ml and unionization

[wh]

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/sports/colleges/27037724-419/valparaiso-ad-views-unionization-as-flawed-approach.html

[LaPorteAveApostle]

shocking.  so did Henry Ford.

[wh]

I'm sure unions have a necessary place in society.  That said, they also pollute the minds of otherwise good people by feeding and breeding negativity, mistrust, divisiveness, class envy, self pity, cynicism, discord, mediocrity and laziness. 

This is not the kind of exposure these impressionable student athletes should have at such a tender age.  They should be left alone to enjoy the moment and retain their optimism about the journey that lies ahead.  The last thing they need is to have the wind sucked out of them by life's troublemakers, sad sacks and self portrayed victims.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

I'm sorry--though you and I usually agree on things from sport to politics, this is just an not a great post from you.

Can unions do all the horrible things you attribute to them?  Surely can, and have.  Is it necessary and/or inherent to the idea of a union?  Certainly not.

Someone could just as easily take what you have said and say "management pollutes the minds of otherwise good people by feeding and breeding negativity, mistrust, divisiveness, class envy, self pity, cynicism, discord, mediocrity and laziness."

This would certainly be no less true than your statement, and so its 'value' is canceled out.

Your second paragraph is even worse.  These "impressionable student athletes" that can't handle "exposure" to life are able to vote (and fight and die) for their country.  Are you saying that 18-year-olds fresh out of HS shouldn't be allowed to join a union at the mill?  They're right out of high school as well.

Or perhaps those blue-collar kids can handle that kind of "exposure" to the world in a way that pampered travel-team athletes can't?

Either way, your argument is, well, simply not an argument. 

[wh]

Someone could just as easily take what you have said and say "management pollutes the minds of otherwise good people by feeding and breeding negativity, mistrust, divisiveness, class envy, self pity, cynicism, discord, mediocrity and laziness."

Not true at all.  Only organizations with poor management "pollute the minds..."  Progressive organizations promote teamwork, optimism, and self-actualization.  Name one union that promotes those values and works to achieve them.  There are none.

Oh, and the fact that you disagree doesn't invalidate my argument, even if you strongly disagree.  Unionism is in severe decline over the past 20 years and the majority of Americans oppose it.  I still would not be so bold as to deem your minority opinion invalid. 

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Only poor unions "pollute the minds".  Your refusal to acknowledge one union that promotes positive values shows how close-minded you are.

PROTIP:  if your argument can be inverted and make just as much sense, use another argument.

Caricature is neither an argument, any more than "majority of Americans" matters.  Truth is not determined by a majority vote.

I'm really disappointed in you--I thought you were better and more intelligent than this.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

To everyone with an open mind:  the current system of college sports is broken.  Things like this happen and all over:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview

Why would every American not a Duke alumnus/a (or a bettor/bracketeer) be rooting for Valpo in a hypothetical matchup of the two schools in the NCAA tournament?  Because humans beings intuitively support the underdog.  When forced to take sides between the powerful and the less-so, we should naturally support the latter, as the former does not need the help.

The same idea is no less true about college athletes.  Who speaks for them?  Who bears the weight of the whole enterprise up, while receiving pennies on the dollar?  Who holds the bag when the coach who recruited them promising the world leaves for another million-dollar job?

When you want to improve a system, notice that the people who kick back the hardest are those who benefit from the current system.

Here is a q&a about the idea of unionization, with Brian Cook responding to a reader writing in:
http://mgoblog.com/content/mailbag-funk-gibson-opt-student-tickets-bag-man-rehash

Part of college football's draw is amateurism; kids playing for education not money. Obviously this is all smoke and mirrors anymore, but it's hard to let go of that aspect of it (if for nothing other than nostalgia's sake). I have a passing interest in the NFL as compared to college football. There's just a sense of cynicism when everything is commercialized and athletes are getting paid big money to play a kid's game while the "rest of us" slave at work for crumbs. Here are some questions you may be able to give your opinion on assuming some sort of compensation is awarded to student athletes.

