Milwaukee Journal says bye bye Fall B1G football
- Thread starter Sodakred
- Start date
Well they need to make up their mind already. This start/stop stuff is a killer for players, coaches and fans alike.
Why the hell did they release a revamped schedule if they were just going to cancel the season the following week?
Why the hell did they release a revamped schedule if they were just going to cancel the season the following week?
Last edited:
Oh they have, cancel your cable. Won’t be needed this fall.
Well BTN definitely is getting the ax if Football is cancelled.
Yes, but do you really think they are going to play 20+ football games in a 9-month span next year? I can't see that happening. If there is spring football, it will likely be an exhibition season with only a handful of actual games. Any players who have a chance to get drafted will opt out.
Another poorly kept secret is that the spring football isn't happening either way
I told you guys we wouldn't miss JD this year.
I think it has more to do with the threat of unionization by the players. The virus is a convenient scapegoat so the P5 conferences have time to organize themselves against the players demands
I don’t know. Special times call for special measures. I could see a reduced Spring schedule just because the money is so important to athletic programs.
Yep. We're going to be in the same boat come spring that we are right now.
I think the lawyers finally let them know the kinds of liability they were looking at. That and they probably admitted there's no way to keep these kids from catching it and proving it wasn't because of football.
I posted this in another thread - there are a number of legal roadblocks to unionization
need to be employees of a PRIVATE employer - state schools have been ruled as not being private employers
Nailed it.
There is really no logic to "postponing until spring", though, if that's what we hear today.
Unless they believe that there is going to be an effective immunization widely deployed between now and then (which would be 4-5 years ahead of schedule).
Not a lawyer but for the players that want to play, can’t they sign a Covid 19 waiver to protect the University and conference. These kids should still be on parents health insurance plan.
you capitalized the wrong word. private isn't the issue. there are many, many employees of public entities who are allowed to unionize (cops, teachers, etc). it's very simple to insert a layer between gov't funding and final paychecks.
it's the employee part that's the roadblock. though college athletes exchange their services for compensation, they're not technically employees because of legislation influenced by the same dickbags who are voting against playing the season.
The NLBA ruled college athletes are employees in 2014
https://www.onlabor.org/nlrb-regional-director-rules-that-college-athletes-are-employees/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...ers-at-private-fbs-schools-are-employees/amp/
We can start playing November 7 after we fire Trump and
it was actually their mom. Don’t mess with her.This truly will be The Year Without a Santa Claus!
Which one of these characters is the virus?
yea, scholarship athletes at northwestern, notre dame & others:
Ohr’s decision only affects athletes at private universities
state laws dictate otherwise for the vast majority of student athletes who produce the most money for their schools. you know, the only ones we care about in this instance.
Yes - which is why I capitalized PRIVATE in my message which you somehow seemed to think was erroneous
“you capitalized the wrong word. private isn't the issue.”
it was erroneous. walk ons aren't considered employees of those institutions, but certainly would be a part of any collective bargaining.
that ruling is meaningless, and treated as such. if it were meaningful, there would be unions today. it's not, so there aren't.
your insistence to work small to big continues to lead to arguments over minutia instead of an understanding of the actual issue.
Why don’t you take it up with the sports law professor
if you want to post something from someone with some credibility to back your opinions I will gladly read - but forgive me if I don’t take big picture advice from someone who has been popping off all summer about how certain they were about playing college football from someone who took issue with which word was capitalized in my message and then talks about minutia
first, thanks for reading. always nice to have a fan.
second, what I posted IS FROM YOUR SOURCE:
https://www.onlabor.org/nlrb-regional-director-rules-that-college-athletes-are-employees/
It is also worth noting the limits of Ohr’s decision. First, the decision could be reversed by the full NLRB in Washington, a federal appellate court in Chicago, or the Supreme Court afterward. Second, even if the decision stands, as Benjamin Sachs noted in his post, Ohr’s decision only affects athletes at private universities, as state labor law governs employees of state universities. Third, Ohr explicitly limited his decision to student athletes who receive compensation in the form of scholarships — the football team’s 27 walk-on students, not to mention the thousands of students who play sports without scholarships, remain ineligible to unionize on the basis of revenue they earn for their colleges.
like I said, if that ruling meant literally anything, there would be unions at private institutions. there aren't. why? because of that 3rd limitation, which completely guts players' ability to do anything without alienating their own. some are employees, some are not. which is why your capitalization of 'private' instead of 'employee' was WRONG.
finally, the difference between you and me is I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, which I did about the college football season in a post on this very board.
you constantly dig in, cherry picking technicalities and using exceptions as reasons you're correct while completely whiffing on the actual issues.
educate yourself and spare me the lecture.
Last edited:
The reason there aren’t unions is because they are meaningless without including state schools - which is why the attorney/sports law professor posted the issue is private vs state schools (not employee vs nonemployee).... hence the capitalization of PRIVATE
you really think that if the future of college football came down to walkons that would be a hill anyone would die on?
you're wrong. and clueless.
the reason there aren't unions is because they are explicitly not allowed to be inclusive of ALL ATHLETES who participate in the revenue generation of schools, private or not.
a partial union, competing against itself, isn't much of a union at all, is it?
here's her VERY NEXT POST in that thread:
defending a ruling this toothless is good use of your time? how is it possible to be this much of a clown?
can you please cite where I posted that athletes would be allowed to unionize? In fact I said there would be roadblocks because of the private vs state school issue
the entire point of me posting her thread was to point out they couldn’t unionize due to state schools not being private employers
more minutia, more technicalities, more of the same. we get nowhere.
if you think private vs state school is the main issue in college athletes' ability to collectively bargain, you're horribly naive and you're part of the problem.
they will never unionize if only scholarship athletes are classified as employees while others aren't, which is how the ruling is written today. that's all that matters and why that thread, and this one, completely misses the point.
Last edited:
I don't know how far into the civil litigation process that becomes relevant. As we know, there' a difference between being able to win and being able to cost somebody a ton of money defending themselves in court.
I've worked a few places that were afraid of being sued for dumber reasons.
Well it’s a relevant consideration before litigation, and I think it’s why there aren’t suits being filed left and right by customers against restaurants and bars, or passengers against airlines, or similar circumstances. There’s almost no way for the plaintiff to truly prove that’s where he picked up the virus.
Its further shown by the recent Illinois law giving a front line worker with Covid a rebuttable presumption in a worker’s compensation case that it was contracted at work. Otherwise it would be a difficult win; it still is for non-essential workers.
