What...? The National College Players Association

[Cleets]

Pay attention to this group:
The National College Players Association.
They recently opened up a Twitter account and it's clear from some of the tweets the group plans an attempt to unionize college players.
Here is the mission statement of the group as expressed on Twitter: "The National College Players Association (NCPA) exists to provide college athletes a voice and the means to secure basic protections."

I got three words for that: It's a union

http://www.ncpanow.org/

xeyebrowx Your thoughts gentlemen...?

[TheBisonator]

Unions are a double-edged sword and I have no respect for anyone who thinks that all unions are completely evil and a 100 percent burden to society. Then again, I think unions have their flaws, and have evolved in the wrong way in the US since the Hoffa days. But again people, the world is a million shades of grey, there's no jet black or lily white when it comes to any topic. That's my political rant.

As far as the topic of college players go, I think the stipend legislation should probably tamper this group's influence.

[Cleets]

I don't even know what to think honestly...
I would be the last guy to give them or anybody advice regarding this type of thing - but it is damn interesting

[Twentysix]

So when are the badgers closing down their program? xsmiley_wix

[OL FU]

It should be interesting to see where this leads. Obviously the huge amount a money a very few programs make leads many to the conclusion that the players are being exploited, and, in some cases that argument probably holds water.

I can't help but think that for those huge money making operations, a players union is what they deserve.

Unfortunately, if it is large scale, it could change the very nature of college football. As we on this board know but very few others realize, the vast majority of scholarship athletes don't play for the 30 to 50 schools that make mega bucks on football. The play for programs that break even at best and more than likely lose money.

[Ivytalk]

On checking the link, it looks like the NCPA has been around for a decade. The mission statement reflects worthy goals with respect to scholarships, grad rates, injury-related health care and student employment. Since the vast majority of college athletes will never go pro, I support this effort. The NCAA needs some countervailing effort on the "employee" side.

[Milktruck74]

so players (college students) are going to pay dues to this organization????? How are they funded???? A wise old man once told me, "if you want to know the true mission of an organization, follow the money!"

[Milktruck74]

It should be interesting to see where this leads. Obviously the huge amount a money a very few programs make leads many to the conclusion that the players are being exploited, and, in some cases that argument probably holds water.

I can't help but think that for those huge money making operations, a players union is what they deserve.

Unfortunately, if it is large scale, it could change the very nature of college football. As we on this board know but very few others realize, the vast majority of scholarship athletes don't play for the 30 to 50 schools that make mega bucks on football. The play for programs that break even at best and more than likely lose money.

I often hear how much of a drain athletic departments are on colleges, but people have to look outside of the department to see what is brought to the institution. Look at the enrollment of schols that have recently dropped athletics programs. They drop. That is big money for the school.

[eaglesrback]

Pay attention to this group:
The National College Players Association.
They recently opened up a Twitter account and it's clear from some of the tweets the group plans an attempt to unionize college players.
Here is the mission statement of the group as expressed on Twitter: "The National College Players Association (NCPA) exists to provide college athletes a voice and the means to secure basic protections."

I got three words for that: It's a union

http://www.ncpanow.org/

xeyebrowx Your thoughts gentlemen...?

So, now, instead of paying the players, the players get to pay to play.

[Jazzman1522]

It looks like, after a quick look at the website, they get their money from donations, not from players paying dues. Either way, I'm not sure I see any good in all this. I read an interesting column on ESPN.com a few weeks back after the NCAA decided on the stipend to give to only full-scholarship athletes (i.e. football players). The writer proposed that the NCAA had just signed their death sentence. He claimed that the ethical argument against paying players got thrown out the window with this one. Ethically, what's the difference between paying an athlete $2,000 versus, say, $50,000?

I don't know how I feel about whether or not players should be compensated. I can see both sides of the argument. But I don't think the NCAA is handling the situation well and they could be heading down a very dangerous path.

[Milktruck74]

It looks like, after a quick look at the website, they get their money from donations, not from players paying dues. Either way, I'm not sure I see any good in all this. I read an interesting column on ESPN.com a few weeks back after the NCAA decided on the stipend to give to only full-scholarship athletes (i.e. football players). The writer proposed that the NCAA had just signed their death sentence. He claimed that the ethical argument against paying players got thrown out the window with this one. Ethically, what's the difference between paying an athlete $2,000 versus, say, $50,000?

I don't know how I feel about whether or not players should be compensated. I can see both sides of the argument. But I don't think the NCAA is handling the situation well and they could be heading down a very dangerous path.

Reminds me of the old story where the guy ask if the girl will have sex with him for $100,000. She says yes and he says how about for $10, to which she replies sternly, "What kind of Woman do you think I am?" And he says, "Well thats already been determined, now we are just haggling on price!"

Ethics of the NCAA have already been determined!!!!

[NoDak 4 Ever]

There is a simple solution to this. Privatize the whole thing. Start club teams not paid for or affiliated with the schools. Then you take away scholarships and just give them a salary to play.

At NDSU there are 15000 students paying their way through school, they are incurring debt, don't get free tuition, tutoring, training tables, swag, or anything that the athletes get.

And lets be honest folks, nobody cares about the cross country team, are you going to pay them too?

[OL FU]

On checking the link, it looks like the NCPA has been around for a decade. The mission statement reflects worthy goals with respect to scholarships, grad rates, injury-related health care and student employment. Since the vast majority of college athletes will never go pro, I support this effort. The NCAA needs some countervailing effort on the "employee" side.

Leave it to a Lawyer to research the issuexthumbsupx:D

[OL FU]

I often hear how much of a drain athletic departments are on colleges, but people have to look outside of the department to see what is brought to the institution. Look at the enrollment of schols that have recently dropped athletics programs. They drop. That is big money for the school.

I understand and it varies by school. Certainly one of the reasons that schools have football programs is because of what you said. However, I would suggest that isn't the case for most schools. Chattanooga being an example. No offense, but with the exception of the last two years and considering attendance, etc in the past, I can't imagine that Chattanooga having a football team was a determining factor for most applicants. ASU might be an example of the other situation. But for most FCS schools, I have a difficult time seeing where the benefit is significant AS I said, it varies by school. I can tell you without a doubt, that Furman's applications wouldn't drop by one, if the school dropped football. On the other hand, donations might. In our case, it is a connection to alums which is where the money is.

However, with that said, there is no comparison to a school like Texas that brings in gobs of dough, and the vast majority of schools that play for tradition, some benefit to applicants and connection with alums. While there are certainly benefits to schools that have football, there are no comparisons that can be made between the tangible benefits of some and the intangible benefits of others.

[bojeta]

Unions are a double-edged sword and I have no respect for anyone who thinks that all unions are completely evil and a 100 percent burden to society. Then again, I think unions have their flaws, and have evolved in the wrong way in the US since the Hoffa days. But again people, the world is a million shades of grey, there's no jet black or lily white when it comes to any topic. That's my political rant.

As far as the topic of college players go, I think the stipend legislation should probably tamper this group's influence.

Amen! And thank you for a political statement that is, in fact, non-political. By that I mean you show you are not swayed by extremists at either end of the spectrum. I personally have no idea what a college player's union would look like or how they might operate. This will be interesting to watch develop.

[Jazzman1522]

However, with that said, there is no comparison to a school like Texas that brings in gobs of dough, and the vast majority of schools that play for tradition, some benefit to applicants and connection with alums. While there are certainly benefits to schools that have football, there are no comparisons that can be made between the tangible benefits of some and the intangible benefits of others.

Therein lies the problem. Much of the debate over payment of players, etc. and many of the solutions are grounded in the idea that athletics bring in a ton of money. While this is the case at large schools like Texas or Ohio State, the reality is that those schools make up a small percentage of the schools that the NCAA's decisions are going to affect. Dropping an extra $2,000 per player probably isn't a big deal for those schools. But what about everyone else?

Even the schools seem short sighted in their decision making. When TCU was still planning on joining the Big East, I was ranting to a friend of mine how dumb that was from a geographic standpoint and how every conference road game was going to be such a long trip for them. He said he didn't think it'd be a big problem because they would likely fly the team to the games. To which I replied, "You think they're gonna charter flights for the women's soccer team?"

