This is an uphill climb for the NW players, and I still don't think this has much (if any) chance of becoming reality. There are ways to address the issues without going for unionization.
Here's an example of how states will push back from this: Ohio legislation says "Players aren't employees"
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...-athletes-paid
Dangit Adrian...
More disturbing, ESPN has a poll right now, and 57% of fans voted that players should be paid. Thankfully, it only has about 10,000 votes.
Wish I'd seen that poll. Would've been happy to throw my vote in on that one. Curiously, they now have a poll on whether fans support the unionization effort by Northwestern players, and that poll is actually heavily against the idea (67%). So you have a lot of fans that think that players should be paid in one poll one day, but are against unionization in another poll the next day. Kinda gives you an idea of what Americans think of unions these days.Originally Posted by Eielson
Getting paid and unions are CERTAINLY quite different subjects. It was a surprise to me that the union cart got put before the horse.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
I saw next year's senior QB on the Northwestern team say he would vote against unionization. He thinks it's a mistake to not go to the coaches and administration first to air grievances. Then he goes on to say the football players are treated like kings and he thinks it's basically a travesty for them to be complaining about anything.
Sounds like a "no" vote coming up.
"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
Well he has a right to his opinion and vote, and I'm glad he is getting his say. But I wonder if he really thinks 'airing grievances' to the coaches and AD's would do any good?
Players: "Coach/AD, we should have the right to seek employment without restriction. We want to have guaranteed multi-year scholarships. And we need better health coverage after our playing years for injuries we've sustained while playing. And we'd also like a say on safety matters regarding equipment, just have our voice heard when such matters are officially discussed."
Coaches/AD: "Yeah we agree completely. But unfortunately the NCAA rule book is quite clear. And their organization is setup the way it's setup by they themselves. We don't have a say in that. So... *shrug* sorry!"
End of grievances being aired.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/poll...n/_/id/4270367
It's evened out at around 30,000 votes.
Those polls support my stance on this issue.
I believe the NCAA needs to address the cost-of-living issue, whether that be with stipends or moderate pay. I believe the idea that college athletes are employees of the university of absurd. So, unionization is the wrong avenue, and I disagree with that direction. I think the majority of fans feel the same way I do.
Stipends or moderate pay does not equal paying players tens of thousands of dollars (or more) to play college sports.
AD has a really weak argument here. I love the guy, but disagree with his reasoning.
That was because a union was pushing the cart......and telling the plaintiffs what they wanted to hear. When it really hits the fan that union who pushed for this will be nowhere to be found.
It(paying players) becomes considerably more complicated when unionization is also being considered. I would think the unions have a bigger chance to be formed if players being paid was to first become a reality. Maybe the unions just want to create chaos.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
But by what mechanism? Let's face it. The NCAA is making loads, with more to come. They can't pay their executive board enough in money to spend it all. So they are shuffling money into the political campaigns of Congressman. If they can help it, their empire of indentured servitude will become the law of the land, atleast until the Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional, which might be decades from now. There's no way they are going to allow any slice of their pie to be doled out to the players. It'$ ju$t not in their be$t intere$t. I don't see the millionaire class of coaches and athletic directors giving up a slice of their burgeoning pie either, though admittedly a few coaches have publicly offered (and even spoken out in favor of the players). So in the current structure, with all of the money flowing in, and more set to flow in, how do you think it would ever happen that the people who are actually earning the money would actually start getting paid some of it?
IDGAS. Sounds like you think unions are a good thing. Collective bargaining is bad news, and especially so where it's not optional. They are always detrimental to optimal performance of any industry.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
To be honest, I'm not a real big fan of unions (in fact, that may be an understatement). I'd rather the NCAA just vanish in a puff of dust. But that is unrealistic. I am not naive enough to think that the NCAA will ever give up its model of making money without having to pay the people actually doing the work. If I were them, as sleazy as it may sound, I wouldn't. Heck I would fight tooth and nail for that. It'$ a virtual printing pre$$. So I'm not really sure how else this can all work out.
