UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[froot loops]

There actually has to be a reason for players to organize a union. The players would be doing the colleges a favor.

[froot loops]

The four major pro sports unions were organized in response to owner excesses, so the conventional wisdom is always that the players are restricting the owners. The reality is that the unions do the the leagues a favor. It allows them to do things like the draft that are clearly illegal in 3 of the 4 sports. Baseball has a true anti trust exemption, so their draft and the reserve system would survive a court challenge.

Anytime the owners go too far in a negotiation in a lockout and/or strike situation, the union can play the decertification process and it would blow up the system. Where college sports is right now is what that would look like. I'm not sure what the carrots would be to get enough players to sign up for a union.

[AlabamAlum]

There actually has to be a reason for players to organize a union. The players would be doing the colleges a favor.

Quite right. But there are enough carrots to make headway. 3 years service and a small pension. Healthcare. Graduate school. A few others. The colleges have a nuclear option that would serve as a stick.

[Big J]

Kendrick Bell, 2023 quarterback commit

https://youtu.be/yVA_vxSbHYI

[lineygoblue]

Well, he seems to be mobile.

[iam416]

Quite right. But there are enough carrots to make headway. 3 years service and a small pension. Healthcare. Graduate school. A few others. The colleges have a nuclear option that would serve as a stick.

The biggest carrot is the actual union itself. The union, in theory, could sort of normalize the haves and have nots and increase available funds for kids at worse schools or for more kids in general. That's what unions do -- the strive toward the inefficient allocation of resources based merely on membership, not ability. So, to a lot of playes who aren't 4* caliber or better, this would be appealing. And then you throw in the other benefits and you have, well, the quintessential union offerings.

But, that will never happen, and that's mostly good. Unions are total trash for any industry where any amount of talent is involved.

The sort of half measure is to authorize Universities to directly pay athletes and to set some sort of cap. It's gone from college to professional already so why not complete the deal. The cap, of course, is completely legal and fine provided you don't touch NIL opportunities. The payment itself runs into T9 issues, but let's say you can do that. Then the $1.5M vs $100K for a 5* becomes something like $2.5 vs $1.6 (with a commensurate salary added). And the more 5* you sign the harder it becomes to competitive. A school like M that might sign 1 5*, if they're lucky, can make a much better University offer than UAT, which signs like 10 every cycle.

That said, I think Geezer mentioned something similar to that, so it's obviously and completely wrong.

The real answer is that nothing will be done other than to continue to concentrate power in CFB in the 2 power conferences. Oregon and probably Washington will end up in the B10. And I don't know what will happen to the ACC.

[froot loops]

Like I've said before, it's going to take a few years to shake out. I'm very skeptical the boosters can continue this type of spending. If it turns out there are a few universities with sugar daddies that make them stand apart, then something might be done.

One thing they could do is limit the transfer rules. It was a good idea, but if you combine it with the NIL it has turned into chaos with the tampering.

[iam416]

Well, I mean, that's just enforceable contracts. And that brings things out into the open, too. But, if Boosters have no interest in enforceable contracts then there's not much to do other than limit portal movement.

[AlabamAlum]

Don’t get me wrong, Talent. I think a union would be a two-edged sword, but I absolutely think it will happen, eventually. Will the union create more problems than it solves. Yeah, very possible.

[THE_WIZARD_]

shaddup

[lineygoblue]

When I worked for AT&T/The Bell System, I was in the Communications Workers of America (CWA) for 31 years. I served as a steward, a chief steward, and I also organized units for certification, and I had the privilege of being on the bargaining committee to negotiate a new contract when we won representation. It was a very interesting experience. And informative.

I supported union representation especially with AT&T because of how big the corporation was. A union contract assures that everyone plays by the same rules. Its in writing, and its signed by all parties. Contracts still can be a problem. For one thing, the company is always looking for ways to circumvent the contract. They have their interpretation, and the Union has theirs. This is why there is usually a grievance process which can lead to binding arbitration on contract issues. I handled these types of situations on a daily basis.

I'm not sure how a union would work in college football, because members would be coming and going so quickly. No doubt players would demand free agency of sorts (portal) on an unlimited basis. Schools would want limits on it. Both sides would want to have a say in how money is distributed. Players would want total control, while schools would want total control. This is usually the biggest stumblingblock when professional players associations negotiate with owners.

I think good could come from it with having established rules that everyone would have to follow, but I can see problems that would have to be addressed via a grievance process.

[AlabamAlum]

And the thing about letting the clearinghouse or collective being directly controlled by the university is that it would absolutely open up Title IX fair treatment lawsuits. If the university has $20 million in funds to disperse, then they would have to send it to athletes in the women’s sports, too, regardless of where the donations came from.

[DaGeezer]

The sort of half measure is to authorize Universities to directly pay athletes and to set some sort of cap. It's gone from college to professional already so why not complete the deal. The cap, of course, is completely legal and fine provided you don't touch NIL opportunities. The payment itself runs into T9 issues, but let's say you can do that. Then the $1.5M vs $100K for a 5* becomes something like $2.5 vs $1.6 (with a commensurate salary added). And the more 5* you sign the harder it becomes to competitive. A school like M that might sign 1 5*, if they're lucky, can make a much better University offer than UAT, which signs like 10 every cycle.

That said, I think Geezer mentioned something similar to that, so it's obviously and completely wrong.

One reason for a cap would be to increase the level of competitiveness of the schools like UM, the schools that have followed the recruiting rules in the past. You view "competitive" through the lens of "I need to pay 5*s big money to 'compete' with the other schools that are cheating.". Look at the list of schools who have made it to the National Championship Game in the playoff era (2014):

Clemson, OSU, Alabama, Georgia, and LSU.

Those are the schools that have historically "recruited well". I'm seeing this through the lens of a UM fan and you are seeing it through the lens of an OSU fan. You would get no blowback if you were posting on Eleven Warriors, but this is a University of Michigan forum. With the exception of a fantastic LSU team, quarterbacked by an OSU cast-off, the teams that win the NC are limited to four. And, this year, Georgia will win again. Any proposal to limit the amount that those four are able to pay to monopolize talent nationally increases the competitiveness of College Football as a whole. You know I'm all about diversity, equity, and inclusion.

I'm still waiting to hear about OSU's "recruiting advantages. You and AA should just fess up and say that the pay-to-play model is here now and you guys are paying the most. When you and AA complain about losing a recruit to Oregon or Miami is just absurd. It is like a major jewel thief complaining that someone stole one stone from him.

[iam416]

You’re fundamentally unserious and grossly out of your depth when it comes to recruiting. Explaining obvious advantages while listening to your constantly unsupported bullshit is pointless. Just tell me Ohio State is the worst school in the B10 again.

There are plenty of M fan’s I respect on this topic. You’re not one of them.

[DaGeezer]

You’re fundamentally unserious and grossly out of your depth when it comes to recruiting. Explaining obvious advantages while listening to your constantly unsupported bullshit is pointless. Just tell me Ohio State is the worst school in the B10 again.

There are plenty of M fan’s I respect on this topic. You’re not one of them.

Yup. Don't reply, because you can't. Better to cancel any conversation.

Edit: https://www.degreechoices.com/blog/b...nomic-ranking/. This is using the Dept of Ed. numbers. OSU is 11th out of 13 (PSU wouldn't give their numbers).

OSU is # 130. UAT is in the 200s.