Northwestern Players want to "unionize"

[8timechamps]

According to ESPN:


Backed by the United Steelworkers union, Huma also filed union cards signed by an undisclosed number of Northwestern (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/77/northwestern-wildcats) players with the NLRB -- the federal statutory body that recognizes groups that seek collective bargaining rights.


This will be dead on arrival. Student athletes are not employees. Wouldn't mind seeing the student athletes have a spot at the table going forward, but this is all about money, and it's not going anywhere.

An education should be adequate compensation for a student athlete. I think today's 'immediate satisfaction' environment is driving a lot of this.

[picasso]

Cut their schollies and recruit more kids.
Meh.

[Therealsouthsider]

...fine, if they don't win they get fired

ss

[ouflak]

I think today's 'immediate satisfaction' environment is driving a lot of this.

You mean the way you only have to be 18 to go into professional baseball or hockey, or just 19 to go into the NBA (was also 18 until a few years ago)?


Cut their schollies and recruit more kids.
Meh.

*shrug* They could. There's absolutely nothing stopping them from effectively ending any of these young people's possibilities of ever getting an education, perhaps permanently. In fact, they could ask Obama to go all Reagan on these guys and ban them from ever attending another university in the United States for the rest of their lives. After that success in crushing this, all of the coaches, ADs, and university presidents can get $100,000 raises in celebration. The money's there. That's for sure.


...fine, if they don't win they get fired

I wouldn't have a problem with this. In fact, if these young people are successful, I hope that is specifically written into any and every contract.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

Who's gonna pay their union dues?

This may be the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time.

[ouflak]

Who's gonna pay their union dues?

There are no dues at this time. You just are a member if you want to be and are a football player.

[OUinFLA]

I'm holding out for the Fans Union (sure to be shortened to FU) to be organized.

Medical coverage for undue stress is a must.
Less than 10 win seasons are grounds for strikes.
A seat at the table for coaches salaries is a given.
Annual evaluation of staff is a must.
Fan Union desires for popular player playing time is non-negotiable.

I'm sure you can add many other "union" requirements.

[Breadburner]

I wish we all had the balls to boycott all sports.....T.V.....and the internet to show all these entitled ****s who is the boss.....

[Turd_Ferguson]

dumb.

[olevetonahill]

I'm holding out for the Fans Union (sure to be shortened to FU) to be organized.

Medical coverage for undue stress is a must.
Less than 10 win seasons are grounds for strikes.
A seat at the table for coaches salaries is a given.
Annual evaluation of staff is a must.
Fan Union desires for popular player playing time is non-negotiable.

I'm sure you can add many other "union" requirements.

All Cheer leaders to dress more Skimpily and Have Huge Titties.

Cant believe you left that out Bill.

[badger]

This will be dead on arrival. Student athletes are not employees.

I hate to say this, but if graduate student teaching assistants are employees, then student-athletes can make the case as well. But really, what does that designation get them that they don't have already?

TAs are poor college students with an additional job that gives them a small stipend to counter/defray the cost of attending school. Is that the status that student-athletes want?

It's hard to not see the big money that coaches, schools and conferences are getting from TV deals and endorsements and not want a piece yourselves. At the same time, I'm not a fan of these teams because of the players, I'm a fan of OU, period. Kid decommits from OU, I'm not gonna follow him to LSU or wherever he LOIs. Kid transfers to Syracuse, bye bye that's the end of it.

[OUinFLA]

All Cheer leaders to dress more Skimpily and Have Huge Titties.

Cant believe you left that out Bill.


A major oversight on my part.
I should not post in the early part of the morning.

[picasso]

You mean the way you only have to be 18 to go into professional baseball or hockey, or just 19 to go into the NBA (was also 18 until a few years ago)?



*shrug* They could. There's absolutely nothing stopping them from effectively ending any of these young people's possibilities of ever getting an education, perhaps permanently. In fact, they could ask Obama to go all Reagan on these guys and ban them from ever attending another university in the United States for the rest of their lives. After that success in crushing this, all of the coaches, ADs, and university presidents can get $100,000 raises in celebration. The money's there. That's for sure.



I wouldn't have a problem with this. In fact, if these young people are successful, I hope that is specifically written into any and every contract.
I never said that. I'm totally for the athlete, I think they should get a bigger stipend but I also know the value of their scholarship. I also know what can happen to your body when you put on football pads. I used to play.
And school presidents are pocketing this success? Ha.
I would venture to guess their job tougher than playing free safety.

[olevetonahill]

A major oversight on my part.
I should not post in the early part of the morning.

At least wait till ya have had ONE cup of coffee or 3 beers yer choice .

[badger]

I also like the "fan union" idea. Didn't the Cleveland Browns have fan spokespeople back when they were getting Raven'd?

Here goes:
1- You are free to raise ticket prices, but don't also subject us to more ad crap at the stadiums. We can see plenty of ads watching at home on TV, thanks
2- You are free to require designated TV timeout time, but limit the commercial breaks to 2 minutes or less at any given time. If the TV timeout is over this limit, give the doofus with the orange sleeve the off-stage cane. Or, provide gongs for fans to strike when his time is up.
3- You are free to set your own prices for in-stadium concessions. However, it should be expected that fans will continue to sneak in cheaper alternatives through security.

I really don't expect the stadium thing to last at the rate they're jacking up prices for the privilege of sitting on a hard bleacher in the sun/cold/rain/snow with long lines to everything necessary (food, drink and potty). So, I'm keeping the demand list short. Eventually, we'll have to start making TV demands instead.

[jkjsooner]

You mean the way you only have to be 18 to go into professional baseball or hockey, or just 19 to go into the NBA (was also 18 until a few years ago)?

That has nothing to do with the NCAA and you know it. It is a NFL rule and it makes quite a lot of sense considering the physical demands of the sport.

The NBA added that year (and the D league) because the result of drafting high school kids was extremely detrimental to the league. Too many teams were gambling on trying to get the next Kobe or Garnett and too many of those were failing in the league. It would be much worse in the NFL.

If you want push for an NFL D league. The few who actually are good enough to make the D league out of high school (probably not a lot from Northwestern) can play for a couple of years making peanuts in relative obscurity.

