ADVERTISEMENT

Henry Bienen's opinion on unionization

The dropping sports threat is the biggest lie....schools aren't going to fire hundreds of people and forgo millions of dollars to avoid paying players. Schools just hope people believe this.... Cut your nose of to spite your face
 
The dropping sports threat is the biggest lie....schools aren't going to fire hundreds of people and forgo millions of dollars to avoid paying players. Schools just hope people believe this.... Cut your nose of to spite your face
While the top programs might continue (as basically pro teams,) most schools do not make money on athletics. Basically all the private schools listed with the exception of ND lose money. Would people play big bucks to see a basically low level pro team? Sorry, I see a lot of schools as dropping out of the system. Would there be enough left to sustain the system when you have 10-15 teams nationwide and would they draw the same crowds as today?

Bienen has legitimate concerns about the potential of dropping sports is real concern. Especially with broke states and continuing escalation of tuition costs. I would like to see them justify the expenditure to the taxpayers. Now they do not have to but if you institute these programs you sure would.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the wonder cat
While the top programs might continue (as basically pro teams,) most schools do not make money on athletics. Basically all the private schools listed with the exception of ND lose money. Would people play big bucks to see a basically low level pro team? Sorry, I see a lot of schools as dropping out of the system. Would there be enough left to sustain the system when you have 10-15 teams nationwide and would they draw the same crowds as today?

Bienen has legitimate concerns about the potential of dropping sports is real concern. Especially with broke states and continuing escalation of tuition costs. I would like to see them justify the expenditure to the taxpayers. Now they do not have to but if you institute these programs you sure would.

Even if athletic programs are money losing (a huge if given questionable accounting standards and that positive externalities generated from athletics are not accounted for), FB and MBB are still profitable for most of the schools. They would drop host of other non-revenue sports and cling on to FB and MBB until the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nycat33
Exactly. They would drop all the non-major-revenue-producing sports. It's just good business.

Correction: They would drop all of the non-major-revenue men's sports and keep enough women's to comply with Title IX.
 
Even if athletic programs are money losing (a huge if given questionable accounting standards and that positive externalities generated from athletics are not accounted for), FB and MBB are still profitable for most of the schools. They would drop host of other non-revenue sports and cling on to FB and MBB until the end.
I do not disagree that they might try to hold on to FB and MBB. But in order to have FB and MBB, also have to have equal number of Women's scholarships. Using NU as an example, NU already has very little for men besides FB and BB. Wrestling has about 4-5 scholarships as does Baseball for example.. Just saying it is a model that would no longer work for most schools. Private schools would be left with raising tuition faster and still not being able to compete or getting rid of sports. Would BTN revenues be as great under that scenario? And without the other schools, the big boys would have trouble generating as much interest. Paying everyone a stipend is one thing but beyond that it would create problems.
 
Correction: They would drop all of the non-major-revenue men's sports and keep enough women's to comply with Title IX.

the other issue that lingers below the surface - like it or not, a successful program brings publicity to the school. I don't have the statistics to back this, but I've seen time and again how someone will say that their university had an increase in applications following a successful season, particularly at a non-traditional power.
 
Correction: They would drop all of the non-major-revenue men's sports and keep enough women's to comply with Title IX.
And if you look at a lot of schools (NU for example) Men's non revenue sports have already been pretty much gutted. So not much to save.

That is one of the things about the union movement. Could only be implemented at private schools. Had it been put in place for them but not public institutions, many of the private schools would have been likely to leave college sports.
 
the other issue that lingers below the surface - like it or not, a successful program brings publicity to the school. I don't have the statistics to back this, but I've seen time and again how someone will say that their university had an increase in applications following a successful season, particularly at a non-traditional power.

There has been a fair amount of research done on this phenomenon called the flutie effect for the increase of applications BC had after Fluties hail mary against Maimi. One example is estimated that television, print, and online news coverage of Butlers Mens bball team in 2011-12 appearances in the NCAA tournament championship game resulted in additional publicity for the university worth about $1.2 billion and applications rose by 41% after the 2010 appearance.
 
There has been a fair amount of research done on this phenomenon called the flutie effect for the increase of applications BC had after Fluties hail mary against Maimi. One example is estimated that television, print, and online news coverage of Butlers Mens bball team in 2011-12 appearances in the NCAA tournament championship game resulted in additional publicity for the university worth about $1.2 billion and applications rose by 41% after the 2010 appearance.
No doubt it helps but it would be less and less likely if you go to the pay for athletes basis. Especially if you open up transfer, etc. JJ does well he Frosh year and OSU comes a calling and pays him a bunch (for example) Just saying that the system would become even more lopsided and the Flutie effect would occur much less frequently. Or JJ, to recruit gets offered $100k per year to go to big school instead of NU who can only pay $20K. Just saying it opens up a real can of worms.
 
There has been a fair amount of research done on this phenomenon called the flutie effect for the increase of applications BC had after Fluties hail mary against Maimi. One example is estimated that television, print, and online news coverage of Butlers Mens bball team in 2011-12 appearances in the NCAA tournament championship game resulted in additional publicity for the university worth about $1.2 billion and applications rose by 41% after the 2010 appearance.

Who needs the Flutie effect? We saw it here in spades after 95. Didn't our applications jump some obscene amount like 35% or something?
 
No doubt it helps but it would be less and less likely if you go to the pay for athletes basis. Especially if you open up transfer, etc. JJ does well he Frosh year and OSU comes a calling and pays him a bunch (for example) Just saying that the system would become even more lopsided and the Flutie effect would occur much less frequently. Or JJ, to recruit gets offered $100k per year to go to big school instead of NU who can only pay $20K. Just saying it opens up a real can of worms.

I am sure there would be a contract and a salary cap. Similar to the NFL or NBA. Somehow schools have figured out how to pay coaches millions without opening up a can of worms...
 
I am sure there would be a contract and a salary cap. Similar to the NFL or NBA. Somehow schools have figured out how to pay coaches millions without opening up a can of worms...

Re coaching salaries, the majority of the big bucks at state schools come from donors. I think I read that Saban "only" makes around $500,000 from the University, the rest of his multi-million dollar paycheck coming from boosters.
 
Re coaching salaries, the majority of the big bucks at state schools come from donors. I think I read that Saban "only" makes around $500,000 from the University, the rest of his multi-million dollar paycheck coming from boosters.
So can we just have the donors pay the players? What's good for the goose is good for the gander
 
Although everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's a shame that people will assume because of his position as a former college president Henry Bienen has some insight into the situation. In reality he has absolutely no understanding of collective bargaining or this area of the law. If the players had been found to have collective bargaining rights it does not at all follow that they would receive compensation beyond the scholarships that they already receive. Even if hypothetically their union demanded it, no employer has to agree to anything simply because a union demands it. More importantly, the Union would not demand additional compensation beyond scholarships unless the NCAA gave private schools the ability to grant it. The players' primary interest is in playing NCAA football. Their union is not going to make any demands that would result in the expulsion of a team from participation in NCAA sanctioned games. The NCAA is the body that determines what players can have and can't have. The problem with the petition from the start was that the union had to name Northwestern and not the NCAA as the Employer. The NCAA could and would veto any bargaining demand it wanted simply by informing NU that granting it would result in sanctions against the school. Here's an example. Shortly after the petition was filed the NCAA permitted schools to award scholarship players the "true cost of attendance". (This sudden decision was no doubt in response to the petition and was intended to affect the outcome of the election, but technically was not an unfair labor practice only because the NCAA was not considered the employer.) If the NCAA had not permitted its member schools to expand scholarships to include the "true cost of attendance" and NU in response to a union demand had granted this benefit, it would have been required to rescind the benefit in order to continue its participation in the association. Sure there are some things that unionized college players could bargain over without running afoul of the NCAA, (issues raised by Kain Colter e.g. medical care), but these issues would hardly change the landscape of college athletics along the lines described by Henry Bienen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seavue617
Most likely that coaching salaries would decline before sports programs are dropped.
The facilities arms race would also slow down greatly. I have no doubt that the facilities at Oregon or Michigan or Notre Dame are leagues above most professional football franchises. This is because the money goes to the players in the pros.
 
Who needs the Flutie effect? We saw it here in spades after 95. Didn't our applications jump some obscene amount like 35% or something?
I tend to believe that sports don't fit within the university's actual academic mission. The relationship between athletics and scholarship is tenuous at best, I think.

I do believe, however, that sports are a big part of the reason that this nation's universities are among the best in the world. Sports tends to keep graduates connected to the school, and tends to keep people donating to all areas of the school.

There's a lot that's pretty cracked about our universities and our public education, but I believe that sports, by and large, helps make them better.

I believe this even when considering all the hypocrisy and cheating and wastefulness that the highest levels of big-time college sports tends to entourage.
 
Although everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's a shame that people will assume because of his position as a former college president Henry Bienen has some insight into the situation. In reality he has absolutely no understanding of collective bargaining or this area of the law. If the players had been found to have collective bargaining rights it does not at all follow that they would receive compensation beyond the scholarships that they already receive. Even if hypothetically their union demanded it, no employer has to agree to anything simply because a union demands it. More importantly, the Union would not demand additional compensation beyond scholarships unless the NCAA gave private schools the ability to grant it. The players' primary interest is in playing NCAA football. Their union is not going to make any demands that would result in the expulsion of a team from participation in NCAA sanctioned games. The NCAA is the body that determines what players can have and can't have. The problem with the petition from the start was that the union had to name Northwestern and not the NCAA as the Employer. The NCAA could and would veto any bargaining demand it wanted simply by informing NU that granting it would result in sanctions against the school. Here's an example. Shortly after the petition was filed the NCAA permitted schools to award scholarship players the "true cost of attendance". (This sudden decision was no doubt in response to the petition and was intended to affect the outcome of the election, but technically was not an unfair labor practice only because the NCAA was not considered the employer.) If the NCAA had not permitted its member schools to expand scholarships to include the "true cost of attendance" and NU in response to a union demand had granted this benefit, it would have been required to rescind the benefit in order to continue its participation in the association. Sure there are some things that unionized college players could bargain over without running afoul of the NCAA, (issues raised by Kain Colter e.g. medical care), but these issues would hardly change the landscape of college athletics along the lines described by Henry Bienen.
I think you are missing some aspects. Bienen comments were not just about the union push but two other cases as well. And the combination of the other two would have gotten players payment. THe union thing was at that point unique to private schools but player payment issues were more across the board.
 
The facilities arms race would also slow down greatly. I have no doubt that the facilities at Oregon or Michigan or Notre Dame are leagues above most professional football franchises. This is because the money goes to the players in the pros.
Most of those facilities you are referring two are probably donated but people to not donate to professional teams
 
I think you are missing some aspects. Bienen comments were not just about the union push but two other cases as well. And the combination of the other two would have gotten players payment. THe union thing was at that point unique to private schools but player payment issues were more across the board.

Well I agree that the other two cases realistically could result in payment to players. My only point was that he didn't and can't really explain why union representation should be part of the discussion.
 
Although everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's a shame that people will assume because of his position as a former college president Henry Bienen has some insight into the situation. In reality he has absolutely no understanding of collective bargaining or this area of the law. If the players had been found to have collective bargaining rights it does not at all follow that they would receive compensation beyond the scholarships that they already receive. Even if hypothetically their union demanded it, no employer has to agree to anything simply because a union demands it. More importantly, the Union would not demand additional compensation beyond scholarships unless the NCAA gave private schools the ability to grant it. The players' primary interest is in playing NCAA football. Their union is not going to make any demands that would result in the expulsion of a team from participation in NCAA sanctioned games. The NCAA is the body that determines what players can have and can't have. The problem with the petition from the start was that the union had to name Northwestern and not the NCAA as the Employer. The NCAA could and would veto any bargaining demand it wanted simply by informing NU that granting it would result in sanctions against the school. Here's an example. Shortly after the petition was filed the NCAA permitted schools to award scholarship players the "true cost of attendance". (This sudden decision was no doubt in response to the petition and was intended to affect the outcome of the election, but technically was not an unfair labor practice only because the NCAA was not considered the employer.) If the NCAA had not permitted its member schools to expand scholarships to include the "true cost of attendance" and NU in response to a union demand had granted this benefit, it would have been required to rescind the benefit in order to continue its participation in the association. Sure there are some things that unionized college players could bargain over without running afoul of the NCAA, (issues raised by Kain Colter e.g. medical care), but these issues would hardly change the landscape of college athletics along the lines described by Henry Bienen.

PaCat- we appreciate your insights on labor relations law. Can you remind us about your background in labor law issues?
 
Correction: They would drop all of the non-major-revenue men's sports and keep enough women's to comply with Title IX.

Would Title IX even be applicable anymore if athletes were employees or independent contractors (and may or may not even be students at the university)?
 
Would Title IX even be applicable anymore if athletes were employees or independent contractors (and may or may not even be students at the university)?

I don't see why not. Title IX is a broad law that prevents educational institutions from discriminating in employment as well.
 
I don't see why not. Title IX is a broad law that prevents educational institutions from discriminating in employment as well.

Then just recruit the best football employees you can regardless of their gender just like you do with university professors, faculty, janitors, etc. The notion that athletics would be tied to the "academic experience" would Be broken at that point, so I don't know why Title IX would apply anymore just like there aren't gender quotas for any other class of university employees. I'm guessing university janitors are predominantly male for example.
 
PaCat- we appreciate your insights on labor relations law. Can you remind us about your background in labor law issues?
I am an attorney employed by the NLRB ( I guess I should add that I don't post here as an authorized spokesperson for the Board) Also on a sporadic basis I've taught evening college level courses on the Act.
 
Most of those facilities you are referring two are probably donated but people to not donate to professional teams
Many donors are paying for access, more than their support of the building. Also, the tax break. These things would still apply if funds were being spent on players.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT