MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 03, 2019, 06:41:23 PM

Title: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 03, 2019, 06:41:23 PM
https://twitter.com/danwetzel/status/1169030116841836546?s=21
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 03, 2019, 07:08:20 PM
https://twitter.com/danwetzel/status/1169030116841836546?s=21

The NCAA is so bad at what it does, it would have fouled any investigations up anyway
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 03, 2019, 07:22:53 PM
*sigh*

"Cheaters never prosper"
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 03, 2019, 08:18:25 PM
“Just you wait for the end of the summer NCAA violations”
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 03, 2019, 08:21:27 PM
“Just you wait for the end of the summer NCAA violations”


Hey they did get a couple of those dastardly assistant coaches.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 03, 2019, 08:24:22 PM
“Just you wait for the end of the summer NCAA violations”

How is this the NCAA’s fault?  Legal decision and as we have said often, the NCAA has no subpoena power, so without this type of aid, not a damn thing they can do.

Now, what I hope people aren’t saying but I know they are is “might as well cheat”.  At some point you have to stand for something.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: wadesworld on September 03, 2019, 08:26:52 PM
How is this the NCAA’s fault?  Legal decision and as we have said often, the NCAA has no subpoena power, so without this type of aid, not a damn thing they can do.

Now, what I hope people aren’t saying but I know they are is “might as well cheat”.  At some point you have to stand for something.

Why wouldn’t you cheat? They clearly don’t stand for anything at all. Look at the coaches who do cheat. Just signing top recruiting classes left and right. And how do you win? By adding talent.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 03, 2019, 08:31:18 PM
Now, what I hope people aren’t saying but I know they are is “might as well cheat”.  At some point you have to stand for something.

What is ‘cheating’ is about as relevant as ‘what’s a chicos’
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 03, 2019, 08:34:49 PM
How is this the NCAA’s fault?  Legal decision and as we have said often, the NCAA has no subpoena power, so without this type of aid, not a damn thing they can do.

Now, what I hope people aren’t saying but I know they are is “might as well cheat”.  At some point you have to stand for something.

It’s not the NCAAs fault. The entire thing was a waste of time and effort by the feds, and will do nothing to change what is happening in collegiate athletics. People who thought this would mean something were wrong.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 03, 2019, 08:36:22 PM
Why wouldn’t you cheat? They clearly don’t stand for anything at all. Look at the coaches who do cheat. Just signing top recruiting classes left and right. And how do you win? By adding talent.

Why wouldn’t I, because they vow to follow the rules, the school has a moral compass at times, etc, etc. 

And yes, as also shown many times schools do go down.  Louisville, USC, UCLA, etc etc. 

There are schools that win without the best recruiting classes.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 03, 2019, 08:42:04 PM
How is this the NCAA’s fault?

The NCAA did kind of say this...

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/at-least-six-college-basketball-programs-will-be-notified-of-major-ncaa-violations-by-this-summer/

So there's that.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 03, 2019, 08:50:52 PM
What is ‘cheating’ is about as relevant as ‘what’s a chicos’

The Autumn Equinox is September 23rd.  Cheeks and his Digital Doopleganger promised us the NCAA will deliver the hammer by then. Their credibility is on the line after all. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 03, 2019, 08:57:17 PM
The Autumn Equinox is September 23rd.  Cheeks and his Digital Doopleganger promised us the NCAA will deliver the hammer by then. Their credibility is on the line after all.

We will wag our finger at the masses from our moral high ground as the
philistines play their ‘winning basketball’.  Fools , we play the way that the mighty NCAA intended
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 03, 2019, 08:58:27 PM
It’s not the NCAAs fault. The entire thing was a waste of time and effort by the feds, and will do nothing to change what is happening in collegiate athletics. People who thought this would mean something were wrong.

Can you imagine being Will Wade in a business being caught on tape giving a bribe, then suspended for lying, then reinstated, and then being allowed to keep your job and cleared by the HR committee?  Scott Monarch got whacked for lying about a t-shirt he gave out a week early.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 03, 2019, 09:09:01 PM
The Autumn Equinox is September 23rd.  Cheeks and his Digital Doopleganger promised us the NCAA will deliver the hammer by then. Their credibility is on the line after all.

We promised something we cannot possibly know or promise would happen?  LOL.  No, we pointed out that it wasn't the end of Summer despite you suggesting it was.....hell, it wasn't even Labor Day when you made that prediction.

No, in fact I didn't promise a thing.....here is what I said   https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56557.msg1148190#msg1148190

Please correct your unfactual statement or your credibility will be on the line.   :D
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 03, 2019, 09:10:47 PM
The NCAA did kind of say this...

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/at-least-six-college-basketball-programs-will-be-notified-of-major-ncaa-violations-by-this-summer/

So there's that.

Yes, but what does that have to do with this Federal Judge denying the NCAA access to evidence?  That is what I was commenting on as not the NCAA's fault.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 03, 2019, 09:43:53 PM
We promised something we cannot possibly know or promise would happen?  LOL.  No, we pointed out that it wasn't the end of Summer despite you suggesting it was.....hell, it wasn't even Labor Day when you made that prediction.

No, in fact I didn't promise a thing.....here is what I said   https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56557.msg1148190#msg1148190

Please correct your unfactual statement or your credibility will be on the line.   :D

Don't be so self-important. "They" in my quote are the NCAA, not you and DD. We all knew from the start the NCAA was looking for their out like Miami, UNC, etc. And now they have it...it's a film flam organization.

"Just win, baby!"
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: GoldenWarrior11 on September 03, 2019, 09:45:57 PM
Oh boy.  I would be shaking in my boots if I was at Arizona Tech.  They'll be dropping the book on them for all the embarrassment that Arizona caused. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 03, 2019, 09:57:53 PM
Don't be so self-important. "They" in my quote are the NCAA, not you and DD. We all knew from the start the NCAA was looking for their out like Miami, UNC, etc. And now they have it...it's a film flam organization.

"Just win, baby!"

“The Autumn Equinox is September 23rd.  Cheeks and his Digital Doopleganger promised us the NCAA will deliver the hammer by then. Their credibility is on the line after all.”

Cheeks I assume is me.

Promised is what you said I did.

Their, assume was me and my digital doppelgänger.

That is what I responded.  I made no such promise.  I correctly stated when Summer was over, which wasn’t beginning of August when you were lining for it.

Just be ethical, baby.  Winning while cheating, why do people get off on that?  What’s the point?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 03, 2019, 10:09:41 PM
“The Autumn Equinox is September 23rd.  Cheeks and his Digital Doopleganger promised us the NCAA will deliver the hammer by then. Their credibility is on the line after all.”

Cheeks I assume is me.

Promised is what you said I did.

Their, assume was me and my digital doppelgänger.

That is what I responded.  I made no such promise.  I correctly stated when Summer was over, which wasn’t beginning of August when you were lining for it.

Just be ethical, baby.  Winning while cheating, why do people get off on that?  What’s the point?

"Their" credibility on the line is the NCAA.  As in ethics.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: PTM on September 03, 2019, 10:13:21 PM
Who would have thought there are NCAA homers in the world?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 03, 2019, 10:26:06 PM
Yes, but what does that have to do with this Federal Judge denying the NCAA access to evidence?  That is what I was commenting on as not the NCAA's fault.

So do you still believe that 6+ major programs will be notified of violations?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 03, 2019, 10:37:37 PM
Can you imagine being Will Wade in a business being caught on tape giving a bribe, then suspended for lying, then reinstated, and then being allowed to keep your job and cleared by the HR committee?  Scott Monarch got whacked for lying about a t-shirt he gave out a week early.

You keep saying it was only about lying about a t-shirt.......
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 03, 2019, 10:41:09 PM
Who would have thought there are NCAA homers in the world?

Who would have thought our alma mater is a member of the NCAA and that organization provides massive opportunities for hundreds of thousands of student athletes each year.  Sounds like gubmint failed on this one....who’s would have thought there are gubmint homers in the world.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: NorthernDancerColt on September 04, 2019, 01:17:59 AM
Charades.

As annoying chop/hack golfers at the local muni like to say...”balls in the air” on Nov 5, 2019 (2k Classic).

What can a clean program do except try to beat the living @$&% out of the cheating @$$ $h1€bag$?!

And make no mistake...we do things right here...you got a problem with it? There’s something wrong with you. We will win. We will win big. And we will win big..honorably.

What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but lose his soul in the process?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 04, 2019, 05:41:56 AM
Yes, but what does that have to do with this Federal Judge denying the NCAA access to evidence?  That is what I was commenting on as not the NCAA's fault.

They seem to have lied about overpromising. From the article:

The NCAA had held off on investigations, he said, at the request of the government until the trials were concluded.

"So now that's it over, we're going to be moving forward with a number of Level I cases that will help people realize that, 'Yeah, the enforcement staff was in a position to move forward,'" Wilcox said.


Whether they didn't have the authority or ability to get what they needed to assure compliance, this is a failure on their part. Clearly the enforcement staff wasn't in a position to move forward. Don't assert you're ready to start swinging when you don't even have your stick yet.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: NorthernDancerColt on September 04, 2019, 06:13:08 AM
They seem to have lied about overpromising. From the article:

The NCAA had held off on investigations, he said, at the request of the government until the trials were concluded.

"So now that's it over, we're going to be moving forward with a number of Level I cases that will help people realize that, 'Yeah, the enforcement staff was in a position to move forward,'" Wilcox said.


Whether they didn't have the authority or ability to get what they needed to assure compliance, this is a failure on their part. Clearly the enforcement staff wasn't in a position to move forward. Don't assert you're ready to start swinging when you don't even have your stick yet.

The whole thing is a giant charade. Again, the world is but a stage. Smoke n mirrors from the NCAA. Frankly, we are all culpable for buying into this sham. I would love a Nick Nolte BlueChips moment that will never come. Nothing in the world worse than hypocrisy. Pay the players already and truly level the playing field. Enough of the masquerade. Ironically, our own Markus is exhibit A that a kid can embrace college and all it encompasses and yet excel at the very top of the game. When he graduates, there should be a goddamn statue of him outside the AL.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 04, 2019, 06:20:29 AM
Death to the NCAA
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MUCam on September 04, 2019, 06:50:33 AM
This decision is so much bigger than the NCAA. The federal government and its law enforcement agencies have a vested interest in not allowing any third party from simply obtaining their records and the information obtained in criminal investigations, whether it is the Humane Society, the Church of Scientology, or the NCAA.

This legal battle was fought on a battle field far away from corruption in college athletics.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Silent Verbal on September 04, 2019, 07:16:45 AM
So does this mean Mannion is coming to Marquette now, hey?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 04, 2019, 07:21:16 AM
So does this mean Mannion is coming to Marquette now, hey?

And Sean Miller will be at Arizona getting top recruits for the foreseeable future.  NCAA is an abject failure
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 04, 2019, 07:28:07 AM
This decision is so much bigger than the NCAA. The federal government and its law enforcement agencies have a vested interest in not allowing any third party from simply obtaining their records and the information obtained in criminal investigations, whether it is the Humane Society, the Church of Scientology, or the NCAA.

This legal battle was fought on a battle field far away from corruption in college athletics.

And the legal “battle” wasn’t much of one and ended up to be a waste of time.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Loose Cannon on September 04, 2019, 08:22:33 AM
Death to the NCAA

Slim Chance.  Tarn had the NCAA's number years ago, some of us are in the process of catching up.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 09:00:20 AM
The whole thing is a giant charade. Again, the world is but a stage. Smoke n mirrors from the NCAA. Frankly, we are all culpable for buying into this sham. I would love a Nick Nolte BlueChips moment that will never come. Nothing in the world worse than hypocrisy. Pay the players already and truly level the playing field. Enough of the masquerade. Ironically, our own Markus is exhibit A that a kid can embrace college and all it encompasses and yet excel at the very top of the game. When he graduates, there should be a goddamn statue of him outside the AL.

The charade and sham is believing if you pay it will level the playing field.  That is beyond delusional.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 04, 2019, 09:02:45 AM
...it's a film flam organization.


(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cdE_N61Llsk/XEdgMvaU-wI/AAAAAAAANYU/kdE1rbDESuMJEv81kqEFIctbmAIE_5XggCLcBGAs/s1600/George%2BC.%2BScott%2B-%2BThe%2BFlim-Flam%2BMan.jpg)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: wadesworld on September 04, 2019, 09:12:09 AM
The charade and sham is believing if you pay it will level the playing field.  That is beyond delusional.

Players are already being paid...
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 09:13:54 AM
They seem to have lied about overpromising. From the article:

The NCAA had held off on investigations, he said, at the request of the government until the trials were concluded.

"So now that's it over, we're going to be moving forward with a number of Level I cases that will help people realize that, 'Yeah, the enforcement staff was in a position to move forward,'" Wilcox said.


Whether they didn't have the authority or ability to get what they needed to assure compliance, this is a failure on their part. Clearly the enforcement staff wasn't in a position to move forward. Don't assert you're ready to start swinging when you don't even have your stick yet.

Let’s see how it shakes out, Summer isn’t over.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 09:15:03 AM
Players are already being paid...

True, they all have scholarships and enormous value they receive.


Yes, SOME are being paid illegally....SOME.


And then we have all those that aren’t, in every sport......
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 04, 2019, 09:28:37 AM
True, they all have scholarships and enormous value they receive.

Rashad McCants disagrees.

#flimflam
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 04, 2019, 09:31:58 AM
True, they all have scholarships and enormous value they receive.


Yes, SOME are being paid illegally....SOME.


And then we have all those that aren’t, in every sport......

Suckers
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 09:48:19 AM
Rashad McCants disagrees.

#flimflam

That’s nice....I hear he is tearing it up in the Big 3 league....
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on September 04, 2019, 11:03:06 AM
https://twitter.com/danwetzel/status/1169030116841836546?s=21

Why is the NCAA a sham based on this tweet?   How did they lie?   Because a judge won’t give them access to findings in an FBI investigation?  Seems to be an over reaction.  Maybe it can be said they don’t have enough teeth but not seeing “sham” based off the information provided.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 04, 2019, 11:05:52 AM
Why is the NCAA a sham based on this tweet?   How did they lie?   Because a judge won’t give them access to findings in an FBI investigation?  Seems to be an over reaction.  Maybe it can be said they don’t have enough teeth but not seeing “sham” based off the information provided.


I never stated that.  I stated that the federal investigation was a waste based on that tweet.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on September 04, 2019, 11:08:43 AM
Gotcha.  But many of the following posts seem to imply its the NCAA fault they didn’t get access to the information and it is a sham organization.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Boozemon Barro on September 04, 2019, 11:19:49 AM
Deregulate it all. Let each university decide how much they want to compensate each individual player in every sport. It's the most fair option.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 04, 2019, 11:21:49 AM
Gotcha.  But many of the following posts seem to imply its the NCAA fault they didn’t get access to the information and it is a sham organization.

It is a sham organization.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 04, 2019, 11:49:13 AM
Gotcha.  But many of the following posts seem to imply its the NCAA fault they didn’t get access to the information and it is a sham organization.

It's not the NCAA's fault, though I suspect deep down Mark Emmert is feeling quite relieved.
It is a sham organization.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 04, 2019, 11:52:10 AM
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/candid-coaches-would-you-support-an-olympic-style-model-for-student-athletes/

Weird.  Most coaches are okay with the Olympic model being adopted for “student athletes”.

They know the NCAA is a sham
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 04, 2019, 11:52:47 AM
Why is the NCAA a sham based on this tweet?   How did they lie?   Because a judge won’t give them access to findings in an FBI investigation?  Seems to be an over reaction.  Maybe it can be said they don’t have enough teeth but not seeing “sham” based off the information provided.

If they don't divulge the major violations by the end of summer, I'd say they lied.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 04, 2019, 11:59:08 AM
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/candid-coaches-would-you-support-an-olympic-style-model-for-student-athletes/

Weird.  Most coaches are okay with the Olympic model being adopted for “student athletes”.

They know the NCAA is a sham

"The biggest thing working against it is that the money companies and boosters are now donating to universities would, in some cases, instead go directly to student-athletes -- which means universities would lose control of some revenue, and God knows they hate the idea of that."


Sounds a lot like something a really smart person here said.  ;)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 04, 2019, 11:59:44 AM
If they don't divulge the major violations by the end of summer, I'd say they lied.


I'll be more lenient with the timeline, but I just read that article that brewcity linked to, and my oh my did Stan Wilcox throw down the guantlet.  After quotes like those below, if nothing actually happens, the NCAA is going to look even more foolish than they usually do.

"The main thing is that we're up and ready. We're moving forward and you'll see consequences."

"So now that's it over, we're going to be moving forward with a number of Level I cases that will help people realize that, 'Yeah, the enforcement staff was in a position to move forward,'"

"Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations,"

"It's  a great opportunity for the enforcement staff, the committee on infractions, as well as our whole community to now try to … put things back where they need to be,"

"The membership, particularly the coaching community, have been frustrated," Wilcox said. "Those cases started 2017? We're now in '19. They want action."
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 04, 2019, 12:13:20 PM

"The biggest thing working against it is that the money companies and boosters are now donating to universities would, in some cases, instead go directly to student-athletes -- which means universities would lose control of some revenue, and God knows they hate the idea of that."


Sounds a lot like something a really smart person here said.  ;)

Ha, yup!  It’s always about the money in college sports.  Always
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Warrior Code on September 04, 2019, 12:24:04 PM
Charades.

As annoying chop/hack golfers at the local muni like to say...”balls in the air” on Nov 5, 2019 (2k Classic).

What can a clean program do except try to beat the living @$&% out of the cheating @$$ $h1€bag$?!

And make no mistake...we do things right here...you got a problem with it? There’s something wrong with you. We will win. We will win big. And we will win big..honorably.

What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but lose his soul in the process?

Alf pogs. Alf is back... in pog form
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on September 04, 2019, 12:44:36 PM
Funny how "sultan" posted the same tweet on IWBs board at the same time that FBM posted it on scoop.  Its almost like there is a hoopaloop in the machine.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 04, 2019, 06:31:05 PM

I'll be more lenient with the timeline, but I just read that article that brewcity linked to, and my oh my did Stan Wilcox throw down the guantlet.  After quotes like those below, if nothing actually happens, the NCAA is going to look even more foolish than they usually do.

"The main thing is that we're up and ready. We're moving forward and you'll see consequences."

"So now that's it over, we're going to be moving forward with a number of Level I cases that will help people realize that, 'Yeah, the enforcement staff was in a position to move forward,'"

"Those top coaches that were mentioned in the trials where the information shows what was being said was a violation of NCAA rules, yes. They will be all part of these notices of allegations,"

"It's  a great opportunity for the enforcement staff, the committee on infractions, as well as our whole community to now try to … put things back where they need to be,"

"The membership, particularly the coaching community, have been frustrated," Wilcox said. "Those cases started 2017? We're now in '19. They want action."

Yeah...if nothing comes of it, this stuff is really indefensible. Feels like there's likely to be a lot of overpromising and underdelivering. And while the calendar may still call this summer, let's be honest, everyone considers Labor Day the end of summer. I guess the generous can give him until September 23 and assume he was talking about the Autumnal Equinox, but we all know he meant that hammer was supposed to drop by now.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 04, 2019, 06:58:40 PM
Yeah...if nothing comes of it, this stuff is really indefensible. Feels like there's likely to be a lot of overpromising and underdelivering. And while the calendar may still call this summer, let's be honest, everyone considers Labor Day the end of summer. I guess the generous can give him until September 23 and assume he was talking about the Autumnal Equinox, but we all know he meant that hammer was supposed to drop by now.

Meteorological summer ended August 31st.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 07:11:36 PM
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/candid-coaches-would-you-support-an-olympic-style-model-for-student-athletes/

Weird.  Most coaches are okay with the Olympic model being adopted for “student athletes”.

They know the NCAA is a sham

That is weird...that most coaches would mean they surveyed 356 D1 head coaches....in fact they surveyed 100, coaches, which included assistant coaches not just head coaches.  So it is weird to say most when not even half of D1 head coaches were even surveyed.

And then we have Gary Parish’s dripping bias in the article about coaches getting “super duper rich”.  No Gary, a small handful are, the vast majority of the D1 coaches are not....but that’s Gary Parish for you.

I’d be curious if the coaches even filled this out, or is this like the coaches poll where the admin or intern fills it out.

I’d also like to know how many of these coaches are lawyers, or even have law degrees or a background in business....how are they going to handle Title IX or cost?  Of course those little tidbits I can guarantee you weren’t asked in their little survey because that would complicate things too much.  “You mean there might be legal and cost considerations...just let everyone have everything for FREEEEEEEEE”

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 07:14:21 PM
If they don't divulge the major violations by the end of summer, I'd say they lied.

Come on, timelines change.  A lie is based on knowing a falsehood. 

If when they stated it they had every intention of divulging, but circumstances changed...it isn’t a lie.  Let’s get real here.

If you buy a car, sign on the dotted line and 3 days later return it because of buyer’s remorse or it is a lemon, did you lie to the dealer?  Or did circumstances change?  If you told you buddy you would go to the game with him this Sunday, but you get sick and cannot go...did you lie?

Come on.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 07:15:54 PM

"The biggest thing working against it is that the money companies and boosters are now donating to universities would, in some cases, instead go directly to student-athletes -- which means universities would lose control of some revenue, and God knows they hate the idea of that."


Sounds a lot like something a really smart person here said.  ;)

Oh how you guys would love this chaos.... tear it all down.  I still want to know who you all are rooting for in this new world because MU hoops will be like Army football.  But hey, go for it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 07:17:44 PM
Ha, yup!  It’s always about the money in college sports.  Always

Yup...always about the money in college sports....always...except in D3 which is college sports....except in much of D2 which is college sports....except in more than half of D1 college sports....yup....always....always...always.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 07:22:20 PM
Yeah...if nothing comes of it, this stuff is really indefensible. Feels like there's likely to be a lot of overpromising and underdelivering. And while the calendar may still call this summer, let's be honest, everyone considers Labor Day the end of summer. I guess the generous can give him until September 23 and assume he was talking about the Autumnal Equinox, but we all know he meant that hammer was supposed to drop by now.

No, everyone doesn’t....which is entirely the point.  Look at universities on quarter system, they are on Summer break until later September.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: wadesworld on September 04, 2019, 07:25:23 PM
Chicos have there been any posts since you’ve returned to that you haven’t replied to?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 04, 2019, 07:33:31 PM
No, everyone doesn’t....which is entirely the point.  Look at universities on quarter system, they are on Summer break until later September.


Arguing over what constitutes the end of summer is a little much.  Honestly timelines change and that's fine.  But the bigger issue is if the NCAA is actually going to do what he said.  And I think most people don't think it will happen.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 04, 2019, 07:33:46 PM
That is weird...that most coaches would mean they surveyed 356 D1 head coaches....in fact they surveyed 100, which included assistant coaches not head coaches.  So it is weird to say most when not even have of D1 head coaches were even surveyed.

And then we have Gary Parish’s dripping bias in the article about coaches getting “super duper rich”.  No Gary, a small handful are, the vast majority of the D1 coaches are not....but that’s Gary Parish for you.

I’d be curious if the coaches even filled this out, or is this like the coaches poll where the admin or intern fills it out.

I’d also like to know how many of these coaches are lawyers, or even have law degrees or a background in business....how are they going to handle Title IX or cost?  Of course those little tidbits I can guarantee you weren’t asked in their little survey because that would complicate things too much.  “You mean there might be legal and cost considerations...just let everyone have everything for FREEEEEEEEE”

Title IX is completely irrelevant since all athletes in all sports would be able to partake in selling their likeness.

As for your concern Marquette would become Army football, for your consideration.

Marquette successfully navigated the changing landscape of college athletics in the late 80’s by foregoing major independence and joining the old MCC which at the time was populated by teams such as Xavier, Butler, Loyola, Evansville, St. Louis and Detroit. They did so because there was no future as an independent and conferences had begun being able to work TV deals.

In a stroke of genius/luck, they joined a new league, The Great Midwest a few years later which included Cincinnati who made a Final 4 the year the league was founded.  This in turn lead to Conference USA and a Final 4 bid a decade later and finally an invitation to the Big East.

Not done yet, Marquette along with the Catholic 7 managed to escape Conference USA 2.0 and save the Big East from the Tulanes of the world. While not the Big East of 1985, the league is still one of the best in college basketball and Villanova has won two national titles in the new era.

This brief history lesson tells me Marquette has adapted quite well in a landscape that is constantly changing and the notion they will become Army because players will be able to market themselves seems quite unlikely.  And if it does and Marquette decides that being a university first and basketball school second is more important, huzzah for them.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 07:36:52 PM
Chicos have there been any posts since you’ve returned to that you haven’t replied to?

Yes, most I haven’t replied to.....the vast majority I have not.  Just like most college basketball players aren’t paid.

You seem to be in a broad brush painting mode of late.  My opinion, of course.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 07:45:18 PM
Title IX is completely irrelevant since all athletes in all sports would be able to partake in selling their likeness.

As for your concern Marquette would become Army football, for your consideration.

Marquette successfully navigated the changing landscape of college athletics in the late 80’s by foregoing major independence and joining the old MCC which at the time was populated by teams such as Xavier, Butler, Loyola, Evansville, St. Louis and Detroit. They did so because there was no future as an independent and conferences had begun being able to work TV deals.

In a stroke of genius/luck, they joined a new league, The Great Midwest a few years later which included Cincinnati who made a Final 4 the year the league was founded.  This in turn lead to Conference USA and a Final 4 bid a decade later and finally an invitation to the Big East.

Not done yet, Marquette along with the Catholic 7 managed to escape Conference USA 2.0 and save the Big East from the Tulanes of the world. While not the Big East of 1985, the league is still one of the best in college basketball and Villanova has won two national titles in the new era.

This brief history lesson tells me Marquette has adapted quite well in a landscape that is constantly changing and the notion they will become Army because players will be able to market themselves seems quite unlikely.  And if it does and Marquette decides that being a university first and basketball school second is more important, huzzah for them.

You are missing some major portions to your analysis and if you don’t think Title IX lawsuits won’t be flying out you are crazy.  It will start with this legal theory....the men’s team is marketed more giving them more access to create a market and thus endorsements....the argument will be to make the marketing equal.

Then it becomes the men’s team plays at the Fiserv, and it isn’t fair they have that advantage for which they can then secure more endorsements by playing in a facility that garners more attention. 

And on and on it will go.  You are also completely ignoring scale here, and I’m not sure why.  Endorsements are about one of two things....one entity paying a ton, or many smaller entities paying a little.  Scale matters.  Big schools, lots of students, big city, public vs private, lots of alums, will matter more than ever.

You say MU has managed well, yes we have done fairly well through some changes in large part because the NCAA and the conferences we were in helped to keep some level of sanity.  It isn’t lost on my team irony that you are also not factoring in the very body you loathe that has helped MU to stay in the relative space they have.  Not lost on me at all.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 04, 2019, 07:54:56 PM
You are missing some major portions to your analysis and if you don’t think Title IX lawsuits won’t be flying out you are crazy.  It will start with this legal theory....the men’s team is marketed more giving them more access to create a market and thus endorsements....the argument will be to make the marketing equal.

Then it becomes the men’s team plays at the Fiserv, and it isn’t fair they have that advantage for which they can then secure more endorsements by playing in a facility that garners more attention. 

And on and on it will go.  You are also completely ignoring scale here, and I’m not sure why.  Endorsements are about one of two things....one entity paying a ton, or many smaller entities paying a little.  Scale matters.  Big schools, lots of students, big city, public vs private, lots of alums, will matter more than ever.

You say MU has managed well, yes we have done fairly well through some changes in large part because the NCAA and the conferences we were in helped to keep some level of sanity.  It isn’t lost on my team irony that you are also not factoring in the very body you loathe that has helped MU to stay in the relative space they have.  Not lost on me at all.


Marquette has stayed in the space they are because of Marquette, not the NCAA.  In fact, it can be argued the NCAA limits what any university can become.

Why aren’t there multiple Title IX lawsuits right now? Marquette men get to play at Fiserv and the women at the Al?  Big East men play their conference tournament at MSG and the women don’t.  That’s not equitable.  What’s the travel budgets?  Are they the same for all sports both genders play?  Title IX is a crutch with no support in this argument.

Also scale is ALREADY in place in college athletics.  There are haves and have nots ALREADY. 

Amateurism is a sham
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Boozemon Barro on September 04, 2019, 08:26:58 PM

Marquette has stayed in the space they are because of Marquette, not the NCAA.  In fact, it can be argued the NCAA limits what any university can become.

Why aren’t there multiple Title IX lawsuits right now? Marquette men get to play at Fiserv and the women at the Al?  Big East men play their conference tournament at MSG and the women don’t.  That’s not equitable.  What’s the travel budgets?  Are they the same for all sports both genders play?  Title IX is a crutch with no support in this argument.

Also scale is ALREADY in place in college athletics.  There are haves and have nots ALREADY. 

Amateurism is a sham
You see, the reason there are no Title IX law suits right now is because lawyers are people of honor. As long as the players don't get paid cash, the lawyers are willing to overlook all these obvious and blatant Title IX lawsuits.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 04, 2019, 08:27:34 PM
And then we have Gary Parish’s dripping bias in the article about coaches getting “super duper rich”.  No Gary, a small handful are, the vast majority of the D1 coaches are not....but that’s Gary Parish for you.

From where I stand, every D1 basketball coach is super duper rich. Compared to most Americans all D1 basketball coaches are super duper rich. Compared to most of the world all D1 basketball coaches are richer than God.

You are missing some major portions to your analysis and if you don’t think Title IX lawsuits won’t be flying out you are crazy.  It will start with this legal theory....the men’s team is marketed more giving them more access to create a market and thus endorsements....the argument will be to make the marketing equal.

Then it becomes the men’s team plays at the Fiserv, and it isn’t fair they have that advantage for which they can then secure more endorsements by playing in a facility that garners more attention. 

And on and on it will go.  You are also completely ignoring scale here, and I’m not sure why.  Endorsements are about one of two things....one entity paying a ton, or many smaller entities paying a little.  Scale matters.  Big schools, lots of students, big city, public vs private, lots of alums, will matter more than ever.

I work in Title IX compliance. None of this logic would come close to holding up.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 04, 2019, 08:37:34 PM
Yeah in no way would this be a Title IX issue.  Complete scare tactic.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 10:44:38 PM

Marquette has stayed in the space they are because of Marquette, not the NCAA.  In fact, it can be argued the NCAA limits what any university can become.

Why aren’t there multiple Title IX lawsuits right now? Marquette men get to play at Fiserv and the women at the Al?  Big East men play their conference tournament at MSG and the women don’t.  That’s not equitable.  What’s the travel budgets?  Are they the same for all sports both genders play?  Title IX is a crutch with no support in this argument.

Also scale is ALREADY in place in college athletics.  There are haves and have nots ALREADY. 

Amateurism is a sham

Majorly flawed.  The women today get the same scholarship the men do, they aren’t injured or aggrieved.  That’s why.  You start to change that dynamic, and one side is going to say there is a built in advantage.

More flawed logic by you is totally ignoring the benefits MU gets from being in a conference and the NCAA tournament credit money.  You had more of an argument when MU was an independent, but MU joined a conference for many reasons...scheduling, association with like minded schools, etc....MU receives money when OTHER conference schools make the tournament in addition to years we make it.  We get a cut....more of that socialism in sports that so many of you hate.  If MU merely went on its own and had no benefit from the conference and NCAA then MU should forfeit all those credits....which of course MU shouldn’t because MU benefits from such association.  Benefits!

Scale with 356 DI schools?  LOL.  You don’t understand scale then.  I’m talking hundreds of thousands or north of a million entities...true scale.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 10:53:21 PM
From where I stand, every D1 basketball coach is super duper rich. Compared to most Americans all D1 basketball coaches are super duper rich. Compared to most of the world all D1 basketball coaches are richer than God.

I work in Title IX compliance. None of this logic would come close to holding up.

Lol, we’ve all seen how wonderful the sexual assault logic holds up in academia as guys lives have been torched under some of the same Title IX ....so please, anything is possible.

2018 average DI basketball head coaches’ salary is in the $100,000’s range.

https://work.chron.com/average-salary-college-basketball-coach-2102.html


Again, people focus on about 25 to 40 schools and decide to extrapolate to all.....no one should allow that ridiculous extrapolation.  It’s the same BS argument people use about Fortune 100 CEO’s and ignore the 100’s of thousands of other businesses as if they don’t exist and their CEO pay is the same. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 04, 2019, 11:35:48 PM

2018 average DI basketball head coaches’ salary is in the $100,000’s range.

https://work.chron.com/average-salary-college-basketball-coach-2102.html

This is what we call a mathematical impossibility.
If the average D1 head coach's salary were even $200K, that would put the total salary for all D1 coaches at $70.2 million (351 X $200K).
Problem is, the top 70 coaches in the USA salary database earn a combined $183.8 million (and that top 70 doesn't include coaches at several major programs like Marquette, Stanford, Pitt, USC, etc., all of whom earn upwards of $2 million). Heck, if the other 281 head coaches were working for free (note: they're not), the average salary would be above $500K a year.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/mens-basketball/coach/

Once again, Cheeks, you need to do a better job of vetting your sources.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 04, 2019, 11:58:57 PM
This is what we call a mathematical impossibility.
If the average D1 head coach's salary were even $200K, that would put the total salary for all D1 coaches at $70.2 million (351 X $200K).
Problem is, the top 70 coaches in the USA salary database earn a combined $183.8 million (and that top 70 doesn't include coaches at several major programs like Marquette, Stanford, Pitt, USC, etc., all of whom earn upwards of $2 million). Heck, if the other 281 head coaches were working for free (note: they're not), the average salary would be above $500K a year.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/mens-basketball/coach/

Once again, Cheeks, you need to do a better job of vetting your sources.

You mean the media got it wrong again?  I really have to stop trusting these journalist# and academics like the PhD that wrote this article.



Edit:  for giggles, about 30% of the NCAA tournament from a few years ago made $500K or less.  Source also USA Today.   https://247sports.com/college/west-virginia/Board/105475/Contents/College-Basketball-Coaches-Salaries-54684326/


I guess that’s super duper rich to some....i could not disagree more depending on family of four and where they live.  I would love to see the data, but I would wager 1/2 of all D1 b-ball coaches make less than $300k in salary from the school as a source.  A far cry from the top guys that so many point to as the “norm”.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 05, 2019, 12:19:45 AM
You mean the media got it wrong again?  I really have to stop trusting these journalist# and academics like the PhD that wrote this article.

No, Cheeks, the media didn't get it wrong. You got it wrong.
Nowhere in the story you linked does it state "2018 average DI basketball head coaches’ salary is in the $100,000’s range."
That is something you made up because, as happens oddly often for you, you didn't actually read the story you linked.

Likewise, it was you, not the story you linked, that implied that only the top 25 to 40 coaches are rich compared to most Americans. Fact is, well over 70 coaches earn in excess of $1 million a year and the vast majority earn well over six figures. That is, as TAMU said, rich compared to most Americans.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 12:42:47 AM
No, Cheeks, the media didn't get it wrong. You got it wrong.
Nowhere in the story you linked does it state "2018 average DI basketball head coaches’ salary is in the $100,000’s range."
That is something you made up because, as happens oddly often for you, you didn't actually read the story you linked.

Likewise, it was you, not the story you linked, that implied that only the top 25 to 40 coaches are rich compared to most Americans. Fact is, well over 70 coaches earn in excess of $1 million a year and the vast majority earn well over six figures. That is, as TAMU said, rich compared to most Americans.


Ahem.....nowhere and I just made it up?  hmmm.....from the article....yes, I said 2018 and the article referenced 2017....i’m Sure salaries changed immensely in the 9 months to change the $100,000 number he stated.  (Sarcasm) Note the title of paragraph 2 is Average Salaries.  He goes out of the way to mention the exceptions, those that made the tournament and despite those coaches, including the top 40. 

Good day.

“Average Salaries
Salaries range widely among college basketball coaches. Even among the coaches at Division I schools whose teams made it to the 2017 NCAA tournament, salaries range from former Louisville coach Rick Pitino's $7,769,200 to North Dakota coach Brian Jones' $109,273.

When the salaries of coaches at smaller schools are taken into account, the average is probably not more than $100,000. Even then, that average is skewed higher by the almost surrealistically high salaries of the 40 top-paying NCAA schools, all of which pay their head basketball coaches $1 million or more.”
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 05, 2019, 07:20:23 AM
Edit:  for giggles, about 30% of the NCAA tournament from a few years ago made $500K or less.  Source also USA Today.   https://247sports.com/college/west-virginia/Board/105475/Contents/College-Basketball-Coaches-Salaries-54684326/


I guess that’s super duper rich to some....i could not disagree more depending on family of four and where they live.  I would love to see the data, but I would wager 1/2 of all D1 b-ball coaches make less than $300k in salary from the school as a source.  A far cry from the top guys that so many point to as the “norm”.

Average American makes between 30K-40K. So for most Americans and for most of the world's population that is super-duper rich. If you "could not disagree more" than it's because you have lost perspective.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 05, 2019, 07:27:08 AM
Majorly flawed.  The women today get the same scholarship the men do, they aren’t injured or aggrieved.  That’s why.  You start to change that dynamic, and one side is going to say there is a built in advantage.

More flawed logic by you is totally ignoring the benefits MU gets from being in a conference and the NCAA tournament credit money.  You had more of an argument when MU was an independent, but MU joined a conference for many reasons...scheduling, association with like minded schools, etc....MU receives money when OTHER conference schools make the tournament in addition to years we make it.  We get a cut....more of that socialism in sports that so many of you hate.  If MU merely went on its own and had no benefit from the conference and NCAA then MU should forfeit all those credits....which of course MU shouldn’t because MU benefits from such association.  Benefits!

Scale with 356 DI schools?  LOL.  You don’t understand scale then.  I’m talking hundreds of thousands or north of a million entities...true scale.

1. If you don’t think male athletes have greater benefits than female athletes at this current moment, your argument is then flawed.

2. Marquette being in a conference wouldn’t be changed one iota if athletes were allowed to be compensated on their likeness.  They’d still receive the same benefits by being in a conference.  The larger point was Marquette has adapted as the college sports landscape has changed.  They’d adapt if athletes were rightfully given the opportunity to earn money on their likeness.

3. It’s you who doesn’t understand scale.  College sports at all levels are dominated by the few.  Athletes earning from their likeness wouldn’t change that.

You’re simply scared Marquette would become irrelevant and want to prop up an organization you think somehow keeps them relevant.  Marquette stays relevant because they have chosen to.  The NCAA is a morally bankrupt organization that has been whistling past the graveyard for decades.

Whether you like it or not, college sports are a major business and corrupt to the core.  They have become entertainment inventory and the stars of the show should benefit from that.  The media and schools prop up coaches as these paragons of virtue and stars of the program but without the great, average and bad players we watch, there’s nothing. 

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 05, 2019, 07:28:37 AM

Ahem.....nowhere and I just made it up?  hmmm.....from the article....yes, I said 2018 and the article referenced 2017....i’m Sure salaries changed immensely in the 9 months to change the $100,000 number he stated.  (Sarcasm) Note the title of paragraph 2 is Average Salaries.  He goes out of the way to mention the exceptions, those that made the tournament and despite those coaches, including the top 40. 

Good day.

“Average Salaries
Salaries range widely among college basketball coaches. Even among the coaches at Division I schools whose teams made it to the 2017 NCAA tournament, salaries range from former Louisville coach Rick Pitino's $7,769,200 to North Dakota coach Brian Jones' $109,273.

When the salaries of coaches at smaller schools are taken into account, the average is probably not more than $100,000. Even then, that average is skewed higher by the almost surrealistically high salaries of the 40 top-paying NCAA schools, all of which pay their head basketball coaches $1 million or more.”

You notice the phrasing right? "Is probably not more?" The use of the word probably means that this guy was guessing. And as Pakuni showed, he was guessing badly.

Edit: I also notice that in that statement he says "coaches" not "head coaches." But later in the article he differentiates between "coaches" and "head coaches." So it is possible that he was also lumping in assistant coaching salaries with head coaching salaries. Which is confusing at best, disingenuous at worst.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 05, 2019, 07:53:40 AM
You’re simply scared Marquette would become irrelevant and want to prop up an organization you think somehow keeps them relevant.


That's really not the reason.  Cheeks doesn't like change and especially doesn't like change that would somehow benefit those who lack power (players) at the expense for those who do (NCAA, schools, coaches.)  Every single thing he ever debates can fall along these lines.

The rest of the stuff, such as Title IX and the best players concentrating at a few schools, are simply excuses and scare tactics to support his positions because logically they can't be supported otherwise.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 05, 2019, 08:10:18 AM

Ahem.....nowhere and I just made it up?  hmmm.....from the article....yes, I said 2018 and the article referenced 2017....i’m Sure salaries changed immensely in the 9 months to change the $100,000 number he stated.  (Sarcasm) Note the title of paragraph 2 is Average Salaries.  He goes out of the way to mention the exceptions, those that made the tournament and despite those coaches, including the top 40. 

Good day.

“Average Salaries
Salaries range widely among college basketball coaches. Even among the coaches at Division I schools whose teams made it to the 2017 NCAA tournament, salaries range from former Louisville coach Rick Pitino's $7,769,200 to North Dakota coach Brian Jones' $109,273.

When the salaries of coaches at smaller schools are taken into account, the average is probably not more than $100,000. Even then, that average is skewed higher by the almost surrealistically high salaries of the 40 top-paying NCAA schools, all of which pay their head basketball coaches $1 million or more.”

This really isn't hard, Cheeks.
The story linked states "When the salaries of coaches at smaller schools are taken into account, the average is probably not more than $100,000."

You took that statement and changed it to "2018 average DI basketball head coaches’ salary is in the $100,000’s range."

You ignored two huge and obvious red flags - the clear mathematical improbability and his use of the word "probably" - and then inserted "D1" and "head coaches" into the statement. You literally altered the guy's statement and added words to fit your argument.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 05, 2019, 08:19:23 AM
You mean the media got it wrong again?  I really have to stop trusting these journalist# and academics like the PhD that wrote this article.



Edit:  for giggles, about 30% of the NCAA tournament from a few years ago made $500K or less.  Source also USA Today.   https://247sports.com/college/west-virginia/Board/105475/Contents/College-Basketball-Coaches-Salaries-54684326/


I guess that’s super duper rich to some....i could not disagree more depending on family of four and where they live.  I would love to see the data, but I would wager 1/2 of all D1 b-ball coaches make less than $300k in salary from the school as a source.  A far cry from the top guys that so many point to as the “norm”.

You should spend time looking into household incomes in America. About $130,000 in household income is the cutoff for the top-10%. The median household income as of 2016 was under $60,000. So for 50% of the families in this country, one person making 220% or more of their total family income would probably be super duper rich.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 05, 2019, 08:28:47 AM

Edit:  for giggles, about 30% of the NCAA tournament from a few years ago made $500K or less.  Source also USA Today.   https://247sports.com/college/west-virginia/Board/105475/Contents/College-Basketball-Coaches-Salaries-54684326/

A household income of $225K - which is 58 of the 63 coaches on this list - is in the top 5 percent in the country.
An income of $450K - 45 of the 63  - puts you in the top 1 percent.
Now tell us again how D1 head coaches aren't getting rich.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 08:54:53 AM
Average American makes between 30K-40K. So for most Americans and for most of the world's population that is super-duper rich. If you "could not disagree more" than it's because you have lost perspective.

Avg American Salary $47K as of Feb 2019

When did rest of world get brought into this?

Sorry, Super Duper Rich to me is people making millions, not making $300K. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 08:57:55 AM
You notice the phrasing right? "Is probably not more?" The use of the word probably means that this guy was guessing. And as Pakuni showed, he was guessing badly.

Edit: I also notice that in that statement he says "coaches" not "head coaches." But later in the article he differentiates between "coaches" and "head coaches." So it is possible that he was also lumping in assistant coaching salaries with head coaching salaries. Which is confusing at best, disingenuous at worst.

Could very well be, which is why I said I shouldn’t listen to journalists and academics.....and then I was accused by Pakuni of making up the remarks when it was right there in his article.  Good times.  Just as Sand Knit and the Good Dr made up that I was going to Montana this week....never said it, but hey why not throw out falsehoods....then when I or others point out that falsehoods we are somehow still guilty or an apology or merely a “i was wrong” is nowhere to be found.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 09:02:09 AM
This really isn't hard, Cheeks.
The story linked states "When the salaries of coaches at smaller schools are taken into account, the average is probably not more than $100,000."

You took that statement and changed it to "2018 average DI basketball head coaches’ salary is in the $100,000’s range."

You ignored two huge and obvious red flags - the clear mathematical improbability and his use of the word "probably" - and then inserted "D1" and "head coaches" into the statement. You literally altered the guy's statement and added words to fit your argument.

LOL, I actually gave the guy even more latitude.  He said $100,000, and I said $100,000’s range which accounts for much more instead of his fixed lower amount. 

And excuse me, he was talking about D1 and head coaches....his words.  His only examples are head coaches.  Read the two paragraphs.  Now if this academic wasn’t clear, that’s fine....but those were his words.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU7703 on September 05, 2019, 09:04:39 AM
That's really not the reason.  Cheeks doesn't like change and especially doesn't like change that would somehow benefit those who lack power (players) at the expense for those who do (NCAA, schools, coaches.)  Every single thing he ever debates can fall along these lines.

+100000
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 05, 2019, 09:11:28 AM
Sorry, Super Duper Rich to me is people making millions, not making $300K.

And this is your problem. You don't understand what you are talking about because you can only see through your personal lens. I definitely consider $300,000/year to be super duper rich. It's more than double my household income, and I consider our household to be fairly wealthy.

I routinely go into households where the household income is $30,000 or less. I imagine anyone in that category would consider a 1000% increase in wages to be super duper rich.

You have to be pretty freaking privileged to not consider $300,000/year to be super duper rich.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 09:15:43 AM
1. If you don’t think male athletes have greater benefits than female athletes at this current moment, your argument is then flawed.

2. Marquette being in a conference wouldn’t be changed one iota if athletes were allowed to be compensated on their likeness.  They’d still receive the same benefits by being in a conference.  The larger point was Marquette has adapted as the college sports landscape has changed.  They’d adapt if athletes were rightfully given the opportunity to earn money on their likeness.

3. It’s you who doesn’t understand scale.  College sports at all levels are dominated by the few.  Athletes earning from their likeness wouldn’t change that.

You’re simply scared Marquette would become irrelevant and want to prop up an organization you think somehow keeps them relevant.  Marquette stays relevant because they have chosen to.  The NCAA is a morally bankrupt organization that has been whistling past the graveyard for decades.

Whether you like it or not, college sports are a major business and corrupt to the core.  They have become entertainment inventory and the stars of the show should benefit from that.  The media and schools prop up coaches as these paragons of virtue and stars of the program but without the great, average and bad players we watch, there’s nothing.

Where did I say college sports isn’t a major business?  Lol.  I worked in two athletic departments in my career including being responsible for the revenue of MU’s multiple years.  For many of the last 20 years I have worked with every major conference and the NCAA on the television side.  I still do to this day whether it is the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, the tournament, ESPN, etc, etc.  Uhm, yeah, I get it....much more than most here.

That doesn’t change the continued flawed focus by you and others of painting all of the ncaa or all colleges based on a small number of schools.  Most athletic depts don’t make money and cannot stand on their own two feet.  Do the men get it better than the women....another broad falsehood you have stated.  Does the Alabama football team get more than the Alabama women’s tennis team....yes.  Apples to oranges.  Does the Alabama men’s tennis team get more than the women’s team in terms of scholarships, aid, training, etc....that’s the proper comparison.  And in many cases, because of Title IX, more women are on scholarship in those sports then men.  Let’s use MU as an example.  How does the women’s vball team perks compare to the men’s vball team?  Here’s a hint....there is no men’s D1 vball team....again why your broad brush doesn’t make it so.   Men’s football, the number or scholarship athletes, heavily tilts the numbers because no women’s equivalent sports exists or comes close to it.

Finally, as I have already stated, I worked with these student athletes for many years at MU and IU.  Not just the basketball players, but the women and me busting their arses for themselves, their school, their families, to earn a degree and compete in varsity athletics.  Many were minorities.  Yes, my heart strings go to them and the opportunities that will go away from so many of theses kids in this insane drive to help the 1% get more because they are so deprived (heavy sarcasm) in school.  MU can choose to be where it is to a degree, but for you to not acknowledge the NCAA and the conference structure hasn’t benefited MU athletics is really something.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 09:22:07 AM
A household income of $225K - which is 58 of the 63 coaches on this list - is in the top 5 percent in the country.
An income of $450K - 45 of the 63  - puts you in the top 1 percent.
Now tell us again how D1 head coaches aren't getting rich.

Yup, and that doesn’t equal “super duper rich”.  The day in this country where $225k = “Super Duper Rich” ....we have a major vocabulary and education problem.....but I repeat myself.

I noticed you also conveniently left out avg career lifespan of a head coach.  Much like athletes, their window to make good money is highly compressed.  They don’t last long as they are hired to be fired.  This isn’t a 30 year teaching gig where it is impossible to get fired....it isn’t a tenured position.....it isn’t a Calif lifeguard making 6 figures the rest of their life....highly compressed timeline.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 05, 2019, 09:26:28 AM
Where did I say college sports isn’t a major business?  Lol.  I worked in two athletic departments in my career including being responsible for the revenue of MU’s multiple years.  For many of the last 20 years I have worked with every major conference and the NCAA on the television side.  I still do to this day whether it is the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, the tournament, ESPN, etc, etc.  Uhm, yeah, I get it....much more than most here.

That doesn’t change the continued flawed focus by you and others of painting all of the ncaa or all colleges based on a small number of schools.  Most athletic depts don’t make money and cannot stand on their own two feet.  Do the men get it better than the women....another broad falsehood you have stated.  Does the Alabama football team get more than the Alabama women’s tennis team....yes.  Apples to oranges.  Does the Alabama men’s tennis team get more than the women’s team in terms of scholarships, aid, training, etc....that’s the proper comparison.  And in many cases, because of Title IX, more women are on scholarship in those sports then men.  Let’s use MU as an example.  How does the women’s vball team perks compare to the men’s vball team?  Here’s a hint....there is no men’s D1 vball team....again why your broad brush doesn’t make it so.   Men’s football, the number or scholarship athletes, heavily tilts the numbers because no women’s equivalent sports exists or comes close to it.

Finally, as I have already stated, I worked with these student athletes for many years at MU and IU.  Not just the basketball players, but the women and me busting their arses for themselves, their school, their families, to earn a degree and compete in varsity athletics.  Many were minorities.  Yes, my heart strings go to them and the opportunities that will go away from so many of theses kids in this insane drive to help the 1% get more because they are so deprived (heavy sarcasm) in school.  MU can choose to be where it is to a degree, but for you to not acknowledge the NCAA and the conference structure hasn’t benefited MU athletics is really something.

If athletic departments can’t sustain themselves financially, then it behooves the university to get out of that business.

This notion you have the NCAA is the only entity capable of providing opportunities further proves athletes should be able to sell their likeness at all levels.  Universities part of the NCAA fight for these kids at all levels means they have value beyond a scholarship.



Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 05, 2019, 09:32:52 AM
I noticed you also conveniently left out avg career lifespan of a head coach.  Much like athletes, their window to make good money is highly compressed.  They don’t last long as they are hired to be fired.  This isn’t a 30 year teaching gig where it is impossible to get fired....it isn’t a tenured position.....it isn’t a Calif lifeguard making 6 figures the rest of their life....highly compressed timeline.


It is?  Where do you get that?

I think if you looked at all the D1 head coaches from 20 years ago, the majority are either:

--Working in coaching and making at least six figures as an assistant or head coach somewhere
--Working in something basketball related (TV, AAU, etc.) making similar amounts
--Retired
--Dead

I think you are making stuff up again.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 05, 2019, 09:37:17 AM
Yup, and that doesn’t equal “super duper rich”.  The day in this country where $225k = “Super Duper Rich” ....we have a major vocabulary and education problem.....but I repeat myself.

Wrong. You don't get to define this. Roughly 5x the median household income of this country is exactly what super duper rich is to at least half the country. Take your privilege somewhere else.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 05, 2019, 09:45:43 AM
Yup, and that doesn’t equal “super duper rich”.  The day in this country where $225k = “Super Duper Rich” ....we have a major vocabulary and education problem.....but I repeat myself.

I noticed you also conveniently left out avg career lifespan of a head coach.  Much like athletes, their window to make good money is highly compressed.  They don’t last long as they are hired to be fired.  This isn’t a 30 year teaching gig where it is impossible to get fired....it isn’t a tenured position.....it isn’t a Calif lifeguard making 6 figures the rest of their life....highly compressed timeline.

So how would you define a person earning more than 95 percent of all American households? Slightly rich? Upper middle class? Doing OK? You're engaging in a lame semantical argument involving you personal defintions to avoid admitting the obvious ... college basketball coaching at the D1 is a pathway to riches.

And as FBM already points out, your "compressed" argument is nonsense. A guy who lands a D1 head coaching gig is pretty much guaranteed a job for the rest of his life. Look at Jerry Wainwright, for pete's sake.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 05, 2019, 10:07:09 AM
Y'all don't know what it's like, being male, upper-class and white.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:07:47 AM
And this is your problem. You don't understand what you are talking about because you can only see through your personal lens. I definitely consider $300,000/year to be super duper rich. It's more than double my household income, and I consider our household to be fairly wealthy.

I routinely go into households where the household income is $30,000 or less. I imagine anyone in that category would consider a 1000% increase in wages to be super duper rich.

You have to be pretty freaking privileged to not consider $300,000/year to be super duper rich.

We all go through our personal lenses.  Super duper rich equates to ultra rich, and that amount of money to equate that is absurd.  A family of four living on $300k in a place like California is not super duper rich.  It’s absurd.  You are guilty of exactly what you are preaching against.  You don’t live in SF, or LA, or NYC, etc where people would laugh you out of the room to say super duper rich....because it is an absurd statement.  I guess I have to be pretty privileged in order to have a child with massive medical expenses each year, a wife as well....privileged...yup....and don’t forget the white part.  Sorry, $300k is not super duper rich.  If it is, what is a millionaire.....super super super duper duper duper rich.  The absurdity is awesome.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:12:04 AM
Rico

Does the MU men’s tennis team get it better than the MU women’s tennis team....the men’s players play in a different location?  Are their scholarships higher?  Same question for track, soccer? 

This is why when you sale male athletes have it better I call you out.  Yes, in some cases you are right, in some cases the women’s team has better perks, and often neither is the case.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 05, 2019, 10:14:50 AM
Rico

Does the MU men’s tennis team get it better than the MU women’s tennis team....the men’s players play in a different location?  Are their scholarships higher?  Same question for track, soccer? 

This is why when you sale male athletes have it better I call you out.  Yes, in some cases you are right, in some cases the women’s team has better perks, and often neither is the case.

That’s why your Title IX argument is baseless, thank you
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:18:53 AM
If athletic departments can’t sustain themselves financially, then it behooves the university to get out of that business.

This notion you have the NCAA is the only entity capable of providing opportunities further proves athletes should be able to sell their likeness at all levels.  Universities part of the NCAA fight for these kids at all levels means they have value beyond a scholarship.

Lol. Should we make that the case across all of society?  If you don’t drive a direct positive ROI you are eliminated.

Getting out the popcorn for this one.

NCAA isn’t the only entity, another false statement.  Play overseas.  Play in the G league.  Play at a NAIA school.  More false statements from you.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 05, 2019, 10:19:30 AM
We all go through our personal lenses.  Super duper rich equates to ultra rich, and that amount of money to equate that is absurd.  A family of four living on $300k in a place like California is not super duper rich.  It’s absurd.  You are guilty of exactly what you are preaching against.  You don’t live in SF, or LA, or NYC, etc where people would laugh you out of the room to say super duper rich....because it is an absurd statement.  I guess I have to be pretty privileged in order to have a child with massive medical expenses each year, a wife as well....privileged...yup....and don’t forget the white part.  Sorry, $300k is not super duper rich.  If it is, what is a millionaire.....super super super duper duper duper rich.  The absurdity is awesome.

It's sad that your argument has devolved into debating the differences between "rich" and "super duper rich." I mean, who cares. The fact remains that D1 college coaches are getting wealthy while their players are deprived of the right to earn an income.

p.s. Median household income in LA County is $65K. Someone earning about 450% of that that is indeed rich.

Again, this is an irrelevant semantical argument that ignores the the heart of the issue.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:20:44 AM
Wrong. You don't get to define this. Roughly 5x the median household income of this country is exactly what super duper rich is to at least half the country. Take your privilege somewhere else.

But you do get to define it?  Lol.

I wonder how many people would think a govt pension where you make the average of your top earning years the rest of your life is super duper rich.

Please, take your privilege elsewhere.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: wadesworld on September 05, 2019, 10:21:19 AM
What percentage of college basketball coaches are living in NYC, LA, or SF?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 05, 2019, 10:25:16 AM
Lol. Should we make that the case across all of society?  If you don’t drive a direct positive ROI you are eliminated.

Getting out the popcorn for this one.

NCAA isn’t the only entity, another false statement.  Play overseas.  Play in the G league.  Play at a NAIA school.  More false statements from you.

If universities are losing money on having an athletic department and will continue to lose money because players get paid for their likeness, what changes?  You argued these departments lose money.  That’s not changing either way.  If your argument is players getting paid for their likeness causes that, you’re wrong.  I guess they have an excuse now and the poor kids are going to lose out at opportunities at those places?

As for your second point, you admit there are options outside of the NCAA.  So how would kids lose other opportunities if players got paid for their likeness?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:31:08 AM
So how would you define a person earning more than 95 percent of all American households? Slightly rich? Upper middle class? Doing OK? You're engaging in a lame semantical argument involving you personal defintions to avoid admitting the obvious ... college basketball coaching at the D1 is a pathway to riches.

And as FBM already points out, your "compressed" argument is nonsense. A guy who lands a D1 head coaching gig is pretty much guaranteed a job for the rest of his life. Look at Jerry Wainwright, for pete's sake.

Your example is to point to one guy.  Talk about a mathematical impossibility, by your suggestion every coach always hangs around until retirement....which means very little movement of any kind because the retirement rate takes so long....very little new blood as the volume of new schools isn’t growing.

Let’s use MU as an example, since you like examples.  From Mike Deane’s staff

Darin ....went into the FBI
Mike Rice....out of college coaching
Sean Rivers...a teacher in Texas
Brian Bidlingmyer...out of coaching
Bo Ellis...out of coaching
Dan Theiss...

Tell me again how they are in coaching for lifetime
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:34:30 AM
What percentage of college basketball coaches are living in NYC, LA, or SF?

No idea.  Regardless, $300k HH income is not super duper rich.  I’d call it upper middle class in parts of the country, and rich in other parts.  “Super Duper”....puts it way over the top, and of course Gary was talking about those making millions per year, not guys making $300K. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:37:49 AM

It is?  Where do you get that?

I think if you looked at all the D1 head coaches from 20 years ago, the majority are either:

--Working in coaching and making at least six figures as an assistant or head coach somewhere
--Working in something basketball related (TV, AAU, etc.) making similar amounts
--Retired
--Dead

I think you are making stuff up again.

Sultan

You should look at the asst coaching salaries for schools 150 to 350 in D1....tell me how many are 6 figures. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:41:06 AM
That’s why your Title IX argument is baseless, thank you

Nope, because as I also stated it isn’t universally the case.  MU women’s basketball a classic example.  Your problem is you use a broad brush and extrapolate upper crust of men’s basketball and make it so to all sports or even all basketball.  Guarantee you Title IX lawsuits filed in this situation.  Guaranteed.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 05, 2019, 10:45:24 AM
Darin ....went into the FBI
Mike Rice....out of college coaching
Sean Rivers...a teacher in Texas
Brian Bidlingmyer...out of coaching
Bo Ellis...out of coaching
Dan Theiss...

Among these coaches, only Ellis and Rice had D1 head coaching jobs and are relevant to my point  (and that's being generous to Chicago State).
Bo was a disaster at Chicago State but still landed a well=paying athletics gig after that in the CPS.
And let's just say there are "special circumstances" involving Mike Rice's lack of coaching opportunities that make him an outlier to this discussion. Yet despite all that, he continues to earn a living coaching basketball.
So, what was your point again?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 05, 2019, 10:52:08 AM
No idea.  Regardless, $300k HH income is not super duper rich.  I’d call it upper middle class in parts of the country, and rich in other parts.  “Super Duper”....puts it way over the top, and of course Gary was talking about those making millions per year, not guys making $300K.

$300 large in Seattle isn't rich. Public school teachers with 20 years here make $150 and they struggle.

$300 is probably comfortable in WI but it's nothing in urban west coast. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 05, 2019, 10:55:02 AM
No idea.  Regardless, $300k HH income is not super duper rich.  I’d call it upper middle class in parts of the country, and rich in other parts.  “Super Duper”....puts it way over the top, and of course Gary was talking about those making millions per year, not guys making $300K.

Then you are as ignorant as you are privileged. And yes, your whiteness is part of that privilege, just as mine is for me.

5 times the median household income is super DUPER rich. Looking through the lens of an incredibly expensive part of the country to live in ignores the 99% of the country with a vastly lower cost of living. Have those medical expenses bankrupted you yet? Have you been evicted or forced to move because of it. Have you had to decide between a medication and food? If the answer is no, then again you need to check your privilege at the door.

For the majority of this country, $120,000+ would be considered super-DUPER-rich. It is the kind of rich that would eliminate all their debt and financial woes in a few years. Median income is around $60,000, median debt is around $137,000. In a vacuum, doubling that median income would allow those households to eliminate that debt in under 5 years. Going from underwater in debt to debt-free in 5 years is life-changing.

Sorry, you might like to think of yourself as some working class hero, some champion of the underdog, but I strongly suspect the reason you are fighting this losing battle so hard is because you are part of the super-DUPER-rich that you are claiming are somehow vastly more wealthy than you without realizing you are yourself vastly more wealthy than the majority of this country. I know, mirrors are tough to look into.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 05, 2019, 11:09:39 AM
Nope, because as I also stated it isn’t universally the case.  MU women’s basketball a classic example.  Your problem is you use a broad brush and extrapolate upper crust of men’s basketball and make it so to all sports or even all basketball.  Guarantee you Title IX lawsuits filed in this situation.  Guaranteed.

And?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 11:10:39 AM
Among these coaches, only Ellis and Rice had D1 head coaching jobs and are relevant to my point  (and that's being generous to Chicago State).
Bo was a disaster at Chicago State but still landed a well=paying athletics gig after that in the CPS.
And let's just say there are "special circumstances" involving Mike Rice's lack of coaching opportunities that make him an outlier to this discussion. Yet despite all that, he continues to earn a living coaching basketball.
So, what was your point again?

Mike is hardly the bread winner there, and for years couldn’t get anything.  Glad you get to decide what D1 is vs the NCAA in your evaluation of Bo’s tenure.  Was Ric Cobb not really a D1 coach either?  There are countless former D1 coaches, especially at the mid to lower levels that burned out and are doing something else...not the portrayal of they all get lined up for these 6 figure coaching gigs the rest of their life.  Some certainly do, a bunch do not.  The stress, time from family, etc and they get out.  Again, and again you are focusing on some to extrapolate to all.  Faulty.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 11:17:37 AM
Then you are as ignorant as you are privileged. And yes, your whiteness is part of that privilege, just as mine is for me.

5 times the median household income is super rich. Looking through the lens of an incredibly expensive part of the country to live in ignores the 99% of the country with a vastly lower cost of living. Have those medical expenses bankrupted you yet? Have you been evicted or forced to move because of it. Have you had to decide between a medication and food? If the answer is no, then again you need to check your privilege at the door.

For the majority of this country, $120,000+ would be considered super-rich. It is the kind of rich that would eliminate all their debt and financial woes in a few years. Median income is around $60,000, median debt is around $137,000. In a vacuum, doubling that median income would allow those households to eliminate that debt in under 5 years. Going from underwater in debt to debt-free in 5 years is life-changing.

Sorry, you might like to think of yourself as some working class hero, some champion of the underdog, but I strongly suspect the reason you are fighting this losing battle so hard is because you are part of the super-rich that you are claiming are somehow vastly more wealthy than you without realizing you are yourself vastly more wealthy than the majority of this country. I know, mirrors are tough to look into.

So now it is super rich.  I was responding to super duper rich, which is what we have been talking about and what I said was absurd.

So which is it....rich...super rich (your new landing spot)....or super duper rich (Gary’s words and what I disagreed with).

Sorry, I think the term Super Duper Rich and $300K is an absolute absurd joke.  You now seem to agree since you only call it super rich.

And excuse me, where did I bring in my income anywhere in this conversation or where did I claim to be a working class hero, so stop with your nonsense.  I didn’t.  I merely said the term super duper rich was absurd when comparing against that amount of money, specifically $300k.  And I think most people would agree using that terminology and that amount don’t jive.  If it did, what on earth is the term you use for a millionaire, billionaire.  How many dupers and supers do we get from you?

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 05, 2019, 11:27:47 AM
So now it is super rich.  I was responding to super duper rich, which is what we have been talking about and what I said was absurd.

So which is it....rich...super rich (your new landing spot)....or super duper rich (Gary’s words and what I disagreed with).

Sorry, I think the term Super Duper Rich and $300K is an absolute absurd joke.  You now seem to agree since you only call it super rich.

And excuse me, where did I bring in my income anywhere in this conversation or where did I claim to be a working class hero, so stop with your nonsense.  I didn’t.  I merely said the term super duper rich was absurd when comparing against that amount of money, specifically $300k.  And I think most people would agree using that terminology and that amount don’t jive.  If it did, what on earth is the term you use for a millionaire, billionaire.  How many dupers and supers do we get from you?

There is no tangible difference, but since you are being a petulant child with poor widdle bruised feelings, I added "dupers" to my previous post. Good lord you're whiny.

Super rich, super duper rich, bizarro world rich, when you make more than 5x individually what the average two-income family makes, you qualify as any of the above. Deal with it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 05, 2019, 11:36:39 AM
Mike is hardly the bread winner there, and for years couldn’t get anything.  Glad you get to decide what D1 is vs the NCAA in your evaluation of Bo’s tenure.  Was Ric Cobb not really a D1 coach either?  There are countless former D1 coaches, especially at the mid to lower levels that burned out and are doing something else...not the portrayal of they all get lined up for these 6 figure coaching gigs the rest of their life.  Some certainly do, a bunch do not.  The stress, time from family, etc and they get out.  Again, and again you are focusing on some to extrapolate to all.  Faulty.

We've reached the "Unhinged Cheeks rambles" portion of the program.
And all because you made a misleading post about D1 head coaching salaries and can't admit you made a mistake.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 05, 2019, 03:46:10 PM
$300 large in Seattle isn't rich. Public school teachers with 20 years here make $150 and they struggle.

$300 is probably comfortable in WI but it's nothing in urban west coast.

Is it super-duper in Big Sky Country?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 05, 2019, 05:40:45 PM
Is it super-duper in Big Sky Country?

theBabyDavid's mother grew up on a ranch in Idaho. Nothing could be more different from Seattle or San Francisco than rural Idaho.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WarriorDad on September 05, 2019, 08:07:27 PM
Rich is not defined by one’s assets, but how one lives.


Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 05, 2019, 08:14:38 PM
A failed writer is privileged because he is white? Imagine the f#cking hubris if he was a success...
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: real chili 83 on September 05, 2019, 08:20:18 PM
There is no tangible difference, but since you are being a petulant child with poor widdle bruised feelings, I added "dupers" to my previous post. Good lord you're whiny.

Super rich, super duper rich, bizarro world rich, when you make more than 5x individually what the average two-income family makes, you qualify as any of the above. Deal with it.

Curious, what the heck are you talking about?  What is there to deal with?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 05, 2019, 08:31:01 PM
A failed writer is privileged because he is white? Imagine the f#cking hubris if he was a success...

Brew might as well have called cheeks a racist too. White privilege is the new conversation stopper when ya run out of smart stuff. Pretty weak brew
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 4everwarriors on September 05, 2019, 08:33:37 PM
Fookin' tired of this white privilege bullchit. Everyone comes out of someone's vagina. Then, it's on you as to how the final chapter is written. Quit looking for a handout.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 05, 2019, 08:36:51 PM
Fookin' tired of this white privilege bullchit. Everyone comes out of someone's vagina. Then, it's on you as to how the final chapter is written. Quit looking for a handout.

But that’s not really the case though.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 05, 2019, 08:38:08 PM
Brew might as well have called cheeks a racist too. White privilege is the new conversation stopper when ya run out of smart stuff. Pretty weak brew

I don’t think he said white privilege. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) He simply said that his privilege was biasing his view.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 05, 2019, 08:44:47 PM
I don’t think he said white privilege. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) He simply said that his privilege was biasing his view.

Ohh..kay swing and a ...
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on September 05, 2019, 08:47:23 PM
Fookin' tired of this white privilege bullchit. Everyone comes out of someone's vagina. Then, it's on you as to how the final chapter is written. Quit looking for a handout.

What about c-sections?  These poor pricks dont get to experience the vag until high school or college.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 4everwarriors on September 05, 2019, 08:49:25 PM
Moore like middle school, aina?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on September 05, 2019, 08:50:14 PM
Then you are as ignorant as you are privileged. And yes, your whiteness is part of that privilege, just as mine is for me.

5 times the median household income is super DUPER rich. Looking through the lens of an incredibly expensive part of the country to live in ignores the 99% of the country with a vastly lower cost of living. Have those medical expenses bankrupted you yet? Have you been evicted or forced to move because of it. Have you had to decide between a medication and food? If the answer is no, then again you need to check your privilege at the door.

For the majority of this country, $120,000+ would be considered super-DUPER-rich. It is the kind of rich that would eliminate all their debt and financial woes in a few years. Median income is around $60,000, median debt is around $137,000. In a vacuum, doubling that median income would allow those households to eliminate that debt in under 5 years. Going from underwater in debt to debt-free in 5 years is life-changing.

Sorry, you might like to think of yourself as some working class hero, some champion of the underdog, but I strongly suspect the reason you are fighting this losing battle so hard is because you are part of the super-DUPER-rich that you are claiming are somehow vastly more wealthy than you without realizing you are yourself vastly more wealthy than the majority of this country. I know, mirrors are tough to look into.

So you are saying you are super duper rich then, eh Lieutenant?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 05, 2019, 08:55:41 PM
Ohh..kay swing and a ...

You don’t understand the concept of privilege?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 05, 2019, 09:28:12 PM
Fookin' tired of this white privilege bullchit. Everyone comes out of someone's vagina. Then, it's on you as to how the final chapter is written. Quit looking for a handout.

You forgot the teal.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 05, 2019, 09:29:14 PM
Fookin' tired of this white privilege bullchit. Everyone comes out of someone's vagina. Then, it's on you as to how the final chapter is written. Quit looking for a handout.

You should read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 05, 2019, 09:37:28 PM
I don’t think he said white privilege. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) He simply said that his privilege was biasing his view.

here ya go fluffy monster-i didn't say anything about blue though, eyn'er?

   "Then you are as ignorant as you are privileged. And yes, your whiteness is part of that privilege, just as mine is for me."

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 05, 2019, 09:40:24 PM
here ya go fluffy monster-i didn't say anything about blue though, eyn'er?

   "Then you are as ignorant as you are privileged. And yes, your whiteness is part of that privilege, just as mine is for me."

Gotcha. I just couldnt find it. That’s not calling him a racist though. But that’s not what this topic is about anyway.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:09:16 PM
I don’t think he said white privilege. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) He simply said that his privilege was biasing his view.

He has dropped white privilege attacks in the past.  I love the privilege argument from a govt employee who will be raking it in for the next 40 years.  Amazing, truly amazing....we should all be so challenged and unprivileged.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 05, 2019, 10:09:18 PM
here ya go fluffy monster-i didn't say anything about blue though, eyn'er?

   "Then you are as ignorant as you are privileged. And yes, your whiteness is part of that privilege, just as mine is for me."

Predictably, you latched on to my words and ignored that Chicos was the one who brought white privilege into the discussion. I was speaking about the privilege of wealth, he decided to make it about race:

We all go through our personal lenses.  Super duper rich equates to ultra rich, and that amount of money to equate that is absurd.  A family of four living on $300k in a place like California is not super duper rich.  It’s absurd.  You are guilty of exactly what you are preaching against.  You don’t live in SF, or LA, or NYC, etc where people would laugh you out of the room to say super duper rich....because it is an absurd statement.  I guess I have to be pretty privileged in order to have a child with massive medical expenses each year, a wife as well....privileged...yup....and don’t forget the white part.  Sorry, $300k is not super duper rich.  If it is, what is a millionaire.....super super super duper duper duper rich.  The absurdity is awesome.

So sure, I'll acknowledge that race plays a part, as he himself stated accurately.

In America rit large and Milwaukee, the $300,000 figure we are talking about is 5x the median income. In LA, it's 4x the median income. In Seattle it's 3x the median income.

The point stands that compared to the average household wealth in the vast majority of this country, with possibly few exceptions in uber-rich communities but absolutely NOT in any of the communities mentioned in this thread, a single individual with one job making 3-5 times the income of a multi-income family (often with members of said family having multiple jobs) is really effing rich. Or super, or super-duper, or supercalifragilisticexpialidocious rich.

Chicos was wrong about that and is incapable of admitting when he is wrong, so here we are, with you trying to play the injured race card without recognizing that he was the one to introduce it to the conversation.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:11:36 PM
Predictably, you latched on to my words and ignored that Chicos was the one who brought white privilege into the discussion. I was speaking about the privilege of wealth, he decided to make it about race:

So sure, I'll acknowledge that race plays a part, as he himself stated accurately.

In America rit large and Milwaukee, the $300,000 figure we are talking about is 5x the median income. In LA, it's 4x the median income. In Seattle it's 3x the median income.

The point stands that compared to the average household wealth in the vast majority of this country, with possibly few exceptions in uber-rich communities but absolutely NOT in any of the communities mentioned in this thread, a single individual with one job making 3-5 times the income of a multi-income family (often with members of said family having multiple jobs) is really effing rich. Or super, or super-duper, or supercalifragilisticexpialidocious rich.

Chicos was wrong about that and is incapable of admitting when he is wrong, so here we are, with you trying to play the injured race card without recognizing that he was the one to introduce it to the conversation.

LOL, because in the past you have dropped the white bullchit multiple times, and I being the sensitive man was reminding you not to forget it this time, because you certainly haven’t in the past.

Super duper rich.....I hope that makes the meme tournament.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 05, 2019, 10:13:40 PM
So you are saying you are super duper rich then, eh Lieutenant?

Yes. Both rich and privileged, in many ways.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:13:56 PM
$300 large in Seattle isn't rich. Public school teachers with 20 years here make $150 and they struggle.

$300 is probably comfortable in WI but it's nothing in urban west coast.

Yes, I know....but to certain people here apparently it is not only rich, not only super rich, but super duper rich.   But yes, I know as you do that $300k isn’t rich or even close.  Once again people have no idea definition of words and when I ask if $300K is super duper rich, what then is a million or a billion.....crickets.   They are laughable.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:15:11 PM
We've reached the "Unhinged Cheeks rambles" portion of the program.
And all because you made a misleading post about D1 head coaching salaries and can't admit you made a mistake.

Nothing was misleading, you are just upset that an academic messed up again and was called out on it.  My post wasn’t misleading.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:17:17 PM
Brew might as well have called cheeks a racist too. White privilege is the new conversation stopper when ya run out of smart stuff. Pretty weak brew

Oh he’s done that, too.  It’s the playbook of one side and most of the country knows it at this point.  Don’t agree with someone, just level the charge.  Have success in your life....you didn’t do it, you didn’t build it...it is because you are a dude...a white dude....and on and on the drum beat goes.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 05, 2019, 10:18:41 PM
Arguing with people who deny the existence of privilege is about as worthwhile as arguing with people who deny climate change, which is about as worthwhile as arguing with Sandy Hook and 9/11 truthers.
Don't waste your time.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 05, 2019, 10:36:47 PM
Oh he’s done that, too.  It’s the playbook of one side and most of the country knows it at this point.  Don’t agree with someone, just level the charge.  Have success in your life....you didn’t do it, you didn’t build it...it is because you are a dude...a white dude....and on and on the drum beat goes.

So you introduce your own whiteness into the thread then play victim because I acknowledged it? There's nothing wrong with acknowledging ones own privilege. Frankly, it's a healthy way to understand the people you share the planet with.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 05, 2019, 10:56:49 PM
So you introduce your own whiteness into the thread then play victim because I acknowledged it? There's nothing wrong with acknowledging ones own privilege. Frankly, it's a healthy way to understand the people you share the planet with.

I’m going to let you in on a little secret.  I don’t give a damn if you are white, black, Asian, whatever. I’m happy for you and others in what they are able to achieve in life.  Sometimes people are really lucky, sometimes they get screwed, and often times it is because someone got a break and made the most of it.   If you want to run around talking about your privilege that is your own damn business, but don’t you dare throw it down my throat or anyone else’s when you know nothing of their status in life, how they got there or what their path was.  Don’t pretend to know how anyone achieved what they did or the journey they took.  If you want to undersell your path, knock your socks off....don’t do it to anyone else.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Marcus92 on September 05, 2019, 11:52:22 PM
I'm not even sure what the argument on this thread is all about. Pretty sure it's got nothing whatsoever to do with Marquette basketball. But who's counting? A few quick facts about annual household income:

90th percentile
If your household income before taxes is $180,000 or more, you rank among the top 10% in the United States. In other words, you make more per year than 9 out of 10 American households.

95th percentile
If your household income is $250,000 or more, you rank among the top 5% in the U.S. That means you earn more per year than 19 out of 20 American households. Getting into very select company, whatever you call it.

99th percentile
If your household income is $440,000 or more, you rank among the top 1% in the United States. Meaning, you earn more per year than 99 out of 100 Americans.

These numbers are based on the latest available data from 2017. A new report with 2018 data is due later this month.

Attaching labels to those income groupings is where things can start to go off the rails. Economists can't even agree on a universal definition of "middle class" or "upper middle class" -- so deciding what income level represents "super duper rich" is open to interpretation. But $300,000 is well beyond what's typically defined as "upper middle class." Can we agree on that?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 79Warrior on September 05, 2019, 11:59:17 PM
I'm not even sure what the argument on this thread is all about. Pretty sure it's got nothing whatsoever to do with Marquette basketball. But who's counting? A few quick facts about annual household income:

90th percentile
If your household income before taxes is $180,000 or more, you rank among the top 10% in the United States. In other words, you make more per year than 9 out of 10 American households.

95th percentile
If your household income is $250,000 or more, you rank among the top 5% in the U.S. That means you earn more per year than 19 out of 20 American households. Getting into very select company, whatever you call it.

99th percentile
If your household income is $440,000 or more, you rank among the top 1% in the United States. Meaning, you earn more per year than 99 out of 100 Americans.

These numbers are based on the latest available data from 2017. A new report with 2018 data is due later this month.

Attaching labels to those income groupings is where things can start to go off the rails. Economists can't even agree on a universal definition of "middle class" or "upper middle class" -- so deciding what income level represents "super duper rich" is open to interpretation. But $300,000 is well beyond what's typically defined as "upper middle class." Can we agree on that?

Please, no facts.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 06, 2019, 01:04:33 AM
Yes, I know....but to certain people here apparently it is not only rich, not only super rich, but super duper rich.   But yes, I know as you do that $300k isn’t rich or even close.  Once again people have no idea definition of words and when I ask if $300K is super duper rich, what then is a million or a billion.....crickets.   They are laughable.

A quick google search tells me that the median household income in Seattle is $100,630. So those who make $300K are making just under 3X that. I consider anyone making 3X more than most people in their region to be super duper rich. I also consider those making millions or billions to be super duper rich. As you don't seem to realize, super duper rich isn't a scientific term, it can mean different things to different people.

Also, my guess is that Mike Hopkins and Jim Hayford are making more than $300K  ;)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 06, 2019, 01:08:23 AM
I’m going to let you in on a little secret.  I don’t give a damn if you are white, black, Asian, whatever. I’m happy for you and others in what they are able to achieve in life. Sometimes people are really lucky, sometimes they get screwed, and often times it is because someone got a break and made the most of it.   If you want to run around talking about your privilege that is your own damn business, but don’t you dare throw it down my throat or anyone else’s when you know nothing of their status in life, how they got there or what their path was.  Don’t pretend to know how anyone achieved what they did or the journey they took.  If you want to undersell your path, knock your socks off....don’t do it to anyone else.

And when these things happen because of something you have no control over (your race, your sex, your sexual orientation, the household you were born into, etc) that is called privilege. It doesn't "undersell" your accomplishments, it's just a part of life. There's no harm in acknowledging it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Marcus92 on September 06, 2019, 01:25:07 AM
As a private university, Seattle doesn't disclose the terms of its contract with head coach Jim Hayford.

But Mike Hopkins signed a 6-year, $12.3 million deal to become the head coach of the Washington Huskies in 2017. Terms included $1.8 million in salary his first year, increasing by $100,000 each following year.

So, yes, more than $300,000.

https://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/college/university-of-washington/huskies-insider-blog/article140131188.html (https://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/college/university-of-washington/huskies-insider-blog/article140131188.html)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 1SE on September 06, 2019, 05:10:28 AM
Superbar?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: real chili 83 on September 06, 2019, 05:38:23 AM
In before the lock

So easy.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 06, 2019, 05:38:48 AM
Superbar?

super dooper scooper bar for this one, eyn'a?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 06, 2019, 06:42:44 AM
Well, if it gets locked...

1. Pay the players
2. Death to the NCAA
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 06, 2019, 06:57:55 AM
And when these things happen because of something you have no control over (your race, your sex, your sexual orientation, the household you were born into, etc) that is called privilege. It doesn't "undersell" your accomplishments, it's just a part of life. There's no harm in acknowledging it.

+1

And said far more diplomatically than I would have.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: wildbill sb on September 06, 2019, 07:21:01 AM
Seriously, I've forgotten how to put someone on "Ignore."  Will someone show me the steps?  Thanks.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: real chili 83 on September 06, 2019, 07:21:34 AM
+1

And said far more diplomatically than I would have.

Why does it need to be called privilege? 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 06, 2019, 08:52:57 AM
Why does it need to be called privilege?

I didn't create the word. Having a right or advantage based on who you are and the circumstances surrounding you is privilege. It doesn't have to carry a negative stigma.

Having privilege is not a bad thing. The problem is more the Horatio Alger style myth that we are all self made, that success is strictly a product of hard work, whether we are successful or not. Past generations, where we grow up, what our parents do for a living, the presence of one versus two parents, physical and mental health, genetic gifts, all those are different privileges people can possess that were luck of the draw type things.

It's okay to have and acknowledge those things, and important to recognize that oftentimes the success or lack thereof of others can be influenced by those types of factors and not just hard work. Plenty of people work hard and never get anywhere.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 06, 2019, 09:06:36 AM
I didn't create the word. Having a right or advantage based on who you are and the circumstances surrounding you is privilege. It doesn't have to carry a negative stigma.

Let's make Scoop a safe space from the word privilege
Please use "pigment-conferred upside" instead.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 06, 2019, 09:09:15 AM
Seriously, I've forgotten how to put someone on "Ignore."  Will someone show me the steps?  Thanks.
It doesn't matter if you put them on ignore. When someone quotes that person, their idiotic and racist takes show up.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: tower912 on September 06, 2019, 09:21:42 AM
Profile/buddies ignore list/ignore list/type the name of the person you are tired of.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 06, 2019, 10:11:04 AM
Why does it need to be called privilege?

An example of a privilege I acknowledge. My mother was an early childhood teacher when I was growing up. She initially worked part-time and spent a lot of time at home educating me. Because of this, when I entered Kindergarten, I was reading at a 3rd grade level and knew relatively advanced mathematics for my age. Her teaching gave me an advantage in that class, and because I continued to work hard at school, I was always at or near the top of my class. My mother went back to get her bachelor's, so she maintained her own education and was able to help me with classwork as I progressed so I was taking high school classes in 7th and 8th grade and college courses in high school when APs were less prevalent than they are now. I still had to do the work, but having her both available and trained to aid in my education from the time I was born through high school was a privilege I enjoyed that many other children did not.

This educational privilege made school easier for me from kindergarten through college, knowing I was ahead made test-taking easier and helped me become a good test-taker that continues to help me to this day. And while I did the work, the privilege I gained from having someone in the household that knew techniques to make it easier for me to learn and progress meant that school came relatively easy to me and was rarely a stressful occurrence.

None of it is a bad thing, but it is a circumstance that many children do not enjoy. Having a mother whose schedule mimicked my own allowed for homework assistance as opposed to a family where the mother may have worked second shift or not had the education to aid me in my own progression or any number of other circumstances which would not convey the same privilege I enjoyed due to the sheer luck of being born into the family that I was.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 06, 2019, 10:26:38 AM
Why does it need to be called privilege?

exactly my thoughts rc
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 06, 2019, 10:29:10 AM
Seriously, I've forgotten how to put someone on "Ignore."  Will someone show me the steps?  Thanks.

self control-don't peak behind that "curtain" that's all  or just compartmentalize, reach for the CBD oil, incense, a little horsey or the like, some crayons and silly putty ;D
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Goose on September 06, 2019, 10:32:51 AM
Just curious, are any of you fellow "privileged" folks doing anything to level the playing field for those less privileged?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 06, 2019, 10:59:36 AM
Just curious, are any of you fellow "privileged" folks doing anything to level the playing field for those less privileged?
yes. But I dont need to publicize it on this site
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Goose on September 06, 2019, 11:01:57 AM
lawdog

Simple yes works for me. Well done and I hope others are in that camp.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on September 06, 2019, 11:27:09 AM
Just curious, are any of you fellow "privileged" folks doing anything to level the playing field for those less privileged?

From the mope summit group, probably a lot of yelling and virtue signalling out the windows of their limousines.

God Bless America.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Goose on September 06, 2019, 11:29:37 AM
Ziggy

I think you might be spot on. Hard for some to get off their soapbox to go help the less privileged.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 06, 2019, 11:40:24 AM
Why does it need to be called privilege?

Why does MU Scoop "need" to be called MU Scoop? Why does America "need" to be called America? Why does Arby's "need" to be called Arby's? Why does indigestion "need" to be called indigestion?

Why does anything "need" to be called what it's called? (Except Real Chili, of course. It being the only REAL chili, it needs to be called exactly what it's called!)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TinyTimsLittleBrother on September 06, 2019, 11:44:24 AM
From the moop summitt group, probably a lot of yelling and virtue signalling out the windows of their limousines.

God Bless America.


"Virtue signaling."  The latest excuse, following "supply side economics" for conservatives to be selfish.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 06, 2019, 11:50:10 AM
Just curious, are any of you fellow "privileged" folks doing anything to level the playing field for those less privileged?

Please, Goose, we're not using the 'p' word around here.

And, of course.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 06, 2019, 11:53:26 AM
Just curious, are any of you fellow "privileged" folks doing anything to level the playing field for those less privileged?

Yes
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 06, 2019, 11:54:27 AM
Why does it need to be called privilege?

Respectfully RC, I don't think what it's called makes a lick of difference.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 06, 2019, 12:45:51 PM
lawdog

Simple yes works for me. Well done and I hope others are in that camp.

Yes, and it's easier than most would imagine. Simple awareness can make it as easy as where you decide to live and spend money.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Goose on September 06, 2019, 12:49:45 PM
brew

My guess is you and I likely have different idea on what "doing anything to the level the playing field" looks like.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 06, 2019, 12:58:52 PM
brew

My guess is you and I likely have different idea on what "doing anything to the level the playing field" looks like.

You miss my point. I do things that are both active and passive. The point is that when you are aware of your own privilege, it's easier to act in both large and small ways. People who deny the existence of their own privilege make things worse by ignorance alone.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: real chili 83 on September 06, 2019, 01:00:23 PM
Respectfully RC, I don't think what it's called makes a lick of difference.
 

In the big picture, it doesn't.  However, too many people weaponized the word, and, practically speaking, has a negative connotation.  Some people are members of the lucky sperm club.  That doesn't make them good or bad.  However, when people call them privileged, I guarantee you, it's not meant as a compliment.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Warrior Code on September 06, 2019, 01:20:40 PM
Someone please remind me why I keep coming back to this site...
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 06, 2019, 01:24:18 PM
Someone please remind me why I keep coming back to this site...

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/40/2f/a7/402fa7f25d65a74fbf6a5128532ac02a.jpg)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: tower912 on September 06, 2019, 01:24:53 PM
Someone please remind me why I keep coming back to this site...

Eventually, basketball season will start.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Goose on September 06, 2019, 01:41:33 PM
real

I think you are 100% correct on your post. The lucky sperm club and "privilege" comparison is a great point.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 06, 2019, 01:47:03 PM
real

I think you are 100% correct on your post. The lucky sperm club and "privilege" comparison is a great point.


Oh please.  If people started using some word other than "priviledge," people would evntually complain that it's been "weaponized" as well.  Anything to distract from actually addressing the point I guess.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 06, 2019, 01:50:44 PM

Oh please.  If people started using some word other than "priviledge," people would evntually complain that it's been "weaponized" as well.  Anything to distract from actually addressing the point I guess.

+1

It's sad how people worry so much about terms being "weaponized" when both sides do it all the time. Privilege is something we all have. Simply being born in this country is a type of privilege itself. It can only be weaponized if you're too thin skinned to acknowledge it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 06, 2019, 01:59:34 PM
People looking for reasons to be guilty about their good fortune will find them.

People looking for reasons to be proud or entitled about their good fortune will find them.

People looking for reasons to be envious or resentful about other's good fortune will find them.

People who are grateful for whatever life has given them are too busy being happy and generous to worry about the guilty, entitled or resentful.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 06, 2019, 02:01:49 PM
brew

My guess is you and I likely have different idea on what "doing anything to the level the playing field" looks like.

Wait ... I thought "Yes" was enough?

My answer would also be "Yes."
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Goose on September 06, 2019, 02:04:51 PM
Lenny

You always bring the lumber. Entitlement and envy are two traits that make me the most angry. As you know, I fall into the grateful camp and never can pay forward the life I have been given, but I am going try my best everyday.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 06, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
People looking for reasons to be guilty about their good fortune will find them.

People looking for reasons to be proud or entitled about their good fortune will find them.

People looking for reasons to be envious or resentful about other's good fortune will find them.

People who are grateful for whatever life has given them are too busy being happy and generous to worry about the guilty, entitled or resentful.



I mean, you're not wrong.  But telling people they should just be happy with what they have goes against thousands of years of human nature.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Goose on September 06, 2019, 02:35:50 PM
MU82

I am very happy to see you, and others, doing your best to level the playing field. Many folks that I know, talk a great game and then sit on the sidelines.
For the record, I was not asking anyone for specifics on how they help. My only criteria is based on the mirror test. If you can look yourself in the eye and honestly say you are doing your part, all good by me.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 06, 2019, 02:57:58 PM

I mean, you're not wrong.  But telling people they should just be happy with what they have goes against thousands of years of human nature.

I'm not telling anyone what to do. If people want/need to cling to their guilt, pride, envy, etc., that's certainly their prerogative. All I'm saying is that I've known happy people from all stations in life - "privileged" and not. The common thread among them was gratitude. They don't have time for the other stuff.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 06, 2019, 02:58:23 PM
 

In the big picture, it doesn't.  However, too many people weaponized the word, and, practically speaking, has a negative connotation.  Some people are members of the lucky sperm club.  That doesn't make them good or bad.  However, when people call them privileged, I guarantee you, it's not meant as a compliment.


unnatural carnal knowledgeing BINGO.  Damn right.  Implies they didn’t work hard, or didn’t go to school, didn’t work for crap pay, long hours, no vacations, sacrifice relationships, etc.

Some people have it really bad, some have it great.  And most of us try to work hard, be grateful for the opportunity and make the most of it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 06, 2019, 03:30:06 PM
Say what you will about privilege, athletes should still be able to earn on their likeness
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 06, 2019, 03:31:18 PM
Say what you will about privilege, athletes should still be able to earn on their likeness

Agree, when they leave school and become professionals.  Have at it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 06, 2019, 03:45:57 PM

unnatural carnal knowledgeing BINGO.  Damn right.  Implies they didn’t work hard, or didn’t go to school, didn’t work for crap pay, long hours, no vacations, sacrifice relationships, etc.

Some people have it really bad, some have it great.  And most of us try to work hard, be grateful for the opportunity and make the most of it.

Nah. Members of the "lucky sperm club" just had the advantage of starting out on 1st, 2nd or 3rd base. As opposed to the batter's box. Or the dugout. Or the parking lot.

Doesn't imply anything about the work they put in getting to home plate.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 06, 2019, 04:22:19 PM
Nah. Members of the "lucky sperm club" just had the advantage of starting out on 1st, 2nd or 3rd base. As opposed to the batter's box. Or the dugout. Or the parking lot.

Doesn't imply anything about the work they put in getting to home plate.

Exactly.
The counter-argument comes down to: "Pointing out the advantages I've been given in life makes me feel bad."
If recognizing that you've received a leg up in life because of the circumstances of your birth makes you feel like all your hard work is being questioned, that says way more about you than the person pointing out your privilege.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 06, 2019, 04:26:26 PM
Agree, when they leave school and become professionals.  Have at it.

At whatever age someone wants to pay them, including college.  Also, abolish the NCAA

The kids playing at Marquette are professionals already
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 06, 2019, 05:16:07 PM
At whatever age someone wants to pay them, including college.  Also, abolish the NCAA

The kids playing at Marquette are professionals already

The obsession of some to retain sham amateurism for college athletes reminds me of the same about Olympic athletes 20 years ago.