Shouldn't we just make college football a D-League or create one for those who want to skip college?

Is the draw amateurism or the fact that these guys are students like the other students? Amateurism proponents are quick to mention the Insane Dollar Value of their scholarship. Some even go so far as to include all the world-class training and such in their effort to portray the college athlete as already well-compensated. If they're successful in their arguments, don't they just defeat themselves? They're already being compensated. Now we're just discussing the price.

Might as well go all in and not try to walk some line between amateurism and professionalism right?

Walking a fine line is dumb but neither should we upset the entire apple cart if we can at all help it. College has a lot of good effects for players even if they're not getting engineering degrees, and with most of them headed for brief pro careers at best the current model does a lot of good for a lot of people. We've done a half-dozen events  with Carr-era players, and man they make you glad that college football is the way it is instead of being minor league baseball or the CHL.

Why stop at a fixed stipend? Should there be some kind of salary cap? If there is a stipend or other form of compensation, won't there still be bag men to get top recruits extra money to attend certain universities?

A stipend is only one way to approach it. The Olympic model is another. If the NCAA was to say "we won't pay you, but we don't mind if you get paid for your likeness" that sidesteps Title IX issues and mitigates bag-man issues. The difference between ten grand and zero dollars is a lot more compelling than 40 grand and 50 grand. While it'll still have some influence, other factors actually become more prominent.

I mean isn't this really just bidding wars for free agents that we see in pro sports?

Even if this is a negative, and I'm not sure it is, it is already happening.

Should all the athletes get the same wage and who decides the pay scale? Wouldn't there then be problems with different "salaries?"

We seem to have figured this out for everyone else in America. I don't understand why this is a particular issue for athletes.

Do "student athletes" also get a scholarship?

Yes. I mean, it's a perk that costs the university almost nothing and has great symbolic value.

Is competitive balance a casualty? Poorer and smaller schools certainly won't be able to afford top recruits, and maybe not even the stipend, so do we just have the same handful of teams who can  actually afford to be competitive and get national exposure, eliminate the "Cinderellas" and certain universities' football programs altogether?

Unless you can find a kid who chose the MAC over the Big Ten right now this is just the status quo.

I guess I just don't see a fix to an already broken system. There's a ton of money to be made and everybody wants a cut. Paying the athletes, which I'm not totally against and there are legitimate arguments for, isn't going to solve the problem entirely because the NCAA doesn't have any teeth to enforce their rules. Athletes will get a stipend but then there will still be bag men steering athletes to certain schools. In essence, they'll be getting paid twice.

-Anthony

There isn't a fix, other than dropping the Victorian-era approach to amateurism. Probably the most ludicrous regulation of all is that athletes can't sign with agents and maintain their eligibility. An agent! Someone who's job is to be an advocate and aid for your career, and you can't even say "you will be my agent" even without getting money and the NCAA yanks your eligibility. It's ridiculous.

Simply, the NCAA needs to look at the rules and decide which of them are even vaguely enforceable, then dump the rest.

[wh]

Interesting over reaction on your part, LAA. I wonder what's driving it?  "Things are never about what they're about."

We need to get to know each other. I'll let you know the next time my wife and I are in the Ft.M/Naples area. I think we would have a good time. I'm serious. 

[valporun]

I was starting to get this feeling that LAA was starting to sound like rick, from the old boards. If your opinion wasn't the carbon copy of his, and you couldn't/wouldn't provide liberal material on the internet to back up your opinion, he'd not throw you under the bus, he'd throw you in front of the subway train. LAA, don't get to be like that.

[78crusader]

To the players who want a union, I say: be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it.

Paul

[StlVUFan]

Why would every American not a Duke alumnus/a (or a bettor/bracketeer) be rooting for Valpo in a hypothetical matchup of the two schools in the NCAA tournament?  Because humans beings intuitively support the underdog.  When forced to take sides between the powerful and the less-so, we should naturally support the latter, as the former does not need the help.

