Northwestern Players Want a Union

Donate To GopherHole
bga1 said:
Coaches, ADs and other are "overpaid" because right now the fans love the product that college sports put out. If this unionization is followed to it's conclusion there may end up being very few who care about college sports anymore. It'll get ruined for all but a small group of schools and we won't be one of them. Players are going to be playing for the highest bidder- why would this end at a little stipend once the cat is out of the bag? Either they are employees or they aren't. If they are then higher pay is in play and competitiveness for most schools will go out the door for good.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That could happen. But lots of outcomes are possible.

It makes me wonder if anyone would want to donate to our facilities. Donations could be a complete waste of money.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Yeah. That could happen. But lots of outcomes are possible.

It makes me wonder if anyone would want to donate to our facilities. Donations could be a complete waste of money.
Click to expand...

Personally, I just don't see any victims here - despite the fact that the NCAA is making a plunder. Tons of athletes, many of whom might otherwise not have gotten a college education are getting full rides and a chance at making money in the sport later or making connections in the community because of their athletic success. Meanwhile, as a result many minor sports are able to offer scholarships that otherwise would not be able to were it not for the financial success of the revenue sports. So now the athletes want more and more? Okay but it might end the gravy train for everyone and hurt a lot of people.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
You show your ignorance of law. Many would argue there is such a thing as natural law, which would mean law always existed. Markets are a human construct.

Laws and rules both regulate and create markets. You cannot have a market with absence of law. You would have no currency, no recourse from being robbed, etc.

You really are completely out of your element. Stick to what you know. Your legal ignorance is apparent.

As such, there is nothing more to discuss with you.
Click to expand...

Political philosophy! Yummy.
 

bga1 said:
Personally, I just don't see any victims here - despite the fact that the NCAA is making a plunder. Tons of athletes, many of whom might otherwise not have gotten a college education are getting full rides and a chance at making money in the sport later or making connections in the community because of their athletic success. Meanwhile, as a result many minor sports are able to offer scholarships that otherwise would not be able to were it not for the financial success of the revenue sports. So now the athletes want more and more? Okay but it might end the gravy train for everyone and hurt a lot of people.
Click to expand...

That's the best hope for this not blowing the sport up. It's not in the best interest of the schools. But it's also not in the best interest of 90% of the players. How many future NFL players does NW have? 2? 3? Do the first players in benefit if they have to pay the players? Maybe. But if it kills college football within 5 years, it's not worth it.

Hopefully everyone will have a tad of foresight here. Get some extra injury protections/insurance, maybe a stipend and move on. That can be done without going to a union.
 

howeda7 said:
That's the best hope for this not blowing the sport up. It's not in the best interest of the schools. But it's also not in the best interest of 90% of the players. How many future NFL players does NW have? 2? 3? Do the first players in benefit if they have to pay the players? Maybe. But if it kills college football within 5 years, it's not worth it.

Hopefully everyone will have a tad of foresight here. Get some extra injury protections/insurance, maybe a stipend and move on. That can be done without going to a union.
Click to expand...

The NCAA purposely created the "amateur athlete" as a way to avoid paying workman's comp. They have avoided it for about 60 years. Other than hope and optimism, what would make you believe that the NCAA would provide such benefits other than altruism? If you think altruism is a possibilty, then you have willfully buried your head in the sand. A union is probably the only way.
 



bga1 said:
Personally, I just don't see any victims here - despite the fact that the NCAA is making a plunder. Tons of athletes, many of whom might otherwise not have gotten a college education are getting full rides and a chance at making money in the sport later or making connections in the community because of their athletic success. Meanwhile, as a result many minor sports are able to offer scholarships that otherwise would not be able to were it not for the financial success of the revenue sports. So now the athletes want more and more? Okay but it might end the gravy train for everyone and hurt a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Remember here, this case has nothing to do with the U of MN directly. Land Grant (public) Universities are not subject to the National Labor Relations Board. The U of MN falls under state jurisdiction which has its own set of laws. The Northwestern case is likely 3+ years of appeals all the way to the US Supreme Court. Even with a ruling in the player's favor, the union would like take several more years to negotiate a contract (since this is all precedence setting). Which, all in all, would be interesting as all the original players who filed will be long gone. Once all that happens, we'll see what the fallout is for public universities. Could be the NCAA makes some concession before then to nip all this in the bud. Although I think we'll see it go through a lot of courts before that happens (and first still needs to be appealed to US NLRB).
 

