Posted on 04/04/2014 10:21:41 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Last year, twenty one year old Northwestern University quarterback Kain Colter decided he could “…revolutionize the way collegiate athletes are treated” by forming the first players union in NCAA athletics. A union…”would put the athletes in a position to bargain, to demand things that college athletes have never had before — like stipends, continuing medical coverage after graduation, more concussion testing and even a portion of the profits of the multi-billion dollar windfall created by college football and basketball,” writes CNN reporter Sara Ganim of the benefits players might realize. (1)
On March 26th, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regional office in Chicago removed a major impediment preventing players seeking union representation by ruling that Northwestern University is an employer. This makes the approximately 85 players on scholarship university employees, enabling them to organize the first labor union in college athletics. The newly formed union could “…seek representation with the College Athletes Players Association, a first-of-its-kind labor organization, backed by the United Steelworkers.” It was the United Steelworkers that financed the players efforts...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
As they do today, they would have to pretend that the players are actual college students and thus would only have eligibility for four years. However, we do have to face the facts of the reality of many of today’s college athletes.
As one college administrator once told me, “To say that some of our players are illiterate, would be an insult to the illiterate folks around the world.”
I had no idea that pilots started that low.
Take the money saved and direct it to services that those who want an education can benefit from...lowering the cost of books, the cost of housing. Tell the Union idiots to go screw themselves.
It will never happen but this crap will continue until someone stands up and says, "Enough!"
Nay. Those who lust for money and wealth are destroying football.
-------------
Fx News's "The Five" were talking about this issue the other day. But since they overlooked some very important constitutional problems with it for some non-obvious reason, I will fill in the void.
When patriots hear about vague federal laws and regulations, the example of this thread concerning unionization, they need check the constitutional validity of what they hear using a few key sections of the Constitution.
The first thing that patriots need to do when they hear about some questionable federal law is the following. They need to look in Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to find a clause which would reasonably justify such a law in the context that the law is being applied to. And without even bothering to look at these clauses, there's only 18 of them so I have a good idea by now, there is no clause that would reasonably address non-federal government employment, non-military schools or labor unions.
In fact, an examination of Section 8 shows that the Founding States had granted Congress exclusive legislative control only over those entities indicated in Clauses 17 & 18 as examples, the Founding States also making the 10th Amendment to clarify that the states essentially have unique legislative control over intrastate issues which is what this situation is imo.
Next, even if states had delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to address the issues of this thread, patriots also have to consider who is calling the shots concerning a federal regulation. This is because the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide it from many citizens, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected government bureaucrats in the constitutionally undefined NLRB. And by establishing such agences Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of the previously indicated clauses.
Sadly, the reason that many low-information patriots relucatant ask, "How high?" when constitutionally toothless federal agencies like the NLRB shout "JUMP!," is because parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
It's also too bad that the 13th Amendment does not prohibit voluntary servitude, especially to the unconstitutionally big federal government.
Again, patriots need to run a Section 8 checklist and also consider who is calling the shots every time they hear about a strange federal law or regulation.
They are just as fun to watch.
I am a Bama fan but will quit watching if colleges go union. F unions and the Cain kolter Dutchbag.
Between a rock and a hard place. Hate unions, Hate NCAA.
NO LOSS...
I think you’re right. It will be a good excuse to get rid of costly programs. Colleges are going to be under increasing pressure to compete.
Will the NCAA give up their ‘non-profit’ status?
How many ‘non-profits’ are union ?
I don't see that happening, but then again I don't see where this is going. To some degree the colleges brought it upon themselves by bringing in and giving scholarships to athletes with sports potential who would not have qualified academically.
The problem is deeper than just sports. It's admissions in general. The process is so far removed from determining and accepting the most qualified students that it's absurd.
I made that prediction based partly on how deeply many academics hate sports. There’s no love lost for sports like football and many eggheads would gladly join hands with radical feminists to wield the budget cutting axe.
Minorities hardest hit.
how many D1 basketball programs can pay for themselves? Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse, Kansas.....
now shift to baseball.
think about women's swimming....or lacrosse....not much revenue there. not even the schools with strong women's sports like UConn bball or UGA gymnastics would be able to pay for themselves.
money for these revenue drainers will have to come from somewhere.
gonna be a mess.
“...I see no reason why colleges need to provide farm team services to the NFL. I enjoy college football myself but think it is a travesty that a lot of guys who aren’t college material get sucked into playing football [but are unprepared academically to earn a real college education].”
I am late to this party, but wanted to throw my two cents worth. I agree with you that while on occasion I like to watch college football in the fall, on a quiet Saturday evening, the reality is college football = NFL minor leagues. What I like about college ball that its unpredictability factor is greater than the NFL. Young inexperienced players make it interesting when they entertain or enrage those in the stands, making crucial “mistakes we would never make if we were on the field.” (sure...right). Or to watch the “blind” or “paid off” ref make another bad call.
Have wondered for years why unionization of college athletes has not happened. The majority of US universities = liberal / left institutions. The left has a strong historical relationship with unions. Unions dislike management. The left hates big business. According to many on the left/ in unions, big business exploits people, especially its workers.
Many college sports programs are big business. Really, many universities and state university systems are big business - some even have locations in other countries. (University of California may still own some prime real estate in Washington DC several blocks from the WH, and not too far from one of the teachers unions prime location.)
Now liberals in their infinite hypocrisy have a real dilemma. Using their words, and painting with broad brush strokes, do leftist support big business university overlords who exploit an academically unqualified class of people, or do they support the unionization of an academically unqualified class to protect them from the university management.
For those of us who may sit in the stands hoping to watch college football on a nice fall day, unionization of athletes should change the degree to which we enjoy the game forever . . . just like it did to the NFL (remember what happened after the NFL strike in the mid-80s?). Some of us also will sit in the stands of the political arena and watch the left start to devour itself - leftist union vs leftist university. It will change the way college graduates view their alma mater forever - unfortunately. Life will go on. Whatever the left gets a hold of, they tend to destroy.
PS - Some educated people graduate from college, end up in the NFL then go on with their lives. I think Carl Eller of the Vikings is a lawyer or judge; Mike Singletary (Bears) may have an MBA or the like and was successful off the field. Since I don’t watch much of the NFL, I can’t tell you how many more there are in recent years.
I think you’re right. It will be a good excuse to get rid of costly programs. Colleges are going to be under increasing pressure to compete.
A better approach would be to put strict limits on the time a student could be forced to devote to sports so they could devote the proper time to their studies as student athletes.
Compared to 30 years ago, a current high school football player currently puts in the time commitment a college player did 30 years ago. A current college player puts in the time a pro did 30 years ago
College football has become more like profession than extra curricular scholarship activity.
BTW, college has gotten ferociously expensive so an athletic scholarship is great way for a student to get an education.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.