MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on October 12, 2017, 02:40:03 PM
-
Too many "high profile" types that bring little to the table (Condi Rice, David Robinson, Grant Hill).
Geno Smith is the problem, not part of the solution. Unless his job is to explain to the committee how tOSU efficiently and regularly breaks the law.
JTII is the problem, not part of the solution. Unless his job is to explain to the committee how the sneaker companies bought him.
https://twitter.com/InsidetheNCAA/status/918180576179425280
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DL4IXdYWsAADfEJ.jpg:large)
-
Well, if they were looking to answer the question, "How can we appear to be addressing corruption within college basketball without actually penalizing or hurting our bottom dollar?", then they hit a home run.
Didn't anyone learn anything from putting Rice on the CFP selection committee???
-
Geno Smith is the problem, not part of the solution. Unless his job is to explain to the committee how tOSU efficiently and regularly breaks the law.
Just ask the Jets!
-
Too many "high profile" types that bring little to the table (Condi Rice, David Robinson, Grant Hill).
Geno Smith is the problem, not part of the solution. Unless his job is to explain to the committee how tOSU efficiently and regularly breaks the law.
JTII is the problem, not part of the solution. Unless his job is to explain to the committee how the sneaker companies bought him.
Also, not to go all MU82/Dusty Baker on you ;) but you do realize that you specifically called out the 5 minority members of the board as being unqualified or "the problem," right?
-
Also, not to go all MU82/Dusty Baker on you ;) but you do realize that you specifically called out the 5 minority members of the board as being unqualified or "the problem," right?
Oops...I'm sure that was purely by coincidence.
-
Also, not to go all MU82/Dusty Baker on you ;) but you do realize that you specifically called out the 5 minority members of the board as being unqualified or "the problem," right?
Holy crap you're right. A committee of 14 and he calls out the only 5 non-white people in the group but no others. I honestly don't think it was intentional but that is both hilarious and concerning at the same time.
-
Holy crap you're right. A committee of 14 and he calls out the only 5 non-white people in the group but no others. I honestly don't think it was intentional but that is both hilarious and concerning at the same time.
For the record, I don't mean to insinuate that 1.21 is racist. After all, those are probably the 5 most recognizable names on the list (to sports fans anyway). I just found it to be note-worthy.
-
For the record, I don't mean to insinuate that 1.21 is racist. After all, those are probably the 5 most recognizable names on the list (to sports fans anyway). I just found it to be note-worthy.
To be fair, I have seen more than one person in the media suggest that Condi Rice is not black.
-
For the record, I don't mean to insinuate that 1.21 is racist. After all, those are probably the 5 most recognizable names on the list (to sports fans anyway). I just found it to be note-worthy.
Oh absolutely agree. It's a funny/interesting coincidence. And I'm not interested in going any further down this rabbit hole
-
For the record, I don't mean to insinuate that 1.21 is racist.
But you kind of did, didn't you? And so am I, sort of?
In a population of 14, there are only 16,382 possible subsets... so by the raw numbers, the likelihood that 1.21 called out the five minorities on the committee as "the problem" by sheer coincidence is somewhere between being struck by lightning sometime during your lifetime (1 in 12,000) and dying on the job (1 in 18,000).
And I reject the rationale of those 5 being the most recognizable names. The biggest problem on that entire list is Mark Emmert, and the odds of 1.21 not recognizing his name are probably worse than 16,382 to 1.
-
Also, not to go all MU82/Dusty Baker on you ;) but you do realize that you specifically called out the 5 minority members of the board as being unqualified or "the problem," right?
Glad to see identity politics is alive and well here. Keep it up and the 22nd amendment will be suspended so Trump can be the permanent President.
But if counting Black v White is how you measure things, and Benny you worry me, then here ...
Mark Emmert is nothing but a useless bags of chemicals. Why is he even allowed to take in oxygen
Jenkins is there to be the Holy than thou looking down on everyone condescendingly
Kathryn Ruemmier is the worst kind of person in the world, one of those "swamp" creatures that infect Washington. Here resume alone should make one vomit.
Foley, another person that can tell everyone "back in the day" stories about how the Gators arranged bags of cash for players. Is he qualified because Florida leads all D1 sports in the number of arrests every year?
Coleman .... why???
Peterson .... why???
Oh, and for the record ...
* I think Condi is great and would vote for her if she ran for President. This ceremonial do nothing committee is behenate her.
* Hill and Robinson bring too little to the table because a high PPG average or a long NBA career does not make you qualified to fixed the cheating and paying of players in college basketball. Good people on the wrong committee picked for name value, not the ability to solve this problem.
* I offer no more explanation for my comments about Smith and JTIII. The sooner Smith is in prison the sooner college sports are better off. You can take this to the Tatoo parlor!!
-
Glad to see identity politics is alive and well here. Keep it up and the 22nd amendment will be suspended so Trump can be the permanent President.
But if counting Black v White is how you measure things, and Benny you worry me, then here ...
Mark Emmert is nothing but a useless bags of chemicals. Why is he even allowed to take in oxygen
Jenkins is there to be the Holy than thou looking down on everyone condescendingly
Kathryn Ruemmier is the worst kind of person in the world, one of those "swamp" creatures that infect Washington. Here resume alone should make one vomit.
Foley, another person that can tell every "back in the day" stories about how the Gators arranged bags of cash for players.
Coleman .... why???
Peterson .... why???
Oh, and for the record ...
* I think Condi is great and would for her if she ran for President. This ceremonial do nothing committee is behenate her.
* Hill and Robinson bring too little to the table because a high PPG average or a long NBA career does not make you qualified to fixed the cheating and paying of players in college basketball. Good people on the wrong committee picked for name value, not the ability to solve this problem.
* I offer no more explanation for my comments about Smith and JTIII. The sooner Smith is in prison the sooner college sports are better off. You can take this to the Tatoo parlor!!
Don’t let a bunch of phony bleeding heart liberals intimidate you. Your opening post was sound. The reality though is all blue ribbon commissions are made for pr reasons. There is usually a staff person behind the scenes doing the actual work.
-
Just ask the Jets!
He's on the WINLESS Giants! Someone should break your jaw over this mistake.
-
In B4 da lock, hey?
-
Glad to see identity politics is alive and well here. Keep it up and the 22nd amendment will be suspended so Trump can be the permanent President.
But if counting Black v White is how you measure things, and Benny you worry me, then here ...
Mark Emmert is nothing but a useless bags of chemicals. Why is he even allowed to take in oxygen
Jenkins is there to be the Holy than thou looking down on everyone condescendingly
Kathryn Ruemmier is the worst kind of person in the world, one of those "swamp" creatures that infect Washington. Here resume alone should make one vomit.
Foley, another person that can tell everyone "back in the day" stories about how the Gators arranged bags of cash for players. Is he qualified because Florida leads all D1 sports in the number of arrests every year?
Coleman .... why???
Peterson .... why???
Oh, and for the record ...
* I think Condi is great and would vote for her if she ran for President. This ceremonial do nothing committee is behenate her.
* Hill and Robinson bring too little to the table because a high PPG average or a long NBA career does not make you qualified to fixed the cheating and paying of players in college basketball. Good people on the wrong committee picked for name value, not the ability to solve this problem.
* I offer no more explanation for my comments about Smith and JTIII. The sooner Smith is in prison the sooner college sports are better off. You can take this to the Tatoo parlor!!
This further explanation almost seems to reaffirm the initial inferred concerns. If you had these rationalizations against all these folks, do you find it interesting that you inadvertantly picked out the 5 non-whites to document your dislike of the commitee?
-
He's on the WINLESS Giants! Someone should break your jaw over this mistake.
True...but he was thought to be the Jets' solution first!
-
Glad to see identity politics is alive and well here. Keep it up and the 22nd amendment will be suspended so Trump can be the permanent President.
Your massively defensive post seems even more revealing that what initially appeared to be an amusing coincidence. There's a whole lot of protesting too much going on rather than accepting what seemed to be a coincidence.
-
Your massively defensive post seems even more revealing that what initially appeared to be an amusing coincidence. There's a whole lot of protesting too much going on rather than accepting what seemed to be a coincidence.
Exactly. Shakespeare said it best.
-
This further explanation almost seems to reaffirm the initial inferred concerns. If you had these rationalizations against all these folks, do you find it interesting that you inadvertantly picked out the 5 non-whites to document your dislike of the commitee?
I thought what I did was comment on the five most well-known names, and that is why I stopped there. The fact they were the only African Americans on the committee, and the fact you figured this out, it and genuinely seemed concerned about it, reflect on your views and your insecurities.
(if it matters, and I know it does not, I "forgot" Smith was Black. I looked at him as the kingpin that is the criminal organization known as tOSU athletics, his race never occurred to me. Their violations list deep, long and impressive. And if it further matters, I think Condi is one of the most impressive people in this country and this dog and pony show is not worth her time.)
-
Well, if they were looking to answer the question, "How can we appear to be addressing corruption within college basketball without actually penalizing or hurting our bottom dollar?", then they hit a home run.
Didn't anyone learn anything from putting Rice on the CFP selection committee???
Good post!
-
I thought what I did was comment on the five most well-known names, and that is why I stopped there. The fact they were the only African Americans on the committee, and the fact you figured this out, it and genuinely seemed concerned about it, reflect on your views and your insecurities.
(if it matters, and I know it does not, I "forgot" Smith was Black. I looked at him as the kingpin that is the criminal organization known as tOSU athletics, his race never occurred to me. Their violations list deep, long and impressive. And if it further matters, I think Condi is one of the most impressive people in this country and this dog and pony show is not worth her time.)
I accept your explanation (though I will point out that it wasn't me that pointed out first that they were the only and all of the African Americans on the list).
Call it insecurity or call it attentiveness, but as a white man I am trying to explore my own inherent biases when I unknowingly do or say something that can be perceived as unequal, unfair or even racist. I'm trying to be willing to look in my own mirror, and it's not always easy or comfortable.
I'm not trying to chastise you. There's enough blame being thrown around our world.
-
I thought what I did was comment on the five most well-known names, and that is why I stopped there. The fact they were the only African Americans on the committee, and the fact you figured this out, it and genuinely seemed concerned about it, reflect on your views and your insecurities.
(if it matters, and I know it does not, I "forgot" Smith was Black. I looked at him as the kingpin that is the criminal organization known as tOSU athletics, his race never occurred to me. Their violations list deep, long and impressive. And if it further matters, I think Condi is one of the most impressive people in this country and this dog and pony show is not worth her time.)
Wait, didn't you call her one of the '"high profile" types that bring little to the table'?
Just change your name again and move on.
-
Wait, didn't you call her one of the '"high profile" types that bring little to the table'?
Just change your name again and move on.
Yes, she is an impressive person but her skill set is not what is needed in this case. This she brings little to the table other that a “star power” name.
-
Don’t let a bunch of phony bleeding heart liberals intimidate you.
Tex is right, Heisy. After all, we know there are "some very fine people" on your side too.
-
Hi guys was able to get some wifi in a friends office here in my home town. Signal is intermittent, but it'll do. Glad to see scoop has not changed ;D
-
Hi guys was able to get some wifi in a friends office here in my home town. Signal is intermittent, but it'll do. Glad to see scoop has not changed ;D
This is what happens when you have too much electricity. After the initial economic shock, it would probably do some good for society if power grids started going down for a couple days throughout the rest of the country.
-
This is what happens when you have too much electricity. After the initial economic shock, it would probably do some good for society if power grids started going down for a couple days throughout the rest of the country.
You can't stop Scoop, silly man, you can only hope to contain it.
(https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/2015/indoorcandle.gif)
-
David Robinson has one son playing basketball at duke and another who played football at ND (also student body president). He's probably in tune with college athletics than 95% of the population.
-
David Robinson has one son playing basketball at duke and another who played football at ND (also student body president). He's probably in tune with college athletics than 95% of the population.
The problem with this committee is they are going to preserve the status quo. Paper over the broken system that has huge conflicts of interests. Schools make tons of money off players but cannot pay them. The incentives are all wrong and will be after this committee issues its useless zillion page report. (He's a life lesson ... anytime a committee brags how many hours they worked and how man pages their final report is, assume it is worthless and not worth your time to read.)
Now if the committee was truly interested in reforming the system, they would have picked:
* Jay Bilas instead of Mike Montgomery. (This committee is diminished because it did not include Bilas. He should be heading it, not Condi.)
* Ed O'Bannon instead of David Robinson.
* Larry Brown instead of JT3
* If you're going to include crime bosses like Gene Smith and Jeremy Foley, then take Sonny Vaccaro. At least Sonny will enlighten them as to how things really work.
* Mike Emmert's inclusion diminishes the committee. (He will defend the NCAA system that he heads. Does the police chief investigate why his police department failed at something?)
* Cain Kolter and Mark Cuban would have been solid choices. Is World Wide Wes going too far?
All of the above would have recommended serious reform of this system. That is why they are nowhere to be seen on this list.
-
good topic, very informative, pertinent to modern day college athletics and something i wouldn't have known about unless it popped up here.
then classic scoop kicked in-heisy is forced to defend himself from being labeled the "R" word right out of the box, is attacked because of who he is, and we have to fear the lockdown- i'm not sure if it is some here being purposely provocative or some here really think we have secret white hoods posting here-seriously? we are a little better than this
-
good topic, very informative, pertinent to modern day college athletics and something i wouldn't have known about unless it popped up here.
then classic scoop kicked in-heisy is forced to defend himself from being labeled the "R" word right out of the box, is attacked because of who he is, and we have to fear the lockdown- i'm not sure if it is some here being purposely provocative or some here really think we have secret white hoods posting here-seriously? we are a little better than this
That's not exactly what happened. Heisy did something. Someone (who I believe leans right but I could be wrong) pointed out what he did and made sure to say that he didn't think heisy was the "r word" as you put it. No defense was required. All he had to say was "whoops funny coincidence didn't mean anything by it". If anyone took it further, than they would be the jerk.
And that is as far down this rabbit hole as I care to go.
