Northwestern Football Players are ruled employees by National Labor Relations Board

[Lloyd Christmas]

Wow just wow. Here's the link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-northwestern-union-bid-20140326,0,6454823.story)

ETA: I guess a free college education isn't enough anymore.

[Political Hack]

good. these asshole bastards that make millions off of college kids are about to have to pony up. about damn time someone got rid of endentured servitude in this country.

I'll give any of you room, board, food, and plenty of books for four years if you can make me $100 million a year. thanks.

[Lloyd Christmas]

I didn't see sarcasterisks so I'll assume you are being serious. Which is sad.

[HancockCountyDog]

I didn't see sarcasterisks so I'll assume you are being serious. Which is sad.

Yeah, its sad that coaches make millions while kids make nothing. How many Dak jerseys will we sell next year? How much money will MSU make off his talents. He isn't a typical NFL QB so while MSU may make millions, Mullen makes millions, Assistant coaches make 300K+ per year, and the SEC makes billions, Dak is going to be left with a college degree a banged up body and an empty bank account.

Sounds about right.

[FISHDAWG]

what is so sad about it? .... these kids bodies are taking a beating and that's got to be worth more than just the schollie ride ..... I have had two shoulder surgeries from HS football that has plagued me most of my life and that is NOTHING compared to what these guys go through ..... admittedly, I don't care for the commie sounding rhetoric from the first poster but he has a valid point to a degree

[PassInterference]

My employer made 1,000 times what I was paid for my labor that sold their product. Where's my fair share?**

[Lloyd Christmas]

Yeah, its sad that coaches make millions while kids make nothing. How many Dak jerseys will we sell next year? How much money will MSU make off his talents. He isn't a typical NFL QB so while MSU may make millions, Mullen makes millions, Assistant coaches make 300K+ per year, and the SEC makes billions, Dak is going to be left with a college degree a banged up body and an empty bank account.

Sounds about right.

So you think Mississippi State athletics would be able to survive in a system where college athletes can collectively bargain? Also, Dak Prescott didn't have to take a a free ride to college. He could have gone to school and not played football and paid his tuition like everyone else. He and all other college athletes make that choice. So, forgive me for not wailing for college atheletes everywhere. Are there things that should be fixed? Yes. Is the solution to unionize? No. The problem with unions isn't that they are bad in theory, it's that they are bad in reality. The hilarity of unions is that they eventually become the thing they were formed to fight against. Union leaders get rich off unions and then do everything they can to keep their jobs...which eventually means putting heat on employers till everything goes to shit (Think Detroit here)

[Lloyd Christmas]

My employer made 1,000 times what I was paid for my labor that sold their product. Where's my fair share?**

This guy ****ing gets it.

[Westdawg]

I can tell you that this is a much bigger conversation in sports and coaching circles than is let on.
With this case gaining traction, you will soon see a marked change in athletic landscapes nationally within college and , yes, even secondary educational systems.
I am completely against a player being paid beyond a full scholarship that covers, room, board, tuition and books. The reality is that outside of a couple dozen or so schools, most programs and athletic departments do not "make money" on athletics. A player that has the god-given talent to play a sport or a scholarship is BLESSED. That little scholarship that so many are mad saying it is not enough do not realize that they are getting 4-6 years if quality education at cost. Yes it is time consuming. Yes they have to make sacrifices.
No they can't get a part time job but if you can have your expenses paid for by living on campus and eating on campus the. What are you complaining about? I worked two part time jobs and there were days when I didn't eat because I didn't have the money. I didn't get to go out to party or eat or the movies.
Now there are some things that I think athletes should receive additional.
1- provide medical personnel that can ascertain concussions and additional injuries. Most universities already provide this.
2- athletes who are injured during practice or games during their time at school should receive some additional medical care related to said injury for a small period of time after college. Then it Is up to the student to find medical insurance to cover further issues.

What is going to eventually one of this is that universities , and further down the road high schools, will be forced to remove athletics from under the umbrella of education.
The cost will be too steep.
What intimately caused this entire issue is the NFL had never formed their own farm or developmental system and had been in "partnership" with NCAA to make measures for all parties to MAKE MONEY. This has been the issue from the beginning. The NCAA and NFL saw a way for all of them to ultimately get what they wanted. Well, now the NCAA and the schools under their watch will now pay the price. Which will ultimately lead to the demise of college athletics.

[ShotgunDawg]

This is going to end badly for the players. A few things:

1. Tax implications? They are now employees

2. Does title 9 cease to exist? If one sport is employees, don't they all have to be?

3. College football players are replaceable. Someone will have start an alternative league. NW should just kick these kids off the team. Basically fire them.

[Political Hack]

My employer made 1,000 times what I was paid for my labor that sold their product. Where's my fair share?**

at least you agree they're employees and make their bosses money.

[Political Hack]

so the few who earn millions for their bosses should just shut up and take it because the NAIA kids don't make money for their programs? that's the dumbest argument ever. it's like saying Coke employees shouldn't earn money because there's a free mom and pop soda stand in random neighborhoods across the country.

[Lloyd Christmas]

at least you agree they're employees and make their bosses money.


Seriously, all politics aside do you think MSU could survive in a world where paying players is allowed? Remember, now we have to pay ****ing EVERYONE. Softball players, track team, soccer team, baseball team...the list goes on.

[msstate7]

So with title IX, do women soccer players make what football players do?

[ShotgunDawg]

Seriously, all politics aside do you think MSU could survive in a world where paying players is allowed? Remember, now we have to pay ****ing EVERYONE. Softball players, track team, soccer team, baseball team...the list goes on.

There won't be a softball. If it's a business, title 9 shouldn't exist. All non revenue sports should be cut. Just like a business

[msstate7]

There won't be a softball. If it's a business, title 9 shouldn't exist. All non revenue sports should be cut. Just like a business

Good point

[Lloyd Christmas]

There won't be a softball. If it's a business, title 9 shouldn't exist. All non revenue sports should be cut. Just like a business

Yep, exactly. Pretty much say goodbye to all non revenue sports. Which would include all women's sports.

[starkvegasdawg]

There won't be a softball. If it's a business, title 9 shouldn't exist. All non revenue sports should be cut. Just like a business

We'll outsource to Mexico and China. They'll play for $0.10/hour and agree to work with inferior equipment. Speaking of inferior equipment...if this is now a business do OSHA rules now apply? Will football be ruled too dangerous to play?

[Political Hack]

Seriously, all politics aside do you think MSU could survive in a world where paying players is allowed? Remember, now we have to pay ****ing EVERYONE. Softball players, track team, soccer team, baseball team...the list goes on.

politics were already set aside, along with my fandom for MSU. This is about what's right for the kids who are bringing in millions to the collegiate football system and reaping few if any long term benefits as a result of their labor. Putting kids ahead of MSU, fair compensation is what's right. If I was thinking solely about MSU, it's definitely arguable and would depend dramatically on how the system would be structured. If kids were compensated X amount based on the conference they were in, it wouldn't impact us much.

[Irondawg]

I can't claim to know the ins and out of all the laws this would impact but there are several broad issues that immediately come to mind.

1) If they are "employees" do you pay equally? When does Johnny Manziel stand up and say he's made A&M 100x what the 3rd string guy does?

2) Title 9 had to go away as you are basically running a business model. The results is universities would slowly start killing off women's athletics b/c they are money losers for the schools.

3) I know some coaches don't do it but most at least try to let a kid hang on for his 4 years and get a degree even if they are 3rd string. I would think that would change.

4) Transfer rules would have to change.

Now I'm not saying the way the NCAA does it is fair. Personally if we want to call it amateur sports, it should be treated as such as the NCAA and Universities should be paying and receiving crazy money off of it. I just think there are better solutions.

Is this whole thing about player royalties or is it about insurance, etc. or a mix?

[msstate7]

politics were already set aside, along with my fandom for MSU. This is about what's right for the kids who are bringing in millions to the collegiate football system and reaping few if any long term benefits as a result of their labor. Putting kids ahead of MSU, fair compensation is what's right. If I was thinking solely about MSU, it's definitely arguable and would depend dramatically on how the system would be structured. If kids were compensated X amount based on the conference they were in, it wouldn't impact us much.

So sec players get $1,000 a week and sun belt players get $25?

[engie]

So you think Mississippi State athletics would be able to survive in a system where college athletes can collectively bargain?

Yes. Without question. Poor ole MSU doesn't exist anymore.

[Irondawg]

This is going to go the way of the EA NCAA football game suit. End result will be "great you destroyed college athletics and got nothing out of it".

Something will replace it, but it won't quite be the same. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[engie]

Seriously, all politics aside do you think MSU could survive in a world where paying players is allowed? Remember, now we have to pay ****ing EVERYONE. Softball players, track team, soccer team, baseball team...the list goes on.

YES damn it.

We're a $100 million athletics department the day the lights cut on at Davis Wade in August. Top 25 in the country. Stop with the poor ole MSU bullshit. It doesn't exist -- and really hasn't for a long time now.

[PassInterference]

at least you agree they're employees and make their bosses money.

Can university graduate student research assistants be next?

[starkvegasdawg]

I just don't see how paying players will end well. I think it will just open a Pandora's Box of unintended consequences. Do they make millions for the school? Yes. Do they risk possibly career ending injuries to make those millions? Yes. Do they know those risks when they willingly sign their LOI and agree to do that for the cost of education and a place to sleep? Yes. If we are to look at this as a business then they are entering a legally binding contract where they agree to perform a certain job function for a certain benefit. They agreed to it of their own free will and nothing about the agreement was changed by the "hiring" institution. If you start to pay players is where the biggest issue will start. Does a QB make the same as a RB? Does a starter make more than a backup? Is he an all-American? Does he make more as an all-American QB than an all-American PF on the basketball team or the shortstop on the woman's softball team? Who sets those rates? Are they subject to negotiation? Will that negotiation be the new under the table benefits schools do to get the 5 star recruits? If they are a business and the players employees, do they have to have taxes, SS, and insurance withheld? Do they have vacation days they can take throughout the year? How about during the season? What does a potential star player make that is red shirting this season?

If we start down this path it can only end very poorly for all those involved. Does it seem unfair? Perhaps. But then so is life. The athletes are still getting opportunities that the vast majority of college students never get. They are being given a free education in the field of their choice in return for playing a game and also basically giving them a tryout for the pro levels and a shot at millions.

[dawgs]

Can university graduate student research assistants be next?

graduate students pay taxes on their stipends they earn from teaching classes and labs. or at least they are supposed to.

the difference is that graduate students get compensated beyond tuition for putting in extra hours in teaching and grading, but football players (and other athletes) don't get that same compensation on top of tuition for spending far more hours working out, going to meetings, practicing, travelling for and playing games, etc.

as an undergrad i had a full ride at msu and even got some $$ back each semester. all i had to do was maintain a 3.00 GPA. it sure as shit didn't require as much time and effort to maintain a 3.0 GPA in engineering as is required for a football player to keep his scholarship/avoid being process'd. i was able to still have a part time job for 20 hours a week, never missed a night out, went to every ball game i ever cared to go to, partied at the frat house all i wanted, etc etc etc. a football player has no time to do 1/10th of that after all their football commitments. i promise you football players worked harder to keep their scholarships than i ever thought about working at msu.

[Irondawg]

Well let's look at it top down and see where the problems are and everyone that knows more than me, freel free to correct me.

Schools makes their money in athletics off of: TV Contracts, Donations, Ticket Sales, Conferene revenue sharing, Merchandising/concessions

Where does that money usually end up: scholarships, facilities, funding other sports, Salaries

Now we can certainly argue that coaching salaries are insane in football and getting that way in basketball. But the rest of it generally benefits the student athletes. They get tuition/meals/board. At big schools they get world class training facilities and medical attention. Hundreds of other students get to play sports on scholarship that would otherwise be unable to and also get the benefit of those world class facilities.

I'll agree football players take a bigger risk with their bodies are are the big money maker. I have no problem with a reasonable stipend for them or any other athlete b/c they spend a ton of time doing athletic related work for the school. But come up with a table and make it universal. Otherwise it's just going to become a disaster of who is worth what.

The other solution is to scale down the insanity of the TV contracts. Limit the amount of ads and stuff they can show which dilutes the value of the broadcast. Heck I wish they couldn't show any adds in NCAA or Pro sports until halftime like soccer does.

[Bothrops]

Now that Gator Bowl loss is even worse. We lost to a bunch of pussies.

[dawgs]

I just don't see how paying players will end well. I think it will just open a Pandora's Box of unintended consequences. Do they make millions for the school? Yes. Do they risk possibly career ending injuries to make those millions? Yes. Do they know those risks when they willingly sign their LOI and agree to do that for the cost of education and a place to sleep? Yes. If we are to look at this as a business then they are entering a legally binding contract where they agree to perform a certain job function for a certain benefit. They agreed to it of their own free will and nothing about the agreement was changed by the "hiring" institution. If you start to pay players is where the biggest issue will start. Does a QB make the same as a RB? Does a starter make more than a backup? Is he an all-American? Does he make more as an all-American QB than an all-American PF on the basketball team or the shortstop on the woman's softball team? Who sets those rates? Are they subject to negotiation? Will that negotiation be the new under the table benefits schools do to get the 5 star recruits? If they are a business and the players employees, do they have to have taxes, SS, and insurance withheld? Do they have vacation days they can take throughout the year? How about during the season? What does a potential star player make that is red shirting this season?

If we start down this path it can only end very poorly for all those involved. Does it seem unfair? Perhaps. But then so is life. The athletes are still getting opportunities that the vast majority of college students never get. They are being given a free education in the field of their choice in return for playing a game and also basically giving them a tryout for the pro levels and a shot at millions.

the ruling was made based on what's right and wrong in light of universities/conferences/the ncaa/coaches/etc making millions upon millions off essentially free labor. it's not based on the fear of fans over what's going to happen to CFB now that "pandora's box" has been opened.

the details are going to be sorted out over the next few years, but it takes a ruling like this before those details are going to be sorted out, otherwise why iron out these details when they are unnecessary? it's not just going to be a sudden free-for-all. some people are always going to freak out at change, but we'll be OK. the programs that will be affected the most are going to be the usm's and la-lafayette's of the CFB world. this is probably going to be the ruling that triggers the separation of the major conferences + a couple of other big $$ programs (ND, BYU, ???) from everyone else.

[dawgs]

Well let's look at it top down and see where the problems are and everyone that knows more than me, freel free to correct me.

Schools makes their money in athletics off of: TV Contracts, Donations, Ticket Sales, Conferene revenue sharing, Merchandising/concessions

Where does that money usually end up: scholarships, facilities, funding other sports, Salaries

Now we can certainly argue that coaching salaries are insane in football and getting that way in basketball. But the rest of it generally benefits the student athletes. They get tuition/meals/board. At big schools they get world class training facilities and medical attention. Hundreds of other students get to play sports on scholarship that would otherwise be unable to and also get the benefit of those world class facilities.

I'll agree football players take a bigger risk with their bodies are are the big money maker. I have no problem with a reasonable stipend for them or any other athlete b/c they spend a ton of time doing athletic related work for the school. But come up with a table and make it universal. Otherwise it's just going to become a disaster of who is worth what.

The other solution is to scale down the insanity of the TV contracts. Limit the amount of ads and stuff they can show which dilutes the value of the broadcast. Heck I wish they couldn't show any adds in NCAA or Pro sports until halftime like soccer does.

scholarships aren't really much of a cost. at least not tuition. that's like a restaurant paying their chef with food he cooked or a hardware store paying their employees in lumber.

there are thousands of students on campus and thousands of classes taking place. you only have to let 85 guys show up to class out of 20K students and call is payment? that's a load of bullshit because the university isn't really paying anything.

reality is, most likely player's are going to be allowed to sign endorsement deals and get a flat stipend for the hours they put in.

[dawgs]

Now that Gator Bowl loss is even worse. We lost to a bunch of pussies.

whether you agree or not, taking on a powerful entity to better your situation isn't a ***** move.

[Coach34]

There won't be a softball. If it's a business, title 9 shouldn't exist. All non revenue sports should be cut. Just like a business

I may like this afterall

[ckDOG]

How do you decide which employees get paid more and which get raises? Some of you forget that this is a multi billion dollar industry bc people enjoy watching institutions compete against each other and will love whatever team or individual is being hyped at the moment. Sure, the occasional talented player makes it more entertaining from time to time but I've watched as much Mississippi State football with rosters full of players I would rather forget as I have with rosters full of players that actually entertain me. In other words, I enjoy the experience that is watching college football and, barring a handful of exceptions in any year, could watch an entirely different set of football players and be just fine with it as long as they have MSU jerseys on and play at DWS. People will pay money one way or another. The product is the experience. There's a large supply of willing and capable athletes who find scholarships fair comp to participate without suffering material declines in on the field entertainment if some of the better players decide the arrangement is not fair.

Second, is the college football industry exploding bc the players are better now? No. The talent is the same. Universities have pumped in millions to create outstanding game day experience and cable companies spend billions on providing outstanding television coverage. They are reaping the rewards of this investment and I guarantee you folks would continue watching if we eliminated all the 4 and 5 star talent and reduced the individual talent supply.

That all said, the handful of superstar athletes that may be temporarily inconvenienced should stfu and take their tax free scholarship packages. Without the college football network of exposure, they don't have the chance to become household names whereby Nike and Gatorade feel the need to make them instant millionaires when they finally leave the college system. Disagree? Do you think Manziel would have been the superstar he is today if he chose to play for some DIII school? No. He would have been noticed by nfl scouts and his talent would have gotten him a draft spot, but he would have never received benefit the ESPN and TAMU hype machines. His talent gets him drafted, but he never becomes Johnny ****ing Football. That's a huge intangible benefit that is conveniently left out of these discussions.

[dawgs]

How do you decide which employees get paid more and which get raises? Some of you forget that this is a multi billion dollar industry bc people enjoy watching institutions compete against each other and will love whatever team or individual is being hyped at the moment. Sure, the occasional talented player makes it more entertaining from time to time but I've watched as much Mississippi State football with rosters full of players I would rather forget as I have with rosters full of players that actually entertain me. In other words, I enjoy the experience that is watching college football and, barring a handful of exceptions in any year, could watch an entirely different set of football players and be just fine with it as long as they have MSU jerseys on and play at DWS. People will pay money one way or another. The product is the experience. There's a large supply of willing and capable athletes who find scholarships fair comp to participate without suffering material declines in on the field entertainment if some of the better players decide the arrangement is not fair.

Second, is the college football industry exploding bc the players are better now? No. The talent is the same. Universities have pumped in millions to create outstanding game day experience and cable companies spend billions on providing outstanding television coverage. They are reaping the rewards of this investment and I guarantee you folks would continue watching if we eliminated all the 4 and 5 star talent and reduced the individual talent supply.

That all said, the handful of superstar athletes that may be temporarily inconvenienced should stfu and take their tax free scholarship packages. Without the college football network of exposure, they don't have the chance to become household names whereby Nike and Gatorade feel the need to make them instant millionaires when they finally leave the college system. Disagree? Do you think Manziel would have been the superstar he is today if he chose to play for some DIII school? No. He would have been noticed by nfl scouts and his talent would have gotten him a draft spot, but he would have never received benefit the ESPN and TAMU hype machines. His talent gets him drafted, but he never becomes Johnny ****ing Football. That's a huge intangible benefit that is conveniently left out of these discussions.

do away with the 4* and 5* talent and CFB becomes no bigger than college baseball.

and as i get older, it's harder to set aside time to watch every msu sporting event. i haven't watched nearly as much MBB the last couple of years because i have other stuff to do and we aren't good enough to justify me taking 2 hours out of my life twice a week to watch. if you think people would keep putting 60K in the seats and setting viewers records on TV with a subpar product, then you've lost your mind. sure i've watched a lot of bad msu football, but a lot of it was because we're playing in a great conference against great teams. if it was bad msu football against subpar talent, it's not going to exactly be must watch TV. quality matters and you can't argue otherwise.

[smootness]

There are definitely things about the current system I don't like, specifically things like jersey sales and video games. And I hate that there are contracts that give AD's more money when a kid goes out and wins a national title.

But the solution is not to consider them employees. If this holds, this is not a good day.

[ckDOG]

do away with the 4* and 5* talent and CFB becomes no bigger than college baseball.

and as i get older, it's harder to set aside time to watch every msu sporting event. i haven't watched nearly as much MBB the last couple of years because i have other stuff to do and we aren't good enough to justify me taking 2 hours out of my life twice a week to watch. if you think people would keep putting 60K in the seats and setting viewers records on TV with a subpar product, then you've lost your mind. sure i've watched a lot of bad msu football, but a lot of it was because we're playing in a great conference against great teams. if it was bad msu football against subpar talent, it's not going to exactly be must watch TV. quality matters and you can't argue otherwise.

Two thoughts. You would have to go back at least 3 decades (probably back to before integration) before I would accept that talent today is any better than before. My main point was there is no drastic change in talent in college football the past few decades yet the money involved has soared. If it's not the actual play, it must be the presentation and hype, right? Population increases can explain part of it - I'll concede that part.

Second, when talent is spread across many teams, the masses are going to believe it is an awesome product one way or another. Why? The television tells them that. You individually may be able to tell, but the masses won't. You are giving viewers too much credit.

[godlluB]

Will they get time and a half if the game goes into overtime?

What about bonus pay for having to work on Saturdays?

I full anticipate Stricklin will schedule all Thursday night games in 2016 and declare that football players just work second shift.

[Johnson85]

My employer made 1,000 times what I was paid for my labor that sold their product. Where's my fair share?**

In court. Assuming employers across basically your entire industry colluded to hold down wages. If they didn't, then you got a fair deal and don't have anything to complain about.

[Johnson85]

How do you decide which employees get paid more and which get raises?
You negotiate. Same as ever.



Some of you forget that this is a multi billion dollar industry bc people enjoy watching institutions compete against each other and will love whatever team or individual is being hyped at the moment. Attendance during the last Crooms year and this basketball season says differently. People want to watch winners. The institutions themselves bring a ton of value because they have ready made fans, but that's all the more reason to not be scared to allow players to negotiate freely, or to have a players' union and a salary cap.



There's a large supply of willing and capable athletes who find scholarships fair comp to participate without suffering material declines in on the field entertainment if some of the better players decide the arrangement is not fair. If that's true, the universities have nothing to fear from negotiating without collusion or negotiating with a union over a salary cap setup.


That all said, the handful of superstar athletes that may be temporarily inconvenienced should stfu and take their tax free scholarship packages. Without the college football network of exposure, they don't have the chance to become household names whereby Nike and Gatorade feel the need to make them instant millionaires when they finally leave the college system. Disagree? Do you think Manziel would have been the superstar he is today if he chose to play for some DIII school? No. He would have been noticed by nfl scouts and his talent would have gotten him a draft spot, but he would have never received benefit the ESPN and TAMU hype machines. His talent gets him drafted, but he never becomes Johnny ****ing Football. That's a huge intangible benefit that is conveniently left out of these discussions. Then there should be no problem convincing players to play for scholarships if it's that valuable. Don't worry about what other schools offer, just offer the scholarship and be happy with the players you get.

[dawgs]

Two thoughts. You would have to go back at least 3 decades (probably back to before integration) before I would accept that talent today is any better than before. My main point was there is no drastic change in talent in college football the past few decades yet the money involved has soared. If it's not the actual play, it must be the presentation and hype, right? Population increases can explain part of it - I'll concede that part.

Second, when talent is spread across many teams, the masses are going to believe it is an awesome product one way or another. Why? The television tells them that. You individually may be able to tell, but the masses won't. You are giving viewers too much credit.

popular because it's the best 18-22 year olds in the world. if you make CFB something less than the best 18-22 year olds in the world, the interest will drop dramatically. sure there would be some interest, but it wouldn't be what it is today. look at college basketball in the last couple of decades. first guys went pro straight from HS, then they did the 1 and done, but the end result is that the game isn't as popular or as good because the best 19-22 year olds aren't playing college ball all that often.

[shannondawg]

Maybe it will do away with the pell grants. Or it might do away with the NCAA. It will be interesting to see what the next step is for NW. What about the players that are already getting paid? Not that any of ours are of course..

But dream on if you think it will do away with women's sports , most baseball teams are a losing proposition , just not ours or probably any in the SEC now. Our basketball program will probably lose money next year.

[ckDOG]

You negotiate. Same as ever.


Attendance during the last Crooms year and this basketball season says differently. People want to watch winners. The institutions themselves bring a ton of value because they have ready made fans, but that's all the more reason to not be scared to allow players to negotiate freely, or to have a players' union and a salary cap.


If that's true, the universities have nothing to fear from negotiating without collusion or negotiating with a union over a salary cap setup.

Then there should be no problem convincing players to play for scholarships if it's that valuable. Don't worry about what other schools offer, just offer the scholarship and be happy with the players you get.

Fair enough. Let's create the negotiation system. Who is eligible for employment and is comp based on performance or butts in seats? Since we are talking employment, I suppose we have to throw the enrollment qualifications out the window. Can we bid on pro athletes? College budgets could afford a couple nfl vets that are just barely making rosters. That would be a good replacement for the old JUCO method when you need to fill holes on the lines. Does the comp have to be regulated by the university itself or can it be managed by a 3rd party to get around the public funding restrictions?

[dawgoneyall]

Who makes millions. Most college athletic depts barely break even.

Explain.

[LiterallyPolice]

Show of hands.... How many of you spouting anti-union rhetoric actually read the article?

This isn't about players getting paid. They are claiming they are ALREADY getting paid (via scholarship) and in return the offer the school services and have expectations above and beyond normal students. That is, they act more as employees than students. This is about their right to unionize and legally bargain as a union:

FTA: "Among its demands, CAPA is seeking financial coverage for former players with sports-related medical expenses, independent concussion experts to be placed on the sidelines during games and the creation of an educational trust fund to help former players graduate."

Seems reasonable to me.... But even if you think these requests are absurd, then you can rest easy that the negotiations will reflect as much.

Now, I know many of you will say it's a slippery slope. Well my response to that is any slippery slope, by definition, is a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope . The short explanation is that there's a looooonnnng way between this ruling and the utter annihilation of college sports, if any connection at all.

All of these "concerns" with players getting paid differently and Title IX are making large assumptions and are overly simplistic. If NCAA players do end up getting paid, all parties involved will *negotiate* to come up with a solution that's fair for everyone. Anyone who says "There's no way it can be done fairly" is either wearing political blinders or vastly overestimates his or her own knowledge/intelligence. Or both.

I'll end with a trivia question: Who is the only president to lead a labor union?

...
...
...

Ronald Reagan (The Screen Actors Guild)

[dawgoneyall]

Explain the million State is going to make.

Are you really that out of touch.

[dawgoneyall]

Unions are evil.

[ckDOG]

popular because it's the best 18-22 year olds in the world. if you make CFB something less than the best 18-22 year olds in the world, the interest will drop dramatically. sure there would be some interest, but it wouldn't be what it is today. look at college basketball in the last couple of decades. first guys went pro straight from HS, then they did the 1 and done, but the end result is that the game isn't as popular or as good because the best 19-22 year olds aren't playing college ball all that often.


We will never get to test the theory bc the best talent will take the scholly for play offer and most will never think twice. We will also never get to the point where we have one and done players jump to the NFL bc they aren't good enough for it. They NEED the development of college coaching and s&c before they are ready for the jump (yet another intangible comp for the player).

Epiphany moment. Since the NFL essentially enjoys a free farm league compliments of the college system, let's get them to pay the best players. The compensation aspects at the university level are simply too messy. Have them ID the best prospects any time after their first year of collegiate football and they can bid on the rights to that player. They then can sign them after the 3rd year. The player gets the option money regardless if they are signed or not after the 3 years are completed or can no longer medically play. The options could then be traded or sold amongst the other nfl teams.

This comp obviously wouldn't come from the system that makes the most money off the college performance, but I bet the beneficiaries of the payments would bite their tongue and get comfortable with it real quick.

If you didn't let the bidding occur until after the first college year, then the nfl couldn't steer their prospect to a certain program. The elite players would still chose the best fit for their development - as they do now.

Happy medium and it doesn't destroy the college system and turn it into an employment free for all.

[Dawgowar]

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-ncaa-is-a-dead-man-walking.php

Get past his hastily written journalist glee at this issue and there is some valid food for thought. Also, the fact the ruling only applies to private schools and has miles to go to be finalized means this is only beginning. His comment about scholarships becoming taxable I like as well.

Union bosses will get money, that is all it is about to them. They turn every industry or enterprise they infect to shit - Airlines, Education and Automobile - yeah, this is gonna work out real good for America.

[Homedawg]

There won't be a softball. If it's a business, title 9 shouldn't exist. All non revenue sports should be cut. Just like a business

Sounds good ain't happening. They will won't a check too. Equality will demand it.

[RossDawg82]

Yeah, its sad that coaches make millions while kids make nothing. How many Dak jerseys will we sell next year? How much money will MSU make off his talents. He isn't a typical NFL QB so while MSU may make millions, Mullen makes millions, Assistant coaches make 300K+ per year, and the SEC makes billions, Dak is going to be left with a college degree a banged up body and an empty bank account.

Sounds about right.

You forgot to mention a college degree, an opportunity to get your resume moved up in a pile of 3000 applicants.

[dawgs]

Union bosses will get money, that is all it is about to them. They turn every industry or enterprise they infect to shit - Airlines, Education and Automobile - yeah, this is gonna work out real good for America.

unions have done a lot of good. sure if they run wild, they can **** shit up, but it's a fact that corporation profits have skyrocketed with the decline of unions and CEOs are making record salaries, while middle class wages have stagnated. there's good and bad on both sides and needs to be a healthy balance.

oh wait, nevermind, this is a mississippi state board...UNIONS ARE THA DEVIL!!!11!11111!!!!!111

[Dawgowar]

Show of hands.... How many of you spouting anti-union rhetoric actually read the article?
fund to help former players graduate."

Unions need dues - i.e. money from members. That gonna come from the goodness of the players or will there be a charge to the universities? I have now read multiple articles on this - typical NLRB drivel. NCAA makes an easy target though. (And a deserved one on balance) I say if the kids are employees they can pay taxes on their schollies and their parents can lose the ability to claim them as exemptions. This will not end the way either side wants.

It will be a state issue given labor law of Union vs Right to Work, Public vs Private - hence congress can't fix it. If you exempt college athletics what is to say that is a fair practice for teachers? If college kids are employees why are High School kids not compensated? If they are employees should they be allowed to play under the age of 16 since they can't hold a work permit?

Gonna be good theater.

[RossDawg82]

So would they somehow be able to become exempt from minimum wage. If you have to pay all sports minimum wage then we will be broke in a year. Let's take a poll at the first woman's program to sue for equal compensation

[dawgs]

If you exempt college athletics what is to say that is a fair practice for teachers? If college kids are employees why are High School kids not compensated? If they are employees should they be allowed to play under the age of 16 since they can't hold a work permit?

Gonna be good theater.

when was the last time a HS conference was signing a huge TV contract with espn or cbs? when was the last time a HS conference started their own network and stand to profit millions?

[Dawgowar]

when was the last time a HS conference was signing a huge TV contract with espn or cbs? when was the last time a HS conference started their own network and stand to profit millions?

Presently no, but ESPN has been broadcasting HS games. Give it time. Sooner or later the money enters the equation. And I said the NCAA was a deserved target. Unions though are not the answer. Not since the turn of the 19th century

[Political Hack]

Can university graduate student research assistants be next?

as soon as we start selling their jerseys.

[dawgs]

Presently no, but ESPN has been broadcasting HS games. Give it time. Sooner or later the money enters the equation. And I said the NCAA was a deserved target. Unions though are not the answer. Not since the turn of the 19th century

forming the unions is what's going to trigger the answers though. without forming the unions, the players didn't have a unified voice with which to have a say in any changes. prior to this, what motivation did the NCAA have to sit down and take the players seriously?

[Homedawg]

I'm not talking about everyone, but some of you who claim you are for this are the same ones bitching that the cost have gotten absurd and aren't going to buy tickets anymore or never have bought tickets ever. Let players get paid and see what happens to ticket prices. And the players still won't be getting a lot of money per head. Not w it going to every sport. And when u say it won't, wake up. Softball, women's equestrian, every dang sport will expect a check. And when they don't get it, it will be a lawsuit that you have already lost. Hell, 90% of sec football players qualify for pell grant in some shape for or fashion. If that isn't enough to go along w a full ride, well screw em I don't care.

[dawgs]

as soon as we start selling their jerseys.

hell, graduate research assistants get thousands a year on top of tuition to do research. they are compensated for their work outside the classroom.

[Homedawg]

hell, graduate research assistants get thousands a year on top of tuition to do research. they are compensated for their work outside the classroom.

Key word, graduate.

