College football players union

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I also have a big issue with the idea of only looking at revenue and then coming to the conclusion that athletes are getting screwed. Does a business solely look at its revenues and come to the conclusion that they are successful? Not if they're a good business.

Those revenues are compared against their expenses. So, why are we not looking at expenses as well? Do those expenses, some of which are solely created for athletes: training centers, travel, stipends, clothing, the trainers themselves, the medical, the facilities, not count in this case?

 

[BigRedBuster]

I also have a big issue with the idea of only looking at revenue and then coming to the conclusion that athletes are getting screwed. Does a business solely look at its revenues and come to the conclusion that they are successful? Not if they're a good business.

Those revenues are compared against their expenses. So, why are we not looking at expenses as well? Do those expenses, some of which are solely created for athletes: training centers, travel, stipends, clothing, the trainers themselves, the medical, the facilities, not count in this case?

That has been my question for a long time on this and nobody is willing to touch it.

Right now, the football program brings in a huge amounts of money and STILL needs major donations to build the palaces that are needed to impress these kids and make them want to come to Nebraska and play football.

So, to me, it looks like the athletic program still runs in the red without donations.

 

[Landlord]

That has been my question for a long time on this and nobody is willing to touch it.

This is, I think, the most frustrating and ridiculous thing about this entire idea. Nobody is calling a spade a spade. I've been hearing "true cost of attendance" for years, yet nobody seems to pay attention when I've pointed out over and over and over that football players already have access to well over 10 grand per year in addition to their scholarship.

How is college football supposed to come to a wise decision if nobody will even acknowledge the facts or ask the questions, and instead keep regurgitating the same talking points and strawman arguments?

 

[Count 'Bility]

Is Cain Colter a better football player now than before his 4 years at Northwestern? Does he have a better opportunity to play in the NFL now or before his 4 years at NW? I know it's not really applicable to look at it this way for him, cuz he wont be playing in the NFL. But let's look at Ameer. What has made him the player with the NFL capabilities he has today?

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

This whole argument of "this movement is not what it seems" is flat out bull. I've said it earlier, if this was entirely about giving the players a voice in terms of not losing their scholarships due to injuries, then something could have been done that didn't involve unionizing.

Yep. If Colter and co. were truly only concerned with having fair rights as far as scholarships and medical care, there are SO many easier ways to accomplish that end. This is all about money.

If a football player is paid $5,000 in real money plus his scholarship valued at 30-55k, plus health are, books, clothing then it adds up to a decent middle class wage for an 18 year old.

Football players already receive enough compensation to make them the top 1% in their age demographics.

Top 1%? Is that including the schollie value? I'd counter that they might blow out their knee and walk on that for the rest of their life.

But my main point is not college players vs college students, it's college players vs college administrators in terms of $ distribution. In no way do think the Irish women's crew team deserves to get cash for the way they row a boat, and I think they are quite fortunate to get free educations on the backs and knees of the football money.

 

[Landlord]

Top 1%? Is that including the schollie value? I'd counter that they might blow out their knee and walk on that for the rest of their life.

But my main point is not college players vs college students, it's college players vs college administrators in terms of $ distribution. In no way do think the Irish women's crew team deserves to get cash for the way they row a boat, and I think they are quite fortunate to get free educations on the backs and knees of the football money.

I get your main point, and that's exactly why I disagree with you, because you have framed college athletics around a model of production and services yielded instead of around education, but even then it's inconsistent, or do full-ride academic scholarship students not bring their universities any money?

Why shouldn't the crew team deserve cash for what they do? Their coach has the same control over their lives and they put in comparable hours and effort. Just because the majority of Americans aren't interested in being entertained by their sport? How is that their fault? Or rather, how is that the credit of football players that people happen to be interested in their endeavors?

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

Top 1%? Is that including the schollie value? I'd counter that they might blow out their knee and walk on that for the rest of their life.

But my main point is not college players vs college students, it's college players vs college administrators in terms of $ distribution. In no way do think the Irish women's crew team deserves to get cash for the way they row a boat, and I think they are quite fortunate to get free educations on the backs and knees of the football money.

I get your main point, and that's exactly why I disagree with you, because you have framed college athletics around a model of production and services yielded instead of around education, but even then it's inconsistent, or do full-ride academic scholarship students not bring their universities any money?

Why shouldn't the crew team deserve cash for what they do? Their coach has the same control over their lives and they put in comparable hours and effort. Just because the majority of Americans aren't interested in being entertained by their sport? How is that their fault? Or rather, how is that the credit of football players that people happen to be interested in their endeavors?

You don't deserve cash for being a good person, except under socialism which would pay anyone a wage just for breathing. People deserve compensation for producing something of value. That's why we have a minimum wage. Not only are non-revenue sports of little to no extrinsic value, your life is no different based on how fast the team rowed their boat this season. If you have an account on Huskerboard, your life probably does change a bit on Saturdays in autumn.

