(03-26-2014 09:35 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 08:47 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 07:37 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 06:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  11 P5 openings all at once if the privates have to drop sports?

Talk about the **** hitting the fan!

Cutting out Baylor, TCU and SMU wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Just kidding.. No one get upset

There are plenty of state supported schools willing to take there place, that's for sure. The P5 privates may end up being in the same boat with the Ivies. Love to be a fly on the wall in the President office of these schools, some of them I would think are contemplating and discussing contingency plans (of possibly bailing on big time football ) if they lose there appeal before the larger NRLB board. Fasten your seatbelt folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Sorry, but, IMO, this is a simplistic and inaccurate view of this. First of all, regardless of what happens in an appeal, this will, IMO, go into the courts and, given the magnitude of issue at hand, will likely be a lengthy process. Second, why do you think that only private universities will ultimately be impacted? According to the reporting, THIS case applies only to private universities as the athletes attempting to form a bargaining unit are at a private university. If ultimately successful, what makes you think that athletes at a state university won't bring the same petition to join a state employee union.

The reality, IMO, is that this has the potential to impact ALL collegiate athletics in BOTH private and state universities.

From what I understand, the decision states that athletes CAN vote to join a union. Even if this goes through, that doesn't mean that the athletes at every school will actually vote to join a union.

Finally, NO ONE knows the full impact of such a change so, IMO, I highly doubt any school is actively considering dropping football at this early stage. (BTW, what makes you think that this will stop with FB? Why not BB, for example?)

It's not going to stop with just FB, BB will be next.

(03-26-2014 09:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see how the various private schools handle this.

In the ACC:
Duke
Syracuse
Wake
BC
Miami
ND

In the Big Ten:
Northwestern

In the Pac 12:
USC
Stanford

In the BIG 12:
TCU
Baylor

In the SEC:
Vanderbilt

This change could impact some of these schools financially in serious ways. Of course there are even more in the G5 conferences such as Tulane.

It will be awhile for this to get through the courts, but if the athletes are successful it could have major implications down the road for some.

Yep they'll go Ivy, go to a true amateur model like the Ivies, is my prediction, if not a true student then a athlete, you won't be in that school.

(03-26-2014 09:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see how the various private schools handle this.

In the ACC:
Duke
Syracuse
Wake
BC
Miami
ND

In the Big Ten:
Northwestern

In the Pac 12:
USC
Stanford

In the BIG 12:
TCU
Baylor

In the SEC:
Vanderbilt

This change could impact some of these schools financially in serious ways. Of course there are even more in the G5 conferences such as Tulane.

It will be awhile for this to get through the courts, but if the athletes are successful it could have major implications down the road for some.

Why do think that only private schools could ultimately be impacted by this? If this is successful, IMO, what is to stop athletes at state schools from petitioning their respective state labor boards to join unions??

(03-26-2014 09:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see how the various private schools handle this.

In the ACC:
Duke
Syracuse
Wake
BC
Miami
ND

In the Big Ten:
Northwestern

In the Pac 12:
USC
Stanford

In the BIG 12:
TCU
Baylor

In the SEC:
Vanderbilt

This change could impact some of these schools financially in serious ways. Of course there are even more in the G5 conferences such as Tulane.

It will be awhile for this to get through the courts, but if the athletes are successful it could have major implications down the road for some.

You left out BYU, Rice, SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa.

(03-26-2014 09:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see how the various private schools handle this.

In the ACC:
Duke
Syracuse
Wake
BC
Miami
ND

In the Big Ten:
Northwestern

In the Pac 12:
USC
Stanford

In the BIG 12:
TCU
Baylor

In the SEC:
Vanderbilt

This change could impact some of these schools financially in serious ways. Of course there are even more in the G5 conferences such as Tulane.

It will be awhile for this to get through the courts, but if the athletes are successful it could have major implications down the road for some.

Why do think that only private schools could ultimately be impacted by this? If this is successful, IMO, what is to stop athletes at state schools from petitioning their respective state labor boards to join unions??

Private schools are the only schools affected by law--this is a federal govt application. Apparently state schools are governed first by state laws and so any attempt at unionization must go through the states they are in. That may be tougher to get through and they'll have to have different union sponsorship to get started.

(03-26-2014 09:49 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see how the various private schools handle this.

