The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Fuck The NCAA: We Own Your Likeness Edition

145791016

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    .....wow.

    If this stands, it's a pretty big deal.

    I'll mostly stand back and watch the NCAA flail and enjoy as the flames engulf them, but I'm a bit curious how this'll affect the NFL/NBA.

    NBA has the D-League, so they would be ok. NFL has the big problem, since they're neck deep in this mess.

    D-League kind of sucks though. It's also bad from a marketing standpoint, since no one watches it.
    shryke wrote: »
    I posted this in the CFB thread, but how delicious would this be:


    IU and Purdue would/will be fuming since the legislature decided we needed to go Right to Work in (I think) 2013.

    I'm not clear on the connection here.

    Right to Work makes unionizing very difficult, schools in Right to Work states would suddenly be at a competitive disadvantage if this goes nationwide.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    If it's a nationwide union then it's not really a problem. UPS, united steel workers, USPS, road construction workers, to name a few, they get to be a part of their unions in right to work states.

    But if it's a separate union for each school, then that's a problem even for non right to work state schools because the unions would be small and ineffective, most likely.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    If it's a nationwide union then it's not really a problem. UPS, united steel workers, USPS, road construction workers, to name a few, they get to be a part of their unions in right to work states.

    But if it's a separate union for each school, then that's a problem even for non right to work state schools because the unions would be small and ineffective, most likely.

    Right-to-work means that a union has to cover the employee, even if that employee isn't part of the union and has never paid any dues, if that employee is in a position normally covered by the union.

    So it's not that people get to join the union in right-to-work states, they always could (Yay first ammendment), it's that they get union benefits without ever being part of the union. This makes it hard for the union to operate, because who would pay to have coverage they already get for free, and they eventually just disappear.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Coincidentally, Alabama would repeal it in like 13 seconds if it would help the Tide.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Coincidentally, Alabama would repeal it in like 13 seconds if it would help the Tide.

    !

    That's just... I mean, could it... could that really happen?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Coincidentally, Alabama would repeal it in like 13 seconds if it would help the Tide.

    !

    That's just... I mean, could it... could that really happen?

    It's sort of a joke, but if you've ever met an Alabama fan, it's mostly not a joke.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    Maybe Alabama should just charter into the nfl. Trade places with the jaguars or something.

  • This content has been removed.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    .....wow.

    If this stands, it's a pretty big deal.

    I'll mostly stand back and watch the NCAA flail and enjoy as the flames engulf them, but I'm a bit curious how this'll affect the NFL/NBA.

    NBA has the D-League, so they would be ok. NFL has the big problem, since they're neck deep in this mess.

    D-League kind of sucks though. It's also bad from a marketing standpoint, since no one watches it.

    But would people watch it if NCAA basketball imploded, and so there was no longer an (arguably) superior competing product?

    I don't think so, just because you'll never get quite the same built-in market for a minor league team that colleges have. But it certainly wouldn't hurt their popularity.

    Minor league baseball doesn't have an audience. People prefer to watch the best, unless there's a compelling alternative (in college's case, it's things like connection with your time at school, all the stuff that is anti-corporate about the whole exercise: fight songs, cheerleaders, marching bands, tailgating, etc. Part of the way the NCAA and individual schools are committing suicide is by removing that stuff to emulate the pros. Even some of the really major powers (like Alabama!) are having attendance issues, especially from students.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • This content has been removed.

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Wait I don't see how being in a right-to-not-pay-your-union state is bad for the schools.

    Assuming that the schools keep trying to run the sports teams, wouldn't that just make them more attractive to prospective athletes? And then drive a wedge between the players' union and the athletes?

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Worth noting that in North Carolina (not a small sports state), it is actively illegal for public employees to unionize. That would put UNC, NCSU and ECU at a major disadvantage.

    Or open up some interesting federal lawsuits that could benefit teachers and other state employees.