Given that college football produces value, the question becomes, who gets it? And who is excluded?

 

[Landlord]

Top 1%? Is that including the schollie value? I'd counter that they might blow out their knee and walk on that for the rest of their life.

But my main point is not college players vs college students, it's college players vs college administrators in terms of $ distribution. In no way do think the Irish women's crew team deserves to get cash for the way they row a boat, and I think they are quite fortunate to get free educations on the backs and knees of the football money.

I get your main point, and that's exactly why I disagree with you, because you have framed college athletics around a model of production and services yielded instead of around education, but even then it's inconsistent, or do full-ride academic scholarship students not bring their universities any money?

Why shouldn't the crew team deserve cash for what they do? Their coach has the same control over their lives and they put in comparable hours and effort. Just because the majority of Americans aren't interested in being entertained by their sport? How is that their fault? Or rather, how is that the credit of football players that people happen to be interested in their endeavors?

You don't deserve cash for being a good person, except under socialism which would pay anyone a wage just for breathing. People deserve compensation for producing something of value. That's why we have a minimum wage. Not only are non-revenue sports of little to no extrinsic value, your life is no different based on how fast the team rowed their boat this season. If you have an account on Huskerboard, your life probably does change a bit on Saturdays in autumn.

Given that college football produces value, the question becomes, who gets it? And who is excluded?

I don't think you can simultaneously claim that academic scholarship students and non-revenue-producing athletic scholarship students deserve payment because they don't produce something of value (when in fact they produce all sorts of value for the university, it's just not as explicit or measured in dollar signs), and then turn around and argue that another reason that football players deserve more is because of how they might implicitly positively affect people's lives somehow.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Top 1%? Is that including the schollie value? I'd counter that they might blow out their knee and walk on that for the rest of their life.

But my main point is not college players vs college students, it's college players vs college administrators in terms of $ distribution. In no way do think the Irish women's crew team deserves to get cash for the way they row a boat, and I think they are quite fortunate to get free educations on the backs and knees of the football money.

I get your main point, and that's exactly why I disagree with you, because you have framed college athletics around a model of production and services yielded instead of around education, but even then it's inconsistent, or do full-ride academic scholarship students not bring their universities any money?

Why shouldn't the crew team deserve cash for what they do? Their coach has the same control over their lives and they put in comparable hours and effort. Just because the majority of Americans aren't interested in being entertained by their sport? How is that their fault? Or rather, how is that the credit of football players that people happen to be interested in their endeavors?

You don't deserve cash for being a good person, except under socialism which would pay anyone a wage just for breathing. People deserve compensation for producing something of value. That's why we have a minimum wage. Not only are non-revenue sports of little to no extrinsic value, your life is no different based on how fast the team rowed their boat this season. If you have an account on Huskerboard, your life probably does change a bit on Saturdays in autumn.

Given that college football produces value, the question becomes, who gets it? And who is excluded?

I still haven't seen anyone tell me what money they produce for the University. Until that is established, your point is meaningless.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Pat Fitzgerald weighs in:

http://espn.go.com/chicago/college-football/story/_/id/10734087/pat-fitzgerald-urges-northwestern-wildcats-players-vote-union

"I believe it's in their best interests to vote no," Fitzgerald said Saturday following a team practice. "With the research that I've done, I'm going to stick to the facts and I'm going to do everything in my power to educate our guys. Our university is going to do that. We'll give them all the resources they need to get the facts."

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

What are the facts on Fitzgerald's annual salary?

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

What are the facts on Fitzgerald's annual salary?

You have a point you want to make with that?

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Mark Emmert weighs in on the issue, and I have a hard time assigning him any credibility:

The notion of using a union employee model to address the challenges that do exist in intercollegiate athletics is something that strikes most people as a grossly inappropriate solution to the problems. It would blow up everything about the collegiate model of athletics.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

What are the facts on Fitzgerald's annual salary?

You have a point you want to make with that?

Not until I hear what Fitz's point is. He said "the facts" would lead his players to vote NO on a union, but didn't give a single reason.

 

[sd'sker]

I still haven't seen anyone tell me what money they produce for the University. Until that is established, your point is meaningless.

Alabama Athletics Earn More Than All 30 NHL Teams

The Alabama Crimson Tide athletics department earns revenues of $143 million dollars.According to Marc Edelman, a professor of sports and antitrust law at CUNY, that is more than all 30 NHL teams and 25 NBA teams. While not the craziest thing you've ever heard, it does crystallize something you've probably always known on some level: amateur sports is better business than professional sports.On the whole, college athletics earns more than the aggregate of the NHL and NBA, according to Edelman. Student athletes across the country are earning more for their institutes of higher learning than professionals are for their organizations designed specifically to make money.