FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:04:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

badgerwarhawk

I just read an article which indicated "the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) does not have jurisdiction over public universities, so the push to unionize athletes has been primarily targeted toward private schools like Northwestern."

I would take that to mean that their ruling Northwestern athletes are employees doesn't apply to athletes at public universities.  Unfortunately the article did not detail the reason the NLRB doesn't have jurisdiction over public universities.   
"Just think twice is my only advice."

wally_wabash

Quote from: badgerwarhawk on April 03, 2014, 01:05:33 PM
I just read an article which indicated "the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) does not have jurisdiction over public universities, so the push to unionize athletes has been primarily targeted toward private schools like Northwestern."

I would take that to mean that their ruling Northwestern athletes are employees doesn't apply to athletes at public universities.  Unfortunately the article did not detail the reason the NLRB doesn't have jurisdiction over public universities.

This is true, but if ever this ruling stands and a mechanism by which athletes can negotiate with their employer is born, I can't imagine a scenario where the large public universities that rely on the service and talent of those kids to fill bank vaults aren't going to be active in that marketplace. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

jknezek

Quote from: wally_wabash on April 03, 2014, 01:31:12 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on April 03, 2014, 01:05:33 PM
I just read an article which indicated "the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) does not have jurisdiction over public universities, so the push to unionize athletes has been primarily targeted toward private schools like Northwestern."

I would take that to mean that their ruling Northwestern athletes are employees doesn't apply to athletes at public universities.  Unfortunately the article did not detail the reason the NLRB doesn't have jurisdiction over public universities.

This is true, but if ever this ruling stands and a mechanism by which athletes can negotiate with their employer is born, I can't imagine a scenario where the large public universities that rely on the service and talent of those kids to fill bank vaults aren't going to be active in that marketplace.

NLRB does not have jurisdiction over public employee unions. As an "employee" of a state university, that would be a public employee. Public employee unions are regulated state by state. It would be interesting if the private universities had to pay, while the public universities fought for non-pay. Pretty sure the public universities would either have to come around in a hurry or form their own division, with lower quality athletes. It's all fascinating, but it is also important to point out that the N'wstrn union push does not mention pay. It is predicated around getting continuing health care benefits for injuries sustained playing college athletics and other issues. Not to say pay won't come up eventually, but it is not a topic being currently included in the petition.

emma17

Quote from: wally_wabash on April 03, 2014, 12:20:33 PM
Quote from: emma17 on April 02, 2014, 05:47:58 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on April 02, 2014, 04:35:27 PM
Nor am I in favor of a stipend; apologies if that has not been clear in my rambles.  I am in favor of granting collegiate athletes the right to profit from their own likeness and accept endorsements, and I see the Northwestern players' victory as a hopefully-useful bargaining chip that may eventually force the NCAA to acknowledge that the current model is unreasonable.  A nice quote from Stewart Mandel today:

"There is plenty of gray area in between those who are salaried professionals and those who are not allowed to accept a free sandwich."

Perhaps this is a better way to express my feelings.  I don't necessarily want to see all collegiate athletes gettin' dem checks, but I do think the draconian restrictions on what they are permitted to accept need be lifted or changed.

"And an athletic director is receiving a near-$20,000 bonus because one of his wrestlers won an NCAA title. Meanwhile, that same wrestler would be ineligible if he signed an autograph for $20. That dichotomy is no longer ethically tenable."

Again I say, the purpose of college for all students should be to earn a degree. The more you promote college athletics as a means for the athletes to profit during their extremely short-lived days of athletic glory, the more difficult it will become for high schools to prepare students for success in college. It's hard enough for many athletes to resist thinking of college as a mandatory and temporary stop before their time in the pros. What will happen when high school athletes know they can get paid for their likeness once they go to college?

Patience is a virtue. The athletic director earning a bonus based on the success of the programs paid his/her dues. That AD undoubtedly reached their position in the very manner we should all encourage for our kids. The college athlete's time to make money will come all in due time.

Setting the ethics of Gene Smith getting two stacks of high society because a wrestler at tOSU won a national championship aside, that sort of bonus structure was no doubt negotiated by Gene Smith (or his people) as is his right as an employee.  My whole thing is that the athletes should have the same right to negotiate compensation for their work as Gene Smith does.

Let them negotiate all they want, just not with a college/university while a student.
If you want to change something so bad, change the rules the pros have regarding minimum age/college participation.
If the kid wants to be paid for his athletic abilities, go to the pros and get paid.

ncc_fan

I'll be cynical and say that I'm all in favor of the continued financial exploitation of D-I men's basketball players, because D-III championships are paid for with March Madness profits that might otherwise go to D-I student-athletes!    :o

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: ncc_fan on April 09, 2014, 03:19:31 PM
I'll be cynical and say that I'm all in favor of the continued financial exploitation of D-I men's basketball players, because D-III championships are paid for with March Madness profits that might otherwise go to D-I student-athletes!    :o

wally makes that very point on the MIAA thread.  The unionization threat does have very serious implications beyond D-1.

With that said, I am still firmly on the side of the players, but not because I want them to win unionization and start gettin' dem checks.  I want the players' victory in the first round of the NLRB hearings to bring the NCAA to the negotiating table and say "You know what?  Maybe we can find a more workable solution that doesn't blow up the current system entirely, but allows Division I athletes some basic rights while maintaining the profitable structure of football and basketball that funds so much of the rest of Division I athletics."

