Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by TDbuff, Jan 28, 2014.
From what I have read it was beyond him being elected as the spokesperson. He was in fact the visionary to get the ball rolling and has been leading the effort along with an ex Bruin and the Steelworks Association. It seems to have some legs although at the moment they could only potentially represent players in private Universities so CU athletes could not be directly involved without more legal work.
It is an uphill battle for them, but if they win a seat at the table to discuss health issues and transfer rules and maybe cost of living stuff I am cool with it. Not so much if they start pushing for salaries as they are getting a free education and they would ruin a lot of ADs
While many unions have outlived their usefulness (except as political tools), they can have positive impact. It'll be interesting to watch this play out.
This will end poorly.
It won't succeed, but is a good first step for student athletes
Good luck getting a job after school.
Interesting. This country needs more unions...as they would help with income inequality...maybe this and the other movements will generate some more momentum nationally.
The players should at least have a seat at the table.
I knew this thread would end badly.
Seriously. Bc90 just had to lob that one in there. I've been sort of thinking popcorn emoticon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Technically, Miami threw the first bomb. BC90 did jump in quite happily though.
Troo. My bad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hey, I'm nothing if not predictable :lol:
Wait for the allbuffs union meeting before you do that so we can debate its merit and put it before a vote (poll.)
Didn't OU and Nebraska try this stunt back in the CFA days?
Kain Colter=Curt Flood?
Yeah, they've got it pretty tough with the scholarship to Northwestern and all.
That's true not every scholarship is equal.
When I heard the story I was thinking that Kain Colter has no future in the NFL but could have a future with the NFLPA.
My understanding, correct it if I am wrong legal beagles, is that in order to form a union recognized under NLRB jurisdiction those who would be members first have to establish an employee/employer relationship. In other words they have to prove that they have a paying job working for the university as players.
The problems with this idea are multiple. First off if they were to establish this relationship then despite what the players say the university would have to meet wage and hour laws, workmens comp laws, and pass EEOC standards including opportunity for women.
This would also mean that not only would football players be employees but so would all other athletes and arguably any and all students recieving financial aid based on any other factor than need that comes from university sources. GAs could claim status, students recieving stipends for university internships could claim status, etc.
In the end I don't see the courts granting them this status. Worst case scenario is that congress pushed by members from college football loving states passes a special exemtion for colleges including their sports programs, similar to anti-trust exemption enjoyed by pro baseball for so many years.
So these young men are getting a free education at one of the top universities in the world and somehow think they are being under compensated. How about taking the effort they are putting into this fiasco and apply it to networking with university alumni. Due to their unique position with the university, they could take the same effort and create life long, extremely beneficial, relationships.
I agree. Im fine with paying them to play so long as all the other perks go away (tuition, books, study table, meals).
While I'm not in favor of paying athletes anything more than a stipend, I must say, I'm surprised how much of the board is in favor of keeping the rules as is.
I personally don't think I would be inclined to watch college sports if athletes became "employees." It would be minor league baseball or the D-League just with the names of colleges attached to them. But that's why they would still draw an audience because nobody graduated from the Colorado Springs Sky Sox or the Idaho Stampede.
How does everyone feel about the Olympic Model? I don't love it but I'm more inclined for that than straight pay. In terms of the argument that it would lead to problems, there's always going to be an abuse of the system.
If you open that door to the olympic model and endorsements, you'll get more than abuse. You may also bring real agents into the picture, which would turn into a mess. With recruiting set up as it is, which makes football and college sports unique, you can't really incorporate professional systems that work elsewhere in the real world.
I think you can add to the current compensation, the full cost of attendance model, and do it across the board--all sports. If you try to add any professional type systems to the college model I believe you'd get a sh*tshow.
They are currently getting paid in excess of $50K/year now. Tuition, training table, books, tutors ... I have no problem with the current system.
The counter-argument is if Johnny Manziel is bringing in hundreds of millions to A&M, why shouldn't he get a larger piece of the pie?
If you were Johnny Manziel would you be happy just getting your scholarship?
I mean you already got that to some extent, University of Maryland athletes have gotten internships with Under Armour. Sure they are supposed to get it on merit, but that doesn't always happen.
I hate this argument. All this does is separate the haves from the have-nots even more ---
You don't think A&M, Bama, Oregon, USC, etc. will be able to show that you'll make more money at their school than Utah, Colorado, Missouri, Maryland, etc.? And yes, I realize people accuse the SEC of paying people already - but if you pay for autograhs, kids are going to choose the schools where the fans will actually PAY for an autograph. I love PRich but not sure I would've given him money to sign anything. That's the difference between me and people who poison trees over a football game though.
If you believe in the free market, you wouldn't have a problem with this.
So basically's you're advocating Universities start running minor league sports programs.
As long as college athletes are college students, Title 9 applies. You cannot pay Johnny Manziel $1 million a year without paying your worst female swimmer too. There's no getting around that.
In order to start paying athletes significant chunks of cash, you'd have to drop them as students. Is this reaalllly the road you want to go down?
No I'm not advocating that, but Universities essentially already are running minor league sports programs. The sports leagues are all happy that they have a minor league system to evaluate players and they are absolved of any responsibility.
Not sure if your Title IX argument flies. Marianne Stanley when she was coach of USC sued(and lost) that she should be paid the same as the men's basketball coach because they had similar records.
Title IX ensures that the genders are equally represented.
Separate names with a comma.