(09-29-2021 05:11 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:32 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:30 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:18 PM)Maize Wrote:  What is in the back of my mind is the TV Contracts...especially the SEC TV Contract with the new additions of Texas and Oklahoma. 80% of those Billion Dollar deals is because of football...I’m just saying...

Greed is killing college football. Why shouldn’t the players, who have worked forever for nothing, get their slice of the pie. No reason the coaches, commissioners, college presidents etc should make all the money.

Agree, the employee model (NRLB) though is problematic. But for now this will only effect private schools. Interesting times.

The lawyers will be in the waters ready to sue for concussions and worker comp violations.

Good point that’s the next logical step. Workers comp coverage for every athlete in a school’s program. That’s an expensive endeavor

I own a small roofing business and can attest to the extreme cost of Worker’s Comp. The rate starts at approximately 27.5 cents on the dollar in NC…

… and roofers don’t get hurt as much as football players do.

I used to help the trades with work comp. Roofers were always hammered.

(09-29-2021 05:18 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:11 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:32 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:30 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Greed is killing college football. Why shouldn’t the players, who have worked forever for nothing, get their slice of the pie. No reason the coaches, commissioners, college presidents etc should make all the money.

Agree, the employee model (NRLB) though is problematic. But for now this will only effect private schools. Interesting times.

The lawyers will be in the waters ready to sue for concussions and worker comp violations.

Good point that’s the next logical step. Workers comp coverage for every athlete in a school’s program. That’s an expensive endeavor

I own a small roofing business and can attest to the extreme cost of Worker’s Comp. The rate starts at approximately 27.5 cents on the dollar in NC…

… and roofers don’t get hurt as much as football players do.

I used to help the trades with work comp. Roofers were always hammered.

I see what you did there

(09-29-2021 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:51 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:41 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:36 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Now the athletes need to unionize. If I’m president of the AFL-CIO, I’m on the phone with my general council trying to figure out how to make that happen. College athletes could become a powerful force in a very short time.

This could cause us to bow out but the schools and the NCAA have no one to blame but themselves. They buried their head in the sand so long that this no is spiraling out of their control.

I think that’s what you’ll see next. That won’t be popular in The SEC where unions have been notoriously frowned upon for decades. On the other hand I would expect unionization to occur in the Northeast and Upper Midwest first. Watch leagues like The Big Ten and Big East for signs of what’s coming.

I would hate to see Notre Dame bow out but understand why they would.

In some SEC states you can’t have a state employee union with collective bargaining so no need to be upset over a union that doesn’t exist.

Plus, there is a bill in both houses of Congress that would amend the NLRA to cover scholarship athletes at public schools. And no SEC state is going to want to watch the few FBS private schools gobble up the best players.

(09-29-2021 05:16 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  "Under common law, an employee includes a person 'who perform[s] services for another and [is] subject to the other's control or right of control," she said.

Define control.

Not allowing an scholarship athlete to have a part-time job sure looks like control to me. My daughter played college basketball. It was specifically spelled out in the yearly scholarship paperwork she signed that she could not hold a part time job while school was in session.

My daughter played Division III. I can only imagine the control Division I athletes have placed on them.

(09-29-2021 04:49 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:51 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:41 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:36 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Now the athletes need to unionize. If I’m president of the AFL-CIO, I’m on the phone with my general council trying to figure out how to make that happen. College athletes could become a powerful force in a very short time.

This could cause us to bow out but the schools and the NCAA have no one to blame but themselves. They buried their head in the sand so long that this no is spiraling out of their control.

I think that’s what you’ll see next. That won’t be popular in The SEC where unions have been notoriously frowned upon for decades. On the other hand I would expect unionization to occur in the Northeast and Upper Midwest first. Watch leagues like The Big Ten and Big East for signs of what’s coming.

I would hate to see Notre Dame bow out but understand why they would.

In some SEC states you can’t have a state employee union with collective bargaining so no need to be upset over a union that doesn’t exist.

I would expect that will get changed or it could hurt SEC recruiting. Why go to an SEC school when you can go to The Big Ten or Big 12 and receive job benefits like insurance for example.

How many 17 year olds think about insurance? Probably only the ones who would go to Stanford or Northwestern.

(09-29-2021 05:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:49 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:51 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:41 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  This could cause us to bow out but the schools and the NCAA have no one to blame but themselves. They buried their head in the sand so long that this no is spiraling out of their control.

I think that’s what you’ll see next. That won’t be popular in The SEC where unions have been notoriously frowned upon for decades. On the other hand I would expect unionization to occur in the Northeast and Upper Midwest first. Watch leagues like The Big Ten and Big East for signs of what’s coming.

I would hate to see Notre Dame bow out but understand why they would.

In some SEC states you can’t have a state employee union with collective bargaining so no need to be upset over a union that doesn’t exist.

I would expect that will get changed or it could hurt SEC recruiting. Why go to an SEC school when you can go to The Big Ten or Big 12 and receive job benefits like insurance for example.

How many 17 year olds think about insurance? Probably only the ones who would go to Stanford or Northwestern.

They won’t have to. The rival coaches will take care of that. The reality is if student athletes are designated as school employees, state laws require employers to provide workers compensation insurance.

(09-29-2021 05:24 PM)chester Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:51 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:41 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:36 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Now the athletes need to unionize. If I’m president of the AFL-CIO, I’m on the phone with my general council trying to figure out how to make that happen. College athletes could become a powerful force in a very short time.

This could cause us to bow out but the schools and the NCAA have no one to blame but themselves. They buried their head in the sand so long that this no is spiraling out of their control.

I think that’s what you’ll see next. That won’t be popular in The SEC where unions have been notoriously frowned upon for decades. On the other hand I would expect unionization to occur in the Northeast and Upper Midwest first. Watch leagues like The Big Ten and Big East for signs of what’s coming.

I would hate to see Notre Dame bow out but understand why they would.

In some SEC states you can’t have a state employee union with collective bargaining so no need to be upset over a union that doesn’t exist.

Plus, there is a bill in both houses of Congress that would amend the NLRA to cover scholarship athletes at public schools. And no SEC state is going to want to watch the few FBS private schools gobble up the best players.

Wow.

It’s going to be interesting watching schools in the Northeast, Northwest and Upper Midwest take advantage of more “labor friendly” laws in recruiting athletes to their universities. Schools in The PAC and Big Ten just got a huge advantage given to them over schools in The SEC and some schools in The ACC and Big 12.

(09-29-2021 05:24 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:16 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  "Under common law, an employee includes a person 'who perform[s] services for another and [is] subject to the other's control or right of control," she said.

Define control.

Not allowing an scholarship athlete to have a part-time job sure looks like control to me. My daughter played college basketball. It was specifically spelled out in the yearly scholarship paperwork she signed that she could not hold a part time job while school was in session.

My daughter played Division III. I can only imagine the control Division I athletes have placed on them.

1) Players have to lift weights in the morning in the off season.

2) Players have to practice at set times during the week.

3) Players have to travel to away games.

4) Players have to show up on time for games.

And on and on and on......

(09-29-2021 03:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 02:53 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Time to pay Income Tax on those scholarships as they would be considered compensation

Not really. Remaining eligible would be considered a condition of employment. Only the part of the scholarship that goes for room & board and stipends to cover other costs of attendance would be taxable, but that is already the case. And only that taxable part would count toward meeting minimum wage requirements.

However, I would guess that as a condition of employment the hours spent in class and preparing for class would be considered as hours worked (in addition to the hours devoted to athletics).

I dont see how. An accounting firm might require you to be a CPA within 2 years of your hire date---but they arent going to compensate you for the time it took you to take the classes or the time spent studying for that designation.

(09-29-2021 05:55 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:24 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:16 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  "Under common law, an employee includes a person 'who perform[s] services for another and [is] subject to the other's control or right of control," she said.

Define control.

Not allowing an scholarship athlete to have a part-time job sure looks like control to me. My daughter played college basketball. It was specifically spelled out in the yearly scholarship paperwork she signed that she could not hold a part time job while school was in session.

My daughter played Division III. I can only imagine the control Division I athletes have placed on them.

1) Players have to lift weights in the morning in the off season.

2) Players have to practice at set times during the week.

