Pat Fitzgerald urges against union

[ABQCOWBOY]

No. That's wrong. That's why I'm saying it's been verified by statements from other athletes and by the actions of the NCAA. That's called corroborating evidence.

Your logic is twisted. A person is subject to examination regardless of the motivation. The fact that money is a topic of discussion doesn't mean they're lying or saying outlandish things. The NCAA also has monetary interests involved in this discussion, but you believe them and not Napier... why is that?

You really need to lighten up. It's not "shameful" or dishonest to say you're starving when you're not. It's a colloquialism that's not meant to be taken literally.

I suppose you are right. It is proof, of making a dishonest claim. I stand corrected.

And I've asked you to provide proof of these other claims. Further, you still have not proven that this has any barring on athletes and how dietary requirements are imposed by their coaches with regards to dietary requirements. What the NCAA basically allowed for was an expanded offering of the existing 3 meals a day or STIPENDS, which have been allowed all along, to athletes for meals. So you see, the ability for athletes to eat has always been there. The move that has recently been announced has actually been on the table for 9 months but has only recently been approved for vote in the last few days, based on the statements of Napier. The reality is that this will not change anything. If you want to play, you will eat what your Coach suggests and when they suggest or you will find yourself on the bench or off the team. I guess it's up to each individual player but what this really does is it takes the hammer out of the hands of the player or the Union. This probably means no more Stipends and it also probably means that the argument of needing money to eat is also off the table. A positive move all around for all involved IMO.

I agree. A person is subject to examination at almost any time. Napier fails the examination, as do the claims that these kids are starving, IMO. As to the NCAA, what have they claimed? Outline those and we can summarily discuss them.

Perhaps you need to toughen up? There is no reason to use false justification such as, "I'm Starving at night" to try and justify payment of College Athletes. As has been mentioned, the fact that the NCAA is trying to address that is proof that payment is not necessary. If you want to eat healthy foods at 12:00 PM, they will be made available to you, as an athlete. Problem solved.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Are you arguing that the letter of intent is a contract that regulates the diets of the student-athlete? Really? That's the tactic you want to take in this argument?

No, I'm arguing your relevance, or anybodies, in the entire process. However, since you bring it up, yes. I am saying that dietary requirements are within the bounds of a Coaching Staff, with regards to Athletes. Do you have something that suggest otherwise?

 

[peplaw06]

I suppose you are right. It is proof, of making a dishonest claim. I stand corrected.

No. Wrong again. It is proof.

And I've asked you to provide proof of these other claims.

I didn't make the statement, Napier did. I can't prove it beyond all of ABQCowboys' doubts. Nor can you prove to me that he's lying. But I guess if you're going to keep asking for something I've told you I can't provide, then I'll ask you to prove to me that he's lying beyond all my doubts that he's not.

What the NCAA basically allowed for was an expanded offering of the existing 3 meals a day or STIPENDS, which have been allowed all along, to athletes for meals.

Oh hey... at least you acknowledge the existence of this corroborating evidence.

So you see, the ability for athletes to eat has always been there.

I've never said the athletes have not had the ability to eat. They have the ability to eat, but it's been restricted by the rules of the NCAA.

The move that has recently been announced has actually been on the table for 9 months but has only recently been approved for vote in the last few days, based on the statements of Napier.

Sooooo, then we agree that the NCAA is trying to take action to correct an issue brought up by Napier's statements. Thanks. That's all I needed to hear.

The reality is that this will not change anything. If you want to play, you will eat what your Coach suggests and when they suggest or you will find yourself on the bench or off the team. I guess it's up to each individual player but what this really does is it takes the hammer out of the hands of the player or the Union. This probably means no more Stipends and it also probably means that the argument of needing money to eat is also off the table. A positive move all around for all involved IMO.

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

I agree. A person is subject to examination at almost any time. Napier fails the examination, as do the claims that these kids are starving, IMO. As to the NCAA, what have they claimed? Outline those and we can summarily discuss them.

Unfortunately, you've already recognized that the NCAA is taking action to correct an issue brought up by Napier... Their actions corroborate his issue. It's been proven, Napier was right. But for some reason you're still arguing the point.

Perhaps you need to toughen up? There is no reason to use false justification such as, "I'm Starving at night" to try and justify payment of College Athletes. As has been mentioned, the fact that the NCAA is trying to address that is proof that payment is not necessary. If you want to eat healthy foods at 12:00 PM, they will be made available to you, as an athlete. Problem solved.

