[2006alum]

Apologies if I missed a posting about this elsewhere (this workweek was really intense), but the general counsel at the NLRB issued an official opinion this week finding that players at 17 private colleges in the FBS are employees of those schools. That not only includes Northwestern, which has been subject to ongoing litigation, but also Stanford. If this holds, it means Stanford football players can negotiate for payments beyond their scholarships, can unionize, and can demand a portion of the profits the AD makes on the football program. This seems like a potentially brobdingnagian decision that will fundamentally alter Stanford football as well as football at all private schools. It seems like it will fundamentally alter recruiting and pave the way for the end of amateurism altogether. Has anyone been talking about this elsewhere on the CardBoard and I just missed it?

[2006alum]

Apologies if I missed a posting about this elsewhere (this workweek was really intense), but the general counsel at the NLRB issued an official opinion this week finding that players at 17 private colleges in the FBS are employees of those schools. That not only includes Northwestern, which has been subject to ongoing litigation, but also Stanford. If this holds, it means Stanford football players can negotiate for payments beyond their scholarships, can unionize, and can demand a portion of the profits the AD makes on the football program. This seems like a potentially brobdingnagian decision that will fundamentally alter Stanford football as well as football at all private schools. It seems like it will fundamentally alter recruiting and pave the way for the end of amateurism altogether. Has anyone been talking about this elsewhere on the CardBoard and I just missed it?

[OutsiderFan]

Haven't seen any discussion about Stanford being involved, but I thought this whole NLRB thing had been settled already, against the notion the players were employees?

Regardless, why is it that private school athletes are considered employees and public school athletes aren't?

Edit:  I see in the ESPN story that NLRB doesn't have jurisdiction over public schools, but does privates.

[OutsiderFan]

Haven't seen any discussion about Stanford being involved, but I thought this whole NLRB thing had been settled already, against the notion the players were employees?

Regardless, why is it that private school athletes are considered employees and public school athletes aren't?

Edit:  I see in the ESPN story that NLRB doesn't have jurisdiction over public schools, but does privates.

[gocard14]

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.  If this holds true, then D1 football players at private schools would be able to unionize and ask for additional pay and benefits. However, my understanding is that the NCAA would be able to then bar said students from competing in amateur intercollegiate athletics.  Thus private schools like Stanford would be able to play hardball, essentially saying that they can't/won't give additional benefits not permitted under the NCAA, with players free to strike if they desire (which is essentially what the situation is now). The bigger issue would likely be if other labor laws would then apply, such as worker's compensation for any injuries sustained while on the football team.

Also, as the end of the article states: "Griffin was appointed the NLRB's general counsel by President Obama in 2013. His term ends in November, and his replacement could issue different guidance. "  I can't imagine our current president will be appointing someone terribly friendly to organized labor.

[gocard14]

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.  If this holds true, then D1 football players at private schools would be able to unionize and ask for additional pay and benefits. However, my understanding is that the NCAA would be able to then bar said students from competing in amateur intercollegiate athletics.  Thus private schools like Stanford would be able to play hardball, essentially saying that they can't/won't give additional benefits not permitted under the NCAA, with players free to strike if they desire (which is essentially what the situation is now). The bigger issue would likely be if other labor laws would then apply, such as worker's compensation for any injuries sustained while on the football team.

Also, as the end of the article states: "Griffin was appointed the NLRB's general counsel by President Obama in 2013. His term ends in November, and his replacement could issue different guidance. "  I can't imagine our current president will be appointing someone terribly friendly to organized labor.

[M T]

If this holds, it means Stanford football players can negotiate for payments beyond their scholarships, can unionize, and can demand a portion of the profits the AD makes on the football program.

But that doesn't mean that they can do that AND play in the NCAA.

[M T]

If this holds, it means Stanford football players can negotiate for payments beyond their scholarships, can unionize, and can demand a portion of the profits the AD makes on the football program.

But that doesn't mean that they can do that AND play in the NCAA.

[OutsiderFan]

Aside from the implications of the ruling in terms of organizing and labor rights, the most interesting thing would be if the NCAA were to ban private universities from competing if they did in fact provide what the NCAA considers to be extra benefits to student athletes, that are offered in order for said universities to be in good standing with the NLRB.

I mean how does the NCAA justify not allowing its private school members to comply with the NLRB?  So if done right, this could end up as a giant recruiting advantage for private schools, as they offer better "working conditions" to their student athletes, and possibly more benefits.  In any case, it certainly presents the possibility of quite a significant can o' worms for the NCAA and all its member FBS football schools.

[OutsiderFan]

Aside from the implications of the ruling in terms of organizing and labor rights, the most interesting thing would be if the NCAA were to ban private universities from competing if they did in fact provide what the NCAA considers to be extra benefits to student athletes, that are offered in order for said universities to be in good standing with the NLRB.

I mean how does the NCAA justify not allowing its private school members to comply with the NLRB?  So if done right, this could end up as a giant recruiting advantage for private schools, as they offer better "working conditions" to their student athletes, and possibly more benefits.  In any case, it certainly presents the possibility of quite a significant can o' worms for the NCAA and all its member FBS football schools.

[2006alum]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16551.msg188122#msg188122 date=1486220260]
If this holds, it means Stanford football players can negotiate for payments beyond their scholarships, can unionize, and can demand a portion of the profits the AD makes on the football program.

But that doesn't mean that they can do that AND play in the NCAA.
[/quote]

There's no way that Notre Dame, USC, and Stanford get kicked out of the FBS. If those universities have to comply with the NLRB's labor-management relations rules for their student athletes, the NCAA will likely be forced to alter its own policies, and probably level the playing field and permit public schools to do the same. If this ruling holds, I think it's not a question of if but when this happens.

[2006alum]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16551.msg188122#msg188122 date=1486220260]
If this holds, it means Stanford football players can negotiate for payments beyond their scholarships, can unionize, and can demand a portion of the profits the AD makes on the football program.

But that doesn't mean that they can do that AND play in the NCAA.
[/quote]

There's no way that Notre Dame, USC, and Stanford get kicked out of the FBS. If those universities have to comply with the NLRB's labor-management relations rules for their student athletes, the NCAA will likely be forced to alter its own policies, and probably level the playing field and permit public schools to do the same. If this ruling holds, I think it's not a question of if but when this happens.

[JohnR34231]

Didn't realize the NLRB had that much power.

All their head legal beagle has to do is issue an opinion letter and it's a done deal? No approvals, no appeal rights, no nothing?

Interesting.

[JohnR34231]

Didn't realize the NLRB had that much power.

All their head legal beagle has to do is issue an opinion letter and it's a done deal? No approvals, no appeal rights, no nothing?

Interesting.

[2006alum]

Didn't realize the NLRB had that much power.

All their head legal beagle has to do is issue an opinion letter and it's a done deal? No approvals, no appeal rights, no nothing?

Interesting.

No - but it's an invitation for student athletes to sue and invoke the NLRA and cite the counsel's opinion as to why the NLRB should side with them. The General Counsel can also investigate and prosecute unfair labor practices, so in theory the General Counsel could investigate Stanford and argue that the current arrangement violates the NLRA. Whether or not the NLRB agrees (and later courts) is a separate question, but my point is that in the end, whatever is found to apply to private universities the NCAA will permit and extend to public ones because there's no way the NCAA risks losing the membership of the USC, Notre Dames, and Stanfords of the world.

[2006alum]

Didn't realize the NLRB had that much power.

All their head legal beagle has to do is issue an opinion letter and it's a done deal? No approvals, no appeal rights, no nothing?

Interesting.

No - but it's an invitation for student athletes to sue and invoke the NLRA and cite the counsel's opinion as to why the NLRB should side with them. The General Counsel can also investigate and prosecute unfair labor practices, so in theory the General Counsel could investigate Stanford and argue that the current arrangement violates the NLRA. Whether or not the NLRB agrees (and later courts) is a separate question, but my point is that in the end, whatever is found to apply to private universities the NCAA will permit and extend to public ones because there's no way the NCAA risks losing the membership of the USC, Notre Dames, and Stanfords of the world.

[OutsiderFan]

Didn't realize the NLRB had that much power.

All their head legal beagle has to do is issue an opinion letter and it's a done deal? No approvals, no appeal rights, no nothing?

Interesting.