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Worth noting that in North Carolina (not a small sports state), it is actively illegal for public employees to unionize. That would put UNC, NCSU and ECU at a major disadvantage.

    Or open up some interesting federal lawsuits that could benefit teachers and other state employees.

    I heard a comment on this yesterday that this ruling actually doesn't affect public universities at all, only the private ones.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Worth noting that in North Carolina (not a small sports state), it is actively illegal for public employees to unionize. That would put UNC, NCSU and ECU at a major disadvantage.

    Or open up some interesting federal lawsuits that could benefit teachers and other state employees.

    I heard a comment on this yesterday that this ruling actually doesn't affect public universities at all, only the private ones.

    WRT unions that may be the case. That the ruling pretty heavily landed on the "Student-Athletes are Employees" will totally affect them. Well, I guess public universities could refuse to pay them and then never ever be competitive again.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Worth noting that in North Carolina (not a small sports state), it is actively illegal for public employees to unionize. That would put UNC, NCSU and ECU at a major disadvantage.

    Or open up some interesting federal lawsuits that could benefit teachers and other state employees.

    I heard a comment on this yesterday that this ruling actually doesn't affect public universities at all, only the private ones.

    WRT unions that may be the case. That the ruling pretty heavily landed on the "Student-Athletes are Employees" will totally affect them. Well, I guess public universities could refuse to pay them and then never ever be competitive again.

    Well, I also heard analysis that they simply can't be a part of the NCAA and also pay their athletes, since NCAA rules expressly forbid it. What they supposedly can do is offer injury insurance, scholarship guarantees, etc. Which is what the union case was originally about anyway.

    Now of course at this point, we're getting down into the kind of micro level splitting of hairs on what compensation actually means that one would need an electron microscope just to keep it straight. And I wouldn't at all be surprised if the NCAA suddenly adopts a much harder line about what compensation is and isn't.

    The schools don't want any part of this either, and in the case of northwestern, the president has gone so far as to threaten that they would just leave D1 football all together; "You players want to screw this up, well you're going to screw it up for everyone then."

    Dark_Side on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Worth noting that in North Carolina (not a small sports state), it is actively illegal for public employees to unionize. That would put UNC, NCSU and ECU at a major disadvantage.

    Or open up some interesting federal lawsuits that could benefit teachers and other state employees.

    I heard a comment on this yesterday that this ruling actually doesn't affect public universities at all, only the private ones.

    WRT unions that may be the case. That the ruling pretty heavily landed on the "Student-Athletes are Employees" will totally affect them. Well, I guess public universities could refuse to pay them and then never ever be competitive again.

    Well, I also heard analysis that they simply can't be a part of the NCAA and also pay their athletes, since NCAA rules expressly forbid it. What they supposedly can do is offer injury insurance, scholarship guarantees, etc. Which is what the union case was originally about anyway.

    Now of course at this point, we're getting down into the kind of micro level splitting of hairs on what compensation actually means that one would need an electron microscope just to keep it straight. And I wouldn't at all be surprised if the NCAA suddenly adopts a much harder line about what compensation is and isn't.

    The schools don't want any part of this either, and in the case of northwestern, the president has gone so far as to threaten that they would just leave D1 football all together; "You players want to screw this up, well you're going to screw it up for everyone then."

    And if the Kessler case succeeds, those NCAA rules become very uncomfortable toilet paper.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Yeah. The writing is on wall here, but we all know exactly what the NCAA is going to do; stick their head in the sand and obstinately refuse to change until the whole thing comes crashing down around them.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Yea, this is such a titanic shift because it will require the NCAA to completely change or become irrelevant. There is just too much money involved on all sides.

    Which is probably a good hint that maybe the guys doing the actual product might deserve to be paid.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Yeah. The writing is on wall here, but we all know exactly what the NCAA is going to do; stick their head in the sand and obstinately refuse to change until the whole thing comes crashing down around them.

    Which is one of the points Pierce makes - had the NCAA been smart, they would have begun making concessions and preparing for a soft landing. But like the MLB owners, they're trying to bull their way through, and all it will take is one court ruling to have this crash all around them.