LOL... "problem solved." You think the whole debate over whether student-athletes should be paid is simply over the issue food? LOLOLOLOL

 

[peplaw06]

No, I'm arguing your relevance, or anybodies, in the entire process. However, since you bring it up, yes. I am saying that dietary requirements are within the bounds of a Coaching Staff, with regards to Athletes. Do you have something that suggest otherwise?

I don't think you even know what you're saying. "No.... However.... yes..... Do you have something that suggests otherwise?"

Suggests something other than what? No or yes?

Try responding to the question, instead of trying to jump ahead in the debate.

Do you think student-athletes sign a contract with the school that lets the school dictate their diets? Yes or no?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think you even know what you're saying. "No.... However.... yes..... Do you have something that suggests otherwise?"

Suggests something other than what? No or yes?

So then, based on your response, may I conclude that you do not have anything to suggest that a Coaching Staff is not well within their rights to regulate dietary requirements for Athletes who have agreed to play under Scholarship?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No. Wrong again. It is proof.

Proof of what?

I didn't make the statement, Napier did. I can't prove it beyond all of ABQCowboys' doubts. Nor can you prove to me that he's lying. But I guess if you're going to keep asking for something I've told you I can't provide, then I'll ask you to prove to me that he's lying beyond all my doubts that he's not.

I'm not asking you to prove it beyond ABQs doubts. I'm asking you to offer any proof of your statement. "it's been verified by statements from other athletes and by the actions of the NCAA. That's called corroborating evidence." That's not an unreasonable request.

Oh hey... at least you acknowledge the existence of this corroborating evidence.

But you didn't respond to the actual statement. You didn't respond to the fact that the ability for athletes to go out and buy or have meals available to them was already in place. IE, the need to get paid in order to avoid starvation argument is baseless.

I've never said the athletes have not had the ability to eat. They have the ability to eat, but it's been restricted by the rules of the NCAA.

But you also never admitted that this ability has been there all along, even before the recent rules change.

Sooooo, then we agree that the NCAA is trying to take action to correct an issue brought up by Napier's statements. Thanks. That's all I needed to hear.

I would describe it as appease but if you wish to say correct, I have no objections to that. At the end of the day, the facts remain the same. These Athletes had access to food. They also had access to funds to allow them to go out and eat, at any time, via Stipend. If it makes you more at ease to declare victory, based on the factual statement that the NCAA has been considering this most recent change for 9 months and has only now offered it up for vote, and I free acknowledge that it is probably because of the recent statements by Napier (truthful or otherwise), that is complete acceptable by me. I am actually happy that you feel better about this entire discussion.

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

I own no such device but if I did, I feel confident that it would not help you see the truth. Discovery is critical to the process and with answers such as this, you only stifle that process.

Unfortunately, you've already recognized that the NCAA is taking action to correct an issue brought up by Napier... Their actions corroborate his issue. It's been proven, Napier was right. But for some reason you're still arguing the point.

If you say so, however I do not view it as unfortunate. On the contrary, in fact. I will happily concede the point if it means that players do not need to get paid so that they can have money in their pockets to stave off starvation at night via the late night trek to McDonalds for a Happy Meal. I am only too happy to do so.

LOL... "problem solved." You think the whole debate over whether student-athletes should be paid is simply over the issue food? LOLOLOLOL

Not at all. In fact, I don't think that point was even the slightest bit germaine to the subject of College Players needing to get paid but I can only discuss what you bring to the table. This, after all, was apparently the best justification you could bring for discussion so I tried to discuss it.

The truth is that nobody is Starving. That's probably a fabrication from Napier in order to justify College Players getting paid. A play for sympathy from the general public, so to speak, but not really factual in content IMO. It's pretty common when things are argued in the court of public opinion I think.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

In regards to the original topic, I don't necessarily believe players NEED to be paid so much as they should have the ability to negotiate their potential ability to be paid, per conference. It should be mandatory that the players are provided medical benefits. Out of the many class-action lawsuits against the NCAA, which are all valid IMO, the most egregious is the mandate the NCAA places over the universities that forces them to only give scholarships on an annual basis. It makes the student-athlete less of a student than purely academic students. Which if the many restrictions placed upon athletes to prevent them from taking advantage of their "athlete" status is to be believed, shows blatant hypocrisy.

