MU better figure it out, their competition around them is going down this path. Big Ten outlined their plan this evening.
As mentioned in the other thread, MU was against this in 2011 and again in 2012. Looks like MU will have no other choice now. Then again, with Crean and Buzz at the helm, I'm not sure either was too excited about this. Perhaps Wojo is.
Here is the Big Ten plan. No mention of transfer implications. It was signed by all 14 schools.
We must guarantee the four-year scholarships that we offer. If a student-athlete is no longer able to compete, for whatever reason, there should be zero impact on our commitment as universities to deliver an undergraduate education. We want our students to graduate.
If a student-athlete leaves for a pro career before graduating, the guarantee of a scholarship remains firm. Whether a professional career materializes, and regardless of its length, we will honor a student's scholarship when his or her playing days are over. Again, we want students to graduate.
We must review our rules and provide improved, consistent medical insurance for student-athletes. We have an obligation to protect their health and well-being in return for the physical demands placed upon them.
We must do whatever it takes to ensure that student-athlete scholarships cover the full cost of a college education, as defined by the federal government. That definition is intended to cover what it actually costs to attend college.
Look closer.
Has the threat of a union put the fear of God into them?
That and the OB suit and pressure on other fronts.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 25, 2014, 02:13:35 AM
MU better figure it out, their competition around them is going down this path. Big Ten outlined their plan this evening.
As mentioned in the other thread, MU was against this in 2011 and again in 2012. Looks like MU will have no other choice now. Then again, with Crean and Buzz at the helm, I'm not sure either was too excited about this. Perhaps Wojo is.
Here is the Big Ten plan. No mention of transfer implications. It was signed by all 14 schools.
We must guarantee the four-year scholarships that we offer. If a student-athlete is no longer able to compete, for whatever reason, there should be zero impact on our commitment as universities to deliver an undergraduate education. We want our students to graduate.
If a student-athlete leaves for a pro career before graduating, the guarantee of a scholarship remains firm. Whether a professional career materializes, and regardless of its length, we will honor a student's scholarship when his or her playing days are over. Again, we want students to graduate.
We must review our rules and provide improved, consistent medical insurance for student-athletes. We have an obligation to protect their health and well-being in return for the physical demands placed upon them.
We must do whatever it takes to ensure that student-athlete scholarships cover the full cost of a college education, as defined by the federal government. That definition is intended to cover what it actually costs to attend college.
Gee, whattaya know... they
are student athletes, not employees. At least now, maybe.
I wonder where the term student-athlete comes from, anyway?
Oh, here's the answer.
http://www.sippinonpurple.com/2014/1/28/5355988/ncaa-student-athlete-kain-colter-union-workers-comp (http://www.sippinonpurple.com/2014/1/28/5355988/ncaa-student-athlete-kain-colter-union-workers-comp)
I doubt MU will stand against this for very long and I doubt it was TC or Buzz driving the veto, rather the CW of the day.
Remember, Bill Clinton once signed the DOMA and it got 85 votes in the Senate. Times change.
With the aforementioned OB lawsuit, the Unionization efforts and more, schools need to throw a bone of two. This is a much easier bone to toss than other options.
Feels like a response to the Northwestern lawsuit to me. Once again, unions, or the threat of unionization, gets better conditions for all. ;D
Maybe my memory isn't what it used to be but my general recollection is that Marquette for years worked with their players to make sure the door was open to getting their degree. I'm not sure how it was financed, but our players came back if they left early.
Al particularly made that commitment. By the mid 1970s, my recollection is that only one or two of our players never received their degrees. I'm sure along the way fulfilling this commitment cost the Jesuits a few dollars, but it's the thing we did. After all, we are Marquette!
To the posters who believe the threat of a union brought on the four year football and basketball scholarships...... "YA THINK??????!!!!!!"
Curious. If I read that correctly, the B1G is saying that a kid who declares early for the draft but doesn't make it, and decides to return to school, could demand that he is given his athletic scholarship back. So if Vander Blue had one of these scholies, he could have come back to school last year and said "I can't play for y'all but give me my athletic scholarship." It's honorable but again puts a lot of risk on the school. I wonder what the rules will be on passing them off to other scholarships.
Quote from: tower912 on June 25, 2014, 08:07:04 AM
Feels like a response to the Northwestern lawsuit to me. Once again, unions, or the threat of unionization, gets better conditions for all. ;D
Unions are going the way of the dinosaur. They will slowly disband and unfurl. The actual victim is becoming the employee who pays to be in most* unions (public sector unions are amazing to be in, though being challenged and rightfully so by taxpayers.) A basic pyramid scheme. Sadly, I see many union tradesmen - plumbers, electricians, HVAC, masons - and their companies all get passed up for private sector work, in favor of non union. Why would any business pay roughly a 50-75% premium for a union trade, when it can save that much by going non-union? Sadly, many union tradesmen end up posting and looking for work on Craig's List - which ultimately is a violation of their union pledge.
Funny thing is, any union member if faced with a decision on requiring the service of a skilled laborer to fix - say their car - wouldn't choose a union mechanic if he was going to charge 50-75% more for doing the exact same repair as another non-union mechanic.
Global economy is too competitive to try to support anything other than market driven labor rates.
Quote from: Ners on June 25, 2014, 08:51:41 AM
Unions are going the way of the dinosaur. They will slowly disband and unfurl. The actual victim is becoming the employee who pays to be in most* unions (public sector unions are amazing to be in, though being challenged and rightfully so by taxpayers.) A basic pyramid scheme. Sadly, I see many union tradesmen - plumbers, electricians, HVAC, masons - and their companies all get passed up for private sector work, in favor of non union. Why would any business pay roughly a 50-75% premium for a union trade, when it can save that much by going non-union? Sadly, many union tradesmen end up posting and looking for work on Craig's List - which ultimately is a violation of their union pledge.
Funny thing is, any union member if faced with a decision on requiring the service of a skilled laborer to fix - say their car - wouldn't choose a union mechanic if he was going to charge 50-75% more for doing the exact same repair as another non-union mechanic.
Global economy is too competitive to try to support anything other than market driven labor rates.
Not all unions are the same. My father in law was a union member for years, never had trouble getting a job and his union pension funded his retirement and is funding my mother in laws right now. When you are member of a union that is focused on skill development, versus simply lobbying for higher wages, they have value for both its members and those who hire them.
They aren't dead by any respects. The good ones will survive and thrive.
Quote from: tower912 on June 25, 2014, 08:07:04 AM
Feels like a response to the Northwestern lawsuit to me. Once again, unions, or the threat of unionization, gets better conditions for all. ;D
Except this was approved long before the union vote, a vote which I guarantee failed.
By the way, what Northwestern lawsuit?
And better conditions for all, that actually never happens with unions or unionization...it's better conditions for SOME and that will be the case here. Just like in the real world, a group will pay dearly for this.
Quote from: LittleMurs on June 25, 2014, 07:40:32 AM
Gee, whattaya know... they are student athletes, not employees. At least now, maybe.
I wonder where the term student-athlete comes from, anyway?
Oh, here's the answer.
http://www.sippinonpurple.com/2014/1/28/5355988/ncaa-student-athlete-kain-colter-union-workers-comp (http://www.sippinonpurple.com/2014/1/28/5355988/ncaa-student-athlete-kain-colter-union-workers-comp)
From his suite at the College World Series, Texas Athletic Director Steve Patterson wondered aloud last week how many college baseball programs would survive if antitrust lawsuits ultimately reinvent the college model and create an open market for schools to pay athletes and treat them as employees.
Texas, which generates more than $160 million a year in athletic revenue, more than any other school, would be fine in such a new world. Most others probably would not, he said.
"The bottom line is that, as successful as the University of Texas has been, as good as this baseball team is, we average less than one [new] Major League Baseball player a year," Patterson said. "I'm talking about guys that just have a cup of coffee [in the major leagues]. We average less than four professional football players a year making their way into the NFL. So out of all those student athletes, we're talking about five to 10 kids a year that would truly benefit the most [from an open-market system]. And we're talking about professional careers that span four years or less [on average]. Then they've got a half-century of their life, at least, where they've got to figure out how to work in the world.
"So we spend all of this time worrying about a guy or two who thinks he's losing all of this money over his likeness? It doesn't make any sense."
The climate for change in college athletics dominated a 30-minute conversation between Patterson and SportsBusiness Journal last week at the CWS in Omaha, Neb. Standing next to Roger Clemens and a handful of baseball parents in his suite, an animated Patterson said the current litigation is about agents and trial lawyers who are trying to benefit while "ruining" the collegiate model.
What's clear is that Patterson, who was named AD at his alma mater in November and has spent more than two decades as an executive in pro sports, is tired of college athletics losing the public relations battle, and he isn't afraid to go on the offensive. Among his views: More autonomy for the five power conferences within the NCAA is mandatory, or else they should leave.
Here are Patterson's views on:
■ Pending NCAA changes that would grant the five power leagues more autonomy: "It's a part of the everyday business right now. There's five conferences that want to do the best they can for their student athletes and provide them with the best outcomes. There's a bunch of other schools that are fairly atavistic in their viewpoints and want to take the rules back to 1950. That's not going to happen. They need to let the more well-resourced conferences operate, or these five conferences need to leave. It's that simple. We've waited far too long and we've been far too accommodating. ... I think there's a harder and harder resolve as each day goes by for the institutions in higher-profile conferences to take the necessary moves."
■ The potential competitive imbalance that could result for conferences not in the power five: "There's nothing wrong with having different kinds of programs at different schools. The Ivy League does a great job. They have different kinds of athletic programs than we do and they haven't dried up and blown away. They're wonderful institutions and well-supported. We're in a different position. We ought to be able to respect our differences."
■ Providing additional student services, such as a cost-of-attendance stipend, longer scholarships and post-graduate health insurance: "We're self-supported at UT. I recognize that many others are not. But it's incumbent on us to provide the kind of student services that we do. When you look at the issues raised at Northwestern, we do all of the things they're talking about, except for one — allowing them to monetize their likeness. If you're a baseball player and you decide after your junior year that you want to go pro, and you follow the rules, we'll help you come back and finish. If you get hurt and you can't play, we don't take your scholarship away. A lot of these claims, at least as they apply at Texas, are specious.
What you've got are a bunch of trial lawyers and agents who can't find any more clients in the NBA or NFL. That's what this is about."■ Whether other schools can provide similar services for athletes: "A lot more schools would be there if we didn't have to keep fiddling around with the schools that don't want to be more progressive."
■ College athletes marketing their own rights: "We're spending all of this time talking about one-half of 1 percent of our student athletes [who have the power to market their likeness]. Not the 99.5 percent of student athletes who are supported by these programs. What we're giving our student athletes, in terms of academic, athletic, financial aid, support for room and board, training, mentoring, student services, tutoring, is more than the average household income. And for some of our teams, it's pushing into $70,000 a year per student athlete, and pushes into the top third of household incomes. Tell me one guy whose likeness is worth more than the average household income. ... There was one guy last year. [Patterson holds his hands up and rubs his fingers together like Johnny Manziel.]"It's absolutely agents and trial lawyers that are the whole reason we're talking about this. You've got guys like Jay Bilas out there making the claim that scholarships aren't worth anything, and nobody says anything to discredit that. ... So who is saying with any rationality or any fact that student athletes on a full ride aren't getting something? They're just flat-out wrong and they're liars. And they're doing the bidding of agents and trial lawyers. The longer everybody waddles around acting like it's not about agents and trial lawyers, the more silliness we're going to have out there."■ The concept that an open market would kill Olympic sports: "The reality is that if we're going to fall prey to the agents and the trial lawyers, we're going to kill the second-largest scholarship program in the history of the country, after the GI bill. You're going to take this money and it's going to gravitate to a handful of guys on the football team and maybe a handful on the basketball teams. And so what's going to happen to the budgets? It's going to wipe out men's sports and it's going to wipe out women's sports."■ Always finding a way to pay the football coach:
"But the football coach generates the vast majority of the revenue. You're compensating the coach based on the marketplace. Only football and men's basketball, and just a few schools in baseball and ice hockey, can make money. Everything else operates at a deficit. So what is the model that's going to replace that? If you take all of the money football generates and put it back into football, what's going to pay for everything else?
"The point of paying a football coach based on the market is the hope that he generates enough revenue to support the rest of the athletic department. Now, people make mistakes on hires. But if you have a successful coach and a successful football program, you can support scores of teams. If you can't, what happens? The same thing that happened at Arizona State before I got there. You start whacking sports. Same thing happened at Maryland. Same thing happened at Berkeley. Sports are getting whacked and that's bad. The other way you balance the budget — you cut the number of football scholarships. You want to go down that road?"
■ On the academic piece of the scholarship being removed from the debate: "If athletes are employees, what's the point of going to class? We spend millions and millions of dollars each year tutoring, mentoring, providing student services. We make that commitment because we should, and if we don't, you wind up like UConn and you don't get to play in the NCAA tournament. And at the end of four or five years, you hope that a student has graduated and something really good has happened. Generally, it does.