[One4OU]

This will be interesting. Obviously any outcome will be years after the NW players have come and gone.

What will be interesting is decision to classify them as a student-athlete or employee. I think the scholarship contract that is signed and its content will be the key for the players, maybe even use actual graduation rates to imply they are their for sports only.

If they do somehow win this will that mean anything goes for recruiting? A school stipend may be better than a bidding war for players. Also how will this affect title 9? If they are employees does that mean equality for men and womens sports is irrelevant?

[ouflak]

I wish we all had the balls to boycott all sports.....T.V.....and the internet to show all these entitled ****s who is the boss.....

Just to be clear are you referring to the NCAA, athletic directors, and media producers that are pocketing billions, and fully expect to pocket billions more in the near future with the current arrangements (thus are entitled)? Or are you referring to the student athletes who many here claim are getting 'paid' with a 'free' education.


... a NFL (age 21) rule ... NBA (age 19 rule) ... .

Yeah I was just wondering what you meant by 'instant gratification as it is currently possible to get the 'instant gratification' of being a millionaire at the age of 18 if you are good enough to play in MLB or NHL, and only year later for the NBA. I assume then that this is not what you meant by 'instant gratification'?

[badger]

If they do somehow win this will that mean anything goes for recruiting? A school stipend may be better than a bidding war for players. Also how will this affect title 9? If they are employees does that mean equality for men and womens sports is irrelevant?

Dunno... didn't the SOTU last night emphasize equal pay for equal work? I know that some might argue that it's harder to play football than do rowing, but... a whole new can of worms might be opened with this in mind. If football's 65 men's scholarships are suddenly not in play in Title IX discussions, either more men's non-revenue sports will be added (hahahahahahahaha) or women's non-revenue sports can be easily dropped while staying title ix compliant. Lawsuits, anybody???

Really, the NCAA needs to stop dicking around with the scholarship limitations and just let programs field full teams in sports rather than the equivalency crap that has resulted in a lot of sports becoming marginalized at the college level.

[Curly Bill]

It's totally stupid!

But...if they wanna be considered employees we need to collect those back taxes from their "wages."

[PalmBeachSooner]

All Cheer leaders to dress more Skimpily and Have Huge Titties.

Cant believe you left that out Bill.

I'd settle for any titties on a cheerleader.

[olevetonahill]

I'd settle for any titties on a cheerleader.

Oh they got em, They just hide em under thos tight assed sports bras. OUTLAW sports bras on Cheerleaders

[sooneron]

...fine, if they don't win they get fired

ss

You seem to have zero experience with HR not to mention, HR in a union workplace.

[rock on sooner]

Oh they got em, They just hide em under thos tight assed sports bras. OUTLAW sports bras on Cheerleaders

Now Vet, how do you know bout sports bras? You got hands on experience
er sompin?

[8timechamps]

You mean the way you only have to be 18 to go into professional baseball or hockey, or just 19 to go into the NBA (was also 18 until a few years ago)?



*shrug* They could. There's absolutely nothing stopping them from effectively ending any of these young people's possibilities of ever getting an education, perhaps permanently. In fact, they could ask Obama to go all Reagan on these guys and ban them from ever attending another university in the United States for the rest of their lives. After that success in crushing this, all of the coaches, ADs, and university presidents can get $100,000 raises in celebration. The money's there. That's for sure.



I wouldn't have a problem with this. In fact, if these young people are successful, I hope that is specifically written into any and every contract.

The NFL has a rule in place that allows for early entrants. It's a good rule. Let's be honest, the chances a kid can make the leap from high school to the NFL are almost nil. Baseball is a different story, and even then it's not that common that a kid goes straight from high school to the MLB. Same with the NBA.

The bottom line is that accepting a college scholarship to play football isn't equivalent to accepting a job offer.

Players are compensated with tuition, room, board, access to facilities and medical care. I wouldn't mind a small stipend to ensure the players have enough to live on, but other than that, nothing.

Coaches, AD's and University Presidents worked years to get to the position they are in, so why can't they enjoy a bonus? If a player takes advantage of the scholarship, then they too can get to that point. Or, if they are good enough, they can play at the next level and take advantage of that.

[olevetonahill]

Now Vet, how do you know bout sports bras? You got hands on experience
er sompin?

That and I know about Mashed titties

[8timechamps]

I hate to say this, but if graduate student teaching assistants are employees, then student-athletes can make the case as well. But really, what does that designation get them that they don't have already?

TAs are poor college students with an additional job that gives them a small stipend to counter/defray the cost of attending school. Is that the status that student-athletes want?

It's hard to not see the big money that coaches, schools and conferences are getting from TV deals and endorsements and not want a piece yourselves. At the same time, I'm not a fan of these teams because of the players, I'm a fan of OU, period. Kid decommits from OU, I'm not gonna follow him to LSU or wherever he LOIs. Kid transfers to Syracuse, bye bye that's the end of it.

There is a huge (and legal) difference if what TA's do versus student athletes. The US government/Department of Labor does not (and will not) recognize student athletes as employees.

No judge in the country is going to contest that. Can you imagine the pandora's box it would open? Why wouldn't students want in on the same benefits? After all, alumni that go on to make big money are "ambassadors" of their schools. Like I said, I wouldn't mind the student athletes having a voice in the NCAA, but this isn't going to heppen.

[Curly Bill]

Here's what struck me: from what I saw this union deal would only include D-1 football & male basketball players. Seriously? How the hell is that gonna fly? You telling me the Title IX folks would let that slide?

[sooner_born_1960]

You seem to have zero experience with HR not to mention, HR in a union workplace.
NFL kickers are union employees. They get fired all the time for missing a field goal.

[oupride]

According to ESPN:




This will be dead on arrival. Student athletes are not employees. Wouldn't mind seeing the student athletes have a spot at the table going forward, but this is all about money, and it's not going anywhere.

An education should be adequate compensation for a student athlete. I think today's 'immediate satisfaction' environment is driving a lot of this.

U nailed it.

[8timechamps]

Here's what struck me: from what I saw this union deal would only include D-1 football & male basketball players. Seriously? How the hell is that gonna fly? You telling me the Title IX folks would let that slide?

