You’re a coveted football star in the 2020 high school graduating class. Here are your options:

Join a team in a major college football conference, where starting quarterbacks earn up to $100,000 per year.

Sign up for the TFL (Tech Football League), where you might play in a rivalry game between the Ellison Oracles and the Cuban Cubans.

All of these scenarios are imaginable with the recent National Labor Relations Board decision granting Northwestern University football players the right to unionize. Pending the school’s appeal, the NLRB now considers scholarship football players to be employees of their institutions, not student-athletes.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i...story.html

That scenario is unrealistic and apocalyptic.

But, if you want to imagine a league for top HS skill players to graduate to, other than NFL or CFB, why not a 7-on-7 league?

We don't have football, so no worries here

(04-05-2014 01:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You’re a coveted football star in the 2020 high school graduating class. Here are your options:

Join a team in a major college football conference, where starting quarterbacks earn up to $100,000 per year.

Sign up for the TFL (Tech Football League), where you might play in a rivalry game between the Ellison Oracles and the Cuban Cubans.

All of these scenarios are imaginable with the recent National Labor Relations Board decision granting Northwestern University football players the right to unionize. Pending the school’s appeal, the NLRB now considers scholarship football players to be employees of their institutions, not student-athletes.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i...story.html

A bull $hit unrealistic article!

Some scattered thoughts.

If we're talking about a union, we're talking about a standardized system. Very likely most players at most participating schools will be on the same pay grade. Maybe some increases for seniority or starting or positions, but the starting running backs at Clemson, FSU, UCF, FIU and Georgia State are probably cashing the same check every month or semester (assuming that everyon antes up to stay in the FBS game, which I expect will happen).

The pro sports leagues split the revenues between players and the teams at around 50-60%. But the star players get a large fraction of that, which probably won't happen at the college level. The NBAPA and NBA negotiate rules that limit Lebron JAmes' and Kevin Durants' earning power to benefit the Mike Millers of the world, college football will be much the same--the "College Football Players Union" will pay greater attention to Johnny MAnziels' 5 offensive linemen's interest than they will to Johnny Football's.

So the next thing to do would be to get the salary lists of a pro league like the NBA, and figure out what percentage of that 50 or 60% of league revenue that's going to the players is going to the bottom 60 or 70% of players. That's probably the share of revenue that the players max out at. In the pros, it's debatable whether the name on the front of the jersey or the back of the jersey is more responsible for generating revenue. In college, it's not debatable at all--the checks people write to the universities and athletic departments dwarf anything the wildest SMU/U of Miami/SEC booster ever even thought about.

The Post column reminds me of the line from Macbeth: A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Here is my take, FWIW:

College athletes will never be unionized employees. The universities will never acquiesce to it and if necessary, Congress will eventually step in to prevent it. There will be general recognition that, although college football and basketball players are being exploited, the primary beneficiaries of this exploitation are not the universities -- which in all but half a dozen cases, must subsidize their athletic programs to keep them viable. The primary beneficiaries are their fellow scholarship athletes who play non-revenue sports financed by football and basketball revenues, including the thousands of women athletes receiving free educations thanks to Title IX.

The politicians are largely responsible for the evolution of the current system and when push comes to shove they will be loathe to let unionization destroy it. Instead they will step in to address some of the players' rightful concerns, for example by limiting practice and conditioning time and imposing more comprehensive requirements for both preventing and treating injuries. They may even mandate four-year scholarships, full cost-of-attendance stipends and limits on coaches' salaries. But in the same stroke they will exempt collegiate athletics from collective bargaining and formally recognize the student-athlete concept in law. And they will do it in the name of saving Title IX.

(04-05-2014 02:53 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  The Post column reminds me of the line from Macbeth: A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Here is my take, FWIW:

College athletes will never be unionized employees. The universities will never acquiesce to it and if necessary, Congress will eventually step in to prevent it. There will be general recognition that, although college football and basketball players are being exploited, the primary beneficiaries of this exploitation are not the universities -- which in all but half a dozen cases, must subsidize their athletic programs to keep them viable. The primary beneficiaries are their fellow scholarship athletes who play non-revenue sports financed by football and basketball revenues, including the thousands of women athletes receiving free educations thanks to Title IX.

The politicians are largely responsible for the evolution of the current system and when push comes to shove they will be loathe to let unionization destroy it. Instead they will step in to address some of the players' rightful concerns, for example by limiting practice and conditioning time and imposing more comprehensive requirements for both preventing and treating injuries. They may even mandate four-year scholarships, full cost-of-attendance stipends and limits on coaches' salaries. But in the same stroke they will exempt collegiate athletics from collective bargaining and formally recognize the student-athlete concept in law. And they will do it in the name of saving Title IX.

Yep, pretty much on point, women pols & activist, are ready making some waves with their comments about the threat it is to Title IX. The men will go along, like the sheep they are.

If this union thing continues most state schools will not be allowed to have minor league sports. I see most state making their Universities go back to club sports. No more scholarship players and hence no union!

(04-05-2014 02:53 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  The Post column reminds me of the line from Macbeth: A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Here is my take, FWIW:

College athletes will never be unionized employees. The universities will never acquiesce to it and if necessary, Congress will eventually step in to prevent it. There will be general recognition that, although college football and basketball players are being exploited, the primary beneficiaries of this exploitation are not the universities -- which in all but half a dozen cases, must subsidize their athletic programs to keep them viable. The primary beneficiaries are their fellow scholarship athletes who play non-revenue sports financed by football and basketball revenues, including the thousands of women athletes receiving free educations thanks to Title IX.