College football is big business, and does bring in millions, but the "NCAA" is not the recipient of the money. I'm not sure if you're using "NCAA" to mean all the member schools, or if you are referring to the "NCAA" as the actual governing body. The actual NCAA is strapped for cash, which is why inquiries and investigations take so long, they can't afford to hire the people they really need.
The decline of the NCAA, as it stands today, may not be as far off as you think. I think the power 6 conferences have made it pretty clear that either things change, or they will leave the NCAA. One of the issues is player stipends. All of the schools (or at least most of them) in those conferences can afford to pay player stipends, but mid-major schools are a completely different story. So, the NCAA knows they are in a tough spot right now and if they want things to remain the same they must reach an agreement that serves both the power conferences and the small ones. I'm not sure that's even possible, which is why I think the NCAA is close to being on life support. I say "close", because nothing moves fast when it comes to these kinds of things.
I suspect the Power 6 will square off with the NCAA next offseason. They (the power 6) have already made it clear they are willing to leave if they don't get what they want, and frankly there isn't much the NCAA can do. Could spell the end of the NCAA as we know it.
People somehow think this. I'm not sure where that perception comes from. Anyway, the 10.8 billion dollar basketball deal they signed a few years back would suggest otherwise.
Yes, they can barely afford to pay Emmert his 1.7 million in yearly salary, up $100,000 from the previous year. Fortunately money grows on trees and falls from the skies. I'm sure that's how they were able to afford this, as well as the pay to the rest of that executive board detailed in the link.
Don't try to give me too much hope! I'm a notorious daydreamer.
96% of the money the NCAA makes (almost all from the basketball tournament) goes back to the member institutions. With $10.8 billion over 14 years with only 4% staying within the NCAA organization, that gives them only about $30.8 million a year.
The NCAA isn't flush with cash. As for the member institutions, about 80% lose money in their athletic departments.
I'm sure this will mean little as people from your side seem to ignore the financial reality.
That's a pretty mediocre salary for someone in his position. In addition, you take that salary and spread it out among the 420,000 division I athletes and it doesn't go very far.Yes, they can barely afford to pay Emmert his 1.7 million in yearly salary, up $100,000 from the previous year. Fortunately money grows on trees and falls from the skies. I'm sure that's how they were able to afford this, as well as the pay to the rest of that executive board detailed in the link.
I'd love to see athletes get a decent stipend but when you consider Title IX and the number of athletes we're talking about I've yet to see any realistic proposal. The only way this is possible is to split FBS into a smaller division who can afford such a thing. A lot of these athletes that are complaining probably wouldn't be in such a
division. (I'm not so sure NW would be involved as I don't see the split being purely on conference affiliations.)
Last edited by jkjsooner; 4/14/2014 at 02:04 PM.
I just looked it up. This is a few years old (2010). The NCAA had about 400 employees and spent about $50 million per year. That's an average compensation of $125,000.
Considering the nature of the business that isn't extremely high. They have a lot more executives than a normal 400 employee organization simply because they're an umbrella organization that represents the interests of the member institutions. In addition they are probably extremely top-heavy on lawyers, etc.
Again, the NCAA isn't a rich organization as you have portrayed it. They have some highly paid executives but so does every other damn organization in this country.
flak, I defer to jk on this:
While most of us hate the NCAA, it's still a large organization responsible for many things. Considering what Emmert has to do (which I would compare to just about any CEO), that's far less than most make. Personally, I think most CEO's are way overpaid, but that's a topic for a different thread.
jksooner also addressed the tournament funds being distributed back to the member schools. The NCAA, as a stand alone organization, isn't a cash-cow. They are relatively "minor" compared to what the conferences make financially.
I haven't seen a union do a good thing in any industry. If you look at any industry they have been a part of, they screw it up. Auto, steel, education etc...
Second, how are you going to provide medical insurance for someone after they are away from your organization? I can see covering issues that happen while in school. For instance you break a leg in your bowl game. That should be taken care of until it is fixed. But if you break your leg 6 months after you get out the school shouldn't be responsible. Maybe provide a cobra type policy until they get into a job. But to just provide 4 years of medical coverage after college doesn't make since.
OUI Refugee! Seeing all the good people beat me here. Formerly OUJARVIS on OUI.
Posting Permissions