    Then again, we're talking an organization that declared War on Schmears. I wish I was joking about that.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Deadspin puts it bluntly: Poll: White People Don't Want College Athletes To Be Paid:
    The question was phrased, "Beyond any scholarships they receive, do you support or oppose paying salaries to college athletes?," so it didn't distinguish athletes in revenue sports, or the possibility of stipends as opposed to salaries. Thirty-three percent of respondents indicated either strongly or somewhat supported it, while 64 percent either strongly or somewhat opposed it. (Of the respondents, 56 percent indicated they were college sports fans.)

    The results aren't a surprise—this country was built on unpaid labor. But America, as you might expect, is not so monolithic as that. You can play around with respondents' demographics here. People who are younger, more liberal, and less religious, were more likely to support salaries for college athletes than were their older, more conservative, more religious counterparts.

    The largest split came with race: White respondents opposed paying college athletes by a 73-24 margin, while non-white respondents supported salaries for college athletes, 51-46. (Hispanics also narrowly supported paying college players.)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The one vaguely reasonable argument involves Title IX. Most of the moral argument for paying the players is that they're making a ton of money for the schools (well, for the coaching staffs, really, since that movie never goes back to the general fund); but if you just pay the revenue sports then you're open to all kinds of Title IX lawsuits, and if you pay everyone most of the schools go broke. I've never quite worked out a viable model if we're going to continue with Title IX. Which we should, because it's been enormously effective.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Yeah. Title IX is really a mixed blessing. It's had amazing results and is, without a doubt, valuable to the point where we can't think about tossing it. But it sure has some unintended consequences, too.

    Maybe if Congress were to take a nuanced approach to reforming existing laws by improving them in an objective, facts-based manne.... ahahahahahahahaha couldn't finish the thought.

    What is this I don't even.
  • MvrckMvrck Dwarven MountainhomeRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Make it an NCAA regulation that all student athletes will receive an hourly wage of the state minimum for the time they spend practicing or conditioning with training staff. Thus, they get income, health benefits from being a state employee, and the NCAA gets to "save face" by saying they are preserving amateurism by limiting wages. And since practice time is supposed to be heavily regulated, monitored and not to exceed X hours anyway, you have cost control. Washington State minimum wage is $9.32/hour. For a 105 member football roster at 40 hours a week for 12 months, that is $469,728. And that's being incredibly generous in terms of the practice time and whatnot, since technically for most of the winter, spring and summer the players are on "voluntary" workouts. You still pay them for time spent with training/weight staff though, so figure 20 or so hours in the off season per week, which again, gives them some livable income.

    Those costs would be significantly lower for most non-revenue sports as well, due to the more limited practice requirements, and drastically smaller rosters. The schools would still have to pay, but the costs would not be anywhere as near backbreaking as people make it out to seem. Make this apply to D1 FBS schools only. Problem fucking solved.

    Fake Edit: As a bonus, it would be hilarious to watch all the backass southern states descend into infighting as they try to raise their minimum wage to something that isn't laughable.

    Mvrck on
  • mojojoeomojojoeo A block off the park, living the dream.Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Note- the unions cant unionize athletes from public schools as that is federally regulated as something that cannot happen.

    So if the private schools do unionize.... it becomes a giant mess. Not real fair if USC Notre Dame and northwestern can pay dudes and the public colleges cannot.

    mojojoeo on
    Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    mojojoeo wrote: »
    Note- the unions cant unionize athletes from public schools as that is federally regulated as something that cannot happen.

    So if the private schools do unionize.... it becomes a giant mess. Not real fair if USC Notre Dame and northwestern can pay dudes and the public colleges cannot.

    Or "Roll Tide" becomes the new unionization rally cry.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • mojojoeomojojoeo A block off the park, living the dream.Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Yeah. Title IX is really a mixed blessing. It's had amazing results and is, without a doubt, valuable to the point where we can't think about tossing it. But it sure has some unintended consequences, too.