As was the case for Olympic athletes back then, there really was no level playing field because there was so much cheating being perpetrated by the most powerful. And the NCAA pretends to be outraged now, just as the IOC did back then.

The mock concern that the playing field will somehow become unbalanced if college athletes are allowed to benefit from their own likenesses -- as every other college student can -- is cute.

Better to keep all the power in the hands of the already rich and powerful, and keep the worker bees nice and servile.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 06, 2019, 05:17:51 PM
The obsession of some to retain sham amateurism for college athletes reminds me of the same about Olympic athletes 20 years ago.

As was the case for Olympic athletes back then, there really was no level playing field because there was so much cheating being perpetrated by the most powerful. And the NCAA pretends to be outraged now, just as the IOC did back then.

The mock concern that the playing field will somehow become unbalanced if college athletes are allowed to benefit from their own likenesses -- as every other college student can -- is cute.

Better to keep all the power in the hands of the already rich and powerful, and keep the worker bees nice and servile.

Michael Phelps, Simone Biles, all of them make money and the system hasn't come toppling down. Something tells me college sports will survive, and college basketball may actually be better for it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 06, 2019, 05:28:18 PM
Michael Phelps, Simone Biles, all of them make money and the system hasn't come toppling down. Something tells me college sports will survive, and college basketball may actually be better for it.

For many, their earning ability will never be higher
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 06, 2019, 07:31:49 PM
Exactly.
The counter-argument comes down to: "Pointing out the advantages I've been given in life makes me feel bad."
If recognizing that you've received a leg up in life because of the circumstances of your birth makes you feel like all your hard work is being questioned, that says way more about you than the person pointing out your privilege.

You (and jesmu84) are spot on.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 06, 2019, 07:35:08 PM
Cheeks is good for Scoop ratings...
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 06, 2019, 07:40:12 PM
At whatever age someone wants to pay them, including college.  Also, abolish the NCAA

The kids playing at Marquette are professionals already

No they aren’t.  By your standards, high school athletes are professional and that is equally false.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 06, 2019, 07:43:05 PM
The obsession of some to retain sham amateurism for college athletes reminds me of the same about Olympic athletes 20 years ago.

As was the case for Olympic athletes back then, there really was no level playing field because there was so much cheating being perpetrated by the most powerful. And the NCAA pretends to be outraged now, just as the IOC did back then.

The mock concern that the playing field will somehow become unbalanced if college athletes are allowed to benefit from their own likenesses -- as every other college student can -- is cute.

Better to keep all the power in the hands of the already rich and powerful, and keep the worker bees nice and servile.

And the Olympics is not as interesting now as it was then....in my opinion.    It’s a shame, but watching the men’s basketball team in the Olympics is a complete bore.  Olympic hockey, ehh.  Nothing will beat 1980.  Etc, etc.  No doubt some love it now, but it has lost a lot of luster in my view.

And there you are again saying college athletes....do you mean all or the tiny sliver people keep railing on to protect that 1%?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 06, 2019, 07:44:16 PM
And the Olympics is not as interesting now as it was then.  It’s a shame, but watching the men’s basketball team in the Olympics is a complete bore.  Olympic hockey, ehh.  Nothing will beat 1980.  Etc, etc.

And there you are again saying college athletes....do you mean all or the tiny sliver people keep railing on to protect that 1%?

All college athletes can sell and market their likeness.  The market will decide.  Get that paper
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 06, 2019, 07:57:35 PM
All college athletes can sell and market their likeness.  The market will decide.  Get that paper

Just throw money at it, they said.  Just let them have a little bit more, they said. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 06, 2019, 08:31:58 PM
Just throw money at it, they said.  Just let them have a little bit more, they said.

Exactly.  For many, they’ll never have earning power like this. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 06, 2019, 08:35:15 PM
Exactly.  For many, they’ll never have earning power like this.

For many, they would never earn a college degree if it were not the scholarship they received for playing.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 06, 2019, 08:39:40 PM
For many, they would never earn a college degree if it were not the scholarship they received for playing.

Zero reason not to have both save the sham of amateurism
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 06, 2019, 08:46:26 PM
Zero reason not to have both save the sham of amateurism

Plenty of reasons not to have both, including that they are already receiving more value than they would without for the overwhelming majority of these student athletes. 

I can't wait for the next argument after this.....if they get this benefit how many more years before the demands are X, then Y, then Z.  It never ends.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 06, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
 

In the big picture, it doesn't.  However, too many people weaponized the word, and, practically speaking, has a negative connotation.  Some people are members of the lucky sperm club.  That doesn't make them good or bad.  However, when people call them privileged, I guarantee you, it's not meant as a compliment.

In most cases, it's not meant as a compliment. It's not meant as an insult either. It's just a basic reality of life.

When there term was first coined there was no negative connotation. It has been given a negative connotation by those who weaponize it...both those who use it as an insult and those who take it as an insult when it was not used that way....that will happen no matter what we call it. We could say people have white applesauce instead of white privilege and eventually people would hate the word applesauce (once they figured out what the f*ck people were talking about).
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 06, 2019, 09:03:35 PM
Plenty of reasons not to have both, including that they are already receiving more value than they would without for the overwhelming majority of these student athletes. 

I can't wait for the next argument after this.....if they get this benefit how many more years before the demands are X, then Y, then Z.  It never ends.

So?  Power to the people
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 06, 2019, 09:05:04 PM
It never ends.

It certainly doesn’t
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 06, 2019, 09:12:03 PM
In most cases, it's not meant as a compliment. It's not meant as an insult either. It's just a basic reality of life.

When there term was first coined there was no negative connotation. It has been given a negative connotation by those who weaponize it...both those who use it as an insult and those who take it as an insult when it was not used that way....that will happen no matter what we call it.

I don't disagree with this a bit. But Brother TAMU, you very much disagree with what you've written here.

You (not just you, others too) have been lecturing people for quite some time that if groups of people are offended by a word or phrase then the word or phrase is offensive. Period. Intent doesn't matter. So even if the term "privileged" or "white privilege" hadn't been "weaponized" and was neutral without any negative intent, wouldn't just the fact that some take offense make it offensive? Of course I think that's silly, but hasn't that been what you and many others here have insisted?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 06, 2019, 09:39:09 PM
Plenty of reasons not to have both, including that they are already receiving more value than they would without for the overwhelming majority of these student athletes. 

I can't wait for the next argument after this.....if they get this benefit how many more years before the demands are X, then Y, then Z.  It never ends.

1. How would allowing the players who can profit off their likeness do so harm those who cannot?
2. Slippery slopes, as much as you love them, are logical fallacies, you know?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 06, 2019, 09:52:17 PM
Privilege is something we all have. Simply being born in this country is a type of privilege itself.

  Not according to some of your buddies in the locked down hurricane thread. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 06, 2019, 09:55:24 PM
I don't disagree with this a bit. But Brother TAMU, you very much disagree with what you've written here.

You (not just you, others too) have been lecturing people for quite some time that if groups of people are offended by a word or phrase then the word or phrase is offensive. Period. Intent doesn't matter. So even if the term "privileged" or "white privilege" hadn't been "weaponized" and was neutral without any negative intent, wouldn't just the fact that some take offense make it offensive? Of course I think that's silly, but hasn't that been what you and many others here have insisted?

Great observation from an old codger there lenny😜. I’d much rather be called a member of the lucky swimmers club though...is that safe...yet?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 06, 2019, 10:06:54 PM
No they aren’t.  By your standards, high school athletes are professional and that is equally false.

Are high school athletes prohibited from earning money on their likeness?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 4everwarriors on September 06, 2019, 10:32:53 PM
Blue, black, green, or red...we all are privileged to live in this great country where we have the freedom to speak this utter nonsense without consequence. God bless America, aina?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 06, 2019, 10:33:28 PM
I don't disagree with this a bit. But Brother TAMU, you very much disagree with what you've written here.

You (not just you, others too) have been lecturing people for quite some time that if groups of people are offended by a word or phrase then the word or phrase is offensive. Period. Intent doesn't matter. So even if the term "privileged" or "white privilege" hadn't been "weaponized" and was neutral without any negative intent, wouldn't just the fact that some take offense make it offensive? Of course I think that's silly, but hasn't that been what you and many others here have insisted?

Lecturing, ugh is that my reputation here? Need to add some more memes in my power point slides.

I understand what you are saying but I think you missed the point of what I was insisting on in the past. When someone tells you that you offended them, you offended them. Own it. You don't get to decide when someone else is offended. It's not that if one person finds something offensive then that thing is offensive. It is that it is offensive to that one person.

But that doesn't mean you can't have a different interpretation. It also doesn't mean that you can't stand by what you said before in spite of the offense given.

I am well aware that some people are offended when I use the term privilege. I own it. I am also okay with it. I won't tell them that they don't have a right to be offended or get defensive with them. I'll acknowledge that I gave offense and depending on the context of the conversation, I may continue to give offense.

I also think there is a difference between being offended and being uncomfortable. It's a check I have to do with myself constantly. Sometimes my gut reaction to something is anger or offense but if I take a breath and think about it, I realize I'm actually reacting out of discomfort. That's a me problem not an other person problem.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 06, 2019, 10:34:27 PM
Blue, black, green, or red...we all are privileged to live in this great country where we have the freedom to speak this utter nonsense without consequence. God bless America, aina?

You're damn right. Just being born into a first world country is a great example of privilege.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on September 06, 2019, 10:46:41 PM
Great observation from an old codger there lenny😜. I’d much rather be called a member of the lucky swimmers club though...is that safe...yet?

Nah, thats offensive to those that cant produce sperm.  You BIGOT!

God Bless America
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 06, 2019, 11:01:18 PM
Nah, thats offensive to those that cant produce sperm.  You BIGOT!

God Bless America

Yes, God Bless America!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 07, 2019, 10:33:27 AM
Nah, thats offensive to those that cant produce sperm.  You BIGOT!

God Bless America

  now that hurts my feelings...and that's called seaman challenged btw

but...does that include those who can't by choice(tie downs) not "privileged" to have the little soldiers(weak or mia) or can't sport wood? or the combo package
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 07, 2019, 11:20:14 AM
Lecturing, ugh is that my reputation here? Need to add some more memes in my power point slides.

I understand what you are saying but I think you missed the point of what I was insisting on in the past. When someone tells you that you offended them, you offended them. Own it. You don't get to decide when someone else is offended. It's not that if one person finds something offensive then that thing is offensive. It is that it is offensive to that one person.

But that doesn't mean you can't have a different interpretation. It also doesn't mean that you can't stand by what you said before in spite of the offense given.

I am well aware that some people are offended when I use the term privilege. I own it. I am also okay with it. I won't tell them that they don't have a right to be offended or get defensive with them. I'll acknowledge that I gave offense and depending on the context of the conversation, I may continue to give offense.

I also think there is a difference between being offended and being uncomfortable. It's a check I have to do with myself constantly. Sometimes my gut reaction to something is anger or offense but if I take a breath and think about it, I realize I'm actually reacting out of discomfort. That's a me problem not an other person problem.

Society in a few years....just amazing.  With every group offended by something.  This is why some of us yearn for the old days.  We were all made fun of, we all made fun of...that was the deal and it toughened folks up and brought many together.  Now the constantly offended have weaponized things to a degree where exchange of ideas is shrinking, people are threatened in their jobs for something they said 20 years ago, others need not even apply.  An antiseptic society...,is going to be very very bad.

Harrison Bergeron

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 07, 2019, 11:46:34 AM
Society in a few years....just amazing.  With every group offended by something.  This is why some of us yearn for the old days.  We were all made fun of, we all made fun of...that was the deal and it toughened folks up and brought many together.  Now the constantly offended have weaponized things to a degree where exchange of ideas is shrinking, people are threatened in their jobs for something they said 20 years ago, others need not even apply.  An antiseptic society...,is going to be very very bad.

Harrison Bergeron

This from the definition of someone who is "constantly offended" and can't handle words like "privilege" being mentioned in their presence.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 07, 2019, 11:52:12 AM
Society in a few years....just amazing.  With every group offended by something.  This is why some of us yearn for the old days.  We were all made fun of, we all made fun of...that was the deal and it toughened folks up and brought many together.  Now the constantly offended have weaponized things to a degree where exchange of ideas is shrinking, people are threatened in their jobs for something they said 20 years ago, others need not even apply.  An antiseptic society...,is going to be very very bad.

Harrison Bergeron

I hear Montana is a good place to avoid micro aggression.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Warrior Code on September 07, 2019, 01:21:30 PM
Eventually, basketball season will start.

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/3o72EZp4es5mar4nug/giphy.gif)

*my
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 07, 2019, 01:44:22 PM
Lecturing, ugh is that my reputation here? Need to add some more memes in my power point slides.

I understand what you are saying but I think you missed the point of what I was insisting on in the past. When someone tells you that you offended them, you offended them. Own it. You don't get to decide when someone else is offended. It's not that if one person finds something offensive then that thing is offensive. It is that it is offensive to that one person.

But that doesn't mean you can't have a different interpretation. It also doesn't mean that you can't stand by what you said before in spite of the offense given.

I am well aware that some people are offended when I use the term privilege. I own it. I am also okay with it. I won't tell them that they don't have a right to be offended or get defensive with them. I'll acknowledge that I gave offense and depending on the context of the conversation, I may continue to give offense.

I also think there is a difference between being offended and being uncomfortable. It's a check I have to do with myself constantly. Sometimes my gut reaction to something is anger or offense but if I take a breath and think about it, I realize I'm actually reacting out of discomfort. That's a me problem not an other person problem.

TAMU

So I say or do something with no intent to offend. You take offense. As long as I acknowledge your "right" to be offended, I can say I think you're full of it and are misinterpreting my words or actions. And continue to do and say what I think is not offensive with a clear conscience.

Not so different from when I was young. Usually a "No offense intended" was met with a "None taken". Occasionally not, in which case the unintended offender's reply was something along the lines of "Tough shyte" or "Too bad".

I'm OK with either.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 07, 2019, 02:04:50 PM
TAMU

So I say or do something with no intent to offend. You take offense. As long as I acknowledge your "right" to be offended, I can say I think you're full of it and are misinterpreting my words or actions. And continue to do and say what I think is not offensive with a clear conscience.

Not so different from when I was young. Usually a "No offense intended" was met with a "None taken". Occasionally not, in which case the unintended offender's reply was something along the lines of "Tough shyte" or "Too bad".

I'm OK with either.

Yup...that’s how it was and it was better...people communicated more directly....everyone on egg shells today.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 07, 2019, 04:41:13 PM
TAMU

So I say or do something with no intent to offend. You take offense. As long as I acknowledge your "right" to be offended, I can say I think you're full of it and are misinterpreting my words or actions. And continue to do and say what I think is not offensive with a clear conscience.

Not so different from when I was young. Usually a "No offense intended" was met with a "None taken". Occasionally not, in which case the unintended offender's reply was something along the lines of "Tough shyte" or "Too bad".

I'm OK with either.

Not just acknowledge their right to be offended, but the fact that you offended them. And sure, you can tell them tough shyte if you want, that's your right. But they have the right to think your an a$$hole or a bigot in return. If your comfortable with that, by all means. I would suggest taking some time to actually reflect on why the other person is offended and try to see things from their perspective.

You'll notice, I haven't actually called anyone in this conversation privileged. It's intentional because I know doing that offends some people and that just derails what has the potential to be a good conversation. But I'm not going to not talk about privilege and pretend like it doesn't exist.There is a difference between calling someone something that offends them and talking about a topic that makes people uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: real chili 83 on September 07, 2019, 05:00:41 PM
Yup...that’s how it was and it was better...people communicated more directly....everyone on egg shells today.

Holy sh1t, Lenny and Chico’s agree on something. 😱😱😱

What’s next?  Cats and dogs cohabiting, Domers stop picking their nose, whirled peas??? 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 07, 2019, 05:12:01 PM
Holy sh1t, Lenny and Chico’s agree on something. 😱😱😱

What’s next?  Cats and dogs cohabiting, Domers stop picking their nose, whirled peas???

We agree on quite a lot actually.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: tower912 on September 07, 2019, 05:17:55 PM
Yes, you are free to say what you want.    But others are free to judge you through the prism of their life experiences regardless of your intent.     In your head and heart, it may not be offensive.   But others are free to judge you based on their standards and may find what is innocuous to you incredibly offensive.    Which is their right.     Lenny, you judge Chico's by his words, right?    And what is perfectly logical to him is frequently offensive to you.     You have the right to judge him from his words as odious if you wish.   But others have the same right toward you.     You have your intent, just as he has his.   
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 07, 2019, 07:27:18 PM
Yes, you are free to say what you want.    But others are free to judge you through the prism of their life experiences regardless of your intent.     In your head and heart, it may not be offensive.   But others are free to judge you based on their standards and may find what is innocuous to you incredibly offensive.    Which is their right.     Lenny, you judge Chico's by his words, right?    And what is perfectly logical to him is frequently offensive to you.     You have the right to judge him from his words as odious if you wish.   But others have the same right toward you.     You have your intent, just as he has his.

Also agree with this.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Herman Cain on September 07, 2019, 09:28:49 PM
Here is my comment to the crowd screaming privilege any chance they get:


You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

— Exodus 20:17
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 07, 2019, 10:18:19 PM
What does coveting have to do with acknowledging privilege?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 07, 2019, 10:22:14 PM
What does coveting have to do with acknowledging privilege?

Nothing
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 07, 2019, 10:36:56 PM
Not just acknowledge their right to be offended, but the fact that you offended them. And sure, you can tell them tough shyte if you want, that's your right. But they have the right to think your an a$$hole or a bigot in return. If your comfortable with that, by all means. I would suggest taking some time to actually reflect on why the other person is offended and try to see things from their perspective.

So I'll agree with you on reflecting on why the other person is offended and considers me an a$$hole or a bigot. But upon reflection if I think they're the ones committing an act of aggression against me (calling me an a$$hole and a bigot for no good reason) then I guess I can consider them a$$holes and bigots.

I don't know. Seems to me "No offense intended", "None taken" might work a little better than everyone ending up thinking the other guy is an a$$hole and/or a bigot.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Marcus92 on September 07, 2019, 10:44:20 PM
Opportunity, determination, hard work and achievement are all part of the core of America, more so here than anywhere else in the world.

But opportunity calls for a level playing field. In a country founded on the idea that all are created equal, we should always be looking for ways to ensure everyone has the same opportunities -- whether you're talking about getting an education, finding a job, starting a business, owning a home, you name it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 07, 2019, 11:05:22 PM
So I'll agree with you on reflecting on why the other person is offended and considers me an a$$hole or a bigot. But upon reflection if I think they're the ones committing an act of aggression against me (calling me an a$$hole and a bigot for no good reason) then I guess I can consider them a$$holes and bigots.

I don't know. Seems to me "No offense intended", "None taken" might work a little better than everyone ending up thinking the other guy is an a$$hole and/or a bigot.

I think it's problematic if you think every conversation on a topic like this has to end with someone thinking someone is a bigot or an a$$hole. There is another option where the offending party stops, thinks about it, and thinks "I didn't intend it that way and I don't understand it, but I'm going to treat this person with respect anyway".

I also don't think "no offense" is the magic cure all that you seem to think it is. In my experience, it's rarely used as a genuine declaration of benign intent, and more often used as a justification for saying something they know is going to offend the other person.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 07, 2019, 11:53:53 PM
I think it's problematic if you think every conversation on a topic like this has to end with someone thinking someone is a bigot or an a$$hole. There is another option where the offending party stops, thinks about it, and thinks "I didn't intend it that way and I don't understand it, but I'm going to treat this person with respect anyway".

I also don't think "no offense" is the magic cure all that you seem to think it is. In my experience, it's rarely used as a genuine declaration of benign intent, and more often used as a justification for saying something they know is going to offend the other person.

Did I say "every" conversation?

But you yourself say you reserve the right to continue offending people even after learning that you're offending them. If that's your right, it's everyone's - not just those on your side of a disagreement. Seems to me that's a sure way to have almost any dispute end with finger pointing and name calling. And guess what? It's happening more than ever in 2019.

Did I say "magic cure"?

Sorry about your experience with the term "no offense" but perhaps it's because you're looking to take offense.

I don't think we should be casual about offending others. And I don't think we should be easily offended. Giving people we disagree with the benefit of the doubt re their intentions is, IMHO, abettor solution that everyone being offended by each other.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 08, 2019, 02:18:17 AM
Did I say "every" conversation?

I took "everyone ending up think the other..." as meaning that everyone who participates in these conversation. I misunderstood what you were saying.

But you yourself say you reserve the right to continue offending people even after learning that you're offending them. If that's your right, it's everyone's - not just those on your side of a disagreement. Seems to me that's a sure way to have almost any dispute end with finger pointing and name calling. And guess what? It's happening more than ever in 2019.

Sure, everyone has that right. I never said that they should exercise that right every time or even often. I feel very comfortable offending someone who is triggered by the word privilege. I feel less comfortable continuing to offending someone who tells me that they are perceiving something I've said or done as racist or sexist or homophobic. I think most people would think similarly.

Did I say "magic cure"?

It certainly seemed like you were suggesting that if someone says no offense with their statement than the person receiving it shouldn't take any offense regardless of what the person says. That's what I meant by magic cure.

Sorry about your experience with the term "no offense" but perhaps it's because you're looking to take offense.

Ha! If you spoke to those who know me, you'd know that this doesn't describe me at all. Takes a lot to get me riled up. I just know that "no offense" is one of those phrases like "with all due respect" or "I'm not a racist but..." that are commonly used by people to give themselves permission to say something that they know they maybe shouldn't say.

I don't think we should be casual about offending others. And I don't think we should be easily offended. Giving people we disagree with the benefit of the doubt re their intentions is, IMHO, abettor solution that everyone being offended by each other.

What does intent have to do with it? You ever seen pulp fiction?

Quote
No, no, no. You can't promise something like that. I have no idea what you're gonna ask me. So you can go ahead and ask me what you're going to ask me, and my natural response could be to get offended! Then, through no fault of my own, I would have broken my promise.

Being offended isn't a choice. It's a reaction. We can choose how we act on that reaction, but not the reaction itself.

You seem to be suggesting that we would all be better if we just kept silent when something offended us. While picking your battles is an important skill, I've never known a problem to get better simply by ignoring that there's problem. If something offends us we should talk about it so it gets better in the future. The problem I most commonly see is that when someone chooses to break their silence, they are often dismissed as "looking to take offense" when actually it is something that they have given time and thought to and has been bothering them for awhile. I don't think the key is increasing silence, I think it is improving our willingness to listen.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: real chili 83 on September 08, 2019, 06:56:58 AM
Always taking ownership for unintentionally offending someone is flawed.  Ever meet someone who is a solution, looking for a problem?  How about someone who is hopelessly negative. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: tower912 on September 08, 2019, 07:49:29 AM
Yes I have.  I usually end up looking at them , shaking my head, and saying 'you be you'.  I can't change them, but I can learn to work around them and maybe even find a use for their passion.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 08, 2019, 12:23:12 PM
Always taking ownership for unintentionally offending someone is flawed.  Ever meet someone who is a solution, looking for a problem?  How about someone who is hopelessly negative.

You know what the easiest way to shut those people up are? Acknowledge their concern, take ownership, and then move on. It instantly takes any power away from their argument.

Also, in my experience, for every one person you are describing, there are many more that have legitimate concerns. We're not mind readers, I think it it is dangerous to dismiss what a person is saying just because we think they aren't being genuine.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 08, 2019, 01:49:20 PM
I feel very comfortable offending someone who is triggered by the word privilege. I feel less comfortable continuing to offending someone who tells me that they are perceiving something I've said or done as racist or sexist or homophobic. I think most people would think similarly.


So you're OK dividing people into groups and then choosing to purposely offend some (because they deserve it) and no questions asked defend others (because they deserve it). Sounds like a textbook definition of bigotry.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 08, 2019, 02:26:03 PM
So you're OK dividing people into groups and then choosing to purposely offend some (because they deserve it) and no questions asked defend others (because they deserve it). Sounds like a textbook definition of bigotry.

Is all bigotry is bad?
I'll admit, I'm terribly bigoted toward white supremacists, science deniers and all sorts of "truthers."
Should I stop that?

Just a thought ...  perhaps there's a difference between offending someone over who they are (gender, race, orientation, ethnicity, etc.) and offending someone over what they think and do. And when the "p-word" is used as a perjorative, it's typically not because the recipient is "p-worded" because that person is acting "p-worded."

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 08, 2019, 02:40:29 PM
So you're OK dividing people into groups and then choosing to purposely offend some (because they deserve it) and no questions asked defend others (because they deserve it). Sounds like a textbook definition of bigotry.

I think you should recheck the definition of the word bigotry. Bigotry requires intolerance. The only idea I am intolerant of is intolerance. So I guess I am bigoted against intolerant ideologies.

When I said I was "very comfortable offending someone who is triggered by the word privilege" I meant specifically talking about the concept of privilege with someone who is triggered by it. I'm not saying I am comfortable telling them that they are an idiot or an a$$hole....hell I haven't even called anyone here privileged. What I am comfortable with is having a good faith conversation about what privilege is and the impacts it has on our society. I don't think most reasonable people would consider that to be a form of bigotry, if you do, we'll just have to agree that we see it differently.

I also think you should reread the post you quoted. I never mentioned anything about any groups or putting people into groups. I believe you should take each individual as they come and be willing to listen to their perspective.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 08, 2019, 02:53:06 PM
The NCAA is inept, that is the point of this thread

https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/07/kent-state-field-hockey-canceled-overtime-football-noon-kickoff
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: real chili 83 on September 08, 2019, 03:22:22 PM
You know what the easiest way to shut those people up are? Acknowledge their concern, take ownership, and then move on. It instantly takes any power away from their argument.

Also, in my experience, for every one person you are describing, there are many more that have legitimate concerns. We're not mind readers, I think it it is dangerous to dismiss what a person is saying just because we think they aren't being genuine.

You are trying too hard, my friend.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 08, 2019, 04:31:26 PM
I think you should recheck the definition of the word bigotry. Bigotry requires intolerance. The only idea I am intolerant of is intolerance. So I guess I am bigoted against intolerant ideologies.


Guess what? Both sides in the "Intolerance War" think the other side is intolerant. Neither side is wrong.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 08, 2019, 04:36:00 PM
Guess what? Both sides in the "Intolerance War" think the other side is intolerant. Neither side is wrong.


Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 08, 2019, 05:05:19 PM

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Thank you for making my point.

1. I sleep peacefully

2. Re human rights, I'm probably in total (or near total) agreement with your views.

3. But I don't judge as "evil" or name call those who might disagree with me (on say religious grounds)  I leave that to the bigots.

4. But whatever helps you sleep at night.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 08, 2019, 05:10:16 PM
Thank you for making my point.

1. I sleep peacefully

2. Re human rights, I'm probably in total (or near total) agreement with your views.

3. But I don't judge as "evil" or name call those who might disagree with me (on say religious grounds)  I leave that to the bigots.

4. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

🙄
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 08, 2019, 05:16:40 PM
3. But I don't judge as "evil" or name call those who might disagree with me (on say religious grounds)  I leave that to the bigots.

If one were to call a white supremacist evil - even one who defends his/her beliefs on religious grounds, as many do - does that make that person a bigot?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TheyWereCones on September 08, 2019, 05:35:58 PM
Being offended isn't a choice.

100% wrong.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 08, 2019, 06:03:58 PM
If one were to call a white supremacist evil - even one who defends his/her beliefs on religious grounds, as many do - does that make that person a bigot?

Of course not. No legitimate religion supports white supremacy.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 08, 2019, 06:28:04 PM
100% wrong.

How? I think we can choose how we act on our feelings but not on what our initial feelings are.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 08, 2019, 06:38:28 PM
Guess what? Both sides in the "Intolerance War" think the other side is intolerant. Neither side is wrong.

Lenny, didn't you just accuse me of putting people into groups? I haven't mentioned a single group in this conversation but here you are trying to put people on opposite sides of a war. This is a human issue, not a political one. It shouldn't be an us vs. them conversation (neither should political conversations but that's another convo all together)

And the reality is, some people who claim that something is intolerant are wrong. Yes there are people from all backgrounds who claim that people from other backgrounds are intolerant but not all of them are using the word correctly. Having a different opinion from someone else is not intolerant. Hating someone for having a different opinion is intolerant. The only thing that it is acceptable to be intolerant of is intolerance itself.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 08, 2019, 06:41:54 PM

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

How exactly is this helpful?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 08, 2019, 06:49:17 PM
How exactly is this helpful?

What makes you think I'm trying to be helpful?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 08, 2019, 07:16:12 PM
Thank you for making my point.

1. I sleep peacefully

2. Re human rights, I'm probably in total (or near total) agreement with your views.

3. But I don't judge as "evil" or name call those who might disagree with me (on say religious grounds)  I leave that to the bigots.

4. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Of course not. No legitimate religion supports white supremacy.

Serious question. I'm trying to reconcile the above statement and 3 above. Do you consider white supremacists evil? My guess, is yes.

The reason I ask, is that I think your stance and others in this thread are insanely close. There are likely a few fringe cases you and them would disagree on, but in general agree.

It seems too often people agree on 95% of a subject, but vehemently fight over the remaining 5% (myself included), and then we accomplish nothing.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 08, 2019, 07:30:46 PM
Serious question. I'm trying to reconcile the above statement and 3 above. Do you consider white supremacists evil? My guess, is yes.

The reason I ask, is that I think your stance and others in this thread are insanely close. There are likely a few fringe cases you and them would disagree on, but in general agree.

It seems too often people agree on 95% of a subject, but vehemently fight over the remaining 5% (myself included), and then we accomplish nothing.

Forgetful. I think you nailed it on all accounts. Arguing over the remaining 5% is a flaw of mine. I blame some of it on the Jesuits.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 08, 2019, 07:33:46 PM
Lenny, didn't you just accuse me of putting people into groups? I haven't mentioned a single group in this conversation but here you are trying to put people on opposite sides of a war. This is a human issue, not a political one. It shouldn't be an us vs. them conversation (neither should political conversations but that's another convo all together)

And the reality is, some people who claim that something is intolerant are wrong. Yes there are people from all backgrounds who claim that people from other backgrounds are intolerant but not all of them are using the word correctly. Having a different opinion from someone else is not intolerant. Hating someone for having a different opinion is intolerant. The only thing that it is acceptable to be intolerant of is intolerance itself.

I give, TAMU. You're a good guy, and forgetful makes a good point that much of this is arguing on the margins.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 08, 2019, 08:13:47 PM


   "with all due respect" or "I'm not a racist but..." that are commonly used by people to give themselves permission to say something that they know they maybe shouldn't say

bro tamu-
  not necessarily.   the 2 phrases or prefaces are not similar and therefore bad examples to commingle.  "with all due respect" means what it says except when something like "you suck" follows.  that would be totally disingenuous and obviously so.  the "i'm not a racist but" is probably preparing one for a racist comment to follow and will be self evident.  that would probably fit your description, in and of itself.

as for being offended not being a choice-sorry, there are many who will find offense in everything a person whom they dislike says or does but when that same person hears the same thing from one who wears the same jersey, you won't see all the blood vessels popping in their foreheads and eye balls...with all due respect of course ;)   
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 08, 2019, 08:32:13 PM
Forgetful. I think you nailed it on all accounts. Arguing over the remaining 5% is a flaw of mine. I blame some of it on the Jesuits.

LOL.  This is the Lenny I have a man crush on. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 08, 2019, 11:14:39 PM
LOL.  This is the Lenny I have a man crush on.

lenny is a hottie  :-*
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TheyWereCones on September 09, 2019, 04:24:41 AM
How? I think we can choose how we act on our feelings but not on what our initial feelings are.

In all respect (I do appreciate a lot of your basketball insight), are you honestly saying that you have no control over your feelings?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 09, 2019, 06:51:20 AM
In all respect (I do appreciate a lot of your basketball insight), are you honestly saying that you have no control over your feelings?

No, that's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that if someone called another person a "jerk," that would likely be taken as offensive. The person being called a jerk can control their reaction (getting mad, punching the other person, doing nothing) but that doesn't change the offense felt.

I use jerk because it's fairly mundane, but you can replace it with any other disparaging term, whether sexual, racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise. And you can replace it with any degree, from something meant as a joke up to a phrase said in anger. You can also replace it with something intended to be offensive and something that is ignorantly offensive.

If someone says something the other party is taken offensively, it's taken offensively. That doesn't mean an immediate adverse reaction, or any reaction at all, but there's still the "I'm uncomfortable with what they said" factor even if no outward reaction is shown.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 09, 2019, 07:51:07 AM
No, that's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that if someone called another person a "jerk," that would likely be taken as offensive. The person being called a jerk can control their reaction (getting mad, punching the other person, doing nothing) but that doesn't change the offense felt.

I use jerk because it's fairly mundane, but you can replace it with any other disparaging term, whether sexual, racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise. And you can replace it with any degree, from something meant as a joke up to a phrase said in anger. You can also replace it with something intended to be offensive and something that is ignorantly offensive.

If someone says something the other party is taken offensively, it's taken offensively. That doesn't mean an immediate adverse reaction, or any reaction at all, but there's still the "I'm uncomfortable with what they said" factor even if no outward reaction is shown.

This.

My father-in-law is 93. He makes offensive remarks all the time. He still calls blacks "coloreds." But I seriously believe he is not racist -- just extremely ignorant and unintelligent. I truly believe he doesn't mean to offend when he said last year after some friends visited us from Chicago: "I like your friends, the colored ones."

Obviously, if he had said that within earshot of our friends, they almost surely would have been offended. Hell, I was offended, and I responded curtly: "What color were they, dad?" I then dropped it because I realize he really didn't intend it as an insult.

So would our friends -- or any other black people -- have been "right" to be offended by that? Or because my FIL's intent was not racist, would they have been "wrong" to be offended? Does my FIL or anybody else have the right to tell our friends whether or not they are allowed to be offended?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 09, 2019, 09:47:04 AM
This.

My father-in-law is 93. He makes offensive remarks all the time. He still calls blacks "coloreds." But I seriously believe he is not racist -- just extremely ignorant and unintelligent. I truly believe he doesn't mean to offend when he said last year after some friends visited us from Chicago: "I like your friends, the colored ones."

Obviously, if he had said that within earshot of our friends, they almost surely would have been offended. Hell, I was offended, and I responded curtly: "What color were they, dad?" I then dropped it because I realize he really didn't intend it as an insult.

So would our friends -- or any other black people -- have been "right" to be offended by that? Or because my FIL's intent was not racist, would they have been "wrong" to be offended? Does my FIL or anybody else have the right to tell our friends whether or not they are allowed to be offended?

So when members of a community express disgust and loathing for how they are portrayed in cinema is it still acceptable to laud the movie The Searchers as great art?

Natives, actually white people in ochre grease paint, are depicted as immoral, bloodthirsty savages lacking sophistication, depth, or dignity.

Isn't this racially offensive?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TheyWereCones on September 09, 2019, 10:13:27 AM
No, that's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that if someone called another person a "jerk," that would likely be taken as offensive. The person being called a jerk can control their reaction (getting mad, punching the other person, doing nothing) but that doesn't change the offense felt.

I use jerk because it's fairly mundane, but you can replace it with any other disparaging term, whether sexual, racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise. And you can replace it with any degree, from something meant as a joke up to a phrase said in anger. You can also replace it with something intended to be offensive and something that is ignorantly offensive.

If someone says something the other party is taken offensively, it's taken offensively. That doesn't mean an immediate adverse reaction, or any reaction at all, but there's still the "I'm uncomfortable with what they said" factor even if no outward reaction is shown.

Unreal.

TAMU - "I think we can choose how we act on our feelings but not on what our initial feelings are."

Me - "Are you honestly saying that you have no control over your feelings?"

Brew - "No, that's not what he's saying at all..."

I literary repeated what he said in the form of a question to confirm he really felt that way and somehow I'm way off on my interpretation?  The question here, to clarify again, is do you truly believe that you have no choice/control over your feelings?  If you are offended, you had no choice but to feel that way?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 09, 2019, 10:24:30 AM
So when members of a community express disgust and loathing for how they are portrayed in cinema is it still acceptable to laud the movie The Searchers as great art?

Natives, actually white people in ochre grease paint, are depicted as immoral, bloodthirsty savages lacking sophistication, depth, or dignity.

Isn't this racially offensive?

Someone gets to define what is offensive be and what is not, and that’s the problem in my view....especially when one ideology is doing and painting those they don’t agree with and labeling as such.  If most Native americans say Redskin isn’t offensive, but a bunch of other NON Native Americans dismiss this, become sanctimonious and actually tell Native Americans what THEY should be offended by.......incredible.   And that is just one of so many examples.  It’s almost as if they are saying these people aren’t smart enough to know what they should be offended by, so we in our elite bubble will decide for you.  Truly incredible.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 09, 2019, 10:28:16 AM
Someone gets to define what is offensive be and what is not, and that’s the problem in my view....especially when one ideology is doing and painting those they don’t agree with and labeling as such.  If most Native americans say Redskin isn’t offensive, but a bunch of other NON Native Americans dismiss this, become sanctimonious and actually tell Native Americans what THEY should be offended by.......incredible.   And that is just one of so many examples.  It’s almost as if they are saying these people aren’t smart enough to know what they should be offended by, so we in our elite bubble will decide for you.  Truly incredible.


If a Native American isn't offended by the term Redskin, that's fine.  OTOH, you don't have to be Native American to be offended by the term Redskin.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 09, 2019, 10:29:38 AM
I literary repeated what he said in the form of a question to confirm he really felt that way and somehow I'm way off on my interpretation?  The question here, to clarify again, is do you truly believe that you have no choice/control over your feelings?  If you are offended, you had no choice but to feel that way?

If you weren't being deliberately obtuse and reading the thread and TAMU's comments in their entirety, maybe you wouldn't be so confused by something that is painfully, blatantly obvious. Staggeringly so. He also wrote this:

Being offended isn't a choice. It's a reaction. We can choose how we act on that reaction, but not the reaction itself.

TAMU has clarified the line between initial reaction and how one acts on that reaction. I expounded on that. The only thing "unreal" is your inability to comprehend the written word.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 09, 2019, 10:32:24 AM
In all respect (I do appreciate a lot of your basketball insight), are you honestly saying that you have no control over your feelings?

You have no control over your feelings.
You only have control over how you respond, internally and externally, to your feelings.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 09, 2019, 11:19:50 AM
You have no control over your feelings.
You only have control over how you respond, internally and externally, to your feelings.

I don't believe this to be true...otherwise we have no hope as a society to become more tolerant (which we have)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 09, 2019, 11:23:43 AM
So when members of a community express disgust and loathing for how they are portrayed in cinema is it still acceptable to laud the movie The Searchers as great art?

Natives, actually white people in ochre grease paint, are depicted as immoral, bloodthirsty savages lacking sophistication, depth, or dignity.

Isn't this racially offensive?

Respectfully, Crash, I do not see how this has anything to do with my real-life example.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 09, 2019, 12:01:30 PM
I don't believe this to be true...otherwise we have no hope as a society to become more tolerant (which we have)

I'm not seeing the correlation between feelings and becoming more tolerant.
When I say feelings, I mean things like anger, joy, sadness, fear, anxiety, attraction. These feelings come from out lizard brains, occurring outside the realm of our conscious thought. We can't stop them from happening. We can only learn to better control them and how they affect us.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 09, 2019, 12:59:02 PM
Respectfully, Crash, I do not see how this has anything to do with my real-life example.

It does, Mike.

If your FIL makes a comment about "coloreds", and if the "colored person" takes offense, is it not, at a minimum, racially insensitive? Even if that is not what your FIL intended?

In the same way, The Searchers portrays Native Americans in the most despicable manner. Discerning leaders from Indian Country have expressed outrage over that movie in particular, and the broader catalog of Hollywood inventory in general.

Does that not make it offensive?

The GE Spirit and Letter program which governs employee conduct is very explicit: It's not what you intended but how it was received.

A black person taking offense at the term colored person and Native Americans expressing outrage over The Searchers are the same.

Take a stand, Mike. Please.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 09, 2019, 01:16:22 PM
It does, Mike.

If your FIL makes a comment about "coloreds", and if the "colored person" takes offense, is it not, at a minimum, racially insensitive? Even if that is not what your FIL intended?

In the same way, The Searchers portrays Native Americans in the most despicable manner. Discerning leaders from Indian Country have expressed outrage over that movie in particular, and the broader catalog of Hollywood inventory in general.

Does that not make it offensive?

The GE Spirit and Letter program which governs employee conduct is very explicit: It's not what you intended but how it was received.

A black person taking offense at the term colored person and Native Americans expressing outrage over The Searchers are the same.

Take a stand, Mike. Please.

Can art be great and also offensive, or does the latter inherently negate the former?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 09, 2019, 01:47:04 PM
i think what frenn might be alluding to is, you know how certain words used to be the norm or ok, but over time, some chose to label them as offensive.  so without getting into specifics because i think most here know what i am talking about.  anyway, how did someone become offended by said word when it has been ot there as such for so long?  suddenly, to take one of the least offensive terms for example,  handicapped.  today, we have all these fill in the blank "disabilities".  you don't hear the word midget much anymore and so on.

  so what changed?  i seriously would like to know because i never sat here thinking up all these present day terms, or whatever and go, ya know what?  the word midget is offensive to me and start a campaign to make it offensive and come up with alternatives that essentially become mandated
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 09, 2019, 01:59:17 PM
i think what frenn might be alluding to is, you know how certain words used to be the norm or ok, but over time, some chose to label them as offensive.  so without getting into specifics because i think most here know what i am talking about.  anyway, how did someone become offended by said word when it has been ot there as such for so long?  suddenly, to take one of the least offensive terms for example,  handicapped.  today, we have all these fill in the blank "disabilities".  you don't hear the word midget much anymore and so on.

  so what changed?  i seriously would like to know because i never sat here thinking up all these present day terms, or whatever and go, ya know what?  the word midget is offensive to me and start a campaign to make it offensive and come up with alternatives that essentially become mandated


Words evovle.  It's really no big deal.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 09, 2019, 02:02:47 PM
i think what frenn might be alluding to is, you know how certain words used to be the norm or ok, but over time, some chose to label them as offensive.  so without getting into specifics because i think most here know what i am talking about.  anyway, how did someone become offended by said word when it has been ot there as such for so long?  suddenly, to take one of the least offensive terms for example,  handicapped.  today, we have all these fill in the blank "disabilities".  you don't hear the word midget much anymore and so on.

  so what changed?  i seriously would like to know because i never sat here thinking up all these present day terms, or whatever and go, ya know what?  the word midget is offensive to me and start a campaign to make it offensive and come up with alternatives that essentially become mandated

Language evolves, as do societal norms.
Welcome to civilization.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 09, 2019, 02:18:43 PM
Language evolves, as do societal norms.
Welcome to civilization.

So (for example) did people decide (change their minds) that "handicapped" was offensive or did our cumulative lizard brains make that determination? If we have no control over our feelings it would have to be the latter.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 09, 2019, 02:32:07 PM
So (for example) did people decide (change their minds) that "handicapped" was offensive or did our cumulative lizard brains make that determination? If we have no control over our feelings it would have to be the latter.

Are you conflating one's feelings with one's opinions? (Edit: Perhaps beliefs is a better word here than opinions).
If not, I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Changing one's mind over whether a term is offensive is not a "feeling," at least not in the way I clearly defined it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 09, 2019, 02:35:00 PM

If a Native American isn't offended by the term Redskin, that's fine.  OTOH, you don't have to be Native American to be offended by the term Redskin.

Very true, but don’t use the excuse that it should be stopped because Native American are offended, when they aren’t.  The virtue signaling is out of control.

We are at the point now if someone says God Bless America here, it requires removal as someone is offended.  All it takes is one now. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 09, 2019, 02:38:48 PM
Very true, but don’t use the excuse that it should be stopped because Native American are offended, when they aren’t.   


Native Americans aren't a homogenous group where everyone has the same beliefs.  Some are offended.  Some are not. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 09, 2019, 02:46:57 PM
Can art be great and also offensive, or does the latter inherently negate the former?

Define art.   Crucifix in a jar of urine?  German swastika in a portrait?  Painted picture of Mutilated white kids?  Painted picture of mutilated elderly minorities?  What if the creators say it is art, is that all that matters?  They are the arbiters?

I only ask because somewhere is this hidden cabal of elitists that are deciding what is and isn’t, and it seems to change daily....is there a website so we can all program ourselves to understand the latest and why? 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 09, 2019, 02:48:56 PM
It does, Mike.

If your FIL makes a comment about "coloreds", and if the "colored person" takes offense, is it not, at a minimum, racially insensitive? Even if that is not what your FIL intended?

In the same way, The Searchers portrays Native Americans in the most despicable manner. Discerning leaders from Indian Country have expressed outrage over that movie in particular, and the broader catalog of Hollywood inventory in general.

Does that not make it offensive?

The GE Spirit and Letter program which governs employee conduct is very explicit: It's not what you intended but how it was received.

A black person taking offense at the term colored person and Native Americans expressing outrage over The Searchers are the same.

Take a stand, Mike. Please.

Is this what you believe and how you live your life?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 09, 2019, 02:51:10 PM
Are you conflating one's feelings with one's opinions?
If not, I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Changing one's mind over whether a term is offensive is not a "feeling," at least not in the way I clearly defined it.

i might be able to help here-when did someone's FEELINGS become hurt and/or when did "they" determine the word "handicapped" had out lived it's usefulness and we evolved when they heard the term handicapped?  opinions?  i don't think it has anything to do with an opinion though.

welcome to civilization?  what the f*** does that have to do with anything?  unforced error pak man.  the condescending schit doesn't help the conversation. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 09, 2019, 02:56:32 PM
i might be able to help here-when did someone's FEELINGS become hurt and/or when did "they" determine the word "handicapped" had out lived it's usefulness and we evolved when they heard the term handicapped?  opinions?  i don't think it has anything to do with an opinion though.

welcome to civilization?  what the f*** does that have to do with anything?  unforced error pak man.  the condescending schit doesn't help the conversation. 


What usually happens:

1.  A word is used to describe someone
2.  For a variety of reasons, such as being used as an insult or being considered an incomplete definition, people propose a new word or phrase.
3.  That word/phrase is adapted and you go back to #1.

It's why we have gone from "imbecile" to "retarded" to "person with developmental disabilities." 

I don't understand why this is a problem.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 09, 2019, 03:01:30 PM
Define art.   Crucifix in a jar of urine?  German swastika in a portrait?  Painted picture of Mutilated white kids?  Painted picture of mutilated elderly minorities?  What if the creators say it is art, is that all that matters?  They are the arbiters?

I only ask because somewhere is this hidden cabal of elitists that are deciding what is and isn’t, and it seems to change daily....is there a website so we can all program ourselves to understand the latest and why?

I like this definition:
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Pretty sure it wasn't a hidden cabal of elitists who tried to shut down the Mapplethorpe exhibit, have banned classic books from schools, protested "The Last Temptation of Christ" or issued a fatwa for Salman Rushdie.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 09, 2019, 03:11:31 PM

Native Americans aren't a homogenous group where everyone has the same beliefs.  Some are offended.  Some are not.

Fair, but not really the point.  All it takes is one.  I assume we are all Americans on this message board, but placing God Bless America in a signature was a problem.  Literally.  Maybe it was an atheist upset.  Maybe it was someone just not liking America.  Who knows, but all it takes is one now.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 09, 2019, 03:15:03 PM
Fair, but not really the point.  All it takes is one. 


No not really.  If all it takes is one, the Washington Redskins would have changed their name by now.  But even a critical mass of people haven't been able to compel the name to change.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 09, 2019, 03:46:33 PM
It does, Mike.

If your FIL makes a comment about "coloreds", and if the "colored person" takes offense, is it not, at a minimum, racially insensitive? Even if that is not what your FIL intended?

In the same way, The Searchers portrays Native Americans in the most despicable manner. Discerning leaders from Indian Country have expressed outrage over that movie in particular, and the broader catalog of Hollywood inventory in general.

Does that not make it offensive?

The GE Spirit and Letter program which governs employee conduct is very explicit: It's not what you intended but how it was received.

A black person taking offense at the term colored person and Native Americans expressing outrage over The Searchers are the same.

Take a stand, Mike. Please.

Well, I haven't seen The Searchers. Unlike some here (not saying you), I try not to comment on things I don't know enough about.

But sure, it would be hard to blame a person of a given race for being offended by an old movie that expresses what today is deemed racist.

I still don't think your example is the same as a real person referring to another real person a racially-offensive term in today's real world, but whatevs.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 09, 2019, 04:02:25 PM
I'm not seeing the correlation between feelings and becoming more tolerant.
When I say feelings, I mean things like anger, joy, sadness, fear, anxiety, attraction. These feelings come from out lizard brains, occurring outside the realm of our conscious thought. We can't stop them from happening. We can only learn to better control them and how they affect us.

Due to ignorance, lack of exposure or other you can have a feeling when you hear a word or are around people and that can in fact change in life.  If you choose to immerse yourself in understanding, gain more exposure or grow as a human you can change the way you feel about being around different people or situations.  If having a better understanding of how certain words impact someone else, you can change your feelings about certain words. 

My point is there is a way to change your feeling about or reactions to anything.  That of course can be a good thing or a bad thing. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 09, 2019, 04:04:30 PM
i think what frenn might be alluding to is, you know how certain words used to be the norm or ok, but over time, some chose to label them as offensive.

I am not referring to this.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TheyWereCones on September 09, 2019, 04:04:55 PM
Anger is a choice.  Being offended is a choice.  Do I really have to give examples?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 09, 2019, 04:30:40 PM
i think what frenn might be alluding to is, you know how certain words used to be the norm or ok, but over time, some chose to label them as offensive.

The term "Jay" used to be an insulting term meaning someone was an idiot or feeble-minded. It's where the term "Jaywalking" came from. Now no one would care if they were called a Jay or even know that etymology. You'd just assume maybe they were Creighton fans. That's just the nature of language, and part of being a functioning member of society is adapting to those changes.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 09, 2019, 04:37:03 PM
Anger is a choice.  Being offended is a choice.  Do I really have to give examples?

Anger isn't a choice. It's the result of eons of evolutionary programming and occurs outside your conscious mind.
How you respond to or act upon your anger is a choice, but the emotion itself isn't.
Source: Science.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TheyWereCones on September 09, 2019, 05:00:38 PM
Anger isn't a choice. It's the result of eons of evolutionary programming and occurs outside your conscious mind.
How you respond to or act upon your anger is a choice, but the emotion itself isn't.
Source: Science.

I'm sure eons of evolutionary programming is why Marquette fans get angry when we lose to Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 09, 2019, 05:12:57 PM
I'm sure eons of evolutionary programming is why Marquette fans get angry when we lose to Wisconsin.

Unlike anger, obtuseness is a choice.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 09, 2019, 05:52:44 PM

What usually happens:

1.  A word is used to describe someone
2.  For a variety of reasons, such as being used as an insult or being considered an incomplete definition, people propose a new word or phrase.
3.  That word/phrase is adapted and you go back to #1.

It's why we have gone from "imbecile" to "retarded" to "person with developmental disabilities." 

I don't understand why this is a problem.

     many of us here want to know how you guys decide what and when something is offensive. 

#2-a variety of reasons?  i get the part where people who change the definition because they feel uncomfortable rather than warm and fuzzy.  the incomplete definition part is vague. 

the understanding of why this is a problem part?  exhibit A for elitism...us unwashed just want to know how these word changes happen and who is the arbiter
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TheyWereCones on September 09, 2019, 06:51:24 PM
Unlike anger, obtuseness is a choice.

Awfully convenient to just call someone obtuse instead of actually respond.  Hopefully others in your life are able to make you happy since it's out of your hands.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 09, 2019, 06:58:05 PM
     many of us here want to know how you guys decide what and when something is offensive. 

#2-a variety of reasons?  i get the part where people who change the definition because they feel uncomfortable rather than warm and fuzzy.  the incomplete definition part is vague. 

the understanding of why this is a problem part?  exhibit A for elitism...us unwashed just want to know how these word changes happen and who is the arbiter


I guess I’ve just not had much of a problem so I haven’t put that much thought into it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 09, 2019, 08:03:05 PM
Awfully convenient to just call someone obtuse instead of actually respond.  Hopefully others in your life are able to make you happy since it's out of your hands.

I don't believe your question was sincere.
Read up on the limbic system.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 09, 2019, 08:48:19 PM
Thoreau and Frost would be proud of the diversions Scoop takes.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 09, 2019, 08:54:58 PM
https://twitter.com/danmurphyespn/status/1171238144437575680?s=21

California moves a step closer to allowing college athletes to earn off their likeness. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 09, 2019, 09:16:26 PM
I like this definition:
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Pretty sure it wasn't a hidden cabal of elitists who tried to shut down the Mapplethorpe exhibit, have banned classic books from schools, protested "The Last Temptation of Christ" or issued a fatwa for Salman Rushdie.


Don’t for a moment think there aren’t elitists on both sides that want to control what people should or should not be upset by.  The elitists, in my opinion, did push for those bannings.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 09, 2019, 09:19:06 PM
In all respect (I do appreciate a lot of your basketball insight), are you honestly saying that you have no control over your feelings?

Over your initial feelings? No. Someone says something or does something meaningful to you you're going to feel something. Anger, joy, suspicion, boredom, something. But just because you feel that initially, doesn't mean you have to show it, to act on it or even stay feeling that way.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 09, 2019, 09:52:26 PM
     many of us here want to know how you guys decide what and when something is offensive. 

#2-a variety of reasons?  i get the part where people who change the definition because they feel uncomfortable rather than warm and fuzzy.  the incomplete definition part is vague. 

the understanding of why this is a problem part?  exhibit A for elitism...us unwashed just want to know how these word changes happen and who is the arbiter

I'm not sure if this is an honest question but I think it is a good one if it is.

There may be some instances where it started with some "guys decide what and when something is offensive" but I think those examples are few and far between. I think it usually starts because other people make a term offensive by using that term offensively. People start to make jokes and stereotypes that center around specific words and phrases. Eventually, people are going to push back.

I would also say that oftentimes these things have always been offensive but our society needs time to recognize it. We used to think all sorts of things were acceptable behavior but eventually realized that we were wrong.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 09, 2019, 10:32:53 PM
https://twitter.com/danmurphyespn/status/1171238144437575680?s=21

California moves a step closer to allowing college athletes to earn off their likeness.

If Newsom signs this, it's just a matter of time for the NCAA to allow all players to profit off their likeness. They can talk tough, but NCAA rules do not supersede state law and they aren't booting 6.8% of their membership (24 D1 schools in California) out because of geography.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 09, 2019, 10:49:45 PM
https://twitter.com/danmurphyespn/status/1171238144437575680?s=21

California moves a step closer to allowing college athletes to earn off their likeness.

Stanford and USC publicly oppose it as do other schools here.


California also today made it illegal today to suspend a kid for talking back to his teacher, being a disturbance in class, etc....Calif....oh California...such good decisions here.....  https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2019-09-09/california-law-bars-suspensions-for-talking-back-to-teachers
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 10, 2019, 04:54:47 AM
Stanford and USC publicly oppose it as do other schools here.


California also today made it illegal today to suspend a kid for talking back to his teacher, being a disturbance in class, etc....Calif....oh California...such good decisions here.....  https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2019-09-09/california-law-bars-suspensions-for-talking-back-to-teachers

  california just adding to the growing list some really really head turning stuff
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 10, 2019, 05:30:39 AM
Stanford and USC publicly oppose it as do other schools here.


California also today made it illegal today to suspend a kid for talking back to his teacher, being a disturbance in class, etc....Calif....oh California...such good decisions here.....  https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2019-09-09/california-law-bars-suspensions-for-talking-back-to-teachers

I’m just glad California has the foresight to do the right thing with regards to this issue. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 10, 2019, 08:09:44 AM
I’m just glad California has the foresight to do the right thing with regards to this issue.

So much so that the most prestigious university in the state, Stanford, says it is a wrong decision.  LOL
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 10, 2019, 08:47:45 AM
So much so that the most prestigious university in the state, Stanford, says it is a wrong decision.  LOL

World’s tiniest violin for poor Stanford. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 10, 2019, 08:50:20 AM
Stanford and USC publicly oppose it as do other schools here.


California also today made it illegal today to suspend a kid for talking back to his teacher, being a disturbance in class, etc....Calif....oh California...such good decisions here.....  https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2019-09-09/california-law-bars-suspensions-for-talking-back-to-teachers

Suspensions always have been, and continue to be bad forms of punishment. Kids that don't really want to be in school, being punished by being removed from school.

It's like punishing a person for eating junk food, by only letting them have cake for dinner.

The students are still being punished for creating disturbances, they are now just a more useful form of punishment.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 10, 2019, 09:25:48 AM

Don’t for a moment think there aren’t elitists on both sides that want to control what people should or should not be upset by.  The elitists, in my opinion, did push for those bannings.

Freemasons, Elders of Zion or Trilateral Commission?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on September 10, 2019, 09:27:25 AM
I’m just glad California has the foresight to do the right thing with regards to this issue.

So you are advocating for students to be able to yell at and talk back to their teachers?  No consequences?

Good luck to those kids in the job market when they graduate,  assuming they do graduate or apply for jobs.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 10, 2019, 09:28:45 AM
So much so that the most prestigious university in the state, Stanford, says it is a wrong decision.  LOL

They oppose something that could lower their revenues?
Who'd have imagined that.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 10, 2019, 09:44:40 AM
So you are advocating for students to be able to yell at and talk back to their teachers?  No consequences?

Good luck to those kids in the job market when they graduate,  assuming they do graduate or apply for jobs.
.

No, the compensation for student athletes aspect
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 10, 2019, 09:45:07 AM
So you are advocating for students to be able to yell at and talk back to their teachers?  No consequences?

Good luck to those kids in the job market when they graduate,  assuming they do graduate or apply for jobs.

Did you read what the legislation does, or are you simply taking Cheeks' word for it?

First, this law has already existed for four years  kids up to 3rd grade, without apocalyptic consequences. This law only extends it through eighth grade.

Second, it does not prevent teachers from removing disruptive or defiant kids from class. It does not mean "no consequences." It just requires districts to do something other than keeping young kids - again, we're talking about grade schoolers here - home from school.  It changes nothing for high school kids.

Third, this has been the policy in the LA district since 2013, again, without  apocalyptic consequences. In fact, graduations have gone up ... though I'm not sure there's a proven causation there.

Fourth, this had the endorsement of state school administrator and parent-teacher organizations. The state teacher's union took no official stance.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 10, 2019, 09:51:51 AM
I’m just glad California has the foresight to do the right thing with regards to this issue.

yeah, just leave them continue to disrupt class for the 99% that are really there trying to learn-great idea
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 10, 2019, 09:54:43 AM
Did you read what the legislation does, or are you simply taking Cheeks' word for it?

First, this law has already existed for four years  kids up to 3rd grade, without apocalyptic consequences. This law only extends it through eighth grade.

Second, it does not prevent teachers from removing disruptive or defiant kids from class. It does not mean "no consequences." It just requires districts to do something other than keeping young kids - again, we're talking about grade schoolers here - home from school.  It changes nothing for high school kids.

Third, this has been the policy in the LA district since 2013, again, without  apocalyptic consequences. In fact, graduations have gone up ... though I'm not sure there's a proven causation there.

Fourth, this had the endorsement of state school administrator and parent-teacher organizations. The state teacher's union took no official stance.

Watch it, Pakuni ... facts not always welcome here.

yeah, just leave them continue to disrupt class for the 99% that are really there trying to learn-great idea

Case in point.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 10, 2019, 10:19:58 AM
     many of us here want to know how you guys decide what and when something is offensive. 

#2-a variety of reasons?  i get the part where people who change the definition because they feel uncomfortable rather than warm and fuzzy.  the incomplete definition part is vague. 

the understanding of why this is a problem part?  exhibit A for elitism...us unwashed just want to know how these word changes happen and who is the arbiter

Who is "you guys"?

Did those same "guys" weaponize the word 'snowflake'?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on September 10, 2019, 10:34:48 AM
Did you read what the legislation does, or are you simply taking Cheeks' word for it?

First, this law has already existed for four years  kids up to 3rd grade, without apocalyptic consequences. This law only extends it through eighth grade.

Second, it does not prevent teachers from removing disruptive or defiant kids from class. It does not mean "no consequences." It just requires districts to do something other than keeping young kids - again, we're talking about grade schoolers here - home from school.  It changes nothing for high school kids.

Third, this has been the policy in the LA district since 2013, again, without  apocalyptic consequences. In fact, graduations have gone up ... though I'm not sure there's a proven causation there.

Fourth, this had the endorsement of state school administrator and parent-teacher organizations. The state teacher's union took no official stance.

I didnt read the legislation, no.  Thank you for your concern to set the record straight with bullet points

Madison schools have gone to a somewhat similar policy of not disciplining kids and the high schools are disasters.  No accountability for kids, paperwork nightmares for the teachers, violence in the classrooms, and the rowdy few are ruining things for the rest of the students.

God bless America.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Mr. Sand-Knit on September 10, 2019, 10:39:00 AM
I didnt read the legislation, no.  Thank you for your concern to set the record straight with bullet points

Madison schools have gone to a somewhat similar policy of not disciplining kids and the high schools are disasters.  No accountability for kids, paperwork nightmares for the teachers, violence in the classrooms, and the rowdy few are ruining things for the rest of the students.

God bless America.

Wait?, so u are telling me Chicos is completely talking out of his ass?
This is surprising to me.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 10, 2019, 10:46:49 AM
     many of us here want to know how you guys decide what and when something is offensive.

The Society to Nominate Offensive Words For Losers And Knackered Emotions (or SNOWFLAKE) meets in the Starbucks basement every Thursday at 4:20. Wine is provided, but you have to purchase your own Avocado Toast.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 10, 2019, 10:56:23 AM
Suspensions always have been, and continue to be bad forms of punishment. Kids that don't really want to be in school, being punished by being removed from school.

It's like punishing a person for eating junk food, by only letting them have cake for dinner.

The students are still being punished for creating disturbances, they are now just a more useful form of punishment.

(https://mtprodscalestor.blob.core.windows.net/mediacache/f/3/4/7/9/f/f3479f836b301bbd5aa554c2666dbd80c1d64013.jpg)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 10, 2019, 10:57:57 AM
The Society to Nominate Offensive Words For Losers And Knackered Emotions (or SNOWFLAKE) meets in the Starbucks basement every Thursday at 4:20. Wine is provided, but you have to purchase your own Avocado Toast.

(https://vashtiqvega.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/the-crying-boy.jpg?w=584)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 4everwarriors on September 10, 2019, 10:59:59 AM
So you are advocating for students to be able to yell at and talk back to their teachers?  No consequences?

Good luck to those kids in the job market when they graduate,  assuming they do graduate or apply for jobs.



Pussification of America, aina?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 10, 2019, 11:01:36 AM
Did you read what the legislation does, or are you simply taking Cheeks' word for it?

First, this law has already existed for four years  kids up to 3rd grade, without apocalyptic consequences. This law only extends it through eighth grade.

Second, it does not prevent teachers from removing disruptive or defiant kids from class. It does not mean "no consequences." It just requires districts to do something other than keeping young kids - again, we're talking about grade schoolers here - home from school.  It changes nothing for high school kids.

Third, this has been the policy in the LA district since 2013, again, without  apocalyptic consequences. In fact, graduations have gone up ... though I'm not sure there's a proven causation there.

Fourth, this had the endorsement of state school administrator and parent-teacher organizations. The state teacher's union took no official stance.

(https://www.shortlist.com/media/imager/201905/30084-posts.article_md.jpg)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 10, 2019, 11:04:00 AM


Pussification of America, aina?

(https://f4.bcbits.com/img/a2376230052_10.jpg)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 10, 2019, 11:10:39 AM
I didnt read the legislation, no.  Thank you for your concern to set the record straight with bullet points

Madison schools have gone to a somewhat similar policy of not disciplining kids and the high schools are disasters.  No accountability for kids, paperwork nightmares for the teachers, violence in the classrooms, and the rowdy few are ruining things for the rest of the students.

What you say is happening in Madison, Wisconsin high schools probably doesn't have much to do with what's happening in California grade schools, but thanks for the cool story.
Please continue with the hot takes on subjects you admittedly know nothing about.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 10, 2019, 11:11:10 AM
I mean...don't you HAVE to do something??

Adam Zagoria
@AdamZagoria
  47m 


Legal source: ‘The Govt has not proposed a specific sentence, but has recommended a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines due to Gassnola’s “significant and useful” assistance i.e. exposing the Adidas bribes to bring players to the Univ. of Kansas’ twitter.com/adamzagoria/st… 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 10, 2019, 11:12:00 AM
Who is "you guys"?

Did those same "guys" weaponize the word 'snowflake'?

Meat Summiteers

(https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/carnegie-hall-smoking-backstage.jpg)


Scoop Snowflakes

(https://www.jambase.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy-band-images/the-nerds.jpg)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jon on September 10, 2019, 11:14:04 AM
What you say is happening in Madison, Wisconsin high schools probably doesn't have much to do with what's happening in California grade schools, but thanks for the cool story.
Please continue with the hot takes on subjects you admittedly know nothing about.

(https://i.imgur.com/IRvAU6t.jpg)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on September 10, 2019, 11:31:58 AM
What you say is happening in Madison, Wisconsin high schools probably doesn't have much to do with what's happening in California grade schools, but thanks for the cool story.
Please continue with the hot takes on subjects you admittedly know nothing about.

I was explaining my frame of reference.  Please continue knowing everything about everything.  I bow down befor your superior knowledge. Master.

God bless America.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 10, 2019, 12:36:18 PM
What you say is happening in Madison, Wisconsin high schools probably doesn't have much to do with what's happening in California grade schools, but thanks for the cool story.
Please continue with the hot takes on subjects you admittedly know nothing about.

so california grade schools are running just fine...nothing to fix there...a well oiled machine...love is in the air
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TSmith34 on September 10, 2019, 01:00:55 PM
Did you read what the legislation does, or are you simply taking Cheeks' word for it?

First, this law has already existed for four years  kids up to 3rd grade, without apocalyptic consequences. This law only extends it through eighth grade.

Second, it does not prevent teachers from removing disruptive or defiant kids from class. It does not mean "no consequences." It just requires districts to do something other than keeping young kids - again, we're talking about grade schoolers here - home from school.  It changes nothing for high school kids.

Third, this has been the policy in the LA district since 2013, again, without  apocalyptic consequences. In fact, graduations have gone up ... though I'm not sure there's a proven causation there.

Fourth, this had the endorsement of state school administrator and parent-teacher organizations. The state teacher's union took no official stance.
So once again you are saying that Chicos is ignorant of the content of the links he himself posts?  Surprising.

And rocket happily gulped it down without bothering to learn anything about it? Doubly surprising
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 10, 2019, 01:11:07 PM
I was explaining my frame of reference.  Please continue knowing everything about everything.  I bow down befor your superior knowledge. Master.

God bless America.

Happy to help.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 10, 2019, 04:20:23 PM
Did you read what the legislation does, or are you simply taking Cheeks' word for it?

First, this law has already existed for four years  kids up to 3rd grade, without apocalyptic consequences. This law only extends it through eighth grade.

Second, it does not prevent teachers from removing disruptive or defiant kids from class. It does not mean "no consequences." It just requires districts to do something other than keeping young kids - again, we're talking about grade schoolers here - home from school.  It changes nothing for high school kids.

Third, this has been the policy in the LA district since 2013, again, without  apocalyptic consequences. In fact, graduations have gone up ... though I'm not sure there's a proven causation there.

Fourth, this had the endorsement of state school administrator and parent-teacher organizations. The state teacher's union took no official stance.


1. so kids up through 8th grade are just harmless little dickens

2. so what does it do?  timeouts?  stand in the corner with your nose on a spot on the chalkboard?  write, i will stop giving mary and jack hinder-binders 1000 gazillion times

3. oh good, graduations are up and behavior is getting worse-super

4. sigh of relief the state admin expert, parent/teacher org and the kicker-teacher union loves it!  should have lead with #4 pakman-makes me feel so much better that we aren't spanking the kids again
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 10, 2019, 05:54:36 PM

1. so kids up through 8th grade are just harmless little dickens

2. so what does it do?  timeouts?  stand in the corner with your nose on a spot on the chalkboard?  write, i will stop giving mary and jack hinder-binders 1000 gazillion times

3. oh good, graduations are up and behavior is getting worse-super

4. sigh of relief the state admin expert, parent/teacher org and the kicker-teacher union loves it!  should have lead with #4 pakman-makes me feel so much better that we aren't spanking the kids again

Why not actually read about what's happening before melting down over it?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 10, 2019, 06:07:49 PM
Suspensions always have been, and continue to be bad forms of punishment. Kids that don't really want to be in school, being punished by being removed from school.

It's like punishing a person for eating junk food, by only letting them have cake for dinner.

The students are still being punished for creating disturbances, they are now just a more useful form of punishment.

Forgetful,

Respectfully disagree. Removing chronically disruptive students from the classroom has several benefits. Teachers can teach and students can learn in at least a relatively peaceful environment. Other potential disruptors may be deterred when they see the consequences.

Re your junk food analogy, I think it's more like letting a child who wants to eat junk food (and who is allowed to by his parents) to eat junk food but not allow him or her to run the cafeteria.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 10, 2019, 06:11:16 PM
Forgetful,

Respectfully disagree. Removing chronically disruptive students from the classroom has several benefits. Teachers can teach and students can learn in at least a relatively peaceful environment. Other potential disruptors may be deterred when they see the consequences.

This is true, but nothing about this California law prevents the removal of disruptive students from the classroom.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 10, 2019, 06:35:19 PM
Did you read what the legislation does, or are you simply taking Cheeks' word for it?

First, this law has already existed for four years  kids up to 3rd grade, without apocalyptic consequences. This law only extends it through eighth grade.

Second, it does not prevent teachers from removing disruptive or defiant kids from class. It does not mean "no consequences." It just requires districts to do something other than keeping young kids - again, we're talking about grade schoolers here - home from school.  It changes nothing for high school kids.

Third, this has been the policy in the LA district since 2013, again, without  apocalyptic consequences. In fact, graduations have gone up ... though I'm not sure there's a proven causation there.

Fourth, this had the endorsement of state school administrator and parent-teacher organizations. The state teacher's union took no official stance.

Lol.  Kids below 3rd grade are not ones that cause problems of talking back.  The teachers union in this state is so far up Newsome’s ass and vice versa they scrub each other’s backs.  The fact they gave no stance should be an be an eye opener.  Usually they finish each other’s sentences. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 10, 2019, 06:36:26 PM
I didnt read the legislation, no.  Thank you for your concern to set the record straight with bullet points

Madison schools have gone to a somewhat similar policy of not disciplining kids and the high schools are disasters.  No accountability for kids, paperwork nightmares for the teachers, violence in the classrooms, and the rowdy few are ruining things for the rest of the students.

God bless America.

Yup.  Nothing like teaching lack of accountability when they are young....get them started on the right foot.

And God Bless America.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 10, 2019, 07:01:28 PM
Lol.  Kids below 3rd grade are not ones that cause problems of talking back.  The teachers union in this state is so far up Newsome’s ass and vice versa they scrub each other’s backs.  The fact they gave no stance should be an be an eye opener.  Usually they finish each other’s sentences.

exactly my sentiments cheeko.  there are so many ways the education people can play this.  first, they sound so level headed and reasoned.  you know, the dr spock approach to teaching.  second, the school systems get paid per body in the chairs.  third, they have their scapegoat when schmit hits the fan-but but but our hands are tied and we have to take all these kids that the private schools don't have to wa wa wa wa

     big reasons why private schools are more successful from an educational standpoint.  still wonder why "they" don't want choice schools even though their constituents have been screamin for them?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 10, 2019, 07:13:54 PM
Did you read what the legislation does, or are you simply taking Cheeks' word for it?


The only thing I saw on this was the article Chico linked.

Is there a link to the actual legislation available? If not, do you know what punishments are being substituted for suspensions? Any idea why Gov Brown vetoed this legislation twice? He doesn't impress me as being a hard liner.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 10, 2019, 07:59:28 PM
The only thing I saw on this was the article Chico linked.

Is there a link to the actual legislation available? If not, do you know what punishments are being substituted for suspensions? Any idea why Gov Brown vetoed this legislation twice? He doesn't impress me as being a hard liner.

Link:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB419

Contrary to how it's been described here, the bill does not prohibit suspensions, removals or other disciplinary consequences. It prohibits out-of-school suspensions.
I'd like to think most reasonable people can agree that an 11-year-old with behavioral issues is better off getting whatever help he/she needs from professionals in a structured environment than sitting at home playing Call of Duty and falling further behind on school work.

https://edsource.org/2019/california-to-ban-pushing-students-out-of-school-for-disruptive-behavior/617326
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 10, 2019, 10:21:40 PM
Link:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB419

Contrary to how it's been described here, the bill does not prohibit suspensions, removals or other disciplinary consequences. It prohibits out-of-school suspensions.
I'd like to think most reasonable people can agree that an 11-year-old with behavioral issues is better off getting whatever help he/she needs from professionals in a structured environment than sitting at home playing Call of Duty and falling further behind on school work.

https://edsource.org/2019/california-to-ban-pushing-students-out-of-school-for-disruptive-behavior/617326

Thanks for linking the actual legislation and another article on it.

I would agree with you (as you frame it) but would be interested to hear Jerry Brown's reasoning (as a counterpoint) for vetoing this legislation (or something very close to it) twice. He doesn't impress me as a no tolerance guy.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 10, 2019, 10:21:52 PM
The only thing I saw on this was the article Chico linked.

Is there a link to the actual legislation available? If not, do you know what punishments are being substituted for suspensions? Any idea why Gov Brown vetoed this legislation twice? He doesn't impress me as being a hard liner.

I would be happy to explain.  Another bright bulb in Sacramento tried to expand from K to 12, and later only K to 8th....he vetoed them as he should have.  So they’re back into the we will go it slowly approach and still accomplish their goals over a longer period of time. 

“Teachers and principals are on the front lines of educating our children and are in the best position to make decisions about order and discipline in the classrooms,” Brown said in the veto message he issued on Sunday.

There is one reason why this whole movement is even happening, but we’re not allowed to talk about it anymore...a simple search explains it pretty well.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 10, 2019, 11:03:06 PM
So, the whole argument over the last few pages is about certain areas/schools putting an end to out of school suspensions?

Punishments are still in place, yes? And kids with behavior issues are still being removed from the classrooms, yes?

So... What's the problem?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 10, 2019, 11:13:54 PM
Forgetful,

Respectfully disagree. Removing chronically disruptive students from the classroom has several benefits. Teachers can teach and students can learn in at least a relatively peaceful environment. Other potential disruptors may be deterred when they see the consequences.

Re your junk food analogy, I think it's more like letting a child who wants to eat junk food (and who is allowed to by his parents) to eat junk food but not allow him or her to run the cafeteria.

I see your point. I was simplifying it a bit too much, and I was specifically referring to "out of school" suspensions.  I was also more specifically referring to how they are detrimental in certain disadvantaged communities, where there is little direction and support at home.

As I understand the law, they realized that the out of school suspensions were largely hitting specific demographics that were specifically harmed from this type of punishment, and where alternative punishments, up to and including in school suspensions, would be more effective.

Obviously no rule is perfect. And agreed. My junk food analogy was not particularly apt.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 11, 2019, 12:09:23 AM
So, the whole argument over the last few pages is about certain areas/schools putting an end to out of school suspensions?

Punishments are still in place, yes? And kids with behavior issues are still being removed from the classrooms, yes?

So... What's the problem?

That’s part of it, but not all of it....this is just the slow drip start here...in a few years it will be K-8, then high school which was the intention all along....slowly but surely.  And no, you are not fully correct on the punishment removal either.  What’s the problem?  It will backfire just like letting the prisoners out a few years ago massively backfired despite the pinky promises made.  The same reason this Calif legislation on paying players for their likeness will not work either....pinky promises and all from th people who passed and haven’t one clue.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 11, 2019, 08:07:08 AM
That’s part of it, but not all of it....this is just the slow drip start here...in a few years it will be K-8, then high school which was the intention all along....slowly but surely.  And no, you are not fully correct on the punishment removal either.  What’s the problem?  It will backfire just like letting the prisoners out a few years ago massively backfired despite the pinky promises made.  The same reason this Calif legislation on paying players for their likeness will not work either....pinky promises and all from th people who passed and haven’t one clue.

So you're against the possible future issues. Slippery slope argument

But currently, and as written, I think I'm correct?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 11, 2019, 08:07:51 AM
That’s part of it, but not all of it....this is just the slow drip start here...in a few years it will be K-8, then high school which was the intention all along....slowly but surely.  And no, you are not fully correct on the punishment removal either.  What’s the problem?  It will backfire just like letting the prisoners out a few years ago massively backfired despite the pinky promises made.  The same reason this Calif legislation on paying players for their likeness will not work either....pinky promises and all from th people who passed and haven’t one clue.

This is classic Cheeks.
1. Fires off misleading post about how terrible something is.
2. Facts are presented showing Cheeks' post is misleading and/or wrong and the thing drawing his outrage isn't nearly as terrible as he claims.
3. Cheeks inserts red herrings (prisons?) and shifts to slippery slope mode, admitting the thing he was so outraged over may not be so terrible, but it will surely lead to 'XYZ' and 'XYZ' most certainly will be terrible.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 11, 2019, 08:09:13 AM
There is one reason why this whole movement is even happening, but we’re not allowed to talk about it anymore...a simple search explains it pretty well.

Is the Cabal of Elites behind this too?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 11, 2019, 08:27:37 AM
exactly my sentiments cheeko.  there are so many ways the education people can play this.  first, they sound so level headed and reasoned.  you know, the dr spock approach to teaching.  second, the school systems get paid per body in the chairs.  third, they have their scapegoat when schmit hits the fan-but but but our hands are tied and we have to take all these kids that the private schools don't have to wa wa wa wa

     big reasons why private schools are more successful from an educational standpoint.  still wonder why "they" don't want choice schools even though their constituents have been screamin for them?

Right you are....150,000 school days missed from kids being punks and suspended...that means the schools don’t get their $$$$$$.

The Charter School Development Center opposed the law.   Incidentally, students in grades 5-8 also cannot be suspended for the next five years, but not permanent until....well....they make it permanent the next time around.  I vote to put retired nuns in these schools and issue them all a ruler and a yardstick and watch the bad behavior take a surprising turn for the better.  At back to school night last night at my daughter’s high school, the teachers were pissed and happy....happy they are not yet under this silliness, but pissed knowing it is coming eventually.  Parents that have kids in the middle school across the street from the high school having to deal with two different disciplinary approaches.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: ATL MU Warrior on September 11, 2019, 08:38:14 AM
Right you are....150,000 school days missed from kids being punks and suspended...that means the schools don’t get their $$$$$$.

The Charter School Association opposed the law.   Incidentally, students in grades 5-8 also cannot be suspended for the next five years, but not permanent until....well....they make it permanent the next time around.  I vote to put retired nuns in these schools and issue them all a ruler and a yardstick and watch the bad behavior take a surprising turn for the better.  At back to school night last night at my daughter’s high school, the teachers were pissed and happy....happy they are not yet under this silliness, but pissed knowing it is coming eventually.  Parents that have kids in the middle school across the street from the high school having to deal with two different disciplinary approaches.
?? I didn't realize i got a property tax refund for every day my kids miss school. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 11, 2019, 08:55:54 AM
This is classic Cheeks.
1. Fires off misleading post about how terrible something is.
2. Facts are presented showing Cheeks' post is misleading and/or wrong and the thing drawing his outrage isn't nearly as terrible as he claims.
3. Cheeks inserts red herrings (prisons?) and shifts to slippery slope mode, admitting the thing he was so outraged over may not be so terrible, but it will surely lead to 'XYZ' and 'XYZ' most certainly will be terrible.

Lol

You pined it must be grand because the teachers union didn’t reject it...they didn’t back it either.  You omitted that Charter Schools Development Center opposed it.  Individual teachers, many are not happy.  Those are facts.

Your version of what is or isn’t terrible is an opinion, not a fact.

Not a red herring at all, a dumb decision by them, crime up as a result....this decision also dumb as will ultimately prove out on the athlete decision...oh I have no doubt some will claim victory out of the gate, these decisions usually take some years for the full decay to take root, and then you have to hope there is a way back.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 11, 2019, 08:58:53 AM
?? I didn't realize i got a property tax refund for every day my kids miss school.

You don’t, but in California, Texas and a few other states the amount of money for schools is tied to attendance.  What happens in Georgia doesn’t mean it happens here in California.

California is one of the few states that do this, amounts to about $45 a day per kid.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 11, 2019, 09:04:20 AM
So you're against the possible future issues. Slippery slope argument

But currently, and as written, I think I'm correct?

I’m against both...current and slippery slope that will follow.  Interesting to see teachers respond to this in social media and elsewhere....not happy campers...Some using their names, others not out of fear....don’t blame them.

 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 11, 2019, 09:20:53 AM
At back to school night last night at my daughter’s high school, the teachers were pissed and happy....happy they are not yet under this silliness, but pissed knowing it is coming eventually.

What a coincidence that teachers used the opportunity of a back-to-school night to share their opinions of a state law that doesn't affect them ... and they just so happened to totally agree with you.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TSmith34 on September 11, 2019, 09:22:08 AM
This is classic Cheeks.
1. Fires off misleading post about how terrible something is.
2. Facts are presented showing Cheeks' post is misleading and/or wrong and the thing drawing his outrage isn't nearly as terrible as he claims.
3. Cheeks inserts red herrings (prisons?) and shifts to slippery slope mode, admitting the thing he was so outraged over may not be so terrible, but it will surely lead to 'XYZ' and 'XYZ' most certainly will be terrible.
And Boo Boo bobbles his head in agreement all along the way
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TheyWereCones on September 12, 2019, 04:27:50 PM
Over your initial feelings? No. Someone says something or does something meaningful to you you're going to feel something. Anger, joy, suspicion, boredom, something. But just because you feel that initially, doesn't mean you have to show it, to act on it or even stay feeling that way.

Your initial post said, "Being offended isn't a choice."  I just don't agree with this.  People associate aspects of life as positive or negative, and react accordingly to varying degrees.

If you become vegan and are now offended if I eat chicken wings in front of you, that's your choice.  It's very possible this would not have offended you prior to becoming vegan.  At some point you made a deliberate decision to become vegan.  You then also made a deliberate choice to allow yourself to be offended by people who eat chicken wings in front of you (you could still be vegan and not care what anyone else does even if in front of you).

If you are a white supremacist and a black person moves into your neighborhood, and you are offended, you are allowing yourself to be offended by this.  You are saying "yes" to your own self when your own self is asking, "Should this offend me?"  No one can be offended without their own consent.

If your religion doesn't support gay marriage, is there really nothing you can change about yourself to not allow yourself to be offended by a gay wedding?

Lastly...

https://external-preview.redd.it/hPVrEF39Pv0jlgaX14D1LmH0nm151sQ9DLFOeEw-B7c.jpg?auto=webp&s=15eec7bab52e4409260b4ff47fc39b3a2f51e534
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 13, 2019, 10:32:29 AM
I don't think we're that far apart honestly. I don't know about you but my feelings are always at least a split second faster than my thoughts. I feel something first and then I consider why or if I should feel that way. It then becomes a choice to keep feeling that way or not.

As for your meme,  it's funny and all bit it also dismisses the possibility that someone was justified when they said what they said.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 13, 2019, 12:49:45 PM
What a coincidence that teachers used the opportunity of a back-to-school night to share their opinions of a state law that doesn't affect them ... and they just so happened to totally agree with you.

I asked them, because we have known many of them for 6 to 8 years.

To say it doesn’t affect them is not true.  If kids are taught to get away with crap at the young grades, what happens when they get to the high school.  Yes, it will impact them and yes, they can have an opinion on it, especially the older ones that have been around the block and concerned.  The junior high is right across the street from the high school and this law covers JR high kids for 5 years as well.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 13, 2019, 12:50:54 PM
And Boo Boo bobbles his head in agreement all along the way

Like you do with Forgetful, MU82, Jockey, etc. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 13, 2019, 01:02:32 PM
I asked a bunch of teachers stuff, too. Incredibly, I can report here that they agree with my point of view on everything.

I can't prove that, but I want y'all to believe me.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 13, 2019, 04:21:34 PM
I asked them, because we have known many of them for 6 to 8 years.

To say it doesn’t affect them is not true.  If kids are taught to get away with crap at the young grades, what happens when they get to the high school.  Yes, it will impact them and yes, they can have an opinion on it, especially the older ones that have been around the block and concerned.  The junior high is right across the street from the high school and this law covers JR high kids for 5 years as well.

How are they getting Away with it if they're being punished to the full extent of allowable punishments?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 13, 2019, 04:44:51 PM
If kids are taught to get away with crap at the young grades, what happens when they get to the high school. 

This is a false, and it remains false no matter how many times you repeat it. Contrary to your repeated lies misstatements, this does not take away teachers' ability to impose consequences, punish students, remove unruly kids from their classrooms or even issue suspensions. All it does it remove one particular form of punishment ... one that has been proven ineffective in curbing misbehavior and detrimental to academic outcomes.

https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-research-finds-suspending-students-or-out-school-problematic

https://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Noltemeyer_Ward_2015_Meta-Analysis.pdf

https://www.educationnext.org/how-school-suspensions-affect-student-achievement-philadelphia/
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 13, 2019, 07:26:05 PM
I asked a bunch of teachers stuff, too. Incredibly, I can report here that they agree with my point of view on everything.

I can't prove that, but I want y'all to believe me.

I don’t really care to be blunt.  I can link to many teachers FaceBook pages and you can read it for yourself to support what I was told directly.  Would you like that....then would you believe?  Of course not.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 13, 2019, 07:28:50 PM
I don’t really care to be blunt.  I can link to many teachers FaceBook pages and you can read it for yourself to support what I was told directly.  Would you like that....then would you believe?  Of course not.

How about not giving out private pages to complete and total strangers on the Internet so you can feel you "won" some stupid debate? Would those teachers like that? Would they like that you are insinuating you would do that? Of course not.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 13, 2019, 07:36:00 PM
I don’t really care to be blunt.  I can link to many teachers FaceBook pages and you can read it for yourself to support what I was told directly.  Would you like that....then would you believe?  Of course not.

If I can link to many teachers pages that show the opposite, what would that mean?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 13, 2019, 08:32:17 PM
How many teachers in California? My guess is that both sides can find anecdotal evidence of teachers who support their position. In lieu of any real statistics - #Meaningless
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 13, 2019, 10:37:20 PM
How about not giving out private pages to complete and total strangers on the Internet so you can feel you "won" some stupid debate? Would those teachers like that? Would they like that you are insinuating you would do that? Of course not.

If it would shut some people up who continually make false accusations...yes.  Secondly, if the pages are open to anyone and searchable, nothing is being shared inappropriately.  That’s why if you don’t want that information out there, you place your settings to only friends can see. 

But lastly, I am not going to do it because it wouldn’t matter anyway....same clowns would argue it was only 3 or 4 or 10 and then they would attack them as somehow not teacher enough, or God knows what.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 14, 2019, 01:14:00 AM
But lastly, I am not going to do it because it wouldn’t matter anyway....same clowns would argue it was only 3 or 4 or 10 and then they would attack them as somehow not teacher enough, or God knows what.

Or they would just ask the obvious question....

If I can link to many teachers pages that show the opposite, what would that mean?

I work in higher education. It is different than primary and secondary education, but I still had to study it when earning my M.Ed. Every bit of research I remember showed the out of school suspensions are detrimental to student success, no matter what measurement you wanted to use. The only benefit didn't come to the suspendee but the other students in the class.....which could be accomplished with an in school suspension.

I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of the CA law, so I'm not going to say the law as a whole is good or bad. But finding alternative discipline to out of school suspensions is a good thing.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 14, 2019, 09:35:51 AM
Or they would just ask the obvious question....

I work in higher education. It is different than primary and secondary education, but I still had to study it when earning my M.Ed. Every bit of research I remember showed the out of school suspensions are detrimental to student success, no matter what measurement you wanted to use. The only benefit didn't come to the suspendee but the other students in the class.....which could be accomplished with an in school suspension.

I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of the CA law, so I'm not going to say the law as a whole is good or bad. But finding alternative discipline to out of school suspensions is a good thing.

Understood.

Here is one of counter arguments...as I have said, I grew up in a teaching household with my mom a teacher for over 40 years, including winning Colorado teacher of the year.  Of course as a parent and friends of teachers, I get their viewpoints as well.

The cons are the implication that it “rewards” the kid by not having them go to school.  Ok, fair point....get it.  Doesn’t work for all kids.  Yup, get it.

What some other teachers will tell you is it puts pressure on the kid to reform because the family is now forced to act.  Mom or dad may have to take off work, find someone to watch the kid, etc.   Now you have a lot of people inconvenienced which should motivate the kid to knockoff the behavior.  It often removes the kid from some of the elements that are contributing to the problem in the first place (other problem kids, gangs, etc).

The reality is no one solution fits all, so by the state taking away this option, they have removed a tool and said one size fits all is the solution....which we know that is often a mistake.  That’s why it is not a good idea.  For some kids, an in school suspension is better, but for others it is not.

What we are not allowed to say is why the other reasons this was passed....this is from the teachers themselves, their opinions.

Racial.  The number of kids suspended are disproportionately higher in some racial groups.
Parents.  Parents don’t have the time to take off to deal with suspended kids so they would rather put the burden on the state.
Money.  Schools are paid in California for kids being in attendance.  If they are suspended, the school loses money.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 14, 2019, 09:42:55 AM
Understood.

Here is one of counter arguments...as I have said, I grew up in a teaching household with my mom a teacher for over 40 years, including winning Colorado teacher of the year.  Of course as a parent and friends of teachers, I get their viewpoints as well.

The cons are the implication that it “rewards” the kid by not having them go to school.  Ok, fair point....get it.  Doesn’t work for all kids.  Yup, get it.

What some other teachers will tell you is it puts pressure on the kid to reform because the family is now forced to act.  Mom or dad may have to take off work, find someone to watch the kid, etc.   Now you have a lot of people inconvenienced which should motivate the kid to knockoff the behavior.  It often removes the kid from some of the elements that are contributing to the problem in the first place (other problem kids, gangs, etc).

The reality is no one solution fits all, so by the state taking away this option, they have removed a tool and said one size fits all is the solution....which we know that is often a mistake.  That’s why it is not a good idea.  For some kids, an in school suspension is better, but for others it is not.

What we are not allowed to say is why the other reasons this was passed....this is from the teachers themselves, their opinions.

Racial.  The number of kids suspended are disproportionately higher in some racial groups.
Parents.  Parents don’t have the time to take off to deal with suspended kids so they would rather put the burden on the state.
Money.  Schools are paid in California for kids being in attendance.  If they are suspended, the school loses money.

This is very different than "kids are getting away with bad behavior"
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 14, 2019, 10:28:08 AM
Understood.

Here is one of counter arguments...as I have said, I grew up in a teaching household with my mom a teacher for over 40 years, including winning Colorado teacher of the year.  Of course as a parent and friends of teachers, I get their viewpoints as well.

The cons are the implication that it “rewards” the kid by not having them go to school.  Ok, fair point....get it.  Doesn’t work for all kids.  Yup, get it.

What some other teachers will tell you is it puts pressure on the kid to reform because the family is now forced to act.  Mom or dad may have to take off work, find someone to watch the kid, etc.   Now you have a lot of people inconvenienced which should motivate the kid to knockoff the behavior.  It often removes the kid from some of the elements that are contributing to the problem in the first place (other problem kids, gangs, etc).

The reality is no one solution fits all, so by the state taking away this option, they have removed a tool and said one size fits all is the solution....which we know that is often a mistake.  That’s why it is not a good idea.  For some kids, an in school suspension is better, but for others it is not.

What we are not allowed to say is why the other reasons this was passed....this is from the teachers themselves, their opinions.

Racial.  The number of kids suspended are disproportionately higher in some racial groups.
Parents.  Parents don’t have the time to take off to deal with suspended kids so they would rather put the burden on the state.
Money.  Schools are paid in California for kids being in attendance.  If they are suspended, the school loses money.

This is a reasonable take. I disagree, but it's reasonable.
Let this guy out more often, and keep the "liberals want to destroy everything" guy under wraps
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 14, 2019, 01:31:04 PM
This is a reasonable take. I disagree, but it's reasonable.
Let this guy out more often, and keep the "liberals want to destroy everything" guy under wraps

His "lizard brain" took offense. No way to stop that, right? But upon reflection he came up with a solid, reasoned, reply. So, progress - a lesson for us all.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lazar's Headband on September 14, 2019, 02:14:00 PM
If the parents don't have the time to take off, wouldn't an out of school suspension leave the kids unsupervised for the day and present the opportunity to make things worse instead of better?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 14, 2019, 05:02:30 PM
So, anyway, ya, the NCAA blue bloods/high profile teams and coaches appear to be getting let off the hook. Again. (Infrequent major sanctions not withstanding)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 14, 2019, 06:04:49 PM
And speaking of white privilege ...

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-went-prison-enrolling-her-191400017.html

While Felicity Huffman gets 14 days in jail for defrauding a university, this poor, black woman was put away for considerably longer for enrolling her 5-year-old son in a better school district than he would have been able to go to. That apparently is first-degree larceny.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 14, 2019, 06:28:25 PM
And speaking of white privilege ...

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-went-prison-enrolling-her-191400017.html

While Felicity Huffman gets 14 days in jail for defrauding a university, this poor, black woman was put away for considerably longer for enrolling her 5-year-old son in a better school district than he would have been able to go to. That apparently is first-degree larceny.

1. I tried to get this back on track.

2. This story is much more complex involving the woman selling drugs before and after the school incident. The larceny charge, while ridiculous, is one of many she faced that resulted in her jail time.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 14, 2019, 06:40:41 PM
1. I tried to get this back on track.

2. This story is much more complex involving the woman selling drugs before and after the school incident. The larceny charge, while ridiculous, is one of many she faced that resulted in her jail time.

You make good points. But the time still seems extremely excessive. For the amount of time she was given, one would have thought she was a danger to society.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 14, 2019, 07:14:00 PM
You make good points. But the time still seems extremely excessive. For the amount of time she was given, one would have thought she was a danger to society.

As a drug dealer, is she not?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 14, 2019, 09:25:44 PM
If the parents don't have the time to take off, wouldn't an out of school suspension leave the kids unsupervised for the day and present the opportunity to make things worse instead of better?


Perhaps...or it may make the parents sacrifice so much that it finally sticks in the kids head what their punk behavior is.  Again, one size fits all, which is now what the state is forcing, isn’t a great idea.  For some in school suspension is fine, for others it isn’t.  One of the tools has been taken away and some parents can just ignor3 it let the state be the nanny....that works tremendously well.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 14, 2019, 09:27:33 PM
And speaking of white privilege ...

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-went-prison-enrolling-her-191400017.html

While Felicity Huffman gets 14 days in jail for defrauding a university, this poor, black woman was put away for considerably longer for enrolling her 5-year-old son in a better school district than he would have been able to go to. That apparently is first-degree larceny.

The journalist of this piece is missing some key points here that are found in other articles....so odd that a journalist would do that.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 14, 2019, 09:30:16 PM
This is a reasonable take. I disagree, but it's reasonable.
Let this guy out more often, and keep the "liberals want to destroy everything" guy under wraps

Hyperbole...I don’t think they want to destroy everything, they just have some really bad ideas that I have to pay for and they normally don’t.  At least the other side’s horrible ideas don’t require me to pay for them.   ;D
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 14, 2019, 09:51:58 PM
As a drug dealer, is she not?

She didn't receive the sentence in this article for being a drug dealer. She already paid her debt to society for that.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Herman Cain on September 14, 2019, 10:23:10 PM


Pussification of America, aina?
Back in the day the nuns used to bang kids across the Knuckles with a ruler .

Nowadays, the lady teachers are banging the kids in other ways .

Not sure which era is better.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 14, 2019, 11:16:27 PM
Back in the day the nuns used to bang kids across the Knuckles with a ruler .

Nowadays, the lady teachers are banging the kids in other ways .

Not sure which era is better.

And yet the note difference for such crimes so different.  Guy does that.....bad bad news.....woman does that...not good, but  early the same.   Equal justice?..
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 15, 2019, 02:17:30 AM
And yet the syou note ding for such crimes so different.  Guy does that.....bad bad news.....woman does that...not good, but  early the same.   Equal justice?..

And attitudes like HCs are a big part of the reason why
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 15, 2019, 10:11:43 AM
And attitudes like HCs are a big part of the reason why

How about we just make the laws and penalty outcomes equal?  Or just be honest admit the equality is BS and doesn’t exist....that would be the more honest thing to do.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 15, 2019, 12:07:42 PM
How about we just make the laws and penalty outcomes equal?  Or just be honest admit the equality is BS and doesn’t exist....that would be the more honest thing to do.

Equality is overrated. Equity is where it's at
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 18, 2019, 07:30:56 PM
And the beat goes on.  Slick Rick cashes out...

Waiting anxiously on the Autumn Equinox NCAA announcement. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pitino-settles-louisville-ready-chapter-152921426.html
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 18, 2019, 07:34:43 PM
And the beat goes on.  Slick Rick cashes out...

Waiting anxiously on the Autumn Equinox NCAA announcement. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pitino-settles-louisville-ready-chapter-152921426.html

I'm curious how he cashed out?  He was paid what was due to him legally, but didn't receive any damages by way of the lawsuit.  How did he cash out....maybe I'm missing some details which is entirely possible.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 18, 2019, 07:39:29 PM
Equality is overrated. Equity is where it's at

Yeah, it's called redistribution.  Take from someone else to prop up someone else.  Sounds nice, makes a great bumper sticker...until you run out of crates to take.

EQUALITY VS EQUITY

(http://www.claxonmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Equality-Equity.jpg)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 18, 2019, 07:40:17 PM
I'm curious how he cashed out?  He was paid what was due to him legally, but didn't receive any damages by way of the lawsuit.  How did he cash out....maybe I'm missing some details which is entirely possible.

Well it said in the article he "has been paid compensation and wages he was due."  I thought when he was fired it was for cause, and he would be getting nothing.  This settled from "fired" to "resigned". So, he settled, got paid and UL saved face.

I agree the details are scant and likely will remain that way.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 18, 2019, 08:06:32 PM
I'm curious how he cashed out?  He was paid what was due to him legally, but didn't receive any damages by way of the lawsuit.  How did he cash out....maybe I'm missing some details which is entirely possible.

Really depends how you feel about his firing.  If you think he was justifiably fired for cause, then it's hard to argue he didn't cash out. Not only did he get paid for not working, he got paid money the university was legally entitled to withhold.
On the other hand, if you don't think multiple cheating scandals is not just cause for firing, then Rick indeed got what he was legally owed.
I lean toward the former, but understand why Louisville settled.  Leaked discovery in that case wasn't likely to paint the school in a favorable light.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 18, 2019, 08:12:40 PM
Yeah, it's called redistribution.  Take from someone else to prop up someone else.  Sounds nice, makes a great bumper sticker...until you run out of crates to take.


It is terrible when one group of people work hard to accomplish success in a lucrative field, only to see the wealth they generate redistributed for the benefit of those engaged in less profitable behaviors.
Also .... NCAA.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 18, 2019, 08:36:17 PM
It is terrible when one group of people work hard to accomplish success in a lucrative field, only to see the wealth they generate redistributed for the benefit of those engaged in less profitable behaviors.
Also .... NCAA.

Yep, capitalism for me, don't touch my stuff. Your stuff? Don't be so greedy, the volleyball team needs your money!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 18, 2019, 09:39:14 PM
It is terrible when one group of people work hard to accomplish success in a lucrative field, only to see the wealth they generate redistributed for the benefit of those engaged in less profitable behaviors.
Also .... NCAA.

Yup....and vice versa.  As I have said for years here, I am for the socialist model in sports.  Without it, the Packers wouldn’t exist.  Nor would the Sacramento Kings, many college teams, and absolutely many college sports.  Our Olympic endeavors would be practically non existent.  Never denied it, won’t now.  It works for some things, fails miserably in other things.  I’m glad you think only helping the 1% in college sports is the right thing to do.....I call it cutting off your nose to spite your face and will harm way more kids then it will help.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 18, 2019, 09:43:14 PM
Really depends how you feel about his firing.  If you think he was justifiably fired for cause, then it's hard to argue he didn't cash out. Not only did he get paid for not working, he got paid money the university was legally entitled to withhold.
On the other hand, if you don't think multiple cheating scandals is not just cause for firing, then Rick indeed got what he was legally owed.
I lean toward the former, but understand why Louisville settled.  Leaked discovery in that case wasn't likely to paint the school in a favorable light.

Settlements are done for all kinds of reasons....to my knowledge from a legal perspective it would have been very difficult to prove Pitino did any cheating.  The evidence wasn’t there, and as such the “cause” action not a guaranteed winner.  Knowing that, it sure seems like he got paid what was due to him, 5e university and him avoid some embarrassing stuff, and Pitino doesn’t get to cash out.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 18, 2019, 10:14:42 PM
Yup....and vice versa.  As I have said for years here, I am for the socialist model in sports.  Without it, the Packers wouldn’t exist.  Nor would the Sacramento Kings, many college teams, and absolutely many college sports.  Our Olympic endeavors would be practically non existent.  Never denied it, won’t now.  It works for some things, fails miserably in other things.  I’m glad you think only helping the 1% in college sports is the right thing to do.....I call it cutting off your nose to spite your face and will harm way more kids then it will help.

The Lakers, Knicks, etc., decided they needed/wanted the Kings, Thunder, Grizzlies, etc., etc., etc. Why? Because they loved their fans? Because they wanted to "spread the wealth" to other owners/cities?. Nope. The NBA (and the NFL, NHL and MLB) expanded  so the existing teams could make even more money - and that's OK.

What that has to do with Markus Howard having his image stolen and used to support sports teams at MU that can't support themselves is beyond me. Want volleyball? Sell tickets, have a bake sale or let the university use the general fund. It's not Markus's responsibility.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 18, 2019, 10:22:06 PM
Yup....and vice versa.  As I have said for years here, I am for the socialist model in sports.  Without it, the Packers wouldn’t exist.  Nor would the Sacramento Kings, many college teams, and absolutely many college sports.  Our Olympic endeavors would be practically non existent.

Got it.
Programs that redistribute wealth to protect the financial success and security of super-important billion dollar sports entities = good and necessary.
Programs that redistribute wealth to provide trivial things like health care, food, shelter and education = very bad.
Interesting priorities, but I see where you're coming from.

Thougn I do wonder how can we ever expect a professional football franchise from a small Midwesterm town to survive on its own if we're always propping it up with other people's money?

Quote
  I’m glad you think only helping the 1% in college sports is the right thing to do.....I call it cutting off your nose to spite your face and will harm way more kids then it will help.

It isn't "helping" anyone. It's simply not acting as an impediment to them reaping the rewards of their hard work and success. What a bizarre way for you to frame this.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 18, 2019, 10:25:01 PM
Settlements are done for all kinds of reasons....to my knowledge from a legal perspective it would have been very difficult to prove Pitino did any cheating.  The evidence wasn’t there, and as such the “cause” action not a guaranteed winner..

So you're now Team Rick?
Unless Rick's contract indemnifies him from the actions of his assistants, it would be quite easy to prove he cheated. And even if it does indemnify him, unless Andre McGee and others in the program are willing to risk a [perjury rap for Rick's sake, it still wouldn't be that hard.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 18, 2019, 10:31:04 PM
The Lakers, Knicks, etc., decided they needed/wanted the Kings, Thunder, Grizzlies, etc., etc., etc. Why? Because they loved their fans? Because they wanted to "spread the wealth" to other owners/cities?. Nope. The NBA (and the NFL, NHL and MLB) expanded  so the existing teams could make even more money - and that's OK.

What that has to do with Markus Howard having his image stolen and used to support sports teams at MU that can't support themselves is beyond me. Want volleyball? Sell tickets, have a bake sale or let the university use the general fund. It's not Markus's responsibility.

The NFL knew if they continued down the path of only certain teams winning it would ultimately fail the league, and yes revenues / growth.  Parity of salary cap also forced the best teams to be smartest with their money and not simply buy or attempt to buy championships.  The NBA has also tried, but went about it differently (same for MLB) and the mechanism they used doesn’t accomplish what it should.

The NCAA mandates 14 D1 sports for which scholarships are provided to field those teams.  How are those going to be funded?  How about people’s pensions....when you retire it is up to the next group to help keep it going.  Social Security.  Etc.  Yup, socialism isn’t always bad in moderation and when everyone is on the same page on who and how it benefits.

Not Markus’s responsibility....is it the university’s responsibility to put games at FF to help Markus and the team?  Why not have them at the old gym...still a 94 foot court with 10 foot high rims like you find back at Hickory.  Not MU’s problem to give Markus a platform, but they do and for doing that they get almost zero credit from the anti NCAA crowd here.  All the benefits they provide, no acknowledgment.  You may think it isn’t MH’s responsibility....should we pay the guys that graduated decades earlier that paved the way for MH?  Should we ask MH and the other revenue sports and put them in a room with the non revenue athletes and explain to them that all those opportunities are at risk...because it isn’t MH’s responsibility?  That’s quite a society.  Look, I don’t like paying for ridiculous, hair-brained progressive ideas that benefit some people who don’t bother to lift a finger...I’m Fine paying for those in actual need....but either way I have to pay.  Part of society.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 18, 2019, 10:36:11 PM
Got it.
Programs that redistribute wealth to protect the financial success and security of super-important billion dollar sports entities = good and necessary.
Programs that redistribute wealth to provide trivial things like health care, food, shelter and education = very bad.
Interesting priorities, but I see where you're coming from.

Thougn I do wonder how can we ever expect a professional football franchise from a small Midwesterm town to survive on its own if we're always propping it up with other people's money?

It isn't "helping" anyone. It's simply not acting as an impediment to them reaping the rewards of their hard work and success. What a bizarre way for you to frame this.

Show me one athletic dept that is a billion dollar operation.  I can show you at least 100 that are less than $10 million and fielding teams in at least 14 sports, providing educational opportunities for 1000’s of young men and women as a result.

On your “trivial” matter....I am fine paying for those that need it, but what I want is strict enforcement for the a-holes that do not....you know, the guys MU82 says we shouldn’t bother going after because they aren’t big fish enough.  There are noble things in society we should all pitch in to pay for, but not when it rewards laziness, bad behavior, fraud, etc.  You do understand the difference....yes?  By making sure it goes to those that truly need it, there are more resources for those people.  Every source of fraud is a deprivation of assistance to those that need the help.   That’s the difference.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 18, 2019, 10:38:26 PM
So you're now Team Rick?
Unless Rick's contract indemnifies him from the actions of his assistants, it would be quite easy to prove he cheated. And even if it does indemnify him, unless Andre McGee and others in the program are willing to risk a [perjury rap for Rick's sake, it still wouldn't be that hard.

How am I team Rick?  I think he is sleazy beyond belief.  It is what is provable and what isn’t.  If his assistants say he knew nothing, he says he knew nothing, how are you going to prove it?  Counselor?  Incidentally, his contract is available online for review.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 18, 2019, 10:40:06 PM
Not Markus’s responsibility....is it the university’s responsibility to put games at FF to help Markus and the team?  Why not have them at the old gym...still a 94 foot court with 10 foot high rims like you find back at Hickory.

That time when Cheeks suggested Marquette plays its games at the Fiserv Forum instead of the Old Gym to help Markus Howard.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 18, 2019, 10:41:11 PM
Yeah, it's called redistribution.  Take from someone else to prop up someone else.  Sounds nice, makes a great bumper sticker...until you run out of crates to take.

EQUALITY VS EQUITY

(http://www.claxonmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Equality-Equity.jpg)

1. Scarcity is a myth
2. In most cases, equity doesn't require taking something from anyone
3. You're the only person I know who has used that image and argued that the kid shouldn't get to watch the baseball game
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 18, 2019, 10:53:01 PM
That time when Cheeks suggested Marquette plays its games at the Fiserv Forum instead of the Old Gum to help Markus Howard.

Did I suggest it?  I asked if it was MU’s responsibility.  What would Walmart say? 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 18, 2019, 10:57:49 PM
1. Scarcity is a myth
2. In most cases, equity doesn't require taking something from anyone
3. You're the only person I know who has used that image and argued that the kid shouldn't get to watch the baseball game

We don’t always get what we want....we aren’t entitled to everything.  Not everyone gets a car, or to watch the baseball game.

Scarcity is a myth.  Hmm, that’s a good one.  Since we have only 11.67 years left of scarce precious time, I might believe you. That said, most economists are not going to.  Scarcity of all kinds of resources exist.  I realize in this video game world where we run the money printing press 24/7 it feels like it, but we can mention all the societies through history where that went horribly wrong in the end.  Scarcity is not a myth.

How is it that in MOST cases it doesn’t require taking from someone else?  Either directly it does, or indirectly by cutting them off it does....allocation of resources.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 19, 2019, 12:15:37 AM
We don’t always get what we want....we aren’t entitled to everything.  Not everyone gets a car, or to watch the baseball game.

Scarcity is a myth.  Hmm, that’s a good one.  Since we have only 11.67 years left of scarce precious time, I might believe you. That said, most economists are not going to.  Scarcity of all kinds of resources exist.  I realize in this video game world where we run the money printing press 24/7 it feels like it, but we can mention all the societies through history where that went horribly wrong in the end.  Scarcity is not a myth.

How is it that in MOST cases it doesn’t require taking from someone else?  Either directly it does, or indirectly by cutting them off it does....allocation of resources.

Just trying to live by what those darn Jesuits taught me.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 19, 2019, 11:00:27 AM
3. You're the only person I know who has used that image and argued that the kid shouldn't get to watch the baseball game

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/e823f869841c10d01cc73430d71ed31e/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MuMark on September 20, 2019, 03:17:46 PM
https://amp.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article235306247.html?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 20, 2019, 03:19:55 PM
https://amp.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article235306247.html?__twitter_impression=true

Color me impressed. In before the summer deadline too.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 20, 2019, 03:51:35 PM
*it's all happening* gif
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 20, 2019, 04:38:34 PM
This is all completely and totally meaningless if the "penalties" are just them taking down their Final Four banner, or a show cause for Self, which is what I think will happen. Anything less than a post season ban(or multiple), is 100% meaningless. No one cares about anything else.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 20, 2019, 04:44:32 PM
This is all completely and totally meaningless if the "penalties" are just them taking down their Final Four banner, or a show cause for Self, which is what I think will happen. Anything less than a post season ban(or multiple), is 100% meaningless. No one cares about anything else.

The post-season ban Louisville self-imposed upon itself a few years back crippled the program. 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-11-02-sp-749-story.html

Kansas was in the Final Four two years later
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: cheebs09 on September 20, 2019, 04:44:58 PM
This is all completely and totally meaningless if the "penalties" are just them taking down their Final Four banner, or a show cause for Self, which is what I think will happen. Anything less than a post season ban(or multiple), is 100% meaningless. No one cares about anything else.

A show cause for one of the best coaches in the game seems significant.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 20, 2019, 04:51:52 PM
A show cause for one of the best coaches in the game seems significant.

Is it?  Self has been linked to the NBA for years or he could just get a job in TV.  The media will rehab him regardless.

Kelvin Sampson received one in 2008 and is now “well-respected” at Houston after turning that program around.  Sampson got his show cause while at Indiana and still found a college job.  Self may wander a bit but if he wanted, he’d back in the college game at some point and I bet some people would take him here.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: cheebs09 on September 20, 2019, 05:09:55 PM
Is it?  Self has been linked to the NBA for years or he could just get a job in TV.  The media will rehab him regardless.

Kelvin Sampson received one in 2008 and is now “well-respected” at Houston after turning that program around.  Sampson got his show cause while at Indiana and still found a college job.  Self may wander a bit but if he wanted, he’d back in the college game at some point and I bet some people would take him here.

I meant from a Kansas perspective. I’m sure they’d get a lot of good candidates, but being forced to remove your coach seems to be a significant penalty. I’d hope there’s more on top of it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 20, 2019, 05:14:28 PM
Is it?  Self has been linked to the NBA for years or he could just get a job in TV.  The media will rehab him regardless.

Kelvin Sampson received one in 2008 and is now “well-respected” at Houston after turning that program around.  Sampson got his show cause while at Indiana and still found a college job.  Self may wander a bit but if he wanted, he’d back in the college game at some point and I bet some people would take him here.

Sampson was out of the college game for a number of years...and yes someone would probably take Self just as some businesses would take a flyer on a top salesman who is a drunk and abused his expense account.  That’s hardly new.

Mike Rice is still out of college coaching.  Todd Bozeman was for years, and now at a much lower level.  The list goes on and on.  But yes you can always find a few that will line up with any argument.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 20, 2019, 05:15:44 PM
I meant from a Kansas perspective. I’m sure they’d get a lot of good candidates, but being forced to remove your coach seems to be a significant penalty. I’d hope there’s more on top of it.

Ah, gotcha.  Honestly, if I were Kansas, I’d cut the cord now.  That’s just me, though.  If Louisville could get Chris Mack, there’s no reason Kansas couldn’t land a top candidate.  Be a great landing spot for Billy Donovan.  Come in, expect the worst, low early expectations and still be at Kansas
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 20, 2019, 05:18:21 PM
Sampson was out of the college game for a number of years...and yes someone would probably take Self just as some businesses would take a flyer on a top salesman who is a drunk and abused his expense account.  That’s hardly new.

Mike Rice is still out of college coaching.  Todd Bozeman was for years, and now at a much lower level.  The list goes on and on.  But yes you can always find a few that will line up with any argument.

So your buddy hired Sampson at Houston.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 20, 2019, 05:19:00 PM
Sampson was out of the college game for a number of years...and yes someone would probably take Self just as some businesses would take a flyer on a top salesman who is a drunk and abused his expense account.  That’s hardly new.

Mike Rice is still out of college coaching.  Todd Bozeman was for years, and now at a much lower level.  The list goes on and on.  But yes you can always find a few that will line up with any argument.
.

Mike Rice abused his players and didn’t win a lot at Rutgers.  Todd Bozeman had a sexual harassment case hanging over his head as well as paying players.  Completely different circumstances. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 20, 2019, 05:26:23 PM
So your buddy hired Sampson at Houston.  Thoughts?

As stated, he is a well regarded basketball coach, and some of his violations are not even violations today based on the new rules.  Others still are and he left IU in a mess.  Not the guy would have hired, but to my knowledge it has worked out...he hasn’t been on shaky ground like Pearl and others that just cannot stop with the hand in the cookie jar.   You can use Google to get the complete reasons why on the hire.


 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 20, 2019, 05:33:32 PM
.

Mike Rice abused his players and didn’t win a lot at Rutgers.  Todd Bozeman had a sexual harassment case hanging over his head as well as paying players.  Completely different circumstances.

Bozeman’s show cause was related to paying Gardiner.  Any sexual assault allegation had zero to do with the show cause from the NCAA.

Mike Rice has great success at Robert Morris, the type of mid major that schools hire from.  What Mike did is what college and pro coaches did for years, before video was capturing it all.  Was it a terrible look...yup.  You should have gone to a KO practice...thank God people weren’t capturing video back then. 

Plenty of other examples...including Pitino who will never coach again at a NCAA D1 program. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 20, 2019, 05:37:08 PM
Bozeman’s show cause was related to paying Gardiner.  Any sexual assault allegation had zero to do with the show cause from the NCAA.

Mike Rice has great success at Robert Morris, the type of mid major that schools hire from.  What Mike did is what college and pro coaches did for years, before video was capturing it all.  Was it a terrible look...yup.  You should have gone to a KO practice...thank God people weren’t capturing video back then. 

Plenty of other examples...including Pitino who will never coach again at a NCAA D1 program.

None of which has to do with Bill Self and Kansas.

Also, if Rick Pitino were ten years younger, he’d absolutely coach in the NCAA again at the D1 level
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Loose Cannon on September 20, 2019, 05:45:40 PM

I'll Wait.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 20, 2019, 07:12:21 PM
Bozeman’s show cause was related to paying Gardiner.  Any sexual assault allegation had zero to do with the show cause from the NCAA.

Mike Rice has great success at Robert Morris, the type of mid major that schools hire from.  What Mike did is what college and pro coaches did for years, before video was capturing it all.  Was it a terrible look...yup.  You should have gone to a KO practice...thank God people weren’t capturing video back then. 

Plenty of other examples...including Pitino who will never coach again at a NCAA D1 program.

hows about a bobby knight practice?  hell, you didn't need to see his practices to see he was a tough coach.  just go to one of his chair throwing contests
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 20, 2019, 07:29:23 PM
Bozeman’s show cause was related to paying Gardiner.  Any sexual assault allegation had zero to do with the show cause from the NCAA.

Mike Rice has great success at Robert Morris, the type of mid major that schools hire from.  What Mike did is what college and pro coaches did for years, before video was capturing it all. Was it a terrible look...yup.  You should have gone to a KO practice...thank God people weren’t capturing video back then. 

Plenty of other examples...including Pitino who will never coach again at a NCAA D1 program.

Isn't that a sad commentary? Much like the Ray Rice tape. It's only bad enough for a punishment or severe punishment when there's video? Horrible.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 20, 2019, 07:42:03 PM
https://youtu.be/Xez7kGgEg-U
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 20, 2019, 07:44:50 PM
None of which has to do with Bill Self and Kansas.

Also, if Rick Pitino were ten years younger, he’d absolutely coach in the NCAA again at the D1 level

You have no idea if that is true, purely speculation.  You were the one that said these guys make it back, and not all of them do.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 20, 2019, 07:47:00 PM
Isn't that a sad commentary? Much like the Ray Rice tape. It's only bad enough for a punishment or severe punishment when there's video? Horrible.

Maybe, but there are also plenty of old timers that will say that's how it was, and that's what toughened people up.  It was a different time (not Rice's, but times earlier when this was normal).  Hell, ask my generation or older about spanking kids vs today....yet a lot of people grew up just fine after being spanked.  It's a different approach.  One is hard, one is soft.  Some people need hard, some people need soft.  There are former players that hated KO, hated Knight, hated Woody at OSU, and so many others during their time who now say it is what I needed.  Different strokes for different folks.  Maybe that's sad, maybe it isn't....depends on the person.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 20, 2019, 07:50:25 PM
You have no idea if that is true, purely speculation.  You were the one that said these guys make it back, and not all of them do.

No, I said Bill Self would make it back.  And he will/would. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 20, 2019, 07:55:06 PM
No, I said Bill Self would make it back.  And he will/would.

You also said if Pitino was 10 years younger he would....you don't know that.  MU82 is demanding facts only, not opinion.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 20, 2019, 07:58:15 PM
You also said if Pitino was 10 years younger he would....you don't know that.  MU82 is demanding facts only, not opinion.

You don’t know Marquette will have to drop down levels if athletes get paid for their likeness but say they will. 

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 20, 2019, 08:01:48 PM
You don’t know Marquette will have to drop down levels if athletes get paid for their likeness but say they will.

100% correct, it is my opinion!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 20, 2019, 08:14:03 PM
Would anyone really be that surprised if Pitino coached again? He didn't likely turn down Panathinaikos' offer to return after winning the championship in order to sit idly by in the US. I could see him getting one more shot.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 20, 2019, 08:18:28 PM
Would anyone really be that surprised if Pitino coached again? He didn't likely turn down Panathinaikos' offer to return after winning the championship in order to sit idly by in the US. I could see him getting one more shot.

13 seconds to lift off
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 20, 2019, 08:49:50 PM
Maybe, but there are also plenty of old timers that will say that's how it was, and that's what toughened people up.  It was a different time (not Rice's, but times earlier when this was normal).  Hell, ask my generation or older about spanking kids vs today....yet a lot of people grew up just fine after being spanked.  It's a different approach.  One is hard, one is soft.  Some people need hard, some people need soft.  There are former players that hated KO, hated Knight, hated Woody at OSU, and so many others during their time who now say it is what I needed.  Different strokes for different folks.  Maybe that's sad, maybe it isn't....depends on the person.

That part, I understand.

I just mean about punishments, or the severity of punishment, is dependent on video evidence of the infraction. Ray Rice is just about the perfect example. Gets a hand-slap. Then video comes out. Then he's out of the league.

IMO, he should have been out of the league regardless of the video because of the infraction.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 20, 2019, 08:49:55 PM
Even Baylor, who has had the harshest penalties in major D1 ball the last 20 years, returned to near the top of college basketball. And likely cheating too.

Don’t expect any sanctions for Kansas to have a lasting impact. Fans don’t care. Prospects don’t care.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 20, 2019, 11:22:15 PM
That part, I understand.

I just mean about punishments, or the severity of punishment, is dependent on video evidence of the infraction. Ray Rice is just about the perfect example. Gets a hand-slap. Then video comes out. Then he's out of the league.

IMO, he should have been out of the league regardless of the video because of the infraction.

Because the video was evidence.  How many people wrongly charged by crazy people out for a buck that they also have to protect against.  It goes both ways.  Look at the videos out there showing someone claiming cop assaulted them or whatever and then the body cam shows person was full of crap.  Evidence needed.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 21, 2019, 08:03:42 AM
13 seconds to lift off

Too soon?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 21, 2019, 08:25:35 AM
Even Baylor, who has had the harshest penalties in major D1 ball the last 20 years, returned to near the top of college basketball. And likely cheating too.

Don’t expect any sanctions for Kansas to have a lasting impact. Fans don’t care. Prospects don’t care.
Baylor "returned to near the top of college basketball". When was Baylor ever near the top of college basketball?

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't this Scott Drew era by far the pinnacol of Baylor basketball?

You are correct, Baylor instituted a 'win at all cost' policy for sports to raise the profile of the school. And I believe one could say it has worked from a strictly financial perspective.

As for Kansas, I feel you are correct also. They have always cheated to win and always will. Business as usual.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: dgies9156 on September 21, 2019, 08:31:48 AM
Hell, ask my generation or older about spanking kids vs today....yet a lot of people grew up just fine after being spanked.  It's a different approach.

Until it becomes child abuse. Or worse.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 21, 2019, 08:50:31 AM
Baylor "returned to near the top of college basketball". When was Baylor ever near the top of college basketball?

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't this Scott Drew era by far the pinnacol of Baylor basketball?

You are correct, Baylor instituted a 'win at all cost' policy for sports to raise the profile of the school. And I believe one could say it has worked from a strictly financial perspective.

As for Kansas, I feel you are correct also. They have always cheated to win and always will. Business as usual.

If the NCAA or Big XII for that matter actually cared about the actions of their members, Baylor would have been expelled.  The Big Ten should have done the same with Penn State and now Michigan State. 

Baylor’s actions during the Dave Bliss era were inexcusable and rumors abound of cheating under Scott Drew.  No penalty changed anything.

Art Briles and his reign of terror was a disgrace.  And they fought to keep him and his son is employed at Florida State.  They still managed to hire a good, young coach in Matt Rhule.

The most important issue is keeping amateurism in college sports to keep it pure
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 21, 2019, 08:50:44 AM
Baylor "returned to near the top of college basketball". When was Baylor ever near the top of college basketball?

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't this Scott Drew era by far the pinnacol of Baylor basketball?

You are correct, Baylor instituted a 'win at all cost' policy for sports to raise the profile of the school. And I believe one could say it has worked from a strictly financial perspective.

As for Kansas, I feel you are correct also. They have always cheated to win and always will. Business as usual.

You are correct that “return” was a poor choice. I guess my point is that sanctions don’t mean lasting impact and business as usual will often continue.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 21, 2019, 09:15:23 AM
Reading this thread makes me feel that people are supporting College Basketball in some sort of alternative universe.

Bill Self is college basketball.  When Bill Self leaves someone will replace him.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 21, 2019, 09:22:33 AM
Too soon?
That's what she said
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 21, 2019, 09:28:59 AM
That's what she said

Porcini’s prides itself on quick table service.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 21, 2019, 09:54:24 AM
Until it becomes child abuse. Or worse.

Of course.  Limits to everything.  I remember being spanked Once as a kid and it did the trick.  I ran into the street and a car was coming having to slam on the breaks in front of our house..I was probably 5 or 6. 
My dad sat me down, talked to me for a good 20 minutes.  He didn’t want to do it, but he wanted to make damn sure I never ran into the street again like that...tough love.  Tell you what, it worked.  No doubt there are plenty of psychologists that would say how terrible that was....well, that was punishment doling back then and I knew he loved me and was teaching me a lesson.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 21, 2019, 09:57:00 AM
If the NCAA or Big XII for that matter actually cared about the actions of their members, Baylor would have been expelled.  The Big Ten should have done the same with Penn State and now Michigan State. 

Baylor’s actions during the Dave Bliss era were inexcusable and rumors abound of cheating under Scott Drew.  No penalty changed anything.

Art Briles and his reign of terror was a disgrace.  And they fought to keep him and his son is employed at Florida State.  They still managed to hire a good, young coach in Matt Rhule.

The most important issue is keeping amateurism in college sports to keep it pure

But but but but but you are for the athletes....you keep saying.  So expelling MSU and penalizing the soccer, vball, track, tennis, hockey, and all other programs is your answer because so what happened in another part of the department.  Based on your other stances, it probably is since you don’t seem to care that paying athletes will also mean schools have to downsize eventually causing lost opportunities.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 21, 2019, 09:58:10 AM
You are correct that “return” was a poor choice. I guess my point is that sanctions don’t mean lasting impact and business as usual will often continue.

How long do you want the impact to last?  Sanctions are not meant to be forever.  Some schools never recover, others take years, others bounce back fairly quick.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 21, 2019, 10:03:09 AM
How long do you want the impact to last?  Sanctions are not meant to be forever.  Some schools never recover, others take years, others bounce back fairly quick.

I don’t particularly care.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 21, 2019, 10:03:35 AM
But but but but but you are for the athletes....you keep saying.  So expelling MSU and penalizing the soccer, vball, track, tennis, hockey, and all other programs is your answer because so what happened in another part of the department.  Based on your other stances, it probably is since you don’t seem to care that paying athletes will also mean schools have to downsize eventually causing lost opportunities.

In a freaking heartbeat.  Those institutions turned a blind eye, from top to bottom to unspeakable crimes. 

Again, you state as fact downsizing will occur if athletes get compensated for their likenesses.  Protect amateurism, excuse heinous crimes covered up by member institutions but don’t let athletes get compensated on their likeness.  Got it
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 21, 2019, 10:30:42 AM
But but but but but you are for the athletes....you keep saying.  So expelling MSU and penalizing the soccer, vball, track, tennis, hockey, and all other programs is your answer because so what happened in another part of the department. 

It didn't happen "in another part" of the department. It involved the highest ranking people in the entire department, all the way up to the university president.
And let's not forget that the university/athletic department has a history beyond Larry Nassar of turning a blind eye to misconduct.

Quote
Based on your other stances, it probably is since you don’t seem to care that paying athletes will also mean schools have to downsize eventually causing lost opportunities.

This is nothing more than chicken little speculation. Markus Howard getting $10K to appear in a Cyganiak Planning radio ad won't cancel the volleyball program.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 21, 2019, 11:01:34 AM
It didn't happen "in another part" of the department. It involved the highest ranking people in the entire department, all the way up to the university president.
And let's not forget that the university/athletic department has a history beyond Larry Nassar of turning a blind eye to misconduct.

This is nothing more than chicken little speculation. Markus Howard getting $10K to appear in a Cyganiak Planning radio ad won't cancel the volleyball program.

So you penalize all those kids in sports that Nassar did not impact at all?

You don’t seem to understand how the sponsorship game is going to work.  Money to kids means money not to program which pays for scholarships for those kids.  Enough of that happens, programs get cut.  Then the bidding wars impact in the recruiting process, that will also have some schools....especially smaller ones, realize they cannot compete in this any more...they drop down.  Now you have scheduling issues because there are not enough programs to fill everyone’s schedule, etc, etc.  This isn’t about $10k for one guy.....you can liken it to a city project that is hailed as only costing $500M ends up being 2X that....people all too often do not think about the impacts, unintended consequences, etc.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 21, 2019, 11:03:30 AM
In a freaking heartbeat.  Those institutions turned a blind eye, from top to bottom to unspeakable crimes. 

Again, you state as fact downsizing will occur if athletes get compensated for their likenesses.  Protect amateurism, excuse heinous crimes covered up by member institutions but don’t let athletes get compensated on their likeness.  Got it

I state it as my opinion.   I’m not excusing the behavior or the actions of individuals....I would like to see them go to prison.  I’m fine with kids getting compensated....quit the team and do what the other kids can do.  Simple. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 21, 2019, 12:22:20 PM
So you penalize all those kids in sports that Nassar did not impact at all?

No, I penalize the athletic department that allowed him to abuse teenagers and young women for years.
Do you believe Arizona basketball should escape sanctions if/when it's proven that DeAndre Ayton got paid? I mean, it's so unfair to punish Nico Mannion for something he had nothing to do with.

(Also, where's Mr. Life is Unfair?)

Quote
You don’t seem to understand how the sponsorship game is going to work.  Money to kids means money not to program which pays for scholarships for those kids.  Enough of that happens, programs get cut. 

Oh, come on.
You should understand how the sponsorship game works, but you're ignoring that reality because it doesn't fit your argument.
First, you're exaggerating how much sponsorship revenue schools receive. ADs get the great majority of their money from ticket sales, TV rights and licensing.
More importantly, you're vastly exaggerating how much money sponsors are going to shift from entire programs to individual athletes.
Nike gets way more bang for its buck by having all Duke players wearing their gear during games than they ever will by featuring an individual player in an ad.
Jumpman gets way more out of having the Jordan logo on everything UNC-related than they ever will by putting the next Coby White on a billboard. They already get Coby White and every other UNC athlete as a walking billboard ... why on earth would they abandon that?
The answer, of course is that they won't. But that doesn't fit the chicken little narrative, does it?

And again, if you're fear is bidding wars, the NCAA can address that. But of course, they won't, because like you they'd rather dig in their heels on a losing cause.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 21, 2019, 12:28:19 PM
No, I penalize the athletic department that allowed him to abuse teenagers and young women for years.
Do you believe Arizona basketball should escape sanctions if/when it's proven that DeAndre Ayton got paid? I mean, it's so unfair to punish Nico Mannion for something he had nothing to do with.

(Also, where's Mr. Life is Unfair?)

Oh, come on.
You should understand how the sponsorship game works, but you're ignoring that reality because it doesn't fit your argument.
First, you're exaggerating how much sponsorship revenue schools receive. ADs get the great majority of their money from ticket sales, TV rights and licensing.
More importantly, you're vastly exaggerating how much money sponsors are going to shift from entire programs to individual athletes.
Nike gets way more bang from its buck by having all Duke players wearing their gear during games than they ever will by featuring an individual player in an ad.
Jumpman gets way more out of having the Jordan logo on everything UNC-related than they ever will by putting the next Coby White on a billboard. They already get Coby White and every other UNC athlete as a walking billboard ... why on earth would they abandon that?
The answer, of course is that they won't. But that doesn't fit the chicken little narrative, does it?

And again, if you're fear is bidding wars, the NCAA can address that. But of course, they won't, because like you they'd rather dig in their heels on a losing cause.


I lived the sponsorship game both on the inside as someone who sold them for MU and currently as a sponsor of many schools and conferences.  I know damn well how much money in sponsorships got to schools.  I didn’t exaggerate a damn thing.  As AD’s have told me directly, the money you are pledging in sponsorship funds X staff positions, X scholarships, etc.  I never once said it was more than tv money, etc, so don’t put those words in my mouth.  Not once.

Over $1.2 Billion spent.   https://www.sponsorship.com/Report/2018/03/19/Sponsorship-Spending-On-College-Athletics-To-Total.aspx

Those dollars help many financially strapped programs, help employ people, provide scholarships to kids.  You have no idea how many schools this money is vital to their program for resources, staffing and making sure a bunch of kids can realize their dream to play college sports....no idea.

On your first statement, I see that as two different things.  If the men’s basketball program at KU is cheating then the men’s basketball program should be punished. I find that totally fair.  And that’s too bad for Nico, he can transfer if he wishes.  You want to stop the bad behavior, spank them where it hurts.  That is quite different then expelling an entire athletic program as Rico was saying and I strongly disagree with.  In that situation the collateral damage extends way beyond and is not appropriate punishment in my opinion.  Send those people to prison that are responsible.  That is fairness in my book.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 21, 2019, 01:41:45 PM

I lived the sponsorship game both on the inside as someone who sold them for MU and currently as a sponsor of many schools and conferences.  I know damn well how much money in sponsorships got to schools.  I didn’t exaggerate a damn thing.  As AD’s have told me directly, the money you are pledging in sponsorship funds X staff positions, X scholarships, etc.  I never once said it was more than tv money, etc, so don’t put those words in my mouth.  Not once.

Over $1.2 Billion spent.   https://www.sponsorship.com/Report/2018/03/19/Sponsorship-Spending-On-College-Athletics-To-Total.aspx

Those dollars help many financially strapped programs, help employ people, provide scholarships to kids.  You have no idea how many schools this money is vital to their program for resources, staffing and making sure a bunch of kids can realize their dream to play college sports....no idea.

Cheeks ... what you continue to ignore is that the vast, vast majority of that sponsorship revenue is going nowhere. Companies will continue to get far more exposure and impressions by sponsoring the entire program as opposed to individual players, and so that's where the money will remain.
Why would Nike take money away from Duke to sponsor the next Zion Williamson, when they can keep it with Duke and have Zion Williamson AND everyone else in the athletic department? And they get them during games, when they have a captive audience, as opposed to ads during which a large segment of the viewership is a) staring at their phones, b) skipping through because they're watching the game on DVR, c) flipping over to another game d) going to the bathroom, getting something to eat, talking to someone, etc.
The armageddon you're predicting just makes no sense.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 21, 2019, 02:22:02 PM
Cheeks ... what you continue to ignore is that the vast, vast majority of that sponsorship revenue is going nowhere. Companies will continue to get far more exposure and impressions by sponsoring the entire program as opposed to individual players, and so that's where the money will remain.
Why would Nike take money away from Duke to sponsor the next Zion Williamson, when they can keep it with Duke and have Zion Williamson AND everyone else in the athletic department? And they get them during games, when they have a captive audience, as opposed to ads during which a large segment of the viewership is a) staring at their phones, b) skipping through because they're watching the game on DVR, c) flipping over to another game d) going to the bathroom, getting something to eat, talking to someone, etc.
The armageddon you're predicting just makes no sense.

Because it is wildly inefficient for Nike.  The fact I have to do a deal with X team when I really want X player is what I face every damn year.  Nike would be much much more efficient to spend on one or two guys, then dilute with the entire team.  They can do high profile campaigns which they dictate, not the school or the ncaa rules holding them back.  If I can spend $500k with Oklahoma and I know the dept is going to give me “value” at the soccer, volleyball, track, football and basketball games....all fine and great.....but the value is heavily skewed.  If I can spend $350k on just 3 guys and go to town just with those three, my marketing efficiencies and ROI is way improved.  I’m not making an inefficient spend.  This is what we do for a living.  I have no doubt there are some companies salivating to go down this model because of the efficiencies it drives, but they also don’t give a damn all too often about the kids playing in the other sports. Call me a bleeding heart liberal on this, but I do and my personal experiences are the reasons why.  The athletic departments would suffer and that means the kids, resources, etc along with it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: dgies9156 on September 21, 2019, 05:19:49 PM
Of course.  Limits to everything.  I remember being spanked Once as a kid and it did the trick. 

The corporal punishment used in my high school was so obscene as to be child abuse in most states in the United States. And it led to some problems the Diocese is still paying for.

The question is, what are the limits?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 21, 2019, 10:10:43 PM
The corporal punishment used in my high school was so obscene as to be child abuse in most states in the United States. And it led to some problems the Diocese is still paying for.

The question is, what are the limits?

I'm sorry that was the case for you.  Absolutely needs limits.  Texas, Oklahoma and Georgia still have it, but you have to opt in as a parent....at least in Texas you do. 

I went to Catholic school from grade 1 to 12.  Went to K and Pre-K in South America, but taught by English (UK), Canadian and American teachers there.  The cwrap you with a ruler or yard stick occassionally, but the threat was enough to get people in line.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 23, 2019, 04:31:10 PM
@GoodmanHoops
Kansas has received Notice of Allegation, sources confirm to @Stadium. Level I violations alleged. No shock. Real info will come in about 9 months or so when penalties levied. How bad will Bill Self and the Jayhawks get hit?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: goldeneagle91114 on September 23, 2019, 04:43:43 PM
@GoodmanHoops
Kansas has received Notice of Allegation, sources confirm to @Stadium. Level I violations alleged. No shock. Real info will come in about 9 months or so when penalties levied. How bad will Bill Self and the Jayhawks get hit?

I hope the NCAA finally gets this right and starts to truly punish these schools and coaches. However, I can still totally see this turning out to be nothing.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MuMark on September 23, 2019, 05:10:13 PM
https://twitter.com/jeffborzello/status/1176251973739433984?s=21
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 23, 2019, 05:42:39 PM
Whatever penalty gets, Self will be gone.  He’ll either be in the NBA or announcing games.

Kansas will lose scholarships, have some banners stripped and miss a tournament, maybe two.

They’ll be Final 4 contenders as fast as Louisville has become after “crippling sanctions and crimes”.

See: 1988
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: JakeBarnes on September 23, 2019, 05:45:27 PM
NM.

This is gonna be interesting to see how it shakes out.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 23, 2019, 05:58:52 PM
Whatever penalty gets, Self will be gone.  He’ll either be in the NBA or announcing games.

Kansas will lose scholarships, have some banners stripped and miss a tournament, maybe two.

They’ll be Final 4 contenders as fast as Louisville has become after “crippling sanctions and crimes”.

See: 1988
It will be interesting to see what happens to Louisville this time around. They could/should be looking a 2-3 year post season ban.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 23, 2019, 06:07:27 PM
It will be interesting to see what happens to Louisville this time around. They could/should be looking a 2-3 year post season ban.

All the coaches involved were fired and it hasn’t hurt them in recruiting or on the court.  They got a great coach in Chris Mack to replace Pitino. 

If the NCAA and its members want to clean up the sport, Louisville should get the death penalty.  Multiple violations and more violations on top of the sex scandal. 

They’ll get penalties but I’ll be shocked if it’s anything that cause long term problems for the school.  Basketball is too big at Louisville.  By hook and probably by crook, they’d be back faster than anyone thinks
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 4everwarriors on September 23, 2019, 06:18:13 PM
Maybee wheel have a bedder shot at Grimes now, hey?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 23, 2019, 07:28:21 PM
Here is the notice of Allegations if anyone cares...

https://publicaffairs.ku.edu/sites/p...%20to%20KU.pdf
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 23, 2019, 09:10:29 PM
Whatever penalty gets, Self will be gone.  He’ll either be in the NBA or announcing games.

Maybe he'll be spanked by some priests.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Herman Cain on September 24, 2019, 09:12:39 AM
Maybee wheel have a bedder shot at Grimes now, hey?
The KU charges relate to the recruitment of Billy Preston...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIt94oLaBI
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 24, 2019, 09:30:55 AM
Whatever penalty gets, Self will be gone.  He’ll either be in the NBA or announcing games.

Judging by KU's full-throated defense of Self in its initial response, I wouldn't be so sure.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 24, 2019, 09:33:06 AM
To be honest, I think they are defending Self because they can shift the blame to the NCAA instead of the bad actors in place.  Many schools do this.  Penn State supporters blame the NCAA...USC...Louisville, etc.  It's a page out of that playbook.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 24, 2019, 09:37:07 AM
To be honest, I think they are defending Self because they can shift the blame to the NCAA instead of the bad actors in place.  Many schools do this.  Penn State supporters blame the NCAA...USC...Louisville, etc.  It's a page out of that playbook.

Self is spinning so hard his toupee has become displaced.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 24, 2019, 09:52:58 AM
Judging by KU's full-throated defense of Self in its initial response, I wouldn't be so sure.

