College Athlete Unions?

[micks60]

This could actually benefit Notre Dame in the future. May force the university to pay athletes fairly. If state schools cannot/do not have to abide by these rules it gives an advantage to private schools that are able to have unions.
University would have less profit but could have more success.
Now the issue that this could cause problems for is Title IX. Btw I strongly disagree with the effect Title IX has had on college athletics.

 

[ulukinatme]

There is a simple, easy solution that would solve nearly every major flaw in the current college football system: the NFL removing it's "3 years out of HS" requirement.

I'm not sure that's an easy solution. I understand that you're trying to weed out the players that are only in school because they think they can make it at the next level, but realistically how many are going to be drafted after 0-2 years in the college scene? You're potentially asking 18-20 year-olds to determine if they're ready to play in the NFL? Sure, some players may be gifted enough and rugged enough to compete and make it, but most players need a few years at least in the college atmosphere to bulk up and adjust to the college game as it is, let alone be prepared to play in the NFL. It's not quite like the NBA where a few elite 18 year-olds can come out of high school and make a splash. Not trying to slight the NBA, but in the NFL you need more than athleticism to get by typically. Theres more emphasis on technique, running routes, proper tackling, making reads, etc. When it comes to the NBA, sometimes you just need to be a great shooter or a dominating, giant presence like Shaq to succeed.

Then again, if they're trying to go straight from high school to the NFL, and they fail miserably, then they never had to play school to begin with and no one really cared if they didn't make it but themselves.

 

[irishroo]

I'm not sure that's an easy solution. I understand that you're trying to weed out the players that are only in school because they think they can make it at the next level, but realistically how many are going to be drafted after 0-2 years in the college scene? You're potentially asking 18-20 year-olds to determine if they're ready to play in the NFL? Sure, some players may be gifted enough and rugged enough to compete and make it, but most players need a few years at least in the college atmosphere to bulk up and adjust to the college game as it is, let alone be prepared to play in the NFL. It's not quite like the NBA where a few elite 18 year-olds can come out of high school and make a splash. Not trying to slight the NBA, but in the NFL you need more than athleticism to get by typically. Theres more emphasis on technique, running routes, proper tackling, making reads, etc. When it comes to the NBA, sometimes you just need to be a great shooter or a dominating, giant presence like Shaq to succeed.

Totally agree with everything you said, but I feel my point still stands. You're right, it's going to be incredibly rare for an 18 or 19 year old to be able to physically compete in the NFL. That said, giving players the option to go to the NFL whenever they want rather than stick in college for 3 years pretty much removes, in my mind, the only legitimate beef they have - namely that they're being prohibited from capitalizing on their own marketable talents and that this prohibition benefits others at the players' expense. Make it a choice rather than a requirement and players can't make that argument anymore.

 

[wizards8507]

Totally agree with everything you said, but I feel my point still stands. You're right, it's going to be incredibly rare for an 18 or 19 year old to be able to physically compete in the NFL. That said, giving players the option to go to the NFL whenever they want rather than stick in college for 3 years pretty much removes, in my mind, the only legitimate beef they have - namely that they're being prohibited from capitalizing on their own marketable talents and that this prohibition benefits others at the players' expense. Make it a choice rather than a requirement and players can't make that argument anymore.

He'd be able to compete in an NFL minor league with other 18 to 19 yer olds.

 

[ulukinatme]

He'd be able to compete in an NFL minor league with other 18 to 19 yer olds.

Actually, this would be a great idea. There are plenty of kids that want no part in school, you could probably field 10-12 teams of these players where it's just 18-22 year-olds that play for low $$$ in the hopes of getting noticed for the next level. That's the real problem, theres no legitimate option for a kid out of high school to get noticed unless they're playing for a college team. If someone creates that league, they'd suck a ton of money and "student athletes" away from the NCAA. NCAA would still make money of course, but there would be no more arguments about college athletes not getting paid. They could just make the jump to the minor league if they wanted the cash.

 

[wizards8507]

Actually, this would be a great idea. There are plenty of kids that want no part in school, you could probably field 12 teams of these players where it's just 18-22 year-olds that play for low $$$ in the hopes of getting noticed for the next level. That's the real problem, theres no legitimate option for a kid out of high school to get noticed unless they're playing for a college team.

I've suggested this before and people have speculated that the NFL would never do it because it would be a money-loser. I'm not so sure. I think AAA-level baseball is at worst a break-even situation for most clubs, and minor-league football could use existing NFL or MLS facilities that are completely empty for large parts of the year.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

There is a simple, easy solution that would solve nearly every major flaw in the current college football system: the NFL removing it's "3 years out of HS" requirement.

An easier solution would be for grown men to stop worshiping young guys who play with a ball.

 

[GowerND11]

I hated the way Coulter worded his speech. He said the scholarship players aren't afforded the basic necessities to live. Really? Free housing, free food, free showers, free team clothing, free gear, free education aren't basic necessities?!?! I think the NCAA needs to institute 4 year scholarships. The NFL needs to remove the 3 years from HS rule. The student-athletes would be much better off with both of those changes. I also agree that these guys should be allowed to make more money through their summer/campus jobs etc. Those are simple fixes the NCAA and the NFL can do without the need for unions.

 

[irishroo]

An easier solution would be for grown men to stop worshiping young guys who play with a ball.

If you really think it's easier for an entire society to give up one of its longest running and enjoyable traditions than for the NFL to change one somewhat arbitrary rule I'm not even gonna try and argue with you.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

If you really think it's easier for an entire society to give up one of its longest running and enjoyable traditions than for the NFL to change one somewhat arbitrary rule I'm not even gonna try and argue with you.

I don't think you understood the meaning of worship...

 

[MTLIrish]

This idea makes me want to be sick! As a former D1 athlete that didn't play one of the big 2 sports, what makes football or basketball players different from the rest? All the other sports have less scholarships to give out than players on the team so why shouldn't the runner, baseball player or hockey player get paid or some sort of guarantee? They train just as long and have the same course load as well as the same NCAA rules to follow.

Free education, room, food and clothing is payment enough... For those that choose not to take full advantage of how valuable an education can be; you made that choice and have to live knowing you pissed it away.

 

[Irish#1]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Northwestern responds to its players leading labor movement: <a href="http://t.co/nZ0i4y5KSD">pic.twitter.com/nZ0i4y5KSD</a></p>— SB Nation CFB (@SBNationCFB) <a href="https://twitter.com/SBNationCFB/statuses/428247334221148160">January 28, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Typical PR response.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I've suggested this before and people have speculated that the NFL would never do it because it would be a money-loser. I'm not so sure. I think AAA-level baseball is at worst a break-even situation for most clubs, and minor-league football could use existing NFL or MLS facilities that are completely empty for large parts of the year.

Triple A teams only pay about $10,000 per player. The MLB club which owns the players' rights subsidizes the rest. Also, AAA baseball teams get about 72 home games a year to generate revenue.

 

[JTLA]

This idea makes me want to be sick! As a former D1 athlete that didn't play one of the big 2 sports, what makes football or basketball players different from the rest? All the other sports have less scholarships to give out than players on the team so why shouldn't the runner, baseball player or hockey player get paid or some sort of guarantee? They train just as long and have the same course load as well as the same NCAA rules to follow.

Free education, room, food and clothing is payment enough... For those that choose not to take full advantage of how valuable an education can be; you made that choice and have to live knowing you pissed it away.

I think "enough" is the operative word here. The NCAA isn't incentivized to make "enough" money. The NFL isn't incentivized to make "enough". ESPN isn't incentivized to make "enough". They all have a role in this and a fiscal responsibility to make as much revenue off the system as possible.

Generally I don't side with unions, but I think there is need for the student athletes to have some sort of representation at the table. Who determines "enough" when the value of these individuals varies widely and their treatment varies widely.

