Northwestern football players win bid to unionize

[Knicks411]

The real question here is will NW be a trend setter or simply put themselves on an island?

For now, this only applies to private schools.

I am saying if Tyler Ennis was playing in the D-League, no one would want his shirt or at least not nearly the number that want it today. On a D-league team, Ennis would just not get the fan loyalty he gets at a college...nor would he get the attention. So what's the difference. Is it Tyler Ennis or the his affiliation with a college team?

That's true, but that fan affiliation was also built on the back of lots of players that came before him.

As I've said, I don't know what a perfect answer is. But I don't like the NCAA, and if someone buys a Tyler Ennis jersey, I think he should see some of that money. And people want specifically Tyler Ennis jerseys, they aren't buying any BJ Johnson or Ron Patterson jerseys.

But you are right some of it has to do with the SU brand. Which is fine; is anyone saying Tyler Ennis should get every dollar from his jerseys?

 

[javadoc]

But I don't like the NCAA, and if someone buys a Tyler Ennis jersey, I think he should see some of that money. And people want specifically Tyler Ennis jerseys, they aren't buying any BJ Johnson or Ron Patterson jerseys

Hey kid, come here to play football. We have a wealthy booster who promises to buy 100,00o of your jerseys. Your take from it would be $100K! And then he is going to distribute the jerseys to underprivileged kids. Your name will be everywhere!

 

[tep624]

The pool of schools offering full athletic football scholarships is going to decrease significantly if we head into a collective bargaining atmosphere. The ironic thing is that the very players fighting to be unionized are the very same players that are going to be negatively affected by this in the long run. Private universities and Mid-Major conference programs are going to have some difficult decisions to make.

 

[OrangePA]

Bad ruling.

Lack of wisdom - black letter analysis.

Silly.

And for almost all college athletes, a really misguided result.

 

[javadoc]

The pool of schools offering full athletic football scholarships is going to decrease significantly if we head into a collective bargaining atmosphere. The ironic thing is that the very players fighting to be unionized are the very same players that are going to be negatively affected by this in the long run. Private universities and Mid-Major conference programs are going to have some difficult decisions to make.

Congress will become interested when the issue is framed as costing a college education for thousands of minority kids.

 

[HtownOrange]

These students may not get what they think they are bargaining for. If it is done via individual schools, most schools will not be able to fork out the big bucks and the kids will be lucky to break even, essentially what they have now.

bargaining is via conference or division, the financially weakest school is likely to be the standard so as not to weaken the conference or league, again no significant gain. Additionally, I would suspect that there would also be included a real academic clause, let's call this the "SEC" clause which would measure academic performance to verify players are actually students.

These agreements are not just worked one way, to get something a party must give up something in return.

 

[Cheriehoop]

If I create a patent while working for my company, I don't get the royalties. The patent is not mine. While I won't say there is something wrong with Ennis getting royalties...I also don't see anything wrong with him not getting royalties. People are making too much of the value of the players without realizing the value is in the brand. The players benefit from the school's brand. The reason we would want to buy a Tyler Ennis jersey has much more to do with the school than Tyler Ennis.

What would his jersey have been worth a year ago before he came to SU and received a national platform to display his talents? He and most other players are involved in AAU also but I haven't heard of t-shirts bearing their AAU team name nor player name having national market appeal.

If it's about medical coverage, I agree that the players should be covered for illness, injury suffered in college. Why not have the NCAA cover players?

 

[xc84]

What would his jersey have been worth a year ago before he came to SU and received a national platform to display his talents? He and most other players are involved in AAU also but I haven't heard of t-shirts bearing their AAU team name nor player name having national market appeal.

If it's about medical coverage, I agree that the players should be covered for illness, injury suffered in college. Why not have the NCAA cover players?

I had great medical coverage in grad school. I really don't believe that football players e.g. at SU don't have medical coverage for injuries and illness.

 

[xc84]

Or, they are not allowed to go pro until they reach some arbitrary age.

I am all for letting them go right after high school...or even before.

 

[supp]

For now, this only applies to private schools.



That's true, but that fan affiliation was also built on the back of lots of players that came before him.

As I've said, I don't know what a perfect answer is. But I don't like the NCAA, and if someone buys a Tyler Ennis jersey, I think he should see some of that money. And people want specifically Tyler Ennis jerseys, they aren't buying any BJ Johnson or Ron Patterson jerseys.

But you are right some of it has to do with the SU brand. Which is fine; is anyone saying Tyler Ennis should get every dollar from his jerseys?

Yep, you get fan affiliation with a college program because the program is successful long-term and the program is successful because its players are good. Sure, that BE 30 for 30 profiled the larger than life coaches that gave the league street cred but it's the players they brought in that made the league. That point was hammered home endlessly. If the best players out of high school increasingly opted for pay for play, it's possible college football crowds begin to resemble college baseball crowds. It's hard to know for sure how it would turn out because we don't have a football minor league system. But it's been much talked about and those who have talked about it seriously have targeted cities in SEC territory in particular as franchise sites with the thought that they'd get some of that spillover SEC crowd.

