They don’t even have to go that far: can you imagine the enormous pressure and guilt you would feel at 18 or 19 years old if you were told “if you act in your own best interests, you will destroy the University and all of college athletics for everyone, forever”?
If the union vote fails tomorrow, it will only be a temporary step back for college athletes, not failure. The current system will fall in the foreseeable future. Kessler still rides. Heck, I never expected the NLRB decision as it was.
Well, they voted today.
Now we just have to wait until the appeal(s) is(are) complete to find out what the result is.
No, if the ungrateful players want to bit the hand that’s feeding them, this is the only logical alternative. Now let’s see them pay for “school”, and get to the pros.
Yes, massah.
I expect colleges and universities to go to Congress–where Congress will legislate a continuation of the status quo.
In some ways, the bigger story here is the fate of the NLRB decision. If that decision stands up to the process of review and appeals, the players will still be considered employees, whether or not they vote for a union.
That’s why, in the Northwestern case, they’re not even going to count the votes in the union ballot yet. They’re waiting for the NLRB process to play itself out. If the NLRB decision is reversed, and players are NOT employees, the union vote is moot anyway. If the NLRB decision is upheld, and the players ARE employees, then voting down union membership won’t change that fact.
You certainly fit right in with the university administration and the NCAA talking heads when it comes to irrationality and willful refusal to consider the facts in this case. I don’t think you’ve yet made a single point in this thread that demonstrates any understanding of the issues involved, and any contribution beyond petulant whining.
mhendo- I seem to be the only person in this thread using the actual definitions of “amateur” and “professional”. BTW, nice card play with the “massah” comment. I also seem to be the only person in this thread willing to tell these guys something they’ve probably never heard before: “no, you can’t get everything you want when you want it. You must wait like everyone else.” Because of their sycophants and hangers-on indulging their every whim from an early age.
You are detached from reality on this issue.
Your definition of amateur is “We refuse to pay you, or to allow you to be paid, therefore you are an amateur.” You have no clue, apparently, that this is not an appropriate definition.
Unconfirmed sources are already reporting that the vote to unionize failed by a fairly large margin. Which isn’t very surprising, union drives have often failed, at least in the early stages, in other industries as well. But a “no” vote has no effect on the NLRB’s ruling as it now stands nor does it mean that unionization won’t happen at one of the other private schools.
Schools may one day regret not encouraging unions, which would give them someone to negotiate with and a way to manage the new realities. If O’Bannon wins, schools may have a better chance of winning a larger share of tv revenues if they could bargain with labor; otherwise they’ll have to live with a court-ordered split which may not be as lucrative for them.
And if Kessler wins his suit, then they may wish they had gotten in front of this change and organized the new relationships between themselves, athletes and boosters, who will be free to spend money on athletes (and, worse, influence athletic departments) to their corrupt little hearts’ content.
Opponents of the athletes’ rebellion keep ignoring the issue but it has always been one of getting to the tv and booster money. Money equals control and it’s the main reason the schools continue to cheerlead for the crumbling gospel of “amateurism.”
Ok, if the players win:
1)Pay them market value
2)Move their games off campus, preferably to NFL/NBA venues
3)Abolish their scholarships, force them to.pay for school out of pocket, in the unlikely event they actually care about education
What are these, “rules that are acceptable to etv78 but which no one will ever do?”
Schools will pay whatever they must to ensure that the football and basketball programs generate more money than they cost. Which is actually pretty hard to ascertain as there are all kinds of intangibles involved, like alumni giving and applications. But if they can’t make a profit, well, Hello, Division III!
Perhaps opponents should be writing letters to their congresscritters as exempting legislation seems to be the schools’ last chance. It may be one reason why they’re taking such a hard stance and dragging things out, to give them more time to turn on the big lobby machine themselves (plus Mark Emmert can keep getting those sweet paychecks).
Well, obviously their value will be low enough to allow the programs to be profitable.
As to them being “my rules”: You guys seem to want it both ways, either they are professional athletes, or they aren’t. If they are, which it seems we are headed towards, they shouldn’t be able to take advantage of a system they endeavor to destroy.
Could you define "take advantage of " and “endeavor to destroy”?
Your “arguments” in this thread so far suggest that you really have no idea about the financial and institutional relationships involved in big-time college sports, and no idea about the actual issues involved in this case. It would help to know exactly what you think is going on here, and why you seem so dead-set on villainizing the people who actually provide the entertainment, who do so without even being allowed to work for money, and who do so in an environment where they can have their oh-so-valuable scholarships and health insurance yanked just because they get injured or get dropped from the team.
Remember, that’s the system you’re defending. You can claim that you’re not, but in the current climate, it appears that the only way for the students to make any challenge to that system is to have themselves defined, under law, as employees.
Update:::
No they can’t. At least not at private universities.
Most interesting to me is that it was unanimous for all 5 members of the NLRB, there is a fair amount of political posturing in that group, but not this time.
ETA: Hmm I didn’t realize it was 18 months ago(damn I’m getting old) Not sure if it is a continuing conversation or a zombie at that point.
I read it as saying that they can’t at public universities - “By statute the Board does not have jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities” - and that this restriction pretty much makes it impossible to apply to the seventeen (is that all?) private schools in FBS; it would do more harm than good to allow only one Big 10 school to unionize.
Apparently, the only private schools in FBS are: Baylor, Boston College, BYU, Duke, Miami, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Rice, SMU, Stanford, Syracuse, TCU, Tulane, Tulsa, USC, Vanderbilt, and Wake Forest.
I just saw this pop up on the AP as well, and I’m curious if this is actually in the decision or if it’s just what was said at a press release or something:[
](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COLLEGE_ATHLETES_UNION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-17-16-15-15)Because if that was in any way a consideration in this decision, then IMO the decision is wrong as a matter of law and the board members need to be replaced.
We don’t decide whether or not people can exercise their rights based on how much it will inconvenience the people who benefit from the oppression of those rights.
The more I read about it, the more I think this decision was legally incorrect and an example of “let’s not upset this money-laden ship, no matter how the money got there”.
My understanding is the NLRB did not assert jurisdiction because the scope of this case was too narrow. The issue seems to be not entirely closed, though.
It turns out that I’m not the only person who thinks the NLRB’s non-decision was Wrong: [VICE: The Nlrb’s Decision About Northwestern Football Players Unionizing Is Just Plain Weird
](https://sports.vice.com/en_us/highlight/the-nlrbs-decision-about-northwestern-football-players-unionizing-is-just-plain-weird)[ESPN picked up on this bit in the decision:
](NLRB says Northwestern players cannot unionize - ESPN)So the decision was narrowly focused to apply only to the players at Northwestern, except that they made the decision because they thought of how it would affect the other teams that NW plays against? What the hell kind of sense does that make???