Kinda like trying to ignore the 800 pound gorilla. Of course the Title IX'ers will be all over that, and would be a nightmare for this process. That's why they are trying to cut them off at the pass, which is kind of a joke, sense we know there's no way that's going to happen.

I appreciate student-athletes that want more of a say in things, and I think that's something that should be created. But like I said, this isn't about "having a say", this is about money.

[ouflak]

All of you people bringing up Title IX really ought to read it, and thumb through some of legal precedent established regarding this act. The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX) is a very nice summary. Here are the relevant parts:


No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance...

and


Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section...

There is no requirement that all athletes be given identical opportunity, only somewhat equal opportunity. And if you would just sit back and think about it for a minute, I believe that would become obvious to any of you. If identical opportunity were required, it would lead to ridiculous situations where women would request a fully funded football team of their own, just like the men have. Or men being allowed to participate on the softball team if the school didn't field a baseball team. Etc.... The authors of this amendment understood this well. They only insisted that their be relatively equal opportunity. So if you field a football team with 85 scholarship players and 20+ walk-ons, you can field a women's soccer team with about 20 something total players and call it even. That's the spirit of this law and all legal wranglings over its interpretation through the years have solidified that basic idea. As long as everybody has access to all facilities provided by the university, you're good to go.

If a union comes into existence, unless it's receiving federal funding or somehow financially sponsored by the university that is receiving federal funding, there is no Title IV anything that has to do with any of this. And that's that, unless one of you can come up with a case that hasn't been presented to the courts yet regarding non-federally funded institutions. An argument which would seem to, by definition, be outside of the scope of this amendment.

[jkjsooner]

So if you field a football team with 85 scholarship players and 20+ walk-ons, you can field a women's soccer team with about 20 something total players and call it even.

Did you mean "can't"? The statement you posted is absolutely not true. The courts have ruled that the scholarships must match.

As for the rest, I don't think they require the same travel budgets, etc., but if you start giving higher stipends for football players than softball players I don't see any way that would fly with the courts. They would be all over that.


The thing that gets me is that these athletes assume that they created this billion dollar industry - an industry which existed long before they came along and will exist long after they're gone. They're just a cog in the machinery and 90% of them are easily replaceable. OU built its brand over a century of playing college football. The current players overestimate the added value that they provide.

I've said it before, if a minor league of football began tomorrow, the teams would probably be much better than the current college teams but the attendance, media attention, and national exposure would be nowhere near what the college game is. When it comes down to it it is about the schools much more than it is about the players.

[ouflak]

Did you mean "can't"? The statement you posted is absolutely not true. The courts have ruled that the scholarships must match.

jk, you're one of the smartest people on this board. Think about what you said there for just a solid minute. Does that really make sense? Imagine the train wreck that collegiate athletics would be if that were the case. *sigh* In any case, since nobody seems to be bothering to read the Wikipedia article on Title IX (unfortunate, because it is a pretty good article), I will just counter with facts and post links.


Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; if sixty per cent of the university’s intercollegiate athletes are male, then sixty per cent of the athletic scholarships should go to men. The law does not require that women receive the same number, or the same size awards as the men, only that the total awards be proportional to participation. Link (http://equity.missouri.edu/resource-library/athletics.php)


Female college athletes receive $183 million less in NCAA athletic scholarships ($965 million female v. $1.15 billion male). Link (http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/en/home/advocate/title-ix-and-issues/what-is-title-ix/title-ix-myths-and-facts)


...if you start giving higher stipends for football players than softball players I don't see any way that would fly with the courts. They would be all over that.

I'll just give an example and, if any of you ever bother, you can see how current case law supports my example. The UCONN women's basketball team currently makes money and has been profitable for a while. Since the sport is generating profit, the women can receive a stipend. If when the men's football program, which currently is lying just outside of a gutter in New Haven, ever actually gets profitable, then the players on the football team can receive a stipend as well. This is equal opportunity. It is NOT identical. And Title IX does not, and in fact it cannot, require identical treatment. Only relatively similar opportunity. The people who came up with Title IX were not crazy. If that isn't clear, then my ability to communicate the point simply pales in comparison to the Wikipedia article and I will just never be able to make that clear.


The thing that gets me is that these athletes assume that they created this billion dollar industry - an industry which existed long before they came along and will exist long after they're gone. They're just a cog in the machinery and 90% of them are easily replaceable. OU built its brand over a century of playing college football. The current players overestimate the added value that they provide.

jk, you don't really believe that there were multi-billion dollar TV contracts around before the 80's do you? And multi-million dollar merchandising contracts? Athletic Directors pulling down seven figures? Come on now. The 'industry' that exists today is not the 'industry' that existed in that dreamland period before ESPN, the cable companies, and the internet, along with OU's lawsuit, started the money raining down on everything.

[badger]

I agree with the equal treatment things being said. Tulsa Public Schools apparently had some issues a few years back (and a lawsuit resulted and was settled, so compliance is now very important). Basically, parents of boys sports teams would fund new uniforms, nice trips to tournaments, etc., while the girls teams didn't have new uniforms or tourney trips anywhere close to what the boys were getting.

The parents argued that it was their money, so they should be able to spend it for whatever team they wanted, boys or girls. The problem was that this was a public school team, so the difference between the boys and girls team treatments had to be made up somewhere, whether it be through the school or through other sources, and wasn't. Thus the lawsuit.

During TPS parent compliance meetings, equal opportunity brought up the fact that football equipment costs more than basketball jerseys. That's fine, but if a boys team gets new football jerseys, than the girls volleyball team also needs to get new jerseys (even if one costs more than the other). If the boys basketball team gets to go to a tourney in Dallas, spend three nights in a hotel, etc, then you can't say that a one-day tourney to nearby Jenks for the girls team is "equal."

I am not sure how Title IX will be brought into pay for pay, unionization and the like, but I worry about what it means for the future of college athletics.