    Maybe if Congress were to take a nuanced approach to reforming existing laws by improving them in an objective, facts-based manne.... ahahahahahahahaha couldn't finish the thought.

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8245864/appeals-court-affirms-cheerleading-not-sport-title-ix

    Title 9 screws cheerleaders over and over. They get no help.


    Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    mojojoeo wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Yeah. Title IX is really a mixed blessing. It's had amazing results and is, without a doubt, valuable to the point where we can't think about tossing it. But it sure has some unintended consequences, too.

    Maybe if Congress were to take a nuanced approach to reforming existing laws by improving them in an objective, facts-based manne.... ahahahahahahahaha couldn't finish the thought.

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8245864/appeals-court-affirms-cheerleading-not-sport-title-ix

    Title 9 screws cheerleaders over and over. They get no help.


    It's more that cheerleading is an insanely corrupt sport - Leverage showrunner John Rodgers was rather stunned when his writing team looked into it while developing an episode based on sports. Needless to say, they went with cheerleading.

    Edit: Here's his postmortem on the episode:
    Every year the writers come in with three or four ideas for episodes. Jeremy Bernstein (@fajitas) led with two crime-y ones, and then said "Also, cheerleading."

    We'd joked about it before. The auditorium we scouted for another episode was hosting a cheerleading competition at the time, and of course all the guys said "Cheerleading episode!!" Har-de-har. So at first I thought he was joking.

    Then he laid out the stats, and all I kept saying was "Jesus Murphy." And then he laid out the reason for the stats, and Downey and I said "That is ... actual villainy." To be fair, I'll admit I was still a little dubious about whether we could make the episode work, so we had Jer present the info to the writer's room.

    It was the angriest I've seen the room since Season Two.

    Going much further into backstory will take us the closest to "actionable" we've come in a while, so let's just say there are several companies which indeed practice the business model -- by which I mean wide-scale, boggling efficient grift -- we detail in the episode. A hundred-something national championships. Force you to buy insurance that's never paid out. Fighting efforts to increase safety standards, because better safety standards would interfere with their ability to license and profit off cheerleading camps, etc, etc. Pretty girls in wheelchairs because of some assholes in suits. Using the real world model, we went to work.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AspectVoidAspectVoid Registered User regular
    mojojoeo wrote: »
    Note- the unions cant unionize athletes from public schools as that is federally regulated as something that cannot happen.

    So if the private schools do unionize.... it becomes a giant mess. Not real fair if USC Notre Dame and northwestern can pay dudes and the public colleges cannot.

    Its not that they're federally regulated. Public universities are technically State institutions, and as such they fall under the rules and regulations for state employees. The reason this ruling does not apply to them is because each state has individual laws governing what their employees can do.

    What can happen is that the students of a public university could band together and go before the NLRB also claiming to being employees with the right to unionize. They would need to be supported by a union for state employees (such as a Teacher's Union that covers public schools).

    If they did so, there's a high probability that the Northwestern case would be cited as precedent and they would be allowed to unionize for the same reasons, thus applying the ruling to public universities as well. But they need to go before the NLRB and make their case, first.

    PSN|AspectVoid
  • mojojoeomojojoeo A block off the park, living the dream.Registered User regular
    AspectVoid wrote: »
    mojojoeo wrote: »
    Note- the unions cant unionize athletes from public schools as that is federally regulated as something that cannot happen.

    So if the private schools do unionize.... it becomes a giant mess. Not real fair if USC Notre Dame and northwestern can pay dudes and the public colleges cannot.

    Its not that they're federally regulated. Public universities are technically State institutions, and as such they fall under the rules and regulations for state employees. The reason this ruling does not apply to them is because each state has individual laws governing what their employees can do.

    What can happen is that the students of a public university could band together and go before the NLRB also claiming to being employees with the right to unionize. They would need to be supported by a union for state employees (such as a Teacher's Union that covers public schools).