In the ACC:
Duke
Syracuse
Wake
BC
Miami
ND

In the Big Ten:
Northwestern

In the Pac 12:
USC
Stanford

In the BIG 12:
TCU
Baylor

In the SEC:
Vanderbilt

This change could impact some of these schools financially in serious ways. Of course there are even more in the G5 conferences such as Tulane.

It will be awhile for this to get through the courts, but if the athletes are successful it could have major implications down the road for some.

You left out BYU, Rice, SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa.

I mentioned G5 schools, the list is the major schools affected.

(03-26-2014 09:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see how the various private schools handle this.

In the ACC:
Duke
Syracuse
Wake
BC
Miami
ND

In the Big Ten:
Northwestern

In the Pac 12:
USC
Stanford

In the BIG 12:
TCU
Baylor

In the SEC:
Vanderbilt

This change could impact some of these schools financially in serious ways. Of course there are even more in the G5 conferences such as Tulane.

It will be awhile for this to get through the courts, but if the athletes are successful it could have major implications down the road for some.

Why do think that only private schools could ultimately be impacted by this? If this is successful, IMO, what is to stop athletes at state schools from petitioning their respective state labor boards to join unions??

You guys are focusing on the words " union" and "private university" and not focusing on the overall potential impact of the word " employee".

If "student-athletes" (lol) are ultimately held to be university employees in this context, what makes you believe that all student-athletes will not eventually be considered employees in all universities and for all purposes?

I saw on another board someone toss this out:

Would that mean that the scholarship is then income and should be taxed as such?

(03-26-2014 10:25 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  I saw on another board someone toss this out:

Would that mean that the scholarship is then income and should be taxed as such?

This union stuff is a game changer, lot of ramification if it sticks.

(03-26-2014 10:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see how the various private schools handle this.

In the ACC:
Duke
Syracuse
Wake
BC
Miami
ND

In the Big Ten:
Northwestern

In the Pac 12:
USC
Stanford

In the BIG 12:
TCU
Baylor

In the SEC:
Vanderbilt

This change could impact some of these schools financially in serious ways. Of course there are even more in the G5 conferences such as Tulane.

It will be awhile for this to get through the courts, but if the athletes are successful it could have major implications down the road for some.

Why do think that only private schools could ultimately be impacted by this? If this is successful, IMO, what is to stop athletes at state schools from petitioning their respective state labor boards to join unions??

You guys are focusing on the words " union" and "private university" and not focusing on the overall potential impact of the word " employee".

If "student-athletes" (lol) are ultimately held to be university employees in this context, what makes you believe that all student-athletes will not eventually be considered to be employees in all universities and for all purposes?

The state U could be impacted as well, but the one thing the state schools have and the privates don't is the state part, which means the legislatures of the states could possibly past some type of legislation to exempt them. I'm no labor lawyer, but thinking, if it affects the bottom line of a state supported U, they may come up with some legislative scheme to avoid the unionization of State U athletic dept. This thing has a long way to play out, obviously. Greed has no good end, it's a real mess..

So will the Stippens be used up paying Union Dues ? Only in Chicago

I'm always amused when non-lawyers attempt to argue legal points; especially when the press missed the crucial holding of the administrative agency.

The issue is not "unionization." The crucial issue is a finding that student athletes are "employees." That issue affects all schools, public as well as private. All employees are entitled to some form of compensation. If a football player is an employee, then how can it be argued that every other student-athlete, both male and female, are not employees? If you're the school, you can't win that argument. Equal treatment laws will dictate that all employees are to be treated in a similar fashion, especially at schools that receive federal funding (think financial aid).

If upheld by appellate courts, this really would be a game changer.

(03-26-2014 10:49 PM)Ghis Wrote:  I'm always amused when non-lawyers attempt to argue legal points; especially when the press missed the crucial holding of the administrative agency.

The issue is not "unionization." The crucial issue is a finding that student athletes are "employees." That issue affects all schools, public as well as private. All employees are entitled to some form of compensation. If a football player is an employee, then how can it be argued that every other student-athlete, both male and female, are not employees? If you're the school, you can't win that argument. Equal treatment laws will dictate that all employees are to be treated in a similar fashion, especially at schools that receive federal funding (think financial aid).

If upheld by appellate courts, this really would be a game changer.

Other words this could have a bearing on the O'Bannon case and his argument about being an employee and needing to be properly compensated, for his services. Great Caesar Ghost!

(03-26-2014 10:37 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see how the various private schools handle this.

In the ACC:
Duke
Syracuse
Wake
BC
Miami
ND

In the Big Ten:
Northwestern

In the Pac 12:
USC
Stanford

In the BIG 12:
TCU
Baylor

In the SEC:
Vanderbilt

This change could impact some of these schools financially in serious ways. Of course there are even more in the G5 conferences such as Tulane.

It will be awhile for this to get through the courts, but if the athletes are successful it could have major implications down the road for some.

Why do think that only private schools could ultimately be impacted by this? If this is successful, IMO, what is to stop athletes at state schools from petitioning their respective state labor boards to join unions??

You guys are focusing on the words " union" and "private university" and not focusing on the overall potential impact of the word " employee".

If "student-athletes" (lol) are ultimately held to be university employees in this context, what makes you believe that all student-athletes will not eventually be considered to be employees in all universities and for all purposes?

The state U could be impacted as well, but the one thing the state schools have and the privates don't is the state part, which means the legislatures of the states could possibly past some type of legislation to exempt them. I'm no labor lawyer, but thinking, if it affects the bottom line of a state supported U, they may come up with some legislative scheme to avoid the unionization of State U athletic dept. This thing has a long way to play out, obviously. Greed has no good end, it's a real mess..

Forget the union aspect. That is only one facet.

Think employee. Think about Federal and state laws governing employees.

Think about the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection of the laws clause and its application to the states.

Think about how many state universities receive Federal funding.

Think about health insurance, workers compensation, Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, wage and hours laws, overtime, etc..

I don't know if this will hold up, expand or shut down. I am not a labor lawyer.

But if you think this only has implications about unions and private schools, I think you may be wrong. It may have wider applications and implications.

By the way, where are the NFL and NBA in this paying players drama? How is nobody pressuring them to start paying for the "minor leagues" they've been freeloading off of for decades?

Well if your scholarship is your pay, you don't do with the pay what you will, you pay it back to the university.

Then, what about the revenue they generate for the "company"?

SO MANY ISSUES....

(03-26-2014 11:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:37 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  It is going to be interesting to see how the various private schools handle this.

In the ACC:
Duke
Syracuse
Wake
BC
Miami
ND

In the Big Ten:
Northwestern

In the Pac 12:
USC
Stanford

In the BIG 12:
TCU
Baylor

In the SEC:
Vanderbilt

This change could impact some of these schools financially in serious ways. Of course there are even more in the G5 conferences such as Tulane.

It will be awhile for this to get through the courts, but if the athletes are successful it could have major implications down the road for some.

Why do think that only private schools could ultimately be impacted by this? If this is successful, IMO, what is to stop athletes at state schools from petitioning their respective state labor boards to join unions??

You guys are focusing on the words " union" and "private university" and not focusing on the overall potential impact of the word " employee".

If "student-athletes" (lol) are ultimately held to be university employees in this context, what makes you believe that all student-athletes will not eventually be considered to be employees in all universities and for all purposes?

The state U could be impacted as well, but the one thing the state schools have and the privates don't is the state part, which means the legislatures of the states could possibly past some type of legislation to exempt them. I'm no labor lawyer, but thinking, if it affects the bottom line of a state supported U, they may come up with some legislative scheme to avoid the unionization of State U athletic dept. This thing has a long way to play out, obviously. Greed has no good end, it's a real mess..

Forget the union aspect. That is only one facet.

Think employee. Think about Federal and state laws governing employees.

Think about the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection of the laws clause and its application to the states.

Think about how many state universities receive Federal funding.

Think about health insurance, workers compensation, Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, wage and hours laws, overtime, etc..

I don't know if this will hold up, expand or shut down. I am not a labor lawyer.

But if you think this only has implications about unions and private schools, I think you may be wrong. It may have wider applications and implications.

A lot of those issues aren't as big of a deal as you think. I'm not a lawyer, but...

Health insurance - they already receive health insurance as part of their scholarship. It's a requirement of registration at most (if not all) colleges that students have health insurance, probably because the school's hospital will have to foot the bill if you go to the ER without insurance.

Worker's comp - this just means that they won't be allowed to drop injured players from scholarship. That's a Good Thing. They won't be able to claim worker's comp for the rest of their lives for major injuries any more than NFL, MLB, or NHL players do.

Hours/Overtime - they'll be salaried employees, so that doesn't matter. They're already limited to 20 hrs /week plus games anyways.

