The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Potential disaster for college athletics

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/03/26...ency-says/

no potential
it is potential disaster for big school which now monopolize the current system
soon players will be draft not recruit

Wow.

Hope they have fun in the picket lines.

Wow. I guess we'll see where it goes from here.

I bet that every time March Madness comes around, there are guys at the NCAA who hold their breath against the possibility of a team (or several) waiting till game time and then refusing to play. It's been rumored that it was possible before.

The television money that is on the line is a huge lever. Of course, these kids have worked their collective butts off for years to make the dance, so I don't think it's likely... but it's certainly possible.

Pay them, or at least allow them to make money.

This along with the Ed OBannon case going to court is going to shake up the big boys in college athletics.

I'm sure there's many scabs who'll cross the picket lines should they strike

Just because there are unions does not mean there are strikes.

Remember, the National Labor Relations Board does not have jurisdiction over public universities.

We should note the condition stated that Northwestern University was singled out as a private school because the NLRB had no jurisdiction over public universities. Also that this is an administrative ruling, not a court decision. Should Northwestern take the issue to federal court, the outcome could be different. In that case, either way it would then have an effect upon public institutions as well.

If upheld in court, what would be its effect on private religion-based schools? As it is at the moment, it would only apply to the few private non-sectarian schools like USC, Stanford, Duke, Miami, Vanderbilt and a few others.

We saw what might be a precursor in the "strike" by Grambling State players last season. Since it was not a formal union action, it is only an example of what such an action would look like, and what its effects might be.

All of this activity began as a movement to provide some "walking around pocket money" to scholarship athletes because all funds for their education went entirely to the school's "pocket" with none going in cash to any player. As time passed and the NCAA made no decisions on the matter, more extreme demands came along. It has now landed in the laps of the federal government and therefore may never be totally under NCAA controls again.

(03-26-2014 03:42 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Just because there are unions does not mean there are strikes.

And just because there are colleges doesn't mean there has to be athletics. Since the vast majority of programs are net money losers presidents may very well decide it's just not worth the hassle.

Yep. The consequences to unions in college athletics may mean no college athletics & scholarships for players.
Have fun playing 2 years of semi-pro ball in Warrior then trying to find a job without a degree.
Also, if the players go on strike does that mean that the university can halt all of their classes & hinder their degree path?

The bad thing about it is that there are a ton of kids who have no idea about the real world. I have a teenager in that category.

Unions don't automatically mean shut it down. These guys have as much a right to organize into a group as the universities have a right to organize into the NCAA.

If athletics is such a money losing proposition, someone forgot to tell the NCAA.

(03-27-2014 12:45 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Unions don't automatically mean shut it down. These guys have as much a right to organize into a group as the universities have a right to organize into the NCAA.

If athletics is such a money losing proposition, someone forgot to tell the NCAA.

When the president emeritus of NW says they'd drop down to Ivy league status rather than play in the Big 10 with a unionized shop you can bet there will be a load of others. And while whether they have the right to unionize may be decided down the road, universities most definitely have the right not to participate in athletics. As far as the NCAA making money that, for now, is a separate issue. The vast majority of schools individually lose money on athletics. Now if all players collectively bargained with the NCAA that might be a different issue. Still it would be up to the schools to carry out those bargained deals and they may say thanks but no thanks

The money sloshing around the system is not a separate issue. It's exactly why these guys have done this! Good grief, the depths that people are happy to see others and themselves get screwed to enrich those at the top mystifies me. Some coach was quoted as saying there's a sense of "entitlement" that needs to be flushed out. This, an industry where the labor gets no salary and the coaches are making millions.

What exactly do these players think they deserve? All of the scholarship athletes at Northwestern are receiving full rides at a great school. That's a pretty nice trade-off to be playing a sport that's supposed to be fun. Other athletes at D1 schools receive full ride scholarships, free housing in dorms or housing vouchers, free dining meal plans, free counseling and tutoring support available at a moments notice. ALL of this is largely unavailable to your average college student, and now they want a paycheck?

I understand if they want to be able to bargain against poor treatment medically or something like the Grambling situation, but jeez the direction this is going in is ridiculous

It also means that they could possibly be fired for not attending class and/or practice.

Let's be honest. The Alabamas and Auburns of the world would survive because they are already paying them or making a ton of money off of them.

We would be closer to the bottom of the totem pole & most likely to close shop.

If it gets down to paying players, the vast majority of programs would still be at schollys and expenses plus zero dollars. It gets down to the teams that can afford such bidding for the four and five stars.

Also don't forget title nine.

(03-27-2014 06:20 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  It also means that they could possibly be fired for not attending class and/or practice.

And they can't now? Pretty sure there are attendance requirements...

It really comes down to do these guys own their time or does the school? If they want to organize and demand money or benefits or the locker room to be neon green, that's their right. The school also has the right to refuse and to bring in people who will play/work/whatever for what the school offers.

Part of why the players won their case was that the school requires 40-50 hours of practice and training, setting the hours, while also controlling when they are allowed to go to class (including missing important classes in their major if the schedule conflicts), as well as controlling things like whether they are allowed to have a car and what they eat.

The scholarship terms make it clear that the athletes primary responsibilities were to the football team, with school wedged in where they could make it fit.

Even if it comes down to the players winning the right to be paid, it's going to be a question of leverage. Football, and to a somewhat lesser extent basketball, can bargain for money. The sports that don't pull their weight in terms of producing cash flow, say lacrosse, have no bargaining leverage.