What effect will this have on non-revenue sports?

[default]

The whole issue was created by ESPN who is now the industry leader in destroying sports by their policy of interjecting every social issue they can onto sports. If allowed to continue this will hurt the athletes immensely. In appeal the schools will force the exact qualification for employee and then modify how they do things to avoid that threshold but if they don't the effect on other sports will be horrific. The talking heads seem to not consider that of all the college athletes nationwide there are less than 20 players that really have any national appeal that could have any potential impact to revenue that the school wouldn't get without them. That leaves out about 419,980 college athletes left unconsidered. Most go to small college and compete in sports that don't make a dime. What is next. Highschoolers thinking they deserve a cut of the Friday football concessions. Perhaps the colleges should pay the football players. Then make them pay for their own tuition, board, meals, medical, a % of the cost the school incurs to provide the national exposure they get now for free, access to the gym facilties and trainers, % of coaches who provide their instruction. In the end the football players may end up taking loans to cover it

 

[default]

I agree with many in this discussion that the college players' union may not have the horsepower to make itself rise up in power to the likes of other traditional labor unions right now. But what if the NFL/MLB/NBA Players' Unions jumps into this mix? Could the collective bargaining power of these groups provide the influence, pressure, and funding needed to help give the college players the legs it needs to stand up and be heard? This would certainly get the attention of the presidents of the schools because I am guessing, many of these former players also provide big booster dollars to the same universities.

 

[default]

I could be wrong - but I think the filing with the NLRB was strictly based on football and basketball. But I believe that the NLRB ruled that scholarship athletes were in fact employees. Their ruling seems to expand on the filing - which isn't unusual.

CAPA is focused on the revenue sports, football and basketball. It's interesting because most unions want to expand their membership to more classes of workers. A lot of companies have a mix of multiple bargaining units and nonunion, so I think CAPA should be able to maintain their narrow focus. I suspect they'll have to include women's basketball.

If CAPA was sincere about their goals, they would include all student-athletes.

 

[default]

So supposedly they say their #1 goal is health insurance, and they cite concussions, etc. Am I missing something?? As far as I know, today's student athletes must have health insurance coverage through the school if they don't through their families (my DD did at a D3 school), and they're not going to be covered 10-20 years from now if there are lingering effects by that old insurance policy when they are no longer "employees". Sounds like a PR ploy to get public support so they can ultimately just get paid.

And if this only applies to private schools, I guess a school like Northwestern will just be able to land all the Big 10 recruits going to the other schools, huh?

Stupid ...

 

[default]

I could be wrong here, but I don't see women's basketball being profitable for universities. There are a very few that have a large following, that would be the exception not the norm. I don't know many people that would attend a game if the tickets were free.

 

[default]

I could be wrong here, but I don't see women's basketball being profitable for universities. There are a very few that have a large following, that would be the exception not the norm. I don't know many people that would attend a game if the tickets were free.

I wasn't saying CAPA wants women's basketball - I suspect any union for basketball would have to take the women too.

 

[default]

Got it.

 

[default]

Doesn't the NCAA still control rules for amateurism? They can rule anyone joining such a union loses amateur status and is no longer eligible to play in NCAA sanctioned events, the schools that had their players join the union would have to form a different league and not compete with the rest of college football.

Also I don't see how the could keep athletes from other sports from joining, if the ruling is a student athlete receiving scholarship is a employee of the school then I would think I would have to extend to any scholarship athlete.

 

[default]

Doesn't the NCAA still control rules for amateurism? They can rule anyone joining such a union loses amateur status and is no longer eligible to play in NCAA sanctioned events, the schools that had their players join the union would have to form a different league and not compete with the rest of college football.

Also I don't see how the could keep athletes from other sports from joining, if the ruling is a student athlete receiving scholarship is a employee of the school then I would think I would have to extend to any scholarship athlete.

You comment raises another interesting question. Doesn't the NCAA regulate the amount of work hours a student athlete can work during their season - and especially when employed by their university?

 

[default]

So non-scholarship athletes aren't eligible to join the union then? How's that going to be for team unity (will the walk-ons be considered scabs)? It will be interesting to see what kind of season Northwestern has this fall.

 

[default]

Quite simply this is a money grab by the unions. You see this all over the country where the unions are making attempts to infiltrate large money non-union companies and organizations. How much would a union charge the athlete for their union dues to supposedly represent their interests? In some ways you could almost classify the NCAA as a form of union already governing the student athletes. Yes, I agree that the NCAA needs to address many issues around the money in D1 football and basketball. But unions are not the answer.

 

[default]

Quite simply this is a money grab by the unions. You see this all over the country where the unions are making attempts to infiltrate large money non-union companies and organizations. How much would a union charge the athlete for their union dues to supposedly represent their interests? In some ways you could almost classify the NCAA as a form of union already governing the student athletes. Yes, I agree that the NCAA needs to address many issues around the money in D1 football and basketball. But unions are not the answer.

We would not even be discussing athletes becoming part of a union if the NCAA would have listened years ago and actually made changes to benefit these athletes. College Football players have had to watch the NCAA and their Universities get rich on things like jersey/memorabilia sales, while they are not allowed to even get a free Tattoo.

It just took an ex College Football player like Cain Colter to push the issue so far that the courts got invloved. After all, the NCAA has known there has been a problem for years and has refused to listen that things need to change. I bet they listen now.

 

[default]

Just 1 example of College Administration getting rich off of College Athletes:
When Ohio State wrestler Logan Stieber won the 141-pound wrestling NCAA championship last week, he triggered a bonus in the contract of Gene Smith, the Buckeyes' athletic director.For Stieber's triumph, Smith, whose base pay is nearly $940,484, picked up an additional week of compensation – about $18,000. Smith gets that anytime an Ohio State athlete wins an individual national title in cross country, track, wrestling, swimming, diving, synchronized swimming, fencing, golf, gymnastics, tennis or rifle and pistol, according to his current seven-year contract.

The bonus for Logan Stieber, redshirt junior from little Monroeville, Ohio, for winning that NCAA title he trained relentlessly for was … ZERO!!

Somebody explain to me what Gene Smith had to do with Logan Stieber winning a National Championship

 

[default]

Just 1 example of College Administration getting rich off of College Athletes:


Somebody explain to me what Gene Smith had to do with Logan Stieber winning a National Championship

The same explanation as when a CEO gets a 7 figure bonus when Joe the plumber did all the grunt work.......

 

[default]

Sorry, but I had to resurrect this thread.

We talked about this subject on The Softball Zone radio show last night, and this is the one subject where I disagreed with some of the other co-hosts. One of the things I am hearing is that these athletes are "working" 30-40 hours per week, and the schools and NCAA are making millions on them. So yes, this is true, but no one is forcing them to accept these "jobs", and I think they are being pretty well "paid". In the case of Northwestern, if they are getting a full ride on tuition and room and board, that costs the rest of us out here who are not D1 athletes $60,000/year. If they are say "working" 45 weeks a year for 35 hours per week, that amounts to $38/hour of tax-free "income". And oh by the way, those millions the schools might make on their football progam is what funds the softball program.

Are there any of us whose daughters play softball that wouldn't be happy with this or, if softball was a revenue-generating sport, we would insist that our daughters should get more?? Or are we just happy with the free education and a wonderful experience to treasure for the rest of their lives? Is the NCAA and today's system that messed up that we need to see a change that potentially could have the impact of taking out softball programs altogether and/or a solution which puts money in the pockets of college athletes while the rest of us poor schmucks end up somehow eventually picking up the tab through higher tuition rates, ticket prices, etc.?

Sorry, but I still don't get it ... the NCAA no doubt has some things they need to address, but school and amateur sports are one of the greatest things about this country, and I have zero empathy for student athletes (or their supporters) thinking they should get a bigger piece of the pie ... especially when you know that will result in the rest of us getting a smaller piece of pie or no piece at all.

I wish I had stated my position better last night!

 

[default]

Unlimited meals and snacks for D1 student athletes. This should add a little more fuel to the fire.

Unlimited meals, snacks for student-athletes - NCAA Football - Sporting News

 

[default]

What changes? Now there is no limit on how much free food you can eat. Mike Golic was applauding this change (lol).

What's next? Maybe they'll stop giving scholarships then what will the players do? No 18/19 year old football player can play in NFL.

 

[default]

I can't find what specifically is changing. Here is the NCAA announcement - NCAA committee approves expanded meal allowances for athletes | NCAA.com.

The "incidental to participation" sounds like they're loosening the regs on training-table meals so they're treated the same as game-related meals. Currently, these meals are deducted from board allowances and walk-ons have to pay for them.

 

[default]

Pretty much how I read it is If your a D1 Athlete your getting a meal card. If you have a full scholarship this is up and beyond it.( dont quite understand that part ) The dd says how it was explained to them today is that if your scholarship did not include meals,It pretty much will now. Even if you are playing on the team with no Athletic monies given in a scholarship.

She also made the comment that the academic student body was up in arms over this decision. Will be interesting to see how it plays out