You're right that other things may matter. But the biggest issue I see is that the "employees" will have to pay taxes. And since overall most athletic departments lose a lot of money, I don't see any possible benefits of this for the players other than getting a guaranteed right to negotiate an ironclad 4-year contract.

And by the way, having the right to negotiate it does NOT imply that they will succeed in winning that negotiation. NFL players don't get guaranteed contracts and they've had the right to negotiate it for years.

If the worst comes to pass, "Club Football anyone?". We will have gone full circle and returning to the roots of college athletics may be the best way to expunge the atrocities for a while and refocus on becoming the world's leader in education instead of continuing to slip into the abyss as we dumb down not only for athletes, but also for the little darlings who can't think past their electronic devices.

(03-27-2014 06:54 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 11:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:37 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Why do think that only private schools could ultimately be impacted by this? If this is successful, IMO, what is to stop athletes at state schools from petitioning their respective state labor boards to join unions??

You guys are focusing on the words " union" and "private university" and not focusing on the overall potential impact of the word " employee".

If "student-athletes" (lol) are ultimately held to be university employees in this context, what makes you believe that all student-athletes will not eventually be considered to be employees in all universities and for all purposes?

The state U could be impacted as well, but the one thing the state schools have and the privates don't is the state part, which means the legislatures of the states could possibly past some type of legislation to exempt them. I'm no labor lawyer, but thinking, if it affects the bottom line of a state supported U, they may come up with some legislative scheme to avoid the unionization of State U athletic dept. This thing has a long way to play out, obviously. Greed has no good end, it's a real mess..

Forget the union aspect. That is only one facet.

Think employee. Think about Federal and state laws governing employees.

Think about the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection of the laws clause and its application to the states.

Think about how many state universities receive Federal funding.

Think about health insurance, workers compensation, Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, wage and hours laws, overtime, etc..

I don't know if this will hold up, expand or shut down. I am not a labor lawyer.

But if you think this only has implications about unions and private schools, I think you may be wrong. It may have wider applications and implications.

A lot of those issues aren't as big of a deal as you think. I'm not a lawyer, but...

Health insurance - they already receive health insurance as part of their scholarship. It's a requirement of registration at most (if not all) colleges that students have health insurance, probably because the school's hospital will have to foot the bill if you go to the ER without insurance.

Worker's comp - this just means that they won't be allowed to drop injured players from scholarship. That's a Good Thing. They won't be able to claim worker's comp for the rest of their lives for major injuries any more than NFL, MLB, or NHL players do.

Hours/Overtime - they'll be salaried employees, so that doesn't matter. They're already limited to 20 hrs /week plus games anyways.

You're right that other things may matter. But the biggest issue I see is that the "employees" will have to pay taxes. And since overall most athletic departments lose a lot of money, I don't see any possible benefits of this for the players other than getting a guaranteed right to negotiate an ironclad 4-year contract.

And by the way, having the right to negotiate it does NOT imply that they will succeed in winning that negotiation. NFL players don't get guaranteed contracts and they've had the right to negotiate it for years.

My main point is that the "employee" status of players, if this holds up (I have no idea), will apply to all players in all universities (public and private) in due course.

The employee aspect of this ruling is far, far more important than the right to organize into a union aspect.

I never thought I would have come this far. I used to be a big fan of college and pro sports. Now I am largely indifferent to pro sports. College sports actually make me angry. I always knew that the majority of "student athletes" who go to the universities to play sports didn't deserve to attend their respective schools if you looked at their academic work alone. Yet they get into schools that significantly smarter kids from "the hood" can't attend simply because they can't play games as well as their dumber yet more athletic peers. I know people will respond with statements like "giving an inner city kid a shot at college by any means necessary is a good thing. So what if they are not as smart as the other students". That is wrong. If you really wanted to help the poor and inner city minority kids, eliminate all sports at the universities and take the money that would go to "student athletes" plus the rest of the athletics budget and apply it all to scholarships to the poor and inner city kids who actually have brains. If you do that, you will either 1) revitalize these poor areas over the long run by giving the best and brightest in these areas a real education or 2) at least give the best and brightest the ticket out of the slums. Since we know this won't happen, we should know that the college and "student athlete" relationship is nothing more than an unholy alliance. The universities don't give a sh!t about them, and the "student athletes" don't give a sh!t about the school they attend.