Ruling: players are employees
espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize
Comments
-
Damn you and your 53 seconds.
-
I'm hearing that they're slaves.
-
Can they file a grievance if they don't get enough playing time? Will seniors have to play no matter what because they have seniority? Can they take 8 weeks off to take care of a kid with the crud and not lose their spot?
-
"A player shouldn't lose his job to injury"MikeDamone said:Can they file a grievance if they don't get enough playing time? Will seniors have to play no matter what because they have seniority? Can they take 8 weeks off to take care of a kid with the crud and not lose their spot?
-
That's where the term Student-Athlete came from, as schools did not want to pay OASDI an Medicare taxes. That is why the NCAA does not care about bringing the hammer down on violations that involve paying people that are not players.MikeDamone said:I assume they will be getting w2s and paying taxes
espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize -
If they're employees then they don't need to be given scholarships, free housing, etc. You don't usually get paid up front to take a job.
-
No signing bonuses in big money football? Since when?oregonblitzkrieg said:If they're employees then they don't need to be given scholarships, free housing, etc. You don't usually get paid up front to take a job.
Yes, pay the players, and you do not need to give them scholarships.
-
Maybe something along the lines of each player is given a choice: take the full scholarship and small stipend if you know you have no chance of making it in the NFL and don't wanna play for the Portland Thunder or the school just gives you in money what the scholarship is worth, you obviously don't need to go to class now, and you can go invest the money in hookers and blow until you go work out at the combine.RavennaDawg said:
No signing bonuses in big money football? Since when?oregonblitzkrieg said:If they're employees then they don't need to be given scholarships, free housing, etc. You don't usually get paid up front to take a job.
Yes, pay the players, and you do not need to give them scholarships. -
And remove all academic requirements. Also, let the stars negotiate bigger salaries. Why shouldn't Sankey get paid more than Harvigston?RavennaDawg said:
No signing bonuses in big money football? Since when?oregonblitzkrieg said:If they're employees then they don't need to be given scholarships, free housing, etc. You don't usually get paid up front to take a job.
Yes, pay the players, and you do not need to give them scholarships. -
-
Will suddenly senior players sue for age discrimination?
-
What about reparations?
-
Have fun paying the Federal Income tax on that. Idiots.
-
Will the nation be outraged? Will this have legs?
-
purpledawgfanFS thinks they shouldn't have to pay taxes.LawDawg1 said:Have fun paying the Federal Income tax on that. Idiots.
-
I'd like to see how they apparently fall squarely under the federal definition of an employee but then be somehow exempt from income tax.
-
Winner.LawDawg1 said:I'd like to see how they apparently fall squarely under the federal definition of an employee but then be somehow exempt from income tax.
-
Don't change what works. The system has its flaws, but it provides us with great college football every year. Prick ass whiny liberal power to the people while I'm sipping my latte in my white ivory tower fucknuts like the cunts that go to Northwestern, must always rabble rouse because they have nothing better to do.
-
They can easily devise a program to loan the athlete's money to pay the tax, allow it to compound at about 7% and defer payments until about six months after they graduate or flunk out.LawDawg1 said:I'd like to see how they apparently fall squarely under the federal definition of an employee but then be somehow exempt from income tax.
-
Why does the concept of paying people wages commensurate with the money they are brining in make so many people uncomfortable?oregonblitzkrieg said:Don't change what works. The system has its flaws, but it provides us with great college football every year. Prick ass whiny liberal power to the people while I'm sipping my latte in my white ivory tower fucknuts like the cunts that go to Northwestern, must always rabble rouse because they have nothing better to do.
The coach at Alabama gets more than the coach at UAB. Because the coach at Alabama brings in more money than the coach at UAB.
College football is not going to break if you pay the players. Just like it has not broken with $6 million dollar coaches and lavish facilities. -
As long as I'm entertained who cares about fixing the system!!!1oregonblitzkrieg said:Don't change what works. The system has its flaws, but it provides us with great college football every year. Prick ass whiny liberal power to the people while I'm sipping my latte in my white ivory tower fucknuts like the cunts that go to Northwestern, must always rabble rouse because they have nothing better to do.
-
That sounds sustainable for many of them. Congrats on graduating. Sorry the NFL didn't work out. Pay up!
-
Leach says he's looking forward to the draft, now that they're employees and all.