A basketball player who rarely sees the floor, but had a 3.6 GPA....should not lose his scholarship because the AD hired a new coach who wants to give his scholarship to a new recruit. This would never happen to a regular student with the same GPA. Coaches "highly suggest" players not choose a major with a heavy workload, and are routinely told you are here to play _____ sport first, student second. These practices should be eliminated first, before the NCAA can realistically say not a single dime of the untaxed billions it earns should go to "amateurs."

It would be a step in the right direction if the restrictions against players getting endorsements were removed as well. A university can sell a jersey with a kid's name on it for $60, but the kid can't sign his name on a piece of paper for a penny without getting suspended? Preposterous.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

In regards to the original topic, I don't necessarily believe players NEED to be paid so much as they should have the ability to negotiate their potential ability to be paid, per conference. It should be mandatory that the players are provided medical benefits. Out of the many class-action lawsuits against the NCAA, which are all valid IMO, the most egregious is the mandate the NCAA places over the universities that forces them to only give scholarships on an annual basis. It makes the student-athlete less of a student than purely academic students. Which if the many restrictions placed upon athletes to prevent them from taking advantage of their "athlete" status is to be believed, shows blatant hypocrisy.

A basketball player who rarely sees the floor, but had a 3.6 GPA....should not lose his scholarship because the AD hired a new coach who wants to give his scholarship to a new recruit. This would never happen to a regular student with the same GPA. Coaches "highly suggest" players not choose a major with a heavy workload, and are routinely told you are here to play _____ sport first, student second. These practices should be eliminated first, before the NCAA can realistically say not a single dime of the untaxed billions it earns should go to "amateurs."

It would be a step in the right direction if the restrictions against players getting endorsements were removed as well. A university can sell a jersey with a kid's name on it for $60, but the kid can't sign his name on a piece of paper for a penny without getting suspended? Preposterous.

I really have no issues with anything you say here. I think that all of these points are fairly reasonable at first glance.

 

[peplaw06]

So then, based on your response, may I conclude that you do not have anything to suggest that a Coaching Staff is not well within their rights to regulate dietary requirements for Athletes who have agreed to play under Scholarship?

Of course you couldn't just answer the direct question.

I don't think dietary requirements are relevant to the discussion of student-athletes going to bed hungry. I don't think Napier was saying that he went to bed hungry cause the coaches wouldn't let him eat cereal in his room at 1:30 am. He's more likely saying he went to bed hungry because he was either out of the meals he was allotted or because he was up late and the campus would facilitate a late night meal.

But if you want to claim these athletes are employees, and the coaches can regulate their diets as an employer would regulate the habits of an employee, then get after it. I happen to still think that's wrong. Even in the NFL, every player has the right to eat however they want to eat.

Now, they are under contract and if they are not in shape for whatever reason, they are subject to being cut. But if Tony Romo wants to make a late night run to Whataburger, he's free to do so. He may need to run a little more the next day, or what have you... but he can do it. I don't think the standard NFL deal says that a player cannot eat after 8:00 p.m. or something along those lines.

All this line of thinking does though is torpedo your overarching position that the student-athletes are just students and not employees.

 

[peplaw06]

Proof of what?

Jesus. It's proof of what is occurring!!!! OBTUSE!!!

I'm not asking you to prove it beyond ABQs doubts. I'm asking you to offer any proof of your statement. "it's been verified by statements from other athletes and by the actions of the NCAA. That's called corroborating evidence." That's not an unreasonable request.

I've already provided those. Jabari Parker has corroborated Napier's statements, as have others. And the NCAA has now come out saying they are pushing for players to have unlimited meals and snacks. Those ACTIONS corroborate and verify Napier's statements ring true.

But you didn't respond to the actual statement. You didn't respond to the fact that the ability for athletes to go out and buy or have meals available to them was already in place. IE, the need to get paid in order to avoid starvation argument is baseless.

Apparently not, given the actions of the NCAA.

But you also never admitted that this ability has been there all along, even before the recent rules change.

I admitted it in the statement you quoted. Reading is fundamental.

I would describe it as appease but if you wish to say correct, I have no objections to that. At the end of the day, the facts remain the same. These Athletes had access to food. They also had access to funds to allow them to go out and eat, at any time, via Stipend. If it makes you more at ease to declare victory, based on the factual statement that the NCAA has been considering this most recent change for 9 months and has only now offered it up for vote, and I free acknowledge that it is probably because of the recent statements by Napier (truthful or otherwise), that is complete acceptable by me. I am actually happy that you feel better about this entire discussion.