[dawgs]

I'm not talking about everyone, but some of you who claim you are for this are the same ones bitching that the cost have gotten absurd and aren't going to buy tickets anymore or never have bought tickets ever. Let players get paid and see what happens to ticket prices. And the players still won't be getting a lot of money per head. Not w it going to every sport. And when u say it won't, wake up. Softball, women's equestrian, every dang sport will expect a check. And when they don't get it, it will be a lawsuit that you have already lost. Hell, 90% of sec football players qualify for pell grant in some shape for or fashion. If that isn't enough to go along w a full ride, well screw em I don't care.

no one is arguing that there won't be some negative consequences to potentially come out of this. what we are saying is there isn't really a good legal argument against it. the whole argument basically comes down to "we don't like it" and "it'll ultimately ruin everything".

[dawgs]

Key word, graduate.

they are graduate STUDENTS.

[Dawgowar]

forming the unions is what's going to trigger the answers though. without forming the unions, the players didn't have a unified voice with which to have a say in any changes. prior to this, what motivation did the NCAA have to sit down and take the players seriously?


The OBannon case to actually run its course. The NCAA has already ducked out of the EA NCAA deal. These aren't coal miners developing black lung. The Unions want the $ of a potential Brain Injury lawsuit- another line of BS. Then they will find issue after issue to roll cash out of universities and their tv contracts.

[BoomBoom]

I just don't see how paying players will end well. I think it will just open a Pandora's Box of unintended consequences. Do they make millions for the school? Yes. Do they risk possibly career ending injuries to make those millions? Yes. Do they know those risks when they willingly sign their LOI and agree to do that for the cost of education and a place to sleep? Yes. If we are to look at this as a business then they are entering a legally binding contract where they agree to perform a certain job function for a certain benefit. They agreed to it of their own free will and nothing about the agreement was changed by the "hiring" institution. If you start to pay players is where the biggest issue will start. Does a QB make the same as a RB? Does a starter make more than a backup? Is he an all-American? Does he make more as an all-American QB than an all-American PF on the basketball team or the shortstop on the woman's softball team? Who sets those rates? Are they subject to negotiation? Will that negotiation be the new under the table benefits schools do to get the 5 star recruits? If they are a business and the players employees, do they have to have taxes, SS, and insurance withheld? Do they have vacation days they can take throughout the year? How about during the season? What does a potential star player make that is red shirting this season?

If we start down this path it can only end very poorly for all those involved. Does it seem unfair? Perhaps. But then so is life. The athletes are still getting opportunities that the vast majority of college students never get. They are being given a free education in the field of their choice in return for playing a game and also basically giving them a tryout for the pro levels and a shot at millions.

except that that they agreed to the best option presented to them by a government-approved cartel that restricts their options, right?

[BoomBoom]

Wow just wow. Here's the link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-northwestern-union-bid-20140326,0,6454823.story)

ETA: I guess a free college education isn't enough anymore.

I think it's pretty obvious that this will end with a compromise: players get their likeness rights. The stars will get good money from direct profits off their personal likeness, the rest will split the general sales (unnamed jerseys, etc).

[sandwolf]

I think it's pretty obvious that this will end with a compromise: players get their likeness rights. The stars will get good money from direct profits off their personal likeness, the rest will split the general sales (unnamed jerseys, etc).

That will be the beginning of the end. A star at Texas or Bama will make 10x the money that a star at MSU would make, so you can pretty well bet that we would never get another Chris Jones type player again.

[dawgs]

That will be the beginning of the end. A star at Texas or Bama will make 10x the money that a star at MSU would make, so you can pretty well bet that we would never get another Chris Jones type player again.

It's be interesting most years. Would the 4th or 5th best recruit at Bama or Texas or Florida make more than the top recruit for MSU? Most years the 4th or 5th best player in those classes would be our best recruit.

[archdog]

E=dawgs;154651]It's be interesting most years. Would the 4th or 5th best recruit at Bama or Texas or Florida make more than the top recruit for MSU? Most years the 4th or 5th best player in those classes would be our best recruit.[/QUOTE]

Scholly + 100 per week. Call it a day. The NCAA's gready ass should have fixed this 5 years ago. The money comes directly from the NCAA and given to every scholly athlete. Also taxes should be paid by the player. Best part is that the NCAA should have taken that money directly from the tv contracts off the top. 52,600,000 for football alone for D1 per year. Part of the funds from the jersey sales could go into this fund. Say 5 dollars per jersey. Everyone gets the equal amount.

Done deal. If you dont like it, sit out 3 years and show up to the combine.

[Johnson85]

Fair enough. Let's create the negotiation system. Who is eligible for employment and is comp based on performance or butts in seats? Since we are talking employment, I suppose we have to throw the enrollment qualifications out the window. Can we bid on pro athletes? College budgets could afford a couple nfl vets that are just barely making rosters. That would be a good replacement for the old JUCO method when you need to fill holes on the lines. Does the comp have to be regulated by the university itself or can it be managed by a 3rd party to get around the public funding restrictions?

People have no understanding of what this means. This does not disband the NCAA. The schools will still be able to set eligibility rules.

Even if you look down the road and see a NCAA wide players union, the NCAA will be able to negotiate for essentially a salary cap, and because unions negotiate for the weak, not the strong, the salary cap will likely be set up to disfavor the stars, just like in the NBA. And the same things that kills the players leverage in the pro leagues (the average player can't afford to waste two years of earning power sitting through a lock out) will be even more pronounced in college (the average player, who won't go pro, won't want to give up two years of eligibility fighting over pay that he's not going to get because of running out of eligibility). We'll end up with a system where more of the money goes to players, and less goes to facilities, coaches, and administrators.

There's a question of how Title IX will work but it will be resolved if this decision is upheld on appeal. Either sports with employees will be excluded from Title IX considerations (most likely), or it will still apply, which basically guts any negotiation leverage the football and basketball players might have. The Title IX issue could be a big reason why this will get overturned on appeal. Right now it forces money to be redistributed from revenue sports to non revenue sports, but mostly women's sports. If revenue sports are excluded from Title IX, women's sports will shrink. I think the people ultimately making the decision will abhor the thought of men's football and basketball players being worth more because people want to see them, and they'll be hesitant to start down the path where schools are allowed to recognize that fact.

[Johnson85]

Who makes millions. Most college athletic depts barely break even.

Explain.

College athletics dept's barely break even b/c they spend a shit ton of money on coaches, administration, facilities, and more importantly, non-revenue sports. If football and men's basketball were legally recognized as the profit-making endeavors that they are and players were allowed to be payed, you'd see men's football and basketball making a small profit, but much more money going to the players rather than how they currently compete for recruits (facilities and coaches).

[Johnson85]

Softball, women's equestrian, every dang sport will expect a check. And when they don't get it, it will be a lawsuit that you have already lost. Hell, 90% of sec football players qualify for pell grant in some shape for or fashion. If that isn't enough to go along w a full ride, well screw em I don't care.

You won't have already lost a lawsuit by non-revenue sports wanting payments. The NBA doesn't get sued because it doesn't pay women's basketball players as much as men. As long as the college players getting paid are playing for sports that are profitable and funded from money brought in by those sports, they are going to have a good argument that they are not violating Title IX b/c it's no longer an academic issue, it's an employment issue.

[Technetium]

as soon as we start selling their jerseys.

What about when you start using my research to bring in millions of dollars in grant funding? Do I get a bonus? Anyone who thinks graduate students are well compensated for their research are mistaken if the student is actually putting in effort, at least in the hard sciences. I'm not familiar enough with social sciences/etc. to know the relationship between compensation and monetary value of research.

[ckDOG]

People have no understanding of what this means. This does not disband the NCAA. The schools will still be able to set eligibility rules.

Even if you look down the road and see a NCAA wide players union, the NCAA will be able to negotiate for essentially a salary cap, and because unions negotiate for the weak, not the strong, the salary cap will likely be set up to disfavor the stars, just like in the NBA. And the same things that kills the players leverage in the pro leagues (the average player can't afford to waste two years of earning power sitting through a lock out) will be even more pronounced in college (the average player, who won't go pro, won't want to give up two years of eligibility fighting over pay that he's not going to get because of running out of eligibility). We'll end up with a system where more of the money goes to players, and less goes to facilities, coaches, and administrators.

There's a question of how Title IX will work but it will be resolved if this decision is upheld on appeal. Either sports with employees will be excluded from Title IX considerations (most likely), or it will still apply, which basically guts any negotiation leverage the football and basketball players might have. The Title IX issue could be a big reason why this will get overturned on appeal. Right now it forces money to be redistributed from revenue sports to non revenue sports, but mostly women's sports. If revenue sports are excluded from Title IX, women's sports will shrink. I think the people ultimately making the decision will abhor the thought of men's football and basketball players being worth more because people want to see them, and they'll be hesitant to start down the path where schools are allowed to recognize that fact.

Okay, I'll buy into your assumption that we can carve out revenue generating sports and treat then as profit centers for Universities (many of which are public) and then call the players University or State employees while restricting the employment to athletes who have previously never collected a paycheck for the services hired to provide. Not going to happen, bet I'll play along.

I could get behind that under two stipulations: 1) scholarships are done. You are an employee providing a part time service and will be compensated cash. 2) the salary cap represents real world scenarios.

Let's create a sliding scale. 15 bucks an hour for practice time and s&c and 50 bucks and hour for game days. Throw in some bonuses for Ws and individual performance as a tip of the cap to better teams and players. That should get the entire roster above 30k a yr. Not bad for a part time job without a college degree at 18 yrs old. The superstars would still be underpaid, but the vast majority of players would now receive a pay for play arrangement more reflective of their performance and effort. 30k+ to practice and ride the bench or provide a breather seems like a good gig.

Also, we would benefit from this. We could afford the 4-6 million ish roster labor payroll per year and our tuition is low. Now that players have to pay tuition or take out loans, we are now in a better position as there are many competing schools with 2x and above the tuition we charge.

Again, people are going to try to argue that it's unfair that players don't reap the profits of the industry in which they are the nuts and bolts of. There are many talented and difficult to replace employees working in industries where someone else profits from their labors. Profit is directed to the people that make the investments and investment decisions. Wages are paid to the people that execute the plans and they almost never line up "fairly" in terms of who works hard.

[dawgs]

People have no understanding of what this means. This does not disband the NCAA. The schools will still be able to set eligibility rules.

Even if you look down the road and see a NCAA wide players union, the NCAA will be able to negotiate for essentially a salary cap, and because unions negotiate for the weak, not the strong, the salary cap will likely be set up to disfavor the stars, just like in the NBA. And the same things that kills the players leverage in the pro leagues (the average player can't afford to waste two years of earning power sitting through a lock out) will be even more pronounced in college (the average player, who won't go pro, won't want to give up two years of eligibility fighting over pay that he's not going to get because of running out of eligibility). We'll end up with a system where more of the money goes to players, and less goes to facilities, coaches, and administrators.

There's a question of how Title IX will work but it will be resolved if this decision is upheld on appeal. Either sports with employees will be excluded from Title IX considerations (most likely), or it will still apply, which basically guts any negotiation leverage the football and basketball players might have. The Title IX issue could be a big reason why this will get overturned on appeal. Right now it forces money to be redistributed from revenue sports to non revenue sports, but mostly women's sports. If revenue sports are excluded from Title IX, women's sports will shrink. I think the people ultimately making the decision will abhor the thought of men's football and basketball players being worth more because people want to see them, and they'll be hesitant to start down the path where schools are allowed to recognize that fact.

i know, poor NBA stars. kobe only makes $30M. most superstars are getting by with only around $20M. the system is soooo rigged against them. that's only like 5-10x what avg players get.

[Political Hack]

What about when you start using my research to bring in millions of dollars in grant funding? Do I get a bonus? Anyone who thinks graduate students are well compensated for their research are mistaken if the student is actually putting in effort, at least in the hard sciences. I'm not familiar enough with social sciences/etc. to know the relationship between compensation and monetary value of research.

I'm not either, but agreeing to a life of academia has consequences. One of which is you're going to be underpaid. When a graduate students does bring in big money grants, it's usually for a specific purpose and those purposes are met. It's not for the purpose of making their bosses millions of dollars. College football is completely different. The Univeristies, executives, coaches, conferences, conference executives, NCAA, ESPN, cable TV, radio, apparel companies, licensing organizations, lawyers, etc... are all making insane amounts of money off of kids hard work.

I'm going to pit two people against each other here that probably respect one another a great deal and in no way are in competition with one another just to present the argument... Who do you think benefits the most from Dak Prescott's hard work: Dak or Mike Slive? That's not to say that Slive doesn't sacrifice a great deal by basically living at his office and working his butt off, but Dak is making the product and Dak is selling the product. And the proceeds are going to everyone else but him. Right now they have no voice and no say in the rules of the game. They deserve that. Where it leads is anyone's guess, but they've been exploited for everyone else's financial gain long enough.

[Technetium]

I'm not either, but agreeing to a life in athletics has consequences. One of which is you're going to be underpaid while playing in college.

Fixed it for you. This goes both ways. I'm not saying athletes aren't used for financial gain to the system. However, there is no law requiring athletes to accept scholarships if they want to play professional sports on day. Baseball players can go straight to the pros, basketball only has to wait a year, football 3 years, etc. Those are professional organization rules, not college rules. Don't like it? Then find another job to fill your time like others who don't go to college until you are eligible for the pros. Oh, wait, you want to keep playing sports? Well, I'm sure you can play in a rec league or start your own minor league system. Too much work, requires too many resources, or otherwise not acceptable? Oh, well there is always the original option of accepting a scholarship to a college in order to receive education, training, competition, exposure, etc. that might help you get to the next level and at the same time give you some credentials for a normal job if the whole sports thing doesn't work out...

[dawgs]

Fixed it for you. This goes both ways. I'm not saying athletes aren't used for financial gain to the system. However, there is no law requiring athletes to accept scholarships if they want to play professional sports on day. Baseball players can go straight to the pros, basketball only has to wait a year, football 3 years, etc. Those are professional organization rules, not college rules. Don't like it? Then find another job to fill your time like others who don't go to college until you are eligible for the pros. Oh, wait, you want to keep playing sports? Well, I'm sure you can play in a rec league or start your own minor league system. Too much work, requires too many resources, or otherwise not acceptable? Oh, well there is always the original option of accepting a scholarship to a college in order to receive education, training, competition, exposure, etc. that might help you get to the next level and at the same time give you some credentials for a normal job if the whole sports thing doesn't work out...

yall keep repeating this over and over, but it still doesn't address the legal issue at hand.

[slickdawg]

Let them unionize. Go ahead and make it an employee-employer relationship, give them a taste of corporate America!

No more Mr. Nice Guy - the assumed (up to) five years on scholarship is no longer the case. The yearly renewable clause will be enforced, based on performance levels. For example, starting RB must get 1000 yards, starting WR must get 500 yards, starting OL must grade out 85% or better, starting LB's must make 50 tackles, etc. If you do not meet your goals, you get one year of probation to correct your deficiencies. If you do not meet the goals in your probation year, you are terminated.

You got hurt? Life sucks, we will be nice enough to get your injury fixed and rehabilitated, but after rehabilitation if you cannot meet metrics (40 time, vertical leap, long jump, etc) from before your injury, your "employment" will be terminated immediately.

Since exposure significantly increases your chances of landing a professional sports contract, you will be charged a fee for each televised game to cover the expenses of the broadcast.




Now personally, I think the current system is crap. They don't let players have jobs. Football, in particular, works year round. Lifting weights, drills, practices, games, etc. How in the hell do they expect a kid to live anything close to a normal college life if he/she can't get any income? What if he/she needs a toothbrush, washing detergent, a haircut, birth control, gas, or maybe wants to go on a date to a movie?

The NCAA, ESPN, and the big conferences have created this monster, flaunting multi-million dollar deals and rubbing it in the faces of the student-athletes, now they get to deal with it.

[Irondawg]

Yep the NCAA is getting what they had coming, but hopefully a reasonable solution can be ironed out. However, in these types of situations reasonable solutions are almost never the end result.

I'll throw another thing out there from Mr. Bounds show this morning. He was ranting that college players should be able to sell their jerseys and stuff on ebay, etc. Sounds good in theory, but what happens when that becomes the recruiting tool. Mr Auburn booster agrees to by Cam's first game jersey for $300K. Not it's perfectly legal.

Lots of potential loopholes that have to be considered and dealt with here.

