|03/25/2013 - 4:34pm||Now that you mention it . . .||
The hop for the bench was in unison with Hardaway and Burke.
|06/03/2012 - 12:40pm||Link to docket sheet||
for ESPN, Inc v. The Ohio State University, Ohio Supreme Court case number 2011-1177.
The briefs are online as .pdfs so you can read the sides respective arguments should you so desire. It looks like the briefing is done and they are waiting on oral argument. I do not know how long that normally takes after briefing in Ohio.
I have not read the briefs, but would note that both the United States and some college associations have filed amicus curaie - ie friend of the court - briefs on the side of OSU.
For us law geeks this might be interesting to check out.
|10/18/2011 - 10:27pm||2003 with a mobile QB||
The 2003 or for that matter the 2006 offense with someone with the mobility of the Devin Gardner as opposed to a John Navarre or Chad Henne. Those sacks versus USC in the Rose Bowls were the only things that made me question what we ran.
|10/06/2010 - 3:48pm||quick correction (I think)||
The video for the 6th play of the drive that makes it 21-14 doesn't seem to match the description.
|02/09/2010 - 12:41pm||Nebraska||
I was reading a thread on the Rivals national recruiting board about Williams and the Nebraska fans seemed quite confident. Did the subject of Nebraska come up at all in your discussions with Kevin or his coach?
|12/15/2008 - 12:58pm||Fake 40 time||
My understanding is that this guy does come with a fake forty time - 4.72 seconds. Yes, I recognize that I am pathetic for knowing that off the top of my head.