This is ground shattering news for college athletics.

http://www.cnn.com/...thwestern-football-union/

http://tracking.si.com/...football-ncaaf/?eref=sihp

http://college-football.si.com/...on-kain-colter/?eref=sihp

this will ruin college sports

now the question remains; by joining the union, declaring it is a job, do they lose amateur status and become ineligible to play?

They get paid in scholarships, Awesome Opportunities, and hoes.

agreed

Good, maybe more schools will go the way of the ivy league, and stop giving these kids free rides.

Only a very small percentage of players in revenue sports are deserving to be somehow 'paid' on top of their schoarships they get. And I can tell you, none are from Northwestern.

However, all of them deserve some representation before rules committees and deciding what the rules of play for college sports will be. They deserve to keep their scholarships if they suffer a career ending injury while playing for a college. It's about time that college athletes seize representation for themselves. It's their right and the NCAA, universities, and all the other stakeholders need to give them their due. College sports can be very big business and its time to stop pretending that college football and basketball are anything less than minor leagues for their players.

+1 and Bonus.

I personally think the NCAA should go away. If you want to go pro, go pro. If you want to get an education, get an education. We don't need any more 6'6" 370lb communications majors.

college sports FUND a lot of universities. that is a terrible idea.

Indeed, ford, smartest thing I ever heard you say. This will ruin many universities that get by on funds generated by trademarked and copyrighted items from their own stores, plus, alumni donations and all sorts of things like that when they need it.

Making it a scenario where you have to PAY the player AND educate him for free, that's starting to step over the line into chaos and mayhem for all the schools on financial hits that they would take, and it would take a toll on the actual education system for whom? What about the degrees that get offrered, if they don't perform up to expectations in their chosen fields often enough, they will eventually lose their certification for some course they may have offered, that are no longer offered since they don't fit into the new paradigm of funding which would come from who, you may ask? Where you honestly think that money will come from? Come on, I know you know. Then, we have no scholarships available for any students that are there because they want to be an engineer, or scientist, you have a guy that's there to keep the football team going as long as possible, and another guy who solely focuses on the big paycheck waiting when he becomes eligible for the draft. Trust me, this will practically destroy college sports.

Granting the students the right to organize will not necessarily lead to a collapse of college sports. Organizing student athletes into a union needs to be done across the board, all student athletes should be represented. Those student athletes that spend so much time practicing for their schools that they can't go out and get a job on the side deserve to be compensated for that time. Those students who get injured playing sports for their schools shouldn't be thrown to the wolves with no support from their schools. These now injury scholarships shouldn't count against the schools in the NCAA scholarship counts (this may require a law change to achieve...which a union could argue and fight for) or this could just be called workers compensation.

I think that the drive for student athlete representation is going to become overwhelming in college sports, but I don't think it's going to take the form of a classic union. For one thing, I think colleges will be able to argue that all student athletes at their college should be included in the union vote (once they stop fighting to disallow the vote). Your basketball and football players are going to be countered in the form of representation by the soccer and volleyball players.

I do, however, suspect that this is one issue that will slice through the normal political spectrum and have odd allies in support or opposition for student athlete unionization. Heck, here I am as a standard bearer for those crossing the normal lines in support of a student athlete union and student athlete representation.

Angel raised some great points.

This is a very complicated issue. On the one hand, you have the argument that student athletes are held to very rigid obligations that mirror in many ways a employment contract; they generate significant revenue to the school, and deserve compensation. But this is only true for certain athletes, playing certain sports, at certain universities. However, it becomes problematic to separate a football player from a tennis player, even though that football player probably takes much greater risk, makes far greater sacrifices, and contributes to far more revenue for the school than the tennis player. So then on the other hand you have the argument that all student athletes should be protected and represented against, as Angel said, their scholarships being revoked after an injury etc.