I think the doomsday scenarios about privates dropping out of D-1 are a bit overblown. If college football eventually goes the way of college baseball, then the privates will compete more and not less with the publics for those students who actually want an education and play at a high level.

 

[tep624]

Yep, you get fan affiliation with a college program because the program is successful long-term and the program is successful because its players are good. Sure, that BE 30 for 30 profiled the larger than life coaches that gave the league street cred but it's the players they brought in that made the league. That point was hammered home endlessly. If the best players out of high school increasingly opted for pay for play, it's possible college football crowds begin to resemble college baseball crowds. It's hard to know for sure how it would turn out because we don't have a football minor league system. But it's been much talked about and those who have talked about it seriously have targeted cities in SEC territory in particular as franchise sites with the thought that they'd get some of that spillover SEC crowd.

I think the doomsday scenarios about privates dropping out of D-1 are a bit overblown. If college football eventually goes the way of college baseball, then the privates will compete more and not less with the publics for those students who actually want an education and play at a high level.

If college football goes the way of college baseball, the fan following is going to significantly dry up and with it the TV, gate, and endorsement dollars as well. I'm admittedly ignorant on how much revenue college baseball generates, but I assume it doesn't even hold a candle to what college football generates right now. 82 scholarships at a school like Stanford is roughly $5M a year - nothing to sneeze at.

 

[CuseOnly]

The thing that I find funny about college tuition, maybe I am ignorant, somebody please educate me. In an environment like SU where the student body is somewhere around 22K. To let 85 athletes into school for "free" especially when most of them qualify for some sort of financial aid from TAP, PELL, or some federal grants or available government money. If for nothing else than to represent the school well from a marketing standpoint.

In other words, from a business perspective...the fixed costs are the fixed costs. Except for Room and Board and meals and of course coaches salaries. You could look at it in the same sense as advertising. Twelve games a year for four hours each as advertisements for the school, what's that worth when you are winning? FAR more than the cost of the government subsidized scholarships for 85 athletes.

I am rambling and have many thoughts and opinions on this that go in all directions...

What I think that this is, is the death knell for the NCAA. The beginning of the end for that organization if you will.

 

[chakka3421]

Why were unions formed in the first place - it was all about employees being taken advantage of by their employers. Then state & federal programs along with changes in the law have marginalized the value of unions over time.

Since college players have no real legal rights, I completely understand why the players did this and I am glad I live in this wonderful country that allows people to do things like this.

 

[NKR1978]

Couldn't this be good for us? Penn State can only give you a scholarship, but we can give you $150,000 and you do what you want with it after you pay us back for room and board.

Also the NCAA issued a statement that basically acknowledges changes can and should be made. It isn't fair to pick on Gene Smith, but it seems messed up that an AD can make $18,000 based off the performance of one athlete while that same athlete would lose his eligibility if he dared to profit off his success.

As a private institution we might be in a tough spot, but the whole notion of "student athlete" is BS. It was done to avoid worker' comp. Brave of the NU athletes to shake up the system and fight the bull head on. And watching the NCAA quiver a bit is fun. They see their money train coming to an end and they see their hypocrisy coming to light.

 

[SmilinBob]

Congress will become interested when the issue is framed as costing a college education for thousands of minority kids.

Or they can be taxed on it.

 

[xc84]

The thing that I find funny about college tuition, maybe I am ignorant, somebody please educate me. In an environment like SU where the student body is somewhere around 22K. To let 85 athletes into school for "free" especially when most of them qualify for some sort of financial aid from TAP, PELL, or some federal grants or available government money. If for nothing else than to represent the school well from a marketing standpoint.

In other words, from a business perspective...the fixed costs are the fixed costs. Except for Room and Board and meals and of course coaches salaries. You could look at it in the same sense as advertising. Twelve games a year for four hours each as advertisements for the school, what's that worth when you are winning? FAR more than the cost of the government subsidized scholarships for 85 athletes.

I am rambling and have many thoughts and opinions on this that go in all directions...

What I think that this is, is the death knell for the NCAA. The beginning of the end for that organization if you will.

When a football player gets TAP, they get it all. It does not end up going to the school. The school provides free tuition, books, room & board. Anything else the player gets (e.g. TAP), they keep.

 

[texascpa]

They may say it's not about money now, but you can bet your ass it will be soon enough.

And I'd like to see the first college football union strike just to see how many kids cross the picket line.

 

[TerryD]

Overall greed by everyone involved with college sports has led to this.

If schools' sports TV budgets and coaches salaries were not so high, would we have this issue?

If head coaches made $75,000 a year and each school's athletic budget was $10 million a year, the pressures to end the fiction of "student-athletes" and paying players would not be so great.

These kids see everyone bragging about all of the millions the schools rake in, the athletic budgets, the money spent on coaches and facilities and say "Where is my share, I want a piece of that action?"

I am really not sure that I can blame them.

 

[xc84]

Overall greed by everyone involved with college sports has led to this.

If schools' sports TV budgets and coaches salaries were not so high, would we have this issue?