"Now, you can go find some jerk who was a former basketball player, who was a jerk in college and was a jerk in the pros, who decides he wants to disparage one of the best college basketball programs out there. Yeah, you can find that guy. But for every one of him, I'll find you 500 kids who say, 'Thank God I had a basketball scholarship or a baseball scholarship or a track scholarship. It changed my life and it changed my family's life.'"
Wow. The head of the richest athletic department in college athletics wants to retain the current way of doing business.
Shocking.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 25, 2014, 09:11:50 AM
Not all unions are the same. My father in law was a union member for years, never had trouble getting a job and his union pension funded his retirement and is funding my mother in laws right now. When you are member of a union that is focused on skill development, versus simply lobbying for higher wages, they have value for both its members and those who hire them.
They aren't dead by any respects. The good ones will survive and thrive.
Is it a trade union? Ala a plumbers union, etc.? A lot of them are responsible and helpful, I think. Labor unions, maybe not so much.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 25, 2014, 09:42:53 AM
Wow. The head of the richest athletic department in college athletics wants to retain the current way of doing business.
Shocking.
I would suggest you read a little deeper. His comments are dead on. The media, many people here, are focusing on 0.5% and ignoring the 99.5%, which is ironic as hell considering some of the folks here always chirping about the 99%. tsk tsk
Some of the things people with no understanding want, will destroy opportunities for the 99% and he is right to explain why. There are consequences to all actions, problem is that most people (especially those with no business background) don't get. They think money grows on trees and should be spent accordingly (not you Sultan, but there are plenty that think this way).
Be careful what you wish for fellas. Many of you might just have to become fans of a school you may not care about.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 25, 2014, 09:11:50 AM
Not all unions are the same. My father in law was a union member for years, never had trouble getting a job and his union pension funded his retirement and is funding my mother in laws right now. When you are member of a union that is focused on skill development, versus simply lobbying for higher wages, they have value for both its members and those who hire them.
They aren't dead by any respects. The good ones will survive and thrive.
Not dead, and some are ok. My wife has been a union member for 25+ years. I've had to work with UAW, sports unions, etc. Some make me cringe. Gov't unions should be outlawed. They are there to keep seniority, meritocracy a secondary afterthought. Great if you have seniority, but ask the rank and file that are new and busting arse and their contributions don't mean much. Which of course, ends up having an adverse effect because they soon learn it's not about the quality so much, it's about the time you put in.
Not dead, but not trending well. They had their place and were needed 50 years ago, 100 years ago. They made some positive contributions.
(http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/02/FT_14.02.19_LaborUnions_1.png)
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 25, 2014, 09:11:50 AM
Not all unions are the same. My father in law was a union member for years, never had trouble getting a job and his union pension funded his retirement and is funding my mother in laws right now. When you are member of a union that is focused on skill development, versus simply lobbying for higher wages, they have value for both its members and those who hire them.
They aren't dead by any respects. The good ones will survive and thrive.
Sure...won't disagree with your above point...yet...as you mention it was your father in law...who I'm guessing now is probably in his 70s? (Feel you mentioned here at some point you were in your early 40s?) So, back in that day and age..unions had more true benefits to their members, and we weren't in any kind of global economy we are in today..the landscape has shifted...as was only inevitable...to have such a higher standard of living than the rest of the worls...as we've had in America for so long...simply couldn't and cannot sustain itself. The world is flat theory comes to mind...economically speaking...of course industrialized nations will continue to lead in GDP and such, but emerging markets certainly are gaining share.
Quote from: Ners on June 25, 2014, 11:03:12 AM
Sure...won't disagree with your above point...yet...as you mention it was your father in law...who I'm guessing now is probably in his 70s? (Feel you mentioned here at some point you were in your early 40s?) So, back in that day and age..unions had more true benefits to their members, and we weren't in any kind of global economy we are in today..the landscape has shifted...as was only inevitable...to have such a higher standard of living than the rest of the worls...as we've had in America for so long...simply couldn't and cannot sustain itself. The world is flat theory comes to mind...economically speaking...of course industrialized nations will continue to lead in GDP and such, but emerging markets certainly are gaining share.
He was in his 80s and worked at least part time until the middle of the 1990s. Skilled labor is not as easy to replicate globally as you may think.
An example:
http://www.milwaukeejobs.com/j/f-Welder-l-Milwaukee,-WI-jobs.html
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24596437/big-ten-presidents-endorse-four-year-full-cost-scholarships
As for the notion that this just started as a result of recent events, uhm...no.
Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa Northwestern, Illinois, Nebraska and Ohio State began using 4 year scholarships in 2012.
"We went and made them four-year scholarships and we'll see where that all goes with the NCAA and some addendums with how you'd lose a scholarship," Michigan coach Brady Hoke said. "Obviously you quit football, you're not going to be on scholarship."
- Feb 1, 2012
Mike Slive, yes that Mike Slive of the SEC, called for it in 2012 as well. Auburn is one school that has been providing 4 year scholarships. Not mandatory, but schools were encouraged to do so. He wanted academic and behavior conditions attached to the scholarships, for some of the same reasons I brought up yesterday. Nick Saban and Steve Spurrier didn't like the idea, Spurrier calling it terrible. Other coaches didn't have an issue with it.
You guys are ruiners.
Quote from: warrior07 on June 25, 2014, 10:44:09 AM
Is it a trade union? Ala a plumbers union, etc.? A lot of them are responsible and helpful, I think. Labor unions, maybe not so much.
Yes. It is a trade union.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 25, 2014, 10:45:04 AM
I would suggest you read a little deeper. His comments are dead on. The media, many people here, are focusing on 0.5% and ignoring the 99.5%, which is ironic as hell considering some of the folks here always chirping about the 99%. tsk tsk
This paragraph perfectly encapsulates why I absolutely cannot stand how you approach Scoop. Seriously, stick to the topic at hand. There is no reason whatsoever to turn it political in the passive aggressive way you always do.
Honestly, you are like a child.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 25, 2014, 11:29:08 AM
This paragraph perfectly encapsulates why I absolutely cannot stand how you approach Scoop. Seriously, stick to the topic at hand. There is no reason whatsoever to turn it political in the passive aggressive way you always do.
Honestly, you are like a child.
What's political about it? The 99% vs 1% is as much an economic concern as anything. Sorry if you don't see that. What strikes me as most obviously wrong with the approach so many take here is that they have no clue what the ramifications are on things, none. Absolutely NONE. More than anything, it is to remind a few that argue one way that they are so clueless on other stuff, they argue against themselves and don't even know it.
So you would tell a child to go f uck themselves? Interesting. I always thought name calling and such was child like, I remember a little rhyme of such when I was a child...sticks and stones....ironic.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 25, 2014, 11:36:07 AM
What's political about it? The 99% vs 1% is as much an economic concern as anything.
