Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

College Football Players---Students or Employees?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

    Originally posted by unofan View Post
    Meanwhile, a UNC football player got an A- for this:

    http://deadspin.com/this-unc-athlete...ame-1552798110
    University of No Clue.
    Uncle Mickey: July 23, 1950-July 22, 2003

    WRPI, 91.5 FM...usually color commentary.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

      Both.
      AF 99

      M-A-V-E-R-I-C-K-S, MAVERICKS, MAVERICKS, GOOOOO STATE!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

        Originally posted by MavHockey14 View Post
        Both.
        Yeah I don't understand that on the thread title. It's possible, and very normal, to be a student and an employee at a University.
        U-A-A!!!Go!Go!GreenandGold!
        Applejack Tells You How UAA Is Doing...
        I spell Failure with UAF

        Originally posted by UAFIceAngel
        But let's be real...There are 40 some other teams and only two alaskan teams...the day one of us wins something big will be the day I transfer to UAA
        Originally posted by Doyle Woody
        Best sign by a visting Seawolf fan Friday went to a young man who held up a piece of white poster board that read: "YOU CAN'T SPELL FAILURE WITHOUT UAF."

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

          The implications of this are quite staggering. Hypothetical, but still staggering.

          * If athletes are indeed employees for the purpose of determining whether they can unionize, will a different federal agency (Labor) decide they are also employees for the purpose of compliance with other labor rules?

          * If Labor weighs in with the same view as the NLRB, then compliance with minimum wage rules comes into play. But then, employers could seek to offset wages against scholarships ... But of course, the union could seek to negotiate those terms as well.

          * Employers have to provide medical coverage that's compliant under the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure most athletes get some form of medical care today, but compliance with the ACA is a wrinkle.

          * Unionized teams competing against non-union teams. Let's say hypothetically, if Michigan unionizes, and Alabama doesn't, which school gains an advantage? Or is it a wash? Or if part of a conference unionizes but other schools don't ... will the conference split up? (If one side gets an advantage, it will certainly create pressure on those disadvantaged ...)

          * Unions have been more successful when there's a broader constituency and therefore more pressure on employers. If football and men's basketball players seek to go it alone, that creates a wedge against all the other sports. But that broadening hits against the initial movement ... which is narrowly focused on those two sports.

          * Employers have a requirement to pay employees equally based on job duties. Is the job of a men's basketball player really any different from a women's basketball player? I can't see a legally valid justification to pay the men more than the women.

          * By extension, is the job of a men's basketball player any different than a men's wrestler? A college hockey player? What grounds could justify pay differentials?

          ....I don't know where this is headed, but it could be really big. The one thing that seems apparent is that schools with big revenue streams will have a great advantage.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

            Originally posted by Farce Poobah View Post
            * Employers have a requirement to pay employees equally based on job duties. Is the job of a men's basketball player really any different from a women's basketball player? I can't see a legally valid justification to pay the men more than the women.
            That will be settled by a slam dunk contest.

            I'm kidding, but not really...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Farce Poobah View Post
              * Employers have a requirement to pay employees equally based on job duties. Is the job of a men's basketball player really any different from a women's basketball player? I can't see a legally valid justification to pay the men more than the women.

              * By extension, is the job of a men's basketball player any different than a men's wrestler? A college hockey player? What grounds could justify pay differentials?

              ....I don't know where this is headed, but it could be really big. The one thing that seems apparent is that schools with big revenue streams will have a great advantage.
              Well that would be why you have job classifications, even for people doing essentially the same thing.

              A serious question to people here, have any of you ever been a member of a union?
              U-A-A!!!Go!Go!GreenandGold!
              Applejack Tells You How UAA Is Doing...
              I spell Failure with UAF

              Originally posted by UAFIceAngel
              But let's be real...There are 40 some other teams and only two alaskan teams...the day one of us wins something big will be the day I transfer to UAA
              Originally posted by Doyle Woody
              Best sign by a visting Seawolf fan Friday went to a young man who held up a piece of white poster board that read: "YOU CAN'T SPELL FAILURE WITHOUT UAF."

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

                Originally posted by Farce Poobah View Post
                The implications of this are quite staggering. Hypothetical, but still staggering.

                * If athletes are indeed employees for the purpose of determining whether they can unionize, will a different federal agency (Labor) decide they are also employees for the purpose of compliance with other labor rules?

                * If Labor weighs in with the same view as the NLRB, then compliance with minimum wage rules comes into play. But then, employers could seek to offset wages against scholarships ... But of course, the union could seek to negotiate those terms as well.

                * Employers have to provide medical coverage that's compliant under the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure most athletes get some form of medical care today, but compliance with the ACA is a wrinkle.

                * Unionized teams competing against non-union teams. Let's say hypothetically, if Michigan unionizes, and Alabama doesn't, which school gains an advantage? Or is it a wash? Or if part of a conference unionizes but other schools don't ... will the conference split up? (If one side gets an advantage, it will certainly create pressure on those disadvantaged ...)

