(03-27-2014 08:26 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 07:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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:  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.

This is very true and something that I realize after reading the ruling. The employee status of players applies to every college and university across the U.S.

However, these athletes have really screw themselves out of the athletic scholarship concept. The will be no athletic scholarships in the future.

Also, if they think they'll be paid the $75,000 in money to cover tuition, room and board and etc, they have another thing coming. They will be like any other employee and say at $12/hr. They will then have to come up with the rest of the cost on their own, either by an academic scholarship or student loan. In most cases they will now have to take a student loan to cover the difference. It's one thing to give an athletic scholarship by the school, it's another when they actually have to pay as a salary to them. Most professors across the country don't make that type of money and don't think that the regular employees of the university won't raise hell about them getting paid less than an athlete that doesn't have a college degree.
The athletes that think that they bring in the University all this money do not realize a how little they bring when compare to the federal grants and aid that they get. Do they not realize that these larger schools actually gets billions (yes, BILLIONS) for research from the federal government and other sources each year. That is where the money really is for an educational institution.

By the way, people wonder why this doesn't apply to regular students is because the definition of employee doesn't fit for a student or grad student (per the numerous of cases before hand). The athletic dept is structure just like any other company with bosses and requirements to define employee. [I did not realize that this has been fought from the 1950's and only now has the turning point now come]

So if the upper courts or Labor Board still hold to the ruling what will be the future of college athletics? Hard to say, because even in D3 where your are not given a scholarship, they will still be considered an employee.
So what will happen is that the athletic dept will have to be restructured in such a way where the definition doesn't hold up...whether that is limiting the number of hours of practice or other the admin structure. But, there still will be college sports but this may now force the NFL and NBA to really develop their own minor league system.
Maybe I'm off-key in my thoughts but this is potentially a real game changer.

Maybe I have this wrong, but if these kids really are 'employees', who says they have to be enrolled in the school at all? They are getting paid to play their sport. The farce of the 'student-athlete' would be truly gone. These guys would be mercenaries for hire just like a regular workforce. Hired by the college athletic departments to play sports.

Ultimately, the money they get would be far, far less than the value of the scholarship. But it wouldn't be forced to be paid to the school. These 'employees' would be free to do with the money what they wish. The athletes who truly use the scholarship to get a free education and better themselves would the ones who come out on the losing end.

(03-27-2014 09:49 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Realignment is nothing COMPARED to this, in the famous words (you ain't see nothing yet)..this is really mind blowing... a MEGATRON GAME CHANGER!!!! ESPN got to be really worried about the possibility of losing marquee brands USC, Stanford, ND, Miami, Northwest President said "if they lose appeal they will drop FB".

Here is what Coach Kelly said about a month ago.

Quote: Last thing from me. I know it's somewhat of an older issue now, but the young man at Northwestern that was trying to get the union going, did you take the temperature of your team about the issues that he wanted to express with regard to the union? Do you feel like it's something that you need to be concerned about or need to talk to your team about at NotreDame?
COACH KELLY: I chose not to talk about it with our team. I've talked about it with our staff and certainly our administration and Jack Swarbrick, we've had a conversation about it, because it's real; it would affect, in the national labor relations board finds that private universities that student athletes are workers, it has a substantial impact.
Now, my take is, if it turns out that way, we're going to have a significant advantage over every program in the country, because I don't think we're dropping football any time soon here. So we're going to pay compensation, we're going to pay all those things; I think our scholarship stands by itself, and add that to it, I think we're in a pretty good situation.
I don't think the NCAA is going to allow that to happen. I'm sure as heck Michigan is not going to allow that to happen. I think there's so many hurdles here that I didn't think it was the time or the place to bring it up to our team, because I just think it's‑‑ there's so many hurdles there before it gets to them.
But it was a discussion that I had with our athletic director and our staff, just because if it was brought up by a parent or if it was brought up by somebody, that we were all of the same opinion; and that is, as we stand right now, we believe that the value of a degree from NotreDame stands by itself and that that should be just compensation for the time that a student athlete gives to NotreDame.

(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.

But there's really only money in men's football and men's basketball.
With men's football, you have huge Title IX implications. Without men's football, the impact is much more manageable.

(03-27-2014 10:14 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:49 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Realignment is nothing COMPARED to this, in the famous words (you ain't see nothing yet)..this is really mind blowing... a MEGATRON GAME CHANGER!!!! ESPN got to be really worried about the possibility of losing marquee brands USC, Stanford, ND, Miami, Northwest President said "if they lose appeal they will drop FB".

I think that's most likely bluster-but maybe not.

At a lot of these schools the presidents and academics would love to drop football. This could give them an excuse.

Well considering that they would be employees, athletic depts already in the red would be deeper in the red when there are a lot of back-end taxes and insurance they would have to pay in addition to a salary of athletes. I can see just as a CEO dropping a division of a losing money dept. The academic employees bring in the real money for the university, so it is easy to see an university president dropping the athletic dept.

(03-27-2014 10:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(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.

But there's really only money in men's football and men's basketball.
With men's football, you have huge Title IX implications. Without men's football, the impact is much more manageable.

The law of unintended consequences is that a successful challenge here that athletes are employees could kill Title 9. Nobody is compelled to operate a failing business. If all athletes are employees and compensated accordingly it could be argued that no school should feel compelled to offer a sport the business model of which guarantees loss instead of profits. With scholarships it is a matter of equal access. In business it is not. Now if a woman wanted to play men's basketball or football and possessed the skill sets necessary it could change that part of the dynamic, but such cases would be rare as hen's teeth.

If successful I think this kills Title 9 and eliminates all sports that are non revenue producing from existing beyond the club level.

If we get the NOW gang fighting Labor it will be a helluva show!

(03-27-2014 10:16 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 08:26 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 07:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

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

(03-26-2014 11:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  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.

This is very true and something that I realize after reading the ruling. The employee status of players applies to every college and university across the U.S.

However, these athletes have really screw themselves out of the athletic scholarship concept. The will be no athletic scholarships in the future.

Also, if they think they'll be paid the $75,000 in money to cover tuition, room and board and etc, they have another thing coming. They will be like any other employee and say at $12/hr. They will then have to come up with the rest of the cost on their own, either by an academic scholarship or student loan. In most cases they will now have to take a student loan to cover the difference. It's one thing to give an athletic scholarship by the school, it's another when they actually have to pay as a salary to them. Most professors across the country don't make that type of money and don't think that the regular employees of the university won't raise hell about them getting paid less than an athlete that doesn't have a college degree.
The athletes that think that they bring in the University all this money do not realize a how little they bring when compare to the federal grants and aid that they get. Do they not realize that these larger schools actually gets billions (yes, BILLIONS) for research from the federal government and other sources each year. That is where the money really is for an educational institution.

By the way, people wonder why this doesn't apply to regular students is because the definition of employee doesn't fit for a student or grad student (per the numerous of cases before hand). The athletic dept is structure just like any other company with bosses and requirements to define employee. [I did not realize that this has been fought from the 1950's and only now has the turning point now come]

So if the upper courts or Labor Board still hold to the ruling what will be the future of college athletics? Hard to say, because even in D3 where your are not given a scholarship, they will still be considered an employee.
So what will happen is that the athletic dept will have to be restructured in such a way where the definition doesn't hold up...whether that is limiting the number of hours of practice or other the admin structure. But, there still will be college sports but this may now force the NFL and NBA to really develop their own minor league system.
Maybe I'm off-key in my thoughts but this is potentially a real game changer.

Maybe I have this wrong, but if these kids really are 'employees', who says they have to be enrolled in the school at all? They are getting paid to play their sport. The farce of the 'student-athlete' would be truly gone. These guys would be mercenaries for hire just like a regular workforce. Hired by the college athletic departments to play sports.

