Northwestern football players can unionize, NLRB rules

[Danm1983]

Slippery slope

Snowball effect

 

Just leaving those here. Because they do/will apply sooner or later.

 

The debates about swimmers, golfers, baseball, women's basketball, and other sports has already begun. I know there are supposedly revenue vs non revenue generating sports, but so far, every discussion I've heard about paying players (which turned into stipends, which now is being referred to as benefits), never mentions Title 9 or has any sort of fairness regarding the other student athletes (and don't give me the "football and hoops players do SO MUCH MORE preparation and time commitment). And FTR, I think Title 9 should exclude football.

[charsibb]

 

NLRB is wrong. They're not employees. This will be overturned.

 

Only a democrat could create a charlie foxtrot like this.

 

I'm from the government, I'm here to help you. 

 

Yah, right.

 

How is the right to unionize related to government assistance?

 

 

Because only a democrat-controlled NLRB would have the temerity to try and unionize these students.

[charsibb]

Slippery slope

Snowball effect

 

Just leaving those here. Because they do/will apply sooner or later.

 

The debates about swimmers, golfers, baseball, women's basketball, and other sports has already begun. I know there are supposedly revenue vs non revenue generating sports, but so far, every discussion I've heard about paying players (which turned into stipends, which now is being referred to as benefits), never mentions Title 9 or has any sort of fairness regarding the other student athletes (and don't give me the "football and hoops players do SO MUCH MORE preparation and time commitment). And FTR, I think Title 9 should exclude football.

 

 

Yeah, that argument is pretty easy to refute. Water polo requires FAR more effort than either football or basketball, and generates squat in revenue.

[Danm1983]

 

Slippery slope

Snowball effect

 

Just leaving those here. Because they do/will apply sooner or later.

 

The debates about swimmers, golfers, baseball, women's basketball, and other sports has already begun. I know there are supposedly revenue vs non revenue generating sports, but so far, every discussion I've heard about paying players (which turned into stipends, which now is being referred to as benefits), never mentions Title 9 or has any sort of fairness regarding the other student athletes (and don't give me the "football and hoops players do SO MUCH MORE preparation and time commitment). And FTR, I think Title 9 should exclude football.

 

 

Yeah, that argument is pretty easy to refute. Water polo requires FAR more effort than either football or basketball, and generates squat in revenue.

 

 

Which is why I'd be okay with some sort of stipend (to ALL student athletes), for basic use, but still don't agree with unionizing and paying football and men's basketball more.

[charsibb]

Agree. Saying we can give them money for books, but not for food is pretty silly. But if you're going to give it to ANY full-scholarship player, you need to give it to EVERY full-scholarship player

[CousinRicky]

Agree. Saying we can give them money for books, but not for food is pretty silly. But if you're going to give it to ANY full-scholarship player, you need to give it to EVERY full-scholarship player

 

I don't know if most sports other than football & hoops give full scholarships.  Most baseball players get 25 - 50%.  They may give more to a star but that is the exception. 

[Leviathan]

 

Slippery slope

Snowball effect

 

Just leaving those here. Because they do/will apply sooner or later.

 

The debates about swimmers, golfers, baseball, women's basketball, and other sports has already begun. I know there are supposedly revenue vs non revenue generating sports, but so far, every discussion I've heard about paying players (which turned into stipends, which now is being referred to as benefits), never mentions Title 9 or has any sort of fairness regarding the other student athletes (and don't give me the "football and hoops players do SO MUCH MORE preparation and time commitment). And FTR, I think Title 9 should exclude football.

 

 

Yeah, that argument is pretty easy to refute. Water polo requires FAR more effort than either football or basketball, and generates squat in revenue.

 

Except you aren't putting your life and limb on the line playing water polo...

[charsibb]

If the NWU players unionize, NWU should drop it's football program.

 

I don't think that will be allowed by this activist NLRB. It would be seen as a union-busting move and they'd be ordered to maintain the program

 

No way this ruling stands. The person who made it is essentially bumping it upstairs for a further ruling.

[Leviathan]

 

Slippery slope

Snowball effect

 

Just leaving those here. Because they do/will apply sooner or later.

 

The debates about swimmers, golfers, baseball, women's basketball, and other sports has already begun. I know there are supposedly revenue vs non revenue generating sports, but so far, every discussion I've heard about paying players (which turned into stipends, which now is being referred to as benefits), never mentions Title 9 or has any sort of fairness regarding the other student athletes (and don't give me the "football and hoops players do SO MUCH MORE preparation and time commitment). And FTR, I think Title 9 should exclude football.

 

 

Yeah, that argument is pretty easy to refute. Water polo requires FAR more effort than either football or basketball, and generates squat in revenue.

 

What percentage of water polo players would be able to go to college without receiving a scholarship? I would imagine to most water polo, tennis, and golf players, their sport is secondary to their education. A large portion of college football players don't graduate and really only go to college to play football. Schools exploit the work of minorities to make millions of dollars.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Leviathan

[charsibb]

 

 

Slippery slope

Snowball effect

 

Just leaving those here. Because they do/will apply sooner or later.

 

The debates about swimmers, golfers, baseball, women's basketball, and other sports has already begun. I know there are supposedly revenue vs non revenue generating sports, but so far, every discussion I've heard about paying players (which turned into stipends, which now is being referred to as benefits), never mentions Title 9 or has any sort of fairness regarding the other student athletes (and don't give me the "football and hoops players do SO MUCH MORE preparation and time commitment). And FTR, I think Title 9 should exclude football.

 

 

Yeah, that argument is pretty easy to refute. Water polo requires FAR more effort than either football or basketball, and generates squat in revenue.

 

What percentage of water polo players would be able to go to college without receiving a scholarship? I would imagine to most water polo, tennis, and golf players, their sport is secondary to their education. A large portion of college football players don't graduate and really only go to college to play football. Schools exploit the work of minorities to make millions of dollars.

 

 

Red herring and irrelevant to the referenced discussion.

 

That said, how many college football players would never get a chance to attend college without an athletic scholarship?

 

How many of them go pro - in something other than sports?

 

How many of THEM would have never been able to do that but for the college education they received under that scholarship?

 

A free education and a shot at the gold ring that enables, is just compensation.

 

Now, when the students talk about injuries sustained while playing or practicing, I'm in 100% agreement. If you expect your players to leave 100% of their effort on the field, when they leave 10% of their body behind as well, you take care of them. No different, really, than the expectation we have regarding the medical care for our military men and women.

 

That doesn't make the students into employees, but it does clarify the institutional reponsibility