                * Unions have been more successful when there's a broader constituency and therefore more pressure on employers. If football and men's basketball players seek to go it alone, that creates a wedge against all the other sports. But that broadening hits against the initial movement ... which is narrowly focused on those two sports.

                * Employers have a requirement to pay employees equally based on job duties. Is the job of a men's basketball player really any different from a women's basketball player? I can't see a legally valid justification to pay the men more than the women.

                * By extension, is the job of a men's basketball player any different than a men's wrestler? A college hockey player? What grounds could justify pay differentials?

                ....I don't know where this is headed, but it could be really big. The one thing that seems apparent is that schools with big revenue streams will have a great advantage.
                The money being made at the Big Tyme State schools is what's going to kill college athletics if this duck really flys. Football players are going to see what kids at Alabama or Texas are getting, and they're going to want that same kind of money. Then you're going to have everybody else at those schools who do the non-revenue type of sports, like Cross Country, they're going to want their cut of the money as well to go run Cross Country for Alabama or Texas. CC kids are going to see those kids there getting paid as well. While the rest of the kids at the have not schools are going to have their hands out, only to end up watching their schools cut their programs because they can't afford to pay their athletes their salaries. There's a lot of schools out there that have their Athletic departments bleeding money. This ruling is going to be a dagger right to the heart for a lot of those schools.
                bueller: Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good? Why does Positrack work? Why does Ferris lose on the road and play dead at home?

                It just happens.


                nmupiccdiva: I'm sorry I missed you this weekend! I thought I saw you at the football game, but I didn't want to go up to a complete stranger and ask "are you Monster?" and have it not be you!

                leswp1: you need the Monster to fix you

                Life is active, find Balance!massage therapy Ann Arbor

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

                  I don't understand how the football players at Northwestern are employees, but the other Northwestern athletes are not.
                  bigmrg74: "You can't drink the day away if you don't start early!"
                  SledDog: "UncleRay seems to be the most sensible one here tonight."
                  All great men are dead and I'm not feeling well.
                  A Margarita! in every hand and another Margarita! in the other hand!

                  And stay off the lawn!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

                    Originally posted by UncleRay View Post
                    I don't understand how the football players at Northwestern are employees, but the other Northwestern athletes are not.
                    Because they are the only parties to the suit. If they prevail all the way through then the whole athletic program could fall under the ruling.

                    Saw a crawl on E$PN that the union and Congre$$ will be meeting tomorrow in DC. THAT ought to be interesting.
                    CCT '77 & '78
                    4 kids
                    5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                    1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                    ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                    I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

                      Subscribed because they're students
                      Code:
                      As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                      College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                      BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                      Originally posted by SanTropez
                      May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                      Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                      I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                      Originally posted by Kepler
                      When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                      He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

                        To make things more complicated, this ruling only applies at private colleges, not public colleges.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

                          Originally posted by joecct View Post
                          Because they are the only parties to the suit. If they prevail all the way through then the whole athletic program could fall under the ruling.
                          To add on, a big part of the ruling focused on the crazy amount of hours the football players spent doing sporting activities (averaging around 50 hours/week during training camp and the season, and even 20 hours/week during the spring), and the ridiculous amount of control that the coaches had over the players.

                          I'm not saying that this isn't the case in other sports, it's just that was a big part of the ruling in this particular case. Just because the Football players are "employees" doesn't mean that the Tennis players will also be "employees."
                          North Dakota
                          National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

                            There was an article posted on GPL about this:
                            http://www.sbnation.com/college-foot...n-pay-for-play


                            Here was my response to the whole thing:

                            I think that's because we know this will evolve into a pay-for-play issue down the road. Sure, right now it's not, but it will become that.

                            In addition, point #2 has some absolute absurdities in it. Money to travel home? Cost for laundry? Give me a break. If traveling home is so **** important, stay close to home. Buying clothes? Why should the school foot the bill for clothes? And laundry, really? Is laundry that much a burden to college students? These are not expenses that should be covered in a scholarship. And I really don't care if Delaney and others are for it.

                            #4's explanation simply doesn't make sense. If the player wants to leave early, the school can't force him to stay. That's on the players, not the institutions. Unless we start forcing players to commit to a four-year contract that prevents them from playing sports elsewhere if they leave early. Which is a terrible idea. I'm not opposed to reducing school-night games. I think that's a fairly good idea. Not sure how that would work for sports like basketball and baseball. Hockey and football would be easy.

                            #9 is also preposterous. How do you punish someone for breaking the rules if they've already jumped ship? You have to punish the institution. Does it suck for current players? Absolutely. But they should make it a priority to ensure a school isn't violating the rules.