They had access to food. They didn't have unlimited access to food... if they did, then the NCAA wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Do you see the difference between those two statements?

I own no such device but if I did, I feel confident that it would not help you see the truth. Discovery is critical to the process and with answers such as this, you only stifle that process.

How do you discovery what is going to happen in the future?

If you say so, however I do not view it as unfortunate. On the contrary, in fact. I will happily concede the point if it means that players do not need to get paid so that they can have money in their pockets to stave off starvation at night via the late night trek to McDonalds for a Happy Meal. I am only too happy to do so.

It's unfortunate to your position that Napier was lying. The NCAA doesn't think he was lying.

Not at all. In fact, I don't think that point was even the slightest bit germaine to the subject of College Players needing to get paid but I can only discuss what you bring to the table. This, after all, was apparently the best justification you could bring for discussion so I tried to discuss it.

You didn't think it was germain to the discussion of players getting paid that they were saying they had gone to bed hungry? Are you serious?

The truth is that nobody is Starving. That's probably a fabrication from Napier in order to justify College Players getting paid. A play for sympathy from the general public, so to speak, but not really factual in content IMO. It's pretty common when things are argued in the court of public opinion I think.

1) No one is starving. No one is arguing that they are starving. This is just you taking things to literally.

2) It's not a fabrication to say he's been starving when he's been hungry. It's a hyperbolic comment to try to make a point. Happens all the time. And it's been effective as seen by the NCAA taking such quick action.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Of course you couldn't just answer the direct question.

I don't think dietary requirements are relevant to the discussion of student-athletes going to bed hungry. I don't think Napier was saying that he went to bed hungry cause the coaches wouldn't let him eat cereal in his room at 1:30 am. He's more likely saying he went to bed hungry because he was either out of the meals he was allotted or because he was up late and the campus would facilitate a late night meal.

But if you want to claim these athletes are employees, and the coaches can regulate their diets as an employer would regulate the habits of an employee, then get after it. I happen to still think that's wrong. Even in the NFL, every player has the right to eat however they want to eat.

Now, they are under contract and if they are not in shape for whatever reason, they are subject to being cut. But if Tony Romo wants to make a late night run to Whataburger, he's free to do so. He may need to run a little more the next day, or what have you... but he can do it. I don't think the standard NFL deal says that a player cannot eat after 8:00 p.m. or something along those lines.

All this line of thinking does though is torpedo your overarching position that the student-athletes are just students and not employees.

He is entitled to 3 meals a day at an all you can eat Cafeteria. You think that this young man is regularly running out of allotted meals and thus, hungry? OK. Does that really sound like the NCAA's or the Universities failure?

I think you are limiting my statement. I would also say that your choice of wording, IE, Limit, is wrong. I think it is the right of the University and or coaching staff to regulate an athletes diet, employee or otherwise. That is more representative of what I was trying to convey. In the NFL, that is absolutely a false statement. In the off season, that might be true but not during the season in many cases. Players are often but on very strictly regimented diets. That's not even debatable.

As to your conclusions on my "overarching position", you are incorrect. I have never made any statement, whatsoever on what my opinion is on the status of these Athletes. I have only said that if they decide to unionize and forgo their Status as Student Athletes, the repercussions of such a decision could be disastrous for smaller collegiate sports programs and Athletes. Anything else you may attribute to my stated position on the subject is of your own making.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Jesus. It's proof of what is occurring!!!! OBTUSE!!!

Do not lose control again.

It is clear that you and I can not discuss this matter. I don't agree with you. I accept that you do not agree with me. I can leave it at that.

 

[Rogah]

No, I'm saying he's not literally starving... He's gone to bed hungry, and I don't doubt that for a second.

Well, like I said.... I go to bed hungry about 5-6 days a week too.

 

[Rogah]

Jesus. It's proof of what is occurring!!!! OBTUSE!!!

 

[peplaw06]

Well, like I said.... I go to bed hungry about 5-6 days a week too.

Good for you... hopefully you are working a job where you can make money and can fix the problem if you are so inclined.

 

[peplaw06]

He is entitled to 3 meals a day at an all you can eat Cafeteria. You think that this young man is regularly running out of allotted meals and thus, hungry? OK. Does that really sound like the NCAA's or the Universities failure?