TrapperDoo said:
Can't answer the questions? I'm not surprized. Your smug, pathetic attempt to come across as intellectually superior may please your professors, but not me. I see that the only place you will ever be able to get a job will be as a centerfold in "Fisting" magazine.
Click to expand...

How quickly you digress into insults. I attempted to discuss a concept with you, but you got offended after one round. Heck I just was modifying your original idea, slightly.

Imagine if I was a college kid. What would that say about your 30+ years in the workforce? You really should work on your confidence. Someone your age shouldn't be so affected emotionally by a message board post. There are far better responses when discussing ideas.
 




I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about all this, so some of my comments may be stupid but:

1. If they are determined to be employees, wouldn't scholarships be considered salary, and thus the players would have to pay some pretty high taxes?

2. I do think there needs to be something done to help athletes who have injuries while playing that may hinder them throughout their life.

3. I've never understood the argument some make that schools make a lot of money. Don't most athletic departments break even or even lose money?

4. How would this affect facilities? I imagine the cost is pretty high to maintain some of these "Taj Mahal" practice and workout facilities. And will donors be dishing out as much money if players are getting paid?
 

badgergopher said:
I'm curious, how do you define overpaid?
Click to expand...

The willingness of the vast majority of people to do the same job for substantially less money. Case-in-point, you would take Nick Saban's job for 500k, I guarantee more than 90% of everyone on here would.

A big reason why pay has skyrocketed for CEOs, coaches, and other highly compensated jobs is transparency. Companies believe they are similar or better than their competitors, so they one-up each other with their new hire. The less people know what others make, the less people make.

This is why companies strongly discourage publication or even talk about pay of low level employees. They'd have to pay more.

There are many downsides to transparency that people don't understand.

If you have a problem with inequality,, blame transparency, globalization, the collapse of private sector unions, amd the tax code.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
The NCAA purposely created the "amateur athlete" as a way to avoid paying workman's comp. They have avoided it for about 60 years. Other than hope and optimism, what would make you believe that the NCAA would provide such benefits other than altruism? If you think altruism is a possibilty, then you have willfully buried your head in the sand. A union is probably the only way.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to deny the effect of concussions on the game of football. The NFL stuck it's head in the sand on it for a long time too. But they are finally acknowledging it. The NCAA is to some degree too. I have no issue if long-term care issues are the players' beef. They should be covered for future medical issues incurred while playing and they shouldn't need a union to get it.

But if it goes to everything else that will come when the Pandora's box is opened, these players will likely be ruining huge future benefits for those that would have come after for some small pickings for themselves. I'm not saying they can't do it. I'm saying they shouldn't.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
The willingness of the vast majority of people to do the same job for substantially less money. Case-in-point, you would take Nick Saban's job for 500k, I guarantee more than 90% of everyone on here would.
Click to expand...

Sure we would, but would we win National Titles and Recruit like Nick Saban? NO. There is a reason he's worth what he's worth. Quit trying to artificially set the price for a job. The guy's the best in the world at what he does (or close to it). Therefore it is not unreasonable for him be paid like it. Who was more likely to turn Microsoft into the behemoth it is, you and me in my garage, or Bill Gates and Paul Allen in theirs? If any company thought they could save 10 million a year off their CEO and still get the same result, they would. Too funny.
 



Gopherguy0723 said:
The willingness of the vast majority of people to do the same job for substantially less money. Case-in-point, you would take Nick Saban's job for 500k, I guarantee more than 90% of everyone on here would.

A big reason why pay has skyrocketed for CEOs, coaches, and other highly compensated jobs is transparency. Companies believe they are similar or better than their competitors, so they one-up each other with their new hire. The less people know what others make, the less people make.

This is why companies strongly discourage publication or even talk about pay of low level employees. They'd have to pay more.

There are many downsides to transparency that people don't understand.

