Collegiate Players Union

[butlerguy03]

Very important ruling yesterday, which allows the Northwestern football players and any other private school FBS football program to unionize (ex. Stanford, Notre Dame, Baylor). State schools are under jurisdiction of the state in which they are incorporated. It won't be long before basketball is involved, does this put us, as a private school league, at a position of strength or weakness?

I could see it either way, but I see it as a strength if additional income isn't part of the deal (the NU players are NOT asking for additional income). If additional pay is involved, the state schools are going to have a significant advantage.

Collegiate basketball and football will look drastically different in 10 years. Here's hoping the Big East continues to rise.

[SJHooper]

Sorry for posting so much guys I don't mean to be annoying

During lunch I was listening to the Herd radio show and apparently this ruling applies to private schools. This can actually turn out to be a huge recruiting benefit for private schools so obviously that would have implications for us. If it came down to State U. vs. Private U. then Private U. could tell a top recruit "Hey, guess what? You also get a stipend here that State U. wouldn't be able to offer you". That can be a huge advantage. Many people said Lou Carnesecca was so successful getting top notch NYC players because of a housing stipend they used to receive. It has a real impact. There is some stipulation in the law where this ruling applies to private schools but not public ones according to ESPN. Very interesting.

[SCS]

I agree with SJ Hooper, this actually could be a recruiting advantage for private schools since this ruling only applies to private school players. In addition, there are several right to work states that could cause harm to unionization in places like the south, if there is a ruling that allows public university student athletes to do the same, which could give the Big East an advantage if they decide to pay.

[butlerguy03]

For what its worth, Indiana and Nebraska are both Right-to-Work states. Nebraska goes as far as putting it in the state constitution. Most of the major public football universities are in RtW states. Again, public universities are only subject to state jurisdiction. The National Labor Relations Board made this decision on FBS football private universities only.

Football players may unionize at:
Stanford
USC
Notre Dame
Baylor
Vanderbilt
Rice
Tulane
Tulsa
SMU
Boston College
Duke
U. of Miami (FL)
Syracuse
Wake Forest
BYU
Northwestern
TCU

Not sure about:
Pittsburgh (considered a public/private hybrid "state related')

[PMThor]

I think you guys are putting the emphasis on the wrong part of this ruling. Sure, it says that the private school student/athletes can unionize, which the public ones cannot. But the important part is that the NLRB regional head stated that the players are employees. THAT would apply to ALL student/athletes, private or public. As such, they all would be afforded employee rights across the board, private or not. That includes minimum wage pay, workers comp, on and on. Yes, the union part is big, but the recognition that the players are employees is more important, because that means public or private, they all are employees in the eyes of the NLRB.

[robinreed]

I have been reviewing conference blogs from the ACC, AAC, BIG, MWC and Baylor U. etc. and their interpretation seems to be at variance from those expressed here. In general posters believe Title 9 will require all women's sports to receive the same salary, full cost of scholarship and stipends that the men receive. Secondly they suggest that the extra benefits and salary will not be limited to football but rather to all grant in aid sports. This could adversely effect institutions such as Seton Hall, Providence and others. I doubt that Georgetown would find these extra costs prohibitive.

What say you?

[BEhomer]

I think you guys are putting the emphasis on the wrong part of this ruling. Sure, it says that the private school student/athletes can unionize, which the public ones cannot. But the important part is that the NLRB regional head stated that the players are employees. THAT would apply to ALL student/athletes, private or public. As such, they all would be afforded employee rights across the board, private or not. That includes minimum wage pay, workers comp, on and on. Yes, the union part is big, but the recognition that the players are employees is more important, because that means public or private, they all are employees in the eyes of the NLRB.

state schools will want to pay the students if private schools do. huge recruiting advantage. only a matter of time before union sits down with schools for labor negotiation. schools dissolving football and players going on strikes all possibility in the near future. what a mess.

mark cuban said recently of NFL which i think applies here. pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. NCAA football simply got too big for its own good. it's a natural progression that wealth is spread among many. money and greed seems to have taken its course.

[BEhomer]

I have been reviewing conference blogs from the ACC, AAC, BIG, MWC and Baylor U. etc. and their interpretation seems to be at variance from those expressed here. In general posters believe Title 9 will require all women's sports to receive the same salary, full cost of scholarship and stipends that the men receive. Secondly they suggest that the extra benefits and salary will not be limited to football but rather to all grant in aid sports. This could adversely effect institutions such as Seton Hall, Providence and others. I doubt that Georgetown would find these extra costs prohibitive.

What say you?

i've heard arguments that title 9 only applies to student athletes. unionization essentially makes them school employees and will not be subject to title 9.

as far as non-revenue generating sports go, they can form their own union but what leverage will they have at the negotiation table? we are now dealing with labor agreement, strikes, and lockouts.

[DudeAnon]

Pay each individual what they are worth, simple.

[DeltaV]

I think you guys are putting the emphasis on the wrong part of this ruling. Sure, it says that the private school student/athletes can unionize, which the public ones cannot. But the important part is that the NLRB regional head stated that the players are employees. THAT would apply to ALL student/athletes, private or public. As such, they all would be afforded employee rights across the board, private or not. That includes minimum wage pay, workers comp, on and on. Yes, the union part is big, but the recognition that the players are employees is more important, because that means public or private, they all are employees in the eyes of the NLRB.

Just wait till the IRS starts taxing the value of that scholarship...