What's insane about this is that if the big 5 conferences get the increased power that the NCAA Board of Directors recently approved for membership vote, and I suspect, if unionization successfully enters College sports, there will be *even more* reason to root for Valpo against Duke because they will be even more of an underdog.

I'm with LAA by the way, this is not meant as an opposing argument.  It's more of a competing concern.  People are concerned about Student Athletes' rights -- and I'm sympathetic -- but I'm concerned about the decline and fall of competitive balance (maybe it's long past time to worry and now time to mourn).

[usc4valpo]

at the end I don't think the team will pass to unionize so I am not too concerned.  I am more concerned with the ineptness and hyposcrisy of the dictorial and incompetent NCAA.

Overall I think student-athletes in high revenue sports where they are engaged in a full time activity should get more benefits, and the NCAA neds to get rid of some of their bogus rules.

[StlVUFan]

at the end I don't think the team will pass to unionize so I am not too concerned.  I am more concerned with the ineptness and hyposcrisy of the dictorial and incompetent NCAA.

Overall I think student-athletes in high revenue sports where they are engaged in a full time activity should get more benefits, and the NCAA neds to get rid of some of their bogus rules.

I think they should too.  I'm just pointing out that only the power conference teams can afford to *give* more benefits.  I see the competitive gap widening even more, perhaps explosively.

[valporun]

If the power confereces get more power, it will give them the leverage they want to create their own league for college athletes, essentially giving that "D-League" or Minor League aspect to men's basketball and football. The players would then get paid by the schools thru sponsor's and donor's money, and it would make the NCAA into the modern NAIA. It would be kids who want to go to school for four years, majoring in a field that leads to a good career somewhere, and giving them sports to play to help with a balance between studies and another aspect of college life that keeps them going. Also, if the power conferences get their way, it will make ESPN and FOX Sports 1 already as unwatchable as I find them now because it will be all Big Ten(14), ACC, SEC, PAC 12, BIG 12, and Big East (maybe AAC) all the exposure they want, meaning more money to pay the athletes.

The unionization will eventually backfire when some of these athletes don't play up to the ESPN and whatever other rankings say they will because they start getting themselves in contract issues due to how much exposure they are getting from the networks. Will cause even more ridiculousness of players going to the big schools for the exposure, and leaving after one year. Seeing a cyclical revolution happening here...

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Interesting over reaction on your part, LAA. I wonder what's driving it?  "Things are never about what they're about."

It's simply just so unlike you to be so wrong...if it were Eddie Cabot who wrote what you did, I would clearly conclude that he was trying to prove the opposite point by making the most ridiculous argument he could in favor of the position he despised.

But it wasn't him, being facetious--it's you being putatively serious.  There are arguments to be made against the unionization of college athletes.  But "Alec Peters will suddenly have disreputable friends with names like Vito & Donnie, and no longer have a good work ethic" is simply not one of them!

And I'd love to meet up with you whenever and wherever--since we agree on everything else, pretty much, I'm sure we'd have a good time.

[StlVUFan]

I have no first hand knowledge of unions or management since I've never been in either one.  I've been blessed to never need a union in my profession, and the world is blessed that I will never get anywhere near being in management

I *have* interacted with management more than unions.  Much more so.  I've see it pretty good and occasionally not so good, but I should clarify that I've interacted with *lower-level* management only.  These are the people tasked at times with the hopeless job of "explaining" the idiocy from Mount Peter Principle.

My one interaction with unions was in 1996 when the major unions that worked at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis went on strike (UAW something, I think).  My interaction was driving past the picketers when entering the parking lot every morning -- without incident, i.e., without interaction, essentially, or if you prefer, peacefully.

So, I have little in the way of firm position to offer on whether unions are evil or not.  My interaction with corporate management in 1996 amounted to reading the daily emails from them about why the unions were being unreasonable.  My own private reaction was, "get this infomercial out of my inbox".  Several of my peers, presumably more informed than I was were breathing fire from time to time, eager (as we were all required to be ready to do) to pinch-hit for the "filthy ingrates".  Some actually did fill in.