Stop. Again. Passive aggressiveness.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 25, 2014, 11:36:07 AM
So you would tell a child to go f uck themselves? Interesting. I always thought name calling and such was child like, I remember a little rhyme of such when I was a child...sticks and stones....ironic.
First, I didn't call you a name. I gave you a command.
Second, if it doesn't hurt you, you certainly can't seem to let it go. And believe me, I would have no qualms about doing it again.
So how does this work. A kid is given a 4 year athletic scholarship, he gets injured or paralyzed like the player from Rutgers where he can't play but can still attend classes; does the school loose that scholarship for his remaining eligibility?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 25, 2014, 12:39:13 PM
So how does this work. A kid is given a 4 year athletic scholarship, he gets injured or paralyzed like the player from Rutgers where he can't play but can still attend classes; does the school loose that scholarship for his remaining eligibility?
They will likely transition it to an institutional academic scholarship...as with the case as though who leave early for the pros.
The question none of you seem to be asking is, "What's in the new world order for Marquette?"
I'm honestly scared. I like the notion that we have a chance to win the whole enchalada. To be able to compete at the highest levels of college basketball successfully and win -- and be competitive for an NCAA title.
We did it once. We have come close a whole lot of times. We can do it again, so long as the power conferences either don't break away or don't make participation so expensive for Marquette that we cannot compete.
I am fearful we will be left behind because of a wise decision made in 1960 that appears not to be so wise today. In the Jesuits' defense, who could ever have envisioned what was happening today in 1960?
As long as the NCAA's governance doesn't get warped completely, the Big East just has to agree to offer similar terms for its athletic scholarships.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 25, 2014, 12:41:13 PM
They will likely transition it to an institutional academic scholarship...as with the case as though who leave early for the pros.
Correct
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 25, 2014, 11:48:33 AM
Stop. Again. Passive aggressiveness.
First, I didn't call you a name. I gave you a command.
Second, if it doesn't hurt you, you certainly can't seem to let it go. And believe me, I would have no qualms about doing it again.
Definitely doesn't hurt me. I enjoyed the command, even it if it was...gasp...passive aggressive in it's own way. LOL
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 25, 2014, 12:48:49 PM
The question none of you seem to be asking is, "What's in the new world order for Marquette?"
I'm honestly scared. I like the notion that we have a chance to win the whole enchalada. To be able to compete at the highest levels of college basketball successfully and win -- and be competitive for an NCAA title.
We did it once. We have come close a whole lot of times. We can do it again, so long as the power conferences either don't break away or don't make participation so expensive for Marquette that we cannot compete.
I am fearful we will be left behind because of a wise decision made in 1960 that appears not to be so wise today. In the Jesuits' defense, who could ever have envisioned what was happening today in 1960?
I think many of us have stated what it could be and have warned to those that have no clue while they cheer from the sidelines, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
The O'Bannon case will be interesting. Sultan won't like this, but I don't give a damn, considering who the judge is, what her stripes are and who appointed her, I'm guessing the NCAA loses. That, of course, will be appealed to the 9th
circuit circus which will then appealed all the way to SCOTUS eventually. In the meantime, yes some reforms will come out of it. The power 5 are going to do their thing and many smaller conferences and smaller schools will not be able to play in that sandbox. As much as the Power 5 want to say it is about giving student athletes full value, it is just as much about separation without full separation. That will keep DI in place, but it will be a bifurcated DI even more so than it is today. That is, IF, the other schools allow the Power 5 to do what they are asking for. If they don't, then the Power 5 will create their own division within the NCAA. I don't see them breaking away from the NCAA anytime soon, because the money is tied to the NCAA, not the individual schools or the conferences. Delaney, Slive, etc know this all too well. Fortunately the biggest contract is tied to the NCAA well into the 2020's.
The question comes down to whether a Marquette, Butler, Gonzaga, G'Town, etc is going to mimic what the Power 5 are doing in an effort to keep up with the Jones' and recruit at the same level for student athletes? The concern I have is some in a conference may while some do not. Hopefully the conference basically says everyone has to or everyone doesn't, you don't want some dragging down the rest. You're either committed or you aren't. That is what I'm looking for.
Nevertheless, some folks should be careful what you wish for....you may just get it. In all this "justice" nonsense that people are pushing for the 0.5% of all student athletes, there is the other 99.5% that may be impacted greatly from opportunities, etc. The means less scholarships at some schools that decide to match the Power 5 and have to cut programs. But hey, at least the 0.5% are being taken care and no longer on the plantation (yes, I've heard those words used...and yes, it's passive aggressive...and I don't give a damn).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 25, 2014, 10:45:04 AM
I would suggest you read a little deeper. His comments are dead on. The media, many people here, are focusing on 0.5% and ignoring the 99.5%, which is ironic as hell considering some of the folks here always chirping about the 99%. tsk tsk
Some of the things people with no understanding want, will destroy opportunities for the 99% and he is right to explain why. There are consequences to all actions, problem is that most people (especially those with no business background) don't get. They think money grows on trees and should be spent accordingly (not you Sultan, but there are plenty that think this way).
Be careful what you wish for fellas. Many of you might just have to become fans of a school you may not care about.
Thanks for sharing this. I greatly respect Steve Patterson, and his thoughts/statements reflect key trends and incremental changes clearly coming our way. Instead of conference realignments...the current offseason hot issue is the compensation/scholarship/benefits provided to college athletes. Even the most niggardly of schools must concede that improvements for the student athlete are afoot and changes are required, just to compete.
Steve and I law clerked in the same firm, many many years ago. He is a clear thinker. For some who may not know, Steve is the son of Ray Patterson, founding president of the NBA Bucks, and he was graduated from Wayland Academy in Beaver Dam... before his family came to Houston, when Ray became president of the NBA Rockets.
Quote from: houwarrior on June 25, 2014, 05:40:55 PM
Thanks for sharing this. I greatly respect Steve Patterson, and his thoughts/statements reflect key trends and incremental changes clearly coming our way. Instead of conference realignments...the current offseason hot issue is the compensation/scholarship/benefits provided to college athletes. Even the most niggardly of schools must concede that improvements for the student athlete are afoot and changes are required, just to compete.
Steve and I law clerked in the same firm, many many years ago. He is a clear thinker. For some who may not know, Steve is the son of Ray Patterson, founding president of the NBA Bucks, and he was graduated from Wayland Academy in Beaver Dam... before his family came to Houston, when Ray became president of the NBA Rockets.