Ultimately, the money they get would be far, far less than the value of the scholarship. But it wouldn't be forced to be paid to the school. These 'employees' would be free to do with the money what they wish. The athletes who truly use the scholarship to get a free education and better themselves would the ones who come out on the losing end.

They still will have to be enrolled in school per any NCAA/Conference and University standards, because if they didn't, the university isn't in a business to run a minor league system with the salary and legal issues involved. They would drop athletics and then the NFL and NBA would be forced to develop a minor leagues for themselves.

Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see the difference between being a football player and a graduate assistant. If all the graduate assistants at University X get together and say they want more money from University X to teach or do research, University X can tell them to take a hike. How is the value of the compensation bundle of the scholarship going to change? It seems to me all the players get from an "employee" status is the rights to due process and equal protection which means you have to have a fully competent HR person attached to the athletic programs.

(03-27-2014 08:51 AM)bigblueblindness 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!

Even in such a scenario, 10th, I'm don't think they would backfill with 11 (or 12 counting ND) schools. It would leave 53 public schools, so there would probably be at least one more addition to make sure an existing conference did not have an odd number. There are a ton of scenarios that could play out, but I think there would be more horse trading among the power conferences than bringing in new schools. Such a scenario, which my very limited knowledge of this judgment assumes would have some carry over to the public schools at some level, would still suggest that the public schools are still in the revenue business for athletics. One of 54 slices of a pie is much more appetizing than out of 64 slices.

I would think the Big 12 and ACC would prefer to stay together and the Big 10 and SEC would be too greedy to work out something for mutual benefit. So the Pac and Big 12 would add a couple. The ACC would add 3 and the SEC and Big 10 would each add 1 so you would be back to 62. (a logical 4X14 would involve UT/TT/OU/OSU to Pac, ISU and KU to B1G, KSU to SEC, WVU and MD or Rutgers to ACC + 3 more to ACC from AAC-I don't see the B1G and SEC cooperating-nor do I see them cooperating in both dropping down to 12 by each giving up a school to Big 12 or ACC).

But as some have said, in the long run its not just confined to private universities. But it will hit them quicker and harder with their higher tuitions.

(03-27-2014 09:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 08:35 AM)ivet Wrote:  I feel that the students didn't thoroughly think this one through. So now that you're an employee of the school they can take away your scholarship/benefits away from you for not performing. Quarterback with 3 interceptions? Sorry kid, you're not living up to expectations. I see you missed 5 tackles. Sit on the bench, we got another person for your position.

Also, this is for private schools now but it does state...

"The decision also opens the door for athletes with scholarships at public universities to move more quickly to unionize because state labor boards, which govern public universities, usually follow labor law interpretations issued by the NLRB."


The majority of the big money making programs are public schools

These kids didn't come up with this on their own. An organizer laid the groundwork in order to test the waters with the NLRB. College sports represent an untapped resource for the unions if they can get in. With the corporate networks essentially taking them over as a cash cow it was inevitable that the unions would try to get involved.

Think corporately for a second. Sure pro sports are popular. But if the economy continues to shrink, and it will, there is more money to be made off of college sports versus the overhead of professional sports. It's a cheaper sport to produce with high media value, and it doesn't pay its players and fans tend to be more loyal in down years since it is their school. Add to this the fact that the states help to support the programs and the overhead is remarkably low. So media starts to tap the potential of the college market as a standby if professional sports start to get squeezed. Up goes the revenue for the schools which need it due to the same economic downturn, automation, and the lack of employment shrinking enrollment, all coupled with less State money and shrinking grant money. So the unions like the corporations are moving into the arena looking for a safety net as well. It is a further symptom of the rapid politicization of our way of life. That kind of polarization usually happens in a civilization before major change which could continue to come politically or could lead to stratification and eventual division.

So this is basically Amateur Athletics under the guise of scholastic athletics. South Park did a parody of this.

This would make the NCAA's job impossible. There could be as many as 53 different sets of rules governing the relationship between colleges and their athletes. 50 state rules plus DC governing public employee state college players, one national rule governing no religious private colleges and another national rule governing religious affiliated private colleges.

The NCAA would be powerless to prohibit "special benefits" provided pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Schools could compete for players by offering more comprehensive compensation and/or benefits packages, potentially destroying the competitive balance in college sports.

Title IX could also be gutted. If football and men's basketball players are employees, there would be no longer be any obligation to offer an equal number of "educational" opportunities to women. Women's sports would be gutted and women's scholarships reduced by the thousands.

And, if the players are employees, they would have to pay taxes on their scholarships, which are worth over $50,000 per year at private schools. Indeed, it seems likely the tax cost to the players is likely to exceed the cost of the benefits they might negotiate for.

(03-27-2014 10:30 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see the difference between being a football player and a graduate assistant. If all the graduate assistants at University X get together and say they want more money from University X to teach or do research, University X can tell them to take a hike. How is the value of the compensation bundle of the scholarship going to change? It seems to me all the players get from an "employee" status is the rights to due process and equal protection which means you have to have a fully competent HR person attached to the athletic programs.

Graduate assistants are teaching in their field of study so it is primarily educational. Football players technically don't major in football.

(03-27-2014 10:34 AM)ivet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 08:35 AM)ivet Wrote:  I feel that the students didn't thoroughly think this one through. So now that you're an employee of the school they can take away your scholarship/benefits away from you for not performing. Quarterback with 3 interceptions? Sorry kid, you're not living up to expectations. I see you missed 5 tackles. Sit on the bench, we got another person for your position.

Also, this is for private schools now but it does state...

"The decision also opens the door for athletes with scholarships at public universities to move more quickly to unionize because state labor boards, which govern public universities, usually follow labor law interpretations issued by the NLRB."


The majority of the big money making programs are public schools

These kids didn't come up with this on their own. An organizer laid the groundwork in order to test the waters with the NLRB. College sports represent an untapped resource for the unions if they can get in. With the corporate networks essentially taking them over as a cash cow it was inevitable that the unions would try to get involved.

Think corporately for a second. Sure pro sports are popular. But if the economy continues to shrink, and it will, there is more money to be made off of college sports versus the overhead of professional sports. It's a cheaper sport to produce with high media value, and it doesn't pay its players and fans tend to be more loyal in down years since it is their school. Add to this the fact that the states help to support the programs and the overhead is remarkably low. So media starts to tap the potential of the college market as a standby if professional sports start to get squeezed. Up goes the revenue for the schools which need it due to the same economic downturn, automation, and the lack of employment shrinking enrollment, all coupled with less State money and shrinking grant money. So the unions like the corporations are moving into the arena looking for a safety net as well. It is a further symptom of the rapid politicization of our way of life. That kind of polarization usually happens in a civilization before major change which could continue to come politically or could lead to stratification and eventual division.

So this is basically Amateur Athletics under the guise of scholastic athletics. South Park did a parody of this.

If Kenny was the organizer then I bet it was funny.

(03-27-2014 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:30 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see the difference between being a football player and a graduate assistant. If all the graduate assistants at University X get together and say they want more money from University X to teach or do research, University X can tell them to take a hike. How is the value of the compensation bundle of the scholarship going to change? It seems to me all the players get from an "employee" status is the rights to due process and equal protection which means you have to have a fully competent HR person attached to the athletic programs.

Graduate assistants are teaching in their field of study so it is primarily educational. Football players technically don't major in football.

A graduate assistant is an employee of the university and you get a W-2. If all the athletes on scholarship become or certain programs are treated as employees I just don't see how they are any different than an GA or Research Assistant. As a GA you have a certain job that you are to do in return for your money - the football player would be the same. Positions are usually treated as subject to funding and time-limited. All of that can be applied to the athletic employee.

I guess what I am saying is that the University is still going to be "the man" and the "the man" runs the business. I can't envision a successful strike in college athletics.

(03-27-2014 10:39 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:30 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see the difference between being a football player and a graduate assistant. If all the graduate assistants at University X get together and say they want more money from University X to teach or do research, University X can tell them to take a hike. How is the value of the compensation bundle of the scholarship going to change? It seems to me all the players get from an "employee" status is the rights to due process and equal protection which means you have to have a fully competent HR person attached to the athletic programs.

Graduate assistants are teaching in their field of study so it is primarily educational. Football players technically don't major in football.

A graduate assistant is an employee of the university and you get a W-2. If all the athletes on scholarship become or certain programs are treated as employees I just don't see how they are any different than an GA or Research Assistant. As a GA you have a certain job that you are to do in return for your money - the football player would be the same. Positions are usually treated as subject to funding and time-limited. All of that can be applied to the athletic employee.

I guess what I am saying is that the University is still going to be "the man" and the "the man" runs the business.

Scholarships get replaced with contracts that contain non compete clauses and athletes are now subject to all university employment provisions including sexual harassment provisions, drug tests, etc. and can be fired for non performance. It would be wild.

(03-27-2014 10:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:39 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:30 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see the difference between being a football player and a graduate assistant. If all the graduate assistants at University X get together and say they want more money from University X to teach or do research, University X can tell them to take a hike. How is the value of the compensation bundle of the scholarship going to change? It seems to me all the players get from an "employee" status is the rights to due process and equal protection which means you have to have a fully competent HR person attached to the athletic programs.

Graduate assistants are teaching in their field of study so it is primarily educational. Football players technically don't major in football.

A graduate assistant is an employee of the university and you get a W-2. If all the athletes on scholarship become or certain programs are treated as employees I just don't see how they are any different than an GA or Research Assistant. As a GA you have a certain job that you are to do in return for your money - the football player would be the same. Positions are usually treated as subject to funding and time-limited. All of that can be applied to the athletic employee.

I guess what I am saying is that the University is still going to be "the man" and the "the man" runs the business.

Scholarships get replaced with contracts that contain non compete clauses and athletes are now subject to all university employment provisions including sexual harassment provisions, drug tests, etc. and can be fired for non performance. It would be wild.

That reminds me of something I was told many years ago as a GA by the department chair: "don't **** the undergraduate women - you can troll the graduate women, but not the undergrads - that's sexual harassment".

I wonder how the liability insurance carriers would react to this - insuring high-profile numb-nuts against their behavior.

(03-27-2014 10:48 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:39 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:30 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see the difference between being a football player and a graduate assistant. If all the graduate assistants at University X get together and say they want more money from University X to teach or do research, University X can tell them to take a hike. How is the value of the compensation bundle of the scholarship going to change? It seems to me all the players get from an "employee" status is the rights to due process and equal protection which means you have to have a fully competent HR person attached to the athletic programs.

Graduate assistants are teaching in their field of study so it is primarily educational. Football players technically don't major in football.

A graduate assistant is an employee of the university and you get a W-2. If all the athletes on scholarship become or certain programs are treated as employees I just don't see how they are any different than an GA or Research Assistant. As a GA you have a certain job that you are to do in return for your money - the football player would be the same. Positions are usually treated as subject to funding and time-limited. All of that can be applied to the athletic employee.

I guess what I am saying is that the University is still going to be "the man" and the "the man" runs the business.

Scholarships get replaced with contracts that contain non compete clauses and athletes are now subject to all university employment provisions including sexual harassment provisions, drug tests, etc. and can be fired for non performance. It would be wild.

That reminds me of something I was told many years ago as a GA by the department chair: "don't **** the undergraduate women - you can troll the graduate women, but not the undergrads - that's sexual harassment".

I wonder how the liability insurance carriers would react to this - insuring high-profile numb-nuts against their behavior.

It would open a whole line of new product for insurance companies and could increase the sales of salt peter.

Good one JR

(03-27-2014 10:39 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:30 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see the difference between being a football player and a graduate assistant. If all the graduate assistants at University X get together and say they want more money from University X to teach or do research, University X can tell them to take a hike. How is the value of the compensation bundle of the scholarship going to change? It seems to me all the players get from an "employee" status is the rights to due process and equal protection which means you have to have a fully competent HR person attached to the athletic programs.

Graduate assistants are teaching in their field of study so it is primarily educational. Football players technically don't major in football.

A graduate assistant is an employee of the university and you get a W-2. If all the athletes on scholarship become or certain programs are treated as employees I just don't see how they are any different than an GA or Research Assistant. As a GA you have a certain job that you are to do in return for your money - the football player would be the same. Positions are usually treated as subject to funding and time-limited. All of that can be applied to the athletic employee.

I guess what I am saying is that the University is still going to be "the man" and the "the man" runs the business. I can't envision a successful strike in college athletics.

But there is a separation. See the 4th paragraph where he differentiates this from the Brown GA case that was ruled for the university:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/...ll-players

(03-27-2014 10:39 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:30 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see the difference between being a football player and a graduate assistant. If all the graduate assistants at University X get together and say they want more money from University X to teach or do research, University X can tell them to take a hike. How is the value of the compensation bundle of the scholarship going to change? It seems to me all the players get from an "employee" status is the rights to due process and equal protection which means you have to have a fully competent HR person attached to the athletic programs.

Graduate assistants are teaching in their field of study so it is primarily educational. Football players technically don't major in football.

A graduate assistant is an employee of the university and you get a W-2. If all the athletes on scholarship become or certain programs are treated as employees I just don't see how they are any different than an GA or Research Assistant. As a GA you have a certain job that you are to do in return for your money - the football player would be the same. Positions are usually treated as subject to funding and time-limited. All of that can be applied to the athletic employee.

I guess what I am saying is that the University is still going to be "the man" and the "the man" runs the business. I can't envision a successful strike in college athletics.

If it is a private university, it would have to engage in good faith negotiations with the union or be subject to fines, etc.. for violation of Federal labor laws.

"The Man" cannot unilaterally set the terms of the employment relationship in that context.

If no agreement is reached, the union can call a strike. Now, I tend to agree with you that may not likely happen, but it is possible.

A state university with a public employee union would be similar, but that relationship is governed differently and would likely be less advantageous to the "employee".

Even without a union, if the players walk off the practice and playing field, it would be kind of crazy, wouldn't it?

For Rutgers, it could be the "Scarlet Flu". What would happen? Open tryouts for next week's game against Michigan?

(03-27-2014 11:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:39 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:30 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see the difference between being a football player and a graduate assistant. If all the graduate assistants at University X get together and say they want more money from University X to teach or do research, University X can tell them to take a hike. How is the value of the compensation bundle of the scholarship going to change? It seems to me all the players get from an "employee" status is the rights to due process and equal protection which means you have to have a fully competent HR person attached to the athletic programs.

Graduate assistants are teaching in their field of study so it is primarily educational. Football players technically don't major in football.

A graduate assistant is an employee of the university and you get a W-2. If all the athletes on scholarship become or certain programs are treated as employees I just don't see how they are any different than an GA or Research Assistant. As a GA you have a certain job that you are to do in return for your money - the football player would be the same. Positions are usually treated as subject to funding and time-limited. All of that can be applied to the athletic employee.

I guess what I am saying is that the University is still going to be "the man" and the "the man" runs the business. I can't envision a successful strike in college athletics.

But there is a separation. See the 4th paragraph where he differentiates this from the Brown GA case that was ruled for the university:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/...ll-players

Fine. Eliminate scholarships and pay them the wage for work study students for practice, travel, and game time. Let them pay appropriate taxes for such along with their union dues and be done with it. And I still say if successful it will kill title 9.