Penn State Football Unionizing...In talks with Big 10

[huskymedic]

“ at this point“

If one wants to continue to have discussions using the word “ever” doesn’t necessarily work in one’s favor.

 

[CL82]

If one wants to continue to have discussions using the word “ever” doesn’t necessarily work in one’s favor.

“At this point“ is an implicit threat that the action referred to is on the table if things don’t go their way.

 

[Stymie]

“At this point“ is an implicit threat that the action referred to is on the table if things don’t go their way.

Implicit threat?
Actually, “at this point” refers to a specific time and location.
Trend may continue, remain static or diminish.
Or any combination there of.
JMHO

 

[CL82]

Implicit threat?
Actually, “at this point” refers to a specific time and location.
Trend may continue, remain static or diminish.
Or any combination there of.
JMHO

Fair, but I kind of view it this way. If you and I are having a disagreement and I say to you “look, at this point I’m not going to punch you in the face“ the implication is that at some point in the future, I might. It’s saying it without saying it.

 

[Stymie]

Fair, but I kind of view it this way. If you and I are having a disagreement and I say to you “look, at this point I’m not going to punch you in the face“ the implication is that at some point in the future, I might. It’s saying it without saying it.

It also affords you the opportunity to reflect on your position; consider how much you enjoy eating corn on the cob, and undertake a strategic “advance to the rear”.

 

[Waquoit]

Geez, so much for amateur athletics. I blame the Olympic Committee for opening this can of worms when they allowed pro athletes to compete in the Olympics. Since then amateur athletics has decayed into this, unionized college athletics. And when these college athletes don't get their way and go on strike the fans as usual will do most of the suffering.

"Amateur" athletics were always a scam. They finally did the right thing by Jim Thorpe just last week, only 110 years too late. And a big LOL at anyone who says that the are fans are the ones "suffering".

 

[Waquoit]

When greed/power/money becomes the primary motivation over the greater good of the student athletes, the eventual demise is inevitable.

It's been like that for as long as there has been college football. Now that the players might get a taste it's an issue?

 

[Stinger92860]

It's been like that for as long as there has been college football. Now that the players might get a taste it's an issue?

Painting with a broad brush is not an accurate picture. Players have been tasting for a while with payments or gifts from boosters and/or coaches. Is the current NIL approach better? I think it is, as more students are receiving payments, but they obviously want more, and I am ok with that. If the whole game burns to the ground in the process so be it.

 

[MKH2317]

It's been like that for as long as there has been college football. Now that the players might get a taste it's an issue?

I don’t believe that a players union is a bad thing for the way things are going. They’re the source of a multimillion dollar entertainment industry, they should absolutely be able to profit from it.

I just believe that the culmination of greed within college football has boiled over into a point of no return. You are absolutely correct, there has always been greed in college football, but there was always the perception of protecting tradition, like assembling conferences based on region and protecting regional rivalries, and a mantra of doing what’s best for the student athlete. At least to the public, college football appeared to uphold some amateurism and purity compared to the NFL.

Now, every fan publicly knows the motive is big money from TV corporations. We all know that this train is rolling toward professionalism. A players union is just one of the many factors that signifies the change from amateur to professional, which I believe will be the demise of college football when it’s all said and done. As a fan of college athletics, I’m apprehensive to give my attention and money to the two conferences that appear to be destroying the college football landscape, all for money. I’d rather watch games like UConn vs UMass than Alabama Vs. Ohio State.

 

[TheDrifter75]

I just want highschool players to receive better pay

 

[Waquoit]

I just want highschool players to receive better pay

That's crazy talk. But where does all that Little League money go? Even regional playoffs get good ratings I've heard.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

I just want highschool players to receive better pay

NIL deals have already started at the high school level.

 

[Waquoit]

... there has always been greed in college football, but there was always the perception of protecting tradition, like assembling conferences based on region and protecting regional rivalries, and a mantra of doing what’s best for the student athlete.

But all that was just eyewash. If it actually meant something real, it wouldn't have been so easy to cast it aside. And it's not greed, it's capitalism.