-
The problem with this committee is they are going to preserve the status quo. Paper over the broken system that has huge conflicts of interests. Schools make tons of money off players but cannot pay them. The incentives are all wrong and will be after this committee issues its useless zillion page report. (He's a life lesson ... anytime a committee brags how many hours they worked and how man pages their final report is, assume it is worthless and not worth your time to read.)
Now if the committee was truly interested in reforming the system, they would have picked:
* Jay Bilas instead of Mike Montgomery. (This committee is diminished because it did not include Bilas. He should be heading it, not Condi.)
* Ed O'Bannon instead of David Robinson.
* Larry Brown instead of JT3
* If you're going to include crime bosses like Gene Smith and Jeremy Foley, then take Sonny Vaccaro. At least Sonny will enlighten them as to how things really work.
* Mike Emmert's inclusion diminishes the committee. (He will defend the NCAA system that he heads. Does the police chief investigate why his police department failed at something?)
* Cain Kolter and Mark Cuban would have been solid choices. Is World Wide Wes going too far?
All of the above would have recommended serious reform of this system. That is why they are nowhere to be seen on this list.
The named players on committees are all figure heads. The staff does the actual advisory work. The recommendations, are as you point, are mostly worthless because people have their own agendas to tend to. Nonetheless, if we could get an NBA age limit of 21 recommendation out of the committee and the NBA and Their Union to go along with it , that would be a good thing. It would keep more good players in college basketball and directly benefit the weaker programs in college basketball at every level by spreading the talent.
-
The named players on committees are all figure heads. The staff does the actual advisory work. The recommendations, are as you point, are mostly worthless because people have their own agendas to tend to. Nonetheless, if we could get an NBA age limit of 21 recommendation out of the committee and the NBA and Their Union to go along with it , that would be a good thing. It would keep more good players in college basketball and directly benefit the weaker programs in college basketball at every level by spreading the talent.
Yes the members are figureheads but they represent an agenda/ideology. The current committee represents no change and some cosmetic tweaks. It is a wasted opportunity to fix the broken system.
Cuban, again who is not on the committee, would push for 21 as he has said it many times (he does want to pay 1st rounders not ready). If they wanted that, Cuban would be on the committee. Since he is not, don’t expect it to happen.
O’bannon and Bilas would push for payment or a larger stipend to players. Since neither is on the committee, that idea is not happening.
Smith and Foley I do not trust. They have headed criminal organizations that have broken every rule in the book. Look for them to say NCAA violations will mean harsher penalties for players and less for schools.
So Smith hires Holtzmann and when he wins the B1G (and Smith gets a six figure bonus, yes that is how his contract is written), and we learn boosters are paying players at tOSU, Smith would argue the banner stays up, he keeps his bonus, and the booster and the kid are crushed. To repeat, a kid who comes from a single family and takes money for his Mom who is in a project on Welfare is the Bad person and punished. But don’t you touch that banner or Smith’s bonus.
As I said before Emmert is a useless bag of chemicals and only cares about Emmert. He’ll argue he needs more money, including a raise for himself. Emmert thinks the problem is he is underpaid.
-
In 2014 Gene Smith was paid $18,000 as a bonus because an Ohio State wrestler won the NCAA championship. But if an Ohio State booster bought that kid a pizza, he would have been ineligible and Smith would have punished him. Remember this the next time this scumbag Smith argues their is not enough money to pay players.
Smith is the guy that is going to fix college basketball? No, he’s the freaking problem!!!
—�—�—�—�—�—�
Ohio State AD Gene Smith's $18,000 bonus for Logan Stieber's NCAA wrestling title doesn't seem to go over very well
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/2014/03/ohio_state_ad_gene_smiths_1800.html
When Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith received a contract extension in January, we were the first to get the details and point out a bonus that had already been in place in previous contracts.
It's a detail, in an era where the discussion of paying college athletes is more and more of a topic, that doesn't seem to be going over so well.
Smith receives a bonus every time Ohio State wins a national title in sports.
...
But this is the one that seems to grind people - he gets a week of bonus pay for an individual national title by an athlete. That's more than $18,000. So when Logan Stieber won his third NCAA wrestling title on Sunday, Smith's bonus kicked in.
-
Read this statement and how can you not conclude this committee is really about protecting Mark Emmert’s Job and even getting him a raise.
(If one-and-done is a focus then put Calipari on it, or at least Cuban)
— — — — — —
https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.cleveland.com/osu/2017/10/ohio_state_ad_gene_smith_named.amp
In the statement released Tuesday, Emmert said the commission will focus on three areas:
1. The relationship of the NCAA national office, member institutions, student-athletes and coaches with outside entities, including: Apparel companies and other commercial entities, to establish an environment where they can support programs in a transparent way, but not become an inappropriate or distorting influence on the game, recruits or their families.
* Nonscholastic basketball, with a focus on the appropriate involvement of college coaches and others.
* Agents or advisors, with an emphasis on how students and their families can get legitimate advice without being taken advantage of, defrauded or risk their NCAA eligibility.
2. The NCAA's relationship with the NBA, and the challenging effect the NBA's so-called "one and done" rule has had on college basketball, including how the NCAA can change its own eligibility rules to address that dynamic.
3. Creating the right relationship between the universities and colleges of the NCAA and its national office to promote transparency and accountability. The commission will be asked to evaluate whether the appropriate degree of authority is vested in the current enforcement and eligibility processes, and whether the collaborative model provides the investigative tools, cultural incentives and structures to ensure exploitation and corruption cannot hide in college sports.
The commission will begin working in November, and deliver any recommendations on policy changes to the boards in April.
"We need to do right by student-athletes," Emmert said. "I believe we can -- and we must -- find a way to protect the integrity of college sports by addressing both sides of the coin: fairness and opportunity for college athletes, coupled with the enforcement capability to hold accountable those who undermine the standards of our community."
-
The problem with this committee is they are going to preserve the status quo. Paper over the broken system that has huge conflicts of interests. Schools make tons of money off players but cannot pay them. The incentives are all wrong and will be after this committee issues its useless zillion page report. (He's a life lesson ... anytime a committee brags how many hours they worked and how man pages their final report is, assume it is worthless and not worth your time to read.)
Now if the committee was truly interested in reforming the system, they would have picked:
* Jay Bilas instead of Mike Montgomery. (This committee is diminished because it did not include Bilas. He should be heading it, not Condi.)
* Ed O'Bannon instead of David Robinson.
* Larry Brown instead of JT3
* If you're going to include crime bosses like Gene Smith and Jeremy Foley, then take Sonny Vaccaro. At least Sonny will enlighten them as to how things really work.
* Mike Emmert's inclusion diminishes the committee. (He will defend the NCAA system that he heads. Does the police chief investigate why his police department failed at something?)
* Cain Kolter and Mark Cuban would have been solid choices. Is World Wide Wes going too far?
All of the above would have recommended serious reform of this system. That is why they are nowhere to be seen on this list.
Ed O'Bannon? Give me a break. The guy had his hand out at UCLA and ever since.
Condi Rice led Stanford University, she understands college athletics and how to do it right. She should stay.
David Robinson, stay.
Mark Cuban, not a chance.
Jay Bilas, an interesting one but he never articulates his full position on these things. He can't wait to compensate basketball and football players, but refuses to answer the questions on what to do with the Title IX, non revenue sports, as if they don't exist. For a lawyer, he dodges the real questions to have some populist opinion. Heading the committee? Puuuhhhhlease. Put him on there, fine, but he needs to have a balanced look on how to deal with everything. You can't make decisions in a vacuum this comes to a grinding halt.
Mark Emmert, led the University of Washington. NCAA President. Yes, you need him on the committee. This committee isn't to investigate the NCAA, it's about what may be of a benefit in terms of reforms. The worst thing you can do is bring in a bunch of people (as companies often do) from the outside that make recommendations with no understanding at all on the ramifications. Good to have some checks and balances, including internal people.
Schools do not make a ton of money off players. That is just wrong on the merits and the facts. Show me the tons of money schools are making off women's basketball, volleyball, soccer, track, field hockey and the list that goes on forever?
Larry Brown? One too many last night?
-
What's missing from the committee is Adam Silver. Many of the issues with college basketball are because of the NBA. One leads to the other. Put several members of the NBA PA, too. Chris Paul, Steph Curry. You want an owner, that's fine, but not Cuban. Peter Holt, Paul Allen, Clay Bennett.
Until they tie the CBA of the NBA properly into eligibility issues with the NCAA, there will be some difficult problems.
-
What is missing from this rubber stamp committee is football representation.
-
Markie Cuban is too busy runnin’ for POTUS, hey?
-
Ed O'Bannon? Give me a break. The guy had his hand out at UCLA and ever since.
Not sure what this means
Condi Rice led Stanford University, she understands college athletics and how to do it right. She should stay.
This could be interpreted as the schools profiting off the "student-athlete." Some think this is precisely the problem while you say it is "do it the right way."
David Robinson, stay.
Why? Because he played D1 and has kids that play D1? About 300,000 people have this qualification.
Mark Cuban, not a chance.
Why not?
Jay Bilas, an interesting one but he never articulates his full position on these things. He can't wait to compensate basketball and football players, but refuses to answer the questions on what to do with the Title IX, non revenue sports, as if they don't exist. For a lawyer, he dodges the real questions to have some populist opinion. Heading the committee? Puuuhhhhlease. Put him on there, fine, but he needs to have a balanced look on how to deal with everything. You can't make decisions in a vacuum this comes to a grinding halt.
Bilas has articulated a position. You expect him to publish white papers and full-blown analysis on this idea. Instead, put him on a committee with resources to fully flesh it out ... unless they don't want this conclusion.
Mark Emmert, led the University of Washington. NCAA President. Yes, you need him on the committee. This committee isn't to investigate the NCAA, it's about what may be of a benefit in terms of reforms. The worst thing you can do is bring in a bunch of people (as companies often do) from the outside that make recommendations with no understanding at all on the ramifications. Good to have some checks and balances, including internal people.
Poor argument, Emmert is on the committee to protect Emmert, not basketball.
Schools do not make a ton of money off players. That is just wrong on the merits and the facts. Show me the tons of money schools are making off women's basketball, volleyball, soccer, track, field hockey and the list that goes on forever?
See Gene Smith above, he made $18k off a Wrestling championship. In total, he made $54k off Logan Stieber's three NCAA championships at tOSU. Somehow Smith's wife gets a new BMW off Steiber's achievements but then we plead poor to giving Stieber money. And I have not gotten into the arms race of facilities where these schools spend hundreds of millions on them.
There are craploads of money in college sports, they just don't want to pay the students. Not paying college athletes in the most inequitable thing in sports.
Larry Brown? One too many last night?
I said Brown instead of JT3 ... the very definition of a coach bought and paid for by a shoe contract. His freaking father invented the idea!!
-
Larry Brown? You mean the guy who had sanctions levied at EVERY collegiate coaching stop he ever had? The guy who had a Final Four vacated at UCLA? The guy who left Kansas right before they were given a NCAA Tournament ban? The guy who had to sit out games, suffer a postseason ban, and three years of probation at SMU?
I suppose no one knows more about cheating than Larry Brown, so he could probably give them a better expert opinion than literally anyone on the planet, but if you want to clean the sport up, I'm not sure you pick the sport's best example of festering pustule sewage to push the mop.
-
Larry Brown? You mean the guy who had sanctions levied at EVERY collegiate coaching stop he ever had? The guy who had a Final Four vacated at UCLA? The guy who left Kansas right before they were given a NCAA Tournament ban? The guy who had to sit out games, suffer a postseason ban, and three years of probation at SMU?
I suppose no one knows more about cheating than Larry Brown, so he could probably give them a better expert opinion than literally anyone on the planet, but if you want to clean the sport up, I'm not sure you pick the sport's best example of festering pustule sewage to push the mop.
Ok fair enough ... but the problem is most coaches are tainted ... sneaker money is the root of this scandal and JT3 takes sneaker money. He's just as conflicted.
Maybe they should have taken The Tanned One. 18 years without a hint of dirty dealings.
-
I don't understand how getting free tuition, room & board, etc. is not already the equivalent of getting paid? Because I sure would have left MU with a lot less debt if I had those things paid for. I just don't understand the position that student athletes don't get anything. Is a free education nothing?
-
Ed O'Bannon? Give me a break. The guy had his hand out at UCLA and ever since.
Not sure what this means
Condi Rice led Stanford University, she understands college athletics and how to do it right. She should stay.
This could be interpreted as the schools profiting off the "student-athlete." Some think this is precisely the problem while you say it is "do it the right way."
David Robinson, stay.
Why? Because he played D1 and has kids that play D1? About 300,000 people have this qualification.
Mark Cuban, not a chance.
Why not?
Jay Bilas, an interesting one but he never articulates his full position on these things. He can't wait to compensate basketball and football players, but refuses to answer the questions on what to do with the Title IX, non revenue sports, as if they don't exist. For a lawyer, he dodges the real questions to have some populist opinion. Heading the committee? Puuuhhhhlease. Put him on there, fine, but he needs to have a balanced look on how to deal with everything. You can't make decisions in a vacuum this comes to a grinding halt.
Bilas has articulated a position. You expect him to publish white papers and full-blown analysis on this idea. Instead, put him on a committee with resources to fully flesh it out ... unless they don't want this conclusion.
Mark Emmert, led the University of Washington. NCAA President. Yes, you need him on the committee. This committee isn't to investigate the NCAA, it's about what may be of a benefit in terms of reforms. The worst thing you can do is bring in a bunch of people (as companies often do) from the outside that make recommendations with no understanding at all on the ramifications. Good to have some checks and balances, including internal people.
Poor argument, Emmert is on the committee to protect Emmert, not basketball.
Schools do not make a ton of money off players. That is just wrong on the merits and the facts. Show me the tons of money schools are making off women's basketball, volleyball, soccer, track, field hockey and the list that goes on forever?
See Gene Smith above, he made $18k off a Wrestling championship. In total, he made $54k off Logan Stieber's three NCAA championships at tOSU. Somehow Smith's wife gets a new BMW off Steiber's achievements but then we plead poor to giving Stieber money. And I have not gotten into the arms race of facilities where these schools spend hundreds of millions on them.