3) Players have to travel to away games.

4) Players have to show up on time for games.

And on and on and on......

So high school players are employees?

(09-29-2021 05:24 PM)chester Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:51 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:41 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:36 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Now the athletes need to unionize. If I’m president of the AFL-CIO, I’m on the phone with my general council trying to figure out how to make that happen. College athletes could become a powerful force in a very short time.

This could cause us to bow out but the schools and the NCAA have no one to blame but themselves. They buried their head in the sand so long that this no is spiraling out of their control.

I think that’s what you’ll see next. That won’t be popular in The SEC where unions have been notoriously frowned upon for decades. On the other hand I would expect unionization to occur in the Northeast and Upper Midwest first. Watch leagues like The Big Ten and Big East for signs of what’s coming.

I would hate to see Notre Dame bow out but understand why they would.

In some SEC states you can’t have a state employee union with collective bargaining so no need to be upset over a union that doesn’t exist.

Plus, there is a bill in both houses of Congress that would amend the NLRA to cover scholarship athletes at public schools. And no SEC state is going to want to watch the few FBS private schools gobble up the best players.

The SEC has already taken a proactive stance, unlike the tone deaf and impotent alliance which was formed in part in denial of this reality.

(09-29-2021 05:41 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It’s going to be interesting watching schools in the Northeast, Northwest and Upper Midwest take advantage of more “labor friendly” laws in recruiting athletes to their universities. Schools in The PAC and Big Ten just got a huge advantage given to them over schools in The SEC and some schools in The ACC and Big 12.

Excuse me? You do realize part of the agenda of the alliance has been to hang onto a modified version of amateurism and that the SEC last week came out for uncapped educational benefits? Can't you see the hypocrisy of the PAC/B1G/ACC stance versus this issue where the SEC has been the first to make the changes for compliance.

In that context I find your remarks to be a total whiff with regard to reality.

(09-29-2021 06:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:24 PM)chester Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:51 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 03:41 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  This could cause us to bow out but the schools and the NCAA have no one to blame but themselves. They buried their head in the sand so long that this no is spiraling out of their control.

I think that’s what you’ll see next. That won’t be popular in The SEC where unions have been notoriously frowned upon for decades. On the other hand I would expect unionization to occur in the Northeast and Upper Midwest first. Watch leagues like The Big Ten and Big East for signs of what’s coming.

I would hate to see Notre Dame bow out but understand why they would.

In some SEC states you can’t have a state employee union with collective bargaining so no need to be upset over a union that doesn’t exist.

Plus, there is a bill in both houses of Congress that would amend the NLRA to cover scholarship athletes at public schools. And no SEC state is going to want to watch the few FBS private schools gobble up the best players.

The SEC has already taken a proactive stance, unlike the tond deaf and impotent alliance which was formed in part in denial of this reality.

Well one of your guys (from Arkansas) said SEC states won’t let athletes organize. So which is it? Are SEC states just going to allow athletes at SEC universities to organize? I don’t see that standing in court when other state employees want to organize.

You can threaten to take your ball go run off and play with yourself. As I have repeatedly said “there’s the door”….

When you leave note, your athletes will still be state employees that unless laws are changed in some SEC states, they won’t be able to organize.

I don’t know what “proactive” action can be taken to change state laws for select employees.

I still see The Big Ten, PAC and some ACC schools taking advantage of this decision and recruiting to that advantage.

(09-29-2021 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:41 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It’s going to be interesting watching schools in the Northeast, Northwest and Upper Midwest take advantage of more “labor friendly” laws in recruiting athletes to their universities. Schools in The PAC and Big Ten just got a huge advantage given to them over schools in The SEC and some schools in The ACC and Big 12.

Excuse me? You do realize part of the agenda of the alliance has been to hang onto a modified version of amateurism and that the SEC last week came out for uncapped educational benefits? Can't you see the hypocrisy of the PAC/B1G/ACC stance versus this issue where the SEC has been the first to make the changes for compliance.

In that context I find your remarks to be a total whiff with regard to reality.

My support of The Alliance ends with their stand on the CFP.