-
It's already been said before. Are you ready to pay the softball team, the pole vaulters, the hackeysack and ping pong teams, and the chess club members? Think this shit through to its conclusion instead of making a feel good kumbayaa lets all be fucking hippies and live in a commune mistake. Boneheads have been posting this same argument on forums throughout the cuntry and it has contributed to making this idiocy a reality. You watch, college football won't be the same. Do you watch your college baseball team, or the farm team in your city? You don't watch either and don't give a fuck, because they both suck. The farm team will get the losers that aren't playing up to snuff in the MLB, and the colleges will get the losers who aren't good enough to make the farm teams. Add it all up and you get nothing less than a fantastic dreckfest.RavennaDawg said:
Why does the concept of paying people wages commensurate with the money they are brining in make so many people uncomfortable?oregonblitzkrieg said:Don't change what works. The system has its flaws, but it provides us with great college football every year. Prick ass whiny liberal power to the people while I'm sipping my latte in my white ivory tower fucknuts like the cunts that go to Northwestern, must always rabble rouse because they have nothing better to do.
The coach at Alabama gets more than the coach at UAB. Because the coach at Alabama brings in more money than the coach at UAB.
College football is not going to break if you pay the players. Just like it has not broken with $6 million dollar coaches and lavish facilities. -
I think Ravenna's point is that the chest and ping pong toolbags will get nothing and perish unless they fund their own handjob tournaments, and the women's teams will get very little or nothing unless they fund stuff themselves. Of course this is all under the assumption that they aren't at least paying for themselves in jersey sales/tickets, etc. Isn't/wasn't this the case with hockey? No one gives a fuck about pac12 hockey (lol) so they have to pay for a lot/most of their own shit? We'll be left with football and basketball and baseball will be regionalized. Hmm the 3 major sports get the stay because people actually care about them? Sounds fair and doable to me.oregonblitzkrieg said:
It's already been said before. Are you ready to pay the softball team, the pole vaulters, the hackeysack and ping pong teams, and the chess club members? Think this shit through to its conclusion instead of making a feel good kumbayaa lets all be fucking hippies and live in a commune mistake. Boneheads have been posting this same argument on forums throughout the cuntry and it has contributed to making this idiocy a reality. You watch, college football won't be the same. Do you watch your college baseball team, or the farm team in your city? You don't watch either and don't give a fuck, because they both suck. The farm team will get the losers that aren't playing up to snuff in the MLB, and the colleges will get the losers who aren't good enough to make the farm teams. Add it all up and you get nothing less than a fantastic dreckfest.RavennaDawg said:
Why does the concept of paying people wages commensurate with the money they are brining in make so many people uncomfortable?oregonblitzkrieg said:Don't change what works. The system has its flaws, but it provides us with great college football every year. Prick ass whiny liberal power to the people while I'm sipping my latte in my white ivory tower fucknuts like the cunts that go to Northwestern, must always rabble rouse because they have nothing better to do.
The coach at Alabama gets more than the coach at UAB. Because the coach at Alabama brings in more money than the coach at UAB.
College football is not going to break if you pay the players. Just like it has not broken with $6 million dollar coaches and lavish facilities.
It will not suck in the northwest anyways because you have schools like UW and WSU that just got done remodeling their stadiums and need to put butts in seats.
-
College football entertainment is at its zenith. Changing it would be a step down, you know, like going from CK to MH.
-
North Carolina has already done this:MikeDamone said:
And remove all academic requirements. Also, let the stars negotiate bigger salaries. Why shouldn't Sankey get paid more than Harvigston?RavennaDawg said:
No signing bonuses in big money football? Since when?oregonblitzkrieg said:If they're employees then they don't need to be given scholarships, free housing, etc. You don't usually get paid up front to take a job.
Yes, pay the players, and you do not need to give them scholarships.
http://www.businessinsider.com/unc-athlete-essay-on-rosa-parks-gets-a-minus-2014-3
-
You say that because Oregon has been on a great run. I think college football sucks compared to the 90's, early 2000's. The NFL passed college football 10 years ago.oregonblitzkrieg said:College football entertainment is at its zenith. Changing it would be a step down, you know, like going from CK to MH.
-
hr, ykRoadDawg55 said:
You say that because Oregon has been on a great run. I think college football sucks compared to the 90's, early 2000's. The NFL passed college football 10 years ago.oregonblitzkrieg said:College football entertainment is at its zenith. Changing it would be a step down, you know, like going from CK to MH.
The BCSECization of cfb has not created a superior product.
-
College football is dead and buried forever under the man boobs of Washington's former coaches.dnc said:
hr, ykRoadDawg55 said:
You say that because Oregon has been on a great run. I think college football sucks compared to the 90's, early 2000's. The NFL passed college football 10 years ago.oregonblitzkrieg said:College football entertainment is at its zenith. Changing it would be a step down, you know, like going from CK to MH.
The BCSECization of cfb has not created a superior product.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
