Northwestern players get union vote

[JesuitIvy]

I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?
And BTW, I also gotta say a union made sure I had health insurance when I was a kid and gave me scholies to BC and now instead of lower middle class I'm upper middle class and paying more taxes. People who hate unions really just can't stand poor people playing capitalism halfway decently, IMO.

[Max Quad]

I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?
And BTW, I also gotta say a union made sure I had health insurance when I was a kid and gave me scholies to BC and now instead of lower middle class I'm upper middle class and paying more taxes. People who hate unions really just can't stand poor people playing capitalism halfway decently, IMO.

THEY HATE US BECAUSE WE'RE FREE.

[talon]

I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?

Jeremy Bloom.

On one hand, it's dumb that a football player can play professional baseball in the off-season and maintain amateur status in football, but skiing crosses a line. On the other hand, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as the manner in which they get paid is not the same. How can you tell if a skier's sponsors are 100% interested in sponsoring him because of how he skis and 0% because he's also a college football player? If the NCAA ruled in Blooms' favor, could other football players decide to take up "skiing" in the off-season, rake in sponsorship dollars and fall at the top of every hill and never finish a race?

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

I still predict that either the NLRB or whichever appellate court gets the case (the only one that gives me pause is the 9th Circuit), reverses this and it all comes to nothing. The ramifications are immediate and too ridiculous for this to be allowed to stand.

Stating the obvious here, but if indeed they are "emloyees" then under federal law they are also entitled to be paid minimum wage and overtime. So it is not too far a stretch to say that Northwestern should start paying its players. Like now. Of course, that's nuts and would directly violate NCAA rules.

Congress will fix this if the Board and courts screw it up.

[HJS]

I still predict that either the NLRB or whichever appellate court gets the case (the only one that gives me pause is the 9th Circuit), reverses this and it all comes to nothing. The ramifications are immediate and too ridiculous for this to be allowed to stand.

Stating the obvious here, but if indeed they are "emloyees" then under federal law they are also entitled to be paid minimum wage and overtime. So it is not too far a stretch to say that Northwestern should start paying its players. Like now. Of course, that's nuts and would directly violate NCAA rules.

Congress will fix this if the Board and courts screw it up.

Agreed. I don't believe this is a result that will stand. Ohr just made himself a part of Labor history. He's secured himself a spot on conference panels and a cushy gig in some law firm. Kudos. He took his once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and milked it for all it's worth. If he denied it, no one ever discusses it or discusses him. Heck, he likely knows he'll be reversed and did it to further the national conversation regarding the alleged-exploitation of athletes.

At the end of the day, I'm not so sure we should care. I don't care if nag sports goes the way of wrestling. And, a collective bargained system could result in some very interesting ramifications for BC. For instance, players could go to the highest bidder (which means that everyone is now on par with the SEC). It also means that players are highly unlikely to go to Bama when other schools are offering to pay them more (and Bama could only offer the minimum after breaking their cap on another player). For a school like BC, who can't compete with Ohio St. and the SEC, it could level the playing field (unless the state schools includes cost of tuition into the calculation of salary).

[twballgame9]

I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?
And BTW, I also gotta say a union made sure I had health insurance when I was a kid and gave me scholies to BC and now instead of lower middle class I'm upper middle class and paying more taxes. People who hate unions really just can't stand poor people playing capitalism halfway decently, IMO.

Saying union and capitalism in the same sentence make your wooden nose grow?

[Endless Mike]

I'm really concerned about how this is going to affect the non-revenue sports (ie, the actual student-athletes). I worry that they could get screwed over. As others have stated, I also worry that this will decimate women's sports more than anything else.

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

I'm really concerned about how this is going to affect the non-revenue sports (ie, the actual student-athletes). I worry that they could get screwed over. As others have stated, I also worry that this will decimate women's sports more than anything else.

It's gonna get reversed. So don't worry, you'll still be able to watch women's ice hockey to your heart's content.

[angrychicken]

I'm really concerned about how this is going to affect the non-revenue sports (ie, the actual student-athletes). I worry that they could get screwed over. As others have stated, I also worry that this will decimate women's sports more than anything else.

It would also decimate subscription numbers at BCI.

