BIG story-NCAA football players attempt to unionize

[Zack]

No. It's based on how much money the vast majority of colleges foolishly waste. Some people consider that to be far more important. YMMV.

How is it wasteful if it generates millions of dollars in revenue?

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean what you just called an anomaly?

You do realize that revenue isn't really important if your expenses are even greater. Right?

 

[Zack]

You do realize that expenses aren't really important if your profits are even greater. Right?

It would be meaningful if they had used revenue.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Basically, profit = revenue - expenses.

Discussing revenue alone is what is "meaningless" in this context. This is particularly true since most big time college football programs used to show a profit while only a handful now do. Revenue isn't keeping up with expenses as colleges spend more and more trying to win, or in hopes of continuing to do so.

As we have been discussing, the excuse for big time football is now supposed to be PR. You don't get much positive PR by having a losing program. You have to win in order to rationalize the massive expense.

 

[Zack]

Basically, profit = revenue - expenses.

Discussing revenue alone is what is "meaningless" in this context.

Did I say revenue? Ack, I meant profit. Revenue alone is just as meaningless as expenses alone. My bad.

 

[downtown]

FWIW, the hearings on unionization have started, and the general consensus seems to be that things are not going very well for the players.

Here is a good recap on the situation: http://www.sippinonpurple.com/2014/2/19/5417806/kain-colter-northwestern-football-union-capa-nlrb

If things don't work out here, I can't think of many other schools that might make reasonable testing grounds for unionization. Pretty much would have to be USC or Boston College I think.

 

[downtown]

So.....Northwestern actually won their fight to unionize. The team now needs to vote to actually form a union, while the school appeals this to DC.

A few other private schools may follow suit in the near future:

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Also important to note, Walk-On athletes are not covered in this ruling.

 

[Traitorfish]

Cool beans.

 

[Antilogic]

Interesting development, wonder if we will see the same anti-union tactics we see before employees vote to unionize.

 

[downtown]

Interesting development, wonder if we will see the same anti-union tactics we see before employees vote to unionize.

I'd be a little surprised if administrators at blue-state, lefty universities started shooting at their running backs, but who knows?

One thing that *does* suck, btw, is that if the players form a union, and their scholarships, training etc count as salary, then it becomes taxable. Not good.

 

[Kraznaya]

I hope amateurism dies before football does. The entire concept was a scheme to keep athletic achievement exclusive to the rich who could afford it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What a novel way to describe trying to keep corruption and greed from ruining collegiate sports. I wonder if all those public school football and basketball players realize they are rich, much like those who play at the collegiate level.

 

[downtown]

I hope amateurism dies before football does. The entire concept was a scheme to keep athletic achievement exclusive to the rich who could afford it.

I think between this, the class-action lawsuits, and O'Bannon, it's going to be almost impossible for the current model of amateurism to be sustained for more than a few more years. The blood is in the water for the NCAA.

Now, what the new model will look like, or whether it will be actually be better for kids? I honestly don't know. I just know it won't be like this.

 

[Formaldehyde]

One thing that *does* suck, btw, is that if the players form a union, and their scholarships, training etc count as salary, then it becomes taxable. Not good.

How many scholarships are currently taxed? Why would this suddenly be any different?

 

[downtown]

How many scholarships are currently taxed? Why would this suddenly be any different?

Zero athletic scholarships are currently taxed.

 

[Kraznaya]

What a novel way to describe trying to keep corruption and greed from ruining collegiate sports. I wonder if all those public school football and basketball players realize they are rich, much like those who play at the collegiate level.

What? I'm talking amateurism for sports with wide audiences, such as the Olympics and certain sports in the NCAA. Forcing athletes to be "amateurs" has the effect of narrowing the player pool to those who can afford competing without salary.

Now, the NCAA disguises this a little bit by offering full ride scholarships. This effectively allows everyone to participate, but it's still not an even playing field. Athletes who have the talent and ability risk injury (both short and long term), usually without insurance. The professional leagues are complicit in this by enforcing age rules and years out of high school rules, because they have an interest in looking as if they're supporting education and get a minor league to scout and winnow talent without having to pay for it (the NCAA also has neat mechanisms in check to make sure they don't compete with the pros, just look at the TV scheduling). You can still kind of see this association of amateurism and wealth - generally the only players who stay in the NCAA longer than necessary are those who have rich enough families to afford it, such as Matt Barkley.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'd be a little surprised if administrators at blue-state, lefty universities started shooting at their running backs, but who knows?

I wouldn't. I've been around blue-state lefty universities long enough to know they stop very short of their stated ideals when they're the ones paying salaries.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What? I'm talking amateurism for sports with wide audiences, such as the Olympics and certain sports in the NCAA. Forcing athletes to be "amateurs" has the effect of narrowing the player pool to those who can afford competing without salary.

What sports would that be? What was so terrible about collegiate athletics even 60 years ago before the advent of big TV deals?

And making previously amateur sports more professional certainly hasn't changed the complexion all that much, with the exception that professionals can now compete in the Olympics. And there is certainly a case to be made for prohibiting that again. But it is doubtful it will succeed because Pandora's Box has already been opened and the fix is in.

Now, the NCAA disguises this a little bit by offering full ride scholarships. This effectively allows everyone to participate, but it's still not an even playing field. Athletes who have the talent and ability risk injury (both short and long term), usually without insurance. The professional leagues are complicit in this by enforcing age rules and years out of high school rules, because they have an interest in looking as if they're supporting education and get a minor league to scout and winnow talent without having to pay for it (the NCAA also has neat mechanisms in check to make sure they don't compete with the pros, just look at the TV scheduling). You can still kind of see this association of amateurism and wealth - generally the only players who stay in the NCAA longer than necessary are those who have rich enough families to afford it, such as Matt Barkley.

That is actually a very good argument for just the opposite. If is due to pressure from professional athletics that so-called big time collegiate sports are not only already semi-professional, but they will continue to stay that way due to financial reasons instead of what is best for the college students themselves. The mere fact that college athletes feel the need to unionize to protect themselves from the greed of professional sports, and even the universities themselves, continuing to exert a negative influence just shows how much of a problem it has become.

It is time to take the colleges back. But it is probably too late to do so.

 

[Traitorfish]

I wouldn't. I've been around blue-state lefty universities long enough to know they stop very short of their stated ideals when they're the ones paying salaries.

At this point, I'd usually make some joke about need to seize the means of football-production, but that was actually a thing in the '60s, so, um, end of sentence?

 

[Zack]

What was so terrible about collegiate athletics even 60 years ago