60 out 75 Northwestern players voted NO on Union

[godkiller]

95% of players with eligibility return the following year. Yes the scholarships are 1year but everybody knows you're coming back unless you screw up. Plus when you lose your spot on the team, you don't lose your spot in the school so net net you still going for free and you don't need to get tackled.

I understand the market value argument, but what is the value of Jameis Winston vs. the backup kicker who's also on scholarship? Again, if you want to talk market value, how much income is the backup safety who's a senior with 12 career tackles and has been trained by professionals, fed by a nutritionist, taught by college professors generating?
If the same dude wanted to get all that on his own, how much would that cost him?

Nobody is making dudes choose schools that are gonna fukk u over. You can go to Stanford, ND, NW, and get a real major and be taken care of. When the same dude goes to Alabama and all of a sudden Saban tells him Because dude can't play don't go crying to people about what the NCAA is not giving you.

The same system gave you a chance, you chose...

Poorly.


Again, I'm not saying the system is fair but I'm saying, these dudes have options too

The fact is that scholarships are worth nowhere near the amount of money some players can bring in and aren't guaranteed. The "system" is corrupt. Players are doing work and should be paid. Jameis is pretty much the difference between winning the national championship and not so he'd get his market worth in the hundreds of thousands, just as Newton allegedly did when he went to Auburn. I can't imagine why players would vote against a union; I think the universities coerced or threatened the players into voting no.

 

[Birdman]

No it isn't. Players could stand to make hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars.

Which one? Jamies? Manziel? who else? you are acting like every guy who laces up is some household name. Why do people act like the 5 players out of every team who actually have a market value are the same as 95% of the other guys.

Yes, the system is corrupt. Yes, it is flawed but again for every guy like Jameis who is not getting the equivalent of what he means to the school, there are at least 20 kids on that team who are a net loss to the school. Let's look at the situation from both sides.

There are 85 guys on scholarship in football. Why does the argument focus on the 5-10 kids who are exceptional and not the other 60? Again, living in a dorm, being trained by a professional, the uniforms, the practice field, the weight room, the food and shakes that turn dudes into beast. None of that stuff is free. Could Jameis afford that on his own without FSU?

Lebron's market value is probably closer to $50MIL per season, Miami doesn't pay him that...why? because he signed a contract saying he agrees to certain terms.
There are plenty of people working and aren't getting what their work is really worth.


Athletes sign scholarships too saying they play sports, in return they go to school. A % of them is getting screwed by that deal, but probably more than the majority are in position where they are getting a good deal.


Nobody forced Jameis to play college ball. Dude could have stayed his ass home, hired a private coach, a tutor, and paid them plus his room and food. After one year, he could have made himself available for the draft. Nope, dude went to FSU (platform), gets coached by people in the top of the industry, gets fed, has an apartment off campus, bangs broads and he's now a household name when he declares. All because he went to FSU instead of doing it on his own.

The "players are victims" narrative is weak. The system is not a good system, but I truly believe that both sides are getting something out of it. The players aren't getting a fair deal in some instances, but they are also benefitting from some of it.

 

[mastermind]

the irony in this case is that their head coach and their so-called free education is supposed to be preparing them to make sound decisions as adults

:ray:

 

[IAmGettingAMailOrderBride]

Yeah I think a bigger school like USC or Miami should've done this then when those players make like 10gs a season then others would follow

 

[dennis roadman]

:ray:

we laugh because crying is for girls

 

[godkiller]

Which one? Jamies? Manziel? who else? you are acting like every guy who laces up is some household name. Why do people act like the 5 players out of every team who actually have a market value are the same as 95% of the other guys.

Players' compensation would be set by market factors. However an economic study estimates that players' worth in a free market system could be upwards of thousands of dollars a year, so that gives one an idea of the compensation that could be available. At base most working people don't care if 5% of guys make more money than 95% of guys so long as salary is negotiable and everyone has to chance to advance. Why any player would vote against such is beyond me.

Yes, the system is corrupt. Yes, it is flawed but again for every guy like Jameis who is not getting the equivalent of what he means to the school, there are at least 20 kids on that team who are a net loss to the school. Let's look at the situation from both sides.

The courts apply an anti-trust exception standard to the NCAA which does not exist for other monopolies and organizations. In other industries, employers simply cannot bar people from unionizing or restrict people from demanding pay for work which classifies as work in every sense but words. College football is almost never a "net loss" for a school and those students that are net losses can be cut, just like businesses can fire people if the profit margin isn't hih enough to justify hiring.

There are 85 guys on scholarship in football. Why does the argument focus on the 5-10 kids who are exceptional and not the other 60? Again, living in a dorm, being trained by a professional, the uniforms, the practice field, the weight room, the food and shakes that turn dudes into beast. None of that stuff is free. Could Jameis afford that on his own without FSU?

The argument is that everyone should have the right to negotiate their salary regardless of present or future status. Inequalities exist in every employment area. The assertion that because star lawyers make more than normal lawyers, the former AND latter shouldn't be allowed to be paid or negotiate their salary, is preposterous. The assertion that because an employer provides some "benefits" against employees' expressed best interest--like universities providing food instead of fukking money--employers should then be able to stop people from demanding money or unionizing is similarly preposterous.

Lebron's market value is probably closer to $50MIL per season, Miami doesn't pay him that...why? because he signed a contract saying he agrees to certain terms.
There are plenty of people working and aren't getting what their work is really worth.