Happy to share. Steve is a very smart guy and he's looking at the full picture. Some are saying he is looking at it as a self serving point of view, but I disagree. He gets that all this nonsense and fuss is about the smallest of smallest group of student athletes and the real risk is to the 99.5% that will never see the light of day of professional sports. That's not sexy, but that's reality. I wish he was the one the media was quoting and not some of the bumpkins out there trying to make the NCAA case. But I'm not sure the media particularly cares with the agenda they are pushing, it's as if the 99.5% don't exist. It's all about making sure Shabazz Napier's claims of starving are front and center, despite how ridiculous, and what happens to women's hockey, soccer, track, etc, just doesn't cut it...until it is cut or there are programs dropped and then the bandwagon howls will go through the roof.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 25, 2014, 01:27:48 PM
I think many of us have stated what it could be and have warned to those that have no clue while they cheer from the sidelines, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
The O'Bannon case will be interesting. Sultan won't like this, but I don't give a damn, considering who the judge is, what her stripes are and who appointed her, I'm guessing the NCAA loses. That, of course, will be appealed to the 9th circuit circus which will then appealed all the way to SCOTUS eventually. In the meantime, yes some reforms will come out of it. The power 5 are going to do their thing and many smaller conferences and smaller schools will not be able to play in that sandbox. As much as the Power 5 want to say it is about giving student athletes full value, it is just as much about separation without full separation. That will keep DI in place, but it will be a bifurcated DI even more so than it is today. That is, IF, the other schools allow the Power 5 to do what they are asking for. If they don't, then the Power 5 will create their own division within the NCAA. I don't see them breaking away from the NCAA anytime soon, because the money is tied to the NCAA, not the individual schools or the conferences. Delaney, Slive, etc know this all too well. Fortunately the biggest contract is tied to the NCAA well into the 2020's.
The question comes down to whether a Marquette, Butler, Gonzaga, G'Town, etc is going to mimic what the Power 5 are doing in an effort to keep up with the Jones' and recruit at the same level for student athletes? The concern I have is some in a conference may while some do not. Hopefully the conference basically says everyone has to or everyone doesn't, you don't want some dragging down the rest. You're either committed or you aren't. That is what I'm looking for.
Nevertheless, some folks should be careful what you wish for....you may just get it. In all this "justice" nonsense that people are pushing for the 0.5% of all student athletes, there is the other 99.5% that may be impacted greatly from opportunities, etc. The means less scholarships at some schools that decide to match the Power 5 and have to cut programs. But hey, at least the 0.5% are being taken care and no longer on the plantation (yes, I've heard those words used...and yes, it's passive aggressive...and I don't give a damn).
Hyperbole.
Why shouldn't an athlete be able to profit off his likeness? Oh I know "trial lawyers and agents!!!" Seriously, Johnny Manziel should have been able to make a car ad and pocket some cash if someone was willing to pay him. Why not?
Enhanced scholarships are good things. I do not believe that this creates some sort of employee model.
And "be careful what you wish for?" I don't live in fear of change and yearning for the past like you do. Time marches on...things change...
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 25, 2014, 12:41:13 PM
They will likely transition it to an institutional academic scholarship...as with the case as though who leave early for the pros.
If that's the case, and it doesn't count against their scholarship limit, I guess I don't see the significance of this. It's a nice gesture, and maybe affects a miniscule number of kids, but if the schools aren't counting it against their scholarship limit it provides no competitive disadvantage. For MU in basketball, I can see this hardly ever getting used, maybe once every 10 years.
Doeals this mean that if an athlete declares for the NBA/NFL and doesnt get selected, they could return to school to finish their degree to fulfill the 4 year scholarship offer?
Quote from: ThatDude on June 26, 2014, 09:02:15 AM
Doeals this mean that if an athlete declares for the NBA/NFL and doesnt get selected, they could return to school to finish their degree to fulfill the 4 year scholarship offer?
Yes...but not participate in athletics because they would no longer have eligibility.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 26, 2014, 07:32:57 AM
Hyperbole.
Why shouldn't an athlete be able to profit off his likeness? Oh I know "trial lawyers and agents!!!" Seriously, Johnny Manziel should have been able to make a car ad and pocket some cash if someone was willing to pay him. Why not?
Enhanced scholarships are good things. I do not believe that this creates some sort of employee model.
And "be careful what you wish for?" I don't live in fear of change and yearning for the past like you do. Time marches on...things change...
We've been through this before and ironically you are using the 0.00001% example in this case. Because the abuse would be rampant. Kentucky would tell every recruit, you're going to get paid because each of our alums that owns a car dealership is going to feature you, even if you pay only 10 minutes a game here, come to UK because we can line your pockets.
Where did I say enhanced scholarships are bad things? I haven't, at least not for those getting them. The unfortunate part is that many schools can't do it and that means one thing. Cuts. Reduction of other opportunities for other student athletes. So we take care of the tiniest group and throw the others to the curb in the process. Consequences.
It's the other Pandora's box that some of you want to open that I don't think you even realize it is a Pandora's box or that you are opening it that has me concerned.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 26, 2014, 10:15:15 AM
We've been through this before and ironically you are using the 0.00001% example in this case. Because the abuse would be rampant. Kentucky would tell every recruit, you're going to get paid because each of our alums that owns a car dealership is going to feature you, even if you pay only 10 minutes a game here, come to UK because we can line your pockets.
Where did I say enhanced scholarships are bad things? I haven't, at least not for those getting them. The unfortunate part is that many schools can't do it and that means one thing. Cuts. Reduction of other opportunities for other student athletes. So we take care of the tiniest group and throw the others to the curb in the process. Consequences.
It's the other Pandora's box that some of you want to open that I don't think you even realize it is a Pandora's box or that you are opening it that has me concerned.
I don't care if a Kentucky car dealer wants to drop a bunch of cash on players marketing their business. I truly...do...not...care. And I *fully* understand the implications.
Patterson is a lawyer, worked for years in pro sports dealing with agents, now a successful AD, he is more qualified to understand what is going on and what could happen than most anyone in this country. He certainly is qualified to make the statement that much of this is due to lawyers and agents trying to adjust the system for their own gain, especially with his credentials AND if you know the background of who is bringing these lawsuits. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone MORE qualified.
Finally, he sees the big picture. He has to also look out for all his other student athletes, the ones that are continually ignored here and by the media. The soccer team, volleyball, track, softball, golf, etc. The ones where those sports will be cut at some institutions, further diluting opportunities so we can pamper the 0.5% that feel they are somehow on the plantation (truly remarkable comparison, but people use it).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 26, 2014, 10:33:20 AM
Patterson is a lawyer, worked for years in pro sports dealing with agents, now a successful AD, he is more qualified to understand what is going on and what could happen than most anyone in this country. He certainly is qualified to make the statement that much of this is due to lawyers and agents trying to adjust the system for their own gain, especially with his credentials AND if you know the background of who is bringing these lawsuits. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone MORE qualified.
