Northwestern Players Want a Union

Donate To GopherHole
bga1 said:
This will be interesting and probably will not end well. I don't see how colleges can in the future be told that they need to simultaneously treat this like a business transaction between labor and business on the one hand, while on the other hand being compelled to comply with Title IX and provide an equal number of scholarships to non-revenue women's sports. I'm no Title IX scholar so I may have this wrong. Either this is a business deal or it's amateur college athletics. If it becomes all business than they should be allowed to pick who they want to give scholarships to and in what sport.

At the end of the day unionization- if it ends there- would probably mean that the rich programs can handle it and the poorer programs will cut sports. The student athletes will be the losers and a few will get their union benefits.
Click to expand...

They do get to pick who they want to give scholarships to, they are just restricted by the number of scholarships they can give out, its no different than a pro team having roster limits
 

I told you guys this was coming.

The NCAA is essentially finished if this stands on appeal.

The corrupt NCAA is on its last legs. It is about time.
 


Gopherguy0723 said:
I told you guys this was coming.

The NCAA is essentially finished if this stands on appeal.

The corrupt NCAA is on its last legs. It is about time.
Click to expand...

I couldn't help but notice that you have still refused to answer my very basic question.
 

The reason that Northwestern was chosen for this is that private schools fall under federal labor law, while the state schools fall under state law. In principle, the NCAA could eject the private schools, I suppose.
 


RodentRampage said:
The reason that Northwestern was chosen for this is that private schools fall under federal labor law, while the state schools fall under state law. In principle, the NCAA could eject the private schools, I suppose.
Click to expand...

That won't happen. The NCAA wouldn't have the balls to kick out teams like Notre Dame, Duke, or USC.
 

Gopherguy0723;870623[U said:
]I told you guys this was coming.

The NCAA is essentially finished if this stands on appeal.

The corrupt NCAA is on its last legs. It is about time.
Click to expand...

So your prayers have been answered.
 

Iceland12 said:
So your prayers have been answered.
Click to expand...

Not prayers. Justice.

Non-attorneys have a difficult time understanding even popular practices have to stop if they are illegal. They simply cannot comprehend the illegality or refuse to comprehend the illegality if they are ok with what is happening. Sports fans are especially bad at this as emotion simply overwhelms all logic.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Not prayers. Justice.

Non-attorneys have a difficult time understanding even popular practices have to stop if they are illegal. They simply cannot comprehend the illegality or refuse to comprehend the illegality if they are ok with what is happening. Sports fans are especially bad at this as emotion simply overwhelms all logic.
Click to expand...

It's a new interpretation of the law rather than "illegal". I'm sure you'll be cheering loudly when college sports is a thing of the past. Maybe then you'll stop hearing the NCAA through the fillings in your teeth.
 



Gopherguy0723 said:
Not prayers. Justice.

Non-attorneys have a difficult time understanding even popular practices have to stop if they are illegal. They simply cannot comprehend the illegality or refuse to comprehend the illegality if they are ok with what is happening. Sports fans are especially bad at this as emotion simply overwhelms all logic.
Click to expand...

Much like the pompous among us show absolutely no sense of humor huh? :rolleyes:

So in your opinion those legal experts who are reacting with surprise at the ruling, must not have passed the bar than or are they all on the take? No strike that, the last thing anybody would want is your opinion.
 

RodentRampage said:
It's a new interpretation of the law rather than "illegal". I'm sure you'll be cheering loudly when college sports is a thing of the past. Maybe then you'll stop hearing the NCAA through the fillings in your teeth.
Click to expand...

No. It means the practice was always illegal. It simply hadn't been challenged yet on its illegality. For example, if SCOTUS ruled today that gay marriage is constitutional that means gay marriage was constitutional either from the constitution's inception or since the reconstruction amendments were passed, specifically the 14th Amendment. The ban on it would have been illegal for more 100+ years.

To be clear, this ruling isn't claiming anything done has been illegal. I am speaking about NCAA corruption not associated with this case.
 

