Unions rely on one primary method besides collective bargaining in order gain the concessions they seek: STRIKING.

How many high school football players, when provided the opportunity, would choose NOT TO cross a picket line for the promise to play football at Northwestern and receive a $60k a year education in exchange for their services?

Answer: every single football player not currently committed to a higher profile program would cross that picket line.

No chance this plays our practically.

And I am with OCF in that the player's beef should not be with universities, but with the One or Two and Done Rules in hoops and football, and with professional sports not providing a viable path to the pros that does not require the facade of college education being required before you can turn pro.

You say there would be corruption?  Please explain......

I am assuming you will reference donors paying huge amounts of money for autographs and sponsorships.  If it makes you happy, we could come to agreed upon terms for what the athletes could charge for this.  I don't like that because it is a restriction on trade, and keeps them from reaching their potential earnings. 

 

I think these issues are exactly why the players are justified in having a union to represent them.  They have no power at all.  I'm sure some expert will chime in and say: "They don't have to play, it is a choice".

 

Johnny absolutely could have sold his autograph for $1,000,000 last season as a normal student.  The only argument is whether or not it is unfair that he couldn't participate as an amateur athlete and sell his autograph, and no one here is going to share the same opinion on that.

I posit it is not unfair because he could have chosen to sit out a year and not play football and then pitch his skills to the NFL, just as Clowney could have.  But without that one year in college, neither of their autographs would have had the market worth they had after playing for a year at their respective colleges.  Hence they are receiving direct financial benefit from their experience in college, although it is post dated to their transition to the professional ranks.  That is why I have no problem with them not being paid in college.

The definition of amateurism is the debate, and I feel the Northwestern student athletes are barking up the wrong tree for their pursuits of pocket money for playing their chosen sport, because the NBA and NFL have far deeper pockets than the handful of colleges that actually turn a profit in revenue generating sports.

I believe it is corrupt to prevent athletes from participating in a professional league immediately when an individual feels they have the skills to turn professional, but I do not hold that against colleges.  You can do that in hockey, so why not football and basketball?  Collusion between the NCAA and the professional leagues, more likely in an attempt to reduce the capital expenditure of building minor league systems for all the athletes wishing to turn pro immediately after college.  Or perhaps because the leagues are colluding with colleges because they know that there is not the consumer base to support minor leagues in their sports, and in turn they would lose money in building minor leagues for their sports.  How many here would have paid the price of a TA&M ticket to watch Johnny Football play for a newly established franchise called the Waco Drillers in the Texas Minor Football League, the minor league affiliate of the Dallas Cowboys?  NONE! 

Jay Bilas is the biggest hypocite in this whole matter, as he wants to have a foot in both camps and preserve the present state of a highly effective college system without regard for how it would lead to the dismantling of Title Nine and the thousands of student athletes that would lose their scholarships if you paid revenue generating students their supposed current fair market value.  And that argument completely disregards the concept of amateurism.

It is the colleges that are supporting the ICA programs that are carrying all the financial and legal risk of operating the present system, and those programs fortunate enough to turn a profit actually are not paying a few "fat cats" for this successful enterprise.  This money is being turned back into the programs in the form of offering more sports for more student athletes, which in turn is providing the college experience to even more student athletes that may not have had the opportunity to attend college and receive a degree.  I personally do not find that any more a corrupt enterprise than asking OHIO students to pay the student fee to operate our ICA program. 

If you want to pay college players at profitable programs, then you should also pay high school athletes for the very successful programs that generate revenue for their school systems, so don't conveniently cherry pick colleges.  There are football programs in TX and FL and hoops programs in IN that I am certain are very profitable, so why are those kids not getting paid, and why should then not also be forming unions?