[JesuitIvy]

I had written a long, (and brilliant, I must add) response at work but my damn browser un-logged me in and I lost it. So here's my short take -- unions are simply people using their leverage, which is very capitalistic, so no, I don;t see a contradiction in what I said. That's why the most powerful unions are, nowadays, the people who bring the most economic benefit to their employers -- pro athletes, actors, hollywood writers. Those with no leverage -- whose jobs are easily exported -- don't have unions.
Mainly re the decision, I just think this is what happens when you assume nothing can change your cost basis (essentially free college player labor) and then you decide to wring every dollar out of the system rather than recognizing you've got a good thing and nursing it. It's a classic business screw up. It's like record companies jacking up CD pricers to $20 a disc in the 90s, assuming nothing could affect their projections of ever increasing profits. Get greedy and the market finds a way to get you back.

[Eaglekeeper]

The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

[PhillyandBCEagles]

I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?

Jeremy Bloom.

On one hand, it's dumb that a football player can play professional baseball in the off-season and maintain amateur status in football, but skiing crosses a line. On the other hand, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as the manner in which they get paid is not the same. How can you tell if a skier's sponsors are 100% interested in sponsoring him because of how he skis and 0% because he's also a college football player? If the NCAA ruled in Blooms' favor, could other football players decide to take up "skiing" in the off-season, rake in sponsorship dollars and fall at the top of every hill and never finish a race?

He was actually good enough to ski in the Olympics IIRC, and I believe the NCAA declared him ineligible for football after the fact. Of course when Tom Zbikowski wanted to box professionally during the offseason, it was no problem because he played for Notre Dame.

[talon]

I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?

Jeremy Bloom.

On one hand, it's dumb that a football player can play professional baseball in the off-season and maintain amateur status in football, but skiing crosses a line. On the other hand, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as the manner in which they get paid is not the same. How can you tell if a skier's sponsors are 100% interested in sponsoring him because of how he skis and 0% because he's also a college football player? If the NCAA ruled in Blooms' favor, could other football players decide to take up "skiing" in the off-season, rake in sponsorship dollars and fall at the top of every hill and never finish a race?

He was actually good enough to ski in the Olympics IIRC, and I believe the NCAA declared him ineligible for football after the fact. Of course when Tom Zbikowski wanted to box professionally during the offseason, it was no problem because he played for Notre Dame.

Did Tom Zbikowski make money as a boxer by sponsorships or by winning prizes as a boxer?

[HJS]

The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

BC didn't bring anything on itself. They underpay for coaches and NEVER sell jerseys of current players. They also have an athletic department that has never turned a profit.

[Endless Mike]

I'm really concerned about how this is going to affect the non-revenue sports (ie, the actual student-athletes). I worry that they could get screwed over. As others have stated, I also worry that this will decimate women's sports more than anything else.

It's gonna get reversed. So don't worry, you'll still be able to watch women's ice hockey to your heart's content.

Phew!

[pick6pedro]

I'm really concerned about how this is going to affect the non-revenue sports (ie, the actual student-athletes). I worry that they could get screwed over. As others have stated, I also worry that this will decimate women's sports more than anything else.

It's gonna get reversed. So don't worry, you'll still be able to watch women's ice hockey to your heart's content.

Phew!

Do friends refer to you as tubasteak?

[hansen]

The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

BC didn't bring anything on itself. They underpay for coaches and NEVER sell jerseys of current players. They also have an athletic department that has never turned a profit.

They lose money from an accounting perspective because they have to account for tuition scholarships at 45K dollars per person.
If you ignore these "costs", then the department is very profitable.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

BC didn't bring anything on itself. They underpay for coaches and NEVER sell jerseys of current players. They also have an athletic department that has never turned a profit.

They lose money from an accounting perspective because they have to account for tuition scholarships at 45K dollars per person.
If you ignore these "costs", then the department is very profitable.

wrong. the department is providing a service that has a recognized market value of $45k so the department incurs expenses of $45k for each of these services that are offered.

if you want cash flow accounting, move to russia

[HJS]

The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

BC didn't bring anything on itself. They underpay for coaches and NEVER sell jerseys of current players. They also have an athletic department that has never turned a profit.

They lose money from an accounting perspective because they have to account for tuition scholarships at 45K dollars per person.
If you ignore these "costs", then the department is very profitable.

wrong. the department is providing a service that has a recognized market value of $45k so the department incurs expenses of $45k for each of these services that are offered.

if you want cash flow accounting, move to russia

This.

[DuchesneEast]

The universities brought this on themselves by over paying coaches, selling player jerseys and massive fund raising. I can't see any university paying the players or running a minor league system. The women would have to get equal pay and the result would be no scholarships, just grant in aids.

BC didn't bring anything on itself. They underpay for coaches and NEVER sell jerseys of current players. They also have an athletic department that has never turned a profit.

They lose money from an accounting perspective because they have to account for tuition scholarships at 45K dollars per person.
If you ignore these "costs", then the department is very profitable.

wrong. the department is providing a service that has a recognized market value of $45k so the department incurs expenses of $45k for each of these services that are offered.

if you want cash flow accounting, move to russia

This.

Athletics provides more money than they get credit for. How many of us donate only because of sports (Me for one) Do you think they would sell so much over priced apparel or jerseys if we dont field a team.

Also, the cost of the education is not $50,000, 33% of that goes for financial aid for kids that cant afford BC, why should that be considered a cost the schollie has to pay.

[DuchesneEast]

I'm more on the players's side here -- this is what happens when schools -- driven by money -- kill the golden goose. There was a kid in Colorado who was excellent at skiing as well as football (i think the was the latter sport) and the NCAA told him he couldn't do any sponsorship with skiing even though he was going to get a scholarship for football and wasn't going to ski at Colorado. You just can't take advantage of people to no end and expect to get away with it. Why does;t that kid own his own image, his own rights outside of football?
And BTW, I also gotta say a union made sure I had health insurance when I was a kid and gave me scholies to BC and now instead of lower middle class I'm upper middle class and paying more taxes. People who hate unions really just can't stand poor people playing capitalism halfway decently, IMO.

Saying union and capitalism in the same sentence make your wooden nose grow?

If they are employees shouldnt they pay taxes on the cost of the scholarship.

[twballgame9]

Except that at many schools with football that number is arbitrarily reduced through subsidy. Comparing the profits of a football program at a private school with $50k tuition versus a state school with $10k tuition, the inclusion of 85 scholarships as an expense is the difference between $4.25 million on that cost line and $850,000.

Just for football.

P&S I am not an accountant

[SiValEagle]

Saying union and capitalism in the same sentence make your wooden nose grow?

I'm not a fan of most unions, but if you think that unionizing is incompatible with capitalism, you don't understand either concept very well.

[SiValEagle]

I had written a long, (and brilliant, I must add) response at work but my damn browser un-logged me in and I lost it. So here's my short take -- unions are simply people using their leverage, which is very capitalistic, so no, I don;t see a contradiction in what I said. That's why the most powerful unions are, nowadays, the people who bring the most economic benefit to their employers -- pro athletes, actors, hollywood writers. Those with no leverage -- whose jobs are easily exported -- don't have unions.
Mainly re the decision, I just think this is what happens when you assume nothing can change your cost basis (essentially free college player labor) and then you decide to wring every dollar out of the system rather than recognizing you've got a good thing and nursing it. It's a classic business screw up. It's like record companies jacking up CD pricers to $20 a disc in the 90s, assuming nothing could affect their projections of ever increasing profits. Get greedy and the market finds a way to get you back.

Excellent analysis.

[twballgame9]

Saying union and capitalism in the same sentence make your wooden nose grow?

I'm not a fan of most unions, but if you think that unionizing is incompatible with capitalism, you don't understand either concept very well.

I'll take your word for it Hegel

[SiValEagle]

Saying union and capitalism in the same sentence make your wooden nose grow?

I'm not a fan of most unions, but if you think that unionizing is incompatible with capitalism, you don't understand either concept very well.

I'll take your word for it Hegel

I suppose you subscribe to the theory that "capitalism works as intended only when there is an abundant supply of cheap, desperate labour."

[Dick Rosenthal]

Here's the problem with your argument, unions in this country may have once been as you describe--a group of people trying to use leverage to better their position--and I would agree that in the 20s/30s their existence was entirely compatible with a free market, capitalist system. But then they got into bed with the leviathan regulatory machine and today they are nothing more than a wing of that machine. As such, they serve no purpose today other than to distort the free market. they do this in a number of ways including closed shops, card check and compulsory representation. It is not a coincidence that today unions are dying everywhere--and deservedly so--with the exception of public sector workers.

[twballgame9]

As Ty alludes to, there is a giant chasm between that for which unions were originally intended and for which school books yet yearn, and that which unions have become.

[BCMurt09]

Unions use their leverage to bankrupt cities and bit the hands that feed them. They have become utterly obsolete in the world we live in today. When the robber barons were exploiting cheap labor and we had children working in the mines and factories, the unions were absolutely necessary. The times that teddy points out that the school books yearn for. Today, there are so many regulatory measures in place that nothing like that would happen anyway. The unions have their right hands open for the pay out while their left hand is already in your pocket. The unions bankrupted Detroit and if we're not careful will bankrupt New York City as well.

[twballgame9]

In many ways the unions have become the robber barons. The difference is that the latter was motivated by profit; the former, by theft.