Finally, he sees the big picture. He has to also look out for all his other student athletes, the ones that are continually ignored here and by the media. The soccer team, volleyball, track, softball, golf, etc. The ones where those sports will be cut at some institutions, further diluting opportunities so we can pamper the 0.5% that feel they are somehow on the plantation (truly remarkable comparison, but people use it).
Those sports aren't as popular. Free market. Frankly the minimum sport requirement is silly and expensive anyway. If Marquette could drop all sports but men's and women's basketball, that would be fine with me.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 26, 2014, 10:37:39 AM
Those sports aren't as popular. Free market. Frankly the minimum sport requirement is silly and expensive anyway. If Marquette could drop all sports but men's and women's basketball, that would be fine with me.
Exactly. Those 0.5% generate the $ used to "pamper" the scholarship athletes in niche sports that have to be subsidized to survive. Another example of Chico preferring the welfare state to the free market.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 26, 2014, 10:37:39 AM
Those sports aren't as popular. Free market. Frankly the minimum sport requirement is silly and expensive anyway. If Marquette could drop all sports but men's and women's basketball, that would be fine with me.
I am certain Val wouldn't be fine with that. She would likely be on the phone with Fr. Wild just as soon as she completes the weekly Office Depot order
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 26, 2014, 10:19:39 AM
I don't care if a Kentucky car dealer wants to drop a bunch of cash on players marketing their business. I truly...do...not...care. And I *fully* understand the implications.
Many others do, and those are the ones making the decisions. Because it creates an incredibly unbalanced playing field on the recruiting side.
If you don't care, then I don't know why any rules make sense to you trying to level the playing field.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 26, 2014, 10:37:39 AM
Those sports aren't as popular. Free market. Frankly the minimum sport requirement is silly and expensive anyway. If Marquette could drop all sports but men's and women's basketball, that would be fine with me.
Title IX reality. Division I reality. Again, the NCAA isn't professional sports for a reason. What you want to do is professionalize it. If you want these guys to be paid, you want schools to only have a few sports, etc....you should be following professional sports. Or let NAIA do it.
Some of us, including the federal gov't, are ok with other students having the opportunity to play college sports. I'm rather proud of what Markus Roeders has done with the women's soccer team, or the men's soccer team's progress, etc, etc.
I guess I'm a man of the people, supporting the little guy.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 26, 2014, 11:45:04 AM
Exactly. Those 0.5% generate the $ used to "pamper" the scholarship athletes in niche sports that have to be subsidized to survive. Another example of Chico preferring the welfare state to the free market.
Absolute bullshyte. The teams do, but not the 0.5%. The 0.5% are the elite of the elite athletes that can go pro. Most of the players do not go to the pros, but the dollars, ticket sales, etc are still coming in. No one from last year's team at MU went to the NBA, did the school make any less money? No.
Sorry, but Steve Patterson has it more right then you will ever have it on this subject. You are out of your league.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 26, 2014, 12:07:32 PM
Absolute bullshyte. The teams do, but not the 0.5%.
LOL. The Michigan "team" was responsible for all the money generated by the sale of Chris Webber's jersey. Not Chris. Bullshyte, pal, er, comrade.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 26, 2014, 12:04:12 PM
Title IX reality. Division I reality. Again, the NCAA isn't professional sports for a reason. What you want to do is professionalize it. If you want these guys to be paid, you want schools to only have a few sports, etc....you should be following professional sports. Or let NAIA do it.
Why? The only Marquette sport I really care about is men's basketball. You have women's basketball for Title IX and all is good.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 26, 2014, 01:11:10 PM
Why? The only Marquette sport I really care about is men's basketball. You have women's basketball for Title IX and all is good.
its called bundling, oh wait this isn't about cable tv....
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 26, 2014, 12:55:16 PM
LOL. The Michigan "team" was responsible for all the money generated by the sale of Chris Webber's jersey. Not Chris. Bullshyte, pal, er, comrade.
Chris Webber had a jersey with his name on the back? LOL. Show me. Michigan jerseys sell today, Chris Webber has been gone for 20 years. They're still buying because of Chris?
People watch the games, most importantly the tournament (where the money is) because of the competition, not because of what individual star player is out there. Each year the kids leave, each year people watch. People watch whether it is Butler or Duke or Kentucky or Marquette or Florida Gulf Coast College. They watch, the competition.
No such thing as a true free market, yet you keep bringing that up. The real world where I live, things are supported by money makers all the time. There are loss leaders in business with millions of examples, you of all people should know this.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 26, 2014, 01:11:10 PM
Why? The only Marquette sport I really care about is men's basketball. You have women's basketball for Title IX and all is good.
Doesn't matter what YOU care about, sort of like Redskins. Try to keep up.
Quote from: Chucklehead on June 26, 2014, 01:12:04 PM
its called bundling, oh wait this isn't about cable tv....
You shouldn't buy MU men's basketball tickets then, since the proceeds go to soccer, tennis, golf, track, etc. Sultan is wasting his money supporting teams he doesn't care about.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 26, 2014, 01:39:32 PM
Doesn't matter what YOU care about, sort of like Redskins. Try to keep up.
Fails. Logic. Again.
I expressed my opinion...you challenged my opinion...I responded.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 26, 2014, 01:38:48 PM
No such thing as a true free market, yet you keep bringing that up. The real world where I live, things are supported by money makers all the time.
Fine, then in the future please refrain from complaining about your tax dollars supporting people and causes who don't/can't support themselves. Smile and ask "What more can I do to help?".
The real world
Texas A&M made a TOTAL of $59K on Jerseys sold last year....ALL JERSEYS, not just those with Manziel's number on them...ALL of them. Not just football jerseys either, that's ALL including baseball, basketball, cycling, etc.
1.53% total licensing revenue came from jersey sales.
Damn those schools are making hand over fist money on jerseys from Chris Webber and Manziel, keeping them on the plantation. Begs the question, if either didn't play college ball, would they be selling any jerseys at all.
So of the $59K in jerseys sold by the hottest player in all of college sports who won the Heisman trophy, how many were SOLELY due to him? Let's say 65% of all the jerseys sold were football, the rest are baseball, basketball, soccer, etc, etc. Now, of the football jerseys sold, how many were of Manziel's number? Next question, how many would have bought that jersey anyway, whether Manziel was playing or not? In other words, people buy the QB's jersey because he's the QB? The article does a nice job of splitting out the numbers. Each student athlete at A&M gets $44.18. At other schools, less than $12.00. At a place like Marquette, probably $5.00. The dollars are higher if you don't split it among all the athletes, but hey...is Manziel as good without his Offensive Linemen? So on and so forth.