And this is why Washington DC has so many problems with policies. Nobody there is trying to destroy the country, but no solution universally solves a problem and everyone there is looking out for their own best interests so what you get are bastardized policies and finger pointing. Have to find a way to avoid that here.

I don't disagree with the initial demands of these few players, and I doubt most do. But the resulting rulings could open Pandora's box of issues to deal with.

[dawgs]

Let them unionize. Go ahead and make it an employee-employer relationship, give them a taste of corporate America!

No more Mr. Nice Guy - the assumed (up to) five years on scholarship is no longer the case. The yearly renewable clause will be enforced, based on performance levels. For example, starting RB must get 1000 yards, starting WR must get 500 yards, starting OL must grade out 85% or better, starting LB's must make 50 tackles, etc. If you do not meet your goals, you get one year of probation to correct your deficiencies. If you do not meet the goals in your probation year, you are terminated.

You got hurt? Life sucks, we will be nice enough to get your injury fixed and rehabilitated, but after rehabilitation if you cannot meet metrics (40 time, vertical leap, long jump, etc) from before your injury, your "employment" will be terminated immediately.

Since exposure significantly increases your chances of landing a professional sports contract, you will be charged a fee for each televised game to cover the expenses of the broadcast.




Now personally, I think the current system is crap. They don't let players have jobs. Football, in particular, works year round. Lifting weights, drills, practices, games, etc. How in the hell do they expect a kid to live anything close to a normal college life if he/she can't get any income? What if he/she needs a toothbrush, washing detergent, a haircut, birth control, gas, or maybe wants to go on a date to a movie?

The NCAA, ESPN, and the big conferences have created this monster, flaunting multi-million dollar deals and rubbing it in the faces of the student-athletes, now they get to deal with it.

here's the thing, no program is going to treat players like that because they won't have any depth in a year or 2 and there simply aren't enough quality, ready to play immediately incoming freshman to allow for this kinda practice.

second, the players have to form a union or some kind of coalition in order to get a say in the matters of CFB. that's the only way they could get their voices heard and unified. 1 or 2 isolated players voicing their opinions won't make a difference, and might subject that single player to mistreatment for making waves. however, by banding together, that player can voice their opinion and not be mistreated without every player in CFB standing with that player.

[Martianlander]

If they are paid employees they should get a W-2 for money earned and maybe a 1099 for the value of the scholarship. If they have to pay taxes on the scholarship that's going to be quite a bit of money for them to come up with quarterly, so I guess they are underpaid already and need a raise.
Remember too that the National Labor Relations Board that ruled on this is for LABOR, and almost always rules against management, right or wrong. This will wind up in the courts and take years to settle. Unfortunately there is no simple answer unless the NFL and NBA wants to develop a minor league like baseball has, and give these guys an alternative. Then when they don't make it to the pros they can complain that they don't have an education.

[Johnson85]

Again, people are going to try to argue that it's unfair that players don't reap the profits of the industry in which they are the nuts and bolts of.

No, they're not. It'd be perfectly fine if players got paid roughly the same thing they get now if that was the market rate. It's unfair because the NCAA members are allowed to collude, and the players aren't allowed to negotiate. If you let the players unionize and negotiate, you basically have the same situation as the other professional sports leagues. Maybe there is a better system, but that system is not ridiculous unfair like the current one.

[Johnson85]

i know, poor NBA stars. kobe only makes $30M. most superstars are getting by with only around $20M. the system is soooo rigged against them. that's only like 5-10x what avg players get.

Lebron James makes less than 4 times the average NBA player. If you don't think that's evidence of a salary cap that is more favorable to the average player than to the superstars, I can't help you. That doesn't make him 'poor' which was an idiotic statement for you to make, but that does mean the union leaders did more to look out for the median player than the superstars. This is also exactly what you would expect, since it's the vote of the median player that is more or less going to determine whether a deal is accepted and probably just as important, whether the union reps keep their jobs.

[Political Hack]

uh... there are regulations that prevent athletes from taking their skills to the professional level in all three major sports. if you decide in year 1 of college to go pro in football or baseball... sorry. You can't go to the NBA after high school.

[Real Deal]

Your issue is with the pro sports, not the NCAA. There must be some sort of commitment from the athlete to the universities.

[Bullmutt]

There is perhaps another potential issue here that has not been discussed.

As an employee, if I feel I am worth more than I'm being compensated, I have the right to go with another company that is willing to compensate me at the rate I feel I deserve.

What happens when Chris Jones demands to be allowed to leave MSU for Bama because they have agreed to double his rate of compensation? Don't believe for a second that this will not eventually occur if this entire "employee" concept is allowed to prevail. That is when MSU becomes poor ole miss state again, and the Bama's , ND's, So Cal's, and Ohio State's become the Steinbrenners of college athletics. What we are discussing here is a road to backdoor professionalism. Perhaps a better approach would be to let players leave earlier for the pros if they are good enough. Those who aren't good enough are more likely to be happy with a schollie and a modest stipend.

If this phenomenon is allowed to play out to its logical end, we should all start planning how, ten years from now, we are going to spend those free hours that we currently devote to watching college sports, because subsequent college sports that we watch will likely be at the intramural level.

[dawgs]

Lebron James makes less than 4 times the average NBA player. If you don't think that's evidence of a salary cap that is more favorable to the average player than to the superstars, I can't help you. That doesn't make him 'poor' which was an idiotic statement for you to make, but that does mean the union leaders did more to look out for the median player than the superstars. This is also exactly what you would expect, since it's the vote of the median player that is more or less going to determine whether a deal is accepted and probably just as important, whether the union reps keep their jobs.

lebron could be paid more, but he also wants to win championships. even without a salary cap, if he's getting paid $50M, then that's going to hurt his chances to win because a NBA team wouldn't have a $200M payroll. also, if lebron had not turned into the best player on the planet (as tends to happen with some highly touted guys), he'd still reap the benefits of being a well paid athlete playing the game he loves because of the union. finally, lebron is also able to make more than double his salary in endorsements ($42M in 2013). the union does represent every player, not just the handful of elite players, however, the union has worked with the owners of NBA franchises to set up a system where the elite talent can make more $$ that than they could have ever possibly dreamed just for playing basketball.

lebron also makes more than 11 times the median NBA player salary. the lebrons, kobes, durants, etc. skew the mean avg upward.

http://espn.go.com/nba/salaries/_/page/8

[dawgs]

There is perhaps another potential issue here that has not been discussed.

As an employee, if I feel I am worth more than I'm being compensated, I have the right to go with another company that is willing to compensate me at the rate I feel I deserve.

What happens when Chris Jones demands to be allowed to leave MSU for Bama because they have agreed to double his rate of compensation? Don't believe for a second that this will not eventually occur if this entire "employee" concept is allowed to prevail. That is when MSU becomes poor ole miss state again, and the Bama's , ND's, So Cal's, and Ohio State's become the Steinbrenners of college athletics. What we are discussing here is a road to backdoor professionalism. Perhaps a better approach would be to let players leave earlier for the pros if they are good enough. Those who aren't good enough are more likely to be happy with a schollie and a modest stipend.

If this phenomenon is allowed to play out to its logical end, we should all start planning how, ten years from now, we are going to spend those free hours that we currently devote to watching college sports, because subsequent college sports that we watch will likely be at the intramural level.

THE SKY IS FALLING!!1!111!!!!!11!!!!

i think it's 100% safe to say that whatever the outcome of this is, it won't be a pure free market employment system where players can shop their resumes around each season for a better deal.

[Bullmutt]

Ultimately, if it doesn't I'll be quite surprised.

[Political Hack]

fed government employment isn't the free market. Americorps isnt. Soldiers aren't. There are hundreds of employment/labor relationships structures throughout the world and damn near every one of them is superior to the endentured servitude structure that exists with sec football players now.

[Real Deal]

fed government employment isn't the free market.
LOLOL you got that right

[smootness]

Ultimately, if it doesn't I'll be quite surprised.

I agree with you, unless schools institute some kind of 3-year contract. Regardless, considering college athletes employees will only serve to destroy the popularity of college athletics, and ultimately the athletes will have a far worse deal than they currently do.

[Real Deal]

fed government employment isn't the free market. Americorps isnt. Soldiers aren't. There are hundreds of employment/labor relationships structures throughout the world and damn near every one of them is superior to the endentured servitude structure that exists with sec football players now.
Fair enough on the first part.

