Who are they going to go 12-0 against? No amateur team would play them.
Speculate? Who wrote the NCAA rules if not the NCAA?
Interesting questions. The NCAA can ban/punish NCAA schools for violating NCAA rules. The union can take the university to court for contract violations. Or arbitration? The university could then sue the NCAA for any direct NCAA actions which caused the university to fail to meet its obligations to it’s student/athlete/employees. And the court could then order the NCAA to change it’s rules or to compensate the student/athlete/employee for not being invited to a bowl game (as a player, not a spectator 
).
Does a student/athlete/employee have the option of not joining the union? Has it been decided whether Northwester will be a closed shop or is Illinois (the state, not the University) a right-to-work state?
There are 17 private schools playing big time college football, we’ve got a list around here somewhere in one of these threads. The group also includes Notre Dame, Stanford and TCU, it’s not too bad of a bunch overall. Good enough that if you went 12-0 playing in it chances are pretty good that tv viewers would rather watch your guys play than Alabama’s amateurs.
Latest news in the O’Bannon suit, btw, is that the NCAA is reportedly not giving an inch in the court-ordered settlement talks. The NCAA going all Custer in these suits continues to confuse and worry me. What have the schools got up their sleeves? The courts are increasingly hostile to the concept of amateurism, are they counting on a last-minute save from congress? It’s no secret that more than a few of those people are simpletons.
Yeah, but you’re talking about them leaving the NCAA.
No it can’t. The school’s compliance with NCAA directives is strictly voluntary (in the sense that the school can always leave the NCAA.)
I’m a little confused about the course of our discussion. That’s not meant to be contentious, it generally happens several times a day with me IRL, too.
What I’m speculating is that if all 17 private schools unionized and negotiated concessions to the players that ran afoul of NCAA rules, resulting in the private schools being excommunicated from said NCAA, then chances are that they would play a football schedule among themselves.
I think neither the NCAA nor the private schools want that outcome, however. And heading off the divorce would probably mean the rules would have to be liberalized to let the public schools be competitive.
Maybe what we all should be talking about, though, is an Olympic model for college sports, where athletes are free to market themselves however they can and wish. Because I think that’s the most likely outcome of all.
Thanks for the info.
*Held: The NCAA’s participation in the events that led to Tarkanian’s suspension did not constitute “state action” prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment, and was not performed "under color of " state law within the meaning of § 1983. The NCAA cannot be deemed to be a state actor on the theory that it misused power it possessed by virtue of state law, since UNLV’s decision to suspend Tarkanian, while in compliance with the NCAA’s rules and recommendations, did not turn the NCAA’s conduct into action under color of Nevada law. Although it must be assumed that UNLV, as an NCAA member and a participant in the promulgation of the Association’s rules, had some minor impact on the NCAA’s policy determinations, the source of the rules adopted by the NCAA is not Nevada, but the collective membership, the vast majority of which was located in other States. Moreover, UNLV’s decision to
Page 488 U. S. 180
adopt the NCAA’s rules did not transform them into state rules, and the NCAA into a state actor, since UNLV retained plenary power to withdraw from the NCAA and to establish its own standards. The NCAA’s investigation, enforcement proceedings, and consequent recommendations did not constitute state action on the theory that they resulted from a delegation of power by UNLV, because: UNLV delegated no power to the NCAA to take specific action against any University employee; UNLV and the NCAA acted as adversaries throughout the proceedings; the NCAA enjoyed no governmental powers to facilitate its investigation; and the NCAA did not – indeed, could not – directly discipline Tarkanian, but could only threaten additional sanctions against UNLV if the University chose not to suspend its coach. Furthermore, even assuming the truth of Tarkanian’s argument that the power of the NCAA is so great that UNLV had no practical alternative but to comply with the Association’s demands, it does not follow that the NCAA was therefore acting under color of state law. Pp. 488 U. S. 191-199*.
There are state and federal laws dealing with unions. I wonder if the involvement of a union might alter the legal standing, the “under color of law” part, of the university-NCAA relationship. Would the union(s) need/want/insist they be involved in future university-NCAA relationships? That’s still to be determined.
It also has to be determined if there will be a separate football union, swimming union, lacrosse union. Will all athletes be combined under an Athletic Supporter union? (hehehe)
That all makes sense. You just sort of skipped a step by saying “12-0” without specifying that you meant in their post-NCAA superleague or whatever. 
The ruling only applies to scholarship football players (and strictly speaking only applies to NU, because the ruling is fact-based.) It’s quite interesting reading (“Decision and Direction of Election”.)
A couple of posts up I alluded to an “Olympic” model being the likely outcome, whereby athletes were free to be compensated by boosters/sponsors/etc. At another board I frequent we had a fun little thread discussing which schools would be the football powers in that scenario. We tried to imagine the 16-team superconference where there were no financial holds barred.
Texas? Oklahoma State? Oregon? USC? Get the old gang back together at SMU?
The thing with the Olympic model is that it doesn’t include a variable present here: team selection. For the most part, Olympic athletes “play for” whoever they play for. Only a few can choose other countries by virtue of dual citizenship and the like.
Here, you’re talking about players choosing colleges based on boosters’ promises. That seems like a colossal mess waiting to happen. What result when a booster withdraws his “gift” and a player wants to go to a different school? He’s contractually bound to the university.
It’s going to be a massive mess, which is still no reason to continue the prohibition. For one thing, I don’t think there will be any multi-year contractual obligations from athlete to school; transfers will be able to play without sitting out a year (the rules against in-season transfer will probably stay in place). Other students can transfer at will, the whole point of this rebellion is to achieve the rights that other students have. It would be a legal transaction for you or me to pay for a student’s tuition, even if we didn’t know him/her. Athletes are gonna win the same right and chaos will ensue.
I repeat my contention that the schools should have been out ahead of this 10 years ago and molding a workable system instead of letting the courts do the job for them. Their insistence on a system designed to maintain control by the power structure will come back to bite them on their collective rich asses.
Don’t get ahead of yourself. The NLRB ruling is probably going to be overturned by the full board.
That’s an interesting comment and somewhat contrary to most opinions I’ve read. In any event, I tend to think more about the Kessler lawsuit on the way than any of the other current challenges to the existing structure. That one goes right to the heart of the matter, challenging the schools’ rights to fix compensation below market value.
While rejecting both sides’ standard requests for summary judgment Friday, Judge Wilken did some damage to the NCAA’s defense prior to the June trial.
First, she eliminated the ridiculous First Amendment argument wherein the schools tried to make the case that games were news events and therefore the subjects did not have to be compensated. She also opened the door to broadcasters becoming a much more interested party in this lawsuit, as they may have to negotiate with players’ organizations in the near future for a piece of the tv pie.
Second, she required the NCAA to demonstrate that placing greater restrictions on athletes actually enhances the educational processes, another one of the schools’ arguments. That will be an interesting dance to perform in light of 50 hour weeks spent on a student’s sport, graduation rates at the factories and steerage into courses of little use in career preparation.
Third,
I think the competitive balance argument is a tenuous one and, even if the schools prevail on that particular point, it will not be enough to ultimately find for the defendants overall. She made an interesting statement in her opinion that she won’t be very convinced by the schools’ concerns that there will be less money for other sports because they haven’t convinced her that there aren’t other methods to try (hint, hint, coaches salaries).
I just watched an episode of Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel on HBO in which there was a long piece basically concluding that the universities have no interest in assuring that their football players get a degree that will be useful or even educating the student-athletes beyond a junior high level. They set them up with bogus degrees in “general studies” or “interdisciplinary studies” or “liberal studies” and have them take a series of easy-pass courses, including yoga, tennis, etc. All they care about is getting that official “degree granted” statistic.
That point strikes me as really weak - the NCAA is just describing a salary cap. Professional leagues have them too, agreed upon through the collective bargaining process. It’s easy to argue that the cap is necessary to maintain competitive balance, but it’s a lot tougher to argue that the cap has to be zero.
You’ve pretty much summed up the Alston case being run by Jeffrey Kessler, which is the lawsuit that should worry the schools the most. He is arguing that in the absence of any kind of collective bargaining that the schools are engaging in simple wage fixing and that the athletes are being denied their fundamental rights to pursuit of their market value.
O’Bannon’s suit is more narrow in focus and the union threat sort of dances around the issue. But each will take chunks out of the NCAA fortress of amateurism and then Kessler will arrive on scene to blast it to smithereens. He’s going for the jugular.
Shit, I wonder if my wife is going to have to pay back taxes on her scholarship now…
Frank Deford asks whether college admins have any honor – Deford: Paying College Athletes Would Level The Playing Field : NPR