Northwestern Univ. football players attempts to unionize

[rams80]

So a friend keeps telling me that the student-athletes are not getting shafted, he says that they dont get to pay off loans till your out of college, that if u get hurt disibality will cover it, all students get free health care while in college. Saying that student loans cover living expenses. State aid and that they save 110,000 total over a 4 year period. i think he is wrong, who is correct?

1) Ask Kent Waldrep if you get disability

2) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....No, students have to buy insurance or at least have some proof of being on an insurance plan.

[Burkell007]

So a friend keeps telling me that the student-athletes are not getting shafted, he says that they dont get to pay off loans till your out of college, that if u get hurt disibality will cover it, all students get free health care while in college. Saying that student loans cover living expenses. State aid and that they save 110,000 total over a 4 year period. i think he is wrong, who is correct?

1) Ask Kent Waldrep if you get disability

2) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....No, students have to buy insurance or at least have some proof of being on an insurance plan.

Not even welfare correct??

[Needschat]

So a friend keeps telling me that the student-athletes are not getting shafted, he says that they dont get to pay off loans till your out of college, that if u get hurt disibality will cover it, all students get free health care while in college. Saying that student loans cover living expenses. State aid and that they save 110,000 total over a 4 year period. i think he is wrong, who is correct?

1) Ask Kent Waldrep if you get disability

2) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....No, students have to buy insurance or at least have some proof of being on an insurance plan.

Not even welfare correct??

The paperwork would be a nightmare, but some states might, and the key word is might, allow the injured athlete to receive some Medicare.

[BlueSky]

College players do share some characteristics with university employees. You know, just like these two things share some characteristics:

The average reasonable person without an agenda can view such things and easily tell the difference.

Obviously what has changed in college athletics is the influx of money. It's the same at every level if in different ways. When I was a kid most playground teams and even schools below college level used beat up hand-me-down gear. Everybody had a 2-bar facemask. Now 10-year-olds are lining up in the same equipment and cage facemasks NFL players wear - the only difference is the size. In college it's TV money and big bowl paydays.

It's time to rethink college athletics but unionization is not the answer.

[The_Admiral]

Apples and oranges are both sweet and slightly tart, both are nearly spherical, both have vividly colored skin, and both are good for you. That's why I prefer to say that two different things are like apples and quantum physics.

Not a fan of squashing opposing viewpoints with allegations of agendas! So sinister. People generally have feelings and hopes for outcomes when they discuss things. I would like football to stop hijacking higher education the way it has, because it's really f-cked up.

[BlueSky]

I'm not squashing anyone's viewpoint. For the most part, it's naïve to think people or organizations with something to gain do things out of the goodness of their hearts. The fact is that most have an agenda. Another way of saying it is how economists do: people respond to incentives. In this case, would a union spend X amount of money on this campaign if they had nothing to gain other than improving the lot of the poor suffering college athlete? You know better.

I hope.

I share the feeling you expressed in your last line. But the only way to do that - truly - is to get the money out and make it about sports again. We both know that's not going to happen and that's why I also agree that something needs to change. I simply disagree on that something being union involvement.

[rams80]

College players do share some characteristics with university employees. You know, just like these two things share some characteristics:

The average reasonable person without an agenda can view such things and easily tell the difference.

Obviously what has changed in college athletics is the influx of money. It's the same at every level if in different ways. When I was a kid most playground teams and even schools below college level used beat up hand-me-down gear. Everybody had a 2-bar facemask. Now 10-year-olds are lining up in the same equipment and cage facemasks NFL players wear - the only difference is the size. In college it's TV money and big bowl paydays.

It's time to rethink college athletics but unionization is not the answer.

It'd be a cold day in hell before athletic department admins imposed reform from the top down. Why should they? Most athletic directors nowadays have business backgrounds, not academic or athletic, so all they know is how to cynically exploit the student-athlete myth while cutting benefits and salaries to their employees. It is stupid to have players who cannot pay for their own meals while assistant coaches are getting million-dollar salaries. It may not be a desirable solution, but I can see why the Northwestern athletes opted for it. Waiting for reform is like waiting for Godot.