Hasn't there already been much deliberation and listening to both sides on this issue?  I do believe when the NLRB rules, it is final.  And it makes sense, because you can't have these decisions be wishy-washy or subject to court review all the time.

But I do think the implications are that the NCAA would have to allow public schools the right to match the benefits the private schools are offering student athlete "employees."  Maybe the NCAA will wisen up and start instituting salary caps on coaching staffs because member schools are going to get killed if the "employees" can start gaining a share of the revenues.

[OutsiderFan]

Didn't realize the NLRB had that much power.

All their head legal beagle has to do is issue an opinion letter and it's a done deal? No approvals, no appeal rights, no nothing?

Interesting.

Hasn't there already been much deliberation and listening to both sides on this issue?  I do believe when the NLRB rules, it is final.  And it makes sense, because you can't have these decisions be wishy-washy or subject to court review all the time.

But I do think the implications are that the NCAA would have to allow public schools the right to match the benefits the private schools are offering student athlete "employees."  Maybe the NCAA will wisen up and start instituting salary caps on coaching staffs because member schools are going to get killed if the "employees" can start gaining a share of the revenues.

[Phogge]

Perhaps it's because of my age but why is the word h_ _ _ turned into "of exceedingly....?" Have I missed something in R&B jargon, youth vernacular or ethnic lingo?

[Phogge]

Perhaps it's because of my age but why is the word h_ _ _ turned into "of exceedingly....?" Have I missed something in R&B jargon, youth vernacular or ethnic lingo?

[BostonCard]

Perhaps it's because of my age but why is the word h_ _ _ turned into "of exceedingly....?" Have I missed something in R&B jargon, youth vernacular or ethnic lingo?

Blame Teejers.  Back in 1999, before our game against Texas, he said the game was "yuge" (except he didn't say it like Donald Trump).  We lost 69-17, and the word has been banned ever since.

BC

[BostonCard]

Perhaps it's because of my age but why is the word h_ _ _ turned into "of exceedingly....?" Have I missed something in R&B jargon, youth vernacular or ethnic lingo?

Blame Teejers.  Back in 1999, before our game against Texas, he said the game was "yuge" (except he didn't say it like Donald Trump).  We lost 69-17, and the word has been banned ever since.

BC

[Snorlax94]

Ah, thanks for the explanation about yuge.

I think there should be an expiration date for these references. While my N Dame game viewing parties are Hawaiiian-themed, of course in remembrance of the tragic passing of imaginary Stanford student Lenay Kekua, even I have to admit that reference is getting old.

There should be like a 6 year expiration for these references, lest we become an echo chamber of obscure references that even devoted younger fans cannot comprehend.

And to anyone who disagrees, I ask, What's your deal??

[Snorlax94]

Ah, thanks for the explanation about yuge.

I think there should be an expiration date for these references. While my N Dame game viewing parties are Hawaiiian-themed, of course in remembrance of the tragic passing of imaginary Stanford student Lenay Kekua, even I have to admit that reference is getting old.

There should be like a 6 year expiration for these references, lest we become an echo chamber of obscure references that even devoted younger fans cannot comprehend.

And to anyone who disagrees, I ask, What's your deal??

[SUBuddha]

TBH I remember the word was released from the substitution prison briefly and the team promptly lost again.

[SUBuddha]

TBH I remember the word was released from the substitution prison briefly and the team promptly lost again.

[Leftcoast]

Teejers didn't just say it once.  Every post, no matter the subject ended with a reminder that the Texas game was of extreme size.  It was his own version of Cato's, "Carthaga delenda est."

Of course Stanford got pummeled in that UT game but went on to play in (but lose) its first Rose Bowl in 26 years anyway as the football gods guffawed in Teejers' general direction.  Turns out that game wasn't so big after all.

The powers that be lifted the ban after Stanford's later Rose Bowl win but the lifted ban was blamed for every loss the following season until it was put in place again. 

[Leftcoast]

Teejers didn't just say it once.  Every post, no matter the subject ended with a reminder that the Texas game was of extreme size.  It was his own version of Cato's, "Carthaga delenda est."

Of course Stanford got pummeled in that UT game but went on to play in (but lose) its first Rose Bowl in 26 years anyway as the football gods guffawed in Teejers' general direction.  Turns out that game wasn't so big after all.

The powers that be lifted the ban after Stanford's later Rose Bowl win but the lifted ban was blamed for every loss the following season until it was put in place again. 

[BostonCard]

Ah, thanks for the explanation about yuge.

I think there should be an expiration date for these references. While my N Dame game viewing parties are Hawaiiian-themed, of course in remembrance of the tragic passing of imaginary Stanford student Lenay Kekua, even I have to admit that reference is getting old.

There should be like a 6 year expiration for these references, lest we become an echo chamber of obscure references that even devoted younger fans cannot comprehend.

And to anyone who disagrees, I ask, What's your deal??

Well, the ursines from across the Bay will have their 57-year-old reference lifted the next time they go to a Rose Bowl.  So brace yourself, it may be a while.
The reference to the mascot of the other private school in the Pac-12 is now 2,700+ years old. Not our fault that they chose the losing side in that war.  The school name itself usually gets updated because every once in a while they win a game against us and we can't say they are under our controll any more.

BC

[BostonCard]

Ah, thanks for the explanation about yuge.

I think there should be an expiration date for these references. While my N Dame game viewing parties are Hawaiiian-themed, of course in remembrance of the tragic passing of imaginary Stanford student Lenay Kekua, even I have to admit that reference is getting old.

There should be like a 6 year expiration for these references, lest we become an echo chamber of obscure references that even devoted younger fans cannot comprehend.

And to anyone who disagrees, I ask, What's your deal??

Well, the ursines from across the Bay will have their 57-year-old reference lifted the next time they go to a Rose Bowl.  So brace yourself, it may be a while.
The reference to the mascot of the other private school in the Pac-12 is now 2,700+ years old. Not our fault that they chose the losing side in that war.  The school name itself usually gets updated because every once in a while they win a game against us and we can't say they are under our controll any more.

BC

[terry]

This recent opinion says that college football players at private schools are employees. However, this is not a decision by the NLRB. It's an opinion by the NLRB's general counsel outlining the general counsel's "prosecutorial position" and offering "a guide." This opinion is not legally binding. The schools don't have to comply with it.

The NLRB itself declined to exercise jurisdiction over college football players a year and a half ago. Some Northwestern players filed a petition to unionize. The NLRB ruled that allowing unionization at one private school would not promote stability in labor relations. Public schools are exempt from the labor relations laws, so there was never any question about public school players unionizing, and the NLRB didn't think it was proper to extend unionization rights only to players at one private school. So the NLRB dismissed the unionization petition. That NLRB decision is binding. So players can't unionize.

The general counsel's opinion concedes that the unionization issue has been decided by the NLRB. But the general counsel says the players may have other rights as employees, specifically the right to be protected from retaliation if the players were to take concerted action to pursue their interests. This is just an advisory opinion, however, not a ruling by the NLRB. The general counsel's term expires in November. A new general counsel may well have a different opinion. The NLRB, which eventually will have a Republican majority as the new administration appoints members, has the last word and can overrule the general counsel.

[terry]

This recent opinion says that college football players at private schools are employees. However, this is not a decision by the NLRB. It's an opinion by the NLRB's general counsel outlining the general counsel's "prosecutorial position" and offering "a guide." This opinion is not legally binding. The schools don't have to comply with it.

The NLRB itself declined to exercise jurisdiction over college football players a year and a half ago. Some Northwestern players filed a petition to unionize. The NLRB ruled that allowing unionization at one private school would not promote stability in labor relations. Public schools are exempt from the labor relations laws, so there was never any question about public school players unionizing, and the NLRB didn't think it was proper to extend unionization rights only to players at one private school. So the NLRB dismissed the unionization petition. That NLRB decision is binding. So players can't unionize.

The general counsel's opinion concedes that the unionization issue has been decided by the NLRB. But the general counsel says the players may have other rights as employees, specifically the right to be protected from retaliation if the players were to take concerted action to pursue their interests. This is just an advisory opinion, however, not a ruling by the NLRB. The general counsel's term expires in November. A new general counsel may well have a different opinion. The NLRB, which eventually will have a Republican majority as the new administration appoints members, has the last word and can overrule the general counsel.

[BostonCard]

Thanks Terry.  What do you think?

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks Terry.  What do you think?

BC