Very interesting read.

Even more interesting website.

I get the Portside daily email. I did not think I would find much on there to every post on here, but here it is.

For some reason I thought FBS had more private schools than it does, but privates tend to be non-football or FCS more than I realized, and I imagine an even higher percentage in DII and DIII and

This is interesting. With this, along with the lawsuits against helmet manufacturers and the NCAA for concussions; does anyone thing this could be the beginning of the end to the sport of football?

That is possible. Most likely the game could morph back into a rugby type game. Remove the helmets and pads and the ability to hit so hard goes down. It could make things safer, if the rules were changed in a way to enforce some safety. Keep the forward pass and you still have gridiron football that separates the game from rugby in my view.

At the same time there is so much money in Prig5 football and NFL that it would take a ton of lawsuits to make the game unprofitable. Even a few million $ payouts is a drop in the bucket. Heck even a few $10 million payouts are a drop in the bucket of the income football has.

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:That is possible. Most likely the game could morph back into a rugby type game. Remove the helmets and pads and the ability to hit so hard goes down. It could make things safer, if the rules were changed in a way to enforce some safety. Keep the forward pass and you still have gridiron football that separates the game from rugby in my view.

At the same time there is so much money in Prig5 football and NFL that it would take a ton of lawsuits to make the game unprofitable. Even a few million $ payouts is a drop in the bucket. Heck even a few $10 million payouts are a drop in the bucket of the income football has.

Thanks for the response. I agree with you. But I don't think that it would take many lawsuits. This is what scares me about these athletes being called employees. What happens when one of these young men gets a concussion or worse, it will put these schools on the hook for disability insurance, health care for the long term, not to mention the insurance premiums and work comp premiums for these players. Is there even a WC code for athletes? On a follow up question, are pro athletes contract employees or employees of the franchise?

WC laws very by state, some have no exclusions and it must be carried on all employees. In North Carolina it is required if you have more than 3 employees.

I am sure WC has a code for athletes and they are covered. As far as I know any exclusions are based on the size of the business and not the type of work (maybe some exclusions for religious organizations, not sure about this one).

In some leagues the ath. is an employee of the league. I think MLS soccer is this way, or was early on it its formation. I think in most cases the ath. are employees of the team, but that is not to say the league could not sponsor a league wide WC insurance plan to have a larger pool and better insurance rates.

In my view I would prefer to see football continue, but if it is truly this unsafe we may need to change some rules. Pads and helmets could be causing more harm than good for safety. Make touchdowns truly a touchdown like rugby would change end zone plays much different but also safer. Make the ball more round and bring back drop kicks at any point in the play. Move the Kickoff back to the 40, and give a point for no returns, as in the CFL. There are lots of things that could be changed to move the game closer to its origins. Some would make the game less exciting, and some could increase the excitement. Keep the forward pass and one still has gridiron football, even if a rounder ball would make long throws harder, it would not make it impossible.

As far as the privates in particluar. They could drop to DIII or DII or just FCS. It seems the ruling is for FBS schools because of the money involved is at a level that is so much different that other levels of college football. Privates could then keep the program, but it would be at a different level. Might not need such a large stadium. Then again some of these privates are rich with endowments that a few donors could set up a fund to pay the costs. The Prig5 conferences themselves could set up a fund to cover all teams.

I do think ath. are way to far down the line in having their concerns addressed that something does need to change. At the end of the day if that destroys football then maybe it deserves to be destroyed. I would prefer it not happen, and I don't think it will. The folks making the money (coaches, upper AD staff) off the ath may have to adjust their incomes to fund some other costs. That would not bother me to be honest.

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:WC laws very by state, some have no exclusions and it must be carried on all employees. In North Carolina it is required if you have more than 3 employees.

I am sure WC has a code for athletes and they are covered. As far as I know any exclusions are based on the size of the business and not the type of work (maybe some exclusions for religious organizations, not sure about this one).

In some leagues the ath. is an employee of the league. I think MLS soccer is this way, or was early on it its formation. I think in most cases the ath. are employees of the team, but that is not to say the league could not sponsor a league wide WC insurance plan to have a larger pool and better insurance rates.

In my view I would prefer to see football continue, but if it is truly this unsafe we may need to change some rules. Pads and helmets could be causing more harm than good for safety. Make touchdowns truly a touchdown like rugby would change end zone plays much different but also safer. Make the ball more round and bring back drop kicks at any point in the play. Move the Kickoff back to the 40, and give a point for no returns, as in the CFL. There are lots of things that could be changed to move the game closer to its origins. Some would make the game less exciting, and some could increase the excitement. Keep the forward pass and one still has gridiron football, even if a rounder ball would make long throws harder, it would not make it impossible.

As far as the privates in particluar. They could drop to DIII or DII or just FCS. It seems the ruling is for FBS schools because of the money involved is at a level that is so much different that other levels of college football. Privates could then keep the program, but it would be at a different level. Might not need such a large stadium. Then again some of these privates are rich with endowments that a few donors could set up a fund to pay the costs. The Prig5 conferences themselves could set up a fund to cover all teams.

I do think ath. are way to far down the line in having their concerns addressed that something does need to change. At the end of the day if that destroys football then maybe it deserves to be destroyed. I would prefer it not happen, and I don't think it will. The folks making the money (coaches, upper AD staff) off the ath may have to adjust their incomes to fund some other costs. That would not bother me to be honest.

I believe its limited to private FBS schools because the case that initiated the NLRB ruling was filed by Northwestern football players. Because of that the NLRB officer didn't have the power to widen the rulings scope. Though some are saying it was groundbreaking to write his ruling as wide-reaching as he did anyway.

McLeansville. I don't have a reply but want to thank you for taking the time to give such a lengthy response. Thanks.

From all-knowing Google: Believe it or not, the dropkick remains a legal maneuver in the NFL. It still exists in the NFL's official rule book. Rule 3, Section 18, Article 1, Item 1 defines the dropkick as, "a kick by a player who drops the ball and kicks it as, or immediately after, it touches the ground."

No one uses it today because the balls, unlike yesteryear, are less round and much harder to control. But it's still an option.

Bill Belichick will find a way to use the drop kick to win a game in 2017-18. You heard it here first folks!

MtnMan09 wrote:

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:WC laws very by state, some have no exclusions and it must be carried on all employees. In North Carolina it is required if you have more than 3 employees.

I am sure WC has a code for athletes and they are covered. As far as I know any exclusions are based on the size of the business and not the type of work (maybe some exclusions for religious organizations, not sure about this one).

In some leagues the ath. is an employee of the league. I think MLS soccer is this way, or was early on it its formation. I think in most cases the ath. are employees of the team, but that is not to say the league could not sponsor a league wide WC insurance plan to have a larger pool and better insurance rates.

In my view I would prefer to see football continue, but if it is truly this unsafe we may need to change some rules. Pads and helmets could be causing more harm than good for safety. Make touchdowns truly a touchdown like rugby would change end zone plays much different but also safer. Make the ball more round and bring back drop kicks at any point in the play. Move the Kickoff back to the 40, and give a point for no returns, as in the CFL. There are lots of things that could be changed to move the game closer to its origins. Some would make the game less exciting, and some could increase the excitement. Keep the forward pass and one still has gridiron football, even if a rounder ball would make long throws harder, it would not make it impossible.

As far as the privates in particluar. They could drop to DIII or DII or just FCS. It seems the ruling is for FBS schools because of the money involved is at a level that is so much different that other levels of college football. Privates could then keep the program, but it would be at a different level. Might not need such a large stadium. Then again some of these privates are rich with endowments that a few donors could set up a fund to pay the costs. The Prig5 conferences themselves could set up a fund to cover all teams.

I do think ath. are way to far down the line in having their concerns addressed that something does need to change. At the end of the day if that destroys football then maybe it deserves to be destroyed. I would prefer it not happen, and I don't think it will. The folks making the money (coaches, upper AD staff) off the ath may have to adjust their incomes to fund some other costs. That would not bother me to be honest.

I believe its limited to private FBS schools because the case that initiated the NLRB ruling was filed by Northwestern football players. Because of that the NLRB officer didn't have the power to widen the rulings scope. Though some are saying it was groundbreaking to write his ruling as wide-reaching as he did anyway.

It is limited to private schools as the athletes would be considered private employees. The NLRB covers private employees that are not covered by Railway Labor Act (Trains and Planes). Public employees at the state level are handled by laws of each state. An athlete at UNC-CH would be a public employee and in North Carolina public employees do not have legal means of collective bargaining. In a state that has public employee collective bargaining a state could pass a law to include athletes or not. I could see that happening in some states if the private schools engage in collective bargaining in a manner that would place public colleges in a position of wanting a CBA agreement as well, and the athletes voting for such.

AppSt94 wrote:McLeansville. I don't have a reply but want to thank you for taking the time to give such a lengthy response. Thanks.

It was either write this out or get ready for work. I chose to put off getting ready for work this morning.