So if the argument here is that athletes should be paid for their work, how do you calculate that? How do you calculate the value of a football player vs. the value of a swimmer? Or the value of a football player at Florida vs. the value of a football player at Central Michigan State? And then what do you do? Have some sort of minimum wage and employment standards across the board but then treat every university as an employer? They can offer whatever salary they want and whatever benefits they want as long as they meet some minimum? But that doesn't solve the problem either because then a school like Florida will tell potential recruits: "Hey, you can come play for us, compete in a great conference, play in some Bowl games, and get great exposure to NFL scouts... or you can go to that other school, make $50,000 more a year for the next 4 years, but risk having your football career end after your senior year." The big schools with the big names will still get away with paying their athletes a lot less or nothing at all because athletes have dreams of making it big and a school like Florida or Texas or USC will be able to promise those dreams a lot more than smaller schools. And in exchange for the promise of making those dreams a reality, they'll still pay the players nothing.

+1 to Angel1's last post.

hawkeyee's point about making those calculations should be interesting, but I think that's less to do with the union representation so much as the ramifications of considering student athletes "employees". If they are employees, then do they get paid hourly? Are there rules about how many hours they can work in a day/week/month? How does "overtime" work? Are they exempt salaried workers? This brings up a whole host of interesting questions.

I'm surprised that the NLRB ruled in their favor, to be honest, but I'm glad they did (even if NU is going to appeal this over and over...). I went to Northwestern and had some friends who were on the team/who are a part of this particular movement. While, yes, they weren't the biggest, baddest football players, and they did get a pretty nice deal on their education, many of them did end up significantly reducing their pro chances by coming to Northwestern, and they end up risking quite a bit to continue to play. Regardless, I think it's a good thing to have *somebody* advocating for student athletes. There's a pretty big disparity in negotiating power between the NCAA/colleges that earn big bucks on sports and these students. We can complain from the sidelines that this might "hurt colleges' ability to fund their programs", but is trading the health of its (unrepresented) students for that funding really a good trade? I believe we should be having a larger discussion about making sure our universities are well-funded, regardless of the success of their sports programs.

" I believe we should be having a larger discussion about making sure our universities are well-funded, regardless of the success of their sports programs."

+∞

no one is forcing these stidents to play the game. imo their deal is a scolarship, and the opportunity to play the sport they love with opportunities for a career at the professional level, and an education if that doesnt turn out.

what more do these people need? they already get a pretty good deal for an OPTIONAL program. as it sits now, most schools football programs, or basketball program, FUND all the other sports combined. you start taking away from that revenue stream, and other sports programs will start to be cut, and that is before you factor in these "other" sports reviving monetary compensation for their time as well.

the system of not paying athletes boils down to competativness at its core. if this goes through, and college athletes are allowed to unionize AND demand compensation other than their free education and professional opportunities, then championchips will boil down to alumni support. schools will be able to go out and BUY a national championchip. the art of recruting players will be tarnished, and imo, it will become like professional baseball, where the big rich franchises throw money at players, and the poor franchises have to lick the scraps and hope for a lucky year. that isnt a sports league i want to watch. and inevitably, it will effect the TV revenues because ratings will drop, and it will cause a larger divide between the financial capabilities of the schools.

i agree that some sort of support system needs to be set up for students who lose their scholarships due to injuries, i lost 2 of mine when i was still in highschool. however, these students make this choice to play these "dangerous" sports. i do not believe any other compensation is deserved, or needed, other than a support system. this slope is too slippery, and unless some serious regulation is laid down soon, i dont see college sports being as popular as they are now 50 years down the road

Yes, mrford, and now these students are making a choice that they want to have more say over their concerns. You are right, these students do have a choice to make, but it's not just two options. They can play by the rules as they are now, they can choose not to, or they can fight for a better deal.

I agree that there are significant risks to representation that goes for a lot of pay for football/basketball players, but these risks can be mitigated by the much greater numbers of other student athletes who also need to have a greater voice in ensuring their protection.

Student athlete representation is inevitable. The only question that remains is what form of representation the students athletes will have. If the NCAA, conferences, and universities choose to fight against any representation, then they will lose out on their chance to shape the type and form of representation that student athletes will have. It is very important that student athlete representation is formed in the right way so that it's not about making big money while they're in college and they do have the very legitimate concerns about injuries and not having any time to have other jobs while in college. The discussion about what form student athlete representation needs to take should begin now. It may require new legislation through the US congress and/or state legislators. Let's talk about how we can give student athletes a real voice on the most critical complaints they have now and mitigate the risks that a classic union representation would have.