My only firm reaction to this is: blanket statements about the evil of unions or the moral superiority of management get nowhere with me.  You will not get me to believe that unions are by definition evil.  I've heard all the stories, so you don't have to bore me with them, but for me that's all they are: stories.  I'm not saying they're false, mind you.  I'm saying I have no way of knowing one way or the other.  I also have no concept of how widespread this alleged "evil" is.  What I have are anecdotes, which are different than research.

Furthermore, I am in no way ready to agree that the conditions necessitating unions have largely been dealt with.  I willingly assume they are still necessary, and for all we know, that may well apply to the NCAA, though I will admit that this is still an extension of the idea that I'm not used to yet.

Some think, by the way, that the biggest value to this Northwestern thing is tactical -- that even though the FB players will likely vote no (maybe they already have; I've not been following it), this may well force the NCAA to deal with their concerns.

[vufan75]

My pennies worth on NCAA players forming or joining unions. And I will say upfront that I was in management for the company I worked for, and helped negotiate union contracts with teamsters and other labor unions, so my views are definitely skewed based on those experiences. 

Why do NCAA players need a union I guess is my question? They already directly benefit from a free college education (excluding some expenses I'm sure) valued today and this is only a guess at probably anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000 depending whether the school is public or private.

I would agree the NCAA is very far from perfect, but don't see this unionization attempt as a real solution to problems there are. Besides there would be little stability in the union with the bargaining unit changing in terms of membership every 4 to 5 years as athletes graduate or leave school with or without a diploma. I would agree the NCAA should adjust perhaps many of their rules so for example athletes could perhaps hold a job if desired like other students are able to, as long as the hours worked don't become a problem and conflict with practice and game times, which is the reason they earned an athletic scholarship, and also increase allowances or stipends on some systematic and timely basis.

Anyway, on to the next topic which hopefully will be more fun to chat about, something perhaps like what is newsworthy at Valpo specifically in athletics. Still hoping we are able to get an NLI from a legit big man to work in tandem with Vashil next season. 
   

[usc4valpo]

I think and hope the NU football team will reject unionization.  However, after hearing Cain Colter, I respect what he says.  Playing major college football is a full time job.  These guys get full rides, but they do not get the time nor have the energy to pursue a more significant degree.  How many of these guys get to major in engineering, the sciences or pre-med?  The other issue is health insurance during their time in college and afterwards.  And we are talking Northwestern where they stress academics!  Imagine the situation at Alabama and Ohio State...

For the major revenue sports, I would extend the scholarship to 6 years, with 4 years of athetic eligibility.  This will provide a better chance for these student athletes to graduate.  If an athlete leaves college before ending their athletic eligibility to enter a different venture or opportunity, then the 6 year deal is off.  If we want student athletes, then let's walk the walk.  This will not happen of course because some Title IX restrictions will prevail. 

Concluding, we need to give the NCAA a well deserved enema,  or a new less corrupt organization must be established.

[bbtds]

I'm sorry--though you and I usually agree on things from sport to politics, this is just an not a great post from you.

Can unions do all the horrible things you attribute to them?  Surely can, and have.  Is it necessary and/or inherent to the idea of a union?  Certainly not.

I agree with LaPorte on this one.

Progressive organizations promote teamwork, optimism, and self-actualization. Name one union that promotes those values and works to achieve them.  There are none.

I totally disagree. There are unions that do promote these things. They are usually unnoticed because they don't make the news and they work well and get along well with the management teams that they negotiate with during unnoticed bargaining sessions.

[bbtds]

What's insane about this is that if the big 5 conferences get the increased power that the NCAA Board of Directors recently approved for membership vote, and I suspect, if unionization successfully enters College sports, there will be *even more* reason to root for Valpo against Duke because they will be even more of an underdog.

