I guess this is the beginning of the end. It was a good 100 year run.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/...n-bid-unionize
I guess this is the beginning of the end. It was a good 100 year run.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/...n-bid-unionize
The impact of this will be gnats nuts compared to the impact big money has had on college FB and hoops.
I'm not really sure what impact this will have on college athletics, but it's hard to feel sympathy for conferences, colleges and the NCAA that have been milking fans and donors for increasingly larger money piles while still offering players the same thing they have for years; tuition, fees and some living expenses. Unless, of course, they're athletes in an equivalency sport or walk-ons. Those ones don't even get that.
Students are ruled as employees. I think college football as we know it is over.
"I'm going to request that you stop posting in this thread." - circa 2008
"Why does there have to be so much immature stuff on here?" - circa 2010
I have no idea what the end result of this ruling will be but the possible scenarios are endless. And this could potentially spill over to include any student receiving aid in exchange for their time and labor. Pandora's box has just been opened.
Haven't read the ruling, don't know the reasoning. But, a student can be a student...and also an employee (part time jobs, summer jobs, etc) and be entitled to some or all the protections of full time employees. Until we know precisely what this means, it's premature to draw conclusions.
(we also don't know, for example, if the players will be able to organize, and successfully vote in a union. They may have the right to organize and opt (in essence) not to exercise it.)
"I don't know karate, but I know ka-razor!" - James Brown
Tee hee, maybe there's hope my toddler won't someday suffocate from student loans... the colleges will pay students for their work --- maybe they can collect overtime for all-nighters!Originally Posted by swardboy
Are you talking only about the 23 schools with athletic departments that actually make money?
Most of the schools have to profit as much as possible from football just to support the non-revenue programs. But I'm sure that will be dismissed by a few here who tend to not deal with reality.
Note: I recognize the $5 million coach's salary is in the expense column. I do think there is room for athletic departments to give athletes a little stipend, and I think the downward pressure on coach's salaries would be a good thing.
No, no! Union bad, sky is falling. Never too early to panic.
College FB as we know it has never existed. It has been under constant change since I started following in '71. 85 scholarships, conference re-alignment, big money TV deals, video replay and other frequent rule changes are all bigger deals than this is likely to be. But if this has big ripples and forces the NFL to fund their own farm teams and CFB becomes more like the Ivy League, so be it.
While I don't know exactly what this will mean, I have serious reservations. The courts and/or executive branch better recognize that the NCAA must maintain a competitive and level playing field and therefore must maintain a structure that does not favor the rich at the expense of the poorer programs. There are lots of things one school can offer over another - better education, better facilities, etc. I don't think we want to go to a situation where it is more money directly to the player.
I know NW players weren't after money as much as other things and that's great but with the decision that they are employees it's just a matter of time until someone uses that as a stepping stone for a pay-for-play system - and I don't mean a uniform stipend.
I would actually love that. I think we would still fill Memorial Stadium under that scenario.
The other reason I would love it is that these self obsessed athletes would quickly learn that college football was about a lot more than just their own talent. They'll find the interest in the minor leagues (no matter how much more talented) to be a fraction of the interest in college football.
Who won the D league game last night? Did Duke make it to the Sweet 16?
If only 23 schools make money then the NCAA is even more corrupt and shady then I previously thought. And the people who run colleges must be complete idiots because whats up with the mad dash to improve the athletic programs if you're not making any money from it?
It takes one to know one, and I know you don't know a damn thing.
I can see a development in which you restart a bunch of the old lower tier pro- and semi-pro ball that existed in the 1930's say. That could serve as a home/development stop off for those who really can't hack college. And college ball, while losing out on some of the less intellectually gifted could go back to more of what Div 3 is today.
I went to a div 3 school undergrad. And the football team there was, frankly, awful. Hell, I played half my freshman year (until I got my neck broken). And, let me assure you: any team I played for was in severe shortage of athletes. But the games were fun, going to the games were fun. And the cocktail parties that broke out on the field afterwards were awesome things to behold.
It would be more like college baseball. Not what college football is today, but still worth my time.
Or it could turn out entirely differently. We just don't know now.
"I don't know karate, but I know ka-razor!" - James Brown
Several reasons. 1) For most schools like OU (non Ivy-like schools), a successful athletic department raises the school's profile. 2) On a related note, anecdotal evidence has shown donations to academic programs have generally increased when the school's football team is successful. 3) For football and basketball, you have to invest to make money to afford the others.
You may say that these football players are essentially bringing in money indirectly to the school from #1 and #2 but that's not really something the athletic department can get its hands on. If I'm donating to the College of Engineering, I want that money to go there even if having the football team succeed impacts my decision to donate the money.
I'll add, even schools like Duke with outstanding academic reputations, competitive sports programs raise the profile of the school. I knew Duke was a great institution long before I knew Rice was. The only reason I can think of to account for that is the fact that Duke has a high profile basketball team. (Obviously Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. are on a different level as far as worldwide prestige and name recognition.
Last edited by jkjsooner; 3/26/2014 at 04:41 PM.
This decision was made by a judge in Chicago. If their judiciary is as corrupt as their politicians, I wouldn't be surprised to see this get overturned. On the surface, this sounds like a really bad idea so I hope it does get overturned.
I'm not saying those 3 things aren't true, but when the NCAA is making billions but only 23 schools actually see any real money something is incredibly wrong. And the way the schools and the NCAA categorize and claim their money makes it almost impossible to show any profit off of athletics (Football and Basketball) - which is just the way they want it.
Really - I just want to see the NCAA get destroyed.
It takes one to know one, and I know you don't know a damn thing.
I've never understood why schools support so many non-money making sports. Perhaps this will make lead to more cuts of those programs, frankly I think they should if a sport can't support itself.
They can cut many of them but they would need to keep quite a few women's sports just to balance out the scholarship numbers for Title IX. (Someone here pointed out that Title IX doesn't exactly require equal scholarship numbers but if I remember correctly the easiest and least ambiguous way to be compliant was for scholarships that reflect the gender distribution in the university.)
The NCAA isn't making billions. The NCAA's budget is quite small.
If you're talking about NCAA member institutions making billions, well they do but it takes billions to fund all of the sports they fund.
Last edited by jkjsooner; 3/26/2014 at 07:47 PM.
I was really surprised by the ruling, but I'm still not convinced it'll hold up to appeal. Even if it does, I can't imagine Northwestern just saying "okay, we'll accept it" and move on, there are plenty of ways they can get the ball back in their court.
In any event, I'm not ready to worry that the game as we know it is gone. It's way too early in the process, and we don't even have an understanding of what all this means yet.
Posting Permissions