[bluedogok]

All of you people bringing up Title IX really ought to read it, and thumb through some of legal precedent established regarding this act. The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX) is a very nice summary. Here are the relevant parts:



and



There is no requirement that all athletes be given identical opportunity, only somewhat equal opportunity. And if you would just sit back and think about it for a minute, I believe that would become obvious to any of you. If identical opportunity were required, it would lead to ridiculous situations where women would request a fully funded football team of their own, just like the men have. Or men being allowed to participate on the softball team if the school didn't field a baseball team. Etc.... The authors of this amendment understood this well. They only insisted that their be relatively equal opportunity. So if you field a football team with 85 scholarship players and 20+ walk-ons, you can field a women's soccer team with about 20 something total players and call it even. That's the spirit of this law and all legal wranglings over its interpretation through the years have solidified that basic idea. As long as everybody has access to all facilities provided by the university, you're good to go.

If a union comes into existence, unless it's receiving federal funding or somehow financially sponsored by the university that is receiving federal funding, there is no Title IV anything that has to do with any of this. And that's that, unless one of you can come up with a case that hasn't been presented to the courts yet regarding non-federally funded institutions. An argument which would seem to, by definition, be outside of the scope of this amendment.
With activist judges (which seems to be the norm now) what is written into law doesn't seem to matter, only that judges interpretation until it gets appealed to the next level. Most will require if football and/or men's basketball players are slated to get a stipend the courts are going to require every student-athlete to be paid a stipend, some will require the stipend to be the same across the board while others would allow some variation. How the judges would rule is the big variable.

[badger]

Yeaaaah, there is definitely a big wide variable in place, and that's the fact that football and men's basketball are big money generators (even if overall, they're not profitable in many cases) whereas most other sports at most schools are not.

Much like parents cannot dictate that their donations go to send Little Johnny's boys basketball team to Dallas for a three-day tournament in new uniforms while the girls basketball team does a one-day Jenks event in 20-year-old Goodwill donation rags, will public universities be able to declare "Fans are buying football tickets and football concessions and football jerseys and boosters choose to donate to the football stadium and practice facilities! Who are we to tell them no?"

[8timechamps]

All of you people bringing up Title IX really ought to read it, and thumb through some of legal precedent established regarding this act. The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX) is a very nice summary. Here are the relevant parts:



and



There is no requirement that all athletes be given identical opportunity, only somewhat equal opportunity. And if you would just sit back and think about it for a minute, I believe that would become obvious to any of you. If identical opportunity were required, it would lead to ridiculous situations where women would request a fully funded football team of their own, just like the men have. Or men being allowed to participate on the softball team if the school didn't field a baseball team. Etc.... The authors of this amendment understood this well. They only insisted that their be relatively equal opportunity. So if you field a football team with 85 scholarship players and 20+ walk-ons, you can field a women's soccer team with about 20 something total players and call it even. That's the spirit of this law and all legal wranglings over its interpretation through the years have solidified that basic idea. As long as everybody has access to all facilities provided by the university, you're good to go.

If a union comes into existence, unless it's receiving federal funding or somehow financially sponsored by the university that is receiving federal funding, there is no Title IV anything that has to do with any of this. And that's that, unless one of you can come up with a case that hasn't been presented to the courts yet regarding non-federally funded institutions. An argument which would seem to, by definition, be outside of the scope of this amendment.

I understand the current implication Title IX has on college athletics. And really, nobody can say for sure what kind of affect it would have on a "unionized" football situation. What I can tell you is that there are a whole lot of people in this country that fought hard to ensure Title IX leveled the playing field for women in college athletics, and if you think those same people would sit quietly by, and not fight for "equality", you're kidding yourself. Do you realize how convoluted the situation would be? What consitutes an "employee" versus "non-employee"? There is no way the Department of Labor is ever going to consider student athletes as employees, but even if they did, where do you draw the line? Must you only be in a revenue generating sport? What about schools that have women's programs that actually do bring in revenue? Are they exempt? Again, there are a ton of people that wouldn't be okay with that.

[8timechamps]

I agree with the equal treatment things being said. Tulsa Public Schools apparently had some issues a few years back (and a lawsuit resulted and was settled, so compliance is now very important). Basically, parents of boys sports teams would fund new uniforms, nice trips to tournaments, etc., while the girls teams didn't have new uniforms or tourney trips anywhere close to what the boys were getting.

The parents argued that it was their money, so they should be able to spend it for whatever team they wanted, boys or girls. The problem was that this was a public school team, so the difference between the boys and girls team treatments had to be made up somewhere, whether it be through the school or through other sources, and wasn't. Thus the lawsuit.

During TPS parent compliance meetings, equal opportunity brought up the fact that football equipment costs more than basketball jerseys. That's fine, but if a boys team gets new football jerseys, than the girls volleyball team also needs to get new jerseys (even if one costs more than the other). If the boys basketball team gets to go to a tourney in Dallas, spend three nights in a hotel, etc, then you can't say that a one-day tourney to nearby Jenks for the girls team is "equal."

I am not sure how Title IX will be brought into pay for pay, unionization and the like, but I worry about what it means for the future of college athletics.

If something like this actually came to be, it would spell the end of most college athletics. It's never going to happen though.

[Curly Bill]

If something like this actually came to be, it would spell the end of most college athletics. It's never going to happen though.

I haven't thought the whole thing out, but this is prolly correct.

All parts of it being correct.

[swardboy]

...from the college that hired Bill Ayers....

[Turd_Ferguson]

...from the college that hired Bill Ayers....

Imagine that...

[jkjsooner]

jk, you're one of the smartest people on this board. Think about what you said there for just a solid minute. Does that really make sense? Imagine the train wreck that collegiate athletics would be if that were the case. *sigh* In any case, since nobody seems to be bothering to read the Wikipedia article on Title IX (unfortunate, because it is a pretty good article), I will just counter with facts and post links.

How do they define "proportional to their participation"? Surely you can't get rid of all women's sports and say, "Well the participation is 100% male so all scholarships can be for men as well. Of course not.

This explains it better.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/special_reports/gender_equity/title_ix_fs.lasso

To answer the question on participation rate, you have to meet one of three criteria.


provide participation opportunities for male and female athletes substantially proportionate to their full-time undergraduate enrollments; or
show an ongoing record of expanding the program for the underrepresented sex; or
demonstrate that its existing program accommodates the interests and abilities of members of the underrepresented sex.

The first seems to be the primary one. The second seems a transitional one. I don't think any AD would want to have to try to convince the court that the third fits their situation. So, the only way to guarantee compliance is to have representation that is proportionate to full-time undergraduate enrollment.