There are craploads of money in college sports, they just don't want to pay the students. Not paying college athletes in the most inequitable thing in sports.
Larry Brown? One too many last night?
I said Brown instead of JT3 ... the very definition of a coach bought and paid for by a shoe contract. His freaking father invented the idea!!
There are 300,000 people that played D1 and have kids that played D1?
-
I don't understand how getting free tuition, room & board, etc. is not already the equivalent of getting paid? Because I sure would have left MU with a lot less debt if I had those things paid for. I just don't understand the position that student athletes don't get anything. Is a free education nothing?
Would you have produced large revenues for the school?
-
Would you have produced large revenues for the school?
I'm not suggesting that I should have been paid. I'm stating that student athletes who receive a full scholarship are getting paid. Tuition costs money. Room & board costs money. The Whole Foods meals they get to eat cost money, and the list goes on and on. These are all things that your average MU student, like I was, has to pay for that they don't have to.
Would it be clearer if instead of giving them a scholarship, we added up the cost of everything that they get for free, and cut them a big check each year and made them pay for everything out of pocket? It's the same dollar amount either way.
Add it up and by the time they graduate, they have received incentives for being a student athlete that likely trickle well into six figures that regular students have to pay for, often continuing for many years after graduation.
My point is, that anyone who wants to argue for student athletes to be paid needs to first acknowledge that they are getting paid, and that they must be arguing for additional payment for them beyond what is already received. In other words, Nigel Hayes can suck it.
-
I'm not suggesting that I should have been paid. I'm stating that student athletes who receive a full scholarship are getting paid. Tuition costs money. Room & board costs money. The Whole Foods meals they get to eat cost money, and the list goes on and on. These are all things that your average MU student, like I was, has to pay for that they don't have to.
Would it be clearer if instead of giving them a scholarship, we added up the cost of everything that they get for free, and cut them a big check each year and made them pay for everything out of pocket? It's the same dollar amount either way.
Add it up and by the time they graduate, they have received incentives for being a student athlete that likely trickle well into six figures that regular students have to pay for, often continuing for many years after graduation.
My point is, that anyone who wants to argue for student athletes to be paid needs to first acknowledge that they are getting paid, and that they must be arguing for additional payment for them beyond what is already received. In other words, Nigel Hayes can suck it.
Paying every athlete the same (free tuition) is the problem, that is not how life works. Those that complain that "everyone gets a trophy" should understand this.
So first let's acknowledge that 80% to 90% of all athletes in all sports are well paid with free tuition and value that. The problem is the 10% to 20% that matter is worth more than free tuition. And the top 1% to 5% do not value the free tuition and view it as a hindrance to their training for a future professional career. So those are the athletes that need to be paid.
And without them, a program is greatly diminished. So, let school find the right value for players by paying them. When that happens, most of the problems college athletics have will go away.
It is because we don't pay everyone their worth that college athletics are such a mess.
-
Glad to see identity politics is alive and well here. Keep it up and the 22nd amendment will be suspended so Trump can be the permanent President.
But if counting Black v White is how you measure things, and Benny you worry me, then here ...
Mark Emmert is nothing but a useless bags of chemicals. Why is he even allowed to take in oxygen
Jenkins is there to be the Holy than thou looking down on everyone condescendingly
Kathryn Ruemmier is the worst kind of person in the world, one of those "swamp" creatures that infect Washington. Here resume alone should make one vomit.
Foley, another person that can tell everyone "back in the day" stories about how the Gators arranged bags of cash for players. Is he qualified because Florida leads all D1 sports in the number of arrests every year?
Coleman .... why???
Peterson .... why???
Oh, and for the record ...
* I think Condi is great and would vote for her if she ran for President. This ceremonial do nothing committee is behenate her.
* Hill and Robinson bring too little to the table because a high PPG average or a long NBA career does not make you qualified to fixed the cheating and paying of players in college basketball. Good people on the wrong committee picked for name value, not the ability to solve this problem.
* I offer no more explanation for my comments about Smith and JTIII. The sooner Smith is in prison the sooner college sports are better off. You can take this to the Tatoo parlor!!
I know only what most do about this list of saviors, but the one I've been in close contact with makes me believe there is more to each than meets the eye.
David Robinson? Qualified ACADEMICALLY for the Naval Academy. Was pulled out to play ball since at 6'8" was the tallest kid in the class of '87. Majored im Mathmatics or Computer Science (the otherr was a minor). The gentleman is flat out intelligent, and if he wasn't a ball player, would have gone on to be a Nuclear engineer (had a high GPA). One of the first thing they learn at the Academy is 'Midshipmen do not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate others that do.'
I recognize a lot of people on this list are probably there to encourage this problem to go away, but David Robinson is about as strong a character guy as you will find.
-
I know only what most do about this list of saviors, but the one I've been in close contact with makes me believe there is more to each than meets the eye.
David Robinson? Qualified ACADEMICALLY for the Naval Academy. Was pulled out to play ball since at 6'8" was the tallest kid in the class of '87. Majored im Mathmatics or Computer Science (the otherr was a minor). The gentleman is flat out intelligent, and if he wasn't a ball player, would have gone on to be a Nuclear engineer (had a high GPA). One of the first thing they learn at the Academy is 'Midshipmen do not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate others that do.'
I recognize a lot of people on this list are probably there to encourage this problem to go away, but David Robinson is about as strong a character guy as you will find.
Here is a summary of the tasks that the committee are directed to deal with. Robinson' qualifications, as you list them above, suggest he has no more insight or knowledge about these issues than any regular poster here ...
------------------
1. The relationship of the NCAA national office, member institutions, student-athletes and coaches with outside entities, including: Apparel companies and other commercial entities, to establish an environment where they can support programs in a transparent way, but not become an inappropriate or distorting influence on the game, recruits or their families.
* Nonscholastic basketball, with a focus on the appropriate involvement of college coaches and others.
* Agents or advisors, with an emphasis on how students and their families can get legitimate advice without being taken advantage of, defrauded or risk their NCAA eligibility.
2. The NCAA's relationship with the NBA, and the challenging effect the NBA's so-called "one and done" rule has had on college basketball, including how the NCAA can change its own eligibility rules to address that dynamic.
3. Creating the right relationship between the universities and colleges of the NCAA and its national office to promote transparency and accountability. The commission will be asked to evaluate whether the appropriate degree of authority is vested in the current enforcement and eligibility processes, and whether the collaborative model provides the investigative tools, cultural incentives and structures to ensure exploitation and corruption cannot hide in college sports.
------------------
Robinson is a bright and highly successful person. Here is a role model. But he probably has not thought about sneaker money in basketball for more than three seconds until he was named to this committee. Your qualifications make that clear.
So, what do highly educated successful people like him and Condi do? They agree with the consensus. What is the consensus? The people that have thought about sneaker money in basketball like Foley, Smith JT3 and Emmert. Their point of view will prevail. That is it stays with some BS transparency rules.
None of them are going to suggest a radical change like a Bilas, O'Bannon or Cuban might. Robinson certainly is not. So nothing of substance will come of it.
You watch, Condi will hold a presser in April and brag about the hundreds of hours the committee spend investigating these issues (meaning getting them to a MUscoop poster understanding of the issue), the thousands of pages of documents to review (that Smith an Emmert told them to read to understand the issue from their point of view) and the length of the report. These are codes words for nothing will change and everyone's time was wasted.
-
I'm glad Heisy is around to tell exactly how everyone thinks. His telepathy is a true gift!
-
Here is a summary of the tasks that the committee are directed to deal with. Robinson' qualifications, as you list them above, suggest he has no more insight or knowledge about these issues than any regular poster here ...
------------------
1. The relationship of the NCAA national office, member institutions, student-athletes and coaches with outside entities, including: Apparel companies and other commercial entities, to establish an environment where they can support programs in a transparent way, but not become an inappropriate or distorting influence on the game, recruits or their families.
* Nonscholastic basketball, with a focus on the appropriate involvement of college coaches and others.
* Agents or advisors, with an emphasis on how students and their families can get legitimate advice without being taken advantage of, defrauded or risk their NCAA eligibility.
2. The NCAA's relationship with the NBA, and the challenging effect the NBA's so-called "one and done" rule has had on college basketball, including how the NCAA can change its own eligibility rules to address that dynamic.
3. Creating the right relationship between the universities and colleges of the NCAA and its national office to promote transparency and accountability. The commission will be asked to evaluate whether the appropriate degree of authority is vested in the current enforcement and eligibility processes, and whether the collaborative model provides the investigative tools, cultural incentives and structures to ensure exploitation and corruption cannot hide in college sports.
------------------
Robinson is a bright and highly successful person. Here is a role model. But he probably has not thought about sneaker money in basketball for more than three seconds until he was named to this committee. Your qualifications make that clear.
So, what do highly educated successful people like him and Condi do? They agree with the consensus. What is the consensus? The people that have thought about sneaker money in basketball like Foley, Smith JT3 and Emmert. Their point of view will prevail. That is it stays with some BS transparency rules.
None of them are going to suggest a radical change like a Bilas, O'Bannon or Cuban might. Robinson certainly is not. So nothing of substance will come of it.
You watch, Condi will hold a presser in April and brag about the hundreds of hours the committee spend investigating these issues (meaning getting them to a MUscoop poster understanding of the issue), the thousands of pages of documents to review (that Smith an Emmert told them to read to understand the issue from their point of view) and the length of the report. These are codes words for nothing will change and everyone's time was wasted.
David Robinson had a shoe deal with Nike when he was in the NBA. He had his own shoe. I'm sure he knows plenty about shoe deals, more than 99% of the general public. Sorry I keep defending him, but he was my favorite player growing up.
-
There are 300,000 people that played D1 and have kids that played D1?
Actually the number is 400,000. The NCAA has an entire advertising campaign about this statistics.
To the nearly 400,000 student-athletes who will go pro in something other than sports, I say: Congratulations! Just don't get too fat. No one will believe that you once played sports, and you will have pretty much wasted the last four years of your lives.
http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story/_/page/gallo%2F110517_NCAA_commencement
So that is 800,000 parents on top of the 400,000 D1 alumni that have played sports. But the top of that heap is David Robinson?
Ed O'Bannon played? He won a NCAA championship. His son plays too. Why not him?
Becuase O'Bannon actually has an opinion on the subject of money in college basketball. He wants players to make money off their likeness. Smith and Emmert do not because they want the money for themselves (in the case of Smith for his bonus every time a student-athlete wins a championship at tOSU). Robinson will go along with whatever Smith and Emmert want him to go along with. And that is not O'Bannon's ideas.
-
I'm glad Heisy is around to tell exactly how everyone thinks. His telepathy is a true gift!
I'm glad scoopers are around to say the way that we can fix college basket is getting a guy that majored in Mathematics 30 years ago at the naval academy that has never publically utter an opinion about sneaker money or one-and-done.
Some people want to dazzled by big names and little reform.
David Robinson had a shoe deal with Nike when he was in the NBA. He had his own shoe. I'm sure he knows plenty about shoe deals, more than 99% of the general public. Sorry I keep defending him, but he was my favorite player growing up.
So did O'Bannon.
I'm not saying anything bad about Robinson. He truly is a role model, and so are his kids. You too are getting sucked into star power where actual opinion and knowledge is needed. On this front, Robinson is not the right guy.
College basketball has some epic problems that are going to require serious reform. Is Robinson going to say ...
"I know that Smith, Foley, Emmert and JT3 have lived this life their professional career, with these issues, and I have only studied it six months, while also trying to run my other businesses at the same time. but I think they are wrong on their conclusions and serious reform is needed. So I propose here is what we should do to fix college basketball?"
The answer is of course not. O'Bannon, Cuban and Bilas would stand up to the crimes bosses on the committee that are part of the problem.
* Someone needs to tell Gene Smith that his pay compensation is an abomination to the very ideals of college sports.
*Someone needs to tell Foley that the hundreds of athletes arrested at Florida when he ran their AD are a poor reflection on the NCAA. It makes a mockery of the idea of a "student-athlete" as Florida is all about winning at any cost.
* Someone needs to tell Emmert that their inability to punish bad actors, including North Carolina the week the committee was formed, gives incentives to cheat because you can get away with it.
* Someone needs to tell JT3 and his father are the root of the problem for taking sneaker money when coaching at Georgetown.
Robinson (and Grant Hill) will not do this and will agree with whatever face-saving BS the crime bosses come up with.
-
Paying every athlete the same (free tuition) is the problem, that is not how life works. Those that complain that "everyone gets a trophy" should understand this.
So first let's acknowledge that 80% to 90% of all athletes in all sports are well paid with free tuition and value that. The problem is the 10% to 20% that matter is worth more than free tuition. And the top 1% to 5% do not value the free tuition and view it as a hindrance to their training for a future professional career. So those are the athletes that need to be paid.
And without them, a program is greatly diminished. So, let school find the right value for players by paying them. When that happens, most of the problems college athletics have will go away.
It is because we don't pay everyone their worth that college athletics are such a mess.
So in this hypothetical, where would you draw that line for who gets paid and who doesn't? Is it by sport? Is it by athlete? How are you defining the 10% to 20% "that matter?"
-
So in this hypothetical, where would you draw that line for who gets paid and who doesn't? Is it by sport? Is it by athlete? How are you defining the 10% to 20% "that matter?"
This is the easiest part. You give each sport a budget, based on how important that sport is to the school, and then you let the coach decide how to allocate the resources. This is exactly how it works now. The resource now is scholarship and the coach decides who to allocate it too to produce the best possible product. Now we will give them some funds for "payment."
So, yes you could decide that Women's Volleyball only gets a scholarship and no "payment" and then while allocating a lot of money for "payment" to Men's Basketball.
Bilas has argued this going as far as saying if you pay a kid (like Lousiville did with Bowen) that he signs a contract. That kid is responsible for paying taxes, maintaining a minimum GPA, staying a certain number of years (no early jumping into the draft unless the team drafting you wants to buy out the school's contract)a moral clause, etc. Should they violate any of these, they forfeit some of their payment. Want to be treated like a professional, then you get all of it.