I've made a couple of points already: the NCAA has ruled a kid ineligible for accepting a plane ticket from their AAU coach to attend basketball camp (Ryan Boatright), suspended a kids for selling his own game-worn jersey (A.J. Green), forced Dwayne Jarrett to pay Matt Leinart's father an equal share of the cost of living in an apartment with Leinart (if they weren't athletes, this would be a rich kid's father agreeing to foot the bill for rent since his buddy doesn't have as much money; since they're athletes, it's an NCAA violation), and ruled Dez Bryant ineligible for merely visiting Deion Sanders, who a) is not an Oklahoma State booster, b) is not an agent, and c) did not provide Bryant anything other than inspirational text messages and mentorship.  Heck, Boise State football was penalized for the following:

"The nearly $5,000 in  "benefits" received by 63 players from 2005-09 included "impermissible housing, transportation or meals, where an incoming student-athlete was provided a place to sleep (often on a couch or floor), a car ride or was provided free food by an existing student-athlete."

So recruits staying on campus got to sleep on a current player's couch, a meal on the player's dime, and a ride to the airport.  Where I come from, that's called friendship and common decency.  In the NCAA's book, that's a rule violation.

I don't care if the players start getting paychecks.  But all that stuff above?  That's all gotta stop.  And that's why I hope the players keep winning until the NCAA relents and, faced with the Armageddon threat of a unionized workforce, agrees to loosen those draconian restrictions.  I'm actually in favor of stricter enforcement of academic progress & things of that nature, but I just can't abide this position that a kid being allowed to sign some autographs for money, or accept a loan from his coach, or plane tickets to go to camp, is a threat to "amateurism" as we know it.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

Mr. Ypsi

This week's Sports Illustrated includes perhaps the greatest "damning with faint praise" quotation I have ever seen:

Lee Marvin once said of Jim Brown: "Well, Brown's a better actor than Sir Laurence Olivier would be as a member of the Cleveland Browns." :o

Gregory Sager

For those of you who don't read the CCIW basketball room, I'll repeat this bulletin:

Carroll is rejoining the CCIW.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

D3MAFAN

Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2014, 09:26:31 PM
For those of you who don't read the CCIW basketball room, I'll repeat this bulletin:

Carroll is rejoining the CCIW.

That will still leave two OOC games.

Gregory Sager

Yep. That's obvious. But I was wondering what the regulars in this room think about how this will affect the CCIW in terms of football competitiveness. Anyone have any thoughts on where Carroll fits in the CCIW's gridiron pecking order?
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2014, 09:51:44 PM
Yep. That's obvious. But I was wondering what the regulars in this room think about how this will affect the CCIW in terms of football competitiveness. Anyone have any thoughts on where Carroll fits in the CCIW's gridiron pecking order?

In the early aughts, they were North Park, if not worse.  For the last six years they've gone (reading backwards from 2013 - overall wins): 6,8,7,7,5,7.  The competition has not been CCIW-quality, but they should be competitive with the bottom teams - I'd hazard a guess at 7th-9th initially.

D3MAFAN

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 24, 2014, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2014, 09:51:44 PM
Yep. That's obvious. But I was wondering what the regulars in this room think about how this will affect the CCIW in terms of football competitiveness. Anyone have any thoughts on where Carroll fits in the CCIW's gridiron pecking order?

In the early aughts, they were North Park, if not worse.  For the last six years they've gone (reading backwards from 2013 - overall wins): 6,8,7,7,5,7.  The competition has not been CCIW-quality, but they should be competitive with the bottom teams - I'd hazard a guess at 7th-9th initially.

Unless they perform like Texas A&M did in the SEC a couple year's back.

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on April 24, 2014, 10:39:35 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 24, 2014, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2014, 09:51:44 PM
Yep. That's obvious. But I was wondering what the regulars in this room think about how this will affect the CCIW in terms of football competitiveness. Anyone have any thoughts on where Carroll fits in the CCIW's gridiron pecking order?

In the early aughts, they were North Park, if not worse.  For the last six years they've gone (reading backwards from 2013 - overall wins): 6,8,7,7,5,7.  The competition has not been CCIW-quality, but they should be competitive with the bottom teams - I'd hazard a guess at 7th-9th initially.

Unless they perform like Texas A&M did in the SEC a couple year's back.

As far as I know, Carroll does not have a Heisman candidate recruit coming this fall! ;)

kiko

Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2014, 09:51:44 PM
Yep. That's obvious. But I was wondering what the regulars in this room think about how this will affect the CCIW in terms of football competitiveness. Anyone have any thoughts on where Carroll fits in the CCIW's gridiron pecking order?

Closer to Augustana than they were Back In The Day(tm).

Gregory Sager

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 24, 2014, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2014, 09:51:44 PM
Yep. That's obvious. But I was wondering what the regulars in this room think about how this will affect the CCIW in terms of football competitiveness. Anyone have any thoughts on where Carroll fits in the CCIW's gridiron pecking order?

In the early aughts, they were North Park, if not worse.

Pre-Conway North Park or post-Conway North Park?
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell