Allegedly, the fencing coach at NW told his players that if the union thing goes through that they might get rid of the fencing team. He had to retract his statement as you can't intimidate. Also, their are 20 walk on football players that are not on scholarship and will not be covered by the union, if it goes through.

(04-25-2014 10:10 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Allegedly, the fencing coach at NW told his players that if the union thing goes through that they might get rid of the fencing team. He had to retract his statement as you can't intimidate. Also, their are 20 walk on football players that are not on scholarship and will not be covered by the union, if it goes through.

I read somewhere that there are only 76 players eligible to vote.

(04-25-2014 10:26 AM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 10:10 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Allegedly, the fencing coach at NW told his players that if the union thing goes through that they might get rid of the fencing team. He had to retract his statement as you can't intimidate. Also, their are 20 walk on football players that are not on scholarship and will not be covered by the union, if it goes through.

I read somewhere that there are only 76 players eligible to vote.

Yes, only the players on scholarship. So, some of the team would fall into the union, others not.

Paying cash-money to an 18 year with a greatly exaggerated sense of value and self-worth as a salary to play a game and strut their feathers is ludicrous.

Have no sympathy for a NCAA Division 1 Athletes and take with a huge grain of salt complaints about not being able to eat, recover from injury, and poor housing arrangements.

I cannot emphasize enough the shear amount of benefits that Athletes receive at a University, often, nay almost always, at the expense of everyone else. Everyone else.

Universities feed them, cloth them, mentor them, tutor them, train them, and prepare them to go pro in something other than sports. This is sufficient.

Here's a question that popped into my mind while reading and thinking about this entire issue:

University scholarship athletes that receive $$ from the university in order to attend. Are they being paid the $$ to be students, or are they being paid the $$ to be athletes?

If it's the former, the NW players argument should be null and void. But I'm leaning toward thinking it's the latter, which is the crux of the entire issue.

It's a shame the players are getting labeled as greedy. It takes the attention off of the truely greedy ones in this. The NCAA. It's not about player scholarships being adequate compensation. It mostly is(insurance). But the players needed some sort of legal basis to get this into the court room and into the national spot light to expose the ncaa's hypocrisy. The "employee" scenario is just a tool to do this. A union would be a disaster and the players must know this. NCAA football at the BCS conference level is a professional league. Coaching salaries, tv deals, endorsements and merchandise. All pro level. The only thing amateur about it are the players. Things have evolved exponentially since Bear Bryant was coaching. It's time for the NCAA to evolve too.

A sports reporter tweeted that his source said of the 75 votes 60 of them were no votes.

(04-25-2014 11:14 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  A sports reporter tweeted that his source said of the 75 votes 60 of them were no votes.

Doesn't surprise me honestly. The thing to watch will be what does Northwestern do now? Do they grant some of the requests that Coulter and the others were requesting such as medical coverage, or do they just say "No union" no changes? If it's the latter, and part of me thinks it will be, this thing isn't over by a long shot.

This vote really means nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's a long process.
I think it's safe to say that by the end of all of this pay to play crap, student athletes will have 100% full 4-year scholarships, all medical expenses paid (do they now? Not sure of that), maybe a small semester stipend and the rights to their name. If Nike wants to sign a player to an endorsment deal while in school, good for that player, let them make money that way.

(04-25-2014 11:14 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  A sports reporter tweeted that his source said of the 75 votes 60 of them were no votes.

Um, under court order, this results of this vote are being kept secret and may not be released for some time.

Sounds like something Shatone's girlfriend's cousin's neighbor would come up with.

(04-25-2014 11:28 AM)Dog Fan Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:14 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  A sports reporter tweeted that his source said of the 75 votes 60 of them were no votes.

Um, under court order, this results of this vote are being kept secret and may not be released for some time.

Sounds like something Shatone's girlfriend's cousin's neighbor would come up with.

Straw poll before/after?

(04-25-2014 10:05 AM)HuskieRak Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:40 PM)Who You Crappin? Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:48 PM)klake87 Wrote:  The problem with Football and Men's Basketball is there is no viable way to the Pros but through college. Football doesn't have and doesn't want a minor league system. Same with basketball. In addition, Colleges don't want to kill their cash cow. Then you throw on top of it the NCAA and you got a nice monopoly

This is why I'm surprised the NFL gave up on NFL Europe. They are so hell bent on expanding the league overseas, you'd think this would be a viable way to create a developmental league while giving Europe an NFLish experience. They could take the money away from the NCAA by doing this. Instead of the NCAA's recruiting, the developmental league could draft high school prospects after their senior season. Players are then eligible for the NFL draft after X amount of years in development overseas.

In the minds of the NFL, why pay to set up a minor league when they already have a perfect setup in place that doesn't cost them anything. NFL Europe was losing a ton of money

Yeah, the previous system was pretty awful. But if you're now talking about bringing over blue chip prospects without competition from the NCAA, I think things might change. From a TV perspective, you'd know you'd get ratings over in the states at the very least. Hell, if you're not concerned about Europe, keep in here. I'm sure people would watch. Especially if it were all weeknight games.