I'm not saying it happens regularly. I'm saying it happens... either he runs out of meals to sustain him or he's not able to eat late at night. I remember when I was a college student and if I had to be done eating at 7:00 p.m. I would be hungry late at night if I had to study or something. It's a failure of the system.

I think you are limiting my statement. I would also say that your choice of wording, IE, Limit, is wrong. I think it is the right of the University and or coaching staff to regulate an athletes diet, employee or otherwise. That is more representative of what I was trying to convey. In the NFL, that is absolutely a false statement. In the off season, that might be true but not during the season in many cases. Players are often but on very strictly regimented diets. That's not even debatable.

Show me one NFL contract that strictly regulates a NFL players' diet. Come on, prove it. The coaches may suggest a regimented diet, but it's not contractual. That means the players still have the right to eat how they see fit, and they have to deal with the consequences everyone else does if they eat unhealthy.

I don't have to eat healthy, but I choose to more often than not because of the consequences if I do not. If it's a choice, I have no problem. If a student-athlete is actually prohibited from eating what, when, and how he wants, I have a problem.

As to your conclusions on my "overarching position", you are incorrect. I have never made any statement, whatsoever on what my opinion is on the status of these Athletes. I have only said that if they decide to unionize and forgo their Status as Student Athletes, the repercussions of such a decision could be disastrous for smaller collegiate sports programs and Athletes. Anything else you may attribute to my stated position on the subject is of your own making.

Please... you don't want them to unionize and you don't want them to get paid, and your position in all of this stems from that. You can't even articulate why you don't want these things. It's an anti-union thing and a fear to change.

 

[Rogah]

Good for you... hopefully you are working a job where you can make money and can fix the problem if you are so inclined.

Only it's not a problem. Having a good dinner at 6:00 is healthy.

 

[Rogah]

Show me one NFL contract that strictly regulates a NFL players' diet. Come on, prove it. The coaches may suggest a regimented diet, but it's not contractual. That means the players still have the right to eat how they see fit, and they have to deal with the consequences everyone else does if they eat unhealthy.

Plenty of pro football players have contractual obligations and/or incentives to maintain certain weights. Your ignorance of this does not mandate I spoon feed you such examples.

 

[peplaw06]

Only it's not a problem. Having a good dinner at 6:00 is healthy.

That may be true... but it's not relevant to the issue. If you are hungry before you go to bed, and you feel inclined to remedy that, then you have the ability and the autonomy to do so. Who is anyone to tell you that you can't?

Plenty of pro football players have contractual obligations and/or incentives to maintain certain weights. Your ignorance of this does not mandate I spoon feed you such examples.

A contractual term to maintain weight isn't the same thing as preventing a player from eating certain foods or eating at certain times. A player can still eat what he wants, when he wants, and run/sweat his butt off the next day to make weight. Sure, if the player doesn't want to do hours of conditioning the next day, he can CHOOSE to eat healthier. But it's not a contractual mandate. And incentives are not mandatory either. If they miss out on a bonus or something because they don't make weight, that's not the same as actually prohibiting a player from eating how and when he wants. You fail.

Let's try to put this another way to see if you and ABQ can understand where I'm coming from.....

Let's say hypothetically, that as a part of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate that all US citizens have health insurance, there is a part of the law that dictates that persons shall live a healthy lifestyle. The government decides that all restaurants and grocery stores (anywhere that sells food) must now be closed by 7:00 p.m. local time. All citizens are mandated to eat dinner by no later than 7:00 p.m. The government takes whatever steps necessary to enforce this law... because hey, it's for your own good. People will be healthier and the country will save on medical and insurance costs.

You okay with that?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

N'western co-captain talks union
Updated: April 27, 2014, 12:19 AM ET
By Darren Rovell | ESPN.com


Northwestern center Brandon Vitabile said Saturday that he believes the team's vote to unionize won't pass because it just doesn't make sense for enough of the players, and not because of any anti-union rhetoric from the university.

"Before January, when this all started, we didn't hear of anyone on our team who asked for something and didn't get it," the redshirt senior and co-captain said. "So I'm not sure why we needed to change anything."


"No coach or anyone from the school ever threatened us," said Vitabile, who has started in 38 straight games. "And that whole idea that someone who voted pro-union wouldn't play or would get penalized in any way was total nonsense."

Click here to read entire article:
http://espn.go.com/college-football...-co-captain-says-union-not-necessary-our-team