[TheValleyRaider]

Even the schools seem short sighted in their decision making. When TCU was still planning on joining the Big East, I was ranting to a friend of mine how dumb that was from a geographic standpoint and how every conference road game was going to be such a long trip for them. He said he didn't think it'd be a big problem because they would likely fly the team to the games. To which I replied, "You think they're gonna charter flights for the women's soccer team?"

The Big East would not have been appreciably different in price for TCU, especially given they already played in the Mountain West (nearest opponent: New Mexico). Add in the increased revenues the school would have received from just being in a BCS conference, and it was a great decision (until Pitt and Syracuse bailed, that is...)

[Milktruck74]

I understand and it varies by school. Certainly one of the reasons that schools have football programs is because of what you said. However, I would suggest that isn't the case for most schools. Chattanooga being an example. No offense, but with the exception of the last two years and considering attendance, etc in the past, I can't imagine that Chattanooga having a football team was a determining factor for most applicants. ASU might be an example of the other situation. But for most FCS schools, I have a difficult time seeing where the benefit is significant AS I said, it varies by school. I can tell you without a doubt, that Furman's applications wouldn't drop by one, if the school dropped football. On the other hand, donations might. In our case, it is a connection to alums which is where the money is.

However, with that said, there is no comparison to a school like Texas that brings in gobs of dough, and the vast majority of schools that play for tradition, some benefit to applicants and connection with alums. While there are certainly benefits to schools that have football, there are no comparisons that can be made between the tangible benefits of some and the intangible benefits of others.

It's funny that you include Chattanooga in your argument. It is the very school I was thinking of when I made the aforementioned statement. If fact, Chattanooga put together a Committee to look at the cost associated with the football program in an attempt to discontinue it back in 2001 or 2002. The committee (made of educators, not Athletic admins) determined that dropping football would decrease the number of applicants and decrease the quality of student accepted, and ultimately reduce enrollment by several percentage points over a period of time. Thus determining the cost of the program was justified by the impact on the academic programs. The committee also felt a "winning" program would increase the applicants (duh). I don't disagree that these sports cost money, but there are certain intangibles that a football program (no matter how bad) brings to the school.

Just look at ETSUs enrollment numbers since they dropped their program. Austin Peay was going to drop theirs, but kept it going when they looked at ETSUs results. A college without a Football program (regardless of record) will be scratched from some applicants list. I'm just saying, NOBODY really wants to go to a Home Coming X-Country race.

[OL FU]

It's funny that you include Chattanooga in your argument. It is the very school I was thinking of when I made the aforementioned statement. If fact, Chattanooga put together a Committee to look at the cost associated with the football program in an attempt to discontinue it back in 2001 or 2002. The committee (made of educators, not Athletic admins) determined that dropping football would decrease the number of applicants and decrease the quality of student accepted, and ultimately reduce enrollment by several percentage points over a period of time. Thus determining the cost of the program was justified by the impact on the academic programs. The committee also felt a "winning" program would increase the applicants (duh). I don't disagree that these sports cost money, but there are certain intangibles that a football program (no matter how bad) brings to the school.

Just look at ETSUs enrollment numbers since they dropped their program. Austin Peay was going to drop theirs, but kept it going when they looked at ETSUs results. A college without a Football program (regardless of record) will be scratched from some applicants list. I'm just saying, NOBODY really wants to go to a Home Coming X-Country race.

Let me add one other thing. I am the first to admit that I could be wrongxlolx

[Milktruck74]

Let me add one other thing. I am the first to admit that I could be wrongxlolx

Of course the committee was made of college professors (albeit beyond their comprehension), they could be wrong too!!!! HAHAHa

I'm sure we can agree that a Home Coming X-C Meet would SUCK!!!xnodxxnodxxnodxxnodxxnodxxnodxxnodx

[Cleets]

Let me add one other thing. I am the first to admit that I could be wrongxlolx

But I'm right there with you...
If you're not an athlete on a scholarship and you let a schools sports programs influence the decision where to attend...
You've got more problems than can be listed here in this forum



xeyebrowx