(09-29-2021 06:21 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:41 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It’s going to be interesting watching schools in the Northeast, Northwest and Upper Midwest take advantage of more “labor friendly” laws in recruiting athletes to their universities. Schools in The PAC and Big Ten just got a huge advantage given to them over schools in The SEC and some schools in The ACC and Big 12.

Excuse me? You do realize part of the agenda of the alliance has been to hang onto a modified version of amateurism and that the SEC last week came out for uncapped educational benefits? Can't you see the hypocrisy of the PAC/B1G/ACC stance versus this issue where the SEC has been the first to make the changes for compliance.

In that context I find your remarks to be a total whiff with regard to reality.

My support of The Alliance ends with their stand on the CFP.

I'm just pointing out that the assertion about other states allowing a union being an advantage to the very schools who seek to hold onto some version of amateurism is out of touch. The SEC already has player representation at the conference level and we are first on board with pay. I fail to see how that disadvantages the SEC, especially since you claim it would benefit the very regions in which the alliance schools stood to the contrary.

This is about to reshape college athletics and form new tiers and may even end conferences as we know them, and I said may. There is much to unfold now. It will likely have the effect of rendering moot all contracts signed under NCAA guidelines (not media rights per se) and GORs as the terms of value vs overhead have now been radically changed and there is precedent.

(09-29-2021 05:55 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:24 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:16 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  "Under common law, an employee includes a person 'who perform[s] services for another and [is] subject to the other's control or right of control," she said.

Define control.

Not allowing an scholarship athlete to have a part-time job sure looks like control to me. My daughter played college basketball. It was specifically spelled out in the yearly scholarship paperwork she signed that she could not hold a part time job while school was in session.

My daughter played Division III. I can only imagine the control Division I athletes have placed on them.

1) Players have to lift weights in the morning in the off season.

2) Players have to practice at set times during the week.

3) Players have to travel to away games.

4) Players have to show up on time for games.

And on and on and on......

Terry
You’re a retired barrister. Where do you see this going? Allowing athletes to be university employees is a slippery slope that we’re probably better off not starting down. Fortunately for athletes (and unfortunately for some universities) it looks like the NLRB is ready to head on down it.

Just curious what you might see coming

(09-29-2021 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:21 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:41 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It’s going to be interesting watching schools in the Northeast, Northwest and Upper Midwest take advantage of more “labor friendly” laws in recruiting athletes to their universities. Schools in The PAC and Big Ten just got a huge advantage given to them over schools in The SEC and some schools in The ACC and Big 12.

Excuse me? You do realize part of the agenda of the alliance has been to hang onto a modified version of amateurism and that the SEC last week came out for uncapped educational benefits? Can't you see the hypocrisy of the PAC/B1G/ACC stance versus this issue where the SEC has been the first to make the changes for compliance.

In that context I find your remarks to be a total whiff with regard to reality.

My support of The Alliance ends with their stand on the CFP.

I'm just pointing out that the assertion about other states allowing a union being an advantage to the very schools who seek to hold onto some version of amateurism is out of touch. The SEC already has player representation at the conference level and we are first on board with pay. I fail to see how that disadvantages the SEC, especially since you claim it would benefit the very regions in which the alliance schools stood to the contrary.

This is about to reshape college athletics and form new tiers and may even end conferences as we know them, and I said may. There is much to unfold now. It will likely have the effect of rendering moot all contracts signed under NCAA guidelines and GORs.

There’s obviously going to be some give and take. The reality is business has been moving to southern states for the last few decades because laws favored business rights over employee rights. SEC universities are going to have a tougher time dealing with unionized athletes than say The Big Ten, where unions are familiar.

Regardless of what The Alliance opinion or stated purpose is yesterday it changed with today’s NLRB decision. Personally I think The Alliances purpose was to stall playoff expansion because they see The SEC trying to stack the deck. The Alliance leadership will never admit it but everything else is window dressing.

The NLRB decision just changed the game today for everyone.

(09-29-2021 06:41 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:21 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 05:41 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  It’s going to be interesting watching schools in the Northeast, Northwest and Upper Midwest take advantage of more “labor friendly” laws in recruiting athletes to their universities. Schools in The PAC and Big Ten just got a huge advantage given to them over schools in The SEC and some schools in The ACC and Big 12.