Student athletes do get to make a choice and I think a great deal of them are going to make the choice to fight for representation until they get it.

I agree with a "workmans comp" fund for injured athletes to get treated and rehabbed for injuires sustained while playing/practing for their school. If that is the goal of the unionazation, then go for it. However; the idea that athletes make money universities and they should get a "piece of the pie" is inaccruate 99 % of the time. Only top tier Div I athletic programs turns a profit, and even then several, including my alma mater Florida St, chage an athethics fee on top of tuition.

For the few atheltes that generate a large amount of cash for the unviserities, give them a cut of jersey sales regardless of sport, that seems fair to me. Let the market demand determine how much a player is 'paid'. That is the way I would support "paying" a player.

Adding any substanial stipend will have the determinal effect of cutting baseball, track, softall, volleyball, golf teams, etc...those sports are money losers at all levels. Big college football and basketball will live on.

There was talk recently of bumping iup the schoalorships to the "full cost of attendence", but that idea wasn't shot down by the big football conference...but by small div I and div II schools whose balance sheets are already in the red.

Why has nobody mentioned that it is for all intents and purposes impossible to get to the NBA or the NFL without going to college. In these two sports, colleges and universities have been become the minor leagues, a de facto farm system.

The SEC is the NFL's version of AAA teams in baseball. To carry out the analogy further, the MAC and Conference USA would then be your Double A, and FCS schools would be your low A and instructional leagues. Plenty of minor leaguers never make the MLB, just as numerous college kids will never make the NFL. Some are obvious pros and are fast-tracked to the higher levels while others develop into solid professionals from the lessons they learn against lesser competition.

Regardless, what determines when they make the NFL is not whether or not they are ready for the NFL. Its all based on something that is completely dissassociated with their professional development - their academic eligibility. The Beanie Wells's and Jadaveon Clowney's of the world may be ready to graduate to the next level of their careers, but they are forced to risk injury biding time in the "minors." Likewise, in every draft, plenty of prospects are chosen by teams that cannot develop them. How do you get better if you aren't playing? Some players inevitably take longer to develop, and with limited roster sizes, the NFL can't wait forever for a slightly less gifted athlete to become smart enough about the game to warrant a spot on the field.

The reason I am pointing all this out is to assert that the image of the student athlete has already been tarnished by the professional leagues that mandate that college is for everyone.

College is not for everybody. College should not be for everybody. I state this as one who had no business being in college. After enrolling in the honors program as an incoming freshman, I withdrew before they could kick me out 3 1/2 years later. I finally found the maturity I lacked and a profession I love in the armed forces.

Student athletes do not need to unionize. Calling today's collegiate football and basketball players "student athletes" does a disservice to all athletes and is a slap in the face to all students.

http://www.businessinsider.com/...nue-expense-report-2011-6

All this talk of sports programs are funding all this other bullfluff, and schools are surviving off them, is utter nonsense.

i feel like you didnt even read the end of your own article

"Other quick facts:

58% of football programs and 56% of men's basketball programs are self-sufficient. Only 1 women's basketball program is.
The two biggest drivers of athletic revenue are ticket sales and alumni donations.
The two biggest expenses are scholarships and employee salaries. Those two items alone make up more than 50% of all expenses.
The median athletic expense per student athlete is $90,000. At a school in the FCS (the old I-AA), it's $33,000.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/...2011-6#ixzz2xkHdpPw6";

so, adding paying the students money to those stats, will clearly be good for college sports! our point was that for major schools, the football, or basketball programs, pay for all the other college sports. like womens soccer, or swimming and diving, or golf. none of these sports make money, and rely on other sports revenue to fun them, revenu that will disapear if players get paid over scolarships

Yes mrford, self sufficient, not producing a profit, hence they aren't helping the school at all, they are simply breaking even, and that is barely over half of them, the rest are losing money. Hence your



Is completely ridiculous.