This is the most undemocratic thing the NCAA has ever done and the mid-major and low major schools would be foolish to agree to it unless the high major schools are threatening to leave the NCAA to form their own Big Five conference organization. It's like saying the 5 major conferences make all the money and because they do they should rule the whole organization. In the NCAA tourney it's actually 50/50 between the high majors and the mid majors on who drives the money. The high majors can't make that kind of money without the mid majors and the big 5 conferences would be foolish to think the money will be the same without the mid majors and low majors.

[StlVUFan]

What's insane about this is that if the big 5 conferences get the increased power that the NCAA Board of Directors recently approved for membership vote, and I suspect, if unionization successfully enters College sports, there will be *even more* reason to root for Valpo against Duke because they will be even more of an underdog.

This is the most undemocratic thing the NCAA has ever done and the mid-major and low major schools would be foolish to agree to it unless the high major schools are threatening to leave the NCAA to form their own Big Five conference organization. It's like saying the 5 major conferences make all the money and because they do they should rule the whole organization. In the NCAA tourney it's actually 50/50 between the high majors and the mid majors on who drives the money. The high majors can't make that kind of money without the mid majors and the big 5 conferences would be foolish to think the money will be the same without the mid majors and low majors.

I get the feeling it won't matter all that much.  The mid-majors can either agree to it or kiss March Madness goodbye.  I wish Jim Delaney and his cohorts at the other 4 conferences would just put us out of our misery instead of bitching and moaning about the few crumbs we manage to pick up that fall from the master's table.  That's what really fries my cookies.

[historyman]

I wish Jim Delaney and his cohorts at the other 4 conferences would just put us out of our misery instead of bitching and moaning about the few crumbs we manage to pick up that fall from the master's table. That's what really fries my cookies.

I've heard fried cookies aren't all that bad.   

[crusaderjoe]

Why would every American not a Duke alumnus/a (or a bettor/bracketeer) be rooting for Valpo in a hypothetical matchup of the two schools in the NCAA tournament?  Because humans beings intuitively support the underdog.  When forced to take sides between the powerful and the less-so, we should naturally support the latter, as the former does not need the help.

What's insane about this is that if the big 5 conferences get the increased power that the NCAA Board of Directors recently approved for membership vote, and I suspect, if unionization successfully enters College sports, there will be *even more* reason to root for Valpo against Duke because they will be even more of an underdog.

I'm with LAA by the way, this is not meant as an opposing argument.  It's more of a competing concern.  People are concerned about Student Athletes' rights -- and I'm sympathetic -- but I'm concerned about the decline and fall of competitive balance (maybe it's long past time to worry and now time to mourn).

I'm afraid your competitive balance ship has sailed at the FBS football level, IMO.  Case in point:  Alabama is FBS.  So is Idaho.

[StlVUFan]

Why would every American not a Duke alumnus/a (or a bettor/bracketeer) be rooting for Valpo in a hypothetical matchup of the two schools in the NCAA tournament?  Because humans beings intuitively support the underdog.  When forced to take sides between the powerful and the less-so, we should naturally support the latter, as the former does not need the help.

What's insane about this is that if the big 5 conferences get the increased power that the NCAA Board of Directors recently approved for membership vote, and I suspect, if unionization successfully enters College sports, there will be *even more* reason to root for Valpo against Duke because they will be even more of an underdog.

I'm with LAA by the way, this is not meant as an opposing argument.  It's more of a competing concern.  People are concerned about Student Athletes' rights -- and I'm sympathetic -- but I'm concerned about the decline and fall of competitive balance (maybe it's long past time to worry and now time to mourn).

I'm afraid your competitive balance ship has sailed at the FBS football level, IMO.  Case in point:  Alabama is FBS.  So is Idaho.

You have me confused with someone who gives a damn about football.  I care only about basketball.  I get that Football is steering this particular Titanic, but basketball competitive balance isn't dead yet.  It may be on it's last legs, but it's still alive and kicking right now.