For those who want the Gophers to win a Rose Bowl in your lifetime, I hope Jerry gets it done soon. I suspect the # of them left may be in the single digits.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Not prayers. Justice.

Non-attorneys have a difficult time understanding even popular practices have to stop if they are illegal. They simply cannot comprehend the illegality or refuse to comprehend the illegality if they are ok with what is happening. Sports fans are especially bad at this as emotion simply overwhelms all logic.
Click to expand...

Or you can change the law to reflect life... Something attorneys sometimes forget. Fortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't always, and sites tradition and human custom in their decisions.
 



Gopherguy0723 said:
No. It means the practice was always illegal. It simply hadn't been challenged yet on its illegality. For example, if SCOTUS ruled today that gay marriage is constitutional that means gay marriage was constitutional either from the constitution's inception or since the reconstruction amendments were passed, specifically the 14th Amendment. The ban on it would have been illegal for more 100+ years.

To be clear, this ruling isn't claiming anything done has been illegal. I am speaking about NCAA corruption not associated with this case.
Click to expand...

You sure about this (and I am asking); seemingly contradicts the historical record of Thurgood Marshall's strategy used to overturn Plessy.

He built case law and logical extensions until his final case to overturn the "Sep but equal" under 14th. However, seems to be a waste of time if it were decided to be always unconstitutional.

Also, wouldn't that present some paradoxes with the "Ex Post Facto" clause? You'd potentially have a case whereby case law changed what was known to be law, but conduct that was not barred at the time an act was performed, is then considered unconstitutional.

Thus, actor A could be sued for something that every "reasonable prudent person" considered to be legal conduct, but because the change through case law created a law that retroactively makes the conduct illegal. However, that would also be holding Actor A to a standard that was known to be legal at the time the act was committed, and in substance an enforcing a law after the fact.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Literally anyone on Earth is free to start a minor league for players that can enter the league at 18 and would compete with the NCAA for players. Why has no one done it, ever, in the near-century since professional football came into existence?
Click to expand...
It was foretold when the coaching salaries began to sky rocket. It will take deep pockets to make a professional under-league happen so therefore I believe the NFL will be behind it, at least in some way. It will happen, however. No matter what side you come down on the issue of players unionizing, this ruling represents the beginning of the end of D1 sports "as we know it". The Big Money ruined it. It always does.
 

bga1 said:
This will be interesting and probably will not end well. I don't see how colleges can in the future be told that they need to simultaneously treat this like a business transaction between labor and business on the one hand, while on the other hand being compelled to comply with Title IX and provide an equal number of scholarships to non-revenue women's sports. I'm no Title IX scholar so I may have this wrong. Either this is a business deal or it's amateur college athletics. If it becomes all business than they should be allowed to pick who they want to give scholarships to and in what sport.

At the end of the day unionization- if it ends there- would probably mean that the rich programs can handle it and the poorer programs will cut sports. The student athletes will be the losers and a few will get their union benefits.
Click to expand...

This also negates the IRS exemption given to scholarship athletes, as they have historically relied on this not being true. However, given the ruling then football becomes "services required as a condition for receiving the scholarship." Therefore, all scholarship amounts should be reported as gross income. Hopefully, the IRS exempts these kids rather quickly. Otherwise, that could pose a lot of problems for cash poor kids (taxes cannot be discharged in bankruptcy).
 

I believe we have 6 to 10 years left of true "University of Minnesota Golden Gopher Football". Let's enjoy it while we can.
 

TrapperDoo said:
It was foretold when the coaching salaries began to sky rocket. It will take deep pockets to make a professional under-league happen so therefore I believe the NFL will be behind it, at least in some way. It will happen, however. No matter what side you come down on the issue of players unionizing, this ruling represents the beginning of the end of D1 sports "as we know it". The Big Money ruined it. It always does.
Click to expand...

I disagree slightly as it wasn't the big money, and have to say it is the idea that players deserve some larger portion. They killed their own Golden Goose in the name of some injustice that doesn't reflect economic reality. Yes, there are some high revenues, but industry wide the profits are bordering on nil. If players get more, coaches need get less and fans must pay more. Who is going to pay more to see less talented professionals play?

However, the even larger issue is the economics depends upon the non monetary exchange. Pride/recognition is a far greater economic motivator than currency. Unfortunately, the issue presupposes the reverse, thus the proponents are assuming the absence of a necessary condition will return the the same result. Instead, they more than likely just shrank revenue for the whole market.
 

atsgopher said:
You sure about this (and I am asking); seemingly contradicts the historical record of Thurgood Marshall's strategy used to overturn Plessy.

He built case law and logical extensions until his final case to overturn the "Sep but equal" under 14th. However, seems to be a waste of time if it were decided to be always unconstitutional.

Also, wouldn't that present some paradoxes with the "Ex Post Facto" clause? You'd potentially have a case whereby case law changed what was known to be law, but conduct that was not barred at the time an act was performed, is then considered unconstitutional.

Thus, actor A could be sued for something that every "reasonable prudent person" considered to be legal conduct, but because the change through case law created a law that retroactively makes the conduct illegal. However, that would also be holding Actor A to a standard that was known to be legal at the time the act was committed, and in substance an enforcing a law after the fact.
Click to expand...

Yes I am sure.
 

atsgopher said:
Or you can change the law to reflect life... Something attorneys sometimes forget. Fortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't always, and sites tradition and human custom in their decisions.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a B school argument to justify exploitation that an industry has been benefiting from. The laws that the NCAA are accused of violating existed well before the NCAA.
 

atsgopher said:
I disagree slightly as it wasn't the big money, and have to say it is the idea that players deserve some larger portion. They killed their own Golden Goose in the name of some injustice that doesn't reflect economic reality. Yes, there are some high revenues, but industry wide the profits are bordering on nil. If players get more, coaches need get less and fans must pay more. Who is going to pay more to see less talented professionals play?

However, the even larger issue is the economics depends upon the non monetary exchange. Pride/recognition is a far greater economic motivator than currency. Unfortunately, the issue presupposes the reverse, thus the proponents are assuming the absence of a necessary condition will return the the same result. Instead, they more than likely just shrank revenue for the whole market.
Click to expand...

As much as I appreciate your Law School analysis, I disagree. Money talks. Simple as that. And since Big Time Football is making more Big Time Money than ever the players have decided they want part of it. It is that simple. Also, pride/recognition do not trump currency as an economic motivator. Quite the opposite, I would say. I have been in the working world for over 30 years - you will never get me to disbelieve what I have seen with my own eyes and experience. People are curious characters.
 

I'm not going to wade into the philosophical here (although I enjoy being philosophical when the mood strikes me) and head straight for the simplistic. This is what happens when marginally-talented white guys are in charge of a golden goose. Their greed will make them stupid.

I don't know if a union solves this or not. I agree it probably changes college athletics for the worse for most fans. But the NCAA is so out of control it is ridiculous. You read the articles about the bowl committees and the utter extravagance related to that whole process and you knew that somehow the system would collapse under its own weight.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
That sounds like a B school argument to justify exploitation that an industry has been benefiting from. The laws that the NCAA are accused of violating existed well before the NCAA.
Click to expand...
Who gives a crap about how long a law existed? You don't, you know length of time something has been legal/illegal is irrelevant. Case in point - Gay Marriage.

The law must serve people, not the other way around. Otherwise, it is a completely and utterly useless pursuit. That is why it should be driven bottom up, not dictated top down.

B school Justification? Sounds like your suffering from cognitive dissonance. Since my posts generally favor the current structure, I must a fan of exploitation, right? Or maybe, I think this whole thing is foolish. I think college football players are not being unjustly treated. I think they can make an informed choice to play college football in exchange for complying with current conditions. I have not seen any harm done from that which is out of proportion to the average college student. On the contrary, I see a majority of College Football players having far richer experiences because of their college football experience.

I see scope creep from a legal system that must continue to Nanny further in order to survive. The irony is, the legal system that brings down the NCAA for "exploitation" is exploiting the kids just the same. The result will be far worse, as the victims are 400,000 kids annually receiving scholarship so that less than 10% of them are "treated fairly."
 