AppGrad78 wrote:From all-knowing Google: Believe it or not, the dropkick remains a legal maneuver in the NFL. It still exists in the NFL's official rule book. Rule 3, Section 18, Article 1, Item 1 defines the dropkick as, "a kick by a player who drops the ball and kicks it as, or immediately after, it touches the ground."

No one uses it today because the balls, unlike yesteryear, are less round and much harder to control. But it's still an option.

Doug Flutie did a drop kick right before he retired. I am sure you can find it on youtube.

I don't think the dropkick is legal in college football, though you are correct it does stay around the rule books in the NFL, as do a few other seldom used rules such as free kicks after fair catches.

I was thinking of making the drop kick legal at any point on the field. Maybe I need to reread the rule but I was thinking the drop kick was only legal in the NFL behind the line of scrimmmage. I think in the CFL it can be from any side of the line of scrimmage, which is a bit more rugby like, which does much more drop-kicking (with a much rounder ball as well.) The CFL does not do drop kicks often either, but it can happen here and there especially when you think the 1 point for no return from the end zone may be what you need. Of course that rule makes more sense when you have 25 yard deep endzones. But I am in favor of that change as well. KBS is set up for that already. It would make having a track around the field an advantage in implementing the change. But I digress.

This is only one of the things chipping away at college football. I am told that lacrosse is having an impact on high school football already, and I have seen a couple of pretty good HS players that I know move to lacrosse. Soccer continues to grow. Head and other injuries are having a negative effect. Some young parents are starting to say no to their kids playing pee wee. You also have the escalating cost of running a college football program. Attendance is down at many programs and I am told it is a combination of cost, TV, and just plain interest. I don't think we will feel a heavy impact for quite a while but I believe it is coming. Whether it is some significant rules changes or just fewer teams I believe that things are going to change.

Chris Hogan of the Patriots played 4 years of lax at Penn State - I watched a few minutes of a lacrosse game last night between Navy and JH - (just awaiting what was coming on next) and the announcers were talking about how many of the players on the field were also very good high school football players - one of the Navy guys (I believe), he said, was a highly ranked LB/TE in high school ---

WVAPPeer wrote:Chris Hogan of the Patriots played 4 years of lax at Penn State - I watched a few minutes of a lacrosse game last night between Navy and JH - (just awaiting what was coming on next) and the announcers were talking about how many of the players on the field were also very good high school football players - one of the Navy guys (I believe), he said, was a highly ranked LB/TE in high school ---

After to talking to one of these kids I sat down and watched a whole game. I have to tell you I really enjoyed it. Not giving up mt APP football but I really enjoyed lacrosse and watch it any time I come across it. By the way I asked this kid if he missed football and he said he didn't only because he enjoyed lacrosse more. He had nothing in the world against FB just fell in love with lacrosse.

I do watch it from time to time although I don't know many of the rules I can tell when a team scores ---

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:http://portside.org/2017-02-05/nlrb-rul ... -employees

So, this just applies to football? Seems like it'd apply to all athletes at the private schools as well, also what about cheerleaders, marching band, mascots, etc...they all add to the college football experience.
I realize that football is the major source for revenue but I can't see how you can discriminate against a similar class of "employees" based on revenue generation. I would imagine that basketball brings in a lot at the major basketball schools like Duke, so those guys should get paid too? If the private schools pay then the public schools would have to follow suit to stay competitive and how does the NCAA factor in at that point?

I personally don't like this development, but I've never liked, nor been as interested in Olympic team sports (the actual Olympics) since they allow professionals to participate now. Just doesn't have the same feeling and something wast lost in my opinion. If college football goes down this road I fear it just won't be the same, perhaps the beginning of the end.

Rick83 wrote:

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:http://portside.org/2017-02-05/nlrb-rul ... -employees

So, this just applies to football? Seems like it'd apply to all athletes at the private schools as well, also what about cheerleaders, marching band, mascots, etc...they all add to the college football experience.
I realize that football is the major source for revenue but I can't see how you can discriminate against a similar class of "employees" based on revenue generation. I would imagine that basketball brings in a lot at the major basketball schools like Duke, so those guys should get paid too? If the private schools pay then the public schools would have to follow suit to stay competitive and how does the NCAA factor in at that point?

I personally don't like this development, but I've never liked, nor been as interested in Olympic team sports (the actual Olympics) since they allow professionals to participate now. Just doesn't have the same feeling and something wast lost in my opinion. If college football goes down this road I fear it just won't be the same, perhaps the beginning of the end.

Sounds to me like it would just be the end of amateur status which is really not needed anymore anyway.