[IceCap]

I'm not squashing anyone's viewpoint. For the most part, it's naïve to think people or organizations with something to gain do things out of the goodness of their hearts. The fact is that most have an agenda. Another way of saying it is how economists do: people respond to incentives. In this case, would a union spend X amount of money on this campaign if they had nothing to gain other than improving the lot of the poor suffering college athlete? You know better.

By the same argument you should realize that the NCAA has its own motives when it acts the way it does regarding "student athlete" compensation.

I share the feeling you expressed in your last line. But the only way to do that - truly - is to get the money out and make it about sports again. We both know that's not going to happen and that's why I also agree that something needs to change. I simply disagree on that something being union involvement.

If getting the money out is never going to happen, and we can admit that university athletics in the United States is big business, then it stands to reason that it should be treated like any other big business. So I don't see why unionisation is an inappropriate solution.

[BlueSky]

I'm not squashing anyone's viewpoint. For the most part, it's naïve to think people or organizations with something to gain do things out of the goodness of their hearts. The fact is that most have an agenda. Another way of saying it is how economists do: people respond to incentives. In this case, would a union spend X amount of money on this campaign if they had nothing to gain other than improving the lot of the poor suffering college athlete? You know better.

By the same argument you should realize that the NCAA has its own motives when it acts the way it does regarding "student athlete" compensation.

I share the feeling you expressed in your last line. But the only way to do that - truly - is to get the money out and make it about sports again. We both know that's not going to happen and that's why I also agree that something needs to change. I simply disagree on that something being union involvement.

If getting the money out is never going to happen, and we can admit that university athletics in the United States is big business, then it stands to reason that it should be treated like any other big business. So I don't see why unionisation is an inappropriate solution.

1. Agree. Probably disagree on whether it's as cynical as rams80 makes it out to be.

2. A fine job of twisting logic into an especially tight pretzel.

I assume the players will pay dues of course. And strike when they don't get their way? Oh, and the coaches won't be able to bench players who play below their talent level and/or take plays off lest other players stand up for them by refusing to play? Or perhaps their protest will be limited to a "work to rule" action where players technically fulfill their responsibilities but at walking speed?

If you want what you perceive to be the best of unions, you better be prepared to deal with the worst.

Let me restate for the record that I am well aware that management are just as often no angels and if they treated people fairly to begin with, unions would not be needed. There needs to be trust, communication, and respect. It's ugly when things get contentious and it's just absolutely draining for the rest of the organization to be stuck in the middle of it. Trust me, I've been there.

[The_Admiral]

I assume the players will pay dues of course. And strike when they don't get their way? Oh, and the coaches won't be able to bench players who play below their talent level and/or take plays off lest other players stand up for them by refusing to play? Or perhaps their protest will be limited to a "work to rule" action where players technically fulfill their responsibilities but at walking speed?

cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria

Coaches need the authority to bench players who dog it, therefore, no one has the right to collectively bargain for better conditions? What? How many labor stoppages have the pros had over benching guys? And how can you scaremonger about a dreaded strike when every labor stoppage in sports, whether players or officials, in the last twenty years has been management locking out the union? Wouldn't that be a much more likely outcome, given everything we've seen? the colleges shutting down sports to bust the union?

[BlueSky]

I assume the players will pay dues of course. And strike when they don't get their way? Oh, and the coaches won't be able to bench players who play below their talent level and/or take plays off lest other players stand up for them by refusing to play? Or perhaps their protest will be limited to a "work to rule" action where players technically fulfill their responsibilities but at walking speed?

cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria

Coaches need the authority to bench players who dog it, therefore, no one has the right to collectively bargain for better conditions? What? How many labor stoppages have the pros had over benching guys? And how can you scaremonger about a dreaded strike when every labor stoppage in sports, whether players or officials, in the last twenty years has been management locking out the union? Wouldn't that be a much more likely outcome, given everything we've seen? the colleges shutting down sports to bust the union?

You're assuming it would all work the way other sports unions do. Last I checked the steelworkers weren't running the NFLPA. In fact if a sports union was behind this, it might make some sense.

