Proposed Bill To Allow Unionization of UCONN "Revenue Sport" Athletes

[Dooley]

http://adimeback.com/proposed-bill-would-allow-for-unionization-of-uconn-athletes/

"The bill, submitted by State Representative Matt Lesser (D-Middletown), applies only to public universities in the state, including UConn. The text of the law can be found here, but the key passage states that the student would have to receive a scholarship for no less than 90% of the cost of tuition, that the scholarship is “materially related to the student’s participation in athletics,” and that the revenues for the athletic program in which the student participates, when divided by the number of students expected to participate in that athletic program, be more than four-hundred percent of the cost of the scholarship. In other words, this only applies to athletes participating in “revenue sports,” which means football and men’s basketball at most schools, though a cursory look at the revenue for UConn’s women’s basketball team indicates that they would also qualify."

 

[OkaForPrez]

I see this as a positive sign. It's the state forcing the school forcing the conference to adopt the permissive legislation or lose the program.

 

[Dooley]

I agree, Oka. Would also be a positive recruiting tactic against those P5 vultures looking to exploit a prospect with promising of better "benefits" by signing with them versus UCONN. If our coaches could say "we have to give you those same benefits...it's the law here in Connecticut. Connecticut supports student athletes." That would certainly make any of the newly passed P5 rules moot when recruiting against UCONN.

 

[CL82]

I agree, Oka. Would also be a positive recruiting tactic against those P5 vultures looking to exploit a prospect with promising of better "benefits" by signing with them versus UCONN. If our coaches could say "we have to give you those same benefits...it's the law here in Connecticut. Connecticut supports student athletes." That would certainly make any of the newly passed P5 rules moot when recruiting against UCONN.

I was thinking Lesser is an idiot and ought to worry about not running the State into the ground before he and his pals start monkeying around in the Athletics Dept, but you make a good point. Still it is worrisome to me. Camel's nose under the tent...

 

[Dooley]

I was thinking Lesser is an idiot and ought to worry about not running the State into the ground before he and his pals start monkeying around in the Athletics Dept, but you make a good point. Still it is worrisome to me. Camel's nose under the tent...

My initial reaction was "gulp". But then I got to thinking about it and think it is our best leverage as long as we are shut out of the P5. If the State wants to give UCONN a recruiting edge over all other G5 schools (and some P5 ones as well), I'm all for it.

I don't know how this will impact our P5 aspirations though. Not sure if other P5 schools are pro or anti Union. I'm guessing about as anti as they come.

 

[CL82]

My initial reaction was "gulp". But then I got to thinking about it and think it is our best leverage as long as we are shut out of the P5. If the State wants to give UCONN a recruiting edge over all other G5 schools (and some P5 ones as well), I'm all for it.

I don't know how this will impact our P5 aspirations though. Not sure if other P5 schools are pro or anti Union. I'm guessing about as anti as they come.

I suspect it is a long term mistake. Better to just say that UConn will offer at least 90% of full cost of attendance and leave the unionization portion out, IMO. Oh and as long as you are mandating this Matt, it is probably best to say that State will fund it.

 

[pj]

It's a mistake. It's tying UConn's hands. If there is a benefit, the university can implement the policy itself without legislation.

 

[Dooley]

My opinion is that it would help recruiting while we are stuck in AAC purgatory. But it could/would damage our P5 aspirations. Short-term good. Long-term very bad.

 

[CallMeBruce]

The bill wasn't proposed to help UConn get into a better conference or recruit better players. It's to make it so the players can collectively bargain for rights as employees, since they do an awful lot of work that makes an awful lot of money for the school and the state.

 

[specialisthusky]

http://www.cbssports.com/general/wr...llege-sports-fat-cats-have-head-start-on-that

Not helping us impress Mr. Delany.

 

[SAMCRO]

Me no likey the forced legislation by the state. Would rather the University make the call (and all indicators seem to be that UConn will adopt the P5 rules). The result would be beneficial for the players, but keeps the union label off of it. Unionization leads to a slippery slope and takes everyone to unchartered territory.

 

[Sea Goat]

IMO, this is a D.O.A. proposal and it probably won't garner enough support to even have a hearing. IMO, nothing good can come of this for UConn. UConn will go along with the new P-5 reality on its own because it will have to do so to remain competitive. I can't imagine any of the P-5 conferences will be impressed by a unionization effort in CT. On the other hand, the Representative in question, Matt Lesser, has been all over the issue regarding the plantation mentality that pervades the NCAA. Like most of us, he sees the NCAA as a hypocritical, duplicitous organization making bundles of money off amateur athletes.

IMO, the better approach is the FCOA move made by the P-5. Even there, the FCOA will become a slippery slope when all scholarship athletes at any particular P-5 school claim an entitlement to it. (BC's problem?) At least Lesser recognized that as an issue by limiting his proposal to "revenue producing" sports. It just happens that football and men's BB are the only 2 sports that generally produce revenue.

So does Title IX get implicated? The conversation about limiting Title IX's effect because women sports don't generate revenue is a "powder keg" issue. Good luck with that.

 

[The Funster]

http://www.cbssports.com/general/wr...llege-sports-fat-cats-have-head-start-on-that

Not helping us impress Mr. Delany.

I like that article by Doyell. Collegiate athletics has lost it's way and maybe scorched earth will be the eventual outcome.

 

[auggie22]

I am struggling like crazy to understand how this could benefit UCONN athletics, or the state of Connecticut. It breaks the CR stalemate I guess, but unless the legislature is also voting to provide additional state support to make it happen, this law would be the end of our athletic program.

 

[CTMike]

Our Twitter buddy Greg Flugaur seems to think this would make us toxic to the B1G and it's hard to disagree...

 

[AZHuskiePop]

IMO, this is a D.O.A. proposal and it probably won't garner enough support to even have a hearing. IMO, nothing good can come of this for UConn. UConn will go along with the new P-5 reality on its own because it will have to do so to remain competitive. I can't imagine any of the P-5 conferences will be impressed by a unionization effort in CT. On the other hand, the Representative in question, Matt Lesser, has been all over the issue regarding the plantation mentality that pervades the NCAA. Like most of us, he sees the NCAA as a hypocritical, duplicitous organization making bundles of money off amateur athletes.

IMO, the better approach is the FCOA move made by the P-5. Even there, the FCOA will become a slippery slope when all scholarship athletes at any particular P-5 school claim an entitlement to it. (BC's problem?) At least Lesser recognized that as an issue by limiting his proposal to "revenue producing" sports. It just happens that football and men's BB are the only 2 sports that generally produce revenue.

So does Title IX get implicated? The conversation about limiting Title IX's effect because women sports don't generate revenue is a "powder keg" issue. Good luck with that.

How come every commentator rails against the wealth of the NCAA.
Yet the big money is earned by P5 conferences which the NCAA get no part of.
Their chief source of income is the basketball tourney ,which is unequally divided amongst 350 member schools in a variety of ways including ironically paying for football playoff in non BCS schools. Technically the NCAA makes no money.
If their was federal regulation allowing unionization of P5 schools that would be appropriate as one could argue those atheletes are no longer students but employees.

 

[Dooley]

Our Twitter buddy Greg Flugaur seems to think this would make us toxic to the B1G and it's hard to disagree...

I tend to agree. Both the PAC and B1G are anti-Union.

 

[djct1999]

I tend to agree. Both the PAC and B1G are anti-Union.

Of course they are. Unionization threatens their model and for the B1G and PAC, their model really works for "them." Not yet, but at some point UConn's only course of action may be to threaten their model. Of course, sitting idle and accepting our fate quietly is in the best interests of everyone but UConn's.

 

[Fishy]

This is a small town politician trying to make a name for himself by forcing UConn to swallow a poison pill.

It would flat be the end of us.

No P5 conference would ever consider a singularly-unionized school and endure the slings and arrows of union-busting rhetoric every time they time they sent a program into Connecticut. Our out of conference opportunities would dry up overnight and we'd be a pariah.

Other than that, I think it's a good idea.

 

[Dove]

What are the union dues?

 

[Fishy]

What are the union dues?

$12 a semester and all the hopes and dreams of your fan base.

 

[Dove]

Can you imagine grieving over the lack of minutes?

 

[The Funster]

If Blumental starts talking about this, I'll be worried. He never misses a photo op and if he thinks the state legislature has a chance of pushing this through he'll piggyback on it for some free pub.

 

[SAMCRO]

Would the depth chart have to be based on seniority?
I envision an OL of 1 guy blocking while the other 4 guys stand around and watch him block (sadly, not a far cry from what it's felt like the past few seasons).

 

[TerryD]

Would the depth chart have to be based on seniority?
I envision an OL of 1 guy blocking while the other 4 guys stand around and watch him block (sadly, not a far cry from what it's felt like the past few seasons).

How do all the other pro leagues with player's unions figure out a depth chart?