mrwallace2ku
Treehugger
- 38,407
- 4,614
- 293
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 200.00
^
will no one think of the poor, starving student-athletes!?
UConn's Napier, on athletes unionizing | The CT Mirror
They should get fed 365 1/4 days a year. That rule is beyond stupid.
A canes player discussed (off the record) how he and his roomate (another fb player) called an asst coach on the weekend and told him they were gonna do bad things to eat because they were starving. The asst showed up with $50 of taco bell . He wondered how many years of probation that could have earned the U.
Now that NorWest coach and that idiot from the NCAA have voiced their opinions...let it be know you kids from NorWest football team, the UAW and the USW boyz have your backs covered here. Put a wrench in the NCAAs monolopy NOW!
GO UNIONS!
Unions served a purpose.....decades ago. Now, they are a bunch of lazy fucks that "CANT" making a ton off the sweat and blood of those that "CAN". Wish I wpuld have thought of that scam first. Id be rollololing past all those criminal wiseguys on my way to the bank!
So, you don't like better pay, safer working conditions, medical coverage, weekends off, and having a say in what goes on at your place of employment? If that's what you like, yes, trash the unions. But don't forget the politicians and corporate CEOs who are all in bed with each other, let me guess, you'd rather pay the CEO millions, allow total corruption in Washington DC, and treat the workers like crap? It cuts both ways.
Now, to the question at hand. The court ruling could have a HUGE impact, completely changing college sports as we know them. We seem to only think about the handful of superstars who go on to play in the pros, forgetting that 90+% of these kids risk injury and sacrifice thousands of hours working out, practicing, and are forbidden from so many normal "college" activities, in exchange for the scholarships.
I will agree, I don't see much good coming out of it.
But your silly political rant against unions is probably the best argument I can think of that sadly, unions are still necessary. Too many idiots like you hanging around.
They should get fed 365 1/4 days a year. That rule is beyond stupid.
A canes player discussed (off the record) how he and his roomate (another fb player) called an asst coach on the weekend and told him they were gonna do bad things to eat because they were starving. The asst showed up with $50 of taco bell . He wondered how many years of probation that could have earned the U.
While there are some legitimate complaints to be made against unions, the benefits and protections of the same cannot be overstated nor minimized by those desiring to do so.
Now to the point, I actually took the time to read nearly all of the posts on this threat and it appears that the main point is missing in the arguments relating to UNW players position. Their stance is that they are EMPLOYEES of the university and thus by law able to unionize. It is noteworthy that the point of contention has narrowed to unionization. Does this mean that the university has or is conceding that major point?
There is no doubt that "higher profile" athletes generate multi-millions (perhaps billions) for participating schools and the NCAA, what then is a fair share of that total due to the player? Some will argue that the scholarship is payment......a weak and unsubstantiated counter when compared to annual gate receipts, TV revenues, the loss of their ability to garner income based on identifying numbers and likenesses in perpetuity and a diploma that is worth less than the paper that it's written on.
I am convinced that the beginning of the end to this last bastion of indentured servitude is finally on firm footing. I do wonder if the majority of responses here are in large part, due to, desires to keep the status quo.
Indentured servitude?
D1 fb players recieve more compensation than probably 90% of the posters here.
............And you know about this legal compensation how?? BTW: your position ("more compensation than......") if true means that there is no longer an argument against a union/ negotiations for a larger share of revenues/ etc. etc.
While there are some legitimate complaints to be made against unions, the benefits and protections of the same cannot be overstated nor minimized by those desiring to do so.
Now to the point, I actually took the time to read nearly all of the posts on this threat and it appears that the main point is missing in the arguments relating to UNW players position. Their stance is that they are EMPLOYEES of the university and thus by law able to unionize. It is noteworthy that the point of contention has narrowed to unionization. Does this mean that the university has or is conceding that major point?
There is no doubt that "higher profile" athletes generate multi-millions (perhaps billions) for participating schools and the NCAA, what then is a fair share of that total due to the player? Some will argue that the scholarship is payment......a weak and unsubstantiated counter when compared to annual gate receipts, TV revenues, the loss of their ability to garner income based on identifying numbers and likenesses in perpetuity and a diploma that is worth less than the paper that it's written on.
I am convinced that the beginning of the end to this last bastion of indentured servitude is finally on firm footing. I do wonder if the majority of responses here are in large part, due to, desires to keep the status quo.