Northwestern football players seek to join union

Alabama's conference opponents can't pay what Alabama pays. Their income is not in the same stratosphere and their boosters will not pay to the same degree.

And there is no way -- none -- that it "strengthens" the college game. It puts money in the pocket of the star players, and screws up a system that works very well for the other 98%. Most programs do not have the resources or boosters to have any role in such a system.

 

Again, I think you'd be surprised.

But if you'd rather keep this system -- where your own alma mater breaks every rule under the sun and is cleared in a sham "investigation" by the very body it and the other schools control -- I don't know how long that's going to hold.

The ideal that you're trying to protect doesn't exist anymore.

 

The players that Ohio State gets already are guys who aren't going to Northwestern. The players that Boise State gets are guys who Oregon already has rejected.

As far as points-shaving goes, for one thing, for one thing, it's illegal under federal law. You get a star kid with multiple financial opportunities by fanboi boosters for nothing, and a gambler comes along and offers them more for shaving points, why would the kid jeopardize the rest of his money?

That could be something to be negotiated between player and booster, instead of a requirement.

 

Believe me, the "my alma mater" stuff has nothing to do with my stance on this. Again, my alma mater would benefit very nicely from paying players. And, the "breaking every rule under the sun" line is a bit much -- the stuff they were accused of was absolutely minor, and they got a minor punishment. I'm sure they get as dirty as any other program, but if you think they were caught "breaking every rule under the sun" then you don't know anything about the case.

People on here keep suggesting we're reaching some kind of critical mass where the system will fall apart on its own. We're not. There is no reason to think that whatsoever. Everyone involved is benefiting very nicely right now. The "losers" in the current system are the guys who have to wait two years to become millionaires. That's it.

This idea that players will stand up to the man and refuse to play, and it's going to lead to some great new movement forward -- are you kidding me? Pro players go on strike for absolutely valid reasons, and the public perception is overwhelmingly with the billionaire owners. You think the public would support kids who are getting a free college education who think that isn't enough? I have a 16 year old. I'll be paying for college in two years. I could give two shits if Johnny Manziel has to wait two years to buy a Bentley. Northwestern's players could go on strike, and it would mean one thing: Northwestern would have 80 different guys in uniform next time they played, and fans would keep cheering for the laundry.

If the system now is so bad, just end it. All sports can become essentially club teams. Universities can focus on education and not building weight rooms. Let the N-F-L build its own minor league system, and leave the universities out of it.

 

I never said Oregon was caught breaking every rule under the sun. I said they are breaking every rule under the sun. They aren't caught, nobody is, because the schools don't want to be caught and the schools are, in fact, the NCAA.

Yeah, Northwestern would have 80 different guys in uniform. But they would suck. And fans would not be there to cheer. Check Northwestern's attendance before 1995. People like winning football. No, scratch that, people LOVE winning football.

The players get scholarships based on how good they are and how good a school believes they will be. There is a difference in talent, that's why some guys go to Alabama and USC and some guys go to Tennessee and Cal and still others go to Kentucky and Washington State. That talent, on the open market, would have great value as sure as a first-round pick in baseball has more value than a fourth-round pick.

 

Not entirely true. Texas A&M is winning because of Johnny Manziel. Baylor is winning, in large part, because of Lache Seastrunk. Neither guy goes to those schools in a pay-to-play scenario. Manziel was a verbal commit to Oregon and Seastrunk started at Oregon. You think A&M or Baylor outbids Phil Knight to get either of those guys?

The star players don't shave the points. If Johnny Manziel is getting a million dollars to endorse Adidas, he's not shaving points. His center, who isn't getting dick? For ten grand he'll have a "personal services" contract with a building contractor, and he'll snap it over Johnny's head if the game's within three points. A defensive back is useless as an endorser, but valuable as hell to a guy who needs to see the coverage break down in a close game. And if it's a free-for-all for players to make money on their own, don't think for a second that won't happen. And the federal law is nice, but just try to prove it.

 

Northwestern sucks now. Fans would be fine with watching someone else suck. What would they be missing, that dynamite out-of-conference squeaker of a win against Maine?

And Oregon is breaking every rule under the sun? Good to know. You should share your evidence with someone.

 

The idea of fairly compensating someone, and allowing that person to negotiate such compensation, should not be this difficult to grasp.

 

If these dumbfucks want to claim they're employees of the school, then the first thing we need to do is start taxing the value of their scholarships. It would seem to me that they all owe Uncle Sam a good $20,000 a year since tuition is more than $60,000 a year (just a little over $15K/quarter).

 

When you say the marginal cost is zero you assume no opportunity cost. Since most D-1 schools in a state do not admit everyone they could easily sell that seat to a paying customer.

I am unfamilar with the admission practices of Missouri but during the campus tour of the University of Virginia it was explained that UVA admits 3,340 students a year. 2,200 are in-state, 1,100 out of state and the athletuc department receives 140 admissions.

If UVA shut down thier athletic department and sold those 140 seats to in-state students at $17,000 a year that would be an additional 2.4 million per class. Multiply that by four and the cost is close to 10 million annually.

27,000 people applied to UVA and from a wait list of 2,500 they admitted 250. If UVA shut down the athletic department and sold those 140 seats to in-state students on the wait list at $17,000 a year that would be an additional 2.4 million per class. Multiply that by four and the lost revenue close to 10 million annually. Admittedly, some of the current athletes are on partial scholarships and that would mitigate some of the revenue loss.

I know the argument can be made that UVA could expand enrollment from 3,440 to 3,590 and not expand staff and achieve the same result. But presumably the quality of the product would be affected. That is the rationale for the exisiting cap.

As a tuition payer at UVA it makes great sense to me to shut down that athletic department.

 

I looked up the numbers -- tuition alone at Northwestern is just shy of $50k a year. Add in room and board, and we're easily at $60k+ per year per player.

If we're going to negotiate and "fairly compensate" those players, most shouldn't be getting a full scholarship.

 

Almost nobody pays that much to go to these schools.