If head coaches made $75,000 a year and each school's athletic budget was $10 million a year, the pressures to end the fiction of "student-athletes" and paying players would not be so great.

These kids see everyone bragging about all of the millions the schools rake in, the athletic budgets, the money spent on coaches and facilities and say "Where is my share, I want a piece of that action?"

I am really not sure that I can blame them.

I say that about the company I work for. I should be getting those millions!

 

[texascpa]

Overall greed by everyone involved with college sports has led to this.

If schools' sports TV budgets and coaches salaries were not so high, would we have this issue?

If head coaches made $75,000 a year and each school's athletic budget was $10 million a year, the pressures to end the fiction of "student-athletes" and paying players would not be so great.

These kids see everyone bragging about all of the millions the schools rake in, the athletic budgets, the money spent on coaches and facilities and say "Where is my share, I want a piece of that action?"

I am really not sure that I can blame them.

Greed by whom, though? Millions of fans love the game and want to watch the games. ESPN, ABC and CBS want to reach those fans as part of their business model. Companies want to reach those fans in order to sell their products, and will spend a lot of money to do so because they know they will get a good return on their investment. ESPN will sell those spots to those companies at a rate that ESPN will make a profit and extract as much from those companies as the companies are willing to spend. ESPN then will need to pay for the content and production of that content to continue to attract those companies, and will do so at a rate to keep other broadcasters out. The schools want to extract as much as they can to cover the costs of their product, that ESPN/ABC/CBS is willing to pay for; a product that must be more than acceptable in order for future revenues to increase to keep up with future cost increases.

So, we can call it greed, but it really stems from the fact that this brand of product (college football) has a large following that others want to engage with. This is how all competitive, "free-market" enterprise models work. Where do we cut off the greed?

 

[NKR1978]

Greed by whom, though? Millions of fans love the game and want to watch the games. ESPN, ABC and CBS want to reach those fans as part of their business model. Companies want to reach those fans in order to sell their products, and will spend a lot of money to do so because they know they will get a good return on their investment. ESPN will sell those spots to those companies at a rate that ESPN will make a profit and extract as much from those companies as the companies are willing to spend. ESPN then will need to pay for the content and production of that content to continue to attract those companies, and will do so at a rate to keep other broadcasters out. The schools want to extract as much as they can to cover the costs of their product, that ESPN/ABC/CBS is willing to pay for; a product that must be more than acceptable in order for future revenues to increase to keep up with future cost increases.

So, we can call it greed, but it really stems from the fact that this brand of product (college football) has a large following that others want to engage with. This is how all competitive, "free-market" enterprise models work. Where do we cut off the greed?

I agree - but I can't blame the athletes for wanting a piece of the pie.

 

[texascpa]

I agree - but I can't blame the athletes for wanting a piece of the pie.

Nope, me neither, and I personally go back and forth within myself on the arguments for and against. We can say "oh, but they get a free education worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.", but so what? Do any of us stay content with our current salaries? Don't we all want to make more money? Okay, maybe not 100% of us, but very, very few people actually believe AND live the life of "doing what makes you happy, costs be damned".

I just wish this could be resolved outside the union magnifying glass. It won't be long before medical coverage turns into retiree medical coverage, then pensions, then wages, then seniority based playing time, then collective bargaining, then strikes. It may seem laughable, but how many of us thought 5 years ago, student football players would unionize and the NLRB would actually recognize it?

BTW, anyone who believes Colter's argument that this is for protections and medical care should have that belief instantly stripped by this comment in the article:

In its endeavor to have the players recognized as essential workers, CAPA likened scholarships to employment pay -- too little pay from its point of view.

 

[NKR1978]

Nope, me neither, and I personally go back and forth within myself on the arguments for and against. We can say "oh, but they get a free education worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.", but so what? Do any of us stay content with our current salaries? Don't we all want to make more money? Okay, maybe not 100% of us, but very, very few people actually believe AND live the life of "doing what makes you happy, costs be damned".

I just wish this could be resolved outside the union magnifying glass. It won't be long before medical coverage turns into retiree medical coverage, then pensions, then wages, then seniority based playing time, then collective bargaining, then strikes. It may seem laughable, but how many of us thought 5 years ago, student football players would unionize and the NLRB would actually recognize it?

Don't know that they will have to set up pensions, but workers' compensation should cover everything, and should be a huge money maker for most of these athletes.

I would hope that instead of cowering and fear that schools like Syracuse could look at this as an opportunity should our athletes decide to unionize. If this holds, and it probably will, and if our athletes vote to unionize (which I actually don't think they will end up doing), we will be able to offer so much more than the public schools possibly could. It could be great for us long term from a win/loss perspective.

 

[NKR1978]

BTW, anyone who believes Colter's argument that this is for protections and medical care should have that belief instantly stripped by this comment in the article:

In NYS with workers' comp they would get lifetime care that they never have to pay for for injuries incurred. So that probably is a consideration.

 

[xc84]

I agree - but I can't blame the athletes for wanting a piece of the pie.

They get a piece of the pie. You mean a bigger piece.