You're really going to have to explain what costs you are talking about I guess.... I tried to read your mind and assumed you were talking about literal costs. I guess you're not talking about literal costs. So tell me what costs you're talking about. I'm not the one trying to dodge the discussion. You're throwing out vague talking points and not elaborating.
In order to unionize, you must be what first? You must be a EMPLOYEE. What does that mean? What does that mean for future health considerations? What does that mean for things like long term benfits etc.? There are multiple long term financial consideration that are going to have to be taken into consideration here, to say nothing of actual salaries that might be necessary for every scholarshipped player at any given University.
What do Unions do when they come into a work environment? How do Unions keep membership? What does that mean for long term cost analysis?
You know this Pep and if you don't, then all you have to do is read the thread because they've already been discussed.
What is utopian about saying the terms student-athlete and employee are not mutually exclusive? I'm not following.
Nothing, in and of itself. What is Utopian is the concept of Unionization of Collegiate Sports and believing that this will somehow all work out and nobody is going to suffer as a result. That's simply not going to be the case IMO.
No they won't... The student-athletes who don't get paid would presumably still have their education paid for through scholarships.
Really, how's that going to work and which athletes are going to get paid and which ones are not?
Or are you fearful that the schools will pay millions of dollars to 10 athletes or so, and not have the ability to fill out the rest of the team? That doesn't sound very rational.
Not at all. I'm worried that eventually, all athletes will have to be paid, and not just in salaries but with long term benefits. I'm worried that this will become to costly and it will eventually kill lots of smaller schools sports programs.
I'm explaining to you how student-athletes won't get screwed. You haven't said anything substantive other than a bunch of baseless fear mongering.
No. Your explaining to me how you think this won't happen. I think you are fooling yourself if you don't believe that this will not eventually evolve into what Unions have done in every segment of Unionized work force. They always try to increase benefits with little to no regard for the long term health of the industry. This will eventually happen to College Athletics as well, if Unionized. I'd bet my life on it.
Maybe if you were making legit points, then I wouldn't think that.
Yeah, that's it. Nobody here understands or has a legitimate point. Think what you will. I'm pretty sure you and I both know that what you are eluding to here is not reasonable.
Believe what? That taxpayers who have jobs and pay taxes on income are different than student-athletes who get no transferable compensation that they can negotiate based on what the market would demand? Yeah, what a crazy concept.
It is a crazy concept. It's crazy because I don't see how people can not see the long term financial feasibility of Unionization as a death toll for smaller programs and their athletes. I just don't understand it but I suppose we will see.
What does Detroit have to do with the Northwestern players' union and college football conferences? Try debating the relevant points instead of throwing in red herrings everywhere.
Why is it a red herring? Simply because you don't want to face that very inconvenient fact? What does Detroit have to do with Northwestern? Humm......... Let me think about that.
Detroit was about as heavily Union as any place in America at one time. Now look at Detroit. You know what the correlation is here but you don't want to answer. You can't tell the Pro Union story without also facing the facts of what Unions do. Detroit is a glaring example of what Unions can do. Red Herring........ OK.