    If they did so, there's a high probability that the Northwestern case would be cited as precedent and they would be allowed to unionize for the same reasons, thus applying the ruling to public universities as well. But they need to go before the NLRB and make their case, first.

    Thanks for the correction.... i knew there was something but caught the tail end of a convo on it.

    its all good news. F the NCAA

    Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
  • AspectVoidAspectVoid Registered User regular
    Also, just to be fair, this ruling is not necessarily a good thing. Its a very real possibility that if they lose at the National level, Northwestern could look at the costs of dealing with a Union vs how much their sports programs bring in, and decide to kill the sports programs by killing all sports scholarships and making their sports programs elective.

    PSN|AspectVoid
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    AspectVoid wrote: »
    Also, just to be fair, this ruling is not necessarily a good thing. Its a very real possibility that if they lose at the National level, Northwestern could look at the costs of dealing with a Union vs how much their sports programs bring in, and decide to kill the sports programs by killing all sports scholarships and making their sports programs elective.

    We know how much their football program brings in at least - a little over $250M. And that's just direct funding, there's also soft funding and support derived from athletics as well.

    So, what do you think would happen to a college president who decided to throw that away over unionization?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • MvrckMvrck Dwarven MountainhomeRegistered User regular
    AspectVoid wrote: »
    Also, just to be fair, this ruling is not necessarily a good thing. Its a very real possibility that if they lose at the National level, Northwestern could look at the costs of dealing with a Union vs how much their sports programs bring in, and decide to kill the sports programs by killing all sports scholarships and making their sports programs elective.

    The amount of money they make off the Big 10 TV contracts and the like, this is never going to happen.

  • mojojoeomojojoeo A block off the park, living the dream.Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Ya. the whole reason its an issue now is that the tv contracts have gotten astronimical.... schools arent making a lil folding money.... they are banking millions on tv(shared) contracts.

    Would take a college pres with brass ones and a death wise to just cut off all sports.

    mojojoeo on
    Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
  • HuuHuu Registered User regular
    mojojoeo wrote: »
    Ya. the whole reason its an issue now is that the tv contracts have gotten astronimical.... schools arent making a lil folding money.... they are banking millions on tv(shared) contracts.

    Would take a college pres with brass ones and a death wise to just cut off all sports.

    Not all sports... just every sport that doesn't bring in $Texas (and bare minimum women's sports for Title IX purposes).

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited March 2014
    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    I guess money ruins everything. We're at a point now where some college football coaches make more money than their pro counterparts.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Huu wrote: »
    mojojoeo wrote: »
    Ya. the whole reason its an issue now is that the tv contracts have gotten astronimical.... schools arent making a lil folding money.... they are banking millions on tv(shared) contracts.

    Would take a college pres with brass ones and a death wise to just cut off all sports.

    Not all sports... just every sport that doesn't bring in $Texas (and bare minimum women's sports for Title IX purposes).

    That's every male sport but football and maybe basketball, I forget the details of the Big Ten's basketball contracts. And then ~6 women's sports for Title IX compliance.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • HuuHuu Registered User regular
    Huu wrote: »
    mojojoeo wrote: »
    Ya. the whole reason its an issue now is that the tv contracts have gotten astronimical.... schools arent making a lil folding money.... they are banking millions on tv(shared) contracts.

    Would take a college pres with brass ones and a death wise to just cut off all sports.

    Not all sports... just every sport that doesn't bring in $Texas (and bare minimum women's sports for Title IX purposes).

    That's every male sport but football and maybe basketball, I forget the details of the Big Ten's basketball contracts. And then ~6 women's sports for Title IX compliance.

    Yup. Increase program costs or school liability for athletic injuries and schools will cut sports left and right, mainly male sports. Same thing as we saw when Title IX went through. Its a consequence few people consider since for most people NCAA is basketball and Football and that's it.

  • This content has been removed.

Sign In or Register to comment.