Excuse me? You do realize part of the agenda of the alliance has been to hang onto a modified version of amateurism and that the SEC last week came out for uncapped educational benefits? Can't you see the hypocrisy of the PAC/B1G/ACC stance versus this issue where the SEC has been the first to make the changes for compliance.

In that context I find your remarks to be a total whiff with regard to reality.

My support of The Alliance ends with their stand on the CFP.

I'm just pointing out that the assertion about other states allowing a union being an advantage to the very schools who seek to hold onto some version of amateurism is out of touch. The SEC already has player representation at the conference level and we are first on board with pay. I fail to see how that disadvantages the SEC, especially since you claim it would benefit the very regions in which the alliance schools stood to the contrary.

This is about to reshape college athletics and form new tiers and may even end conferences as we know them, and I said may. There is much to unfold now. It will likely have the effect of rendering moot all contracts signed under NCAA guidelines and GORs.

There’s obviously going to be some give and take. The reality is business has been moving to southern states for the last few decades because laws favored business rights over employee rights. SEC universities are going to have a tougher time dealing with unionized athletes than say The Big Ten, where unions are familiar.

Regardless of what The Alliance opinion or stated purpose is yesterday it changed with today’s NLRB decision. Personally I think The Alliances purpose was to stall playoff expansion because they see The SEC trying to stack the deck. The Alliance leadership will never admit it but everything else is window dressing.

The NLRB decision just changed the game today for everyone.

No they won't! The only thing Southern States don't offer unions are closed shops. Laws on hire and fire vary. That's why industry in part has located in the South, but mostly they located for less expensive land and fewer regulations (which has both good and bad) and tax breaks.

And your dead wrong about the alliance. The CFP stance was their cover on paying players and many quotes out of a handful of B1G schools and and the stance of your Tobacco Road schools are enough proof of that. The Cali schools would have been in support of pay for play so I'll credit them that.

(09-29-2021 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:41 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:21 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-29-2021 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Excuse me? You do realize part of the agenda of the alliance has been to hang onto a modified version of amateurism and that the SEC last week came out for uncapped educational benefits? Can't you see the hypocrisy of the PAC/B1G/ACC stance versus this issue where the SEC has been the first to make the changes for compliance.

In that context I find your remarks to be a total whiff with regard to reality.

My support of The Alliance ends with their stand on the CFP.

I'm just pointing out that the assertion about other states allowing a union being an advantage to the very schools who seek to hold onto some version of amateurism is out of touch. The SEC already has player representation at the conference level and we are first on board with pay. I fail to see how that disadvantages the SEC, especially since you claim it would benefit the very regions in which the alliance schools stood to the contrary.

This is about to reshape college athletics and form new tiers and may even end conferences as we know them, and I said may. There is much to unfold now. It will likely have the effect of rendering moot all contracts signed under NCAA guidelines and GORs.

There’s obviously going to be some give and take. The reality is business has been moving to southern states for the last few decades because laws favored business rights over employee rights. SEC universities are going to have a tougher time dealing with unionized athletes than say The Big Ten, where unions are familiar.

Regardless of what The Alliance opinion or stated purpose is yesterday it changed with today’s NLRB decision. Personally I think The Alliances purpose was to stall playoff expansion because they see The SEC trying to stack the deck. The Alliance leadership will never admit it but everything else is window dressing.

The NLRB decision just changed the game today for everyone.

No they won't! The only thing Southern States don't offer unions are closed shops. Laws on hire and fire vary. That's why industry in part has located in the South, but mostly they located for less expensive land and fewer regulations (which has both good and bad) and tax breaks.

And your dead wrong about the alliance. The CFP stance was their cover on paying players and many quotes out of a handful of B1G schools and and the stance of your Tobacco Road schools are enough proof of that. The Cali schools would have been in support of pay for play so I'll credit them that.

Attached is a listing of union membership by state. It’s no surprise that only two SEC states (Missouri #25 and Alabama #30) appear in the Top 30 in terms of union membership.

Do you know why Alabama is #30? You’re an Auburn guy, you should know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_affi...U.S._state

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on The Alliance’s purpose.