But how can anyone say what college football is doing isn't working well? For everyone? What's the alternative, for the players to NOT play football. Take a poll and ask what they'd rather do. Actually pay to go to school like all the regular students (or not go to school at all) or get it paid for via football.

This bullshit is being driven by a bunch of sleazeball filth looking for a payday. Unfortunately players are listening to them.

[dawgs]

Fair enough on the first part.

But how can anyone say what college football is doing isn't working well? For everyone? What's the alternative, for the players to NOT play football. Take a poll and ask what they'd rather do. Actually pay to go to school like all the regular students (or not go to school at all) or get it paid for via football.

This bullshit is being driven by a bunch of sleazeball filth looking for a payday. Unfortunately players are listening to them.

it isn't working well for everyone. it works well for the coaches who make millions. it works well for the ADs and commissioners who make millions. it works well for the tv networks that make millions. it works well for the shoe companies that make millions. it does not work well for the players who make all this money for everyone else, but only get a voucher for it the hours and effort they put into it. the system worked well for you as a fan, and now you are worried shit might change, potentially for the worse (no way of knowing the end result of things right now though), and so you don't want it to change. i understand that. but that doesn't mean the system was "fair" or "right" from a legal standpoint.

i also just wonder who the "sleazeball filth looking for a payday" is? i mean as of now you have conferences, coaches, admins, tv networks, radio networks, clothing and shoe companies, bowls, areans/stadiums, etc etc etc making millions off the college football and basketball athletes, but you aren't worried about that "sleazeball filth" wanting to maintain the status quo and keep their payday? it's just hilarious to me how there are people making millions off free labor, and they aren't the "sleazeball filth" in your mind. instead it's the people working with the players to ensure they get a seat at the table, not just to negotiate money, but to negotiate rules, injuries, and a multitude of other issues they currently have little or no say in whatsoever who are the "sleazeball filth". but hey, i think the players have a damn good case here, does that qualify me as "sleazeball filth" too?

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/adam-silver-college-basketball-and-two-problems-with-one-solution/

"If you’re one of the people who still thinks college athletes are fairly compensated with a $40,000 scholarship, think of it like this: That’s not even $40,000 they’re getting. That’s a voucher. It costs the schools nothing. It’s like cooking at a restaurant that clears hundreds of millions of dollars every year, and they pay you by giving you free food for the year. It’s total bullshit."

[dawgs]

LOLOL you got that right

go **** yourself, asshole. there's plenty of normal hardworking americans that work for the federal govt that aren't mooching and aren't lazy and put in a good honest days work, just like anyone else who works for a private company.

[Real Deal]

it was a joke fella

[dawgs]

it was a joke fella

obviously not rooted in your actual opinion on the matter****. i just hate that kinda mentality towards your average working citizen. bash politicians all you want, but don't bash people just doing their job and hamstrung by the bullshit that filters down to them from poorly thought out and poorly implemented congressional decisions.

[Real Deal]

I feel that the education the athletes get is enough compensation.

The sleazeball filth is the agents and lawyers trying to get the players to get paid so they can get paid. They aren't setting a good precedent.

Should big time players get money? Sure, if someone wants to give it to them. BUT DO NOT TRY AND REGULATE THIS THROUGH THE SCHOOLS. In my opinion, players should be free to get whatever gifts they want from boosters, agents, whatever. That tackles every issue. Cheating goes away. And the players would still go to the schools they go to now.

[dawgs]

I feel that the education the athletes get is enough compensation.

The sleazeball filth is the agents and lawyers trying to get the players to get paid so they can get paid. They aren't setting a good precedent.

Should big time players get money? Sure, if someone wants to give it to them. BUT DO NOT TRY AND REGULATE THIS THROUGH THE SCHOOLS. In my opinion, players should be free to get whatever gifts they want from boosters, agents, whatever. That tackles every issue. Cheating goes away. And the players would still go to the schools they go to now.

there has to be some regulation of the market to protect the integrity of the system. as for the agents/lawyers that are working with the players (are any agents?), are they just supposed to do it on their own? i don't know what you do for a living, but if you sell cars, if you undercut a price from a competitor to sell are car, are you "sleazeball filth" because you wanted to move a car and get paid?

the players were never going to have a voice unless they unified, so the first step to getting that voice was to win the right to unify. they've done that, pending appeals obviously. now they actually will have some clout to have a unified say in protecting themselves with injury regulations (especially head injuries) and implementing new rules, and every other decision that's been made without any input from the actual athletes it affects. the funny thing is, you need smart people that know the law and know how to formulate a legal argument to support your side. they are called lawyers. and you have to pay them to do that for you. just like you pay a doctor when you are sick to figure out what medicine you need. or pay a stock broker to invest your money. or pay an electrician to wire your house.

[Bullmutt]

Dawg, you talk about protecting "the integrity of the system" on the one hand while embracing policies that can only serve to destrouy it on the other. I do agree that players should given enough of a stipend that they would be enabled financially to live the same quality of student life as the average student, but the legal, fiscal, and fraught-with-unintended-conmsequences quagmire that is sure to result from this "employee" endeavor will surely kill the golden-egg goose. Widespread attorney involvement in and of itself will likely assure that.

Too, you talk about players having "input" regarding matters about which they have little or no knowledge. We must keep in mind that these are 18-21 year-olds. For so many of them, critical thinking is deciding who they're going to ball tonight and what kind of alcohol they want to drink. Decisions regarding injury regulations, new rules, etc. should logically be something decided by the coaches in whose care they place themselves for 3-4 years (Yes, the coaches make alot of money, but I hope you won't adopt the position that they don't generally care alot about their players), aided by input from qualified medical professionals and others as appropriate.

Also keep in mind that a great many of these players accept scharships to play college football because they recognize that it is their best chance of escaping what are often bad circumstances. In the case of many, there would be no opportunity for a college degree otherwise; then their best-case scenario might be learning a trade which would enable them to honorably earn a living, while the worst case scenario might be staying in their hometown, doing drugs, hanging out on street corners, and forever being a nobody going nowhere.

When you consider the circumstances confronting so many of them, playing football for 3-4 years to get a college degree and maybe a shot at the NFL (not to mention the on-campus status they are ascribed as well as other perqs) is not such a bad deal after all. If the NFL doesn't work out for them, the worst they'll be regarded is as "has beens", which still beats the hell out of being a "never was".

[dawgs]

i think the argument that many of these kids come from "bad circumstances" is a pretty bad argument to make. essentially you are saying someone from a bad situation should be thankful for being exploited for a few years in the <2% hope they make it in the NFL.

and this will come up sooner or later, but with the demands on players and the fact that schools tend to steer athletes towards easy majors and classes that don't set them up for a post-college career, the idea of how valuable that college degree is will come up sooner or later. colter from NW said he was steered away from pre-med by advisers because he struggled balancing football with his freshman classes. look at the UNC scandal. michigan has had stuff come out in the last few years. these 18 year olds are being manipulated by adults more than twice their age to take classes and majors to stay eligible, not to prep them for a career, and these adults have a huge investment in ensuring these kids stay eligible. so is tha scholarship really worth that much if you are being told what you'll take and what you won't based on the easiest route to staying eligible and making sure you are available for practice and workouts?

as for the input on matters like injuries, they'll have their own specialist that provides feedback and advocates on their behalf. coaches don't know the medical shit either, they are coaches. but they have doctors and specialists that provide them with the info and present their point of view.

[BulldogBear]

So with title IX, do women soccer players make what football players do?

Only the naive think that they won't. Paying football players will only widen the gap between haves and have nots. Those who think schools will get away with paying football players and not having to pay all other athletes the same $$$ are very short sighted. I give it five years TOPS after paying football players before schools have to pay the others. It might even trickle down to band, cheerleaders and any students part of the game day experience. DO NOT OPEN THIS CAN OF WORMS

[Bullmutt]

No one should be thankful for being "exploited", but anyone should be thankful for 3-4 years of college education which they would not otherwise have gotten and which a typical student pays at least $10K a year for, even at a less expensive university.

If what you say regarding football players having their curriculum chosen for them for the purpose of keeping them eligible is true, it is unjust and should be stopped. Either that, or some avenue should be provided for a player to finish his own chosen curriculum after his eligibility has expired at university expense. A truly meaningful college degree should be the least that a school provides for its athletes.

Aside from this, I stand by my "bad circumstances" point. I've just, sadly, seen it too many times.