I think that’s the natural first response.  Maybe they go to the mat and fight to the bitter end. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 24, 2019, 10:59:31 AM
I think that’s the natural first response.  Maybe they go to the mat and fight to the bitter end.

I think they will be watching Oklahoma City very close. If the Thunder miss the playoffs, I could see them back-channeling with Donovan in hopes of getting him to replace Self. They might fight right up until they know they have a star ready to replace their Hall of Famer.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 24, 2019, 11:02:38 AM
I think they will be watching Oklahoma City very close. If the Thunder miss the playoffs, I could see them back-channeling with Donovan in hopes of getting him to replace Self. They might fight right up until they know they have a star ready to replace their Hall of Famer.

I said in a locked thread I thought that was a great place for Donovan.  Great job, expectations tempered during any NCAA investigation/penalty phase. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 24, 2019, 11:04:04 AM
I think they will be watching Oklahoma City very close. If the Thunder miss the playoffs, I could see them back-channeling with Donovan in hopes of getting him to replace Self. They might fight right up until they know they have a star ready to replace their Hall of Famer.

If the Thunder miss the playoffs?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 24, 2019, 11:04:55 AM
If the Thunder miss the playoffs?

I expect they will, but if Donovan can pull off some magic, he could secure a longer NBA future.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 24, 2019, 11:25:28 AM
I expect they will, but if Donovan can pull off some magic, he could secure a longer NBA future.

I would consider it magic if Donovan has that team outside the bottom 3 at the end of the season. That roster is gross.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Billy Hoyle on September 24, 2019, 11:49:34 AM
The KU charges relate to the recruitment of Billy Preston...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIt94oLaBI

And Silvio DeSouza
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 24, 2019, 08:13:32 PM
Judging by KU's full-throated defense of Self in its initial response, I wouldn't be so sure.
In my opinion, I thought KU and Self's response was tame and generic. It seemed like I could have been reading Pitono and UofL's releases or maybe USC and Pete Carroll's.

Anyways, what would anyone expect? "Opps! you got us". Everyone is (claims to be) innocent at the beginning. Even Michigan State did. KU's and Self's words right now  carry as much weight as feather.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 24, 2019, 09:31:05 PM
In my opinion, I thought KU and Self's response was tame and generic. It seemed like I could have been reading Pitono and UofL's releases or maybe USC and Pete Carroll's.

It's nothing like Louisville's response.
Here's the first and last sentence of UL's response:
"As parents and university leaders who care about every student who comes to the University of Louisville, we are heartbroken that inappropriate behavior took place here."
"The entire episode is a deep disappointment to all of us who love this university.  We appreciate the NCAA's efforts and we regret tremendously that this took place.  Everyone who works here knows it can never happen again.  We will continue to work cooperatively with the NCAA for the final resolution of this matter.""

Here's some of what Kansas had to say in its response after some general comments about the process::
"In the meantime, though, it is already clear from an initial review that the University will fiercely dispute in detail much of what has been presented."
"As for the allegations regarding Head Men’s Basketball Coach Bill Self, voluminous evidence demonstrates uncontestably that he did, in fact, promote an atmosphere of compliance and fully monitor his staff. The University firmly and fully supports Coach Self and his staff."

Here's a link to both so you can read the full statements. Not similar.
https://gocards.com/news/2016/10/20/general-ncaa-notice-of-allegations-released.aspx
https://fox4kc.com/2019/09/23/kansas-responds-to-notice-of-allegations-from-ncaa/

I can't find USC's response at the moment, but given that Pete Caroll was coaching the Seahawks when they got the NCAA notice, I doubt the school gave him its unqualified support.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 25, 2019, 07:52:26 AM
It's nothing like Louisville's response.
From 2015 when the process started that stripped Louisville of a National Championship:
"Pitino said on October 2 that when the story broke, he "questioned everybody, if anybody even has a little knowledge or hearsay or seen anybody. And everybody to the person, 15 people, said they had no knowledge of anything, never seen anything."
Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich backs his coach.
"He has a long-term contract," Jurich said Tuesday through Louisville spokesman Kenny Klein. "He absolutely did not know anything about these allegations."

Seems to my that Self's main defense is lack of knowledge. I'm seeing some similarities.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 25, 2019, 07:59:38 AM
From 2015 when the process started that stripped Louisville of a National Championship:
"Pitino said on October 2 that when the story broke, he "questioned everybody, if anybody even has a little knowledge or hearsay or seen anybody. And everybody to the person, 15 people, said they had no knowledge of anything, never seen anything."
Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich backs his coach.
"He has a long-term contract," Jurich said Tuesday through Louisville spokesman Kenny Klein. "He absolutely did not know anything about these allegations."

Seems to my that Self's main defense is lack of knowledge. I'm seeing some similarities.

Apples to oranges. You're comparing what Louisville said a year or more before the notice of allegations to what Kansas said after the notice of allegations.
Which is silly, because we know what Louisville said after the notice of allegations and it's not at all similar to how Kansas responded.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 25, 2019, 09:00:14 AM
I always love the ignorance defense.

Coach goes to a recruit's home and tells the parents that he knows absolutely everything that goes on in his program and that he will personally take care of their precious baby.

But then, when crud happens, he's Sgt. Schultz.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: wadesworld on September 25, 2019, 09:43:44 AM
I'll admit I haven't followed this thread.  I just came to say that if Marquette isn't able to make the Final Four this year I'm really hoping Kansas wins the National Title as they're going through the process of appealing level 1 NCAA violations, Silvio De Sousa wins MOP, and the other 3 Final Four teams are Auburn, LSU, and Arizona.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 25, 2019, 09:44:48 AM
Apples to oranges. You're comparing what Louisville said a year or more before the notice of allegations to what Kansas said after the notice of allegations.
Which is silly, because we know what Louisville said after the notice of allegations and it's not at all similar to how Kansas responded.
I stand corrected. My original position was based upon the passionate claims of innocence all schools and coaches make when allegations arise. In this case you are correct.

Still, would you not agree that it makes sense that KU and Self are going to fight this like hell. I think Self likes to think of himself as one of the greats of college coaching and this is a huge blow to his reputation. Likewise, KU's only claim to fame as an institute of higher learning is the men's basketball team. KU is nothing without basketball. They will spend every last dollar to fight this.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 25, 2019, 09:53:26 AM
Kansas has a very good reputation as a national public university.  It's more than just a basketball program, but basketball is its best marketing tool.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 25, 2019, 10:29:00 AM
Kansas has a very good reputation as a national public university.  It's more than just a basketball program, but basketball is its best marketing tool.
My wife looked up admission requirements for KU this past weekend (we have a HS junior) and it was something like 2.0 gpa and a 21 ACT. That all I have to say.   
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 25, 2019, 10:41:11 AM
My wife looked up admission requirements for KU this past weekend (we have a HS junior) and it was something like 2.0 gpa and a 21 ACT. That all I have to say.

Minimum requirements and what actually gets you in are different things.
Average GPA for the freshman class is 3.58. Average ACT is 25.7.
This is not significantly different from MU's freshman class profile.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 25, 2019, 10:54:07 AM
My wife looked up admission requirements for KU this past weekend (we have a HS junior) and it was something like 2.0 gpa and a 21 ACT. That all I have to say.   


Look, it is a public university in Kansas with a requirement to be accessible at the undergraduate level.  However it has strong graduate programs in a number of areas, top 100 schools of law (higher ranked than Marquette) and medicine, and a nearly $2 billion endowment.

I mean, if you think its only claim to fame is basketball, what do you think Marquette's is?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 25, 2019, 11:07:36 AM

Look, it is a public university in Kansas with a requirement to be accessible at the undergraduate level.  However it has strong graduate programs in a number of areas, top 100 schools of law (higher ranked than Marquette) and medicine, and a nearly $2 billion endowment.

I mean, if you think its only claim to fame is basketball, what do you think Marquette's is?
I did not intended to compare KU to MU here. I believe by reputation and any measurable qualities, MU is a superior undergraduate school. Anecdotally, my good friend and KU alum and booster told me a few years ago he would be disappointed if any of his four kids ended up at KU. He loves KU and puts his money behind KU, but he is not impressed with the undergraduate academics. (His oldest daughter did not apply to KU)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 25, 2019, 11:09:16 AM

Look, it is a public university in Kansas with a requirement to be accessible at the undergraduate level.  However it has strong graduate programs in a number of areas, top 100 schools of law (higher ranked than Marquette) and medicine, and a nearly $2 billion endowment.

I mean, if you think its only claim to fame is basketball, what do you think Marquette's is?
Paging Chicos...
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: wadesworld on September 25, 2019, 11:30:59 AM
My wife looked up admission requirements for KU this past weekend (we have a HS junior) and it was something like 2.0 gpa and a 21 ACT. That all I have to say.

Admission requirements are pretty useless to look up.  Unless your child is a star athlete, he/she undoubtedly needs to be a much better student than a 2.0 GPA with a 21 ACT to get into Kansas.

For example, I coached a kid who went on to play volleyball at Stanford.  He was a straight A public school student who had to get a 27 on his ACT to go to Stanford.  If he hadn't been a volleyball player there is no way in heck he was getting into Stanford with just a 27 on his ACT.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Billy Hoyle on September 25, 2019, 12:02:07 PM
My wife looked up admission requirements for KU this past weekend (we have a HS junior) and it was something like 2.0 gpa and a 21 ACT. That all I have to say.

that's just to be considered for admission. Nobody is getting in with those requirements (including athletes as they need a 2.3 to be a qualifier).
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 25, 2019, 12:29:00 PM
that's just to be considered for admission. Nobody is getting in with those requirements (including athletes as they need a 2.3 to be a qualifier).
Approximately 95% of all applicants get in.

For the sake of argument, I'll say KU is an okay university. Satisfied.

What is not up for argument is that KU cheats in recruiting and has a history of cheating. And my original premise was that KU's identity is tied to basketball and they will do anything to protect it including spending massive amounts of university funds to do so. The university's response is completely expected and straight out of the "what you say when the NCAA comes calling" playbook. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 25, 2019, 12:32:26 PM
What is not up for argument is that KU cheats in recruiting and has a history of cheating. And my original premise was that KU's identity is tied to basketball and they will do anything to protect it including spending massive amounts of university funds to do so. The university's response is completely expected and straight out of the "what you say when the NCAA comes calling" playbook. 

I agree with this.  Although I do think they will distance themselves from Self when it is convenient for them to do so.  They aren't at that point yet.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Billy Hoyle on September 25, 2019, 12:35:06 PM
Approximately 95% of all applicants get in.

For the sake of argument, I'll say KU is an okay university. Satisfied.

What is not up for argument is that KU cheats in recruiting and has a history of cheating. And my original premise was that KU's identity is tied to basketball and they will do anything to protect it including spending massive amounts of university funds to do so. The university's response is completely expected and straight out of the "what you say when the NCAA comes calling" playbook.

Yep. There's a reason other coaches have been calling him "Dollar Bill" for years.

95% is Arizona State level.  That's pathetic. US News ranks it 130th.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 25, 2019, 12:41:02 PM
I agree with this.  Although I do think they will distance themselves from Self when it is convenient for them to do so.  They aren't at that point yet.
Agreed. KU basketball is bigger than Self and KU will be smart to move on. They will attract a great new head coach based upon the money they commit to basketball.

In the meantime, KU has to 100% back Self. Even if they think this will not end well, you have to publicly strongly support the coach or you have to fire him. No middle ground in this.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Waldo Jeffers on September 25, 2019, 01:29:12 PM
Wojo to Kansas!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Nukem2 on September 25, 2019, 02:04:37 PM
Agreed. KU basketball is bigger than Self and KU will be smart to move on. They will attract a great new head coach based upon the money they commit to basketball.

In the meantime, KU has to 100% back Self. Even if they think this will not end well, you have to publicly strongly support the coach or you have to fire him. No middle ground in this.
Yep, there is no middle ground. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 25, 2019, 03:35:18 PM
My wife looked up admission requirements for KU this past weekend (we have a HS junior) and it was something like 2.0 gpa and a 21 ACT. That all I have to say.

KU is a member of the AAU, only 60 schools in the country can say that....the Ivy League schools, Some UC schools, Stanford, etc. 

As an alum of their graduate school I can tell you it is highly regarded research university as well as medical, law, etc.  However, because it is also the flagship school of the state, it also serves to accommodate many students at the undergraduate level that fit a broad profile range academically. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Herman Cain on September 25, 2019, 05:29:56 PM
Wojo to Kansas!
I agree with this analysis.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Loose Cannon on September 25, 2019, 05:47:22 PM
I agree with this analysis.

Grab that Bone.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Herman Cain on September 25, 2019, 07:27:23 PM
Grab that Bone.
Better than starving.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Loose Cannon on September 25, 2019, 08:24:05 PM
Better than starving.

Always stuff on here that makes that highly unlikely.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 79Warrior on September 26, 2019, 12:18:04 AM
KU is a member of the AAU, only 60 schools in the country can say that....the Ivy League schools, Some UC schools, Stanford, etc. 

As an alum of their graduate school I can tell you it is highly regarded research university as well as medical, law, etc.  However, because it is also the flagship school of the state, it also serves to accommodate many students at the undergraduate level that fit a broad profile range academically.

6 of the 10 UC schools are AAU members
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 26, 2019, 11:14:56 AM
Georgia Tech hit with postseason ban (like it matters) for taking Wendell Carter to a strip club.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/two-georgia-tech-men-s-basketball-boosters-provided-impermissible-benefits
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 11:23:34 AM
So he got Jarrett Jack to pay for his visit to a strip club AND play for Duke in the end.  A win - win!!!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 26, 2019, 11:24:56 AM
Georgia Tech hit with postseason ban (like it matters) for taking Wendell Carter to a strip club.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/two-georgia-tech-men-s-basketball-boosters-provided-impermissible-benefits

Gary Parrish
@GaryParrishCBS
  10m 

Replying to @GaryParrishCBS


The NCAA giving Georgia Tech a postseason ban strongly suggests Kansas will get at least that -- and probably more -- unless it can successfully argue that T.J. Gassnola was not a KU booster. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Billy Hoyle on September 26, 2019, 11:26:34 AM
Gary Parrish
@GaryParrishCBS
  10m 

Replying to @GaryParrishCBS


The NCAA giving Georgia Tech a postseason ban strongly suggests Kansas will get at least that -- and probably more -- unless it can successfully argue that T.J. Gassnola was not a KU booster.

While not a Blue Blood GT is a high major, so it's time to put to rest Tark's "Cleveland State" BS quote.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 26, 2019, 01:07:36 PM
Georgia Tech hit with postseason ban (like it matters) for taking Wendell Carter to a strip club.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/two-georgia-tech-men-s-basketball-boosters-provided-impermissible-benefits
and:
The committee used the Division I membership-approved infractions penalty guidelines to prescribe the following measures:

Four years of probation.
A 2019-20 postseason ban for the men’s basketball team.
A fine of $5,000 plus 2% of the men’s basketball program budget.
A reduction of one men’s basketball scholarship during each year of probation.
Recruiting restrictions for the men’s basketball program that will apply for each year of probation, including:
An eight-week ban on unofficial visits.
A three-visit reduction from the permissible number of official visits.
An eight-week ban on recruiting communications.
A reduction of 19 recruiting-person days from the permissible number.
A three-year show-cause order for the former assistant coach. During that period, any NCAA member school employing him must restrict him from any athletically related duties unless it shows cause why the restrictions should not apply.
A vacation of records in which the men’s basketball student-athletes competed while ineligible. The university must provide a written report containing the contests impacted to the NCAA media coordination and statistics staff within 14 days of the public decision release.
A prohibition from scheduling official visits in conjunction with home men’s basketball competitions during the first two years of probation.
Disassociations of the following individuals:

A three-year disassociation of the former assistant coach (self-imposed by the university).

A three-year disassociation of the former Georgia Tech men’s basketball student-athlete and booster.

A disassociation of the head coach’s friend and booster (self-imposed by the university). 

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 26, 2019, 01:39:30 PM
and:
The committee used the Division I membership-approved infractions penalty guidelines to prescribe the following measures:

Four years of probation.
A 2019-20 postseason ban for the men’s basketball team.
A fine of $5,000 plus 2% of the men’s basketball program budget.
A reduction of one men’s basketball scholarship during each year of probation.
Recruiting restrictions for the men’s basketball program that will apply for each year of probation, including:
An eight-week ban on unofficial visits.
A three-visit reduction from the permissible number of official visits.
An eight-week ban on recruiting communications.
A reduction of 19 recruiting-person days from the permissible number.
A three-year show-cause order for the former assistant coach. During that period, any NCAA member school employing him must restrict him from any athletically related duties unless it shows cause why the restrictions should not apply.
A vacation of records in which the men’s basketball student-athletes competed while ineligible. The university must provide a written report containing the contests impacted to the NCAA media coordination and statistics staff within 14 days of the public decision release.
A prohibition from scheduling official visits in conjunction with home men’s basketball competitions during the first two years of probation.
Disassociations of the following individuals:

A three-year disassociation of the former assistant coach (self-imposed by the university).

A three-year disassociation of the former Georgia Tech men’s basketball student-athlete and booster.

A disassociation of the head coach’s friend and booster (self-imposed by the university).
.

That’ll show the kids currently on the roster
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 26, 2019, 02:25:07 PM
.

That’ll show the kids currently on the roster

Honestly, I hate this argument...and lots of people say this. Well, you know what?? If coaches didn't want kids possibly affected, it's pretty simple..don't cheat, then it won't have ramifications. Whether that coach is still there or not..
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 02:32:20 PM
Honestly, I hate this argument...and lots of people say this. Well, you know what?? If coaches didn't want kids possibly affected, it's pretty simple..don't cheat, then it won't have ramifications. Whether that coach is still there or not..


Players should have the ability to transfer with no restrictions, including no waiting to be eligible.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 26, 2019, 02:34:07 PM
Honestly, I hate this argument...and lots of people say this. Well, you know what?? If coaches didn't want kids possibly affected, it's pretty simple..don't cheat, then it won't have ramifications. Whether that coach is still there or not..
Do they have anyone good on their roster that would like to transfer and be immediately eligible?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on September 26, 2019, 02:40:06 PM

Players should have the ability to transfer with no restrictions, including no waiting to be eligible.

Yep.  Then it would only hurt the coach and the school, like it’s supposed too.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 03:16:30 PM

Players should have the ability to transfer with no restrictions, including no waiting to be eligible.

No, in fact they shouldn’t.  It would decimate mid majors.  Encourage tampering and again, only benefit the rich making the rich, richer.

Are you saying only in context of schools that were caught cheating....maybe.  What context are you referencing?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Its DJOver on September 26, 2019, 03:18:28 PM
No, in fact they shouldn’t.  It would decimate mid majors.  Encourage tampering and again, only benefit the rich making the rich, richer.

Why would GT players being immediately eligible have any effect on Mid Majors?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 03:31:28 PM
No, in fact they shouldn’t.  It would decimate mid majors.  Encourage tampering and again, only benefit the rich making the rich, richer.

Are you saying only in context of schools that were caught cheating....maybe.  What context are you referencing?


I am saying that I am for every player getting one "free transfer" during their five year clock without sitting out a year.  No more "waivers" or grad transfer nonsense.

HOWEVER, because chicken-littles like yourself who run the NCAA will likely never grant that, I would settle for the following.  Anyone who is on the roster when a postseason ban is announced may transfer without restriction.  Furthermore anyone who is bound to the institution through an NLI is released to sign elsewhere.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 26, 2019, 03:38:58 PM
Honestly, I hate this argument...and lots of people say this. Well, you know what?? If coaches didn't want kids possibly affected, it's pretty simple..don't cheat, then it won't have ramifications. Whether that coach is still there or not..

I agree.  That’s why the kids should be able to earn off their likeness and also allowed to transfer without penalty at least once while in college.  Sadly, too many people don’t care about these kids
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 26, 2019, 03:43:19 PM

I am saying that I am for every player getting one "free transfer" during their five year clock without sitting out a year.  No more "waivers" or grad transfer nonsense.

HOWEVER, because chicken-littles like yourself who run the NCAA will likely never grant that, I would settle for the following.  Anyone who is on the roster when a postseason ban is announced may transfer without restriction.  Furthermore anyone who is bound to the institution through an NLI is released to sign elsewhere.

I agree.  That’s why the kids should be able to earn off their likeness and also allowed to transfer without penalty at least once while in college.  Sadly, too many people don’t care about these kids

Those are reasonable first steps, Sultan and Rico.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 04:53:36 PM

I am saying that I am for every player getting one "free transfer" during their five year clock without sitting out a year.  No more "waivers" or grad transfer nonsense.

HOWEVER, because chicken-littles like yourself who run the NCAA will likely never grant that, I would settle for the following.  Anyone who is on the roster when a postseason ban is announced may transfer without restriction.  Furthermore anyone who is bound to the institution through an NLI is released to sign elsewhere.

Appreciate the derogatory remarks...thanks.  I’m trying to not do that anymore, but guilty in the past.

A mid major develops a kid for 2 or 3 years, time, money, etc, and then he walks away to another school who did nothing but poach him.  It will destroy mid major programs trying to compete and taking risks on kids that weren’t high majors that they developed.  It will create a farm system.  The one year sit out prevents that from happening to a degree.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 05:41:12 PM
Appreciate the derogatory remarks...thanks.  I’m trying to not do that anymore, but guilty in the past.

A mid major develops a kid for 2 or 3 years, time, money, etc, and then he walks away to another school who did nothing but poach him.  It will destroy mid major programs trying to compete and taking risks on kids that weren’t high majors that they developed.  It will create a farm system.  The one year sit out prevents that from happening to a degree.

1. You’re exaggerating. 

2. I don’t really care anyway. Too many D1 programs as it is already. Maybe this will cause programs to drop to a more appropriate level.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TallTitan34 on September 26, 2019, 05:50:16 PM
I agree with Chicos. If you have no penalties on transfers you will destroy college basketball.

I do agree though that players on teams that receive a post season should be free to transfer without sitting out a year.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 05:51:01 PM
I agree with Chicos. If you have no restriction on transfers you will destroy college basketball.


No it won’t.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 26, 2019, 05:53:49 PM
I agree with Chicos. If you have no penalties on transfers you will destroy college basketball.

I do agree though that players on teams that receive a post season should be free to transfer without sitting out a year.

I dont know about destroy, but it certainly will further concentrate talent at a smaller number of schools.  Personally, I think that is a net bad for the game of cbball.   
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 26, 2019, 06:03:24 PM

No it won’t.
Intellectual debate elevated to its highest level.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 06:10:25 PM
I agree.  That’s why the kids should be able to earn off their likeness and also allowed to transfer without penalty at least once while in college.  Sadly, too many people don’t care about these kids

In your scenario I would gather at least 30 to 50 D1 schools would say they are out, drop down to D2.  My opinion only.  That would reduce D1 opportunities for 360 to 600 kids in basketball alone.  Thousands more in other sports.  Do you care about those kids?

Why would any school bother to put the effort, money, etc into developing their program if kids bail on that investment?  Why would fans invest their time and money into the product?  This isn’t pro sports, but even there contracts prevent what you are advocating for.  Someone doesn’t like playing for the Brewers, they cannot just leave to play for the Reds at the end of the season Willy nilly.  Not unless they are an unrestricted free agent.  A student athlete agrees to a “contract” in exchange for their free education and grant in aid.  Part of leaving is sitting out a year.

The rich would get richer.  Plug and play with kids.  Hell, poach off mid level Big East, Big Ten, SEC teams to the top teams.  A disaster for college basketball.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 06:19:18 PM
Intellectual debate elevated to its highest level.

It’s Scoop.  Deal with it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 06:23:12 PM
In your scenario I would gather at least 30 to 50 D1 schools would say they are out, drop down to D2.  My opinion only.  That would reduce D1 opportunities for 360 to 600 kids in basketball alone.  Thousands more in other sports.  Do you care about those kids?

Why would any school bother to put the effort, money, etc into developing their program if kids bail on that investment?  Why would fans invest their time and money into the product?  This isn’t pro sports, but even there contracts prevent what you are advocating for.  Someone doesn’t like playing for the Brewers, they cannot just leave to play for the Reds at the end of the season Willy nilly.  Not unless they are an unrestricted free agent.  A student athlete agrees to a “contract” in exchange for their free education and grant in aid.  Part of leaving is sitting out a year.

The rich would get richer.  Plug and play with kids.  He’ll, poach off mid level Big East, Big Ten, SEC teams to the top teams.  A disaster for college basketball.

Chicken little nonsense.

People really don’t care that much about mid and low major programs. Half of them dropping to Division 2 would be better for D1 ball anyway. 

And if you are worried about lack of scholarship opportunities, the remaining D1 schools can increase their scholarship limits. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 26, 2019, 06:58:25 PM
Here's what I would like to see as far as transfers go:

1. I absolutely HATE it when kids transfer because their coach leaves. When you commit, you are SUPPOSED to be committing to the school, and everything about it, not just the coach. I would have a rule where okay you want to leave that's fine, but you CANNOT transfer to the school where your new Coach went.

2. I know this is an individual conference rule, but I don't like that in some conferences you can't transfer within the conference.

3. I don't necessarily agree with being allowed to transfer without sitting out, because that goes back to my first point, you are supposed ot be committing to a school, not just a program/coach. So if you're transferring because a Coach left or you're unhappy with the program etc, you should have to sit out.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 26, 2019, 07:13:28 PM

And if you are worried about lack of scholarship opportunities, the remaining D1 schools can increase their scholarship limits.

Sure. Everybody loves being the 13th guy on the bench. Solution? Let's have a 14th, 16th or 20th guy. Brilliant.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 79Warrior on September 26, 2019, 07:15:03 PM
Here's what I would like to see as far as transfers go:

1. I absolutely HATE it when kids transfer because their coach leaves. When you commit, you are SUPPOSED to be committing to the school, and everything about it, not just the coach. I would have a rule where okay you want to leave that's fine, but you CANNOT transfer to the school where your new Coach went.

2. I know this is an individual conference rule, but I don't like that in some conferences you can't transfer within the conference.

3. I don't necessarily agree with being allowed to transfer without sitting out, because that goes back to my first point, you are supposed ot be committing to a school, not just a program/coach. So if you're transferring because a Coach left or you're unhappy with the program etc, you should have to sit out.

Kids are recruited by coaches. If a coach leaves the kids should continue to have the right to leave. I would not be opposed to preventing a kid from following the coach to his new destination.  I agree with you on that.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 07:17:39 PM
Sure. Everybody loves being the 13th guy on the bench. Solution? Let's have a 14th, 16th or 20th guy. Brilliant.

They can transfer without sitting if they are unhappy.

Regardless I don’t think Cheeks nightmare scenario happens anyway so I don’t think it’s a problem.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 07:17:45 PM
Chicken little nonsense.

People really don’t care that much about mid and low major programs. Half of them dropping to Division 2 would be better for D1 ball anyway. 

And if you are worried about lack of scholarship opportunities, the remaining D1 schools can increase their scholarship limits.

Scholarships were reduced to prevent schools from hoarding kids in the first place and providing more opportunities.

Creighton, Xavier, Gonzaga, Wichita State,  etc were all mid majors not long ago.  People do care for some of these programs.  But it isn’t just about mid majors.  The top top programs will pilfer off Penn State, MU, Georgetown, and countless others. 

Kids don’t stick out tough times like they used to, the slightest bump in the road and they are gone. 

At some point we need to hold people accountable.  They know the rules of playing and transferring.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 26, 2019, 07:19:19 PM
Intellectual debate elevated to its highest level.

He's not interested in intellectual debate. Lacks the capability.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 07:19:46 PM
They can transfer without sitting if they are unhappy.

Regardless I don’t think Cheeks nightmare scenario happens anyway so I don’t think it’s a problem.

Coaches disagree, especially mid major coaches.  So I’m not worried in the slightest this will happen because it makes zero sense
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 07:21:48 PM
Coaches disagree, especially mid major coaches.  So I’m not worried in the slightest this will happen because it makes zero sense

Again I don’t care what mid major coaches think about this. They’re paid to mange this. I care more about giving players more freedom.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 07:23:30 PM
He's not interested in intellectual debate. Lacks the capability.

It’s so cute that you are now as obsessed with me as you are with Chico’s. Did you break up with him?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Lennys Tap on September 26, 2019, 07:30:25 PM
It’s so cute that you are now as obsessed with me as you are with Chico’s. Did you break up with him?

Wow.

Officially occupying a place in Sultan's brain. Very small space. not much room.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TallTitan34 on September 26, 2019, 07:44:11 PM
Also consider there are other sports (soccer, volleyball, lacrosse, etc.) that rely on the revenue men’s basketball brings in.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 07:49:12 PM
It would devastate.  Coaches are right.  Encourage cheating, damage smaller programs, just beyond dumb.

https://247sports.com/college/basketball/recruiting/Article/NCAA-coaches-loudly-speaking-out-on-potential-transfer-rule--107036402/


Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 26, 2019, 07:59:07 PM
In your scenario I would gather at least 30 to 50 D1 schools would say they are out, drop down to D2.  My opinion only.  That would reduce D1 opportunities for 360 to 600 kids in basketball alone.  Thousands more in other sports.  Do you care about those kids?

Why would any school bother to put the effort, money, etc into developing their program if kids bail on that investment?  Why would fans invest their time and money into the product?  This isn’t pro sports, but even there contracts prevent what you are advocating for.  Someone doesn’t like playing for the Brewers, they cannot just leave to play for the Reds at the end of the season Willy nilly.  Not unless they are an unrestricted free agent.  A student athlete agrees to a “contract” in exchange for their free education and grant in aid.  Part of leaving is sitting out a year.

The rich would get richer.  Plug and play with kids.  Hell, poach off mid level Big East, Big Ten, SEC teams to the top teams.  A disaster for college basketball.

Make your program better and they won’t leave. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 08:02:38 PM
It would devastate.  Coaches are right.  Encourage cheating, damage smaller programs, just beyond dumb.

https://247sports.com/college/basketball/recruiting/Article/NCAA-coaches-loudly-speaking-out-on-potential-transfer-rule--107036402/





“People who have vested interest in status quo make dire predictions should status quo change.” 

<yawn>
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 26, 2019, 08:03:45 PM

“People who have vested interest in status quo make dire predictions should status quo change.” 

<yawn>

Further proof coaches and programs don’t actually care about their players but their own hides and the dollars the kids make them
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Billy Hoyle on September 26, 2019, 08:05:52 PM
I agree with Chicos. If you have no penalties on transfers you will destroy college basketball.

I do agree though that players on teams that receive a post season should be free to transfer without sitting out a year.

That’s already the rule when there’s a ban. The problem for Ga Tech kids is the timing. School has already started, they can’t go anywhere and play this year.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 26, 2019, 08:07:24 PM
That’s already the rule when there’s a ban. The problem for Ga Tech kids is the timing. School has already started, they can’t go anywhere and play this year.

Are they allowed to leave 2nd semester and play right away?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TallTitan34 on September 26, 2019, 08:46:31 PM
That’s already the rule when there’s a ban. The problem for Ga Tech kids is the timing. School has already started, they can’t go anywhere and play this year.

Oh I didn’t realize they already have that rule. That pleases me.

That’s does suck though that school has started. The NCAA should issue these penalties in April.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 08:53:44 PM
Also consider there are other sports (soccer, volleyball, lacrosse, etc.) that rely on the revenue men’s basketball brings in.

Yup.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 08:54:20 PM
Make your program better and they won’t leave.

So simple.  Simple statements on bumper stickers, what could go wrong. 


Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 26, 2019, 08:56:09 PM
So simple.  Simple statements on bumper stickers, what could go wrong.

You fail to make your program better?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 09:05:19 PM

“People who have vested interest in status quo make dire predictions should status quo change.” 

<yawn>

Further proof that short term thinking has long term consequences that impact many people.  Examples are endless of “really swell ideas” that cost people their lives, livelihoods and opportunities because people didn’t think them through before they unleashed the changes.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 09:15:48 PM
Further proof that short term thinking has long term consequences that impact many people.  Examples are endless of “really swell ideas” that cost people their lives, livelihoods and opportunities because people didn’t think them through before they unleashed the changes.

OMG really?  We are talking about college kids transferring. Not starting a war in Iraq.

But I guess when your argument sucks you have to resort to the absurd.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 26, 2019, 09:16:08 PM
Further proof that short term thinking has long term consequences that impact many people.  Examples are endless of “really swell ideas” that cost people their lives, livelihoods and opportunities because people didn’t think them through before they unleashed the changes.

If anyone dies because student athletes get paid for their likeness, that will be incredibly sad.

Free agency will kill professional sports.  Unlimited TV exposure will kill live attendance figures. 

Here’s an idea, if opportunities dry up for student athletes because terrible programs fold up or drop a level, increase scholarship numbers for those that continue on.  Wait, the NCAA capped those and already eliminated opportunities.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 26, 2019, 09:41:41 PM
OMG really?  We are talking about college kids transferring. Not starting a war in Iraq.

But I guess when your argument sucks you have to resort to the absurd.

If kids are allowed to profit of their likeness, schools will have no choice but to take the nonrevenue athletes out back and shoot them.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 10:32:47 PM
OMG really?  We are talking about college kids transferring. Not starting a war in Iraq.

But I guess when your argument sucks you have to resort to the absurd.

My argument doesn’t suck.  It’s why this is the rule across the country for college basketball.  You may want to stick to D2 or D3 or whatever norby’s is....probably more your speed. ;)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: PTM on September 26, 2019, 10:35:51 PM
I don’t think transfers should be able to move freely whenever they want without sitting, but I think that would be a benefit to Marquette as a program if allowed.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Billy Hoyle on September 26, 2019, 10:43:38 PM
I don’t think transfers should be able to move freely whenever they want without sitting, but I think that would be a benefit to Marquette as a program if allowed.

I supported immediate eligibility with a minimum GPA, but people like Bilas, Goodman, et al helped kill that.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 10:46:39 PM
I don’t think transfers should be able to move freely whenever they want without sitting, but I think that would be a benefit to Marquette as a program if allowed.

Why?  We have been to one Final Four in 30 years.  The programs that are perennial powers would be able to pluck whenever they want for a chance at the ring.  1st tier would pull from 2nd tier, 2nd tier f my 3rd tier, and so on and so on.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 26, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
My argument doesn’t suck.  It’s why this is the rule across the country for college basketball. 

No the rule was made by those in power to keep the status quo.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 26, 2019, 10:54:16 PM
Currently, for every 1 player transferring up in competition, there are 3 or 4 transferring down. I think the mid-majors would be fine.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 26, 2019, 10:59:23 PM
Currently, for every 1 player transferring up in competition, there are 3 or 4 transferring down. I think the mid-majors would be fine.

Why do the mid major coaches disagree?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 26, 2019, 11:44:00 PM
Coaches leave for greener pastures all the time. Never have to sit out a year. just get richer and richer and richer. Buyout clauses are a joke.

Players? They are under "contract" and locked in. "That 18-year-old knew exactly what he was doing. Screw him! And no, his likeness belongs to somebody else, too!"
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 27, 2019, 05:35:21 AM
Coaches leave for greener pastures all the time. Never have to sit out a year. just get richer and richer and richer. Buyout clauses are a joke.

Players? They are under "contract" and locked in. "That 18-year-old knew exactly what he was doing. Screw him! And no, his likeness belongs to somebody else, too!"
I think much of the "likeness" argument and hand wringing would go away if high schoolers were allowed to go straight to the NBA.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 27, 2019, 05:56:17 AM
Why do the mid major coaches disagree?

Because they are only focusing on themselves. When you are at an Oakland or Cleveland State and see your guys leaving, it feels like a one-way street because you aren't spending any time looking at what's happening a block over.

Also, I thought you were a proponent of saying the NCAA offers equal opportunities to all student athletes. If that's the case, what difference does it make if a guy is playing at UTSA or UCLA? If the NCAA is really doing so much to make things fair and equal under the current system, surely the only difference is the zip code.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 27, 2019, 06:07:57 AM
I think much of the "likeness" argument and hand wringing would go away if high schoolers were allowed to go straight to the NBA.

It’s not just a basketball argument but a football argument and quite frankly, an argument for all student athletes.  It isn’t just the 5% as some claim
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 10:53:06 AM
Why do the mid major coaches disagree?

Do mid major coaches believe they should have to sit out a year before moving on to another program?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Billy Hoyle on September 27, 2019, 11:34:38 AM
Do mid major coaches believe they should have to sit out a year before moving on to another program?

Mid major coaches are concerned that if immediate eligibility were allowed they would become a farm system for high majors.  It happens already with the year in residence requirement (Seth Curry, Rowsey) but imagine if guys like Damian Lillard, CJ McCollum or Steph Curry had been allowed to transfer and play immediately, high major coaches would rented apartments in those locales to recruit them away.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 27, 2019, 11:38:17 AM
Mid major coaches are concerned that if immediate eligibility were allowed they would become a farm system for high majors.  It happens already with the year in residence requirement (Seth Curry, Rowsey) but imagine if guys like Damian Lillard, CJ McCollum or Steph Curry had been allowed to transfer and play immediately, high major coaches would rented apartments in those locales to recruit them away.

(https://i.giphy.com/media/49zC0Bm1kbu36/giphy.webp)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 11:46:25 AM
Do mid major coaches believe they should have to sit out a year before moving on to another program?

Why are you conflating two different things?  One is an employee, the other is not...established in law.  You should know this, counselor.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 11:47:23 AM
Ohio State says it will not schedule California schools because of new law.  Love it.  Go Buckeyes. 



Ohio State AD: We Won't Schedule California Schools With NIL Bill

September 27, 2019


OSU AD Gene Smith doesn't see how California schools can remain NCAA members if the NIL bill passes

Photo: GETTY IMAGES
 
Ohio State AD Gene Smith will not "schedule games against California schools for dates after Jan. 1, 2023," if the state passes its Fair Pay to Play act, according to Steve Berkowitz of USA TODAY. Smith indicated that the "uncertainty surrounding a potential difference between California law and NCAA rules" should California Gov. Gavin Newsom pass the bill would lead him to that decision. That is because Smith does not see how colleges in the state "could remain NCAA members unless differences between the law and the NCAA's rules can be resolved." Smith said, "If the California law goes into effect in '23, and let's say the NCAA legislation, how ever it emerges, doesn't quite meet what California wants it to be and they continue to hold that law, who's going to play (California schools)? We're certainly not. They won't be members of the NCAA. I think that's going to be the problem." Smith added if Newsom signs the NIL bill, California schools are going to have a "model where they can almost pay for play -- not quite -- but I think they're going to be challenged to maintain their membership in the association because, as an association, we have the authority as a group to make our own rules and regulations, and they will be outside those rules and regulations."

TIME TO WORK THINGS OUT? Should Newsom pass the act, which passed a state legislature vote earlier this month, it would not be enacted until '23. Smith is co-chairing an NCAA working group to examine name, image and likeness, and he said, "What's fortunate is we have till 2023, and I'm hopeful that once our working group completes its work and the association goes through next year, we can get to a point where we mitigate this. But if it stands as it is, and other states create similar legislation, then we've got a big issue" (USA TODAY, 9/27).
 
 

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 27, 2019, 11:58:59 AM
Ohio State says it will not schedule California schools because of new law.  Love it.  Go Buckeyes. 



Ohio State AD: We Won't Schedule California Schools With NIL Bill

September 27, 2019


OSU AD Gene Smith doesn't see how California schools can remain NCAA members if the NIL bill passes

Photo: GETTY IMAGES
 
Ohio State AD Gene Smith will not "schedule games against California schools for dates after Jan. 1, 2023," if the state passes its Fair Pay to Play act, according to Steve Berkowitz of USA TODAY. Smith indicated that the "uncertainty surrounding a potential difference between California law and NCAA rules" should California Gov. Gavin Newsom pass the bill would lead him to that decision. That is because Smith does not see how colleges in the state "could remain NCAA members unless differences between the law and the NCAA's rules can be resolved." Smith said, "If the California law goes into effect in '23, and let's say the NCAA legislation, how ever it emerges, doesn't quite meet what California wants it to be and they continue to hold that law, who's going to play (California schools)? We're certainly not. They won't be members of the NCAA. I think that's going to be the problem." Smith added if Newsom signs the NIL bill, California schools are going to have a "model where they can almost pay for play -- not quite -- but I think they're going to be challenged to maintain their membership in the association because, as an association, we have the authority as a group to make our own rules and regulations, and they will be outside those rules and regulations."

TIME TO WORK THINGS OUT? Should Newsom pass the act, which passed a state legislature vote earlier this month, it would not be enacted until '23. Smith is co-chairing an NCAA working group to examine name, image and likeness, and he said, "What's fortunate is we have till 2023, and I'm hopeful that once our working group completes its work and the association goes through next year, we can get to a point where we mitigate this. But if it stands as it is, and other states create similar legislation, then we've got a big issue" (USA TODAY, 9/27).

The department with a budget bigger than some countries has a problem with a players getting a piece of the pie. That’s rich, pun intended. 

I mean, the AD that hired Urban Meyer commenting on anything and then letting them bring Kevin Wilson aboard does not have players interests in mind whatsoever
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 12:14:21 PM
The department with a budget bigger than some countries has a problem with a players getting a piece of the pie. That’s rich, pun intended. 

I mean, the AD that hired Urban Meyer commenting on anything and then letting them bring Kevin Wilson aboard does not have players interests in mind whatsoever

If you want to go there, the value provided today for these student athletes is more than many people in some countries make over an entire LIFETIME.   
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 12:19:20 PM
Because they are only focusing on themselves. When you are at an Oakland or Cleveland State and see your guys leaving, it feels like a one-way street because you aren't spending any time looking at what's happening a block over.

Also, I thought you were a proponent of saying the NCAA offers equal opportunities to all student athletes. If that's the case, what difference does it make if a guy is playing at UTSA or UCLA? If the NCAA is really doing so much to make things fair and equal under the current system, surely the only difference is the zip code.

Can be as simple as one team is primed to have a chance to win it all so the student athlete leaves as he is poached to be the final piece.  The cascading domino impact as everyone feeds of each other would be very bad for college sports.  There is a reason why this isn’t allowed in pro sports....this the great irony of some here wanting to make these kids like pros, yet even the pro leagues are smart enough not to allow this insanity.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 27, 2019, 12:20:13 PM
If you want to go there, the value provided today for these student athletes is more than many people in some countries make over an entire LIFETIME.

Most of those athletes at Ohio State could also maximize earning potential while being Buckeyes.  And I’ll confidently say a good chunk of the athletes at Ohio State are being shuffled through the easiest academic path they can be so as to not interfere with winning games.

Gene Smith is a garbage human being
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 12:40:24 PM
Mid major coaches are concerned that if immediate eligibility were allowed they would become a farm system for high majors.  It happens already with the year in residence requirement (Seth Curry, Rowsey) but imagine if guys like Damian Lillard, CJ McCollum or Steph Curry had been allowed to transfer and play immediately, high major coaches would rented apartments in those locales to recruit them away.

In other words, mid-major coaches fear dealing with the consequences of their players having the same freedom of movement they enjoy.
And while they have zero problem putting their former schools in a bind by bailing whenever it's in their best interests, they can't stand for facing the same bind themselves.
We agree.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 12:42:49 PM
Ohio State says it will not schedule California schools because of new law.  Love it.  Go Buckeyes. 



Ohio State AD: We Won't Schedule California Schools With NIL Bill


Gene Smith - Defender of Virtue in College Athletics.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Vg0JstydL8HCg/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 12:45:28 PM
Why are you conflating two different things?  One is an employee, the other is not...established in law.  You should know this, counselor.

Yeah, that's totally irrelevant, satellite television sales guy.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TallTitan34 on September 27, 2019, 12:46:40 PM
I can’t even begin to imagine the chaos of having every player being a free agent each year.  If you thing the recruiting scandals are bad now wait until you start all of the tampering scandals.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 27, 2019, 12:47:24 PM
In other words, mid-major coaches fear dealing with the consequences of their players having the same freedom of movement they enjoy.
And while they have zero problem putting their former schools in a bind by bailing whenever it's in their best interests, they can't stand for facing the same bind themselves.
We agree.

Not to be negative, but if the best argument you have for free agency is fairness vis a vie coaches than it’s not that compelling.

There is a real case for increasing comp and or benefits for b-ball players.  IMO Those should all though be viewed through the lens of improving the competitiveness and attraction of the sport.  Otherwise any gains made by players will be short lived.

In my opinion, the proposals with the most energy on this site (free agency & selling likeness) have the most likelihood of benefitting few vs many (both schools and players)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 27, 2019, 12:49:13 PM
If you want to go there, the value provided today for these student athletes is more than many people in some countries make over an entire LIFETIME.   


I doubt you would use the same logic to cap CEO pay.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 12:50:01 PM
I can’t even begin to imagine the chaos of having every player being a free agent each year.  If you thing the recruiting scandals are bad now wait until you start all of the tampering scandals.

Every player already is a free agent every year. The only question is whether or not he/she has to sit out a year.
Do you ever wonder why the NCAA imposes that rule only on some of its athletes?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 27, 2019, 12:50:12 PM
I can’t even begin to imagine the chaos of having every player being a free agent each year.  If you thing the recruiting scandals are bad now wait until you start all of the tampering scandals.


I would only advocate for one immediately eligible transer per career.  And most "recruiting scandals" wouldn't exist if players could profit off their image.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 12:54:24 PM
Not to be negative, but if the best argument you have for free agency is fairness vis a vie coaches than it’s not that compelling.

That's not my best argument. My best argument is that college football, basketball, baseball and hockey players deserve the same right as all other college athletes, as well as all other college students, to attend the university of their choice, unimpeded by arbitrarily established and enforced rules that exist only to serve the interests (read: bottom lines) of athletic departments.

But I'll go along with Fluffy's one-time only rule. That seems a reasonable compromise.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 12:57:59 PM
Most of those athletes at Ohio State could also maximize earning potential while being Buckeyes.  And I’ll confidently say a good chunk of the athletes at Ohio State are being shuffled through the easiest academic path they can be so as to not interfere with winning games.

Gene Smith is a garbage human being

Ah yes, OSU and their 30 sponsored sports, over 1000 student athletes....”good chunk” being shuffled...sure, some are....just as there are OSU students doing that on their own that don’t wear the crimson and grey. Lots of people choose the easiest path in life.   

Whether he is a garbage human being, I have no idea.  He did go to Notre Dame. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 01:01:44 PM
In other words, mid-major coaches fear dealing with the consequences of their players having the same freedom of movement they enjoy.
And while they have zero problem putting their former schools in a bind by bailing whenever it's in their best interests, they can't stand for facing the same bind themselves.
We agree.

Lots of things college graduates get to do that non college graduates cannot.  Including actions as an employee, which coaches are, vs student athletes who are not employees.  Life has all kinds of rules.  Conflating them is a loser’s errand.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 27, 2019, 01:02:23 PM
That's not my best argument. My best argument is that college football, basketball, baseball and hockey players deserve the same right as all other college athletes, as well as all other college students, to attend the university of their choice, unimpeded by arbitrarily established and enforced rules that exist only to serve the interests (read: bottom lines) of athletic departments.