 

[Exit 4]

@Exit 4, in the sec how many of these kids receive an education they can leverage after they leave. Many don’t have the option of the nfl. It is a job now, but it comes with a very short career. What happened at UNC was a disgrace and thats only the tip of the iceberg.

I don’t know- I think when the students become full employees many of the subconscious reasons to support the university through sports sort of gets lost. It becomes a bridge too far from the original intent of collegiate athletes. It begs the question- shouldn’t I go watch the unpaid hockey/baseball/bowling/archery team- The real volunteers?

I’m all in on unlimited NIL - and I don’t see that as contradictory because NIL is what I consider a third party fool doing their thing with a contract while university payment the school doing something with my tuition/our tax funds. I’m okay with sports deficits - not really okay with sports deficits and paying players- I think at that point it’s time to move on. I acknowledge it’s all complicated and somewhat a matter of shades of gray.

 

[shizzle787]

The way this is going to go is the way of European soccer. A lot of people don't understand that professional sports in the US are actually very socialist. For the most part, the leagues share TV revenue equally even though the NY and LA clubs bring in the most eyeballs. With drafts that benefit poor performing teams, and other rules (such as salary caps and roster caps) designed to promote egalitarianism, competition and parity have flourished.

European soccer is the exact opposite. The number of clubs that can compete in domestic leagues and European competitions has significantly shrunk in the last 40 years. That is partly because there is no salary cap and there is no draft. Obviously, Europe is made up of 50+ countries so to compare it apples to apples to the US is questionable, but if the SEC and B1G pay their players, a bidding war is going to open up that no one else will be able to compete with. It will lead to a small number of teams further concentrating all of the talent and winning every year (has already been happening). This will not be good for the sport.

My big fear is that it will affect college basketball. It has yet to do so as the Big East schools spend just as much if not more than the P5 schools on basketball, but at some point, the football money is going to influence basketball (specifically coaching salaries and player salaries) which will lead to a severe competitive imbalance.

To be honest, I would not be opposed to a system in college basketball where the top 12-15 conferences broke away and paid the players as long as there is a salary cap, and there is a 64-team March Madness style event every year.

The other thing that I think people are forgetting is that European soccer clubs lose a lot of money per year. The B1G and SEC are trying to follow their model. What happens if there is no salary cap? They could possibly bleed themselves to death.

 

[freescooter]

"Amateur" athletics were always a scam. They finally did the right thing by Jim Thorpe just last week, only 110 years too late. And a big LOL at anyone who says that the are fans are the ones "suffering".

They really weren’t for most players. Did an occasional star get a few bucks? Sure. Vince Lombardi also played semi-pro football while playing at Fordham. But for the most part, for MOST players, it wasn’t a scam. They got a college scholarship, which was worth something. They were mostly students. In the 1970s and into the 80s at least, many even worked part time . The NCAA started making nickel and dime rules, to control crazy stuff, in the manner of a local planning and zoning commission, rather than a oversight body for college sports.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

They really weren’t for most players. Did an occasional star get a few bucks? Sure. Vince Lombardi also played semi-pro football while playing at Fordham. But for the most part, for MOST players, it wasn’t a scam. They got a college scholarship, which was worth something. They were mostly students. In the 1970s and into the 80s at least, many even worked part time . The NCAA started making nickel and dime rules, to control crazy stuff, in the manner of a local planning and zoning commission, rather than a oversight body for college sports.

Don't remember that being the case regarding work and scholarships during school but changed in the middle '00s. Schools were afraid of boosters corrupting the process much like they did in the summer paying kids for BS work.

 

[huskymedic]

Decent recap:

What the CFPA/Penn State announcement means and doesn't mean:

No, college football players didn't unionize last week. But that doesn't mean it wasn't important.

www.extrapointsmb.com

 

[Waquoit]

They really weren’t for most players. Did an occasional star get a few bucks? Sure. Vince Lombardi also played semi-pro football while playing at Fordham. But for the most part, for MOST players, it wasn’t a scam. They got a college scholarship, which was worth something.