I'll admit my views are influenced by my experiences (yes, "there"). But what you call "scaremongering," I call "reality."

Edit: NM the rest.

[The_Admiral]

The NFLPA has always been the weakest of the four unions. Maybe they could have benefited from an actual union helping them out against Bob Batterman and his thugs. Just as the NFL doesn't wish to upset its comfortable status quo of a free minor league, I can't imagine that the players want to upset it, either, so I wouldn't expect them to back this. That doesn't mean its a bad idea. This was the natural conclusion of one side growing its power and wealth. There was going to be pushback.

And again, I will maintain that no sports fans have greater contempt for the human beings who entertain them than football fans.

[BlueSky]

Why don't we leave it at, "It will be interesting to see how this plays out"?

[dfwabel]

Why don't we leave it at, "It will be interesting to see how this plays out"?

What is interesting is that you seem to be rooting against the three specific items which the players went to the NLRB to ask for which were:

1-Gauranteed scholarships (and establishing an educational trust fund to help former players graduate)

2-Placing independent concussion experts on the sidelines during games

3-“Due Process” before a coach could strip a player of his scholarship for a rules violation.

'BlueSky', how can you be against them having asking to have those three items? The young people who happen to play football at Northwestern, have no other option to go to the NLRB because those basic items do not currently exist. They are items which they do not have and yet you root against them. That's the move of a hater and your problem is both with the players asking as much it is with the specific union who decided to support the College Athletes Players Association

The four/five year scholarship was somewhat addressed already by the NCAA membership when membership failed to override the proposal, but it still up to the individual school. A player can be "dropped" from scholarship for performance reasons at any time.

[rams80]

I'm not squashing anyone's viewpoint. For the most part, it's naïve to think people or organizations with something to gain do things out of the goodness of their hearts. The fact is that most have an agenda. Another way of saying it is how economists do: people respond to incentives. In this case, would a union spend X amount of money on this campaign if they had nothing to gain other than improving the lot of the poor suffering college athlete? You know better.

By the same argument you should realize that the NCAA has its own motives when it acts the way it does regarding "student athlete" compensation.

I share the feeling you expressed in your last line. But the only way to do that - truly - is to get the money out and make it about sports again. We both know that's not going to happen and that's why I also agree that something needs to change. I simply disagree on that something being union involvement.

If getting the money out is never going to happen, and we can admit that university athletics in the United States is big business, then it stands to reason that it should be treated like any other big business. So I don't see why unionisation is an inappropriate solution.

1. Agree. Probably disagree on whether it's as cynical as rams80 makes it out to be.

It's pretty cynical from the top down. The great irony of Myles Brand's efforts to portray himself as a hero to academics and amateurism (based off of his firing of Bobby Knight at Indiana) is that he consistently tried to expand athletics departments at the schools he was President of. Brand, for example, laid the foundation for the Oregon athletic program of today.

2. A fine job of twisting logic into an especially tight pretzel.

The primary reason why unionization gets attacked in this country is that it cuts into the profit margin. Athletic departments, BTW, shouldn't have a profit margin, let alone worry about increasing it. But again, look at who is running athletic departments. Michigan's AD used to be the CEO of Domino's-I'm sure you learn a lot about amateurism and academics there.

BTW, mgoblog as one of its side features tracks Brandon's continuing efforts to monetize everything about the Michigan athletic experience. That's businessman behavior.

I assume the players will pay dues of course. And strike when they don't get their way? Oh, and the coaches won't be able to bench players who play below their talent level and/or take plays off lest other players stand up for them by refusing to play? Or perhaps their protest will be limited to a "work to rule" action where players technically fulfill their responsibilities but at walking speed?

I'm not quite sure whether you can claim a grievance for benching one union player in favor of another. Maybe if you used a walk on, but that seems like a good strategy to get yourself fired as a coach for all the losing. Still Greg Schiano may want to refrain from taking a job at a private institution.

If you want what you perceive to be the best of unions, you better be prepared to deal with the worst.