Then we go to scholarships.


If a college or university provides athletic scholarships, it must provide rates of awards substantially proportionate to rates of athletic participation by members of each sex.

Add these together and unless you can meet the second or third criteria on the first list you have to have substantially equal scholarship money assuming close to 50/50 enrollment. The "rates of awards" would definitely apply to stipends so giving stipends to football players would be a non-starter.

Some have suggested that the opportunities (and thus scholarships) should match the participation rates in intramural sports as this is a measure of the true interest in sports among the two genders but to my knowledge nobody has of yet convinced the courts of this.


jk, you don't really believe that there were multi-billion dollar TV contracts around before the 80's do you? And multi-million dollar merchandising contracts? Athletic Directors pulling down seven figures? Come on now. The 'industry' that exists today is not the 'industry' that existed in that dreamland period before ESPN, the cable companies, and the internet, along with OU's lawsuit, started the money raining down on everything.

The money was a lot less. The expansion of money has come from an expanded television markets and NCAA rules changes that have allowed more games to be seen on TV. It's not because today's players are inherently more marketable to the public than past generations which was basically my point.

And I'll close by pointing out that while the absolute dollar amounts might have been a lot less, the brands which is what really sells were definitely created over the last century.

[8timechamps]

I read somewhere today that the Northwestern players are not interested in "gaining financially" from this. Their priorities are "insurance and scholarship guarantees".

First, I think that first comment is a load of crap. Secondly, I've always thought that student athletes were taken care of (health issues). So, I'm not exactly sure what they are referring to when it comes to "insurance". As for the scholarship guarantees, that's a slippery slope, but something that probably should be in place now. However, that's something the NCAA could address right now, and are not doing it, so I'm sure it'll come up when the next Big 5 meeting takes place.

It's really pretty simple; if you don't like the way the system is structured, don't participate. Take out loans, save your money or work your way through school like everyone else. Then go on to have a career like everyone else. What's that? You don't think it's fair that universities rake in millions and you "only get" a scholarship out of the deal? Well, guess what, life isn't fair, and at least you're getting something that will greatly increase your chances are earning a decent living.

[BoulderSooner79]

Nothing wrong with participating in the current program *and* trying to change it.

[Scott D]

I read somewhere today that the Northwestern players are not interested in "gaining financially" from this. Their priorities are "insurance and scholarship guarantees".

First, I think that first comment is a load of crap. Secondly, I've always thought that student athletes were taken care of (health issues). So, I'm not exactly sure what they are referring to when it comes to "insurance". As for the scholarship guarantees, that's a slippery slope, but something that probably should be in place now. However, that's something the NCAA could address right now, and are not doing it, so I'm sure it'll come up when the next Big 5 meeting takes place.

It's really pretty simple; if you don't like the way the system is structured, don't participate. Take out loans, save your money or work your way through school like everyone else. Then go on to have a career like everyone else. What's that? You don't think it's fair that universities rake in millions and you "only get" a scholarship out of the deal? Well, guess what, life isn't fair, and at least you're getting something that will greatly increase your chances are earning a decent living.

I think they're referring more to health issues related to them participating in athletics while at said university. They've continually been stressing the concussion situation,and staunchly been saying that schools don't do enough in relation to those types of injuries. Personally, I don't think anyone does enough in relation to those types of injuries, but that's more a symptom of lack of knowledge on the human brain in the first place, than any sort of intentional reason.

I think an example that might be somewhat worthwhile in this discussion are the injuries that ended the career of Ben Habern. Let's say these injuries left him just this side of the injuries that Corey Wilson sustained in his accident. Did Ben know there was a risk of injury by playing football? Sure he did, and like most kids injuries always happen to someone else.

I guess another example would be some of the more "shady" coaches who might take a player who got injured and give their scholarship to someone else. I don't see how we could decry the practice of taking a scholarship from a player to give to someone "better" because a player didn't perform where the coaches thought he should, but shouldn't that standard also apply to a player who gets injured? Not everyone uses medical scholarships the same way that OU will, and they'll discard a kid.

[jkjsooner]

Both the NFL and NCAA have done everything they can to mitigate the risks of concussions and CTE. They've even taken steps that excessively penalize players for situations they have no control over.

Other than completely changing the game I'm not sure what else either organization can do. At some point you have to decide that it is a risky game and either choose to play or not. The information is out there for each person to make an informed decision weighing the pros and cons of playing.

In my opinion, the only people who have a legitimate complaint are those who played in the NFL during the period where the NFL knew the risks of CTE but were hiding these risks and providing false information about it to player. (They even went as far as hiring their own "experts" to publish papers in peer reviewed journals which is now recognized as being a farce.)

Players who played before CTE was discovered don't have anyone to blame except maybe science. Can't blame the NFL or NCAA for not knowing something that had not yet been discovered. People who are playing now have all the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision. It is their decision.

[Scott D]

I agree to a point on the matter of concussions. And like I said, the problem there is that there's still too much that is in the unknown category despite the advances that have been made. But, that has been a talking point of this player group as it's a current Football hot button issue. It's the other "career ending" injuries that should be just as much in the forefront as the concussion issue, but for now concussions are what get people's attentions, at least for a short while.

[ouflak]

How do they define "proportional to their participation"? Surely you can't get rid of all women's sports and say, "Well the participation is 100% male so all scholarships can be for men as well. Of course not.

This explains it better. http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/special_reports/gender_equity/title_ix_fs.lasso

To answer the question on participation rate, you have to meet one of three criteria.
The first seems to be the primary one. The second seems a transitional one. I don't think any AD would want to have to try to convince the court that the third fits their situation.


Ofcourse you could get rid of all the women's sports... in theory... according to existing law... yes! But let's just back up off the extremist ledge a bit. We have to keep in mind the landscape and context here. Many right's activists in the 60's and 70's, both men and women, felt that the opportunities for women to participate in university life was inherently not equal to the opportunities available to men. One of the glaring arenas where this was obvious was intercollegiate sports. You didn't have situations where there were loads of sports programs available, and schools just willy nilly slashed all the women's sports programs because 'women belong in the kitchen and not on the court' or some such philosophy. Those programs didn't exist in the first place. The founders of Title IX didn't envisage a day that there truly would be identical interest, participation and funding for women in intercollegiate sports. They wanted to increase the opportunities for women to participate in college life the way men can and do. The way the act is itself very specifically written demonstrates this realistic thinking.

Now we are here 40 years later. Schools have tried to comply as well as they could, political correctness is at an all-time high and climbing, and the money involved in 'sports content' is nothing less than obscene. And what do we have? We still have the fact that less women participate in school funded sports than men, by a considerable margin for whatever reason (I really don't want to get into the debate to as to why that is). Against this backdrop, any co-ed school will constantly do whatever it can to get women's sports available to provide some kind of opportunity for them to compete. It doesn't matter if absolutely none of the female students are interested. They have to keep trying, luring them with scholarships or whatever they can legally do to get them on teams and get them competing. Why? Because they know that if they let up trying, even for just one semester, then all it will take is one Title IX lawsuit from some enterprising feminist, a lawsuit they are just about guaranteed to lose, and all of the men's programs could be wrecked. So they will keep trying. Title IX recognizes that they will never be perfectly successful, and in many cases, it will be impossible to have perfect balance. But as long as they keep trying, and have some results, they are probably safe within the confines of the act.



So, the only way to guarantee compliance is to have representation that is proportionate to full-time undergraduate enrollment.

University of Oklahoma has a total undergraduate enrollment of 21,982, with a gender distribution of 48.9 percent male students and 51.1 percent female students. (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-oklahoma-3184)

Fortunately, Title IX is not so black and white, or college sports as we today know it, would likely not exist. It would be impossible to balance out an 85 scholarship 20+ non-scholarship roster football team with anything less than 6 women's sports at an absolute minimum. Even the schools with the biggest enrollments could forget about having a men's basketball team on top of that. And schools smaller than that would probably have to forget about offering the full 85 scholarships, much less allowing walk-ons. With the rates of actual participation by women today (and it has increased very nicely over the last four decades), it would simply be impossible. Title IX, thankfully, is much more forgiving than this.



Then we go to scholarships.

Add these together and unless you can meet the second or third criteria on the first list you have to have substantially equal scholarship money assuming close to 50/50 enrollment. The "rates of awards" would definitely apply to stipends so giving stipends to football players would be a non-starter.

:D Ha! Well... we'll just see about that. At risk of being accused of cherry picking, I'm going to use as a source the link you provided above. It's a nice summary (though it doesn't reference current case law, as the Wikipedia article, that nobody is apparently interested in reading, does). Wonder how this going format out....



What other athletic benefits and opportunities does Title IX consider?

Also considered are:


athletic scholarships;
recruitment of student athletes;
equipment and supplies;
scheduling of games and practices;
support services
travel and per diem allowances;
tutoring;
coaches;
locker rooms and other facilities;
medical and training services;
housing and dining services; and
publicity


Do the dollars spent on men’s and women’s programs have to be equal?

Title IX does not require equal funding or dollar-for-dollar matching in the women’s and men’s programs. It does not prohibit private funding, revenue production or fundraising. However, whatever benefits are provided for student-athletes — regardless of the fund source — are subject to Title IX.

If a college or university provides athletic scholarships, it must provide rates of awards substantially proportionate to rates of athletic participation by members of each sex.

In all other program areas, the focus is on whether student-athletes of both genders have equivalent opportunities. Equal funding is not required, and the institution is compliant with Title IX so long as the underrepresented gender as a whole is not denied athletic opportunities.


I do agree with you and others though that point is almost certainly going to be played out in court on how Title IX is interpreted with regards to stipends, and it might just come down to how the judge is feeling that day.


The money was a lot less. The expansion of money has come from an expanded television markets and NCAA rules changes that have allowed more games to be seen on TV. It's not because today's players are inherently more marketable to the public than past generations which was basically my point.

Yeah well... I think it is a matter of perspective. If you are a competitive, talented athlete, who competed at a high school with other talented athletes, you would have to be blind to not notice that your coaches are millionaires, while you are not even allowed to take a part time job. The athletic director is a millionaire while you can be forced to have your autograph sold for thousands, not seeing a penny of that money or even knowing where it goes, or risk losing your scholarship. Other talented athletes you knew from high school are pulling down some decent coin playing baseball, and maybe even basketball a bit later on, while you might not have enough money to pay for all of your food.

From the players point of view, something is not right, and it is obvious that if they were simply allowed to, they could be making some of that money. They are already risking a lifetime of health issues on the field to earn it. Why shouldn't they get slice? I see your point about marketability, but I just don't think the athletes are seeing things that abstractly. I think it is a far more practical, "All these people, making all this money, off of my hard work, and I don't even have enough money in the bank to buy a new shirt. Something's up."

[jkjsooner]

Here you go.

http://diverseeducation.com/article/17162/

and

http://www.finaid.org/educators/20110505athleticscholarships.pdf


For instance, in 1972, athletic scholarships for women were nonexistent, but in 2009–2010, women received 48 percent of the total athletic scholarship dollars at Division 1 schools, although they received only 40 percent of total money spent on athletics, despite making up 53% of the student body, the report found.

That's pretty close to 50/50.

It is clear that schools feel the need to achieve the scholarship balance that reflects the student population. It is also clear from reading the first article that Title IX proponents are not going to be satisfied until the scholarships and participation rates reflect the student population.

This is the exact reason OU added women's soccer and it's probably the reason we don't have a men's volleyball team - although that has been the case for a long time.

Despite what the Wikipedia article states, the AD's know that they face lawsuits if they don't get those numbers close to 50/50.


And in either case, the original link I posted made it really clear that a stipend for football players would have no chance of flying.

[vtsooner21]

Going forward, I'm wondering how this "union" can have an effect, as worse case scenario, do they band together and walk out? I'm certain there are those out there ready and willing to take their place & position. (Scabs, if you will?) Please know that I'm all in on the athletes being covered medically and carried through to a possible five year grad plan, but as has been stated in prior posts, the cost of a degree is substantial to a non scholarship student; the value to a graduate, priceless. Sorry to sound like a commercial...

Boomer

[ouflak]

Here you go.

http://diverseeducation.com/article/17162/

and

http://www.finaid.org/educators/20110505athleticscholarships.pdf



That's pretty close to 50/50.