All I can say about this ruling is that in my opinion, Pandora's box has now been officially opened. College sports could end up on its own deathbed because of the now celebrated virtue of greed.
 

TrapperDoo said:
As much as I appreciate your Law School analysis, I disagree. Money talks. Simple as that. And since Big Time Football is making more Big Time Money than ever the players have decided they want part of it. It is that simple. Also, pride/recognition do not trump currency as an economic motivator. Quite the opposite, I would say. I have been in the working world for over 30 years - you will never get me to disbelieve what I have seen with my own eyes and experience. People are curious characters.
Click to expand...

Law school; never been. As for economics, well I agree you've seen this, but like most people don't notice the abstraction. People will knowingly die for pride/recognition. No one will knowingly die for money.

another example
Try this experiment with kids: tell them they have to do a chore (say the dishes) for the family (could be any group where someone would take pride). On the other hand, tell the same kid he will be paid compensation for doing the dishes. The contrast is amazing as the kid in the monetized case can very well just walk away and choose their free time over money. It's a heck of a lot harder to walk away and choose free time over the pride in the family unit.

Better still is to go look at the motivating factors in the workforce. Pay people and they'll do a job yes, but introduce a competition and they'll do the job well, they'll more likely to go the extra mile. Whereas you start adding monetized compensation you get ever diminishing returns.
 

MRJ said:
All I can say about this ruling is that in my opinion, Pandora's box has now been officially opened. College sports could end up on its own deathbed because of the now celebrated virtue of greed.
Click to expand...

Does this mean the end of non-revenue sports?

Can Title IX and collective bargaining co-exist?
 

atsgopher said:
Who gives a crap about how long a law existed? You don't, you know length of time something has been legal/illegal is irrelevant. Case in point - Gay Marriage.

The law must serve people, not the other way around. Otherwise, it is a completely and utterly useless pursuit. That is why it should be driven bottom up, not dictated top down.

B school Justification? Sounds like your suffering from cognitive dissonance. Since my posts generally favor the current structure, I must a fan of exploitation, right? Or maybe, I think this whole thing is foolish. I think college football players are not being unjustly treated. I think they can make an informed choice to play college football in exchange for complying with current conditions. I have not seen any harm done from that which is out of proportion to the average college student. On the contrary, I see a majority of College Football players having far richer experiences because of their college football experience.

I see scope creep from a legal system that must continue to Nanny further in order to survive. The irony is, the legal system that brings down the NCAA for "exploitation" is exploiting the kids just the same. The result will be far worse, as the victims are 400,000 kids annually receiving scholarship so that less than 10% of them are "treated fairly."
Click to expand...

Don't quit your day job.
 

College football will be dead in a matter of a few years with this change, (or at least it won't be anything of the same).

Unless if there is some type of barrier between levels / leagues in a particular sport, there is nothing preventing college football from turning into a minor league system. This really messes up the sport and it will eventually be a professional league with 20-30 and the rest won't be able to continue their programs at a competitive level.

This completely any chance at parity as the rich will get richer.
 


Gopherguy0723 said:
Don't quit your day job.
Click to expand...

Wow, good one. Funny, you can't even answer with a rhetorical quip. Come on.
Don't like rhetoric, Try logic:

In order for scholarship limit to be exploitation, the scholarship as compensation must be a price cap. If it were a price floor, the athletes would be getting the greater benefit already.

Thus, demand for scholarship college ball players must exceed supply.

So all that's left to do is crunch the numbers:

there are approximately (assuming 85 per team) 53,500 college football players. Roughly 23,689 on scholarship annually (estimates are team times allowable scholarships for NCAA athletes). That leaves approximately 29,861 that pay to play. Then of course, you could add in the thousands of ball players who'd play, but don't for various other reasons.

Said again for effect, 29,861 pay to play. Thus, we can conclude that the supply of college players exceeds the quantity demanded.

Thus, in a free market where the forces of supply and demand govern, scholarships as compensation are more than what the market bears for the average.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom