menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Court rules NCAA Football players CAN unionize
Page: 2 of 2
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 3/27/2014 5:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
I think that some of the possible outcomes have been discussed above. One is that the big BCS football powers spin off their football programs and form sort on an NFL farm league, using the same facilities, hiring the same coaches, etc, probably even carrying the same team names. That will solve a lot of problems, and leave the players to unionize, if they want, and take on the owners of the new teams. This is kind of the direction those AQ schools want to go, anyway - they want to be free at last from the NCAA requirements, so something of this nature wouldn't surprise me at all.

This is an intriguing line of thinking. Stay with me here:

-The major schools "drop" their football programs, "fire" the coaches
-The football coach becomes an "owner" (funded by a pool of TV money). Or an alum and/or local biz leader (Schottenstein in C-bus, Domino's in Ann Arbor) named owner.
-A "semi-pro" team is formed in each college market (maybe 48 teams max? Or 32 to match NFL teams?)
-Each college "sponsors" the team with the actual team name and provides facilities for rent (so Ohio St. stays Ohio St. -- mostly for licensing purposes).
-Players can be students or -- now that there's no "official" connection to the university or NCAA -- well...anyone. They are now "employees"
-All other non-major schools transform to a D-III football-type format (no scholarships, playoff system)

Seems like many would get what they want:
-Players (prospects) --> get paid, have potential at NFL (but competition pool higher and opportunities lower)
-Coaches --> still get paid, no NCAA sanctions breathing down their necks
-Colleges --> still get their money, don't have to deal with NCAA violations, unions or players
-Networks --> have more say in how teams, divisions are structured
-Fans (of big schools) --> Can still follow "their" teams

The downside is that average college football players who either play for the love of the game or for an outside shot at the NFL, will be buried in a much less publicized tier. Ohio games may not be on ESPN TV anymore (but more ESPN3). Maybe the NFL subsidizes it as a farm system, maybe not.

I'm not necessarily for it, but it is an interesting concept.


Note: (edited 48 teams to add a possibility of 32 teams to match up with the NFL if it went that direction) 





 

Last Edited: 3/27/2014 5:58:43 PM by OhioStunter
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 3/27/2014 6:20 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
...This is an intriguing line of thinking. Stay with me here....

That's exactly along the lines I was thinking. There has been talk of the big football schools wanting to part ways with the NCAA, and this may be the opening for it to happen.

OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
The downside is that average college football players who either play for the love of the game or for an outside shot at the NFL, will be buried in a much less publicized tier. Ohio games may not be on ESPN TV anymore (but more ESPN3). Maybe the NFL subsidizes it as a farm system, maybe not.

Plus the fact that all athletes in all sports at all levels would no longer have scholarships, at least, not scholarships awarded by the Universities as "sports scholarships".

As for ESPN, I think a lot more would get telecast than you think - after all, they need content.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 3/27/2014 6:43 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Good points, LC. For anyone interested in reading the actual NLRB ruling, it is here. 
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 3/27/2014 7:25 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
What I personally hope will come from it is an informed and intelligent discourse on the relationship between big time college athletics and the academic institutions that they represent.

It's unrealistic to think that this will be decided on what "should" happen, or "should be the relationship between sports and academics". Instead the legal system will dictate what happens, and the everyone will find some way to adapt to fit into the new framework specified by the legal system such that it makes economic sense.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 3/30/2014 8:48 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
What I personally hope will come from it is an informed and intelligent discourse on the relationship between big time college athletics and the academic institutions that they represent.

It's unrealistic to think that this will be decided on what "should" happen, or "should be the relationship between sports and academics". Instead the legal system will dictate what happens, and the everyone will find some way to adapt to fit into the new framework specified by the legal system such that it makes economic sense.
Part of the legal system that will have a say in this is the Department of Education, and Title IX. In the end this entire pay thing will either not happen or will bankrupt college athletics.
rpbobcat
General User
R
Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,663
person
mail
rpbobcat
mail
Posted: 3/31/2014 7:11 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I was listening to a lawyer talking about the Northwestern situation.

He said that,from what he's seen, the NLRB decision was very "narrow",but that a number of issues are going have to be addressed as this moves foward.

A couple of things he brought up:

1,If scholarship athletes are employess,then you may need a vote from all scholarship athletes on wether to unionize.
He didin't think the NLRB would allow one sport to "isolate" itself from other sports at a school.

2.How do you handle people with partial scholarships, in "non revenue" sports, or people who get no athletic scholarships?

3..If a scholarship  athlete is an "employee" the whole concept of Title IX gets very complicated.

A question came up,and there wasn't an answer:
If a student getting an athletic scholarship is an "employee",is someone  getting an academic scholarship from the school  also an "employee" ?
D.A.
General User
DA
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,198
person
mail
D.A.
mail
Posted: 3/31/2014 8:28 AM
settings_applications edit_note
You don't have to look to deep into this rabbit hole to see where this will likely lead: the end of most olympic sports at the collegiate level save for students that are participating with no scholarships: a de facto, high level intramural program.

The unintended consequences of this are going to be increased student debt, fewer minority students being able to attend college, decreased diversity on college campuses, etc.

Say what you will about the NCAA, but there are many things they do right, and if the revenue formerly allocated to non-revenue generating sports is forced to remain in the revenue generating sports, then that will significantly reduce opportunities for tens of thousands of student athletes across the country.

 
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 3/31/2014 10:20 AM
settings_applications edit_note
RP and DA, both excellent points!  Listening to talking heads is making my head explode on this situation. 
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 3/31/2014 11:56 AM
settings_applications edit_note
While not unionized at this point to my knowledge...the comparison would be graduate assistants that teach a course or two.  They receive "free" tuition for scholarly credentials AND a paycheck for teaching a couple of undergraduate classes.  They are classified as grad student employees for payroll purposes and grad students for "scholarship/tuition" purposes.
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 3/31/2014 12:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I think what sets athletes apart from other scholarship students are the extra-curricular requirements.  Besides game-day stuff, they MUST attend practices and they MUST do off-season weight training.  Plus there's the policy on cutting classes that might not be there for other people on schollies.  The NLRA definition of "employee" only states that employees are employees no matter how long they've worked for the employer, so it's not a big help.  For the Fair Labor Standards Act, it's a matter of control: if the employer controls where and how the work is done and gives the worker the tools to do the work, the worker is an employee instead of an independent contractor.  That sounds like an athlete but not necessarily other students.

Also, the "bargaining unit" can be however the union might define it (e.g., machinists but not welders or electricians), so the "bargaining unit" could be football players but not other athletes.
Last Edited: 3/31/2014 12:22:52 PM by Pataskala
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 3/31/2014 12:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
D.A. wrote:expand_more
You don't have to look to deep into this rabbit hole to see where this will likely lead: the end of most olympic sports at the collegiate level save for students that are participating with no scholarships: a de facto, high level intramural program.....

That certainly is a possible end, one that I think they will find a way to avoid. That's why I personally think that if this doesn't get overturned in court, they will find a way to spin off the major sports, at least Football, perhaps Basketball, too, so that it is no longer a part of the University (which will also put them outside Title IX and outside the NCAA). We might also see other changes to make the other sports less employee-like, though I don't know what changes those would be.

Hopefully none of our heads will explode in the time this case wanders through the courts as we think about the possible ramifications.
Last Edited: 3/31/2014 12:52:28 PM by L.C.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 3/31/2014 9:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
While not unionized at this point to my knowledge...the comparison would be graduate assistants that teach a course or two. They receive "free" tuition for scholarly credentials AND a paycheck for teaching a couple of undergraduate classes. They are classified as grad student employees for payroll purposes and grad students for "scholarship/tuition" purposes.
Their benefits are also taxed! Boy will those athletes become surprised to get hit with that life lesson!


And how will those poor athletes in right to work states like this?
Last Edited: 3/31/2014 9:58:32 PM by BillyTheCat
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 4/1/2014 7:31 AM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
While not unionized at this point to my knowledge...the comparison would be graduate assistants that teach a course or two. They receive "free" tuition for scholarly credentials AND a paycheck for teaching a couple of undergraduate classes. They are classified as grad student employees for payroll purposes and grad students for "scholarship/tuition" purposes.


Their benefits are also taxed! Boy will those athletes become surprised to get hit with that life lesson!


And how will those poor athletes in right to work states like this?


Billy, please explain how you expect "right to work" might impact this discussion.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 4/1/2014 11:17 AM
settings_applications edit_note
24 States have Right to Work Laws, Every SEC school except Missouri, every Big12 School except WVU, and every southern ACC school is in a right to work state.  Athletes in these states being "considered" employees, would make it very difficult to impossible to unionize and there is no power of collective barganing or ability to collect fees to run an organization.

Of course that being said, I am sure the SEC would have no problem voluntarily paying their players legally. :-)
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 4/1/2014 1:03 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
24 States have Right to Work Laws, Every SEC school except Missouri, every Big12 School except WVU, and every southern ACC school is in a right to work state. Athletes in these states being "considered" employees, would make it very difficult to impossible to unionize and there is no power of collective barganing or ability to collect fees to run an organization.

Of course that being said, I am sure the SEC would have no problem voluntarily paying their players legally. :-)
So union or no the decision of the board, if upheld, will change the status of scholarships across the country. Will West Point cadets be required to pay taxes on the value of their education. They certainly have requirements equal to a Div 1 athlete?
Showing Messages: 26 - 40 of 40
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)