Let me restate for the record that I am well aware that management are just as often no angels and if they treated people fairly to begin with, unions would not be needed. There needs to be trust, communication, and respect. It's ugly when things get contentious and it's just absolutely draining for the rest of the organization to be stuck in the middle of it. Trust me, I've been there.

"Mess with the bull, get the horns" seems like a good rule for survival.

-----------------------------------------------

As one final bit on the student versus athlete bit, we got to see what it takes for an athlete to get an A- in a class at North Carolina last week.

A plagiarized, one paragraph "final paper" riddled with grammatical errors. Yeah, they're there to be students alright....

[BlueSky]

@ dfwabel, don't play that game. I've said repeatedly that change is needed. I'm not against those things, I'm against the method they're pursuing. But who knows? Maybe the end result of threatening the union course will be reform we can all live with.

But there are already too many people on this board who ignore what people say and throw mud in an effort to distract people and force them to defend baseless accusations instead of discussing the issue. Just say no to that, okay?

I also said that my experience seeing how unions operate in the real world influences my view. I'll bet it would influence yours too if you were an airline passenger and a pilot participating in an illegal work-to-rule action delayed your flight with bogus nitpicks that force maintenance to come out again and again. That's just one of many - and I mean many - such acts I saw. Labor has its place and (again, as I've said) the smartest organizations treat their people in a way that makes unions unnecessary.

[dfwabel]

@ dfwabel, don't play that game. I've said repeatedly that change is needed. I'm not against those things, I'm against the method they're pursuing. But who knows? Maybe the end result of threatening the union course will be reform we can all live with.

But there are already too many people on this board who ignore what people say and throw mud in an effort to distract people and force them to defend baseless accusations instead of discussing the issue. Just say no to that, okay?

I also said that my experience seeing how unions operate in the real world influences my view. I'll bet it would influence yours too if you were an airline passenger and a pilot participating in an illegal work-to-rule action delayed your flight with bogus nitpicks that force maintenance to come out again and again. That's just one of many - and I mean many - such acts I saw. Labor has its place and (again, as I've said) the smartest organizations treat their people in a way that makes unions unnecessary.

What other method(s) do players have? Seriously, if you attend a state school, one has even less options. There is still opposition to having students on any NCAA D-1 Board, which would give them two votes on the 38 member legislative committee.

When the president of the UNC System wants even lighten the academic load for incoming freshmen athletes, it's is about exploiting them even more.

http://www.wral.com/unc-president-lighten-load-for-freshmen-student-athletes/13494135/

[rams80]

@ dfwabel, don't play that game. I've said repeatedly that change is needed. I'm not against those things, I'm against the method they're pursuing. But who knows? Maybe the end result of threatening the union course will be reform we can all live with.

But there are already too many people on this board who ignore what people say and throw mud in an effort to distract people and force them to defend baseless accusations instead of discussing the issue. Just say no to that, okay?

I also said that my experience seeing how unions operate in the real world influences my view. I'll bet it would influence yours too if you were an airline passenger and a pilot participating in an illegal work-to-rule action delayed your flight with bogus nitpicks that force maintenance to come out again and again. That's just one of many - and I mean many - such acts I saw. Labor has its place and (again, as I've said) the smartest organizations treat their people in a way that makes unions unnecessary.

The airline industry sends a couple of hundred people at a time hurtling through the heavens at speeds in excess of 500 mph in machines that weigh in excess of 350 tons. Regardless of how much control the computers have in flight, I would rather we trade "efficiency" and maximized schedules for making sure the damn thing isn't going to unexpectedly fall out of the sky for any reason whatsoever.

[goalieboy82]

if the pay the players, should pay them minimum wage (which is $7.25 an hour). if that doesn't work, should let players do the following

using 2014 ncaa football season an example :

from august 1st 2014 to january 13th 2015, players in college football can not make any money from autographs and selling there memorabilia. after 12:01am on january 15th to 11:59pm july 31st 2015, players can make on autographs and selling there memorabilia.

[The_Admiral]

You used "there" instead of "their" twice. Ritually disembowel yourself.