|
Post by mookie on Dec 18, 2013 9:42:23 GMT -5
Mookie, where we're disconnecting is you see it as "players agreeing with the league" but that's not the case. Its "current players and the league" agreeing to keep out college players. The union doesn't give half a shit about not-yet union members, they care about those in and even if you assume its just a one year bump in draft numbers and UFAs, thats current membership losing jobs. The collusion isn't league vs NFLPA, its league + NFLPA vs everyone not in the league or NFLPA. talkinbball - you're right, something can be done but the "right" parties are the NFLPA and the League. Clarett had his shot, he blew it. You can feel sorry for the kid because you feel he was thrown under the bus or used by the AD, OSU and the NCAA...but you can't overlook the fact that he knew the rules of the NCAA and didn't follow them. Even if you did, you can't overlook the fact that he was drafted in the 3rd round and blew it multiple times!!! As a 3rd rounder he was entitled to a significantly better contract with guaranteed money in excess of 400K greater than he was going to receive. He went against his agents' professional advice and signed that deal. He showed up to camp out of shape and drinking during practice. He did that...not the AD, not the NCAA, not the NFL...not his friends. Him. MisterD - it's collective bargaining...you have to know the rules to play the game. The rules are simple, either you're in the union and eligible to play, or you not. You're absolutely right that the Union doesn't care about "not-yet union members". The job of the Union is to protect those in the Union and that's what they're doing. Like it or not, that won't change unless the Union decides to cease at which point anybody can play in the league as long as they have a legitimate contract. And again, it's not collusion. Collusion involves deceit, fraudulant or misleading behavior which is deemed illegal. Nothing illegal is being done because it's open and there is collective bargaining. Nobody is being deceived or misled. You can argue your case all you want in the courts, you'll lose. Clarett did and so has everybody else.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,557
Likes: 6,425
|
Post by MisterD on Dec 18, 2013 9:48:57 GMT -5
Will never cease to amaze me that ostensible free-market capitalists will argue to the death that this one subset of labor should be given only fringe benefits, completely ignoring their relative revenue generated, and if they complain (or anyone complains in their support), they're simply ungrateful. Yes, many of these players *need* college sports. Guess what. Colleges need these few sports too.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,557
Likes: 6,425
|
Post by MisterD on Dec 18, 2013 9:54:44 GMT -5
Mookie: Challengers don't lose because its not collusion, they lose because sports leagues have been given an exemption to many standard labor laws.
|
|
|
Post by mookie on Dec 18, 2013 9:55:13 GMT -5
Will never cease to amaze me that ostensible free-market capitalists will argue to the death that this one subset of labor should be given only fringe benefits, completely ignoring their relative revenue generated, and if they complain (or anyone complains in their support), they're simply ungrateful. Yes, many of these players *need* college sports. Guess what. Colleges need these few sports too. Soon sir, soon. The NCAA has an almighty and pure and greatly flawed belief. While I agree with their mission that collegiate athletics is supposed to be a privilege, it's transformed into a billion dollar business and what was once was is no longer the case. The NCAA really needs to adapt. I hate the idea of paying players who are in college simply because a compensation system does not exist so it creates a hugely uneven playing field should it be allowed. The NCAA really needs to get on-board with the colleges and the conferences to develop an economic system which enables these players to be compensated and to keep the field as even as possible.
|
|
|
Post by mookie on Dec 18, 2013 9:56:17 GMT -5
Mookie: Challengers don't lose because its not collusion, they lose because sports leagues have been given an exemption to many standard labor laws. So, they lose...lol
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,557
Likes: 6,425
|
Post by MisterD on Dec 18, 2013 9:59:46 GMT -5
Yes, they lose because its legal collusion, not because collusion doesn't exist. Again, collusion isn't strictly a legal term and an exemption to collude doesn't erase the collusion.
|
|
|
Post by mookie on Dec 18, 2013 10:25:06 GMT -5
Yes, they lose because its legal collusion, not because collusion doesn't exist. Again, collusion isn't strictly a legal term and an exemption to collude doesn't erase the collusion. Seriously, this argument is getting old. With all due respect, please look up the definition of collusion and don't make up your own definition or interpretation...once you do, you'll see what you're arguing is baseless and completely wrong. There is no collusion...there is no "legal" collusion. Bottom line, there is no collusion. You're using the word incorrectly to try and prove a point.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,557
Likes: 6,425
|
Post by MisterD on Dec 18, 2013 10:31:16 GMT -5
collusion n. where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating. Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends.
|
|
|
Post by mookie on Dec 18, 2013 10:52:31 GMT -5
Cherry picking I see...
