- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Northwestern football players win their petition to unionize
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:01 pm to Baloo
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:01 pm to Baloo
quote:
No, not true. The rest of your hypothetical fails due to a failed assumption. Unionization does not payment. They are allowed to unionize because they ALREADY receive compensation in the form of the scholarship. It's why walk-ons may not unionize.
You know this wouldn't hold up in court, though
Not that I disagree with you, but you know all it would take would be for a group of walk ons to scream "UNFAIR!" to some judge and the judge will rule in their favor
If scholarship players are now "employees" and the walk ons are doing the same things as the scholarship players except play on game day, and not getting paid for it, the case would be pretty open and shut IMO
1
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:01 pm to Baloo
quote:
And now they can collectively bargain to alter the terms of that contract. What's wrong with a freely negotiated contract?
it's not "freely" negotiated when Northwestern, as of about an hour ago, did not wish to negotiate in this manner
but even then, what is NU lacking? i could be wrong, but i doubt that i am, but i don't think NU is skimping on its proper (per NCAA) benefits
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:03 pm to Baloo
quote:
Sure. And now they can collectively bargain to alter the terms of that contract. What's wrong with a freely negotiated contract?
If only it were that simple
Instead it creates a giant pandora's box of unintended consequences
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:04 pm to tiger2012
SlowFloPro and BamaBird are right. I'm being Chicken Little for the fun of it 
I'm surprised the NFL hasn't just created a D-leauge
I'm surprised the NFL hasn't just created a D-leauge
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:04 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
Profit and revenue are vastly different things
Yes, just pointing out that even with all the revenue, most Athletic Departments are still in the red. Add player salaries to those expenses,and most athletic departments disappear.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:05 pm to MrTide33
quote:
I'm surprised the NFL hasn't just created a D-leauge
No money involved really
Who would watch it?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:06 pm to tigers102886
Right but the expenses would just be transferred from coaches' salaries, buyouts, facilities, etc to player compensation. I realize it won't be an automatic shift, and some schools could get bankrupted, though.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:07 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
This almost sounds like a PR release from an agent for college football coaches. The coaches work for an organization that doesn't pay players, unlike the NFL. The money that the organization makes has to go somewhere.
That's just plain ignorant. That money doesn't "HAVE" to go somewhere. If quality coaches offered no competitive advantage from a winning/economic standpoint, universities wouldn't pay them what they are getting paid. Coaches are not fungible assets.
quote:
T Boone Pickens or Phil Knight could pay players in a truly capitalist system, the money would be going to Marcus Smart, DeAnthony Thomas, etc
I'm not sure what you think you are arguing. Obviously, the entire landscape would change if players were compensated in a pure capitalist system. That wouldn't effect the relative value of Chip Kelly's and Nick Saban's of the world.
quote:
The single largest group that benefits from all this is the coaches, who get treated as if they are in a capitalist system, while none of the people they oversee, except for lowly compliance and administrative employees, are.
The obvious reason is that coaches are the single most impactful position in determining the success of a program.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:08 pm to goldennugget
quote:
No money involved really
Who would watch it?
Me probably. The hard part for them would be having some of the pageantry. But college football would cease to exist as we know it. All the players would be there.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:09 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
Right but the expenses would just be transferred from coaches' salaries, buyouts, facilities, etc to player compensation.
The cost would 100% go to the fans.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:09 pm to moneyg
What about college basketball?
The NCAA tournament brings in more money than the BCS does. It is the NCAA's biggest money making asset.
So when a team like Florida Gulf Coast goes on a run and helps contribute to the money printing event known as the NCAA tournament, shouldn't they demand a slice of that pie?
The NCAA tournament brings in more money than the BCS does. It is the NCAA's biggest money making asset.
So when a team like Florida Gulf Coast goes on a run and helps contribute to the money printing event known as the NCAA tournament, shouldn't they demand a slice of that pie?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:10 pm to goldennugget
March Madness funds the NCAA itself
football (including the BCS) funds major institutions
football (including the BCS) funds major institutions
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:11 pm to moneyg
quote:
The obvious reason is that coaches are the single most impactful position in determining the success of a program.
THIS. The University of Alabama has grown tremendously under Saban. Notice I didn't say Alabama football. The actual university has gained exposure. Is it all due to football success? No. But i'd wager to say a significant part of it is.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:11 pm to MrTide33
I don't think CFB's all that much like the NFL. We watch the schools; we don't watch solely to be entertained. I think, at least in the SEC and Big Ten, the loyalties would remain even if all the players are mere sign-ups from the student body.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:11 pm to tigers102886
quote:
Yes, just pointing out that even with all the revenue, most Athletic Departments are still in the red. Add player salaries to those expenses,and most athletic departments disappear.
that's because the non revenue generating sports have piggybacked on the successes of the captivating and revenue generating sports.
the answer is easy, separate the two.
take your big sports and put them in a separated entity (with player salaries,healthcare, and other terms negotiated).
then take all your other sports and drop them back to intramural.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:13 pm to goldennugget
quote:
No money involved really
Who would watch it?
Nobody.
It would cost the NFL money and they would get no benefit over what they are getting now.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:13 pm to Bama Bird
quote:
We watch the schools; we don't watch solely to be entertained.
obviously
if success on the field determined financial success, the Big10 wouldn't be the #2 revenue conference
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:15 pm to MrTide33
quote:
Me probably. The hard part for them would be having some of the pageantry. But college football would cease to exist as we know it. All the players would be there.
If college football were replaceable, somebody would be doing it.
You'd have to kill college football to offer some type of opportunity for another league (D-League for example). It's not reasonable to think that some other startup league could make that happen on their own.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 3:15 pm to tiger2012
quote:
that's because the non revenue generating sports have piggybacked on the successes of the captivating and revenue generating sports.
the answer is easy, separate the two.
take your big sports and put them in a separated entity (with player salaries,healthcare, and other terms negotiated).
then take all your other sports and drop them back to intramural.
Except its not that easy
Especially since only the big schools could do this. If you want a college football Division 1 with only 25 teams and a college basketball Division 1 with only 100, that's fine but I bet most people don't
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News