(04-25-2014 12:14 PM)Who You Crappin? Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 10:05 AM)HuskieRak Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:40 PM)Who You Crappin? Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:48 PM)klake87 Wrote:  The problem with Football and Men's Basketball is there is no viable way to the Pros but through college. Football doesn't have and doesn't want a minor league system. Same with basketball. In addition, Colleges don't want to kill their cash cow. Then you throw on top of it the NCAA and you got a nice monopoly

This is why I'm surprised the NFL gave up on NFL Europe. They are so hell bent on expanding the league overseas, you'd think this would be a viable way to create a developmental league while giving Europe an NFLish experience. They could take the money away from the NCAA by doing this. Instead of the NCAA's recruiting, the developmental league could draft high school prospects after their senior season. Players are then eligible for the NFL draft after X amount of years in development overseas.

In the minds of the NFL, why pay to set up a minor league when they already have a perfect setup in place that doesn't cost them anything. NFL Europe was losing a ton of money

Yeah, the previous system was pretty awful. But if you're now talking about bringing over blue chip prospects without competition from the NCAA, I think things might change. From a TV perspective, you'd know you'd get ratings over in the states at the very least. Hell, if you're not concerned about Europe, keep in here. I'm sure people would watch. Especially if it were all weeknight games.

The problem with having a minor league for football is that the colleges and their alumni will not have a team to support. NCAA works well because of strong support from students and Alumni. If you had the Chicago Wind minor league football team, there would be zero fan base.

Look at minor league hockey and some minor league baseball. They have to come up with gimmicks to get people to attend games. Also, TV would hate it. They would lose hours of weekly programming.

(04-25-2014 10:58 AM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  Here's a question that popped into my mind while reading and thinking about this entire issue:

University scholarship athletes that receive $$ from the university in order to attend. Are they being paid the $$ to be students, or are they being paid the $$ to be athletes?

If it's the former, the NW players argument should be null and void. But I'm leaning toward thinking it's the latter, which is the crux of the entire issue.

the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.

(04-25-2014 12:31 PM)klake87 Wrote:  The problem with having a minor league for football is that the colleges and their alumni will not have a team to support. NCAA works well because of strong support from students and Alumni. If you had the Chicago Wind minor league football team, there would be zero fan base.

Look at minor league hockey and some minor league baseball. They have to come up with gimmicks to get people to attend games. Also, TV would hate it. They would lose hours of weekly programming.

BINGO!

most of the football players should have no reason to support a union. The free NORTHWESTERN education (upwards of $50k/year?) opens up a lot of doors. Unless they were NFL bound, i'm not sure why an athlete would want to open this pandoras box.

If you are an employee and not a student athlete, can you play at the college level for more than 5 years?

(04-24-2014 09:39 AM)GCD70 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 09:27 AM)HUSKIEFOOTBALLFAN Wrote:  Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

i think the only legit area is the injury insurance. if nu can unionize then i see their 62,000 scholarship having to be taxed as earned income. Watch what you wish for.

I don't know that any change in tax treatment necessarily follows. They are considered employees based upon the economic realities, per the NLRB. What the IRS says about the relationship shouldn't change since the reality of the relationship hasn't changed. Obviously athletes are getting a benefit. Whether that benefit is taxable or not, the IRS I am sure knows.
I am not going to worry about it. If the NCAA can make as much as they do, the NCAA can chip in and pay for whatever taxes are owed.

FYI, this was a good explanation. From:

http://www.tkfpc.com/blog/12953/

Michael Rosenberg from Sports Illustrated crystallized the main issue very cogently, when he wrote: “College athletes sign contracts –i.e., scholarships – that require them to do specific work (training, practice, competition) in exchange for specific compensation (tuition, room and board) for a one-year period, renewable by the University. That is an employment agreement anywhere else in America.”
In rendering his decision, in fact, the NLRB Regional Director spent 11 single-spaced pages just reviewing the various requirements and restrictions placed upon scholarship football players.
The key passage in the ruling appears at page 18, where the Regional Director wrote: “The players spend 50 to 60 hours per week on their football duties during a one-month training camp prior to the start of the academic year and an additional 40 to 50 hours per week on those duties during the three or four month football season. Not only is this more hours than many undisputed full-time employees work at their jobs, it is also many more hours than the players spend on their studies…it cannot be said that they are ‘primarily students’ who ‘spend only a limited number of hours performing their athletic duties.’”
The Regional Director also noted that scholarship football players’ athletic duties do not constitute a core element of their educational degree requirements; the academic faculty does not supervise their athletic duties; and their compensation cannot be deemed “financial aid,” because academic financial aid is not supposed to be provided in exchange for any type of service from the student. The Regional Director also comments upon the obvious: That football generates an enormous amount of money. Here, Northwestern reported that its football team generated total revenues of $235 million and incurred total expenses of $159 million between 2003 and 2012. (The Regional Director was untroubled by the fact that the “compensation” paid to the student-athletes is not taxed.)