If you have a problem with inequality,, blame transparency, globalization, the collapse of private sector unions, amd the tax code.
Click to expand...

By your (terrible) logic, scholarship athletes are "overpaid" because many would (and do) perform the same service for free. You can't see how your own asinine rationale completely destroys your venomous anti-NCAA stance.

Among all posters here, you easily have the widest gulf between how smart you think you are and how smart you actually are. When someone completely destroys your terrible takes, rather than being able to defend them, you put the person on ignore, like a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears. Oh wait, you have me on ignore (as if anyone cares who's on your ignore list), so you won't even see this post.
 

Sparlimb said:
Sure we would, but would we win National Titles and Recruit like Nick Saban? NO. There is a reason he's worth what he's worth. Quit trying to artificially set the price for a job. The guy's the best in the world at what he does (or close to it). Therefore it is not unreasonable for him be paid like it. Who was more likely to turn Microsoft into the behemoth it is, you and me in my garage, or Bill Gates and Paul Allen in theirs? If any company thought they could save 10 million a year off their CEO and still get the same result, they would. Too funny.
Click to expand...

While your outrage is insincere, my example does need clarification as Saban is not an optimal example. President Kaler makes a boatload of money. However, you could find plenty of people qualified to do his job for half his pay, perhaps even less. The university would not struggle to survive. Qualified people would still be happy with the pay. Moreover, people don't realize that the corporate culture, lower level employees, and other factors are equally if not mostly responsible for the success of a given organization. Elites delude themselves into needing to pay top dollar for top "talent" to succeed. It's a way for the elites to justify their compensation and self-importance. They justify their pay by paying another elite the same or more.

With that being said, I have no problem with people taking the money. If you can get more, take more.
 


station19 said:
Anyone that makes more than he does.
Click to expand...

:clap:

Nice one!

But seriously, I would include myself in that category. People in my position make more money than they're worth. Our pay is inflated thanks to Wall Street paying big bucks for lawyers. The New York law firms match the price. So New York sets the market. Similar lawyers know this, so the rest of the firms in the country need to pay something similar, priced down based on how expensive your city is to live in.

If I made half as much as I do right now I'd still be thrilled, and I would still do the job.
 

bga1 said:
Personally, I just don't see any victims here - despite the fact that the NCAA is making a plunder. Tons of athletes, many of whom might otherwise not have gotten a college education are getting full rides and a chance at making money in the sport later or making connections in the community because of their athletic success. Meanwhile, as a result many minor sports are able to offer scholarships that otherwise would not be able to were it not for the financial success of the revenue sports. So now the athletes want more and more? Okay but it might end the gravy train for everyone and hurt a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Pretty much hit the nail on the head Beeg. I can see the point of the medical issue but it really leads to where the few will affect the opportunities of the majority.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
:clap:

Nice one!

But seriously, I would include myself in that category. People in my position make more money than they're worth. Our pay is inflated thanks to Wall Street paying big bucks for lawyers. The New York law firms match the price. So New York sets the market. Similar lawyers know this, so the rest of the firms in the country need to pay something similar, priced down based on how expensive your city is to live in.

If I made half as much as I do right now I'd still be thrilled, and I would still do the job.
Click to expand...

I just hope that you aren't teaching any classes on markets, the economy and the corporate world. You really have no clue.
 


Sparlimb said:
Remember here, this case has nothing to do with the U of MN directly. Land Grant (public) Universities are not subject to the National Labor Relations Board. The U of MN falls under state jurisdiction which has its own set of laws. The Northwestern case is likely 3+ years of appeals all the way to the US Supreme Court. Even with a ruling in the player's favor, the union would like take several more years to negotiate a contract (since this is all precedence setting). Which, all in all, would be interesting as all the original players who filed will be long gone. Once all that happens, we'll see what the fallout is for public universities. Could be the NCAA makes some concession before then to nip all this in the bud. Although I think we'll see it go through a lot of courts before that happens (and first still needs to be appealed to US NLRB).
Click to expand...

Of course that is true- it will take time and the public universities are not directly in the cross hairs. However, when you see something happen you have to ask the question "and then what?" The "and then what?" answer here is that if private universities become unionized with players getting extra benefits - then the public universities will have to do the same thing- to compete for the athletes. The NCAA if it remains, would have to change it's rules to put everyone on the same playing field. But it wouldn't end there, because players- now employees would argue that some are worth more than others to the universities and should be paid more or that the stipend- whatever it is, isn't enough. There would be a natural upward spiral until a breaking point is reached. The result would be a combination of the following:

1. The elimination of minor sports that don't produce revenue
2. A much smaller upper division of schools with rich pots of money that can afford to compete
3. The schools hurt worst would like be the tweeners like the U of M where athletics are important but not near as revered as at schools like Michigan or OSU or 20 others that have built a war chest on athletics and have the booster backing to keep it rolling.

Yeah the damage is a ways off and there are ways to avert it but this is a bad direction. The high end college athlete will get the rewards and thousands of student athletes will be big losers if this plays out to its logical conclusion.
 

bga1 said:
Of course that is true- it will take time and the public universities are not directly in the cross hairs. However, when you see something happen you have to ask the question "and then what?" The "and then what?" answer here is that if private universities become unionized with players getting extra benefits - then the public universities will have to do the same thing- to compete for the athletes. The NCAA if it remains, would have to change it's rules to put everyone on the same playing field. But it wouldn't end there, because players- now employees would argue that some are worth more than others to the universities and should be paid more or that the stipend- whatever it is, isn't enough. There would be a natural upward spiral until a breaking point is reached. The result would be a combination of the following:

1. The elimination of minor sports that don't produce revenue
2. A much smaller upper division of schools with rich pots of money that can afford to compete
3. The schools hurt worst would like be the tweeners like the U of M where athletics are important but not near as revered as at schools like Michigan or OSU or 20 others that have built a war chest on athletics and have the booster backing to keep it rolling.

Yeah the damage is a ways off and there are ways to avert it but this is a bad direction. The high end college athlete will get the rewards and thousands of student athletes will be big losers if this plays out to its logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

I do agree. The likely losers in this will be the many athletes in the non-revenue sports. But we should also remember that all we have is the opinion of one regional board. That is a long way from a done deal.
 

Sparlimb said:
I do agree. The likely losers in this will be the many athletes in the non-revenue sports. But we should also remember that all we have is the opinion of one regional board. That is a long way from a done deal.
Click to expand...

Yep. And we all know nothing good comes out of the Chicago area.
 

Sparlimb said:
I do agree. The likely losers in this will be the many athletes in the non-revenue sports. But we should also remember that all we have is the opinion of one regional board. That is a long way from a done deal.
Click to expand...

Very true. I hope this dies and dies soon.
 

Kain Colter = cancer to Northwestern football program.

Very apparent why NW's season went down the shi**er last season.

Good riddance.
 

It's not just non-revenue sports that would suffer. A lot of schools wouldn't be able to keep up with paid athletes, and would be forced to drop down a level of competition, which would result in scholarship cuts, or drop football altogether. This would eliminate scholarships for hundreds or even thousands of players, even in the revenue sports. There are the players' demands (some of which are reasonable), but there are also people backing this because they think it's a way to get rid of non-revenue sports (especially women's sports) and also those who like this because they hate college sports in general, and support anything that will undermine them.
 

You know thinking about it, the reason the NLRB ruled in the player's favor is because they get a scholarship (aka wages) for an activity at the school. One solution for the NCAA system would be to eliminate scholarships entirely. Then all athletes would simply students choosing to play an extra-curricular activity.
 


Here's the hypocrisy I don't think anyone in this thread mentioned. The main thrust of the NLRB ruling was that the NCAA is engaging in unfair labor practices because they are placing a ceiling on salaries in the form of the maximum prescribed amounts institutions can give for scholarships. I assume that, based on this ruling, professional athletes will soon be suing their respective professional leagues because those same leagues have salary caps that dictate salary ceilings for individual players?
 

If the athletes are employees, the government could grant an exception such that their scholarship and training costs are not considered "income" or are considered a write-off. We all write off a chunk of our income due to various random things. This would take government action to accomplish, but doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

Also, what is the difference between the NFL imposing a team salary cap and the NCAA imposing maximum compensation as it currently does?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom