1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Labor board: Northwestern University football players can unionize

Discussion in 'Sports Zone' started by Doomsday101, Mar 26, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    Well, there you go... you're talking about the costs of employment, not the costs of unionization. You should have just said that from the start.

    The actual costs of the union are paid by the union members, who pay dues. So that has nothing to do with the schools.

    Then that has nothing to do with the point I made... It has nothing to do with the fact that a person can be a student-athlete and an employee. The concept of unionization in college sports isn't utopian either. No one thinks everything will be perfect because unions are created. It doesn't work that way in professional sports, or other unions, but I suspect you know that.

    The ones who get offers to get paid will get paid and the ones who don't get offers to get paid won't. How is this difficult?

    Why can literally everyone associated with a football or basketball program, save and except the players? Paying those people millions of dollars doesn't kill smaller schools sports programs. I feel like I'm repeating myself and you're willfully ignoring.


    Ahhhh, so you admit your viewpoint is skewed by the fact that the word union is involved. If they called it an association, you'd probably be okay. I'm not really concerned with your doomsday scenarios. The other sports that are unionized rake in new record profits every year. Doesn't seem to be hurting the long term health of those industries.

    I haven't seen you make a legit point yet... All I see is a bunch of talking points and baseless fear mongering.

    Maybe if there were an example of a sports union killing the sport it's associated with, then you'd have a point. But there's not one, so claiming the union will kill the sport is just crazy talk.

    The unions you're talking about in Detroit are not sports unions. The only similarity is that they're unions. That's literally it. That's about as weak of an argument you can make, and it assumes all unions are the same. Why would you allude to that without considering the much more closely related sports unions in the professional ranks? Because they don't fit your narrative. You're using this one unrelated example to distract from the real issue. Red herring.
  2. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,199 Messages
    2,038 Likes Received
    No, I'm talking about the cost of Unionization because if the ruling from the NLBR or the UNION Board in Chicago is found to be lawful, then by default, they will be considered employees. As of now, they are not so it is Unionization. I consider this to be semantics but as you wish.

    Again, everybody understands that and that is not what is being discussed here.

    This is an odd statement. You replied to my post so it would seem that what you replied with has nothing to do with the discussion that was going on. However, I do agree. Two completely different discussions.


    I see. Basically, screw all the Athletes that are not playing for a Power6 Conference, which BTW, is exactly what I've been saying through this entire thread. Not a great outcome IMO.


    I don't understand this post but I think you are asking Why Can't? Is that right? If that is correct, it's a business decision. You seem to think that smaller programs can afford to pay out millions of dollars to support such efforts. I don't believe they can but, if you have some sort of data that supports your position, I'm willing to discuss your opinion.

    No pep. I'm explaining to you what we all know and have seen for ourselves. I'm also cognizant of the fact that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth right now. This is not a Sport like you see, for example, in professional sports. This is Education that subsidizes profits with Sports. Again, the main driver here is education, not sports. When sports is no longer profitable, there is no sensible business case that supports the continued funding of sports programs for these smaller schools. They will make a business decision and go back to what their core business is about. That's not sports. That's education.

    That's what I'd expect a Lawyer to argue. Doesn't make it true Pep.

    If we were talking about a Sport only, I might agree with you but we are not, as I've explained through out this thread. Either you have simply refused to actually read the entire thread or you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. You know as well as I do that there are very different dynamics at play here. This is not the NBA, MLB or the NFL, where profits are driven solely on the revenues and or profits of the sport itself. It's also not a league with only 30 to 32 teams and owners. You are talking about roughly 1200 schools or teams and something in the area 420,000.00 athletes (assuming all athletes eventually unionize). This is not just Football and Basketball players, which would be difficult enough, in and of itself. Your whole premise is flawed. There is no comparative basis by which you can look at Unions in sports and say, "Hey, it worked there. It will work with the NCAA."

    Neither is this one. It's the USW. Talk about Red Herring discussions.
  3. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    78,637 Messages
    3,905 Likes Received
    Title IX will also play a part. Football and basketball players can't just be paid while women and other athletes are left out in the cold. If you pay 1 group you must pay all.
  4. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,199 Messages
    2,038 Likes Received
    Exactly. The predication rests on if you decide that a Football or Basketball player is, in fact, an employee. That translates into Scholarship Athlete and by definition (NCAA) that applies to all athletes in all sports, under Scholarship.
  5. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    Costs of unionization are not things paid by employers, and health insurance and other benefits are paid by employers. It's not semantics. Say what you mean.

    I'm not entirely sure you know what's being discussed, at least it doesn't seem like it. You've basically devolved this thread into bickering of off-topic minutiae.

    Yeah, I replied to your post that made an absolute distinction between the term student-athlete and employee by saying the terms aren't mutually exclusive... do you know what mutually exclusive means?

    I didn't say screw them, you did. If you think players who are on full educational scholarships are being screwed, then I suppose you think 100% of scholarship athletes are getting screwed right now. I suppose it's ok for athletes to get screwed, so long as they're all getting screwed equally?

    It's not going to be equal, that's not what free market principles suggest. If you think that's the ideal, then do you advocate that everyone on the Cowboys roster should make the same salary/bonuses?

    I'm saying why can the schools afford to literally everyone involved in a football or basketball program -- altogether millions of dollars -- and not bankrupt the programs. Brian Harsin at Boise State (non "Power 6" conference), just signed his first contract as a head coach that pays an average of more than one million per year. The school charters flights all over the country for its football program. If they can pay out those types of salaries, and pay for those types of expenses, then paying players their market value (which, surprisingly enough, they would be able to have some say in) will not bankrupt the program

    You haven't seen anything for yourself that is relevant to this particular issue, because it's never happened. If the school is making profits in the education arena off the back of its highly visible sports athletes without adequate compensation, then THAT'S WRONG!

    Still no legit points. You've got a functional misunderstanding of the issues or you're afraid to discuss them.

    What are the different dynamics? Spell them out. You can't just say, "there are different dynamics from the NFL because there's more teams" and therefore, these athletes can't get paid and expect it to end the conversation. The fact that schools also have education costs doesn't give them the right to not pay fair compensation to athletes bringing record revenues into athletic departments.

    I'm not saying it "will work" because pro unions work. I'm contradicting your assertion that because Detroit went bankrupt then college athletic unions won't work. Do you see the difference? You tried to claim that because Detroit unions allegedly caused bankruptcy, then this wouldn't work. That's is a conclusory, lazy argument. My response to you is only to make a point that you can't base a judgment on this union by one unrelated example... but if you wanted to be lazy and leave at that, then you should look at more comparable unions, such as the professional athletes' unions.

    Comment makes no sense.
  6. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    No one's saying women or other athletes can't be "paid." They are already receiving compensation if they are on scholarship.

    The ruling stated that these particular Northwestern football players who are on scholarship are employees and can unionize. I don't think the ruling applied to all scholarship athletes, because there are likely different facts among the separate sports... however, if athletes in other sports have similar requirements, sign similar tenders, and have similar schedules, then it follows that they will be able to unionize too, if their state's rules allow. Private schools are especially susceptible to their athletes unionizing.

    You guys need to get used to the idea of some of these players being paid... it's going to happen.
  7. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,199 Messages
    2,038 Likes Received
    And you, in turn, need to get used to the idea that this is going to kill College Athletics.

    I guess we all have a little bit of getting used to issues we will need to deal with.
  8. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    Sure.... these schools are just going to start throwing more money than they make around and bankrupt everyone. Derp.

    That's rule number one for fear mongering though. Say any change to a sport is going to kill the sport. I bet you thought the 3 pointer was going to kill basketball, the last NFL strike was going to kill the league, lack of salary cap would kill baseball, etc...
  9. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,199 Messages
    2,038 Likes Received
    I said what I mean. My advice to you, read the thread.

    Yep, that's typical. Your not sure we know what we are talking about. OK. I've personally driven this thread into a ditch. OK, whatever you say.

    No, I think you are wrong here. If the employee was a Student Athlete, then they would not be able to Unionize. The fact that they have been found to be employees is the reason they can discuss unionization. In terms of this decision, they are mutually exclusive. Perhaps this is a question better answered by you.

    Yeah, you pretty much did. Own it, it's yours.

    As to student athletes getting screwed, I think that the term STUDENT, basically negates your idea of athletes getting screwed. They don't have to sign a scholarship intent letter. They can go out and obtain education by some other means. They are getting something that I consider to be vary valuable in exchange for their athletic participation. What Unionization will do, what you support apparently, will IMO destroy that opportunity for millions of young people. So in my eyes, a system that may be imperfect but offers a chance at an education is better then one that kills that opportunity for many, many young people while benefiting a few select athletes.

    No, it's not going to be equal. Some will get paid, most will not be receiving a scholarship or a check so yeah, I think this is something we can definitely agree upon. As far as free market, that has no business in this discussion. Unionization kills those concepts.

    Prove your statement. Show that the majority of football and basketball programs make enough money to pay players and afford long term benefits. This pie in the sky idea that colleges are making enough money to afford to pay players and long term benefits is all good theater but it's not factual. Show me data that suggest this can happen. don't just show the top 5 or 6 schools. In fact, according to studies, only 7 programs in D1 were showing a profit, at all, without subsidies. The rest, not so much. Where is this money going to come from?

    Not sure what you are trying to say here. However, I think the post just previous to this will settle the argument. Show me how programs are going to afford this, going forward. This isn't about what you think is right or wrong. It's about what is best for these young kids. What is better, a few select athletes getting paid or a lot of young people getting scholarships and education opportunity?

    Yeah, I know. I just don't understand, again. Look, show how it works financially. Do that and explain how benefits, going forward are going to be covered and that will end the discussion.

    This is funny. I've repeatedly asked you to show me how the money aspects will work and you've avoided that like the plague yet you ask me to spell out something for you? In actuality, I've already done this in an earlier post but since you want to hear them again, I'll do that for you. Then, you can address them.

    NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL are all professional sports who drive revenue and profits from only sports. They are, for the most part, all profitable. They revenue share based on that. Not so with Universities. Each University have their own specific rules that govern things like employment, benefits, Salaries workmans comp, all sorts of things like this that are all separately governed.

    Title IX. That basically says that whatever additional medical and educational benefits Northwestern football players—and those at other universities forming unions negotiate—be extended to athletes in other sports with equal aggregate amounts spent on men and women. The expense could easily destroy the financial viability of many athletic programs, and cause universities to drop many more men’s sports to maintain gender balance. (Again, how are you going to pay for this?)

    If college students unionize, what happens when an employee commits legal or team offenses that force a player to be benched, suspended or dismissed? Do we then see Union Officials step in to try and protect the player? How is that going to work with 1000 different schools, each with their own specific Dean and ADs and over 420,000.00 potential employees?

    When you make all of these athletes employees, how are they going to handle the expense of taxes, associated with all that goes along with being a Student Athlete? Things like the cost of their education. Lets say 30K a year for education but their is more. Healthcare benefits will also not be free. They too will be taxed. Strength and conditioning that is now free to all athletes could also be taxed. Food and supplements needed could also be taxed and that's not cheap. I was listening to a report that said, on average, the cost of advanced weight training is upwards of 9K a year. More taxes. There are all sorts of hidden costs that are going to be taxable for these athletes. How do they deal with those expenses?

    What happens with schools that are in Right to Work States? Let's say the SEC, for example. What happens if only Missouri votes to Unionize? Does the SEC then vote to exclude Missouri from the SEC?

    Tuition for in state, out of state, private, State University, do these effect recruiting?

    These are just off the top of my head, there literally thousands more issues that we haven't even started to consider.


    Of course not. That's kind of the problem right? Your asking me if I see the difference. Well, if it were as you say, of course. However, the problem here is that you can't know that there will be a difference. It's much like you saying it works in other Sports. Well, this is not like other sports. In fact, it's completely different. Do you see the difference? No, you don't? I guess I can only conclude that because you can't see the difference, that it's because you are resorting to a conclusory, lazy argument. Conversely, my response in turn, is that you can't make a judgement based on other Pro Sports. Collegiate Sports are not the same as Professional Sports. Further, you can't say that what happened in Detroit or many other Union Based industries will not happen here either. The difference between our two positions are that if you are wrong, a lot of Student Athletes are going to suffer. I think I've explained to you, why Professional Unions are not the same as what we would have here. That's not lazy, that's the truth. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this point says a great deal about what you are trying to defend IMO.

    What could you possibly be confused about pep?

    You said:

    "The unions you're talking about in Detroit are not sports unions. The only similarity is that they're unions. That's literally it. That's about as weak of an argument you can make, and it assumes all unions are the same. Why would you allude to that without considering the much more closely related sports unions in the professional ranks? Because they don't fit your narrative. You're using this one unrelated example to distract from the real issue. Red herring."


    I responded with:

    "Neither is this one. It's the USW. Talk about Red Herring discussions."


    The Union that is representing Northwestern is not a Sports Union. It is the United Steel Workers of America. That's not a Sports Union. It's basically, the same kinds of Unions you saw in Detroit.
  10. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,199 Messages
    2,038 Likes Received
    Right. We all understand what you are saying. What we are saying is that under Title IX, you must also pay other athletes in all sports who are under scholarship and further, you must pay mens and womens equally. It has nothing, at all, to do with what the Union has decided about Northwestern Football. This is one of those unintended circumstances that probably weren't considered before hand that will lead to smaller Schools killing their athletic programs should they Unionize.
  11. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,199 Messages
    2,038 Likes Received
    One too many South Park episodes for you there Pep.

    Like I said before, explain how schools are going to make enough money to support the costs of paying Athletes, and all the associated costs of benefits and long term healthcare and all the rest. Do that and then I'll maybe believe that you are knowledgeable enough to label anybody in this conversation.

    I've asked you this question several times now. Before you continue on, answer that question.
  12. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    Good grief. You're so far in over your head, it's not even funny. Google the term "mutually exclusive" and get back to me.

    This sounds eerily familiar to your anti-union brethren's rants on the NFL lockout. Shocking.

    What makes you think "most" will not be receiving a scholarship or a check? You think these recruits are going to be making millions right off the bat? Another doomsday scenario? I think you and Doomsday need to draw lots for that username.

    I'll prove my statement as soon as you prove yours... that unionization will bankrupt the schools. That was the first quarrel lobbed by you... my response was that's ridiculous and fear mongering. You saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

    Um, yeah it is about what I think is right or wrong. That's the whole reason I got into this "debate."

    Look... you and Doomsday were the ones initially in here saying unions would bankrupt the schools. I countered by saying that was baseless. You don't get off the hook by asking me to prove how my side works financially. You prove your assertion first.... until then, I'm just going to point out that your "argument" is baseless.

    LOL... You've asked me "repeatedly" in your most recent post. Don't act like I'm dodging your request. You prove your position first. Unions will bankrupt the schools... let's see it. While you're constructing your "proof," don't forget the billions of dollars of profits these schools bring in, while paying everyone but the athletes.

    Of course the details will be different than the pro leagues and their unions... but the sports unions are still going to be much more relevant to college athletics unions than the Detroit auto unions and municipality unions.

    Title IX doesn't say that.... This is brand new ground the student-athletes are breaking. Title IX hasn't been extended to this yet.

    I think they can manage the issues. There are unions out there that have millions of members and work across every single state.

    I don't even know where to begin with this jumbled mess.........

    ~deep breath~

    I'm not asking you if you see the difference in the specific unions... I'm asking you if you see the difference between my argument and your perception of my argument. Apparently, you don't... Do you get colloquialisms? Nevermind.

    Of course I see the differences between this sport and other sports... I NEVER SAID THE UNIONS WERE THE SAME. If I had, that would be just as conclusory and lazy as your original point that because you think Detroit's unions bankrupted that city, therefore this union would bankrupt the schools. I'm going to set this next sentence apart from the rest, so you can read it without the other words to distract you and maybe then you'll understand....

    THE FACT THAT DETROIT FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR UNION.

    Let that sink in... I'm not saying that this union will be successful because other sports unions will be successful. I'm only saying that you can't claim this union will fail because Detroit failed... Do you know what conclusory means? Google that one too.

    This union will be its very own thing. But if you want to compare it to another union, at least have the intellectual integrity to look at the unions that are more relevant than the ones you cite as failures. I don't think the pro sports unions are the same as the college one... but they're damn sure more similar than the auto or municipal unions are to the college union.

    If you can't get past this foundation of the debate now, then I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain it to you. I can't explain it any clearer.


    Wow....... So you read a blurb about the USW footing the legal bills for the CAPA, and you assume the unions are the same? There's literally no helping you.
  13. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    The CAPA hasn't even started lobbying for monetary pay, and you're saying Title IX is going to require equal pay. Impressive crystal ball you have there..... of course, it is the same fear you're trying to play off on the other issues, so I'm not surprised.
  14. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    haha... you asked that question "several times" in the one long post 15 minutes before this one...

    I'll continue on as I see fit, thanks.... If you want to explain how paying athletes will bankrupt the schools, instead of making your typical conclusory argument that Detroit unions bankrupted that city, so it must be the same here... then I'll answer your question.
  15. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,199 Messages
    2,038 Likes Received
    Here's a better idea. Why don't you explain to me what it is you are trying to say. That way we can get passed all of this nonsense. Then we can have an honest discussion. How's that?

    Yes, I agree, it's a shocker. We both seem to believe what we believed then, still today. Who would of thunk it right? What's really interesting is that pretty much what I said would happen did happen with regards to the lockout. I don't know what that means but I have to say that I feel pretty good about that.

    I've already explained this in depth. I see no reason to bore anybody else any further. I don't know what these recruits will be making. My fear is not for those who will be making money. My fear is for those who will not have the opportunity to get an education because programs will be cut.

    I never ever said that Unionization will bankrupt schools. Find a single post where I've said this but you won't because I never did. That's some kind of made up stuff you have devised in your own mind. I said Schools will cut their sports programs because they are not profitable or at least, neutral. They will become a negative and simply suck up more profits then they are worth. There is a difference there. Your not very good at this are you?

    And at the end of the day, you still have not shown how this will be affordable. I am not surprised because I don't see how it can be either. Make any argument you want but if you can't do this, you have no basis for success.

    Again, I never said it would bankrupt schools. That's just no factual.

    Your kinda losing your objectivity here Counselor. So I post all of those issues, as you asked, and you do this. OK, I guess this discussion has gone as far as it can. At the end of the day, there are no answers here other then to dismiss the problems themselves or to simply say that "I'm sure they can deal with that". I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

    No proof of that.

    LOL... OK.

    Oh, I'm sure you do but that is not proof that they can or that it will be beneficial to future potential student athletes.

    Why don't you just take a deep breath. I'm sure it will come to you.

    Do you get Bovine Scatology? Perhaps you are right. Perhaps it's best just to say nevermind.



    Never said this particular Union. I said Unions like this. IE, Unions that are not Sports Affiliated.

    LOL.... You get a lot of stuff wrong huh..... I am not saying the Union will fail, necessarily. I'm saying that it will kill a large percentage of College Athletic Programs.

    OK, show me how the United Steel Workers are more closely related to other Unions that represent these other professional sports and I will agree to be open minded on the subject. If you can show me, I really have no issues with it. However, that doesn't change the fact that Unionization will kill off a great many sports programs in future.

    I've sited no Unions as failures, to my knowledge. Go ahead and show me

    You can't explain it at all Pep. I'm happy to let people judge for themselves. In fact, the more people read and look into this, the better for everybody.


    No, I read that the USW is the parent Union who is sponsering and representing this effort, on behalf of Northwestern. I suppose you can produce something that stipulates that a Sports Union Entity of note is actually involved? If you can, post it and I'm happy to be educated.
  16. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,199 Messages
    2,038 Likes Received
    So then, you think that players will not want to be paid? Is that what you are saying?
  17. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,199 Messages
    2,038 Likes Received
    As you wish. If you want to say that I've only asked this question of you this one time, so be it. Be that as it may, the question was asked. Are you going to respond or just dodge the question again?

    As I said earlier, I never said it would bankrupt Universities. I said it will kill many sports programs. Again, there are only 7 schools who show a profit in their sports programs with no subsidies affiliated. How does the math work here? There are multiple claims that these schools are rich with money from these various football and basketball programs. I'm saying that only 7 show a profit on their entire sports programs. You'll notice this has nothing to do with Detroit, I hope you are not overly disappointed.

    Now, I've explained to you why it wont work financially. You show me how you think it will work financially.

    I'll check back in with you tomorrow.
  18. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    You know as well as I do, that "showing a profit" doesn't mean anything. 36 of the 50 states highest paid public employees are either college football or college basketball coaches (and those salaries and bonuses are increasing exponentially every year). Damn near every division I school has multimillions invested into equipment and facilities, and they charter flights all over the country all year long in multiple sports. Bowl payouts are skyrocketing. Even the teams who make the Poinsettia Bowl make a cool half million each. Any claim that paying players any more than they are already being paid -- you would argue they're making $60k a year in tuition -- falls flat on its face when confronted by these facts.

    You telling me, these programs who pay their coaches 5-6 million per year couldn't save the money to pay athletes SOMETHING? If they could even scrimp together a million, that's $12,500 per football scholarship player, even if you advocate for equal pay across the board (which is not what is going to happen).

    You haven't "explained" anything. All you've done is made the CONCLUSION that it will kill sports programs because they're not showing profits. If you think these schools aren't making profits on their revenue-producing sports programs, then we need to talk... I have an important investment opportunity for you that people are talking about.

    In 2008, the tops 10 college football spenders spent a total of $980,814,390... less than 20 million short of one BILLION dollars spent, in 2008! This year, there's no doubting that's over a billion dollars spent. You don't think they can scrape together something to pay the players who deserve it? That's ludicrous.

    Part of these schools' revenue is donations from boosters. If players could get paid, the boosters would be forking over even more money to bring in the best players. It would probably even allow the schools to make MORE money. They could raise ticket prices, concession prices, etc. The new playoff system is bringing in $470 million per year in broadcast rights, whereas the old BCS broadcast contract was for $125 million per year. March Madness brings in $770 million per year.
  19. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,199 Messages
    2,038 Likes Received
    So your solution is to pay the players and cut the salaries of the coaches? Stop using planes and make them ride on Buses, I mean, I don't understand where you are going with this. As to the 60K, it's not just 60K. It's actually closer to 75 for Northwestern and if you add in some of the other cost associated, it's really closer to 100K a year. Your confusing the salaries Universities pay out with what the Athletes will be taxed on. The "60K" you are referring to is not 60K, it's more but the point is that this is what these Athletes could be on the hook for, to pay taxes against. At 100K or more, their tax bracket is 28% federal and varies from State to State on State Income Taxes. There is also FICA and SS and all the rest. If you just look at Federal, that's 28K that these students will have to come up with, just based on what they are receiving now, free. That doesn't include any additional benefits or pay. How are these players going to pay for that?

    This question has nothing at all to do with what Universities are paying for Coaches but, if it did, what does that matter? You are still going to have to pay coaches and all that does is worsen the situation you are trying to defend. That adds more cost to a revenue cycle that is already losing money. That doesn't solve anything.

    I am telling you that the cost of coaching will not go down, regardless of what players make or if Unions come into play. Do Coaches costs go down in Pro Sports? No, they won't here either. That's just a flawed idea. As I explained earlier, all that does is add more cost to the already poor financial picture almost all D1 schools are in.


    Fine, lets just say, for the sake of discussion that I haven't explained anything. Educate me on how this will work financially. Why don't we start there.

    READ THE THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I have already said that the top schools would be in favor of this and would probably like to see this sort of thing happen. It's not the Top Schools we are discussing here. It's the 350 other programs that are not associated with the Power Conferences and don't have the large revenue sharing conference deals or the big TV revenue contracts. Those are the schools that will be in serious trouble. Come on man. At least respond to the right questions.

    This only benefits the top programs, once again. The big Boasters are the USCs, the Texas' the Florida's the Notre Damn's, the Ohio State's of the world. How does that help the other D1 schools and also, what happens if this Unionization jepardizes all of these Universities Tax Exampt Status on Conference pay outs? Currently, they don't get taxed for those funds because they are facilities for higher education. If that changes because they are now a "Professional Sport", which could easily happen based on the fact that they now have employees who are being paid to play, the entire financial dynamics change.

    Even after all of this, none of what you are posting is relevant for schools outside of the Power Conferences. They all still get screwed.
  20. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    I don't care how they "find the money." The fact is it's there and the players aren't getting fairly compensated for what they bring to the program. And I don't care about the tax implications. If players are being paid what they're worth, then they'll figure out the taxes. The money that they have to "come up with" can come from income withholding, just like everyone else in this country.

    You're trolling now right...? Only a true imbecile would claim that coaches salaries have nothing to do with this issue. Are you an imbecile?

    No... the flawed idea is that you can sit here time and time again and claim that essentially every single coach that coached D1 (FBS) football can make a million dollars a year, but the athletes who the fans actually pay to watch can't get paid anything... other than that non-transferrable tuition. Not to mention the money being paid to assistants, trainers, equipment managers, etc. etc. EVERYONE but the players gets compensated fairly. And that's totally fine with you because the players have the opportunity to go take underwater basket weaving and work at McDonald's when they don't make it to the league. It's so aggravating that you just continually ignore that.

    READ THE THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    OK, the top 100 football programs all had an annual revenue of $20mil + in 2008. And they all magically have expenses of $20mil + in 2008. That includes power conferences and mid-majors.

    Do you really not see what's going on here? Just because they spend all the revenue they bring in doesn't mean that they don't have the money to pay their athletes who bring in the fans and sell the merchandise.

    If the smaller schools don't want to pay their recruits, then they don't have to. That's the part of this conversation that you're not getting. If the schools don't want to pay their athletes anything other than the scholarships, and the market doesn't take away those recruits they go after, because they wouldn't get anything more than a scholarship anywhere else, then they can do what they want. The small schools wouldn't get the level of recruits that the big boys would, but that's already happening.

    I'm ONLY against artificially stifling the market for these players' services. If the market doesn't demand that the less touted recruits get paid a salary, then they won't get a salary. If it demands they just get scholarships, then they just get scholarships. Therefore, the smaller schools that you're so concerned about (another anti-union piece of propaganda) wouldn't have to change a thing.

    What's so hard about that?

    I don't care about benefiting the top programs, or whether big or small schools get screwed. I care about the student-athletes being fairly compensated for their services, instead of a bunch of old, out-of-touch dudes, live high off the hog on the backs of student-athletes who are confined to a dorm and a practice facility with nothing to show for it when they're done.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page