It is clear that schools feel the need to achieve the scholarship balance that reflects the student population. It is also clear from reading the first article that Title IX proponents are not going to be satisfied until the scholarships and participation rates reflect the student population.

This is the exact reason OU added women's soccer and it's probably the reason we don't have a men's volleyball team - although that has been the case for a long time.

Despite what the Wikipedia article states, the AD's know that they face lawsuits if they don't get those numbers close to 50/50.


No. They know they face lawsuits if they aren't atleast trying to get their respective sports participation properly reflecting the overall participation of female athletes at their university. The goal here isn't 50/50, and easy ratio to falsely get caught up on, and wouldn't reflect most student populations anyway as you've pointed out. It's (percentage-of-females-participating-in-competitive-sports/percentage-of-males-participating-in-competitive-sports). There are several factors in how the schools police themselves on this; looking at high school athletes and their sports, how many women are participating in intramurals, and the general percentage of those types in the overall student population as well as the percentage of those in the overall female population. As per Title IX, they also have take into account their gender ratio of the student body. It is simply not that cut and dry. And if you think about the context of the laws beginnings, I think you'll see that. If Title IX said black-and-white 50/50... disaster... if it was even possible to implement, which it likely isn't considering that there simply far fewer women (41% of the total at the high school level. About 40% at collegiate level (http://www.nwlc.org/resource/battle-gender-equity-athletics-elementary-and-secondary-schools)) currently participating in sports than men (though that is improving).


For instance, in 1972, athletic scholarships for women were nonexistent, but in 2009–2010, women received 48 percent of the total athletic scholarship dollars at Division 1 schools, although they received only 40 percent of total money spent on athletics, despite making up 53% of the student body, the report found.

Keep in mind, these are the results after 40 years of implementing this. After all the school leadership's built-in attitudes towards women, after all the lawsuits, after all the money started pouring in, this is where we are at. And that percentage of money spent is approximately consistent with the percentage athletes who are women who actually partake in sports. When Title IX came into existence, there were no scholarships for women and the percentage of athletes was about 7%. This is amazing progress. But I don't see it going much further unless more women start going into sports. That simply must happen for these numbers to change much more.

Where are we headed? Well that's hard to know. We certainly don't have a balanced ratio of women competing in sports compared to men, but that's slowly changing. A lot of the most significant legal wrangling seems to have run its course, but we still have the possibility of unions coming in, and probably stipends. The law in its current wording and precedent doesn't seem to apply much to the union thing (just the results if they are successful getting some real changes implemented).


And in either case, the original link I posted made it really clear that a stipend for football players would have no chance of flying.

Well I quoted what I believed to be the relevant part. I suppose that could be up to interpretation. Would you mind giving yours, or quoting the even more relevant part? Because from the wording I saw, it was quite clear that a school need only offer opportunities for stipends if they are offered at all. Not stipends point blank across the board if they are offered. And I saw nothing that made them have 'no chance of flying'.

[jkjsooner]

Well I quoted what I believed to be the relevant part. I suppose that could be up to interpretation. Would you mind giving yours, or quoting the even more relevant part? Because from the wording I saw, it was quite clear that a school need only offer opportunities for stipends if they are offered at all. Not stipends point blank across the board if they are offered. And I saw nothing that made them have 'no chance of flying'.

From the first link I posted this is the part that would make it very difficult to provide stipends for football only. Refer to the part about rates of rewards.


Do the dollars spent on men’s and women’s programs have to be equal?

Title IX does not require equal funding or dollar-for-dollar matching in the women’s and men’s programs. It does not prohibit private funding, revenue production or fundraising. However, whatever benefits are provided for student-athletes — regardless of the fund source — are subject to Title IX.

If a college or university provides athletic scholarships, it must provide rates of awards substantially proportionate to rates of athletic participation by members of each sex.

[jkjsooner]

I want to point out that I'm not against Title IX but too often the argument is that the first of the three criteria must be met.


provide participation opportunities for male and female athletes substantially proportionate to their full-time undergraduate enrollments;

I still hold that this is the only criteria that schools Presidents feel really secure in. I personally feel that the representation should match that of the participation rate in intramural sports. Plenty have made that argument and that would fall in line with the third criteria but I've never heard a President or AD feel secure in making that argument.


demonstrate that its existing program accommodates the interests and abilities of members of the underrepresented sex.

Trying to meet this criteria is a surefire way to invite a lawsuit.


My other complaint is the refusal to admit that Title IX has hurt men's sports. Title IX supporters say over and over again that this is just an excuse made by the universities. Reality tells a different story. Most athletic departments are not flush with money. In fact most are in the red. Despite this they had a mandate to at least get their participation rates closer to reflecting the student gender ratios. It's simple a matter of numbers. If you are losing money and you need to get your percentages closer then it only makes sense to cut non-revenue men's sports. It's just flat out common sense and something Title IX supporters (and I mean the hard core ones) just are not willing to admit.

[8timechamps]

I think they're referring more to health issues related to them participating in athletics while at said university. They've continually been stressing the concussion situation,and staunchly been saying that schools don't do enough in relation to those types of injuries. Personally, I don't think anyone does enough in relation to those types of injuries, but that's more a symptom of lack of knowledge on the human brain in the first place, than any sort of intentional reason.

I think an example that might be somewhat worthwhile in this discussion are the injuries that ended the career of Ben Habern. Let's say these injuries left him just this side of the injuries that Corey Wilson sustained in his accident. Did Ben know there was a risk of injury by playing football? Sure he did, and like most kids injuries always happen to someone else.

I guess another example would be some of the more "shady" coaches who might take a player who got injured and give their scholarship to someone else. I don't see how we could decry the practice of taking a scholarship from a player to give to someone "better" because a player didn't perform where the coaches thought he should, but shouldn't that standard also apply to a player who gets injured? Not everyone uses medical scholarships the same way that OU will, and they'll discard a kid.

This goes back to my thought that the players (all student athletes) should have a spot at the NCAA table. I believe the players need an input into collegiate sports in general.

However, I think asking schools to 'take care' of kids after college is a tough proposition. If a player is seriously injured while participating, then yes, the institution should be on the hook for perpetual care. I don't think concussions, torn knees, etc. should fall into that category though. First, that would open the floodgates, and how long would it be before high schools and youth programs were getting sued for those kinds of things? Secondly, it's still an accepted risk. No body is forced to play, they do so voluntarily.

In cases where kids are paralyzed, I think it's only right for the school to take care of them, since they are very limited in what they can do in the future. Otherwise, injuries happen to everyone whether or no you are earning a scholarship.

[8timechamps]

Going forward, I'm wondering how this "union" can have an effect, as worse case scenario, do they band together and walk out? I'm certain there are those out there ready and willing to take their place & position. (Scabs, if you will?) Please know that I'm all in on the athletes being covered medically and carried through to a possible five year grad plan, but as has been stated in prior posts, the cost of a degree is substantial to a non scholarship student; the value to a graduate, priceless. Sorry to sound like a commercial...

Boomer

The "union" will never happen. So, I don't think we will ever have to worry about the affect it could have. However, look at what happened at Grambling last year, the players did "walk out". Since HBCU programs don't stand to gain (or lose) nearly as much as most FBS school, it wasn't a huge hit for either school. If it were to happen at a FBS school, it would have major financial implications. I think (in almost every case) the idea that "walking out" would reflect poorly (to a potential NFL employer) would be enough to keep it from happening. At Grambling, they had real legitimate concerns, and they needed to be brought to light. Nothing like that is happening at any FBS school though.

[Scott D]

This goes back to my thought that the players (all student athletes) should have a spot at the NCAA table. I believe the players need an input into collegiate sports in general.

However, I think asking schools to 'take care' of kids after college is a tough proposition. If a player is seriously injured while participating, then yes, the institution should be on the hook for perpetual care. I don't think concussions, torn knees, etc. should fall into that category though. First, that would open the floodgates, and how long would it be before high schools and youth programs were getting sued for those kinds of things? Secondly, it's still an accepted risk. No body is forced to play, they do so voluntarily.

In cases where kids are paralyzed, I think it's only right for the school to take care of them, since they are very limited in what they can do in the future. Otherwise, injuries happen to everyone whether or no you are earning a scholarship.

You do realize that we live in a country where a woman sued a little league player because she got hit with a foul ball in the stands.

[8timechamps]

You do realize that we live in a country where a woman sued a little league player because she got hit with a foul ball in the stands.

That's precisely the reason Title IX matters. Even if it's not by the spirit of the change, there will be no shortage of lawsuits filed if this were to happen.

This is beside the point, but did you see recently a little league baseball coach sued one of his players (a 14 year old) because after the kid scored the game winning run, he threw his helmet off in celebration and hit the coach in the ankle. The coach sued for $500k. I'm sure that went far.

[vtsooner21]

Truly we live in a most litigious society these days. Yup; couldn't believe the story of the batting helmet bouncing and "injuring" a coach. Toby Keith's "American Ride" song says it so very well..

Boomer

[bluedogok]

In general there are too many stupid people anymore who fail to use common sense and take responsibility for anything.

[vtsooner21]

Amen, bluedog...It is so truly amazing to see people everyday and the thought is how have these people made it this far in life?

Boomer

[8timechamps]

Truly we live in a most litigious society these days. Yup; couldn't believe the story of the batting helmet bouncing and "injuring" a coach. Toby Keith's "American Ride" song says it so very well..

Boomer

Just read this morning that some random guy is suing NASA because they failed to spend more time researching the "Jelly Donut" rock they found on Mars. He said (in the lawsuit) that NASA is ignoring a chance to find potential life on Mars. Unbelievable.

[Scott D]

Just read this morning that some random guy is suing NASA because they failed to spend more time researching the "Jelly Donut" rock they found on Mars. He said (in the lawsuit) that NASA is ignoring a chance to find potential life on Mars. Unbelievable.

We could discuss the guy who says that snow isn't really snow because it wasn't melting when he held a lighter to it. Forget the fact that the chemical reaction between snow and a lighter results in the gas form.

[olevetonahill]

Just read this morning that some random guy is suing NASA because they failed to spend more time researching the "Jelly Donut" rock they found on Mars. He said (in the lawsuit) that NASA is ignoring a chance to find potential life on Mars. Unbelievable.

What, He thinks theres a Police station up there?

[vtsooner21]

Another story comes to mind of two morons that were hired to get into a gas tank that had been buried to ascertain exactly how many gallons of fuel remained in the bottom. Of course, it was dark in there and they chose to light matches in the tank to see...Gave new meaning to the phrase "high test"...

Boomer

[swardboy]

Has the subject of who is going to pay the union dues come up in this thread? 'Cause the laborer pays them in every other union I've ever heard of.

Oh wait, they're not really employees, are they. Guess the taxpayer will take it on again.

[yankee]

The fact that this "brilliant" idea came from a school in the greater-Chicago area is the least surprising thing ever.

[ouflak]

Has the subject of who is going to pay the union dues come up in this thread?

Yes.


Guess the taxpayer will take it on again.

No. They aren't charging dues. And I don't think you can just get tax payer money by simply asking for it, unless you are a senator or something. The union specifically is avoiding any government funding in order to not have to deal with Title IX. Right now it just looks like contributions, mainly from alumni and former college athletes.

[swardboy]

Subsidized unionization?

Stop the madness!

[ouflak]

Subsidized unionization?

Stop the madness!

Yeah I don't think any society in history has flirted with that crazy a concept. If there is going to be any money involved in with this union, it's going to be siphoned off of the billions coming into college football.

[Curly Bill]

I still wanna know if this were to happen can we collect back taxes on them sumbitches? You know, since they're employees making a wage and all that....

[ouflak]

I still wanna know if this were to happen can we collect back taxes on them sumbitches? You know, since they're employees making a wage and all that....

I certainly don't have a problem with it. I kinda don't think any of them would have a problem with it. Why not? The benefits would have to outweigh the costs: The ability to work any job as you see fit as most free Americans do, extended health coverage - in particular disability, the right to control and monetize your own image and likeness as you see fit, and perhaps, since we're talking about 'back taxes', maybe even the right to get some of that 'back pay'... all taxed... ofcourse.