Brilliant idea fellas.
The real world http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/80530/manziel-jerseys-hardly-making-am-rich
nm
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 26, 2014, 01:38:48 PM
Chris Webber had a jersey with his name on the back? LOL. Show me.
(http://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/b67c0b41a88f_C6E7/webberdunk.jpg)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 26, 2014, 03:02:52 PM
Fine, then in the future please refrain from complaining about your tax dollars supporting people and causes who don't/can't support themselves. Smile and ask "What more can I do to help?".
There are ethical and religious reasons for some of my objections to how tax dollars are spent. I help plenty, through charitable donations and pay more taxes than most...I'm giving plenty.
For those that can't support themselves, I'm happy to help. For those that CHOOSE not to support themselves, no thanks.
Quote from: WI_inferiority_complexes on June 26, 2014, 07:27:42 PM
(http://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/b67c0b41a88f_C6E7/webberdunk.jpg)
Well done....and Ed Martin paid him $288K while he played for Michigan. Poor poor Chris Webber. He needs a timeout, but he's out of them.
Show me a Webber jersey in the bookstore with Webber's name on the back. Some people bought that jersey because it was Webber, some because they like the number 4, some because it said Michigan on the front and for no other reason, some because it was the first one on the rack of jerseys. Problem is, you get some numbnuts that believe a jersey is sold 100% because of that player and what he is doing. Nothing with the school attachment, not because they want a Michigan jersey that says Michigan, but solely because of that player. ::)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 26, 2014, 05:16:28 PM
The real world
Texas A&M made a TOTAL of $59K on Jerseys sold last year....ALL JERSEYS, not just those with Manziel's number on them...ALL of them. Not just football jerseys either, that's ALL including baseball, basketball, cycling, etc.
1.53% total licensing revenue came from jersey sales.
Damn those schools are making hand over fist money on jerseys from Chris Webber and Manziel, keeping them on the plantation. Begs the question, if either didn't play college ball, would they be selling any jerseys at all.
So of the $59K in jerseys sold by the hottest player in all of college sports who won the Heisman trophy, how many were SOLELY due to him? Let's say 65% of all the jerseys sold were football, the rest are baseball, basketball, soccer, etc, etc. Now, of the football jerseys sold, how many were of Manziel's number? Next question, how many would have bought that jersey anyway, whether Manziel was playing or not? In other words, people buy the QB's jersey because he's the QB? The article does a nice job of splitting out the numbers. Each student athlete at A&M gets $44.18. At other schools, less than $12.00. At a place like Marquette, probably $5.00. The dollars are higher if you don't split it among all the athletes, but hey...is Manziel as good without his Offensive Linemen? So on and so forth.
Brilliant idea fellas.
The real world http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/80530/manziel-jerseys-hardly-making-am-rich
I know this isn't the point but I can guarantee you that that the actual number is much closer to 95% than 65%. Aggies don't give a flying f**K about anything other than football.
This is a quality topic being championed by a couple of the more dogmatic scoopers, both of who typically add more than they subtract to the topic at hand.
I personally feel you guys are both right and wrong for various reasons.
Sultan-
I understand you really only care about Marquette men's basketball (as do I). There's nothing wrong with that. What happens to all the other student athletes whose college tuition is either fully or partially covered via athletic scholarships for sports that technically cost money? Imagine your son/daughter/niece/nephew as a standout athlete in any sport (hockey, gymnastics, golf, tennis, lacrosse, etc.) in highschool unable to land an athletic scholarship due to these long standing collegiate athletic programs folding up under the new college athletic landscape. This hurts the majority of student athletes and their families both academically and economically.
Chicos-
Why are the rules applied to student athletes so draconian compared to regular students in the first place? I've long held the position that if 15 years ago when I graduated high school you gave me the option of earning $40-80k/year between the age of 18-22 and smartly leveraging that income through aggressive investing or hitting the workforce at age 23 with $100-200k in student loan debt I'd choose the former over the latter any day. Why is a student athlete any different when it comes to leveraging his talents into income? Are you equally opposed to a student seeking an engineering degree maintaining employment while in school regardless of the amount?
The ironic thing taking place is that I would be willing to bet almost to a poster that there's unanimous agreement that the realignment over the almighty football dollars has been bad for NCAAB and Marquette and yet there's so much division in regards to what may have even bigger ramifications for the university and basketball program we're all big time fans of.
This is a complex issue developing and whichever way it goes will have bigger reach and scope than what it's intended to rectify. People's opinions shouldn't necessarily be written off on this topic simply for tone, inflection or personal history.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on June 27, 2014, 12:34:11 AM
Sultan-
I understand you really only care about Marquette men's basketball (as do I). There's nothing wrong with that. What happens to all the other student athletes whose college tuition is either fully or partially covered via athletic scholarships for sports that technically cost money? Imagine your son/daughter/niece/nephew as a standout athlete in any sport (hockey, gymnastics, golf, tennis, lacrosse, etc.) in highschool unable to land an athletic scholarship due to these long standing collegiate athletic programs folding up under the new college athletic landscape. This hurts the majority of student athletes and their families both academically and economically.
Honestly, my response is "get an academic scholarship." Afterall that is the main reason colleges and universities are in existence.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 25, 2014, 12:41:13 PM
They will likely transition it to an institutional academic scholarship...as with the case as though who leave early for the pros.
Would that be at the schools discretion or would it be in writing when the player signs his LOI?
I had a Michigan Webber jersey and a Kentucky Mashburn jersey.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 27, 2014, 09:26:14 AM
Would that be at the schools discretion or would it be in writing when the player signs his LOI?
Probably in writing but I honestly don't know.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on June 27, 2014, 12:34:11 AM
Chicos-
Why are the rules applied to student athletes so draconian compared to regular students in the first place? I've long held the position that if 15 years ago when I graduated high school you gave me the option of earning $40-80k/year between the age of 18-22 and smartly leveraging that income through aggressive investing or hitting the workforce at age 23 with $100-200k in student loan debt I'd choose the former over the latter any day. Why is a student athlete any different when it comes to leveraging his talents into income? Are you equally opposed to a student seeking an engineering degree maintaining employment while in school regardless of the amount?
The ironic thing taking place is that I would be willing to bet almost to a poster that there's unanimous agreement that the realignment over the almighty football dollars has been bad for NCAAB and Marquette and yet there's so much division in regards to what may have even bigger ramifications for the university and basketball program we're all big time fans of.
This is a complex issue developing and whichever way it goes will have bigger reach and scope than what it's intended to rectify. People's opinions shouldn't necessarily be written off on this topic simply for tone, inflection or personal history.