You highlighted "usually" and "unfair advantage over a third party" but don't continue with the rest of the statement which is "with whom they are negotiating". The NCAA and non-union members are not at the table. The NCAA and non-union members are not being deceived or defrauded in any manner. The negotitaions and intents of each side are actually very public.
"...or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends"...Again, you left out the entire statement which references pricingm wages and rebates...not league entry and/or eligibility. But, yes these two parties are independent of eachother. When a CBA does not exist, the owners have the right to lockout the players (Union members) and continue to operate via "scabs" should they choose. The Union also has the right to cease to exist and start their own league should they choose.
Again - collusion does not exist nor is the term even applicable by definition...continue to argue if you want but you're wrong.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,557
Likes: 6,425
|
Post by MisterD on Dec 18, 2013 11:01:14 GMT -5
A + B make a mutually beneficial rule to the detriment of C without C's ability to affect change to the rule. That's colluding.
And I'm fine being done with this.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Dec 18, 2013 18:48:17 GMT -5
Will never cease to amaze me that ostensible free-market capitalists will argue to the death that this one subset of labor should be given only fringe benefits, completely ignoring their relative revenue generated, and if they complain (or anyone complains in their support), they're simply ungrateful. Yes, many of these players *need* college sports. Guess what. Colleges need these few sports too. So should graduate students who assist in attaining multi-million research grants for their universities get a cut of what they bring in too? I don't see people clamoring for them like they do for student athletes. Heck, even the paid tenured professors don't get a cut of the grants they procure. You don't hear them all whining. I haven't seen them turn to lives of crime. And, in reality, colleges don't absolutely need college sports to survive. LaSalle is doing just fine without a football team, and barely breaks even on basketball. How would Temple do without their football program? And, you might agree, the Patriot League colleges did just fine for decades and didn't even offer formal sports scholarships to players. And now their athletes should be paid? Tell me, who gets more annual donations from their alumni, LaSalle or Lehigh? Professional baseball, hockey, golf, and tennis do just fine without colleges feeding them. With the rise of online courses (and the overhead cost savings for universities involved), coupled with the growth of AAU club basketball, and the litigation costs of potential football injuries, I predict in 20-30 years, if not sooner, on-campus living and major college sports as we know it will be dead. You simply advocate accelerating that death by opening the pandoras box of paying college athletes.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,557
Likes: 6,425
|
Post by MisterD on Dec 18, 2013 18:54:13 GMT -5
And, in reality, colleges don't absolutely need college sports to survive. LaSalle is doing just fine without a football team, and barely breaks even on basketball. Didn't we see a tangible bump in applications post-tournament run, to say nothing of the millions the appearance gave us. Professional baseball, hockey, golf, and tennis do just fine without colleges feeding them. Common thread: All exist at the college level but aren't profitable thus there's not the mutual benefit of colleges making money and professional leagues having a free minor league system. With the rise of online courses (and the overhead cost savings involved), coupled with the growth of AAU club basketball, and the litigation costs of potential football injuries, I predict in 20-30 years, if not sooner, on-campus living and major college sports as we know it will be dead. You simply advocate accelerating that death by opening the pandora a box of paying athletes. Totally agree about football being dead at the amateur levels. Probably even sooner than 20-30 years.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Dec 18, 2013 19:07:07 GMT -5
So how do Lehigh, Lafayette, and Bucknell get all their donations?
And, should hockey players at Maine, Minnesota, and Boston College be paid? How about UConn & Tennessee women's basketball players? LSU baseball players? Which players in which sports do you want to pay, and how much?
Super Final Bonus Question: What percentage of BCS athletic programs turn a profit annually?
|
|