Like I said 80% to 90% of the kids are well paid with a scholarship. The rest are free to get money above the table with stipulations.
What I described is how the world works. It is how everyone's job works (unless they work for the Government). It is precisely because NCAA sports do not work this way which is at the root of all their issues.
-------------
The unknown is Title IX. That does not cover payment because it was not considered when the law was written. This rule change could not violate it ... the football team gets better resources than the Women's field hockey team. No one argues that equal resources need to spent, just equal number of scholarships.
-
Ed O'Bannon? Give me a break. The guy had his hand out at UCLA and ever since.
Not sure what this means
Condi Rice led Stanford University, she understands college athletics and how to do it right. She should stay.
This could be interpreted as the schools profiting off the "student-athlete." Some think this is precisely the problem while you say it is "do it the right way."
David Robinson, stay.
Why? Because he played D1 and has kids that play D1? About 300,000 people have this qualification.
Mark Cuban, not a chance.
Why not?
Jay Bilas, an interesting one but he never articulates his full position on these things. He can't wait to compensate basketball and football players, but refuses to answer the questions on what to do with the Title IX, non revenue sports, as if they don't exist. For a lawyer, he dodges the real questions to have some populist opinion. Heading the committee? Puuuhhhhlease. Put him on there, fine, but he needs to have a balanced look on how to deal with everything. You can't make decisions in a vacuum this comes to a grinding halt.
Bilas has articulated a position. You expect him to publish white papers and full-blown analysis on this idea. Instead, put him on a committee with resources to fully flesh it out ... unless they don't want this conclusion.
Mark Emmert, led the University of Washington. NCAA President. Yes, you need him on the committee. This committee isn't to investigate the NCAA, it's about what may be of a benefit in terms of reforms. The worst thing you can do is bring in a bunch of people (as companies often do) from the outside that make recommendations with no understanding at all on the ramifications. Good to have some checks and balances, including internal people.
Poor argument, Emmert is on the committee to protect Emmert, not basketball.
Schools do not make a ton of money off players. That is just wrong on the merits and the facts. Show me the tons of money schools are making off women's basketball, volleyball, soccer, track, field hockey and the list that goes on forever?
See Gene Smith above, he made $18k off a Wrestling championship. In total, he made $54k off Logan Stieber's three NCAA championships at tOSU. Somehow Smith's wife gets a new BMW off Steiber's achievements but then we plead poor to giving Stieber money. And I have not gotten into the arms race of facilities where these schools spend hundreds of millions on them.
There are craploads of money in college sports, they just don't want to pay the students. Not paying college athletes in the most inequitable thing in sports.
Larry Brown? One too many last night?
I said Brown instead of JT3 ... the very definition of a coach bought and paid for by a shoe contract. His freaking father invented the idea!!
It means Ed O'Bannon is never been about what is right for college basketball and was always looking for the take.
Condi Rice, tell me again how schools are profiteering from student athletes when almost no schools profits from athletics? Furthermore, tell me how schools profit from women's hoops, field hockey, volleyball, men's track? Or go further and see Stanford attendance when they were good and bad. Yes, attendance somewhat better when good, but it's not as if no one showed up when they were bad. People come to watch Stanford, not necessarily who the QB or running back is.
David Robinson, NAVAL Academy. Do you realize how hard that is to get in? He did, and flourished. Long NBA career. Man of character. Yes, two kids also in college athletics. Show me 300,000 people with his character, played in the NBA, got into a school like Navy on academic merit, and has two DI kids? How about maybe there are 10 people in the world that can make that claim.
Mark Cuban, you just wait to see the fun stuff that comes out on him if he runs for POTUS.
Emmert is doing what the university Presidents asked him to do. He could leave the NCAA tomorrow and make more money doing something else with a lot less headaches.
Bilas needs to articulate the entire position, not just a soundbyte. His stances come across as not even acknowledging the other 700000 student athletes, as if they don't exist.
Gene Smith, that's how his contract was written. Maybe he donated the money to charity, who knows. As an AD he is tasked with creating a program that can succeed and if they do succeed, he is rewarded. He has to create that environment by hiring the right coaches, having the right facilities in place, the support system (tutors, etc).
Money in college athletics. Go read the NCAA balance sheet and come back to me. That crap ton of money you talk about, where does it go? Educate yourself.
Larry Brown. Yes, Larry Brown. Hard to take you seriously when Larry Brown made your list for anything.
-
Would you have produced large revenues for the school?
Does one player produce large revenues for the school? No. It's an inane argument. Did you buy your season tickets because of Markus Howard? Because of Joey Hauser? They are here today, gone tomorrow. People buy tickets to see Marquette play.
-
Paying every athlete the same (free tuition) is the problem, that is not how life works. Those that complain that "everyone gets a trophy" should understand this.
So first let's acknowledge that 80% to 90% of all athletes in all sports are well paid with free tuition and value that. The problem is the 10% to 20% that matter is worth more than free tuition. And the top 1% to 5% do not value the free tuition and view it as a hindrance to their training for a future professional career. So those are the athletes that need to be paid.
And without them, a program is greatly diminished. So, let school find the right value for players by paying them. When that happens, most of the problems college athletics have will go away.
It is because we don't pay everyone their worth that college athletics are such a mess.
You are not wrong, but it's also what allows hundreds of thousands of men, women, minorities the chance to participate. If these elite players don't think they are getting their just dues, then go somewhere else. You want to force a model to benefit the few when that is not how the model was created or flourishes.
You really think college athletics is a mess because some players are not paid their worth? And your solution is by paying the QB more, this will make things better? Have you really thought this through? What happens when the QB breaks his leg and the third stringer has to come in and saves the game? Are we pulling the money from the starting QB and giving it to the third stringer? There are 1000's of scenarios you haven't taken one second to contemplate. The abuse of the system will destroy college athletics. In the process, men and women, many of color, will have no opportunities at all because we had to take care of the 1%ers.
-
Does one player produce large revenues for the school? No. It's an inane argument. Did you buy your season tickets because of Markus Howard? Because of Joey Hauser? They are here today, gone tomorrow. People buy tickets to see Marquette play.
So you honestly think no one bought tickets or tuned in because MU signed Henry Ellenson?
Howard's season that propelled MU to the tournament had no bearing on interest in the team?
Why does everyone understand sports economics for pros and suddenly go brain dead when it comes to college?
-
It means Ed O'Bannon is never been about what is right for college basketball and was always looking for the take.
This is your opinion about what is right for college athletics. And yes, many hold this view. But elite players (the top 10% to 20%) often do not. That is why they choose schools based on mostly non-academic reasons (the coach, potential for winning, playing time, TV exposure, and, yes, how much money they get under the table.)
When was the last time a MU basketball recruit said the business school or engineering school factored into their decision? When was the last time a MU basketball players graduated from one of these programs (not counting walk-ons)?
Condi Rice, tell me again how schools are profiteering from student athletes when almost no schools profits from athletics? Furthermore, tell me how schools profit from women's hoops, field hockey, volleyball, men's track? Or go further and see Stanford attendance when they were good and bad. Yes, attendance somewhat better when good, but it's not as if no one showed up when they were bad. People come to watch Stanford, not necessarily who the QB or running back is.
tOSU Board of Trustees, why does AD Gene Smith get $18,000 everytime a non-revenue athlete wins an NCAA championship? I was told there is no more in college sports.
Northwestern Board of Trustees, what are you spending $200 million on athletic facilities that will open next year and arguably be one of the best practice facilities in all college sports? Why are you spending this kind of money when there is no money in college sports?
Can we please stop with the canard that no money exists in college sports? There is, we just elect to spend it elsewhere (AD bonuses and facilities) and then plead poor.
David Robinson, NAVAL Academy. Do you realize how hard that is to get in? He did, and flourished. Long NBA career. Man of character. Yes, two kids also in college athletics. Show me 300,000 people with his character, played in the NBA, got into a school like Navy on academic merit, and has two DI kids? How about maybe there are 10 people in the world that can make that claim.
No argument about Robinson but, again, the character is not the qualification for this committee. It about recognizing the problem and offering difficult solutions. He will not do this. Ditto Condi, Ditto Grant Hill, Ditto that worthless scumbag Washington Lawyer.
Mark Cuban, you just wait to see the fun stuff that comes out on him if he runs for POTUS.
Cuban's day job makes him one of the most qualified people in the country to advise on one-and-done college basketball players. He also has strong opinions about it (he does not like it).
This committee will start meeting in November and offer its conclusions in April. It finishes over a year before Cuban has to make a decision about running for POTUS. He has the time and motivation to do it.
Emmert is doing what the university Presidents asked him to do. He could leave the NCAA tomorrow and make more money doing something else with a lot less headaches.
Puhlease. Emmert is the problem and yes chicos I know you worked with these scumbags so you feel a need to defend them.
Bilas needs to articulate the entire position, not just a sound byte. His stances come across as not even acknowledging the other 700000 student-athletes, as if they don't exist.
So Robinson can have no opinion about any of this stuff because it does not think about it and we are all supposed to gush because he got into the NAVAL academy? On the other hand, Bilas has thought about this stuff and has an opinion and his standard is a 500-page detailed analysis of it? And, no, it is not sound bytes. He has written extensively about all these issues. Try your friend google.
Fact is you don't want to pay athletes and neither does Emmert and the rest of the crime bosses. Bilas does, Cuban does, O'Bannon does and because they don't fit the conclusion you want, that is why you don't want them anywhere near this committee. This rest is a diversion. You don't want players paid and don't even want the idea discussed. This problem cannot be fixed until they are paid a market value for their skills.
Gene Smith, that's how his contract was written. Maybe he donated the money to charity, who knows. As an AD he is tasked with creating a program that can succeed and if they do succeed, he is rewarded. He has to create that environment by hiring the right coaches, having the right facilities in place, the support system (tutors, etc).
You just made the perfect argument for compensating athletes. Instead, you want the money to stay with the crime bosses.
You probably do not see what a hypocrite you are arguing this after arguing there is no money in college sports.
And stop the charity crap. He bought a BMW so he can drive to meetings to argue why athletes that paid for his car cannot get paid themself.
Money in college athletics. Go read the NCAA balance sheet and come back to me. That crap ton of money you talk about, where does it go? Educate yourself.
The NCAA does not make the money, The individual schools amke the money. You know this.
Larry Brown. Yes, Larry Brown. Hard to take you seriously when Larry Brown made your list for anything.
Hard to take you seriously when you think JT3 is acceptable.
-
So you honestly think no one bought tickets or tuned in because MU signed Henry Ellenson?
Howard's season that propelled MU to the tournament had no bearing on interest in the team?
Why does everyone understand sports economics for pros and suddenly go brain dead when it comes to college?
Some people did, but most do not. They are buying tickets to see Marquette play. If your argument held true then years in which teams were terrible there would be no fans at all. Are you honestly suggesting people don't buy tickets to watch their alma mater or the local team play regardless of success?
People bought tickets long before Howard came on the team and they will buy them when he is off the team. They want to see the team do well, but are they buying them for specific individual players, or the team to perform at a high level and be successful? In my experience, especially in college, it is the latter, not the former.
By the way, attendance went down year over year when Ellenson played for MU.
-
It means Ed O'Bannon is never been about what is right for college basketball and was always looking for the take.
This is your opinion about what is right for college athletics. And yes, many hold this view. But elite players (the top 10% to 20%) often do not. That is why they choose schools based on mostly non-academic reasons (the coach, potential for winning, playing time, TV exposure, and, yes, how much money they get under the table.)
When was the last time a MU basketball recruit said the business school or engineering school factored into their decision? When was the last time a MU basketball players graduated from one of these programs (not counting walk-ons)?
Condi Rice, tell me again how schools are profiteering from student athletes when almost no schools profits from athletics? Furthermore, tell me how schools profit from women's hoops, field hockey, volleyball, men's track? Or go further and see Stanford attendance when they were good and bad. Yes, attendance somewhat better when good, but it's not as if no one showed up when they were bad. People come to watch Stanford, not necessarily who the QB or running back is.
tOSU Board of Trustees, why does AD Gene Smith get $18,000 everytime a non-revenue athlete wins an NCAA championship? I was told there is no more in college sports.
Northwestern Board of Trustees, what are you spending $200 million on athletic facilities that will open next year and arguably be one of the best practice facilities in all college sports? Why are you spending this kind of money when there is no money in college sports?
Can we please stop with the canard that no money exists in college sports? There is, we just elect to spend it elsewhere (AD bonuses and facilities) and then plead poor.
David Robinson, NAVAL Academy. Do you realize how hard that is to get in? He did, and flourished. Long NBA career. Man of character. Yes, two kids also in college athletics. Show me 300,000 people with his character, played in the NBA, got into a school like Navy on academic merit, and has two DI kids? How about maybe there are 10 people in the world that can make that claim.
No argument about Robinson but, again, the character is not the qualification for this committee. It about recognizing the problem and offering difficult solutions. He will not do this. Ditto Condi, Ditto Grant Hill, Ditto that worthless scumbag Washington Lawyer.
Mark Cuban, you just wait to see the fun stuff that comes out on him if he runs for POTUS.
Cuban's day job makes him one of the most qualified people in the country to advise on one-and-done college basketball players. He also has strong opinions about it (he does not like it).
This committee will start meeting in November and offer its conclusions in April. It finishes over a year before Cuban has to make a decision about running for POTUS. He has the time and motivation to do it.
Emmert is doing what the university Presidents asked him to do. He could leave the NCAA tomorrow and make more money doing something else with a lot less headaches.
Puhlease. Emmert is the problem and yes chicos I know you worked with these scumbags so you feel a need to defend them.
Bilas needs to articulate the entire position, not just a sound byte. His stances come across as not even acknowledging the other 700000 student-athletes, as if they don't exist.
So Robinson can have no opinion about any of this stuff because it does not think about it and we are all supposed to gush because he got into the NAVAL academy? On the other hand, Bilas has thought about this stuff and has an opinion and his standard is a 500-page detailed analysis of it? And, no, it is not sound bytes. He has written extensively about all these issues. Try your friend google.
Fact is you don't want to pay athletes and neither does Emmert and the rest of the crime bosses. Bilas does, Cuban does, O'Bannon does and because they don't fit the conclusion you want, that is why you don't want them anywhere near this committee. This rest is a diversion. You don't want players paid and don't even want the idea discussed. This problem cannot be fixed until they are paid a market value for their skills.
Gene Smith, that's how his contract was written. Maybe he donated the money to charity, who knows. As an AD he is tasked with creating a program that can succeed and if they do succeed, he is rewarded. He has to create that environment by hiring the right coaches, having the right facilities in place, the support system (tutors, etc).
You just made the perfect argument for compensating athletes. Instead, you want the money to stay with the crime bosses.
You probably do not see what a hypocrite you are arguing this after arguing there is no money in college sports.
And stop the charity crap. He bought a BMW so he can drive to meetings to argue why athletes that paid for his car cannot get paid themself.
Money in college athletics. Go read the NCAA balance sheet and come back to me. That crap ton of money you talk about, where does it go? Educate yourself.
The NCAA does not make the money, The individual schools amke the money. You know this.
Larry Brown. Yes, Larry Brown. Hard to take you seriously when Larry Brown made your list for anything.
Hard to take you seriously when you think JT3 is acceptable.
Show me where I said JT3 is acceptable?
Crime bosses? Can there be more hyperbole with your utterances? Crime bosses? Again, really hard to take you seriously.
I want to know how you plan on paying only SOME athletes and not all 700,000 of them? How are you going to do this without totally destroying college athletics and the opportunities for men, women, many of color? That's what I want to know. Cuban, Bilas, you, no one else seems to give a damn or able to answer that question.
I see you make the same mistake so many others do about who I really am, but let the fun continue.
How many times are you going to continue to provide falsehoods about Gene Smith? That fake news you keep reading is not doing you any good. It was addressed and fixed, you should be happy. http://www.cleveland.com/osu/2015/01/ohio_state_athletic_director_g_3.html
-
You are not wrong, but it's also what allows hundreds of thousands of men, women, minorities the chance to participate. If these elite players don't think they are getting their just dues, then go somewhere else. You want to force a model to benefit the few when that is not how the model was created or flourishes.
You really think college athletics is a mess because some players are not paid their worth? And your solution is by paying the QB more, this will make things better? Have you really thought this through? What happens when the QB breaks his leg and the third stringer has to come in and saves the game? Are we pulling the money from the starting QB and giving it to the third stringer? There are 1000's of scenarios you haven't taken one second to contemplate. The abuse of the system will destroy college athletics. In the process, men and women, many of color, will have no opportunities at all because we had to take care of the 1%ers.
Ah. The American way!
-
Ah. The American way!
But that isn't the American way, so why are we trying to limit those opportunities?
-
Jiggy
Can you tell us all how you are going to pay market rate, in other words not everyone is treated equally all while handling the non-revenue sports, Title IX, etc?
If you can point me to what Jay Bilas has said on this, that would also be appreciated.
-
It means Ed O'Bannon is never been about what is right for college basketball and was always looking for the take.
This is your opinion about what is right for college athletics. And yes, many hold this view. But elite players (the top 10% to 20%) often do not. That is why they choose schools based on mostly non-academic reasons (the coach, potential for winning, playing time, TV exposure, and, yes, how much money they get under the table.)
When was the last time a MU basketball recruit said the business school or engineering school factored into their decision? When was the last time a MU basketball players graduated from one of these programs (not counting walk-ons)?
Condi Rice, tell me again how schools are profiteering from student athletes when almost no schools profits from athletics? Furthermore, tell me how schools profit from women's hoops, field hockey, volleyball, men's track? Or go further and see Stanford attendance when they were good and bad. Yes, attendance somewhat better when good, but it's not as if no one showed up when they were bad. People come to watch Stanford, not necessarily who the QB or running back is.
tOSU Board of Trustees, why does AD Gene Smith get $18,000 everytime a non-revenue athlete wins an NCAA championship? I was told there is no more in college sports.
Northwestern Board of Trustees, what are you spending $200 million on athletic facilities that will open next year and arguably be one of the best practice facilities in all college sports? Why are you spending this kind of money when there is no money in college sports?
Can we please stop with the canard that no money exists in college sports? There is, we just elect to spend it elsewhere (AD bonuses and facilities) and then plead poor.
David Robinson, NAVAL Academy. Do you realize how hard that is to get in? He did, and flourished. Long NBA career. Man of character. Yes, two kids also in college athletics. Show me 300,000 people with his character, played in the NBA, got into a school like Navy on academic merit, and has two DI kids? How about maybe there are 10 people in the world that can make that claim.
No argument about Robinson but, again, the character is not the qualification for this committee. It about recognizing the problem and offering difficult solutions. He will not do this. Ditto Condi, Ditto Grant Hill, Ditto that worthless scumbag Washington Lawyer.
Mark Cuban, you just wait to see the fun stuff that comes out on him if he runs for POTUS.
Cuban's day job makes him one of the most qualified people in the country to advise on one-and-done college basketball players. He also has strong opinions about it (he does not like it).
This committee will start meeting in November and offer its conclusions in April. It finishes over a year before Cuban has to make a decision about running for POTUS. He has the time and motivation to do it.
Emmert is doing what the university Presidents asked him to do. He could leave the NCAA tomorrow and make more money doing something else with a lot less headaches.
Puhlease. Emmert is the problem and yes chicos I know you worked with these scumbags so you feel a need to defend them.
Bilas needs to articulate the entire position, not just a sound byte. His stances come across as not even acknowledging the other 700000 student-athletes, as if they don't exist.
So Robinson can have no opinion about any of this stuff because it does not think about it and we are all supposed to gush because he got into the NAVAL academy? On the other hand, Bilas has thought about this stuff and has an opinion and his standard is a 500-page detailed analysis of it? And, no, it is not sound bytes. He has written extensively about all these issues. Try your friend google.
Fact is you don't want to pay athletes and neither does Emmert and the rest of the crime bosses. Bilas does, Cuban does, O'Bannon does and because they don't fit the conclusion you want, that is why you don't want them anywhere near this committee. This rest is a diversion. You don't want players paid and don't even want the idea discussed. This problem cannot be fixed until they are paid a market value for their skills.
Gene Smith, that's how his contract was written. Maybe he donated the money to charity, who knows. As an AD he is tasked with creating a program that can succeed and if they do succeed, he is rewarded. He has to create that environment by hiring the right coaches, having the right facilities in place, the support system (tutors, etc).
You just made the perfect argument for compensating athletes. Instead, you want the money to stay with the crime bosses.
You probably do not see what a hypocrite you are arguing this after arguing there is no money in college sports.
And stop the charity crap. He bought a BMW so he can drive to meetings to argue why athletes that paid for his car cannot get paid themself.
Money in college athletics. Go read the NCAA balance sheet and come back to me. That crap ton of money you talk about, where does it go? Educate yourself.
The NCAA does not make the money, The individual schools amke the money. You know this.
Larry Brown. Yes, Larry Brown. Hard to take you seriously when Larry Brown made your list for anything.
Hard to take you seriously when you think JT3 is acceptable.
These Blue Ribbon commissions are actually put in place so the territorial outcomes you are afraid of actually don't occur. In fact many of the people who you might think have an inherent conflict are in reality looking for a face saving vehicle to allow the necessary changes to be made.
I know you are a student of the financial markets and may remember the Orange County bankruptcy and pension meltdown. The State of California put together a panel with all sorts of fancy people on it to recommend changes etc. The reality was all the work was done by young professional staff of the big wigs. I was among a handful of staffers and we worked behind the scenes to develop the recommendations etc . The Big Names rubber stamped the recommendations with little comment, and were given scripts to say things in the hearings that made themselves sound knowledgeable.
Not all of these commissions workout well, but a number do because the combined good is better than the individual interests in most cases.
-
But that isn't the American way, so why are we trying to limit those opportunities?
Oh. Right. Tricke-down economics and all that. I forgot about the success that comes from catering to the 1%ers
-
This is the easiest part. You give each sport a budget, based on how important that sport is to the school, and then you let the coach decide how to allocate the resources. This is exactly how it works now. The resource now is scholarship and the coach decides who to allocate it too to produce the best possible product. Now we will give them some funds for "payment."
So, yes you could decide that Women's Volleyball only gets a scholarship and no "payment" and then while allocating a lot of money for "payment" to Men's Basketball.
Bilas has argued this going as far as saying if you pay a kid (like Lousiville did with Bowen) that he signs a contract. That kid is responsible for paying taxes, maintaining a minimum GPA, staying a certain number of years (no early jumping into the draft unless the team drafting you wants to buy out the school's contract)a moral clause, etc. Should they violate any of these, they forfeit some of their payment. Want to be treated like a professional, then you get all of it.
Like I said 80% to 90% of the kids are well paid with a scholarship. The rest are free to get money above the table with stipulations.
What I described is how the world works. It is how everyone's job works (unless they work for the Government). It is precisely because NCAA sports do not work this way which is at the root of all their issues.
-------------
The unknown is Title IX. That does not cover payment because it was not considered when the law was written. This rule change could not violate it ... the football team gets better resources than the Women's field hockey team. No one argues that equal resources need to spent, just equal number of scholarships.
I pretty much agree with 4to5years on this. There are too many issues to possibly list them all, but here are a few:
1. What happens when student athletes who are paid less outperform those who are paid more? It would turn into the pros, where money is the focal point, and maybe I'm more of a purist, but I love college basketball for the team aspect of it and not watching 19-year olds whining about money. If they are good enough at the game, they can make a good living on their talent after college. If not, they have an education to fall back on (or at least they had the opportunity to do that).
2. I don't get where this new budget or these new funds come from. So now everyone in your model gets a scholarship PLUS the opportunity to be paid by the school, so I guess each school better add a pretty big line item to their fiscal planning. This immediately turns the schools who can afford the most to buy the best players a la Yankees, Cubs, etc. I don't want to see the richest schools winning all the time. Keep that in the pros.
3. What revenue does a men's lacrosse bench player bring to the university? In that case, I think I brought MU more value by safely transporting students around campus as a L.I.M.O. driver. Maybe I should have received a full ride for that? If you want to look at it that way, why should a school pay anything, even tuition, for the "80 to 90% who don't matter" to essentially fulfill their dreams in a sport that doesn't drive school revenue?
4. Why not pay high school athletes? My high school team was ranked top 5 in MN my senior year, and we made the school a crapload of money from ticket/concession sales. Why shouldn't I have been paid since that's how the real world works?
Keep the money in the pros. It would destroy any sense of purity in the college game. They have their whole lives ahead of them to earn as much money as they want. If they don't like it, they don't have to play. No one is forcing them to play college basketball. No one is forcing them to play all four years. Maybe removing the NBA rule that causes most to play for one year would be a solution that you are more in favor of, that would also certainly be a thousand times easier to implement? Whatever the case, college sports would be destroyed by greed if you start introducing individual payments.
-
Want to solve the problems of college athletics generally? It's real simple:
Tax it.
That's right, stop treating public universities as a charity and start treating them as a business. Which means they pay federal, state and even local taxes. It means that tOSU and the Dallas Cowboys are treated the same way, as for-profit entities.
Yeup, that means it is up to the Internal Revenue Service, state Departments of Revenue and even local taxing districts to collect income and property taxes. And it means that athletes are taxed on the value of their compensation -- in this case, scholarships are barter transactions.
Yes, I know, you purists out there will cite some antiquated sense of amateurism. But that went out the window years ago with shoe contracts, national television contracts, prostitutes and sham courses that keep athletes who otherwise would never meet a university's admission standards eligible.
There's probably a law that prevents college athletics taxation but perhaps Congress could find some time between tax reform, immigration, health care and bashing Harvey Weinstein to change this.
Just a thought.
-
I pretty much agree with 4to5years on this. There are too many issues to possibly list them all, but here are a few:
1. What happens when student athletes who are paid less outperform those who are paid more? It would turn into the pros, where money is the focal point, and maybe I'm more of a purist, but I love college basketball for the team aspect of it and not watching 19-year olds whining about money. If they are good enough at the game, they can make a good living on their talent after college. If not, they have an education to fall back on (or at least they had the opportunity to do that).
2. I don't get where this new budget or these new funds come from. So now everyone in your model gets a scholarship PLUS the opportunity to be paid by the school, so I guess each school better add a pretty big line item to their fiscal planning. This immediately turns the schools who can afford the most to buy the best players a la Yankees, Cubs, etc. I don't want to see the richest schools winning all the time. Keep that in the pros.
3. What revenue does a men's lacrosse bench player bring to the university? In that case, I think I brought MU more value by safely transporting students around campus as a L.I.M.O. driver. Maybe I should have received a full ride for that? If you want to look at it that way, why should a school pay anything, even tuition, for the "80 to 90% who don't matter" to essentially fulfill their dreams in a sport that doesn't drive school revenue?
4. Why not pay high school athletes? My high school team was ranked top 5 in MN my senior year, and we made the school a crapload of money from ticket/concession sales. Why shouldn't I have been paid since that's how the real world works?
Keep the money in the pros. It would destroy any sense of purity in the college game. They have their whole lives ahead of them to earn as much money as they want. If they don't like it, they don't have to play. No one is forcing them to play college basketball. No one is forcing them to play all four years. Maybe removing the NBA rule that causes most to play for one year would be a solution that you are more in favor of, that would also certainly be a thousand times easier to implement? Whatever the case, college sports would be destroyed by greed if you start introducing individual payments.
“Destroy the sense of purity in the college game?”
Do you believe in fairies and unicorns too?
I agree that paying the players beyond a scholarship is impractical for many reasons stated here. But there is nothing inpure about earning what you are worth according to the market.