FWIW, I was referring to non-collegiate, Olympic sports. They've only had pros at Wimbledon for 50 years, they banned Rod Laver for crying out loud.

 

[ZooCougar]

Get ready for unintended consequences…. For the players.

Meaning- now you have a true work environment on your hands and that is different than volunteer sports.

Yup. Get ready to have your scholarships pulled at the drop of a hat.

 

[ZooCougar]

No argument from me.
Same process in most sectors of of a capitalist society.
Manufacturers create a good product and offer it at a fair price.
Marketplace consumes it.
Considers it a fair value proposition.
Then manufacturers cheapen the product, raise the price or diminish the experience.
Reaches an unacceptable level.
Demand destruction occurs.
Marketplace bails, seeks alternative value propositions.
Contrary to Gordon Gecko-“greed ain’t good.”

Greed is good when the true value and quality is in alignment with the cost.

 

[ZooCougar]

The way this is going to go is the way of European soccer. A lot of people don't understand that professional sports in the US are actually very socialist. For the most part, the leagues share TV revenue equally even though the NY and LA clubs bring in the most eyeballs. With drafts that benefit poor performing teams, and other rules (such as salary caps and roster caps) designed to promote egalitarianism, competition and parity have flourished.

European soccer is the exact opposite. The number of clubs that can compete in domestic leagues and European competitions has significantly shrunk in the last 40 years. That is partly because there is no salary cap and there is no draft. Obviously, Europe is made up of 50+ countries so to compare it apples to apples to the US is questionable, but if the SEC and B1G pay their players, a bidding war is going to open up that no one else will be able to compete with. It will lead to a small number of teams further concentrating all of the talent and winning every year (has already been happening). This will not be good for the sport.

My big fear is that it will affect college basketball. It has yet to do so as the Big East schools spend just as much if not more than the P5 schools on basketball, but at some point, the football money is going to influence basketball (specifically coaching salaries and player salaries) which will lead to a severe competitive imbalance.

To be honest, I would not be opposed to a system in college basketball where the top 12-15 conferences broke away and paid the players as long as there is a salary cap, and there is a 64-team March Madness style event every year.

The other thing that I think people are forgetting is that European soccer clubs lose a lot of money per year. The B1G and SEC are trying to follow their model. What happens if there is no salary cap? They could possibly bleed themselves to death.

This post needs more likes. I think Pro Sports will continue to be Socialist with revenue sharing etc. this is about protecting the vested interests of the owners in American sports which really are “Investor Operators”. We don’t have clubs in US pro sports. We have franchises, the truth is your beloved Patriots and Yankees are just glorified McDonalds.

College Sports are really more like the club model.

 

[Exit 4]

Yup. Get ready to have your scholarships pulled at the drop of a hat.

And a fan base that will feel justified to freely boo you and a media environment that will no longer protect the players when they can and look the other way at times. It will be a business and it will become aggressive in all ways. Maybe that is a worthwhile trade off for compensation, maybe the public/fan bases will love the sport all the same - IDK, hard to say for sure.

In a world where the SEC and B1G are paying their players, I'm fine with letting them have their semi pro league and the rest of us (not in the two conf club) sticking with our current model of NIL and education. We can't compete with that and we shouldnt as a matter of state policy for this university unless something radical happens (like some big time donor comes along to completely plug this hole).

 

[DoctorWho85]

More unions are always good for those who actually make the money. The players are making literally billions of dollars for TV and their conferences and 10's of millions for their school. All while getting some scraps in hopes of playing at the NFL level. The player need a bigger say at the table since they are generating the money. No players, no football, no money.

 

[Exit 4]

More unions are always good for those who actually make the money. The players are making literally billions of dollars for TV and their conferences and 10's of millions for their school. All while getting some scraps in hopes of playing at the NFL level. The player need a bigger say at the table since they are generating the money. No players, no football, no money.

Yeah the current situation is so bad that only about a million high schoolers per year attempt to get a D1 scholarship...because its a bad deal; free education + free food + free tutors + opportunity for fame/glory and nfl future on tv = bad deal.

Look, the players could strike, its probably going to happen in the next decade and we'll just have to see how that plays out.