Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well they need to make up their mind already. This start/stop stuff is a killer for players, coaches and fans alike.
Well BTN definitely is getting the ax if Football is cancelled.Oh they have, cancel your cable. Won’t be needed this fall.
What's Milwaukee good for? Beer. That's about it.
It's like the worst kept secret. Spring is better than nothing.
Another poorly kept secret is that the spring football isn't happening either wayIt's like the worst kept secret. Spring is better than nothing.
who?I told you guys we wouldn't miss JD this year.
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?
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.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.
Yep. We're going to be in the same boat come spring that we are right now.Another poorly kept secret is that the spring football isn't happening either way
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
That and they probably admitted there's no way to keep these kids from catching it and proving it wasn't because of football.
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.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
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.
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: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/
Defendants don’t have a burden of proof.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.
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.
it was erroneous. walk ons aren't considered employees of those institutions, but certainly would be a part of any collective bargaining.Yes - which is why I capitalized PRIVATE in my message which you somehow seemed to think was erroneous
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.
first, thanks for reading. always nice to have a fan.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
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.
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.
you're wrong. and clueless.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
here's her VERY NEXT POST in that thread: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?
here's her VERY NEXT POST in that thread:
how is it possible to be this much of a clown?
more minutia, more technicalities, more of the same. we get nowhere.can you please post where I posted that athletes would be allowed to unionize? In fact I said they would not be allowed because of the private vs state school issue
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.the entire point of me posting her thread was to point out they couldn’t unionize due to state schools not being private employers
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.Defendants don’t have a burden of proof.
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.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.