First, it is a complex issue...we agree.
Second, some of these kids especially in basketball and football, could not even be admitted to many of the colleges they play for if it weren't for their athletic talents. As such, they are earning something that can carry them far into life because of additional earning power, connections with alumni, etc. For those lucky enough to make it to show, their talents are on display often because of the school's program, conference, and associated media coverage. So they are given essentially a free resume builder every time they play, a free chance to interview and show what they got.
The reality is in your example, people aren't going to offer you $40K to $80K between the ages of 18 to 22 because companies want to see your ability to get through school, prove yourself that you can make the jump from adolescence to adulthood. You are more of a known quantity after college with a degree than you are as a high school kid at 18. So since that isn't happening for most people, why is it any different that it isn't happening to student athletes either? I'm not opposed to a student athlete working while going to school, they are allowed to do that today.
Quote from: PTM on June 27, 2014, 09:36:39 AM
I had a Michigan Webber jersey and a Kentucky Mashburn jersey.
Not sold by the universities. Not allowed. You can buy knock offs from Ebay, collectible agencies, game worn, or have Webber put on the back yourself, but a regular Joe can't go to a university book store and purchase a jersey with name and number on the back. Number, yes. Name, no.
The NCAA has never allowed names to be on the backs of jerseys through collegiate licensing apparel program.
Chicos to say this too had nothing to do with the union vote at NU in 3,2,1 ....
IU guarantees lifetime degrees
Josh Moyer [ARCHIVE]
ESPN.com | June 27, 2014
http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=11146296
Indiana University announced its own student-athlete bill of rights on Friday, a 10-point document that outlines new and current reforms, such as a lifetime degree guarantee and the use of the career placement center after graduation.
Some of the points echo a joint statement issued by Big Ten officials earlier this week. But Indiana athletic director Fred Glass told ESPN.com that this bill has been in the making for weeks. Any overlap -- such as the four-year scholarship commitment -- is coincidental, and points made in the bill are effective immediately.
"The pendulum needs to swing back to provide more for the student-athletes," Glass said.
The central figure of the bill is a lifetime degree guarantee, which allows former student-athletes to finish their degrees if they left school early, so long as they were eligible for two seasons. Comprehensive medical examinations that were once freely available to only incoming scholarship athletes are now also open to walk-ons, and every student-athlete will receive an iPad and a blazer.
The reforms come in the wake of the Ed O'Bannon trial, which questions the NCAA's amateurism model. Improvements and changes are in the forefront of the minds of many school presidents and athletic directors, and Glass believed such a bill was a long time coming.
The origins for this bill, Glass said, can be traced back to a conversation he had with the parents of a volleyball recruit who didn't seem to understand the benefits of the student-athlete. Once he began answering questions -- such as "Will you take away her scholarship if she gets injured?" and "Will we have to pay if she comes down with mono?" (the answers were no and no) -- he realized something needed to change.
"It underscored to me that, in intercollegiate athletics, it was kind of lost as to what the benefits actually were," Glass said. "So we wanted to address the benefits we did provide and the benefits we wanted to provide."
Although all the reforms are effective immediately, student-athletes will start receiving the iPads in August and the blazers sometime thereafter. The bill is also retroactive so an Indiana baseball player in the 1970s can begin to finish up his degree or use the career placement facility immediately, as long as he meets the requirements.
"We're making a lifelong commitment," Glass added.
Coincidence.
Funny how Tower and Berg ignore that 75% of the Big Ten has offered 4 year scholarships since 2012.......
NU vote 2014......
Coincidence
Most importantly, what MU going to do about it? Buzz and Crean didn't want this when at MU, and the school voted against it.
What do they go moving foward?
Berg....this just in, you talked about the NU Union vote and bolded the Ed O'bannon trial. LOL. Which is it? The O'Bannon trial has more to do with this than the NU vote which, you lost despite predicting a win. Considering who the judge is for the O'Bannon trial, they will win. Then it will be appealed, but ignore what was going on years prior all you wish.
Now, what is MU going to do?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 29, 2014, 02:42:08 PM
Most importantly, what MU going to do about it? Buzz and Crean didn't want this when at MU, and the school voted against it.
What do they go moving foward?
Berg....this just in, you talked about the NU Union vote and bolded the Ed O'bannon trial. LOL. Which is it? The O'Bannon trial has more to do with this than the NU vote which, you lost despite predicting a win. Considering who the judge is for the O'Bannon trial, they will win. Then it will be appealed, but ignore what was going on years prior all you wish.
Now, what is MU going to do?
The players voted against it and the power five conferences are caving and giving them everything they want. Some loss.
MU will follow along and offer 4 years schollies.
Quote from: Heisenberg on June 28, 2014, 05:36:03 AM
IU guarantees lifetime degrees...
Here is a link to the actual "bill of rights (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ind/genrel/auto_pdf/2013-14/misc_non_event/BillOfRights.pdf)" that Indiana adopted. Interesting that the four-year commitment covers all "head count" sports, not just football and men's basketball. On the lifetime degree guarantee, it'll be interesting to see if Indiana (and other schools) will apply this to kids who want degrees that frequently take more than four years even in the best of circumstances (e.g., Physical Therapy). At some schools, these types of degrees can be extremely difficult for athletes to pursue because of time commitments from the sports.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 29, 2014, 02:42:08 PM
Most importantly, what MU going to do about it? Buzz and Crean didn't want this when at MU, and the school voted against it.
What do they go moving foward?
Berg....this just in, you talked about the NU Union vote and bolded the Ed O'bannon trial. LOL. Which is it? The O'Bannon trial has more to do with this than the NU vote which, you lost despite predicting a win. Considering who the judge is for the O'Bannon trial, they will win. Then it will be appealed, but ignore what was going on years prior all you wish.
Now, what is MU going to do?
As predicted, judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs, which was easy to see considering who she was...this will go to the 9th
circuit circus....now comes the appeal. The 9th
Circuit Circus is the most liberal court in the land, and the most highly overturned court by the US Supreme Court so I expect this one goes all the way to SCOTUS eventually.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 08, 2014, 05:21:06 PM
As predicted, judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs, which was easy to see considering who she was...this will go to the 9th circuit circus....now comes the appeal. The 9th Circuit Circus is the most liberal court in the land, and the most highly overturned court by the US Supreme Court so I expect this one goes all the way to SCOTUS eventually.
You can't use unapproved images in any business without getting sued - but it is the "most liberal" court ever that came up with the crazy idea that a sporting body has to follow the same rules as everyone else?
The only way this is overturned is because of the 5 activist right-wingers who want to set policy through the courts.