You reference being a D1 athlete in a non-revenue sport. I'm happy for you, but I don't think your anecdotal experience compares to the exploitation that goes on in the revenue generating sports. There is literally no moral argument I understand that makes sense for the system as it stands currently. You did not contribute revenue to the school. In fact, you likely cost the school a ton of money so that the campus culture could be enriched with your experience. I think the NU students wanted representation for all student athletes so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I think "enough" is the operative word here. The NCAA isn't incentivized to make "enough" money. The NFL isn't incentivized to make "enough". ESPN isn't incentivized to make "enough". They all have a role in this and a fiscal responsibility to make as much revenue off the system as possible.

Generally I don't side with unions, but I think there is need for the student athletes to have some sort of representation at the table. Who determines "enough" when the value of these individuals varies widely and their treatment varies widely.

You reference being a D1 athlete in a non-revenue sport. I'm happy for you, but I don't think your anecdotal experience compares to the exploitation that goes on in the revenue generating sports. There is literally no moral argument I understand that makes sense for the system as it stands currently. You did not contribute revenue to the school. In fact, you likely cost the school a ton of money so that the campus culture could be enriched with your experience. I think the NU students wanted representation for all student athletes so I'm not sure what your point is.

Was there any moral argument for college sports before TV contracts made any of the sports profitable?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Who has that GSR link so we can see how great of an education the players are getting?

 

[MTLIrish]

You reference being a D1 athlete in a non-revenue sport. I'm happy for you, but I don't think your anecdotal experience compares to the exploitation that goes on in the revenue generating sports. There is literally no moral argument I understand that makes sense for the system as it stands currently. You did not contribute revenue to the school. In fact, you likely cost the school a ton of money so that the campus culture could be enriched with your experience. I think the NU students wanted representation for all student athletes so I'm not sure what your point is.[/QUOTE]

While baseball may not have generated money, I would be confident in in saying that we broke even. Regardless the exploitation was / is the same. My likeness was in the first EA sports college baseball game and our games were televised. I'm in agreement that football and basketball make all the money, but I do not agree that the football player or basketball player should be treated any different. Baseball, when I played, had 11.5 scholarships to divide among the entire team while the football team has 85 to give out ( both were the max allowed)....If any student athletes should be getting protected it should be the non revenue generated sports athletes because they are the ones that a really being exploited! They train / practice just as much, take summer / night classes, follow the same NCAA rule book, but have to find a way to pay the missing part of their college cost.

I don't want my rant to sound like sour grapes but there are not many students on university campuses being compensated $50k a year besides the football and basketball players.... And they need more???

 

[irishroo]

I don't think you understood the meaning of worship...

And if you think college football fans literally worship players, I still don't wanna argue with you

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

And if you think college football fans literally worship players, I still don't wanna argue with you

Yes, they literally think the book of Tim Tebow will be added to the New Testament.

 

[stlnd01]

I think a lot of this would go away if more big-time schools did right by their student-athletes (four-year scholarships, end greyshirting/over-signing, a real commitment to education, etc). Some generally do - and I would put Notre Dame and Northwestern in that camp - but too many these days don't. Instead they make a bundle and throw away too many kids.
And players aren't stupid. They know they've got leverage and visibility. At least in football, with all the money it brings in. If they want to organize and argue their case that they should get at least a guaranteed scholarship in exchange for their labor, God bless them.
Leverage and power is the only way anything changes in this country, and the only way the players can get some is to organize. The schools clearly aren't going to fix this on their own.

 

[wizards8507]

I think a lot of this would go away if more big-time schools did right by their student-athletes (four-year scholarships, end greyshirting/over-signing, a real commitment to education, etc). Some generally do - and I would put Notre Dame and Northwestern in that camp - but too many these days don't. Instead they make a bundle and throw away too many kids.

And players aren't stupid. They know they've got leverage and visibility. At least in football, with all the money it brings in.

The players actually have very little power. College sports are built around loyalty to teams and universities, not to individual players. I tune in to Notre Dame versus USC because I love (and attended) Notre Dame and hate USC, not because I love Kyle Brindza and hate Marqise Lee. I'd still be watching even if it were 2-stars versus 2-stars. Alumni form the core of a built-in fanbase that will always be around, even if all the 4- and 5-star guys decide to "go on strike" because they want to make NFL money when they're still in school.

If they want to organize and argue their case that they should get at least a guaranteed scholarship in exchange for their labor, God bless them.

It will never happen like that. There are enough kids who wouldn't consider strapping on a golden helmet and playing football "labor." Players can't go around making demands for money because there are plenty of other kids who would be willing to do it for free. If all the divas and prima donnas decided that they were too good to play college ball without a paycheck, the #RKGs will step up and fill the void.

 

[stlnd01]

I agree with you that individual players don't have much market value, and I agree that real "pay for play" is probably a bridge too far for economic reasons (as they'll quickly learn if they push for that).

But players have every right to stand up and demand a real quality education (i.e. four-year scholarship) in exchange for their labor. That's the deal. and schools should hold up their end. If the NCAA's not going to make that happen, players should try.

And the first time a team actually goes on strike the night before a big game and all those loyal alums are stuck with useless game tickets and pricey hotel rooms (not to mention the TV network), I assure you they'll have some leverage.

 

[wizards8507]

I agree with you that individual players don't have much market value, and I agree that real "pay for play" is probably a bridge too far for economic reasons (as they'll quickly learn if they push for that).

But players have every right to stand up and demand a real quality education (i.e. four-year scholarship) in exchange for their labor. That's the deal. and schools should hold up their end. If the NCAA's not going to make that happen, players should try.

And the first time a team actually goes on strike the night before a big game and all those loyal alums are stuck with useless game tickets and pricey hotel rooms (not to mention the TV network), I assure you they'll have some leverage.

No, they don't, for one simple reason. It's not "labor." Not by any stretch of the legal or linguistic imagination can amateur athletics be categorized as "labor." You don't "do football" or "work football." You "play football."

 

[stlnd01]

No, they don't, for one simple reason. It's not "labor." Not by any stretch of the legal or linguistic imagination can amateur athletics be categorized as "labor." You don't "do football" or "work football." You "play football."

When amateur athletics is a billions-of-dollars industry, we're well beyond "play."

 

[Woneone]

ESPN must be giddy over this.

 

[Woneone]

Really good article on the finances involved.

http://www.deltacostproject.org/pdfs/DeltaCostAIR_AthleticAcademic_Spending_IssueBrief.pdf

My favorite part:

In fact, only the programs at the very top of the FBS
subdivision generate more money from athletics than
they spend. Fewer than one in four of the 97 public
FBS athletic departments generated more money than
they spent in any given year between 2005 and 2010
(and almost none of the remaining Division I programs
were profitable). Even so, about two thirds of these
profitable FBS departments still received athletic
subsidies in 2010. While it is true that the traditional
money-generating sports are more likely to cover their
own expenses, more than 40 percent of FBS football
and men’s basketball programs were unable to fully
support their own programs in 2010; in the remaining
Division I schools, only a handful of these programs
were self-supporting.

If you don't read anything else from it, read the conclusion.

 

[wizards8507]

When amateur athletics is a billions-of-dollars industry, we're well beyond "play."

Magnitude has nothing to do with it. If a Pop Warner team makes a small profit selling hot dogs at the concession stand or a High School charges $5 for a friday night game, it's all the same in kind though differing in magnitude. Small amounts of money being involved in a sport doesn't make the participants employees, and there's no "trigger point" of dollars that philosophically changes this. NFL players are employees not because of the money involved, but because football is their profession.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

How can a college education be valuable if the players arent graduating? ND has a 90% + grad rate but what about the other top 25 teams.

 

[wizards8507]

How can a college education be valuable if the players arent graduating?

If you walk into Walmart and buy a 60 inch television, you still have to pay for it even if you get home and shoot it with a 12-guage. "Value" is based on what the University is giving up, regardless of whether the player chooses to use it or not.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

If you walk into Walmart and buy a 60 inch television, you still have to pay for it even if you get home and shoot it with a 12-guage. "Value" is based on what the University is giving up, regardless of whether the player chooses to use it or not.

Aren't you the one that posted the reading levels of players from other schools like Ohio State(??) ?

Players taking "football" classes and having "tutors"?

Does your analogy work for that?