The two situations are different: Lebron is paid and can negotiate his salary, colleges players aren't paid and cannot. Lebron deliberately chooses to accept less to stay in Miami. Lebron could get as close to his market value, at his value or above it if he wanted. So the crux is choice. Lebron's true

Athletes sign scholarships too saying they play sports, in return they go to school. A % of them is getting screwed by that deal, but probably more than the majority are in position where they are getting a good deal.

So you're saying that if employers shifted the market so more people were unemployed and then told people to sign contracts to work for food and housing, that contract would be legally binding and supercede unemployment laws? Because that's the analogy to your example. It doesn't matter what NCAA makes players sign when the NCAA illegally monopolizes the market and misrepresents work as volunteerism. The NCAA's anti trust monopoly contracts don't supersede or have any power over players' ability to demand pay and negotiation rights for their work. If some players think what they get is a good deal, they are free to negotiate for free food and rent while Jameis buys a new Porsche.

Nobody forced Jameis to play college ball. Dude could have stayed his ass home, hired a private coach, a tutor, and paid them plus his room and food. After one year, he could have made himself available for the draft. Nope, dude went to FSU (platform), gets coached by people in the top of the industry, gets fed, has an apartment off campus, bangs broads and he's now a household name when he declares. All because he went to FSU instead of doing it on his own.

Nobody forced Jameis to play college ball, but they have to pay him and allow him to negotiate that pay. Similarly no one forced my aunt to become a nurse, but her employer must pay her and allow her to negotiate her pay. It doesn't matter if you think Jameis gets his worth as a college football player, you don't decide what his worth is or what he should get like you don't decide what a CEO worth or what he should get. Jameis is an adult, college football is a business and should apply by the same rules. You need to stop trying to justify indentured servitude and saying, "I think Johnny gets enough for his work. But me? I think I should be able to make whatever I want."

The "players are victims" narrative is weak. The system is not a good system, but I truly believe that both sides are getting something out of it. The players aren't getting a fair deal in some instances, but they are also benefitting from some of it.

So this is your argument: slavery was a not a good system, but I truly believe both sides are getting something out of it. The slaves aren't getting a fair deal in some instances, but they are also benefiting from it.

What a weak argument.

The fairest arbiter of a persons' worth is the invisible hand--the market--not you. That's like an employer deciding that a person making 1 cent an hour is "getting a fair deal". Your arbitrary notion of what is fair is irrelevant. There is no reason college football should be treated any different than any other business. There is no reason college football player shouldn't be able to get pay and negotiate it like everyone else does. Any court worth its salt will find the same.

 

[Birdman]

I absolutely agree with you that if there's a way to set player's value based on his performance or the market, they should do it.
A few people talked about allowing players to sign endorsements deals. I think a college player should be allowed to do commercials or sign a deal with any business.
What I don't get is how the same market value argument cannot be applied to my 3rd string LB. Does he have a negative market value if he's not performing? If in an open market, wouldn't the kid essentially owe the school money since the school invested in him by providing him housing, training and education?

You keep saying that FSU "has to pay him" like he's not getting anything. They are already paying him.
Again, I'm NOT saying he's getting his market value but all i'm saying is that Jameis is getting paid. Just because it doesn't get wired transferred into his account every 2 weeks doesn't mean he's not getting something for playing football.

You are arguing as if Jamies Winston lives with his parents, wakes up every morning to work for the NCAA, doesn't get anything in return and then goes back to his parents house while FSU and the NCAA are making bank.

It's not cold hard cash but it is $$$ nonetheless.

When you go to school and your parents are writing 5 figures check every semester for tuition, books, room and board, meal plan, clothing, why should you feel bad for someone who gets those things as part of an agreement that they willing entered into.
You can sort of wish for a better system if you know that it's not a fair deal, but nobody is being screwed. Not even Jameis.

You keep ignoring the argument that he's getting a platform to showcase his talent, training from the very best QB coaches, access to a nutrionist and a strenght coach, access to a cold tub, classes in one of the top schools in florida, books, food, an appartment.
Simple question, do these things not have a value?

.And let's not even count the fact that on top of tuition, books, room and board, a meal plan, varsity issue gear, some of the kids get the opportunity to attend a school that they couldn't have sniffed without football. What is the value of that? What is the value of being able to go to school that you may not have been able to attend? And this is regardless of how you do on the field, you are pretty much guaranteed that you will get a degree from that place. Does that not count as "pay"?

You want Jamies to capitalize on his name, so do i. What does the market say about the kid who doesn't do anything for 4 years? Does he need to give the money back?
Does he owe the school 300K after 4 years for the tuition? Does he need to give his degree back?

If you want to argue that the system is not fair, I already told you i agree with you.
But please don't pretend that there's not already $$$ going in the players pockets.

 

[big bun]

The student-athletes weren't coerced...the whole unionization plan just wasn't well thought out and once that was relayed to the student-athletes they made an informed vote.

 

[I.V.]

the irony in this case is that their head coach and their so-called free education is supposed to be preparing them to make sound decisions as adults

you just pointed out why progress on issues like this don't move the way they used to. Nobody wants to be someone else's martyr.

Basically, and nobody wants to lead when there's no guarantee that others will follow.

There's another thread right now about "why won't all black players just go to all black colleges" and the reason is because nobody believes that anybody else would commit to the cause. And nobody wants to give up theirs, carry the cross, then watch others lounge and avoid the struggle. So nobody commits in the first place. .