                            #10 is there for a reason. I don't understand the opposition to this. I think the NCAA should be far more lenient in granting exceptions, but overall this is in place to protect the rest of the players and the institution should a star player not like the team he's playing for and just jump ship.

                            There are a number of very valid points in that article, however. Namely the injury and post-graduation medical insurance. These are absolutely required.

                            I also like the idea that a school should be required to give an academic scholarship to a player who loses his athletic scholarship for on-the-field performance issues (exceptions would be things like failed drug tests, criminal activity, etc.) and not be penalized by the NCAA. If a player doesn't cut it anymore, he should be allowed to continue his education without it costing the university an athletic scholarship slot (as long as he's in good standing academically).




                            Regarding the hours required when I was discussing the original ruling, here was my reply to that:
                            Then there's section 1 on page 18. He asserts that because players spend 50 to 60 hours on football in a week on football and receive compensation, that is one factor in calling them employees. Then goes on to say that 20 hours of class attendance is required by the players. I don't know about you guys, but when I was in school, I had 20+ hours of class and an additional 40-80 hours of work just to keep up in class. I believe he also includes team meals, required study halls, medical visits, and other team activities (movies, chapel, etc.) as part of the football-related duties. I'm not so certain that's the right call.




                            Another great point that was brought up on GPL was what happens in right to work states?
                            http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...rk-States1.png

                            So, pretty much the SEC, the Big 12, a quarter of the Big Ten, Notre Dame (although they're private, so who knows how that works), and half the ACC.
                            Code:
                            As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                            College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                            BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                            Originally posted by SanTropez
                            May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                            Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                            I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                            Originally posted by Kepler
                            When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                            He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

                              If a college scholarship was "the greatest gift you can receive," Doug Gottlieb wouldn't have needed to steal those credit cards.
                              Originally posted by dicaslover
                              Yep, you got it. I heart Maize.

                              Originally posted by Kristin
                              Maybe I'm missing something but you just asked me which MSU I go to and then you knew the theme of my homecoming, how do you know one and not the other?

                              Western College Hockey Blog

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: College Football Players---Students or Employees?

                                Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
                                There was an article posted on GPL about this:
                                http://www.sbnation.com/college-foot...n-pay-for-play


                                Here was my response to the whole thing:

                                I think that's because we know this will evolve into a pay-for-play issue down the road. Sure, right now it's not, but it will become that.

                                In addition, point #2 has some absolute absurdities in it. Money to travel home? Cost for laundry? Give me a break. If traveling home is so **** important, stay close to home. Buying clothes? Why should the school foot the bill for clothes? And laundry, really? Is laundry that much a burden to college students? These are not expenses that should be covered in a scholarship. And I really don't care if Delaney and others are for it.
                                So no student should ever be allowed to go home even once in 4 years unless they can get there for free? I think you are making an assumption that these kids are going home every weekend or something.

                                #4's explanation simply doesn't make sense. If the player wants to leave early, the school can't force him to stay. That's on the players, not the institutions. Unless we start forcing players to commit to a four-year contract that prevents them from playing sports elsewhere if they leave early. Which is a terrible idea. I'm not opposed to reducing school-night games. I think that's a fairly good idea. Not sure how that would work for sports like basketball and baseball. Hockey and football would be easy.
                                You think 50% of the students are leaving early?

                                #9 is also preposterous. How do you punish someone for breaking the rules if they've already jumped ship? You have to punish the institution. Does it suck for current players? Absolutely. But they should make it a priority to ensure a school isn't violating the rules.
                                The best way would be to retroactively take their scholarship away and put them in debt for that amount. Then it would have credit implications if they didn't pay it.

                                #10 is there for a reason. I don't understand the opposition to this. I think the NCAA should be far more lenient in granting exceptions, but overall this is in place to protect the rest of the players and the institution should a star player not like the team he's playing for and just jump ship.
                                The penalty of sitting out a year to transfer seems good enough to me. No immediate transfers though, unless its an exceptional case.


                                I also like the idea that a school should be required to give an academic scholarship to a player who loses his athletic scholarship for on-the-field performance issues (exceptions would be things like failed drug tests, criminal activity, etc.) and not be penalized by the NCAA. If a player doesn't cut it anymore, he should be allowed to continue his education without it costing the university an athletic scholarship slot (as long as he's in good standing academically).
                                Scholarships are 1 year things. They are then renewed each year. So the university should not be under any obligation to continue giving a scholarship to a player after their last one expired if they have been removed from their sport. Let them qualify for other types of scholarships, grants, loans, etc. if they can, but it shouldn't be guaranteed to them. They are likely only at that school because of their sport to start with.
                                PSNetwork / XBOX GamerTag: xJeris
                                Steam Profile

                                Sports Allegiance
                                NFL: CHI; MLB: MN, NYM; NHL: MN, MTL; NCAAB: MN, UNLV; NCAAF: MN, MIA; NCAAH: MN; Soccer: USA, Blackburn

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X