The politicians are largely responsible for the evolution of the current system and when push comes to shove they will be loathe to let unionization destroy it. Instead they will step in to address some of the players' rightful concerns, for example by limiting practice and conditioning time and imposing more comprehensive requirements for both preventing and treating injuries. They may even mandate four-year scholarships, full cost-of-attendance stipends and limits on coaches' salaries. But in the same stroke they will exempt collegiate athletics from collective bargaining and formally recognize the student-athlete concept in law. And they will do it in the name of saving Title IX.

Certainly possible. I can't conceive of a scenario where the administrations and politicians let Title IX get neutered.

Non scholarship football. No scholarship no pay no employees college football will adapt. Nobody wants to watch semi pro football or minor league.

Division III football for all......

Eventually the NFL will create a minor league system which will use on campus facilities at the top 60 or so schools. So you'll still have the Ohio State Buckeyes, that play in Ohio Stadium--but the team won't be affiliated with the school, and the stadium will be leased. Prior to that you will have fewer and fewer major college football teams. The P5 will split off from the G5 at some point as they'll be the only ones that can afford the athletes. The G5 will still play sports if they want -with lower level athletes that don't receive P5 level pay, but also won't have the rigorous requirements that major college athletes do.

Something to consider is how labor negotiations actually work. I remember that the UAW used to have (maybe still has) "lockstep negotiating", where whatever they got out of GM or Ford or Chrysler became the minimum demand for negotiations with the other two.

I think that the "organizing units" would be schools at first. But Purdue isn't going to give Northwestern a recruiting advantage, and the SEC isn't going to want to give the Big Ten a recruiting advantage. So I think it's going to come down to the P5 forming some sort of a formal grouping, at first just for labor negotiation purposes.

The P5 will probably sign off on something like four-year scholarships, all headcount athletes getting paid a set amount, with some sort of setup for licensing revenue to fund annuities for star players. (Remember, the thing about a union is that Johnny Manziel and the backup O-lineman have the same vote.)

Will the G5 be able to match the package that the P5 offer? Not if the P5 can help it. Title IX will serve as an excuse to extend the payments to all scholarship athletes (or all headcount athletes, etc.)

(04-05-2014 02:53 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  The Post column reminds me of the line from Macbeth: A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Here is my take, FWIW:

College athletes will never be unionized employees. The universities will never acquiesce to it and if necessary, Congress will eventually step in to prevent it. There will be general recognition that, although college football and basketball players are being exploited, the primary beneficiaries of this exploitation are not the universities -- which in all but half a dozen cases, must subsidize their athletic programs to keep them viable. The primary beneficiaries are their fellow scholarship athletes who play non-revenue sports financed by football and basketball revenues, including the thousands of women athletes receiving free educations thanks to Title IX.

The politicians are largely responsible for the evolution of the current system and when push comes to shove they will be loathe to let unionization destroy it. Instead they will step in to address some of the players' rightful concerns, for example by limiting practice and conditioning time and imposing more comprehensive requirements for both preventing and treating injuries. They may even mandate four-year scholarships, full cost-of-attendance stipends and limits on coaches' salaries. But in the same stroke they will exempt collegiate athletics from collective bargaining and formally recognize the student-athlete concept in law. And they will do it in the name of saving Title IX.

Interesting slant--and very plausible.

(04-06-2014 10:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something to consider is how labor negotiations actually work. I remember that the UAW used to have (maybe still has) "lockstep negotiating", where whatever they got out of GM or Ford or Chrysler became the minimum demand for negotiations with the other two.

I think that the "organizing units" would be schools at first. But Purdue isn't going to give Northwestern a recruiting advantage, and the SEC isn't going to want to give the Big Ten a recruiting advantage. So I think it's going to come down to the P5 forming some sort of a formal grouping, at first just for labor negotiation purposes.

The P5 will probably sign off on something like four-year scholarships, all headcount athletes getting paid a set amount, with some sort of setup for licensing revenue to fund annuities for star players. (Remember, the thing about a union is that Johnny Manziel and the backup O-lineman have the same vote.)

Will the G5 be able to match the package that the P5 offer? Not if the P5 can help it. Title IX will serve as an excuse to extend the payments to all scholarship athletes (or all headcount athletes, etc.)

As I've said before, I think the G5 will match the P5 on most items. They dont even really have to match dollar for dollar. They just have to be generally competetive. The P5 will win most recruiting battles with G5 schools anyway----so what changes if the G5 stipend is a little lower that the P5 stipend? Nothing.

Where the line will largely be drawn is between FBS and FCS/non-football schools. There will be some exceptions--the Big East, the A-10 for instance. There are few FBS schools with athletic budgets under 20 million. There are tons of D1 schools with tiny atheltic budgets less than 10 million. Even in the G5, most budgets are between 20-40 million. Generally, FCS and non-football schools will stay behind and the FBS schools will create a new division or organization.

I think some of that will come to fruition--primarily the NFL-D league.

Football's popularity is soaring and the NFL Network will seek to gobble up more and more product.

They'll institute a rule like MLB has. You either go NFL-D or NCAA for 3 years right out of HS. For NFL-D kids who skip the NCAA (like Clowney or Nkimdiche), they'll need to stay in the D-league for 2 minimum years before being "called up." There will be an early July draft for D-league players. The D-league season can go from March to June, when there is zero competition between the Big Show (NFL) and the NCAA--to which many people will still be fiercely loyal.

The TECH league idea is weird. If the TECH league beats the NFL to the punch, then it could fly. But there can't be two "minor league professional" levels as financially viable options.