-
I feel like this argument always becomes two extremes. "Pay them like pros!" and "They are already paid enough!" What if we just increased their stipends a little bit. A nice middle ground. Make sure we don't have any starving athletes but also doesn't destroy college sports as we know it.
-
I feel like this argument always becomes two extremes. "Pay them like pros!" and "They are already paid enough!" What if we just increased their stipends a little bit. A nice middle ground. Make sure we don't have any starving athletes but also doesn't destroy college sports as we know it.
Isn't that what the "full cost of attendance" initiative was supposed to do?
-
I feel like this argument always becomes two extremes. "Pay them like pros!" and "They are already paid enough!" What if we just increased their stipends a little bit. A nice middle ground. Make sure we don't have any starving athletes but also doesn't destroy college sports as we know it.
Because it never is just a little bit. In two years, it will be a little bit more. And in four years, more. And then someone else will sue and say it needs to be 10X more.
Why is it that no one will answer the simple questions. What are you doing about TitleIX? What are you doing about non-revenue sports? If paying the basketball and football players means losing 40% of the student athletes in non-revenue sports, and the opportunities those afford, is that worth it?
-
Isn't that what the "full cost of attendance" initiative was supposed to do?
My niece was a big time NCAA women's basketball recruit and was told by an unnamed northern ACC school that with the food stipends, etc that they are allowed to give, if she didn't graduate with $30K in the bank, she was doing something wrong. They are not starving.
-
Because it never is just a little bit. In two years, it will be a little bit more. And in four years, more. And then someone else will sue and say it needs to be 10X more.
Why is it that no one will answer the simple questions. What are you doing about TitleIX? What are you doing about non-revenue sports? If paying the basketball and football players means losing 40% of the student athletes in non-revenue sports, and the opportunities those afford, is that worth it?
This is the one that always makes sense to me. Plus it’s important to remember that the same sports are not uniformly revenue. Awhile back crack sidewalks ranked revenue sports at all the D1 schools and it showed some managed a profit from hockey for example. Does that mean those hockey players get paid but the ones at schools where it’s not a moneymaker don’t get paid?
-
I don't understand how getting free tuition, room & board, etc. is not already the equivalent of getting paid? Because I sure would have left MU with a lot less debt if I had those things paid for. I just don't understand the position that student athletes don't get anything. Is a free education nothing?
Their compensation package is significantly more than what a minor league basketball player would get. So to me, they are paid their real value and then some. The people that think the school name isn't 95% of the value don't get it. How much would Marcus Howard be worth if he was playing for the Milwaukee Golden Eagles in the basketball equivalent of double A baseball? Those games would be played in large high schools and would be lucky to draw 2,000 people a game.
The problem is that most of the participants in the big time sports do not get a true quality education, which is supposed to be their "pay". That is the problem that nobody is addressing. First of all, a large chunk of football and basketball players at the highest level have not done enough to prepare for the academic rigors of a real major, and would not sniff the universities they are attending if not for their athletic prowess. Then, on top of that, they are put in a position where they miss class often due to travel (especially the cupcakes in November and December) and have excessive time demands placed on them for their sport, doubling down on the problems they were bound to have because of the lack of preparation.
We have forgotten what the deal is supposed to be. Educate the players in return for their sports participation. Sure for the dozen or two dozen guys who end up in the NBA each year that education is not that important, and maybe for 50-100 more each year who will make a living overseas. But the other 95% hopefully would leave college with the ability to make money off of their degree like a regular student, and that does not happen near often enough in basketball and football, particularly in football where 80% or more of the players on the very best teams will never collect a check for playing football.
We are so cynical about the money that if you even bring stuff like this up people look at you like you have three heads. The non-revenue sports are much closer to the ideal, since the participants don't have dreams of making gobs money off of their sport, and therefore are more likely to value the education.
-
Because it never is just a little bit. In two years, it will be a little bit more. And in four years, more.
Isn't that called inflation?
Honestly, we are on the same side on this issue. I think the free education, room/board, coaching, exposure, tutoring, stipends, etc are fine compensation. If some want to negotiate a little bit more on the stipend, I think that's a reasonable request.
I would like to see the rules around "profiting off likeness" relaxed or totally eliminated. I think that addresses the concerns about the top 1% of athletes "deserving" more without bankrupting the schools or unbalancing competition.
-
Their compensation package is significantly more than what a minor league basketball players would get. So to me, they are paid their real value and then some. The fact that people think the school name isn't 95% of the value don't get it. How much would Marcus Howard be worth if he was playing for the Milwaukee Golden Eagles in the basketball equivalent of double A baseball? Those games would be played in large high schools and would be lucky to draw 2,000 people a game.
The problem is that most of the participants in the big time sports do not get a true quality education, which is supposed to be their "pay". That is the problem that nobody is addressing. First of all, a large chunk of football and basketball players at the highest level have not done enough to prepare for the academic rigors of a real major, and would not sniff the universities they are attending if not for their athletic prowess. Then, on top of that, they are put in a position where they miss class often due to travel (especially the cupcakes in November and December) and have excessive time demands placed on them for their sport, doubling down on the problems they were bound to have because of the lack of preparation.
We have forgotten what the deal is supposed to be. Educate the players in return for their sports participation. Sure for the dozen or two dozen guys who end up in the NBA each year that education is not that important, and maybe for 50-100 more each year who will make a living overseas. But the other 95% hopefully would leave college with the ability to make money off of their degree like a regular student, and that does not happen near often enough in basketball and football, particularly in football where 80% or more of the players on the very best teams will never collect a check for playing football.
We are so cynical about the money that if you even bring stuff like this up people look at you like you have three heads. The non-revenue sports are much closer to the ideal, since the participants don't have dreams of making gobs money off of their sport, and therefore are more likely to value the education.
I agree with a lot of this. I think there's a strong argument for bring back the rule that made freshmen sit a year. Give them time to get ahead on their schoolwork, get used to campus life, and ease in to balancing the demands of athletics and academics. Alas, I don't see it ever happening. America loves star freshmen more than other players. Money will demand that they play right away.
-
Allow them to profit off their likeness and allow all sports to go pro after high school if they want to try it.
Between those 2 things, I think you've eliminated a lot of the current problems.
CTWarrior made a terrific post as well.
-
Allow them to profit off their likeness and allow all sports to go pro after high school if they want to try it.
Between those 2 things, I think you've eliminated a lot of the current problems.
CTWarrior made a terrific post as well.
That is not in the NCAA's purview. Personally, I don't have any issue with the league's making their own rules for who can and can't go pro. I think I like the NHL's system the best. Draft a kid out of high school but if he's not going to make your minor league roster than let him go to college, keep his rights, and sign him later.
-
Allow them to profit off their likeness and allow all sports to go pro after high school if they want to try it.
Between those 2 things, I think you've eliminated a lot of the current problems.
CTWarrior made a terrific post as well.
heck, why stop at high school? why not whenever they want? maybe even with their parents permission, but that may be a whole different topic everyone knows lavars kids were probably ready by grade school...just ask him ::)
-
That is not in the NCAA's purview. Personally, I don't have any issue with the league's making their own rules for who can and can't go pro. I think I like the NHL's system the best. Draft a kid out of high school but if he's not going to make your minor league roster than let him go to college, keep his rights, and sign him later.
I'm too lazy to find the quotes, but fwiw, I'm pretty sure that Silver is on the record as hating one and done. I caught part of his interview on Mike & Mike this morning, and he intimated that he'd like to see the the G-League start to take in and develop the best young talent. I think his goal is to have borderline first round, developmental guys help grow the NBA's popularity outside its core markets, and then get bumped up to the big squad after they have a year under their belt.
-
“Destroy the sense of purity in the college game?”
Do you believe in fairies and unicorns too?
I agree that paying the players beyond a scholarship is impractical for many reasons stated here. But there is nothing inpure about earning what you are worth according to the market.
Of course there are unethical aspects of the college game, many of which are currently under scrutiny. But by and large, I believe that most schools and most players are following most of the rules most of the time. Is it perfect? No. But I sure love March Madness and college basketball for what it is more than I care to watch the NBA playoffs, and my point in all of that was that if you start to pay players, the line between college basketball and the NBA dissolves.
Regarding earning what you are worth...no one is forcing 18-year olds to play college basketball. If they feel they can make more elsewhere, they are free to do that. If you are mad that the NBA won't take them right away, then go be salty at the NBA, but don't put that on the college game.
-
My niece was a big time NCAA women's basketball recruit and was told by an unnamed northern ACC school that with the food stipends, etc that they are allowed to give, if she didn't graduate with $30K in the bank, she was doing something wrong. They are not starving.
Exactly. Or wait...+1.
-
Exactly. Or wait...+1.
how did she like syracuse? ;)
-
Of course there are unethical aspects of the college game, many of which are currently under scrutiny. But by and large, I believe that most schools and most players are following most of the rules most of the time. Is it perfect? No. But I sure love March Madness and college basketball for what it is more than I care to watch the NBA playoffs, and my point in all of that was that if you start to pay players, the line between college basketball and the NBA dissolves.
Regarding earning what you are worth...no one is forcing 18-year olds to play college basketball. If they feel they can make more elsewhere, they are free to do that. If you are mad that the NBA won't take them right away, then go be salty at the NBA, but don't put that on the college game.
I agree fundamentally with what you are saying. I just don't like the concept of "purity." In my opinion, there is nothing pure about college athletics or amateurism in general. The current system is just a different form of compensation.
-
I'm too lazy to find the quotes, but fwiw, I'm pretty sure that Silver is on the record as hating one and done. I caught part of his interview on Mike & Mike this morning, and he intimated that he'd like to see the the G-League start to take in and develop the best young talent. I think his goal is to have borderline first round, developmental guys help grow the NBA's popularity outside its core markets, and then get bumped up to the big squad after they have a year under their belt.
Silver reads scoop apparently and came to your aid:
https://sports.yahoo.com/adam-silver-right-calling-end-one-done-rule-170421752.html
Article mentions the NHL system as a possibility. Anyone got a good reason why the NCAA shouldn't allow that in basketball as well? It seems to make sense to me.
-
Jiggy
Can you tell us all how you are going to pay market rate, in other words not everyone is treated equally all while handling the non-revenue sports, Title IX, etc?
If you can point me to what Jay Bilas has said on this, that would also be appreciated.
The market rate is decided by the market ... the coaches are given resources and they allocate as they see fit. That is how you determine the market rate.
You know this. You know that 30 GMs determine the market rate in professional sports. The owners give the GMs resources and they allocate as they see fit.
Chicos, you are smart and know economics well. Why do the arteries in your head suddenly harden on this issue.
-
I pretty much agree with 4to5years on this. There are too many issues to possibly list them all, but here are a few:
1. What happens when student-athletes who are paid less outperform those who are paid more? It would turn into the pros, where money is the focal point, and maybe I'm more of a purist, but I love college basketball for the team aspect of it and not watching 19-year olds whining about money. If they are good enough at the game, they can make a good living on their talent after college. If not, they have an education to fall back on (or at least they had the opportunity to do that).
So what! You have a contract that you agreed to. Too bad. Welcome to getting paid. If you're not ready for it, the patriot league or D3 might be more your speed.
And yes, the get a contract that stipulates a minimum GPA, morals clause term of service or how many years before you can jump to the pros, and other details. Fail to meet any of these and there is a stated penalty in your contract.
They just don't dump a big pile of cash in your living room and say "welcome to our school." Oh, you have to hire an accountant and pay taxes. Wait until you see what NY will bang you in state taxes when you play at St. Johns and in the BET. Welcome to the real world!!
2. I don't get where this new budget or these new funds come from. So now everyone in your model gets a scholarship PLUS the opportunity to be paid by the school, so I guess each school better add a pretty big line item to their fiscal planning. This immediately turns the schools who can afford the most to buy the best players a la Yankees, Cubs, etc. I don't want to see the richest schools winning all the time. Keep that in the pros.
It comes from the boosters. The MU club will have fundraisers to raise money. Booster spend it now under the table. This brings up above board and all legal.
Remember that 80% to 90% of the players will accept a traditional scholarship as payments. We are talking about the 10% to 20% game changers.
So who is going to pay the Men's tennis team? They don't need that much. Maybe $25k to offer an HS all-American to improve their team. The MU club can solicit tennis fans and tennis alumni for the money. Or maybe MU decides that scholarships alone are enough. Whatever is important to you.
Yes, the rich schools have more resources ... like now. Today the compete with facilities, that the poor schools cannot afford. This actually makes it more equitable. Want a good basketball team now? Spend $10 million on facilities. Want a good basketball team under this scheme, spend $250k on players. It is fairer than the broken system now.
3. What revenue does a men's lacrosse bench player bring to the university? In that case, I think I brought MU more value by safely transporting students around campus as a L.I.M.O. driver. Maybe I should have received a full ride for that? If you want to look at it that way, why should a school pay anything, even tuition, for the "80 to 90% who don't matter" to essentially fulfill their dreams in a sport that doesn't drive school revenue?
Good question. Why does MU have non-revenue teams? What purpose do they serve? Why have a music school, or a theater school?
If you decide that non-revenue sports don't serve a purpose, then cut them and give the money to the computer science department. No one is stopping them now and paying players does not change this.
4. Why not pay high school athletes? My high school team was ranked top 5 in MN my senior year, and we made the school a crapload of money from ticket/concession sales. Why shouldn't I have been paid since that's how the real world works?
Why not? Other than child labor laws are an issue ... go for it!
Keep the money in the pros. It would destroy any sense of purity in the college game. They have their whole lives ahead of them to earn as much money as they want. If they don't like it, they don't have to play. No one is forcing them to play college basketball. No one is forcing them to play all four years. Maybe removing the NBA rule that causes most to play for one year would be a solution that you are more in favor of, that would also certainly be a thousand times easier to implement? Whatever the case, college sports would be destroyed by greed if you start introducing individual payments.
College sports are pro programs. See Kentucky.
Purity? You cannot have a ranked program getting 19k to Villanova on national TV and whine about purity. Go to D3 and play Oshkosh in front 650 people then you have the purity you desire.
-
I feel like this argument always becomes two extremes. "Pay them like pros!" and "They are already paid enough!" What if we just increased their stipends a little bit. A nice middle ground. Make sure we don't have any starving athletes but also doesn't destroy college sports as we know it.
You do realize they are getting paid now. I can tell you for a fact they are boosters at all schools that take it upon themselves to "take care" of the players on their teams. They do it without the knowledge or the consent of the schools. They inject themselves into the process and pay recruits and players to attend their school.
And I have not even gotten to gamblers that are fixing college games because the players are not paid and they are "cheap." Pros cannot be fixed because they cost too much. The amount you have to pay the pros to throw a game you could never lay off in bets. (that's why some gamblers went after the refs. They are cheap to pay off).
There is tons of money in college sports now. The only way to fight it is to make it legal and pay the stars.
-
September 16, 2013
http://time.com/568/its-time-to-pay-college-athletes/
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/college-athletes-cover-0913.jpg?h=580)
-
I pretty much agree with 4to5years on this. There are too many issues to possibly list them all, but here are a few:
1. What happens when student-athletes who are paid less outperform those who are paid more? It would turn into the pros, where money is the focal point, and maybe I'm more of a purist, but I love college basketball for the team aspect of it and not watching 19-year olds whining about money. If they are good enough at the game, they can make a good living on their talent after college. If not, they have an education to fall back on (or at least they had the opportunity to do that).
So what! You have a contract that you agreed to. Too bad. Welcome to getting paid. If you're not ready for it, the patriot league or D3 might be more your speed.
And yes, the get a contract that stipulates a minimum GPA, morals clause term of service or how many years before you can jump to the pros, and other details. Fail to meet any of these and there is a stated penalty in your contract.
They just don't dump a big pile of cash in your living room and say "welcome to our school." Oh, you have to hire an accountant and pay taxes. Wait until you see what NY will bang you in state taxes when you play at St. Johns and in the BET. Welcome to the real world!!
2. I don't get where this new budget or these new funds come from. So now everyone in your model gets a scholarship PLUS the opportunity to be paid by the school, so I guess each school better add a pretty big line item to their fiscal planning. This immediately turns the schools who can afford the most to buy the best players a la Yankees, Cubs, etc. I don't want to see the richest schools winning all the time. Keep that in the pros.
It comes from the boosters. The MU club will have fundraisers to raise money. Booster spend it now under the table. This brings up above board and all legal.
Remember that 80% to 90% of the players will accept a traditional scholarship as payments. We are talking about the 10% to 20% game changers.
So who is going to pay the Men's tennis team? They don't need that much. Maybe $25k to offer an HS all-American to improve their team. The MU club can solicit tennis fans and tennis alumni for the money. Or maybe MU decides that scholarships alone are enough. Whatever is important to you.
Yes, the rich schools have more resources ... like now. Today the compete with facilities, that the poor schools cannot afford. This actually makes it more equitable. Want a good basketball team now? Spend $10 million on facilities. Want a good basketball team under this scheme, spend $250k on players. It is fairer than the broken system now.
3. What revenue does a men's lacrosse bench player bring to the university? In that case, I think I brought MU more value by safely transporting students around campus as a L.I.M.O. driver. Maybe I should have received a full ride for that? If you want to look at it that way, why should a school pay anything, even tuition, for the "80 to 90% who don't matter" to essentially fulfill their dreams in a sport that doesn't drive school revenue?
Good question. Why does MU have non-revenue teams? What purpose do they serve? Why have a music school, or a theater school?
If you decide that non-revenue sports don't serve a purpose, then cut them and give the money to the computer science department. No one is stopping them now and paying players does not change this.
4. Why not pay high school athletes? My high school team was ranked top 5 in MN my senior year, and we made the school a crapload of money from ticket/concession sales. Why shouldn't I have been paid since that's how the real world works?
Why not? Other than child labor laws are an issue ... go for it!
Keep the money in the pros. It would destroy any sense of purity in the college game. They have their whole lives ahead of them to earn as much money as they want. If they don't like it, they don't have to play. No one is forcing them to play college basketball. No one is forcing them to play all four years. Maybe removing the NBA rule that causes most to play for one year would be a solution that you are more in favor of, that would also certainly be a thousand times easier to implement? Whatever the case, college sports would be destroyed by greed if you start introducing individual payments.
College sports are pro programs. See Kentucky.
Purity? You cannot have a ranked program getting 19k to Villanova on national TV and whine about purity. Go to D3 and play Oshkosh in front 650 people then you have the purity you desire.
Okay... You really have this whole quoting thing all wrong. Changing color does not make it evident who is talking or who you are talking to.
Use the quote feature, then after the part you want to address, type in [/quote.] without the period. Then add your response. If you want to address more, copy and paste their original [qu.ote author=...........] box before the next part you want to talk about with another close quote box after. Respond, rinse, repeat.
-
I pretty much agree with 4to5years on this. There are too many issues to possibly list them all, but here are a few:
1. What happens when student-athletes who are paid less outperform those who are paid more? It would turn into the pros, where money is the focal point, and maybe I'm more of a purist, but I love college basketball for the team aspect of it and not watching 19-year olds whining about money. If they are good enough at the game, they can make a good living on their talent after college. If not, they have an education to fall back on (or at least they had the opportunity to do that).
So what! You have a contract that you agreed to. Too bad. Welcome to getting paid. If you're not ready for it, the patriot league or D3 might be more your speed.
And yes, the get a contract that stipulates a minimum GPA, morals clause term of service or how many years before you can jump to the pros, and other details. Fail to meet any of these and there is a stated penalty in your contract.
They just don't dump a big pile of cash in your living room and say "welcome to our school." Oh, you have to hire an accountant and pay taxes. Wait until you see what NY will bang you in state taxes when you play at St. Johns and in the BET. Welcome to the real world!!
2. I don't get where this new budget or these new funds come from. So now everyone in your model gets a scholarship PLUS the opportunity to be paid by the school, so I guess each school better add a pretty big line item to their fiscal planning. This immediately turns the schools who can afford the most to buy the best players a la Yankees, Cubs, etc. I don't want to see the richest schools winning all the time. Keep that in the pros.
It comes from the boosters. The MU club will have fundraisers to raise money. Booster spend it now under the table. This brings up above board and all legal.
Remember that 80% to 90% of the players will accept a traditional scholarship as payments. We are talking about the 10% to 20% game changers.
So who is going to pay the Men's tennis team? They don't need that much. Maybe $25k to offer an HS all-American to improve their team. The MU club can solicit tennis fans and tennis alumni for the money. Or maybe MU decides that scholarships alone are enough. Whatever is important to you.
Yes, the rich schools have more resources ... like now. Today the compete with facilities, that the poor schools cannot afford. This actually makes it more equitable. Want a good basketball team now? Spend $10 million on facilities. Want a good basketball team under this scheme, spend $250k on players. It is fairer than the broken system now.
3. What revenue does a men's lacrosse bench player bring to the university? In that case, I think I brought MU more value by safely transporting students around campus as a L.I.M.O. driver. Maybe I should have received a full ride for that? If you want to look at it that way, why should a school pay anything, even tuition, for the "80 to 90% who don't matter" to essentially fulfill their dreams in a sport that doesn't drive school revenue?
Good question. Why does MU have non-revenue teams? What purpose do they serve? Why have a music school, or a theater school?
If you decide that non-revenue sports don't serve a purpose, then cut them and give the money to the computer science department. No one is stopping them now and paying players does not change this.
4. Why not pay high school athletes? My high school team was ranked top 5 in MN my senior year, and we made the school a crapload of money from ticket/concession sales. Why shouldn't I have been paid since that's how the real world works?
Why not? Other than child labor laws are an issue ... go for it!
Keep the money in the pros. It would destroy any sense of purity in the college game. They have their whole lives ahead of them to earn as much money as they want. If they don't like it, they don't have to play. No one is forcing them to play college basketball. No one is forcing them to play all four years. Maybe removing the NBA rule that causes most to play for one year would be a solution that you are more in favor of, that would also certainly be a thousand times easier to implement? Whatever the case, college sports would be destroyed by greed if you start introducing individual payments.
College sports are pro programs. See Kentucky.
Purity? You cannot have a ranked program getting 19k to Villanova on national TV and whine about purity. Go to D3 and play Oshkosh in front 650 people then you have the purity you desire.
Two questions on the answers. You sort of just brush off payment of HS athletes with child labor laws but I feel like that’d only prevent a handful of freshmen from payment and the vast majority of schools don’t have freshmen playing varsity anyways.
Second, the purity argument doesn’t really hold. The GAA brings over 80k to croke Park for the All Ireland Hurling and football games and people are ok with it being amatuer because it’s reinvested into smaller clubs. That’s what the NCAA should do instead of just hoarding money. Level the playing field or develop an AAU youth league that they can control to prevent money getting involved.
-
You do realize they are getting paid now. I can tell you for a fact they are boosters at all schools that take it upon themselves to "take care" of the players on their teams. They do it without the knowledge or the consent of the schools. They inject themselves into the process and pay recruits and players to attend their school.
And I have not even gotten to gamblers that are fixing college games because the players are not paid and they are "cheap." Pros cannot be fixed because they cost too much. The amount you have to pay the pros to throw a game you could never lay off in bets. (that's why some gamblers went after the refs. They are cheap to pay off).
There is tons of money in college sports now. The only way to fight it is to make it legal and pay the stars.
I don't care. Honestly. To me that's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Keep things the way they are but let the players profit off their likeness. Colleges don't go bankrupt, there's no massive overhaul of college sports, no Title IX issues, non-revenue and women's sports don't get screwed over, the top 1% of athletes get to make more money like people think they deserve, and I get my NCAA football/basketball video games back. Seems like wins across the board to me.
-
You do realize they are getting paid now. I can tell you for a fact they are boosters at all schools that take it upon themselves to "take care" of the players on their teams. They do it without the knowledge or the consent of the schools. They inject themselves into the process and pay recruits and players to attend their school.
And I have not even gotten to gamblers that are fixing college games because the players are not paid and they are "cheap." Pros cannot be fixed because they cost too much. The amount you have to pay the pros to throw a game you could never lay off in bets. (that's why some gamblers went after the refs. They are cheap to pay off).
There is tons of money in college sports now. The only way to fight it is to make it legal and pay the stars.
A fact? Really. You know for a fact that all schools are taking care of players. All DI, all DII schools where kids are on scholarship? Wait, let's just make it DI. All 350+ DI schools' boosters are taking care of players.
(http://languagefeatures.weebly.com/uploads/8/0/7/3/8073269/1573516_orig.png)
On what authority or experience do you get to make this great proclamation? Your vast years of experience working at these schools? Your time in the FBI? Your time at the NCAA? Your time as a well heeled booster?
Ahh, and the solution is to pay everyone, of course you still haven't addressed what you are doing about non-revenue sports. Title IX, etc. Nor have you explained the money that is there now and what it is currently used for, how you plan on simply taking that away to fund your pet project.
-
September 16, 2013
http://time.com/568/its-time-to-pay-college-athletes/
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/college-athletes-cover-0913.jpg?h=580)
Maybe your best post ever, but not in the way you intended. You argue to pay college athletes, and you bring this home by putting a cover of Time Magazine with Johnny Manziel on the cover. If ever there was poster child for paying college athletes.
-
Maybe your best post ever, but not in the way you intended. You argue to pay college athletes, and you bring this home by putting a cover of Time Magazine with Johnny Manziel on the cover. If ever there was poster child for paying college athletes.
What's your point? Becuase Manziel was irresponsible that no one should get money?
-
I don't care. Honestly. To me that's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Keep things the way they are but let the players profit off their likeness. Colleges don't go bankrupt, there's no massive overhaul of college sports, no Title IX issues, non-revenue and women's sports don't get screwed over, the top 1% of athletes get to make more money like people think they deserve, and I get my NCAA football/basketball video games back. Seems like wins across the board to me.
So an MU booster(s) will offer a new MU recruit big dollars to use his likeness in an advertising campaign. Think of all the car dealers that are basketball fans and group together to offer recruits $$$ for their likeness.
This is what the NCAA is afraid of ... tons and tons of car dealers/boosters will pay up .... excuse me ... offer the new highly rated recruit an endorsement contract. Of course, none of this is a defacto way to get players to your favorite school. It is all above board ... right?
To be clear ... I'm in favor of this. But when you do this, the floodgates are open and Wojo might as well show up at Joey Hauser's home with a contract. Otherwise, the Greater Milwaukee car dealers/MU boosters will follow five minutes behind Wojo with that contract. Then the greater Lansing Michigan/MSU boosters will do the same an hour after Izzo's home visit.
-
A fact? Really. You know for a fact that all schools are taking care of players. All DI, all DII schools where kids are on scholarship? Wait, let's just make it DI. All 350+ DI schools' boosters are taking care of players.
On what authority or experience do you get to make this great proclamation? Your vast years of experience working at these schools? Your time in the FBI? Your time at the NCAA? Your time as a well heeled booster?
Ahh, and the solution is to pay everyone, of course you still haven't addressed what you are doing about non-revenue sports. Title IX, etc. Nor have you explained the money that is there now and what it is currently used for, how you plan on simply taking that away to fund your pet project.
The 65 power six schools ... yes.
Here is an example ... nearly every school has one (or more) of these boosters ...
Booster Proud of His Largess and Game-Day Parties
The New York Times
October 4, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/sports/ncaafootball/booster-proud-of-his-largess-and-game-day-parties.html
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Roy Adams’s two-story brick home is tucked neatly into a middle-class residential street. In the driveway, University of Tennessee and Southeastern Conference flags fly at full staff. On the front door, a poster urges his guests to adhere to a five-drink limit.
Adams may be 75 years old, but his home looks like something dreamed up by teenage fraternity brothers: he has 36 big-screen televisions, five TV viewing rooms, three game rooms, a wet bar and, on a recent afternoon, two tapped kegs.
Adams, a retired restaurant and real estate developer, has been called the Great Gatsby of college sports for his legendary game-day parties, which often include athletes, coaches and politicians mixing with a crowd that can top 100. But he is more than a septuagenarian party animal.
A 1963 graduate of Tennessee, Adams represents the twilight of a college sports booster. For more than 40 years, he cherished his role as a benefactor for players, even if it meant breaking a few rules. If college athletes generally receive gifts in the shadows, Roy Adams is the rare booster who crows about his largess.
He is not remorseful, and now, largely out of the booster game, he says he is proud of his life’s work and the friendships he has made.
Continue reading the main story
“I knew the N.C.A.A. rules,” he said. “I just didn’t care for them.”
As a national debate swirls over whether college athletes should be paid, Adams revels in memories of the old days when he distributed cash with a wink to favored players. By his own estimate, he has spent $400,000 on food, clothes, cash and a handful of cars for college athletes.
“I’ve always found him to be one of the more fascinating people I’ve met in college sports,” said Paul Finebaum, an ESPN radio host and former columnist. “He’s a throwback to a more romantic time.”
Today’s boosters, Adams said, have lost the intimate relationships with players he always sought. From his perspective, the N.C.A.A. rules have tightened drastically. And the players have changed too. “Today you give a kid a Chevrolet, and he wants a Cadillac,” Adams said. “You give them $1,000, they want two or three. It’s not the same as it used to be.”
Adams has been a Tennessee football fan for decades, but now, instead of making trips to Knoxville, he brings the party to his TV rooms — all five of them. On a typical Saturday, guests spill from room to room, passing a shuffleboard table, a stuffed deer head, a signed photograph from the former Tennessee star Peyton Manning.
On one wall a photograph of Adams shaking hands with Nick Saban hangs above a signed picture of Richard Nixon. In the pantry, Adams had a urinal installed. Then there are all the televisions, squeezed together like puzzle pieces around every corner. His friends say there is no better sports bar in Memphis.
On a recent afternoon, the Shelby County mayor was a guest. Romaro Miller, who played quarterback at Mississippi before Eli Manning, was there. So were Bobby Ray Franklin, the quarterback who led Ole Miss to a share of the 1959 national championship, and Ron Gust, who played for Tennessee in the 1950s.
On fall Saturdays, two cooks arrive at Adams’s home at 7 a.m. to prepare a menu of more than 30 dishes in an industrial-size kitchen Adams had installed several years ago. He offers a buffet that ranges from sushi to fried chicken cooked in a vat on the back patio. Adams said he spends around $1,500 each weekend on the spread.
On this afternoon, Adams’s beloved Tennessee visited Florida. As a flood of guests arrived before kickoff, Adams bellowed gleefully, “No Democrats or Florida fans allowed!”
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/10/05/sports/BOOSTER2/BOOSTER2-jumbo.jpg)
Roy Adams’s home in Memphis has 36 big-screen televisions, game rooms and a trove of University of Tennessee memorabilia. Credit Lance Murphey for The New York Times
Many of the guests are former college players and beneficiaries of Adams’s generosity, creating an eclectic mix of boosters, former jocks and current high school coaches from around the area. Most SEC teams are represented among the crowd. An Arkansas fan chided Volunteer supporters about the hillbillies in east Tennessee. Female Ole Miss students were the butt of another joke.
Adams hurried from room to room, making sure the food was just so and each guest properly attended to. Stories tumbled out of his mouth in between sips from an old-fashioned. “Nobody’s wife would ever let them do this,” he said. “I’m a bachelor, so I can.”
Adams recalls his bending of the N.C.A.A. rules with a wistful smile. He described players lining up outside his Knoxville hotel room knowing he would happily slip them a few bucks. Players at Arkansas State, Memphis and Ole Miss have also been the recipients of his generosity and hospitality.
Adams has had several run-ins with the N.C.A.A. and his alma mater. He said the former Tennessee athletic director Doug Dickey once confronted him outside the locker room and told him to stay away from the team. The N.C.A.A. investigated Adams in the late 1980s for sponsoring a recruiting trip for two players to visit the University of Houston. Adams’s defense was that he never did the bidding of any one school. He said he regularly sent money to Cortez Kennedy, the Pro Football Hall of Fame defensive tackle, when he played at Miami. It was proper, he said, because he had no association to the school.
“I’m a friend to all athletes, everywhere,” he said, beaming.
In 2000, Adams became well known in Tennessee circles as a commentator who helped spark the federal investigation and conviction of Logan Young, an Alabama booster in Memphis who paid a coach $150,000 to steer defensive lineman Albert Means to Tuscaloosa.
In a wrongful termination civil suit later brought by two Alabama coaches that stemmed from the Young case, Adams was deposed. He wore a white coonskin cap and an orange blazer and brought along a bottle of Tennessee sipping whiskey to the proceedings.
Adams relishes the memory. “I couldn’t think of anything that would upset an Alabama lawyer more,” he said.
Adams was born in Batesville, Miss., to tenant farmers and moved to Memphis in childhood. As a teenager, he worked as a Senate page in Washington. Autographed pictures of Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Estes Kefauver are prominent on the walls. (His politics shifted right after the Jimmy Carter administration.)
At Tennessee, he fell in love with the pageantry of football. When he returned to Memphis, he served on the national board of governors for the Tennessee Alumni Association. “I didn’t have a family,” he said. “This became my family.”
Adams managed a Goodyear store in Memphis and then opened a chain of Adams Family Restaurants. He worked in real estate before retiring. As he reflected on the string of scandals gripping college sports, in part because of boosters like him, he chuckled.
“It’s funny,” he said. “You’d be right to say I wasted my life on football, but it can be a very emotional game.”
He added: “I like to take care of people. Now I want people to come over here and enjoy themselves.”
Late in the afternoon, a graphic flashed on one of the televisions showing the seven straight national championships won by SEC teams. Adams’s eyes gleamed as he chanted, “S-E-C! S-E-C!”
“All this — the parties, the friends, the football,” said Pete Story, a local high school coach. “I think it’s what keeps Roy alive.”
-
So an MU booster(s) will offer a new MU recruit big dollars to use his likeness in an advertising campaign. Think of all the car dealers that are basketball fans and group together to offer recruits $$$ for their likeness.
This is what the NCAA is afraid of ... tons and tons of car dealers/boosters will pay up .... excuse me ... offer the new highly rated recruit an endorsement contract. Of course, none of this is a defacto way to get players to your favorite school. It is all above board ... right?
To be clear ... I'm in favor of this. But when you do this, the floodgates are open and Wojo might as well show up at Joey Hauser's home with a contract. Otherwise, the Greater Milwaukee car dealers/MU boosters will follow five minutes behind Wojo with that contract. Then the greater Lansing Michigan/MSU boosters will do the same an hour after Izzo's home visit.
Doesn't this just prove that shady sh*t will happen no matter what?
I think there are ways to reasonably regulate this if players are allowed to profit off their likenesses. And people will find ways around those regulations....but it won't be as shady because there will be more legal options that recruits can utilize.
-
Doesn't this just prove that shady sh*t will happen no matter what?
I think there are ways to reasonably regulate this if players are allowed to profit off their likenesses. And people will find ways around those regulations....but it won't be as shady because there will be more legal options that recruits can utilize.
If you allow one this then you have an unequal system. Allow everything and this stops being a problem.
(Allow everything = treat them like professionals)
-
If you allow one this then you have an unequal system. Allow everything and this stops being a problem.
(Allow everything = treat them like professionals)
The professionals have an unequal system too. There will always be haves and have nots in college basketball. That's a non-issue. I think there is a way to open the door for profiting off of likenesses without making it the free for all that you are hoping for.
-
The 65 power six schools ... yes.
Here is an example ... nearly every school has one (or more) of these boosters ...
Which is it? You said all schools. Now it's 65 schools, which is still ridiculous. When do you stomp with the massive overstatements? You're using one example and saying means all? And you wonder why some of us question when you say an industry is already dead, when it isn't. When you say electric cars will be in the majority in 4 years, when it won't. So on and so forth. You make good points and then destroy them by assigning to all situations.
-
What's your point? Becuase Manziel was irresponsible that no one should get money?
My point, the symbolism speaks volumes.
-
Which is it? You said all schools. Now it's 65 schools, which is still ridiculous. When do you stomp with the massive overstatements? You're using one example and saying means all? And you wonder why some of us question when you say an industry is already dead, when it isn't. When you say electric cars will be in the majority in 4 years, when it won't. So on and so forth. You make good points and then destroy them by assigning to all situations.
You're diverting ... when I said: "all schools" the qualifier which you know I meant was "all schools that care about succeeding in sports at a high D1 level." So stop with this suggestion that I meant boosters at the University of Chicago funneling money to their athletes. That is not what was suggested here and you know it.
Have no idea where you came up with that stat about electric cars as I believe it was 2040.
Read a few posts above about Roy Adams and no he is not unusual ... there are a ton of boosters like him doing this all over the place.
-
The professionals have an unequal system too. There will always be haves and have nots in college basketball. That's a non-issue. I think there is a way to open the door for profiting off of likenesses without making it the free for all that you are hoping for.
Again ... waiting in the driveway for Wojo to finish a recruit in-home visit is MU booster(s) to walk in next and offer him a likeness contract if he chooses MU. Ditto every other school that cares about succeeding in college basketball at a high D1 level (precise enough wording Chicos??)
You cannot go part way. If you are going to start down this road, have to go all the way. Let the MU Blue/Gold fundraise to pay basketball players and let Wojo offer the contract in the in-home directly (and part of that will be a likeness contract). Otherwise, it is just another way to abuse the system.
-
Again ... waiting in the driveway for Wojo to finish a recruit in-home visit is MU booster(s) to walk in next and offer him a likeness contract if he chooses MU. Ditto every other school that cares about succeeding in college basketball at a high D1 level (precise enough wording Chicos??)
You cannot go part way. If you are going to start down this road, have to go all the way. Let the MU Blue/Gold fundraise to pay basketball players and let Wojo offer the contract in the in-home directly (and part of that will be a likeness contract). Otherwise, it is just another way to abuse the system.
Again...you are missing the point. The goal is not to create a system where nobody cheats, that system does not exist. Some people cheat when playing monopoly with their grandma. If you 100% deregulate a player profiting off their likeness, and recruits at UNLV are advertising for their favorite escort service and recruits at Colorado are advertising for their favorite weed dispensary, some handlers and some universities will still find other ways to break the rules and get ahead.
The point is to create a system where the athletes are paid reasonable and fair compensation for their services without destroying college sports in the process. Allow players to profit off their likeness after they have arrived on campus. Yes, some people will abuse it, others won't. Less people will abuse it than they do now because players will have more legal channels to make money. NCAA will still go after those that abuse it, usually they won't catch them but every once in awhile they will and sanction them enough to at least offset their competitive advantage for a little bit. In other words, roughly the same system we have now except the players are getting better compensated and are theoretically more satisfied.....and I get my NCAA Football/Basketball video games back ;D
-
Again...you are missing the point. The goal is not to create a system where nobody cheats, that system does not exist. Some people cheat when playing monopoly with their grandma. If you 100% deregulate a player profiting off their likeness, and recruits at UNLV are advertising for their favorite escort service and recruits at Colorado are advertising for their favorite weed dispensary, some handlers and some universities will still find other ways to break the rules and get ahead.
The point is to create a system where the athletes are paid reasonable and fair compensation for their services without destroying college sports in the process. Allow players to profit off their likeness after they have arrived on campus. Yes, some people will abuse it, others won't. Less people will abuse it than they do now because players will have more legal channels to make money. NCAA will still go after those that abuse it, usually they won't catch them but every once in awhile they will and sanction them enough to at least offset their competitive advantage for a little bit. In other words, roughly the same system we have now except the players are getting better compensated and are theoretically more satisfied.....and I get my NCAA Football/Basketball video games back ;D
To be clear, as I said above, I'm in favor of this for all the reason you stated. I just want them to go farther than this.
-
To be clear, as I said above, I'm in favor of this for all the reason you stated. I just want them to go farther than this.
I'm aware. And I disagree.
-
Again...you are missing the point. The goal is not to create a system where nobody cheats, that system does not exist. Some people cheat when playing monopoly with their grandma. If you 100% deregulate a player profiting off their likeness, and recruits at UNLV are advertising for their favorite escort service and recruits at Colorado are advertising for their favorite weed dispensary, some handlers and some universities will still find other ways to break the rules and get ahead.
The point is to create a system where the athletes are paid reasonable and fair compensation for their services without destroying college sports in the process. Allow players to profit off their likeness after they have arrived on campus. Yes, some people will abuse it, others won't. Less people will abuse it than they do now because players will have more legal channels to make money. NCAA will still go after those that abuse it, usually they won't catch them but every once in awhile they will and sanction them enough to at least offset their competitive advantage for a little bit. In other words, roughly the same system we have now except the players are getting better compensated and are theoretically more satisfied.....and I get my NCAA Football/Basketball video games back ;D
trying to institute a payment of some sort is scary risky. it sets up some nasty scenarios. send lawyers guns and money-hello free agent lamelo...beginning in 8th grade? new york, los angeles, chicago, etc have a distinct advantage of being big market cities.
i get your point however-regardless of what rules are in place and their respective penalties-many are willing to take the risk. all the "big dogs" create layers to penetrate in order to get to "the man"-i.e. the pitinos, calipari's, william's and shashefski's. in these cases, the assistants and the towel boy take the fall. at the university of ottumwa, the head coach is skewered
-
You're diverting ... when I said: "all schools" the qualifier which you know I meant was "all schools that care about succeeding in sports at a high D1 level." So stop with this suggestion that I meant boosters at the University of Chicago funneling money to their athletes. That is not what was suggested here and you know it.
Have no idea where you came up with that stat about electric cars as I believe it was 2040.
Read a few posts above about Roy Adams and no he is not unusual ... there are a ton of boosters like him doing this all over the place.
I'm not diverting, I'm reading what you wrote. If you think that is diverting, then write more clearly without the hyperbolic crazy toppers that take some of your good points and render then useless.
There are Roy Adams in some places, that doesn't mean it is everywhere or even in your third version at all the P5 schools. Exceptions don't equal the rules.