But I'll go along with Fluffy's one-time only rule. That seems a reasonable compromise.
how about 1 transfer with a buyout...say 100K to the former school
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 01:03:23 PM
Yeah, that's totally irrelevant, satellite television sales guy.
[/quote

It is irrelevant that one is an employee and the other is not?  LOL.

You have my occupation incorrect, but that’s ok.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 27, 2019, 01:03:42 PM
That's not my best argument. My best argument is that college football, basketball, baseball and hockey players deserve the same right as all other college athletes, as well as all other college students, to attend the university of their choice, unimpeded by arbitrarily established and enforced rules that exist only to serve the interests (read: bottom lines) of athletic departments.

But I'll go along with Fluffy's one-time only rule. That seems a reasonable compromise.

When college students transfer, often times many of their credits don't transfer, and they are retaking classes to complete their degree, delaying their overall graduation. The process of determining which classes will transfer, or count towards a major is often somewhat arbitrary.

When graduate students transfer, often none of their progress towards a graduate degree will transfer, so they have to start over again from scratch.

Don't be so quick to say that they are being treated differently than any other college student, similar rules/regulations exist for just about any other student, where it can impact them in similar ways as the college athlete. The fact you are unaware of this, doesn't make it any more real.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 27, 2019, 01:10:57 PM
nm
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 27, 2019, 01:18:02 PM
Ah yes, OSU and their 30 sponsored sports, over 1000 student athletes....”good chunk” being shuffled...sure, some are....just as there are OSU students doing that on their own that don’t wear the crimson and grey. Lots of people choose the easiest path in life.   

Whether he is a garbage human being, I have no idea.  He did go to Notre Dame.

Thanks for admitting athletic departments have no problem not looking out for the athletes best interest to help win games and make more money for the athletic department by not giving them the best possible education, refuting the idea they are getting an invaluable educational experience.

This isn’t unique to Ohio State, of course.  It happens in places like Madison and Ann Arbor who like to hold their noses above Ohio State academically.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 01:22:43 PM
When college students transfer, often times many of their credits don't transfer, and they are retaking classes to complete their degree, delaying their overall graduation. The process of determining which classes will transfer, or count towards a major is often somewhat arbitrary.

When graduate students transfer, often none of their progress towards a graduate degree will transfer, so they have to start over again from scratch.

Don't be so quick to say that they are being treated differently than any other college student, similar rules/regulations exist for just about any other student, where it can impact them in similar ways as the college athlete. The fact you are unaware of this, doesn't make it any more real.

These are not at all analogous circumstances.
It would be more akin to a school telling a physics major he can transfer, but has to take a year of philosophy before getting back to work on his/her degree.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 01:28:16 PM
how about 1 transfer with a buyout...say 100K to the former school

Careful. That would be an admission that the labors of college athletes have significant financial value to schools.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on September 27, 2019, 02:22:41 PM

I would only advocate for one immediately eligible transer per career.  And most "recruiting scandals" wouldn't exist if players could profit off their image.

If you want to do this right, players should be able to transfer at the end of every semester as many times as they want to until they graduate.  I have been beaten down.  I’m pro student athlete now.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 27, 2019, 02:45:10 PM
Careful. That would be an admission that the labors of college athletes have significant financial value to schools.
I think they should be paid a salary, and treated like employees. I just don't think the "likeness" angle is the way to do it. That is a pandora's box, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 03:32:17 PM
Thanks for admitting athletic departments have no problem not looking out for the athletes best interest to help win games and make more money for the athletic department by not giving them the best possible education, refuting the idea they are getting an invaluable educational experience.

This isn’t unique to Ohio State, of course.  It happens in places like Madison and Ann Arbor who like to hold their noses above Ohio State academically.

I admitted no such thing.  I know too many men and women that work tirelessly with student athletes of all walks of life at major programs like OSU as well as small programs like USD..... that care deeply for the student athlete and their well being.  They cannot force a major on a kid, and if a kid has only one goal, what are they going to do?  Fortunately that isn’t the case for the vast majority of those 1000 kids at OSU.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 03:34:55 PM
I’m looking forward to other major schools doing the same thing.  #BoycottCalifornia #GoodForTheSoul

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 27, 2019, 03:54:44 PM
Yeah, that's totally irrelevant, satellite television sales guy.

all due respect cheeks, but this was funny-good one pakman!!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 27, 2019, 03:59:27 PM
I’m looking forward to other major schools doing the same thing.  #BoycottCalifornia #GoodForTheSoul

I am sure the B1G won’t miss their Rose Bowl/Football Playoff cash and will walk away from its contractual obligations.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 27, 2019, 04:32:17 PM
I am sure the B1G won’t miss their Rose Bowl/Football Playoff cash and will walk away from its contractual obligations.
I'm no fan of OSU or the B1G but I hope MU does the same thing if California schools obtain an unfair recruiting advantage. (I realize a lot of California schools are opposed to the law but regardless will benefit in recruiting).

And if this plays out to California having it's own version of the NCAA, than any games against say UCLA will not count towards our Tourney resume so why play them?

FWIW, I fully support California's right to form its own "NCAA". Who knows, maybe someday it will overtake the current NCAA. In the meantime, I despise the notion that the NCAA should dictate California law or that California should dictate NCAA rules. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 27, 2019, 04:44:39 PM
Singling out California seems silly. South Carolina, Washington, Colorado, Maryland, and North Carolina are all either looking into similar legislation or changing tax codes to allow something similar. Over the next 4 years, that will likely be the tip of the iceberg. By the time we get to 2023, there will almost certainly be more than a dozen states (and that's probably a conservative number) with different rules all their own. Is the NCAA going to ban a quarter or more of the country?

There is only one answer to that question. The NCAA must come up with their own model to allow players to earn money off their likeness rights. Though I'm curious how we got here when this was about the sanctions coming then not coming now coming again but not in the time promised and probably not to the extent promised and OH MY GOD LOOK OUT GEORGIA TECH!!!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 27, 2019, 05:12:22 PM
My best argument is that college football, basketball, baseball and hockey players deserve the same right as all other college athletes, as well as all other college students, to attend the university of their choice, unimpeded by arbitrarily established and enforced rules that exist only to serve the interests (read: bottom lines) of athletic departments.

But I'll go along with Fluffy's one-time only rule. That seems a reasonable compromise.

Yessir.

And frankly, I don't believe Gene Smith. The ball is rolling on this. Soon, he would have to pledge to not play a huge chunk of the country. Cool, if the hypocrite wants to play it like he claims he will.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on September 27, 2019, 05:22:51 PM
Can’t go with fluffys rule of only one transfer without having to sit a year if you are a real believer in the cause. Has to be unlimited transfers without consequences.   A real free agency where there is a bidding war every semester for these student athletes services.   Nothing less will satisfy either the goal of freedom of movement and payment for likeness.   
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 79Warrior on September 27, 2019, 05:28:45 PM
I’m looking forward to other major schools doing the same thing.  #BoycottCalifornia #GoodForTheSoul

I don't think CA give a sh## if OSU boycotts the state. You on the other hand should quickly move your family away. Can't believe you would work in such a state.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 27, 2019, 05:33:41 PM
I am sure the B1G won’t miss their Rose Bowl/Football Playoff cash and will walk away from its contractual obligations.

If there’s one thing the Big Ten plus 4 loves more than anything, it’s that sweet cash.  Winning, graduating, alumni success all takes a back seat to that sweet cash.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 27, 2019, 05:39:33 PM
I admitted no such thing.  I know too many men and women that work tirelessly with student athletes of all walks of life at major programs like OSU as well as small programs like USD..... that care deeply for the student athlete and their well being.  They cannot force a major on a kid, and if a kid has only one goal, what are they going to do?  Fortunately that isn’t the case for the vast majority of those 1000 kids at OSU.
.

I also know people.  I knew the girl who did a lot of the schoolwork for the ‘98 Badgers Rose Bowl team, at least the defensive side.  aMaTeUrISM
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 27, 2019, 05:43:23 PM
These are not at all analogous circumstances.
It would be more akin to a school telling a physics major he can transfer, but has to take a year of philosophy before getting back to work on his/her degree.

No it is not "more akin" to that. In fact, your "more akin" scenario is nothing like either case whatsoever.

What it is like is saying that there are things that negatively impact all students that transfer, and that each is specific to that individual field. Athletes are not being treated differently than any other transfer, the way they are treated, like everyone else, is specific to their field/discipline.

Even exactly similar scenarios exist. For instance many opportunities (career specific), such as internships, research, etc., require satisfactory completion of core courses. Often times, these core courses may not transfer, meaning a student who transfers between universities needs to establish essentially a year in residence, completing the similar courses, in order to participate in their career-specific opportunities (e.g. athletics).

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 27, 2019, 08:07:56 PM
Can’t go with fluffys rule of only one transfer without having to sit a year if you are a real believer in the cause. Has to be unlimited transfers without consequences.   A real free agency where there is a bidding war every semester for these student athletes services.   Nothing less will satisfy either the goal of freedom of movement and payment for likeness.   

Don’t be absurd. No one is arguing that no rules should exist.

But I guess if that’s what you have to resort to...
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 27, 2019, 08:10:06 PM
No it is not "more akin" to that. In fact, your "more akin" scenario is nothing like either case whatsoever.

What it is like is saying that there are things that negatively impact all students that transfer, and that each is specific to that individual field. Athletes are not being treated differently than any other transfer, the way they are treated, like everyone else, is specific to their field/discipline.

Even exactly similar scenarios exist. For instance many opportunities (career specific), such as internships, research, etc., require satisfactory completion of core courses. Often times, these core courses may not transfer, meaning a student who transfers between universities needs to establish essentially a year in residence, completing the similar courses, in order to participate in their career-specific opportunities (e.g. athletics).



Really dumb comparison.  How and why academics don’t transfer has nothing to do with athletics.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 08:11:20 PM
Athletes are not being treated differently than any other transfer, the way they are treated, like everyone else, is specific to their field/discipline.

Orwell would be proud.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: oldwarrior81 on September 27, 2019, 08:17:03 PM
Most of those athletes at Ohio State could also maximize earning potential while being Buckeyes.  And I’ll confidently say a good chunk of the athletes at Ohio State are being shuffled through the easiest academic path they can be so as to not interfere with winning games.

Gene Smith is a garbage human being

speaking of academics at tOSU, anyone remember linebacker Andy Katzenmoyer?

He needed to get his grades up to be eligible in the Fall.   He took summer classes in Golf, Sexual Awareness and Music Appreciation.
The joke out of Ann Arbor was his final exam must have been watching the movie Caddyshack.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 27, 2019, 08:34:37 PM
Really dumb comparison.  How and why academics don’t transfer has nothing to do with athletics.

Actually, it has a ton to do with it. One of the reasons for the year in residence is for students to acclimate to the new environment to keep them on track to graduate while they are still a student athlete.

Part of that acclimation is adapting to differences in degree tracks, and catching up on any credits that didn't transfer. So the original reasons for why athletes sit out a year has a ton to do with athletics. It also has a lot to do why graduate transfers can be immediately eligible. The same doesn't apply, in terms of catching up, adjusting, when you are starting over from scratch.

You can stick your head in the sand and ignore these obvious aspects, but then all you are doing is deciding what you believe in and denying any reality that disagrees with your preconceived notion.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 27, 2019, 08:44:05 PM
Actually, it has a ton to do with it. One of the reasons for the year in residence is for students to acclimate to the new environment to keep them on track to graduate while they are still a student athlete.

Part of that acclimation is adapting to differences in degree tracks, and catching up on any credits that didn't transfer. So the original reasons for why athletes sit out a year has a ton to do with athletics. It also has a lot to do why graduate transfers can be immediately eligible. The same doesn't apply, in terms of catching up, adjusting, when you are starting over from scratch.

You can stick your head in the sand and ignore these obvious aspects, but then all you are doing is deciding what you believe in and denying any reality that disagrees with your preconceived notion.

Nah.

Your lame arguments are easily shot down once it is pointed out that the NCAA doesn’t require a year in residence at the D2 and D3 levels. Nor do they require it in most D1 sports.

So it really has nothing to do with academics.

Any other softballs that I can bang out of the park or are you heading to the showers?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 08:51:56 PM
Actually, it has a ton to do with it. One of the reasons for the year in residence is for students to acclimate to the new environment to keep them on track to graduate while they are still a student athlete.

Part of that acclimation is adapting to differences in degree tracks, and catching up on any credits that didn't transfer. So the original reasons for why athletes sit out a year has a ton to do with athletics. It also has a lot to do why graduate transfers can be immediately eligible. The same doesn't apply, in terms of catching up, adjusting, when you are starting over from scratch.

You can stick your head in the sand and ignore these obvious aspects, but then all you are doing is deciding what you believe in and denying any reality that disagrees with your preconceived notion.

Yes, that year in residence is crucial for student athletes.
Unless their sport is golf, tennis, water polo, swimming, diving, fencing, track, cross country, wrestling, softball, crew, lacrosse, field hockey, women's hockey, volleyball or bowling, among others.
Also, unless they play in Division II or III.
But otherwise, very important.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on September 27, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Don’t be absurd. No one is arguing that no rules should exist.

But I guess if that’s what you have to resort to...

Ah but these are the absolutes you, Rico, Brew and 82 are espousing.  Anyone who believes that freedom of movement and paying players for their likeness may lead to trouble are “idiots”.  There have been no concessions from you guys.  Nothing has been thought out to its conclusion.  No ideas of how to regulate what you are proposing have been given that would benefit the athletes and the schools. 

 I just wanted to start a discussion on how this could happen with rules.  At least you recognize that it would need to be regulated.   Others are blindly saying that a free for all for student athletes that benefits the players is the only honorable goal, schools be damned.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 27, 2019, 08:59:21 PM
Nah.

Your lame arguments are easily shot down once it is pointed out that the NCAA doesn’t require a year in residence at the D2 and D3 levels. Nor do they require it in most D1 sports.

So it really has nothing to do with academics.

Any other softballs that I can bang out of the park or are you heading to the showers?

Your statement is an invalid argument. You are starting with the assumption that the NCAA doesn't care about academics, and then using comparisons to D2 and D3 schools (and some D1 sports) as proof. The only variable present is not academics. There are dozens of variables that differentiate the situations. You have thrown out all other variables, and assumed that the only one that matters is the one convenient to you. That is invalid logic.

It does not refute the fact that the year in residence aids in ensuring that a student can adapt to new curriculum and get caught up on any missing credits to stay on track to graduate. That fact is consistent with the stated reasons for requiring a year in residence.

Yes, that year in residence is crucial for student athletes.
Unless their sport is golf, tennis, water polo, swimming, diving, fencing, track, cross country, wrestling, softball, crew, lacrosse, field hockey, women's hockey, volleyball or bowling, among others.
Also, unless they play in Division II or III.
But otherwise, very important.


See above. Incorrect usage of logic.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 27, 2019, 09:00:11 PM
 i
Ah but these are the absolutes you, Rico, Brew and 82 are espousing.  Anyone who believes that freedom of movement and paying players for their likeness may lead to trouble are “idiots”.  There have been no concessions from you guys.  Nothing has been thought out to its conclusion.  No ideas of how to regulate what you are proposing have been given that would benefit the athletes and the schools. 

 I just wanted to start a discussion on how this could happen with rules.  At least you recognize that it would need to be regulated.   Others are blindly saying that a free for all for student athletes that benefits the players is the only honorable goal, schools be damned.

I’m not calling those that disagree idiots.  I fully understand the real concerns. 

I’m fine with the one transfer for four/five years of eligibility as a limit.

I’m fine with athletes earning of their skill/likeness and schools not contributing a dime beyond that.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Nukem2 on September 27, 2019, 09:01:30 PM
Ah but these are the absolutes you, Rico, Brew and 82 are espousing.  Anyone who believes that freedom of movement and paying players for their likeness may lead to trouble are “idiots”.  There have been no concessions from you guys.  Nothing has been thought out to its conclusion.  No ideas of how to regulate what you are proposing have been given that would benefit the athletes and the schools. 

 I just wanted to start a discussion on how this could happen with rules.  At least you recognize that it would need to be regulated.   Others are blindly saying that a free for all for student athletes that benefits the players is the only honorable goal, schools be damned.
The proposed Washington law is interesting as it allows payments that are commensurate with the “services” provided by the SA.  NCAA could piggyback on something like that.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 27, 2019, 09:02:35 PM
Ah but these are the absolutes you, Rico, Brew and 82 are espousing.

Never done that. Very weak.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 27, 2019, 09:06:24 PM
Your statement is an invalid argument. You are starting with the assumption that the NCAA doesn't care about academics, and then using comparisons to D2 and D3 schools (and some D1 sports) as proof. The only variable present is not academics. There are dozens of variables that differentiate the situations. You have thrown out all other variables, and assumed that the only one that matters is the one convenient to you. That is invalid logic.

It does not refute the fact that the year in residence aids in ensuring that a student can adapt to new curriculum and get caught up on any missing credits to stay on track to graduate. That fact is consistent with the stated reasons for requiring a year in residence.

See above. Incorrect usage of logic.

Nah. You got caught making a stupid argument and got called out.

I never said the NCAA doesn’t care about academics. They just don’t care all that much. I mean look how much class time athletes miss due to scheduling.

But you are doing a great job mimicking NCAA propaganda. Congrats!!???!!!???
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 27, 2019, 09:09:06 PM
Here are for facts regarding transfer students.

The average transfer student loses 43% of the credits they obtained at their previous institution. They lose 37% of their credits if they transfer from a public school to another public school, 50% from private to private, and 54% from private to public.

That leads to a significant delay in graduation for any student.

This is particularly true for D1 basketball and football players being instructed by their institution to take low course loads, and focus on courses/degree tracks that are unlikely to successfully transfer to another degree track at a transfer institution, for the purpose of maintaining eligibility.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 27, 2019, 09:12:14 PM
Nah. You got caught making a stupid argument and got called out.

I never said the NCAA doesn’t care about academics. They just don’t care all that much. I mean look how much class time athletes miss due to scheduling.

But you are doing a great job mimicking NCAA propaganda. Congrats!!???!!!???

It's called facts. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change the fact that they exist. 

Feel free to say anything you want. My purpose is done, to interject a couple facts and logic that contradict common talking points for those thinking somehow the athlete is getting screwed or treated different than a normal student.

Fact is, all students are detrimentally affected from transfer to no fault of their own, and based on somewhat arbitrary rules. In the case of D1 football and basketball players, the rules are there to aid in a student athlete actually being able to obtain a degree, while on scholarship from their final institution.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 09:12:30 PM
Your statement is an invalid argument. You are starting with the assumption that the NCAA doesn't care about academics

1. If this had anything to do with academics and the need to adjust after transferring, the NCAA would impose it universally, not just to a handful of sports.

2. The same NCAA you're telling us cares about academics schedules football games during the week, plays games during finals and allows schools to funnel students into sham classes.

Logic dictates the NCAA has other motives for imposing a sit-out year for some athletes, and logic shows it has nothing to do with academics.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 27, 2019, 09:12:54 PM
Ah but these are the absolutes you, Rico, Brew and 82 are espousing.  Anyone who believes that freedom of movement and paying players for their likeness may lead to trouble are “idiots”.  There have been no concessions from you guys.  Nothing has been thought out to its conclusion.  No ideas of how to regulate what you are proposing have been given that would benefit the athletes and the schools. 

 I just wanted to start a discussion on how this could happen with rules.  At least you recognize that it would need to be regulated.   Others are blindly saying that a free for all for student athletes that benefits the players is the only honorable goal, schools be damned.

So as payment is unequivocally coming based on the minimum six states having passed or in the process of passing likeness rights legislation, would you then advocate for contracts between players and schools to restrict that movement?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 09:16:02 PM


Fact is, all students are detrimentally affected from transfer to no fault of their own, and based on somewhat arbitrary rules. In the case of D1 football and basketball players, the rules are there to aid in a student athlete actually being able to obtain a degree, while on scholarship from their final institution.

The question you absolutely refuse to answer is why, if it's an academic issue, is this rule not imposed on all NCAA athletes?
Please answer.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 27, 2019, 09:16:38 PM
It's called facts. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change the fact that they exist. 

Feel free to say anything you want. My purpose is done, to interject a couple facts and logic that contradict common talking points for those thinking somehow the athlete is getting screwed or treated different than a normal student.

Fact is, all students are detrimentally affected from transfer to no fault of their own, and based on somewhat arbitrary rules. In the case of D1 football and basketball players, the rules are there to aid in a student athlete actually being able to obtain a degree, while on scholarship from their final institution.

False. The rules are in place to control the student athlete and the transfer process.

The FACT that it may benefit the student academically doesn’t change the FACT that it’s not why the NCAA has the rule in place.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 09:22:29 PM
The question you absolutely refuse to answer is why, if it's an academic issue, is this rule not imposed on all NCAA athletes?
Please answer.

Why, are all the sports and academics the same?  I can show you a TON of data that shows that not to be the case.  Graduation rates, academic eligibility, etc, different in basketball than other sports.  Doesn’t make basketball the worst, but far from the best.

Let’s not also kid ourselves that the pro leagues draft options also play a role on these rules.  Baseball and hockey draft rules are different than football and are different than basketball.  They all play a role in this. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 09:25:23 PM
Singling out California seems silly. South Carolina, Washington, Colorado, Maryland, and North Carolina are all either looking into similar legislation or changing tax codes to allow something similar. Over the next 4 years, that will likely be the tip of the iceberg. By the time we get to 2023, there will almost certainly be more than a dozen states (and that's probably a conservative number) with different rules all their own. Is the NCAA going to ban a quarter or more of the country?

There is only one answer to that question. The NCAA must come up with their own model to allow players to earn money off their likeness rights. Though I'm curious how we got here when this was about the sanctions coming then not coming now coming again but not in the time promised and probably not to the extent promised and OH MY GOD LOOK OUT GEORGIA TECH!!!

Only one has actually put legislation through it’s state assembly and gotten this far, that’s why.

And no, the NCAA does not HAVE to do this.  They probably will and then years later when college sports is even worse then it is now you guys can all pat yourselves on the back, but the NCAA does not have to do it.  The funding for the NCAA is the basketball television contract from the tournament which is secured revenue into the 2030’s for the association.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 09:27:07 PM
Why, are all the sports and academics the same?  I can show you a TON of data that shows that not to be the case.  Graduation rates, academic eligibility, etc, different in basketball than other sports.  Doesn’t make basketball the worst, but far from the best.

Are you saying the kind of person who's likely to play basketball or football is academically different from one who plays golf or water polo?
How so?

Quote
Let’s not also kid ourselves that the pro leagues draft options also play a role on these rules.  Baseball and hockey draft rules are different than football and are different than basketball.  They all play a role in this.

What do draft rules have to do with it?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 27, 2019, 09:27:43 PM
1. If this had anything to do with academics and the need to adjust after transferring, the NCAA would impose it universally, not just to a handful of sports.

2. The same NCAA you're telling us cares about academics schedules football games during the week, plays games during finals and allows schools to funnel students into sham classes.

Logic dictates the NCAA has other motives for imposing a sit-out year for some athletes, and logic shows it has nothing to do with academics.

You are unable to prove or show that the existing NCAA transfer rule requiring a year in residence does not academically benefit the student athlete. That is a requirement of any logical argument.

You also ignore other factors differentiating the cases. There are many more variables at play than you are acknowledging. Ignoring other factors at play, to arbitrarily select the factor that supports your argument is faulty logic.

You also ignore the counterpoint to your stance, that the NCAA perhaps doesn't care about the academic performance of D2 and D3 athletes or athletes from other sports, so does not institute the same rules in those cases. Technically, this would neglect other factors differentiating the cases, but you already did that, so excluding this conclusion because it doesn't support your argument is also faulty logic.

I will concede that it is possible that the reason for the rule is not because the NCAA is looking out for the student athlete academically, but one can't conclude that by any logical means as there is no concrete evidence to support that assertion. Especially because the rule indeed is to the academic benefit of the student athlete.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 09:28:03 PM
all due respect cheeks, but this was funny-good one pakman!!

I find humor normally when it is locked in truth, and he badly missed on that one.  It would be like someone here calling you a tooth scraper.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 09:31:09 PM
I am sure the B1G won’t miss their Rose Bowl/Football Playoff cash and will walk away from its contractual obligations.

I am sure the So Cal, the tournament of Roses, ABC / ESPN won’t miss all the pasty midwesterners coming into Disneyland, etc, etc and the money generated by the event , too. 

Trivia, the Rose Bowl has been held outside the state of California.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 09:32:20 PM
I don't think CA give a sh## if OSU boycotts the state. You on the other hand should quickly move your family away. Can't believe you would work in such a state.

One more year and that is it....the giant cesspool leaving it behind.  Cannot unnatural carnal knowledgeing wait.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 09:33:13 PM
.

I also know people.  I knew the girl who did a lot of the schoolwork for the ‘98 Badgers Rose Bowl team, at least the defensive side.  aMaTeUrISM

You continue to paint a brush of the few and extrapolate to all, constantly.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 09:35:25 PM
Nah.

Your lame arguments are easily shot down once it is pointed out that the NCAA doesn’t require a year in residence at the D2 and D3 levels. Nor do they require it in most D1 sports.

So it really has nothing to do with academics.

Any other softballs that I can bang out of the park or are you heading to the showers?

D3...LOL.  The club team my son is on routinely beats D3 teams they play.  Let’s get real. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 27, 2019, 09:39:35 PM
Are you saying the kind of person who's likely to play basketball or football is academically different from one who plays golf or water polo?
How so?

What do draft rules have to do with it?

I’m saying the data.....simply the data....shows that graduation rates, academic eligibility differ by sport.  Draw your own conclusions because I am not stating any other than to explain your statement that all sports should have same rules on eligibility is questionable since all sports do not perform the same in that sphere.

Why would ‘t draft rules be part of convo?  Earlier today you dismissed that student athletes are non employees (they aren’t as a matter of settled law) vs coaches (actual employees) should be treated the same in their movement despite the legal differences. That was wrong, for the same reason dismissing draft rules is also wrong.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on September 27, 2019, 09:39:44 PM
The proposed Washington law is interesting as it allows payments that are commensurate with the “services” provided by the SA.  NCAA could piggyback on something like that.

I’ll have to read it.  Thanks for the information.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 09:40:54 PM
You are unable to prove or show that the existing NCAA transfer rule requiring a year in residence does not academically benefit the student athlete. That is a requirement of any logical argument.

You also ignore other factors differentiating the cases. There are many more variables at play than you are acknowledging. Ignoring other factors at play, to arbitrarily select the factor that supports your argument is faulty logic.

You also ignore the counterpoint to your stance, that the NCAA perhaps doesn't care about the academic performance of D2 and D3 athletes or athletes from other sports, so does not institute the same rules in those cases. Technically, this would neglect other factors differentiating the cases, but you already did that, so excluding this conclusion because it doesn't support your argument is also faulty logic.

I will concede that it is possible that the reason for the rule is not because the NCAA is looking out for the student athlete academically, but one can't conclude that by any logical means as there is no concrete evidence to support that assertion. Especially because the rule indeed is to the academic benefit of the student athlete.

I'm not making that argument.
The rule may very well have academic benefits.. But any such benefits are ancillary to the primary purpose of the rule, which, as Fluffy notes, is to control the movement of athletes in revenue producing/major sports.
Any academic benefit is a nice little distraction that those who are willing to carry the NCAA's water will seize upon, but if that were truly the NCAA's aim, it would impose the rule across the board. The fact they do not - and the athletes upon whom they do choose to impose it - reveals the true intent.

Shall I assume that you'll continue to dodge my question?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 27, 2019, 09:59:48 PM
I'm not making that argument.
The rule may very well have academic benefits.. But any such benefits are ancillary to the primary purpose of the rule, which, as Fluffy notes, is to control the movement of athletes in revenue producing/major sports.
Any academic benefit is a nice little distraction that those who are willing to carry the NCAA's water will seize upon, but if that were truly the NCAA's aim, it would impose the rule across the board. The fact they do not - and the athletes upon whom they do choose to impose it - reveals the true intent.

Shall I assume that you'll continue to dodge my question?

You keep misapplying logic regarding differences between divisions, and offering no evidence to support your assertion that "it is to control the movement of athletes". You just state it as fact.

Regarding your question, I'll provide a number of possible reasons. I've already highlighted one earlier.

1. D1 football and basketball players are advised to take low course loads, and focus on majors that often will not transfer to other institutions. This is done to help facilitate eligibility. The NCAA cannot govern "major requirements," nor how transfer credits are accepted, it is beyond their purview. The NCAA recognizes they are uniquely harmed in transfer situations.

2. D1 football and basketball players are more likely to have received preferential admission to universities, putting them in a unique situation where they may struggle academically.

3. D2 and D3 athletes and students in other sports are not viewed by society as "exploited," as such, the NCAA doesn't give a crap whether they graduate or not, because demonstrating improved graduation rates cannot be used as evidence of "progress".

4. D2, D3, and athletes in other sports are far less likely to be on scholarship for the duration of their eligibility. As such, forcing them to sit out a year would be likely to cost them financially (in terms of tuition) if they wanted to exhaust their eligibility. Finishing their degree will be determined by whether they want to pay tuition, whether they sit out a year or not. There is no advantage in such a case to the student athlete.

I can come up with more if you want. I fully recognize there are many elements at play. You have excluded all others because you, like Sultan, have a bias against the NCAA.

In this case, you have a problem with an NCAA rule that actually academically benefits the student athlete. You want the rule changed, so that they can be academically harmed.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 27, 2019, 10:12:30 PM
I find humor normally when it is locked in truth, and he badly missed on that one.  It would be like someone here calling you a tooth scraper.

 cheeks-i meant no dis man...and i've been called worse, but my hygienists do the scraping,  i drill, fill and yank
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 27, 2019, 10:19:47 PM
You want the rule changed, so that they can be academically harmed.

This is Cheeks-level nonsense.  Congrats.

I guess a fitting response would be to point out that you believe Division I football and basketball players are less intelligent than athletes in other sports, and what such a statement implies.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: forgetful on September 27, 2019, 10:27:43 PM
This is Cheeks-level nonsense.  Congrats.

I guess a fitting response would be to point out that you believe Division I football and basketball players are less intelligent than athletes in other sports, and what such a statement implies.

My statement was simply indicating a fact. The rule as it currently exists academically benefits the student athlete. This is a fact. You want it changed.

I never said that D1 football and basketball players are less intelligent than anyone. I said Universities direct them to take low course loads, and focus on majors that are unlikely to transfer. This is, to a large extent, due to the fact that the University is exploiting the athletes, and expecting an extraordinary amount of their time for sports...not academics.

It is also true, that D1 football and basketball players are more likely to be underprepared for college academics. This is not because of intelligence, rather it has to do with historical inequities through our educational system beginning with preschool. It also has to do with a long history of exploiting some segments of our population (particularly athletes) for our entertainment, and downplaying any value in their education.

All that is why I am a strong advocate for the transfer rule as it currently stands. It is one firm example of a rule that actually benefits the athletes academically.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 28, 2019, 04:55:31 AM
D3...LOL.  The club team my son is on routinely beats D3 teams they play.  Let’s get real. 

That has nothing to do with academics and transferring. But cool for your kid. 🙄
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TallTitan34 on September 28, 2019, 09:01:04 AM
https://twitter.com/kuathletics/status/1177661601467572230?s=21

Bill Self gives zero F’s.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 28, 2019, 09:05:58 AM
This is, to a large extent, due to the fact that the University is exploiting the athletes, and expecting an extraordinary amount of their time for sports...not academics.

Well, this part of what you say is unquestionably true.

Based on what you say (and what I agree with), these universities (and by extention the NCAA, which is made up of them) sure seem to care precious little about academically preparing athlete-students for life. Way too many TV $$$ (and other $$$) on the line.

It's hilarious/sad that many NCAA honchos and university poobahs want to close one of the few loopholes that favor athletes - the grad-transfer rule, which rewards athletes who actually get their degrees.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 28, 2019, 09:11:51 AM
My statement was simply indicating a fact. The rule as it currently exists academically benefits the student athlete. This is a fact. You want it changed.

I never said that D1 football and basketball players are less intelligent than anyone. I said Universities direct them to take low course loads, and focus on majors that are unlikely to transfer. This is, to a large extent, due to the fact that the University is exploiting the athletes, and expecting an extraordinary amount of their time for sports...not academics.

It is also true, that D1 football and basketball players are more likely to be underprepared for college academics. This is not because of intelligence, rather it has to do with historical inequities through our educational system beginning with preschool. It also has to do with a long history of exploiting some segments of our population (particularly athletes) for our entertainment, and downplaying any value in their education.

All that is why I am a strong advocate for the transfer rule as it currently stands. It is one firm example of a rule that actually benefits the athletes academically.

 as i have been following this "dialogue", i've got to say forgets stuff makes a lot of sense.  all of it...i don't get the angst or hostile back and forth.  i believe forget has a unique and valuable point of view being in the world of college/university academia that most of us here do not have.  that's the beauty of scoop having personalities from many walks of life with their own strengths and experiences. 

    people's pov on this issue doesn't have to become a p!ssing contest, but it's chit like the sultan of south green bay interjecting personal jabs because he's being challenged in an area he thinks he's the "expert"  i can't imagine schools such as st norbies, for example,  have an overworked transfer department.  probably something lumped into job description held by the chief cook and bottle washer

   
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 28, 2019, 11:52:53 AM
as i have been following this "dialogue", i've got to say forgets stuff makes a lot of sense.  all of it...i don't get the angst or hostile back and forth.  i believe forget has a unique and valuable point of view being in the world of college/university academia that most of us here do not have.  that's the beauty of scoop having personalities from many walks of life with their own strengths and experiences. 

    people's pov on this issue doesn't have to become a p!ssing contest, but it's chit like the sultan of south green bay interjecting personal jabs because he's being challenged in an area he thinks he's the "expert"  i can't imagine schools such as st norbies, for example,  have an overworked transfer department.  probably something lumped into job description held by the chief cook and bottle washer

   


You are so amusing. But not in the way you think you are.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 28, 2019, 01:17:58 PM
cheeks-i meant no dis man...and i've been called worse, but my hygienists do the scraping,  i drill, fill and yank

Exactly my point.  Just as his remarks massively missed the mark.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 28, 2019, 01:18:47 PM
That has nothing to do with academics and transferring. But cool for your kid. 🙄

It has a lot to do with it, D3 transfers mean nothing...D1 transfers do.  People actually care.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 28, 2019, 01:20:06 PM
https://twitter.com/kuathletics/status/1177661601467572230?s=21

Bill Self gives zero F’s.

More of a Snoop Dog reference since Snoop is at KU for their b-ball deal, but people are definitely linking the two.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 28, 2019, 01:27:13 PM
Exactly my point.  Just as his remarks massively missed the mark.

Don't be embarrassed by what you do.
There's nothing wrong with it.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 28, 2019, 02:00:39 PM
It has a lot to do with it, D3 transfers mean nothing...D1 transfers do.  People actually care.

Cool. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 28, 2019, 02:28:11 PM
It has a lot to do with it, D3 transfers mean nothing...D1 transfers do.  People actually care.

So, D1 athletes help make people care.  That is interesting
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 28, 2019, 02:43:37 PM
Don't be embarrassed by what you do.
There's nothing wrong with it.

I’m not embarrassed at all....what you described isn’t what I do any longer and haven’t for a long time...some great friends that still do and they are smart, wonderful people.  I’m just pointing out you are wrong...that's all.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 28, 2019, 02:46:06 PM
So, D1 athletes help make people care.  That is interesting

Do people care about the Premier league more or League two?  Do people care about the NHL more, or the AHL?  Do people care about NCAA more or NAIA?  Do people care about Single A rookie ball more or the Major Leagues?


That is interesting.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TallTitan34 on September 28, 2019, 03:53:48 PM
More of a Snoop Dog reference since Snoop is at KU for their b-ball deal, but people are definitely linking the two.

I was thinking more with the Adidas everywhere. Not afraid to be connected to them.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 28, 2019, 04:16:51 PM
I was thinking more with the Adidas everywhere. Not afraid to be connected to them.

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article235555617.html


Snoop Dogg also an Adidas guy with his own line of apparel with them.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: harryp on September 28, 2019, 08:43:00 PM
Herman, you must be older than I am. I spent 8 yrs in school taught by nuns and no one ever got rapped with a ruler. My father used to talk about this in his day, and he was born in 1897.
As far as the woman vs Felicity, it really has nothing to do with the school, but everything to do with the judge. He understands white folks with money but not poor black folks. Fairly common. A drug conviction doesn't mean she is dangerous, especially if it's for weed, which is likely statistically likely. Rehab is not a likely result. We are a nation with 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Felicity's 2 weeks will probably have more deterrent and punitive effect than the 5 years.





%
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 28, 2019, 09:25:16 PM
Herman, you must be older than I am. I spent 8 yrs in school taught by nuns and no one ever got rapped with a ruler. My father used to talk about this in his day, and he was born in 1897.
As far as the woman vs Felicity, it really has nothing to do with the school, but everything to do with the judge. He understands white folks with money but not poor black folks. Fairly common. A drug conviction doesn't mean she is dangerous, especially if it's for weed, which is likely statistically likely. Rehab is not a likely result. We are a nation with 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Felicity's 2 weeks will probably have more deterrent and punitive effect than the 5 years.





%

Never fully bought into that stat.  There are a number of countries with terrible crime that should have more prisons, but because they don’t it skews the numbers by saying we have this chunk of the world population and prisoner population.  You should see the stats here in California the last few years since folks were let out early....crime way up as common sense folks knew would happen.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 28, 2019, 09:38:04 PM
Herman, you must be older than I am. I spent 8 yrs in school taught by nuns and no one ever got rapped with a ruler. My father used to talk about this in his day, and he was born in 1897.
As far as the woman vs Felicity, it really has nothing to do with the school, but everything to do with the judge. He understands white folks with money but not poor black folks. Fairly common. A drug conviction doesn't mean she is dangerous, especially if it's for weed, which is likely statistically likely. Rehab is not a likely result. We are a nation with 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Felicity's 2 weeks will probably have more deterrent and punitive effect than the 5 years.







%

i'm not that old, spent grades 1-6 with nuns.  1st grade, a classmate was maybe mischievous at most and she put him under her desk at the front of the class  and kicked him for the remainder of class~20 minutes.  another time, they put one of those tall garbage cans over a students head-he/she was completely engulfed.

1 more during my tenure, they sent a kid to the office, they put her in a separate room.  school ends and they forget about her.  parents called wondering where their daughter was as she didn't get off the bus...ooopsie, eyn'a? 


  if this stuff happens today, death penalty

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 28, 2019, 09:47:43 PM
Never fully bought into that stat.  There are a number of countries with terrible crime that should have more prisons, but because they don’t it skews the numbers by saying we have this chunk of the world population and prisoner population.  You should see the stats here in California the last few years since folks were let out early....crime way up as common sense folks knew would happen.

🙄🙄🙄
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: cheebs09 on September 29, 2019, 07:36:53 AM
Do people care about the Premier league more or League two?  Do people care about the NHL more, or the AHL?  Do people care about NCAA more or NAIA?  Do people care about Single A rookie ball more or the Major Leagues?


That is interesting.

Also, the Premier League, NHL, and Major League players get compensated more than their counterparts. Too bad that doesn’t happen in the NCAA example.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: real chili 83 on September 29, 2019, 11:07:56 AM

You are so amusing. But not in the way you think you are.

Jon, you just made his point.

In before the lock.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TSmith34 on September 29, 2019, 11:32:57 AM
Never fully bought into that stat.  There are a number of countries with terrible crime that should have more prisons, but because they don’t it skews the numbers by saying we have this chunk of the world population and prisoner population.  You should see the stats here in California the last few years since folks were let out early....crime way up as common sense folks knew would happen.
Politics.  As usual.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 29, 2019, 11:36:48 AM
Politics.  As usual.

I responded to someone that brought it up first, of course as usual you pick and choose whom to attack especially when it doesn’t align with you worldly view.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 29, 2019, 11:39:12 AM
Also, the Premier League, NHL, and Major League players get compensated more than their counterparts. Too bad that doesn’t happen in the NCAA example.

Ok, NCAA more people care about D1 then D2 or D3, or NAIA for that matter.  None of them are compensated...nor should they be.  Attendance bears out who cares more. 

Thrilled it doesn’t happen in the NCAA because it would ruin untold opportunities for non revenue sports and these kids are already getting a great deal.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on September 29, 2019, 11:43:36 AM
Politics.  As usual.

  you guys see politics where none exists.  you are using your insinuation to either start a political argument and/or shut the thread down because you have nothing as usual.  chicos point is an unfortunate fact; recidivism puts innocent people including police back into harms way
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 29, 2019, 01:09:54 PM
From Sports Illustrated, August 31, 1987:

When the NFL announced last week that it would include Ohio state All-America wide receiver Cris Carter and Pitt running back Charles Gladman in a supplemental draft on Aug. 28, doomsday pronouncements were heard across the land.  Carter had been kicked off his team for taking money from an agent.  Goldman had been thrown off because he didn’t cooperate with an investigation into illegal agent payments.  In effect, the NFL was rewarding the two players for their alleged transgressions by letting them skip a year of college.  Some alarmed college coaches and officials darkly predicted that intercollegiate football would be harmed beyond repair.

Michigan coach Bo Schembechler was furious.  “I have never heard of Pete Rozelle doing anything for the benefit of college football,” he said.  “The message says to a college player, ‘Go ahead and rob, steal, cheat and kill.  Then as soon as you are declared ineligible, don’t worry, because then you get into the NFL.’ “ Pitt coach Mike Gottfried said, “This is the start of droves of guys leaving college for the pros.”



As we know, coaches and college administrators were proven correct and college football never recovered from the advent of early entry into the NFL draft
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TSmith34 on September 29, 2019, 01:13:04 PM
I responded to someone that brought it up first, of course as usual you pick and choose whom to attack especially when it doesn’t align with you worldly view.
Bring up politics.  Then cry about being a victim.  Every. fricken. time.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TSmith34 on September 29, 2019, 01:13:49 PM
  you guys see politics where none exists.  you are using your insinuation to either start a political argument and/or shut the thread down because you have nothing as usual.  chicos point is an unfortunate fact; recidivism puts innocent people including police back into harms way
I value your input, Boo Boo.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 29, 2019, 04:00:10 PM
From Sports Illustrated, August 31, 1987:

When the NFL announced last week that it would include Ohio state All-America wide receiver Cris Carter and Pitt running back Charles Gladman in a supplemental draft on Aug. 28, doomsday pronouncements were heard across the land.  Carter had been kicked off his team for taking money from an agent.  Goldman had been thrown off because he didn’t cooperate with an investigation into illegal agent payments.  In effect, the NFL was rewarding the two players for their alleged transgressions by letting them skip a year of college.  Some alarmed college coaches and officials darkly predicted that intercollegiate football would be harmed beyond repair.

Michigan coach Bo Schembechler was furious.  “I have never heard of Pete Rozelle doing anything for the benefit of college football,” he said.  “The message says to a college player, ‘Go ahead and rob, steal, cheat and kill.  Then as soon as you are declared ineligible, don’t worry, because then you get into the NFL.’ “ Pitt coach Mike Gottfried said, “This is the start of droves of guys leaving college for the pros.”



As we know, coaches and college administrators were proven correct and college football never recovered from the advent of early entry into the NFL draft

That’s nice.  I can give you days worth of predictions from people who said changes were going to beneficial and turned out the opposite (of course the same 8 dudes will scream politics on each one).  But to use a sports example, the one year mandate to go to college for basketball was supposed to be a great rule and has been anything but.  The grad transfer rule when you were required to go to a school that had a degree program your undergrad program didn’t worked...then they cha he’s the rule and programs are getting hurt left and right.  The same SI has a good article about how that change has hurt mid majors.

All comes down to whose ox is being gored.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 29, 2019, 04:39:13 PM
From Sports Illustrated, August 31, 1987:

When the NFL announced last week that it would include Ohio state All-America wide receiver Cris Carter and Pitt running back Charles Gladman in a supplemental draft on Aug. 28, doomsday pronouncements were heard across the land.  Carter had been kicked off his team for taking money from an agent.  Goldman had been thrown off because he didn’t cooperate with an investigation into illegal agent payments.  In effect, the NFL was rewarding the two players for their alleged transgressions by letting them skip a year of college.  Some alarmed college coaches and officials darkly predicted that intercollegiate football would be harmed beyond repair.

Michigan coach Bo Schembechler was furious.  “I have never heard of Pete Rozelle doing anything for the benefit of college football,” he said.  “The message says to a college player, ‘Go ahead and rob, steal, cheat and kill.  Then as soon as you are declared ineligible, don’t worry, because then you get into the NFL.’ “ Pitt coach Mike Gottfried said, “This is the start of droves of guys leaving college for the pros.”



As we know, coaches and college administrators were proven correct and college football never recovered from the advent of early entry into the NFL draft

Yep.

Ok, NCAA more people care about D1 then D2 or D3, or NAIA for that matter.  None of them are compensated...nor should they be.  Attendance bears out who cares more. 

Thrilled it doesn’t happen in the NCAA because it would ruin untold opportunities for non revenue sports and these kids are already getting a great deal.

Opinion, with absolutely no basis in fact.

Every change, big or small, that was viewed as potentially catastrophic to somebody -- free agency in pro sports, blacks being allowed to play pro and/or college sports, women getting athletic scholarships, a real college football playoff, the 3-point line, the shot clock, etc etc etc -- has proven to be nothing more than silly alarmism.

Hell, most recently, the NCAA fought stipends tooth and nail. Dead-set against them. Said scholarships should be more than enough. Predicted they'd alter the face of college athletics. Maybe some folks have heard cases of stipends causing some kind of horrific, landmark change to college sports, but I sure haven't.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 29, 2019, 04:45:42 PM
Yep.

Opinion, with absolutely no basis in fact.

Every change, big or small, that was viewed as potentially catastrophic to somebody -- free agency in pro sports, blacks being allowed to play pro and/or college sports, women getting athletic scholarships, a real college football playoff, the 3-point line, the shot clock, etc etc etc -- has proven to be nothing more than silly alarmism.

Hell, most recently, the NCAA fought stipends tooth and nail. Dead-set against them. Said scholarships should be more than enough. Predicted they'd alter the face of college athletics. Maybe some folks have heard cases of stipends causing some kind of horrific, landmark change to college sports, but I sure haven't.

Maybe one of the times coaches and administrators say college sports and sham amateurism are doomed, it’ll really happen
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 29, 2019, 05:19:33 PM
Yep.

Opinion, with absolutely no basis in fact.

Every change, big or small, that was viewed as potentially catastrophic to somebody -- free agency in pro sports, blacks being allowed to play pro and/or college sports, women getting athletic scholarships, a real college football playoff, the 3-point line, the shot clock, etc etc etc -- has proven to be nothing more than silly alarmism.

Hell, most recently, the NCAA fought stipends tooth and nail. Dead-set against them. Said scholarships should be more than enough. Predicted they'd alter the face of college athletics. Maybe some folks have heard cases of stipends causing some kind of horrific, landmark change to college sports, but I sure haven't.

It’s an opinion that more people care about D1 than D2 or D3?  LOL.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 29, 2019, 06:35:23 PM
It’s an opinion that more people care about D1 than D2 or D3?  LOL.

No ...

it would ruin untold opportunities for non revenue sports

is an opinion. GAC.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 29, 2019, 11:47:30 PM
No ...

it would ruin untold opportunities for non revenue sports

is an opinion. GAC.

Next time quote properly since you responded to multiple sentences.  And yes, that was an opinion as are most things on this forum. 

Free agency has been bad for pro sports except when they put in a salary cap and other mechanisms to offset the negative aspects of it.  It was killing the NBA until the latest CBA.  Surprised you didn’t know this.  MU Sports Law program has done several excellent research articles on this.  Would you like access to them?

Up transfers have increased 5X per SI in college hoops from mid majors since 2012....with a number of programs decimated as a result.  Coaches losing jobs, etc, because of the grad transfer rule.  Just another example you don’t want to pay attention to, and yet it has had a negative effect on mid majors.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/14/college-basketball-transfers-cinderella-ncaa-tournament 

And before someone trots out Loyola Chicago as somehow proof it isn’t happening....look at the totality of mid majors and the impact it is happening with free agency.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 30, 2019, 02:19:11 AM
Up transfers have increased 5X per SI in college hoops from mid majors since 2012....with a number of programs decimated as a result.  Coaches losing jobs, etc, because of the grad transfer rule.  Just another example you don’t want to pay attention to, and yet it has had a negative effect on mid majors.

For every "up transfer" there are 2 or 3 "down transfers." According to the NCAA, only 2.6% of men's basketball players end up grad transferring at all. Most of those drop a level.

And before someone trots out Loyola Chicago as somehow proof it isn’t happening....look at the totality of mid majors and the impact it is happening with free agency.

Since the grad transfer rule was relaxed (8 years), 4 mid-majors have made the Final Four. In the 12 years prior, 7 mid-majors made the final four. Increase to 18 years prior and 9 mid-majors made the final four. Of those 9, 5 have since joined high major conferences (Butler x2, Marquette, Louisville, Utah), 2 were Calipari coached cheaters (Memphis, UMass), and 2 didn't cheat and are still mid-majors today (VCU, George Mason).

Mid-majors have never been consistent contenders in March at least not since the Metro conference disbanded. The Power 6 have always been in power. The grad transfer rule has nothing to do with that.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muwarrior69 on September 30, 2019, 04:33:35 AM
For every "up transfer" there are 3 or 4 "down transfers." According to the NCAA, only 2.6% of men's basketball players end up grad transferring at all. Most of those drop a level.

Since the grad transfer rule was relaxed (8 years), 4 mid-majors have made the Final Four. In the 12 years prior, 7 mid-majors made the final four. Increase to 18 years prior and 9 mid-majors made the final four. Of those 9, 5 have since joined high major conferences (Butler x2, Marquette, Louisville, Utah), 2 were Calipari coached cheaters (Memphis, UMass), and 2 didn't cheat and are still mid-majors today (VCU, George Mason).

Mid-majors have never been consistent contenders in March at least not since the Metro conference disbanded. The Power 6 have always been in power. The grad transfer rule has nothing to do with that.

Wait! Marquette and Louisville are mid majors?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 30, 2019, 07:04:16 AM
Next time quote properly since you responded to multiple sentences.  And yes, that was an opinion as are most things on this forum. 

Free agency has been bad for pro sports except when they put in a salary cap and other mechanisms to offset the negative aspects of it.  It was killing the NBA until the latest CBA.  Surprised you didn’t know this.  MU Sports Law program has done several excellent research articles on this.  Would you like access to them?

Up transfers have increased 5X per SI in college hoops from mid majors since 2012....with a number of programs decimated as a result.  Coaches losing jobs, etc, because of the grad transfer rule.  Just another example you don’t want to pay attention to, and yet it has had a negative effect on mid majors.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/14/college-basketball-transfers-cinderella-ncaa-tournament 

And before someone trots out Loyola Chicago as somehow proof it isn’t happening....look at the totality of mid majors and the impact it is happening with free agency.

The grad transfer rule has been a resounding success and repealing it would just be the lords stepping on the throats of the serfs. The serfs with actual degrees.

Otherwise, so much wrong in here, as usual. TAMU pounded down most of your garbage nicely. I won't pile on.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 30, 2019, 07:18:56 AM
Wait! Marquette and Louisville are mid majors?

Not sure if you're joking but no they aren't. They were when they were in CUSA
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on September 30, 2019, 07:41:59 AM
Not sure if you're joking but no they aren't. They were when they were in CUSA

Back when we were in the CUSA, it was not as good as the BEast, but it was far from a mid-major conference. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 07:48:35 AM
Not sure if you're joking but no they aren't. They were when they were in CUSA


No.  The lines between high and mid major were much more blurred back then.  No one referred to Marquette as a mid-major when they went to the Final Four.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 07:49:23 AM
The grad transfer rule has been a resounding success and repealing it would just be the lords stepping on the throats of the serfs. The serfs with actual degrees.

Otherwise, so much wrong in here, as usual. TAMU pounded down most of your garbage nicely. I won't pile on.


If anything, this shows that the chicken little prognostications are a load of bunk.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 07:55:42 AM
Free agency has been bad for pro sports except when they put in a salary cap and other mechanisms to offset the negative aspects of it.  It was killing the NBA until the latest CBA.  Surprised you didn’t know this.  MU Sports Law program has done several excellent research articles on this.  Would you like access to them?



Yes.  Please provide these.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 09:12:34 AM
California governor signs bill allowing college athletes to profit off their likenesses.
Somehow Gene Smith's threat didn't cower the governor.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 09:19:33 AM
For every "up transfer" there are 2 or 3 "down transfers." According to the NCAA, only 2.6% of men's basketball players end up grad transferring at all. Most of those drop a level.

Since the grad transfer rule was relaxed (8 years), 4 mid-majors have made the Final Four. In the 12 years prior, 7 mid-majors made the final four. Increase to 18 years prior and 9 mid-majors made the final four. Of those 9, 5 have since joined high major conferences (Butler x2, Marquette, Louisville, Utah), 2 were Calipari coached cheaters (Memphis, UMass), and 2 didn't cheat and are still mid-majors today (VCU, George Mason).

Mid-majors have never been consistent contenders in March at least not since the Metro conference disbanded. The Power 6 have always been in power. The grad transfer rule has nothing to do with that.

I guess just ignore all the coaches in the article saying otherwise, ignore what it did to the programs that lost, 1, 2, 3 players and the teams were never the same.....yup, like it didn’t happen.

No one is disputing there are more down transfers then up transfers, the point was up transfers have increased exponentially the last five years.  You and others are again focusing on the few, not the programs hurt because apparently it doesn’t matter.

I am curious why you didn’t bother to address the concerns of the coaches who have lost so many players that they took a chance on, developed, etc.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 09:20:29 AM
California governor signs bill allowing college athletes to profit off their likenesses.
Somehow Gene Smith's threat didn't cower the governor.

California continues to lose more citizens last five years.....they know what is best for the people and spending time on taking care of NCAA athletes must mean they have solved the worst homeless crisis in the nation.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 09:21:46 AM
Not sure if you're joking but no they aren't. They were when they were in CUSA

LOL.   OMG
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 09:23:09 AM
The grad transfer rule has been a resounding success and repealing it would just be the lords stepping on the throats of the serfs. The serfs with actual degrees.

Otherwise, so much wrong in here, as usual. TAMU pounded down most of your garbage nicely. I won't pile on.

Tell that to the programs decimated and the coaches fired.  Wait, you don’t seem to care about them.  Same old pattern for you....
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 30, 2019, 09:24:31 AM
Tell that to the programs decimated and the coaches fired.  Wait, you don’t seem to care about them.  Same old pattern for you....

Which program was "decimated" by the grad transfer rule?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 09:29:27 AM
Which program was "decimated" by the grad transfer rule?

Apparently you didn’t read the article...or you didn’t read it well.

Here is another one

https://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/story/mid-major-fallout-grad-transfers-can-hurt-teams-they-leave-012319

I’ve seen it decimate programs, and I think it makes it very, very difficult for coaches that are trying to build programs,” said Kent State head coach Rob Senderoff, who was surprised when 7-foot center Adonis De La Rosa transferred to Illinois as a graduate student after last season. The Golden Flashes (14-4) are still in contention in the Mid-American Conference.

But remember, only good comes of this situation....it’s a resounding success someone once said minutes ago.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 30, 2019, 09:32:56 AM
Quoting someone saying "I've seen it decimate programs" is not the same as providing an actual example of a program that has been decimated.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 09:43:51 AM
The ability for players to transfer without restriction could be difficult for mid-major programs.  That's a consequence, but one that isn't easy to quantify.  (I seriously doubt that it would be the ruination of college basketball, but whatever...)  But that consequence is worth the freedom of movement IMO.

And of course mid-major coaches are against it.  Why wouldn't they be?  Right now its hard for their good talent to leave, and its easy for them to let their poor talent leave.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 30, 2019, 09:47:46 AM
The ability for players to transfer without restriction could be difficult for mid-major programs.  That's a consequence, but one that isn't easy to quantify.  (I seriously doubt that it would be the ruination of college basketball, but whatever...)  But that consequence is worth the freedom of movement IMO.

And of course mid-major coaches are against it.  Why wouldn't they be?  Right now its hard for their good talent to leave, and its easy for them to let their poor talent leave.

No one has been put upon more than poor college football and basketball coaches.  It’s not like mid-major coaches ever leave for better jobs
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 30, 2019, 09:48:05 AM
Apparently you didn’t read the article...or you didn’t read it well.

Here is another one

https://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/story/mid-major-fallout-grad-transfers-can-hurt-teams-they-leave-012319

I’ve seen it decimate programs, and I think it makes it very, very difficult for coaches that are trying to build programs,” said Kent State head coach Rob Senderoff, who was surprised when 7-foot center Adonis De La Rosa transferred to Illinois as a graduate student after last season. The Golden Flashes (14-4) are still in contention in the Mid-American Conference.

But remember, only good comes of this situation....it’s a resounding success someone once said minutes ago.

I read your articles and others. Sure, the occasions you cite hurt those teams those seasons. And, as you know, the situations included much more than just grad transfers leaving; Albany, for example, also lost two regular transfers and two players to graduation.

These true student-athletes worked hard in school and on the court to get their degrees and to be high-major basketball players. Because they were among the relative few who were able to get their degrees while they still had eligibility, they were able to take advantage of the one "loophole" that favors the athlete instead of the institution and the coach.

If them being able to realize their dreams by playing one year elsewhere "decimated the program," well, the coach doesn't have much of a program.

You know what is much more likely to truly decimate a program? A coach under contract realizing his dream and leaving for more money and glory. That coach often has spent years telling his players how loyalty and commitment matter more than everything else - in other words, he has lied to them. That coach also often leaves behind a shell of a program, as players transfer and recruits decommit; many even follow the coach to his new post.

That is what decimates a program.

But thank goodness there are sham buyout clauses. Those, of course, haven't prevented this kind of decimation, but they have let dishonest people like you claim otherwise.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 09:57:27 AM
No one has been put upon more than poor college football and basketball coaches.  It’s not like mid-major coaches ever leave for better jobs

Exactly right. These very same coaching whining about their players taking advantage of better opportunities would jump in a heartbeat if a P6 school comes calling.
Hypocrites.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 10:00:25 AM
TAMU

I must say there is some interesting irony going on since you represent the school with the largest revenues in the nation, the second largest expenditures and the largest enrollment and failing to see the harm done to smaller schools.  Almost ignoring altogether....as if it isn’t happening.


Let. Them. Eat. Cake. 


I can’t help but wonder what coaches, administrators, etc at smaller schools trying to compete their arses off feel about the increase in tampering (real), poaching (real) while attempting to compete and do their jobs.

Just my opinion, but some irony there.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Galway Eagle on September 30, 2019, 10:02:36 AM
TAMU

I must say there is some interesting irony going on since you represent the school with the largest revenues in the nation, the second largest expenditures and the largest enrollment and failing to see the harm done to smaller schools.  Almost ignoring altogether....as if it isn’t happening.


Let. Them. Eat. Cake. 


I can’t help but wonder what coaches, administrators, etc at smaller schools trying to compete their arses off feel about the increase in tampering (real), poaching (real) while attempting to compete and do their jobs.

Just my opinion, but some irony there.

Second largest enrollment. It's literally in the first paragraph of their Wikipedia page...
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 10:09:58 AM
Quoting someone saying "I've seen it decimate programs" is not the same as providing an actual example of a program that has been decimated.

Read the articles, plenty of examples.

But I’ll bet these coaches are merely pathological liars.  LOL.


The rich getting richer, no wonder you guys love it.  Helping the rich at every turn and down with the regular guy.

Another article...just more pathological lying coaches.


https://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt-grad-transfers-0624-story.html
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 30, 2019, 10:12:35 AM
Read the articles, plenty of examples.

But I’ll bet these coaches are merely pathological liars.  LOL.

Read the article. Maybe I interpret "decimate programs" differently, but having a down year is not the decimation of a program. Albany going 12-20 isn't them being decimated. Until grad transfers have impacts that require coaching changes and multi-year rebuilds, like 5-10 before reaching respectability again, this is just hyperbole.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 10:17:04 AM
Winners and losers from grad transfer season.

This is odd, I just read minutes ago it is an overwhelming success, there is no downside.  Hmm, if that is the case how can there be losers in this wonderful process?  After all it is nothing but good for all involved.  So odd that losers come out of this glorious situation.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/16/17574052/lets-declare-some-winners-and-losers-from-transfer-season-albany-missouri-state-south-alabama


Odd that those identified as losers are the mid major, smaller schools....but hey, those people don’t count.  Who gives a rip about them.  Let them eat cake
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 10:20:31 AM
Hmm, another mid major impacted this offseason.

But it is all good, massive success.  So good, so good.  Screw the other 11 kids on the team...screw the coaches, administrative staff, etc....it’s all good.


https://www.midmajormadness.com/2019/6/10/18651122/oakland-grizzlies-greg-kampe-transfer-portal-jaevin-cumberland

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 10:20:59 AM
Winners and losers from grad transfer season.

This is odd, I just read minutes ago it is an overwhelming success, there is no downside. Hmm, if that is the case how can there be losers in this wonderful process?  After all it is nothing but good for all involved.  So odd that losers come out of this glorious situation.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/16/17574052/lets-declare-some-winners-and-losers-from-transfer-season-albany-missouri-state-south-alabama


Odd that those identified as losers are the mid major, smaller schools....but hey, those people don’t count.  Who gives a rip about them.  Let them eat cake


No one said the bolded. 

You're doing it again.  You're building strawmen to create an argument that no one is making.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 10:21:55 AM
Why are these mid major coaches fearful....there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

https://sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/harsh-reality-hitting-mid-major-schools-star-players-show-ncaa-tourney-001926275.html


Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 10:23:09 AM
Hmm, another mid major impacted this offseason.

But it is all good, massive success.  So good, so good.  Screw the other 11 kids on the team...screw the coaches, administrative staff, etc....it’s all good.


https://www.midmajormadness.com/2019/6/10/18651122/oakland-grizzlies-greg-kampe-transfer-portal-jaevin-cumberland

Crocodile tears.
Losing a good coach is far more damaging to a mid-major program than losing a single player for one season, yet you have no problem with that.
Screw the kids on the team. Screw the assistants who get left behind. Screw the administrative staff. It's all good.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 10:24:13 AM
No one has been put upon more than poor college football and basketball coaches.  It’s not like mid-major coaches ever leave for better jobs

Mid major coaches are employees.  Student athletes are not, this is settled in law.  But keep on making this ridiculous apples to oranges comparison which has no legal grounding.

A coach has a buyout, should a kid that leaves have to pay a buyout since you want to make absurd comparisons?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 10:26:20 AM

No one said the bolded. 

You're doing it again.  You're building strawmen to create an argument that no one is making.

No one said it?  LOL.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 30, 2019, 10:28:32 AM
Cheeks,

Im not sure you know what irony means. If anything what your said was the opposite of irony. It would be ironic if I represented a mid major.

What you don't seem to get is that I don't care if mid major coaches don't like grad transfers. For that matter,  I don't give a sh*t about mid or low majors either other than which ones Marquette is going to schedule as cupcakes. They exist to be beaten by high majors and then for a few of them to win a couple of games in March so we can all feel good about them before they ultimately get beaten by a high major.

That's how it has been for years. Banning grad transfers isnt going to change that. You laughed at me for calling CUSA mid major before?  Fine, I don't agree but that only strengthens my earlier point. That means in the 18 years prior to the Russell Wilson rule, only 6 mid majors made the final four. 3 of them are now in high major conferences and 1 of them was sanctioned for cheating.

If mid major coaches don't like it,  be better so your players don't want to leave you.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 30, 2019, 10:29:16 AM
No one said it?  LOL.

Not a soul, at least not in this thread
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 10:31:56 AM
The “serf” comparison related to this....apparently plantation and slavery analogy (another favorite used here and elsewhere) is in the wings....always a winning comparison.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 10:34:39 AM
Mid major coaches are employees.  Student athletes are not, this is settled in law.  But keep on making this ridiculous apples to oranges comparison which has no legal grounding.

A coach has a buyout, should a kid that leaves have to pay a buyout since you want to make absurd comparisons?

You keep making this point as if it were relevant.
And why should a player have to pay a buyout? Scholarships are not employment contracts (as you've noted).

Anyhow, for a guy who talks a lot about the NCAA being there to benefit student-athletes, you sure seem concerned with creation of a system that primarily protects the coaches, administrators and schools.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 30, 2019, 10:37:07 AM
Mid major coaches are employees.  Student athletes are not, this is settled in law.  But keep on making this ridiculous apples to oranges comparison which has no legal grounding.

A coach has a buyout, should a kid that leaves have to pay a buyout since you want to make absurd comparisons?

Amazing.  You’re arguing programs are being decimated by grad transfers but coaches leaving for better jobs is okay because of a buyout.  Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking at this point.  Truly, I applaud you.  Masterful work
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 10:39:15 AM
No one said it?  LOL.

No one said there aren't losers in the process.  Of course there are losers.  Others just disagree to the magnitude of the loss and/or believe the freedom given to the player means more than the fate of mid-major programs.


What you don't seem to get is that I don't care if mid major coaches don't like grad transfers. For that matter,  I don't give a sh*t about mid or low majors either other than which ones Marquette is going to schedule as cupcakes. They exist to be beaten by high majors and then for a few of them to win a couple of games in March so we can all feel good about them before they ultimately get beaten by a high major.

That's pretty much where I stand.


The “serf” comparison related to this....apparently plantation and slavery analogy (another favorite used here and elsewhere) is in the wings....always a winning comparison.

You're becomming unhinged.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Jockey on September 30, 2019, 10:44:09 AM
You guys are really letting this troll do it again?

He has no beliefs - he is simply pulling your strings.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 11:13:08 AM
You guys are really letting this troll do it again?

He has no beliefs - he is simply pulling your strings.

No beliefs?  Actually many.  I think this is benefiting the haves and hurting the have nots.  I have provided ample examples and like minded reasoning of those same beliefs by others.  You can disagree with me all you wish, but those are my beliefs.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 11:14:24 AM
Amazing.  You’re arguing programs are being decimated by grad transfers but coaches leaving for better jobs is okay because of a buyout.  Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking at this point.  Truly, I applaud you.  Masterful work

I am arguing the law.  Coaches are employees, student athletes are not.  That isn’t masterful, it is what the courts have decided.  There is nothing intellectually dishonest about this.  Why are you ignoring what the courts have decided?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 11:17:48 AM
You keep making this point as if it were relevant.
And why should a player have to pay a buyout? Scholarships are not employment contracts (as you've noted).

Anyhow, for a guy who talks a lot about the NCAA being there to benefit student-athletes, you sure seem concerned with creation of a system that primarily protects the coaches, administrators and schools.

I am for a system that benefits most, not the few.  What you and others are advocating for is helping the few.

And yes, it is entirely relevant as comparing an employee with employee legal rights to a student athlete ( a non employee) is absurd.  So yes, it is entirely relevant.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 11:23:19 AM
I am for a system that benefits most, not the few. 

No, you're advocating for just the opposite. You want to deprive thousands of student-athletes the freedom  to seek better opportunities in order to protect the interests of a small number of mid-major coaches and athletic departments who might be negatively affected.

Quote
And yes, it is entirely relevant as comparing an employee with employee legal rights to a student athlete ( a non employee) is absurd.  So yes, it is entirely relevant.

This has nothing to do with employee rights.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 11:23:27 AM
Cheeks,

Im not sure you know what irony means. If anything what your said was the opposite of irony. It would be ironic if I represented a mid major.

What you don't seem to get is that I don't care if mid major coaches don't like grad transfers. For that matter,  I don't give a sh*t about mid or low majors either other than which ones Marquette is going to schedule as cupcakes. They exist to be beaten by high majors and then for a few of them to win a couple of games in March so we can all feel good about them before they ultimately get beaten by a high major.

That's how it has been for years. Banning grad transfers isnt going to change that. You laughed at me for calling CUSA mid major before?  Fine, I don't agree but that only strengthens my earlier point. That means in the 18 years prior to the Russell Wilson rule, only 6 mid majors made the final four. 3 of them are now in high major conferences and 1 of them was sanctioned for cheating.

If mid major coaches don't like it,  be better so your players don't want to leave you.

You finally admitted to what I have been saying....you don’t give a crap about mid majors.   Exactly what I said. I applaud you for the honesty.

I happen to think mid majors are a good thing for college basketball, but you appear not to care as others don’t either.  I expect that from someone in one of the largest athletic depts in the country.  Again, I appreciate the honesty.

Show me where I said banning grad transfers is what I propose?  I don’t want to ban it, but I do want to make it so it doesn’t just benefit the haves at the detriment of the smaller schools.  Unintended consequences which some of us said would happen, did happen. 

The same will happen with this paid likeness nonsense, but if the end game here is that 40 to 50 athletic depts are standing with a chance and no one else matters literally and figuratively, well you will eventually get your wish.  The unintended consequences be damned.



Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 11:29:20 AM
No, you're advocating for just the opposite. You want to deprive thousands of student-athletes the freedom  to seek better opportunities in order to protect the interests of a small number of mid-major coaches and athletic departments who might be negatively affected.

This has nothing to do with employee rights.

No I am not.  I do not oppose transfers.  If that better opportunity exists, fine.  Sit out a year and then you get that better opportunity.  In the process, you also don’t crater the situation you are in by leaving them high and dry and the chance they took on you in the first place.  Win win for all.  You keep arguing that I am against transfers, I am not and I beg you to find where I ever said it.  I want protections for all parties involved, but I am not against them.

Student athletes are not employees. FACT, not opinion.


December 6, 2016
Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit released a decision broadly ruling that student-athletes are not employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In Berger v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, two women track and field athletes who ran at the University of Pennsylvania sued Penn, the NCAA and 120 other colleges claiming that they were employees entitled to minimum wage for all hours spent in track and field activities. Each received a scholarship, but consistent with Ivy League rules, their scholarships were not dependent on athletic participation.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 11:34:39 AM
Right.  We know.  Student athletes are not employees.

That's not the point.  The point is that you are defending a system that "decimates" mid-major programs on the one hand (when successful coaches leave), but are complaining about one that allows players to leave.  No one is making a legal argument.  They are making a philosophical one.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 11:35:53 AM
No I am not.  I do not oppose transfers.  If that better opportunity exists, fine.  Sit out a year and then you get that better opportunity.  In the process, you also don’t crater the situation you are in by leaving them high and dry and the chance they took on you in the first place.  Win win for all.  You keep arguing that I am against transfers, I am not and I beg you to find where I ever said it.  I want protections for all parties involved, but I am not against them.

How does making a kid sit out a year not leave the team he's transferring from "high and dry?" The player is gone either way.
Marquette isn't going to miss Sam Hauser any less this year because he has to spend a season on the bench at Virginia.
What a silly argument.

The sit-out rule exists as a disincentive to the player. It helps neither the school he/she is leaving or the school he/she is transferring to.

The rest is you arguing against things not said, which seems to be your go-to move when you're losing.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 11:36:41 AM
Right.  We know.  Student athletes are not employees.

That's not the point.  The point is that you are defending a system that "decimates" mid-major programs on the one hand (when successful coaches leave), but are complaining about one that allows players to leave.  No one is making a legal argument.  They are making a philosophical one.

Yes, thank you.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 30, 2019, 11:40:22 AM
Statement from Pac12..

Statement from Pac 12..



 Statement from the Pac-12 on the signing of California SB 206






 By Pac-12 Conference

 Sep 30, 2019
 .










 The Pac-12 is disappointed in the passage of SB 206 and believes it will have very significant negative consequences for our student-athletes and broader universities in California. This legislation will lead to the professionalization of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this professionalism, imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules, will blur the lines for how California universities recruit student-athletes and compete nationally, and will likely reduce resources and opportunities for student-athletes in Olympic sports and have a negative disparate impact on female student-athletes.

 Our universities have led important student-athlete reform over the past years, but firmly believe all reforms must treat our student-athletes as students pursuing an education, and not as professional athletes. We will work with our universities to determine next steps and ensure continuing support for our student-athletes.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 12:00:19 PM
The Pac-12 is disappointed in the passage of SB 206 and believes it will have very significant negative consequences for our student-athletes and broader universities in California. This legislation will lead to the professionalization of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this professionalism, imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules, will blur the lines for how California universities recruit student-athletes and compete nationally, and will likely reduce resources and opportunities for student-athletes in Olympic sports and have a negative disparate impact on female student-athletes.

This is the same conference that recently had its media rights valued at $5 billion.
They. Have. No. Shame.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on September 30, 2019, 12:00:35 PM
Statement from Pac12..

Statement from Pac 12..



 Statement from the Pac-12 on the signing of California SB 206






 By Pac-12 Conference

 Sep 30, 2019
 .










 The Pac-12 is disappointed in the passage of SB 206 and believes it will have very significant negative consequences for our student-athletes and broader universities in California. This legislation will lead to the professionalization of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this professionalism, imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules, will blur the lines for how California universities recruit student-athletes and compete nationally, and will likely reduce resources and opportunities for student-athletes in Olympic sports and have a negative disparate impact on female student-athletes.

 Our universities have led important student-athlete reform over the past years, but firmly believe all reforms must treat our student-athletes as students pursuing an education, and not as professional athletes. We will work with our universities to determine next steps and ensure continuing support for our student-athletes.

This coming from the same organization that unsuccessfully tried to get to hundreds of millions of dollars from private equity firms in exchange for some small amount of media rights (15% I think)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on September 30, 2019, 12:01:54 PM
This is the same conference that recently had its media rights valued at $5 billion.
They. Have. No. Shame.

To be fair, they way the Pac-12 mismanages it's media rights they are definitely going to reduce the funding available to the student-athletes.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 12:02:50 PM
To be fair, they way the Pac-12 mismanages it's media rights they are definitely going to reduce the funding available to the student-athletes.

You mean 9 a.m. football games isn't the answer?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 30, 2019, 12:04:00 PM
Davidson is a very successful mid-major program that has developed numerous outstanding basketball players - athletes that many high-majors might be very interested in should those players want to leave via the grad transfer rule.

One reason very few want to leave might be because Davidson coach Bob McKillop has been there for 30 years. Despite having numerous opportunities to leave for much more high-profile jobs, he has been content to build and maintain the Davidson program. He has said he makes plenty of money, he loves it there, he feels appreciated, he feels the school has given him the resources he needs to compete, etc.

I have nothing against coaches who would leave a place like Davidson for a P6 school; I'm just pointing out that like a few others, McKillop has decided he does not need to go to a major to have what he considers a satisfying, successful coaching experience.

And I fully acknowledge that it's only my opinion that maybe it's because McKillop truly is loyal and because he has built a real basketball family atmosphere that Davidson's best players have not chosen to go the grad-transfer route.

This year, Davidson actually does have one grad transfer in the portal: 6-10 forward Dusan Kovacevic. He is likely to end up at another mid-major, or maybe even move down a level because he didn't prove to be an A-10 level basketball player in his 3 years at Davidson.

The latter is quite common about grad transfers. We hear about the few high-profile kids who make the big splash into a major program, but lots and lots of them are not "studs" whose departures will hurt the programs they are leaving. They are just student-athletes who have worked hard in school to graduate and who want to keep playing basketball without having to sit out a year.

I'm not sure what good it would do for college basketball to force all the Dusan Kovacevics out there to sit out a year before they play at William & Mary or Chicago State or Texas Southern.

And what about the likes of Katin Reinhardt and Jayce Johnson? They didn't leave some small school to go to Marquette. They left Pac-12 programs for opportunities they knew would be better. They should have had to sit out a year?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on September 30, 2019, 12:07:13 PM
You mean 9 a.m. football games isn't the answer?

I enjoy the Pac-12 After Dark as much as the next guy.....
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 30, 2019, 12:08:47 PM
Statement from Pac12..

Statement from Pac 12..



 Statement from the Pac-12 on the signing of California SB 206






 By Pac-12 Conference

 Sep 30, 2019
 .










 The Pac-12 is disappointed in the passage of SB 206 and believes it will have very significant negative consequences for our student-athletes and broader universities in California. This legislation will lead to the professionalization of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this professionalism, imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules, will blur the lines for how California universities recruit student-athletes and compete nationally, and will likely reduce resources and opportunities for student-athletes in Olympic sports and have a negative disparate impact on female student-athletes.

 Our universities have led important student-athlete reform over the past years, but firmly believe all reforms must treat our student-athletes as students pursuing an education, and not as professional athletes. We will work with our universities to determine next steps and ensure continuing support for our student-athletes.
will this trickle down to high schools? 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on September 30, 2019, 12:10:14 PM
Davidson is a very successful mid-major program that has developed numerous outstanding basketball players - athletes that many high-majors might be very interested in should those players want to leave via the grad transfer rule.

One reason very few want to leave might be because Davidson coach Bob McKillop has been there for 30 years. Despite having numerous opportunities to leave for much more high-profile jobs, he has been content to build and maintain the Davidson program. He has said he makes plenty of money, he loves it there, he feels appreciated, he feels the school has given him the resources he needs to compete, etc.

I have nothing against coaches who would leave a place like Davidson for a P6 school; I'm just pointing out that like a few others, McKillop has decided he does not need to go to a major to have what he considers a satisfying, successful coaching experience.

And I fully acknowledge that it's only my opinion that maybe it's because McKillop truly is loyal and because he has built a real basketball family atmosphere that Davidson's best players have not chosen to go the grad-transfer route.

This year, Davidson actually does have one grad transfer in the portal: 6-10 forward Dusan Kovacevic. He is likely to end up at another mid-major, or maybe even move down a level because he didn't prove to be an A-10 level basketball player in his 3 years at Davidson.

The latter is quite common about grad transfers. We hear about the few high-profile kids who make the big splash into a major program, but lots and lots of them are not "studs" whose departures will hurt the programs they are leaving. They are just student-athletes who have worked hard in school to graduate and who want to keep playing basketball without having to sit out a year.

I'm not sure what good it would do for college basketball to force all the Dusan Kovacevics out there to sit out a year before they play at William & Mary or Chicago State or Texas Southern.

And what about the likes of Katin Reinhardt and Jayce Johnson? They didn't leave some small school to go to Marquette. They left Pac-12 programs for opportunities they knew would be better. They should have had to sit out a year?

But MU82 you aren't setting up the rules for an oddly specific and narrow example in which one player left for a better program and the previous program was declared devastated by a person who is paid handsomely to put a team on the floor that can get walloped by other higher level teams in the name of generating revenue for said school
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on September 30, 2019, 12:12:51 PM
will this trickle down to high schools?

Why, are there a lot of dollars in lucrative media rights for high school programs and/or players on said high school team?

"Hi, I'm Joe Blow from Pasadena North High School where I'm the sophomore quarterback, let me tell you about Steve's Mattress and Sleeper Sofa Emporium....."
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: CTWarrior on September 30, 2019, 12:14:02 PM
I'm not sure what good it would do for college basketball to force all the Dusan Kovacevics out there to sit out a year before they play at William & Mary or Chicago State or Texas Southern.
While I agree with the grad transfer exception and think it should stay, it may be more beneficial not to have it for guys like Kovacevics because he would get two years of free school toward a graduate degree if he had to sit out.  OTOH, William & Mary (or whomever) may not want to give him two years of scholarship for one year of play.

I still think it boils down to whether you think D-I players are athletes first or students first.  If they are students first, the one year out rule makes sense, and if they are basketball players first, it doesn't.  I think the NCAA necessarily has to think of them as students first, but the member institutions ought to start behaving like it in all areas, not just by prohibiting transfers.  They need to give these kids a real education.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 12:23:46 PM
I still think it boils down to whether you think D-I players are athletes first or students first.  If they are students first, the one year out rule makes sense, and if they are basketball players first, it doesn't.  I think the NCAA necessarily has to think of them as students first, but the member institutions ought to start behaving like it in all areas, not just by prohibiting transfers.  They need to give these kids a real education.

To rehash an old argument, if it's a student/academics issue, then why not impose it for all athletes and all levels, not just the small number that drive revenues?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 30, 2019, 12:35:54 PM
Why, are there a lot of dollars in lucrative media rights for high school programs and/or players on said high school team?

"Hi, I'm Joe Blow from Pasadena North High School where I'm the sophomore quarterback, let me tell you about Steve's Mattress and Sleeper Sofa Emporium....."
yes. Now alot of it is funneled to the Aau teams.will Nike Adidas uA etc grab these kids when they are 15, or earlier?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 12:37:48 PM
Right.  We know.  Student athletes are not employees.

That's not the point.  The point is that you are defending a system that "decimates" mid-major programs on the one hand (when successful coaches leave), but are complaining about one that allows players to leave.  No one is making a legal argument.  They are making a philosophical one.

Because IT IS THE LAW.  I’m sorry if defending the law is a problem for you.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 12:42:53 PM
How does making a kid sit out a year not leave the team he's transferring from "high and dry?" The player is gone either way.
Marquette isn't going to miss Sam Hauser any less this year because he has to spend a season on the bench at Virginia.
What a silly argument.

The sit-out rule exists as a disincentive to the player. It helps neither the school he/she is leaving or the school he/she is transferring to.

The rest is you arguing against things not said, which seems to be your go-to move when you're losing.

Seriously?  If they have to sit out a year, less will transfer.  That’s why.  Thus not leaving as many high and dry.  It also curtails poaching and tampering.  That is why. Maybe you are fine with that behavior, I am not. 

It is a disincentive, like a tax.  That’s exactly right.  It is there for a reason.  Why are we penalizing schools for investing in kids, developing them and they just leave on a whim? 

You love to keep making employee comparisons...you realize how many companies if you invest in education or training require a payback or non compete (sit out for a few years)? 

We reap what we sow, all the grad transfer situation has done is penalize mid majors, made high majors into vultures who tamper and poach...what a great outcome. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 12:44:29 PM
This is the same conference that recently had its media rights valued at $5 billion.
They. Have. No. Shame.

Valuations don’t mean revenue.  Furthermore, the revenues that do come in, most are used to offset expenditures that overwhelmingly benefit the student athletes....the other side of the equation that you all refuse to acknowledge.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 12:46:00 PM
Statement from Pac12..

Statement from Pac 12..



 Statement from the Pac-12 on the signing of California SB 206






 By Pac-12 Conference

 Sep 30, 2019
 .










 The Pac-12 is disappointed in the passage of SB 206 and believes it will have very significant negative consequences for our student-athletes and broader universities in California. This legislation will lead to the professionalization of college sports and many unintended consequences related to this professionalism, imposes a state law that conflicts with national rules, will blur the lines for how California universities recruit student-athletes and compete nationally, and will likely reduce resources and opportunities for student-athletes in Olympic sports and have a negative disparate impact on female student-athletes.

 Our universities have led important student-athlete reform over the past years, but firmly believe all reforms must treat our student-athletes as students pursuing an education, and not as professional athletes. We will work with our universities to determine next steps and ensure continuing support for our student-athletes.

PAC 12 not alone, San Diego State AD issued a comment a few minutes ago as well.  Other schools will follow.

Maybe this will end up like the IRL and CART and no one wins for years....that would thrill some here, no doubt.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 30, 2019, 12:48:16 PM
Seriously?  If they have to sit out a year, less will transfer.  That’s why.  Thus not leaving as many high and dry.  It also curtails poaching and tampering.  That is why. Maybe you are fine with that behavior, I am not. 

It is a disincentive, like a tax.  That’s exactly right.  It is there for a reason.  Why are we penalizing schools for investing in kids, developing them and they just leave on a whim? 

You love to keep making employee comparisons...you realize how many companies if you invest in education or training require a payback or non compete (sit out for a few years)? 

We reap what we sow, all the grad transfer situation has done is penalize mid majors, made high majors into vultures who tamper and poach...what a great outcome.
I am curious, but too lazy to look. How many grad transfers transfer up, versus laterally or down?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 30, 2019, 12:48:51 PM
The NCAA is giving up the fight. Statement from the NCAA:

As a membership organization, the NCAA agrees changes are needed to continue to support student-athletes, but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA’s rules-making process. Unfortunately, this new law already is creating confusion for current and future student-athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not just in California.

We will consider next steps in California while our members move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments to NCAA name, image and likeness rules that are both realistic in modern society and tied to higher education.

As more states consider their own specific legislation related to this topic, it is clear that a patchwork of different laws from different states will make unattainable the goal of providing a fair and level playing field for 1,100 campuses and nearly half a million student-athletes nationwide


Agrees change is needed. Acknowledges they have to address this before collegiate athletics becomes a patchwork of mismatched laws. This is over. Name & image likeness will absolutely be a national reality by 2023. This is the NCAA concession speech.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-statement-gov-newsom-signing-sb-206
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 12:51:58 PM
Because IT IS THE LAW.  I’m sorry if defending the law is a problem for you.

Yet again, I never said I have a problem with the law.  If a mid-major coach abides by the terms of his contract and "decimates" a mid-major program in the process, that's fine by me.

I just think student athletes should have the ability to transfer without sitting a year - regardless of the consequences.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 12:52:02 PM
I am curious, but too lazy to look. How many grad transfers transfer up, versus laterally or down?

I don’t know....per SI the grad transfer up rate increased 5X and will continue to basically raid mid major programs to their detriment. 

Just wait until we combine this with really big schools offering whatever they want by alumni to players for their “likeness”....cannot wait to see how this benefits schools, especially those without football or smaller alumni bases.  Going to be wonderful.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 30, 2019, 12:53:58 PM
I think of this mess when people talk about things like student athletes and mid-majors

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7327683/big-east-conference-introduces-boise-state-broncos-san-diego-state-aztecs-houston-cougars-smu-mustangs-ucf-knights


No mention of student athletes and how it would help them academically or how Conference realignment was going to hurt mid-majors, decimate many, really after it was all said and done.

Why? Because none of that matters
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 12:54:19 PM
The NCAA is giving up the fight. Statement from the NCAA:

As a membership organization, the NCAA agrees changes are needed to continue to support student-athletes, but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA’s rules-making process. Unfortunately, this new law already is creating confusion for current and future student-athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not just in California.

We will consider next steps in California while our members move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments to NCAA name, image and likeness rules that are both realistic in modern society and tied to higher education.

As more states consider their own specific legislation related to this topic, it is clear that a patchwork of different laws from different states will make unattainable the goal of providing a fair and level playing field for 1,100 campuses and nearly half a million student-athletes nationwide


Agrees change is needed. Acknowledges they have to address this before collegiate athletics becomes a patchwork of mismatched laws. This is over. Name & image likeness will absolutely be a national reality by 2023. This is the NCAA concession speech.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-statement-gov-newsom-signing-sb-206


That middle paragraph has enough wriggle-room to fit an army.  What does "realistic in modern society and tied to higher education" even mean?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 30, 2019, 12:55:09 PM
I don’t know....per SI the grad transfer up rate increased 5X and will continue to basically raid mid major programs to their detriment. 

Just wait until we combine this with really big schools offering whatever they want by alumni to players for their “likeness”....cannot wait to see how this benefits schools, especially those without football or smaller alumni bases.  Going to be wonderful.
but I thought you said all the grad transfer rule does is raid mid majors?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 30, 2019, 01:05:42 PM
You finally admitted to what I have been saying....you don’t give a crap about mid majors.   Exactly what I said. I applaud you for the honesty.

I happen to think mid majors are a good thing for college basketball, but you appear not to care as others don’t either.  I expect that from someone in one of the largest athletic depts in the country.  Again, I appreciate the honesty.

Show me where I said banning grad transfers is what I propose?  I don’t want to ban it, but I do want to make it so it doesn’t just benefit the haves at the detriment of the smaller schools.  Unintended consequences which some of us said would happen, did happen. 

The same will happen with this paid likeness nonsense, but if the end game here is that 40 to 50 athletic depts are standing with a chance and no one else matters literally and figuratively, well you will eventually get your wish.  The unintended consequences be damned.

There was nothing that needed to be admitted to. Not giving a sh*t about mid-majors doesn't disqualify my opinion that they are just fine and will be just fine. Since the grad transfer rule was relaxed, only one low-major (Savannah State) dropped from D1 and I doubt that grad transfers had anything significant to do with that. Mid and low majors will still exist in pratical irrelevancy...like they always have.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 01:07:45 PM
There was nothing that needed to be admitted to. Not giving a sh*t about mid-majors doesn't disqualify my opinion that they are just fine and will be just fine. Since the grad transfer rule was relaxed, only one low-major (Savannah State) dropped from D1 and I doubt that grad transfers had anything significant to do with that. Mid and low majors will still exist in pratical irrelevancy...like they always have.


Ironically, "practical irrelevancy" is the 2019-20 Scoop theme!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 30, 2019, 01:15:11 PM
I am curious, but too lazy to look. How many grad transfers transfer up, versus laterally or down?

NCAA recently said that 2.6% of all men's basketball players grad transfer. I can't give you exact numbers but I can tell you from tracking the transfer market for the past 5 years that for about every 1 that transfers from a mid/low major to a high major, there are 2 or 3 that move either laterally or move down. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't suck for the mid/low-majors that lose star players, but it does mean that it is a relatively small population and there are plenty of opportunities for those coaches to recoup their losses by recruiting their own grad transfers.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 30, 2019, 01:33:07 PM
NCAA recently said that 2.6% of all men's basketball players grad transfer. I can't give you exact numbers but I can tell you from tracking the transfer market for the past 5 years that for about every 1 that transfers from a mid/low major to a high major, there are 2 or 3 that move either laterally or move down. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't suck for the mid/low-majors that lose star players, but it does mean that it is a relatively small population and there are plenty of opportunities for those coaches to recoup their losses by recruiting their own grad transfers.
so, this cheeks guy is talking out of his cheeks?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 01:33:23 PM
I am curious, but too lazy to look. How many grad transfers transfer up, versus laterally or down?

Proving I have way too much time on my hands today, I went through what claims to be a complete list of grad transfers this year.
What I found might surprise no one other than Chico's, but there are more than twice as many grad transfers moving on to a lower or similar level than moving up to a higher level.
From the list:

148 committed grad transfers when the list was compiled:
47 moving to a higher level
59 moving to a lower level
42 moving to a similar level (i.e. P6 to P6, mid-major to mid-major, etc.)

And keep in mind, many of those grad transfers moving to a higher level are heading to the mid-major programs Chicos says are being decimated. It's not all big schools stealing kids from the poor mid-majors.
Tulane picked up a kid from Norfolk State. UCF snagged a kid from William & Mary. St. Louis got a player from Eastern Kentucky. Detroit got a player from Abilene Christian. St. Joe's picked up a grad transfer from Maine. And so on.
Haven't done the math, but from looking at the list I'd say only about 15 or so percent of grad transfers are low- and mid-major kids being plucked by the P6.

Here's the list I'm working from:
https://watchstadium.com/news/comprehensive-list-of-college-basketball-players-transferring-12-29-2018/
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on September 30, 2019, 01:57:08 PM
Because IT IS THE LAW.  I’m sorry if defending the law is a problem for you.

Well it's now the law in California that student-athletes can profit off their likeness.....that should end any debate from you right, since ITS THE LAW

(http://jasonrowinski.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Judge-Dredd.jpg)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 30, 2019, 02:07:30 PM
Well it's now the law in California that student-athletes can profit off their likeness.....that should end any debate from you right, since ITS THE LAW

(http://jasonrowinski.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Judge-Dredd.jpg)

It's the law yes, but you know what isn't a law?? That the NCAA can make those athletes ineligible.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 30, 2019, 02:10:34 PM
It's the law yes, but you know what isn't a law?? That the NCAA can make those athletes ineligible.

Lots of athletes in lots of states going to be ineligible then.  Sad!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 02:14:21 PM
It's the law yes, but you know what isn't a law?? That the NCAA can make those athletes ineligible.

Then again:

The bill prohibits the NCAA from barring a university from competition if its athletes are compensated for the use of their name, image or likeness beginning in 2023.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-30/college-athlete-endorsement-deals-ncaa-california-law
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 30, 2019, 02:14:54 PM
But MU82 you aren't setting up the rules for an oddly specific and narrow example in which one player left for a better program and the previous program was declared devastated by a person who is paid handsomely to put a team on the floor that can get walloped by other higher level teams in the name of generating revenue for said school

Sorry. I'll try not to let it happen again.

Also, Pakuni and TAMU: Thanks for the research and comments on grad transfers. It's nice to have real facts rather than hoopaloopin' out the wazoo.

It's a great rule that benefits actual students.

Oh, and brewski, thanks for this:

The NCAA is giving up the fight. Statement from the NCAA:

As a membership organization, the NCAA agrees changes are needed to continue to support student-athletes, but improvement needs to happen on a national level through the NCAA’s rules-making process. Unfortunately, this new law already is creating confusion for current and future student-athletes, coaches, administrators and campuses, and not just in California.

We will consider next steps in California while our members move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments to NCAA name, image and likeness rules that are both realistic in modern society and tied to higher education.

As more states consider their own specific legislation related to this topic, it is clear that a patchwork of different laws from different states will make unattainable the goal of providing a fair and level playing field for 1,100 campuses and nearly half a million student-athletes nationwide


Agrees change is needed. Acknowledges they have to address this before collegiate athletics becomes a patchwork of mismatched laws. This is over. Name & image likeness will absolutely be a national reality by 2023. This is the NCAA concession speech.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-statement-gov-newsom-signing-sb-206

Change will be incremental, I'm sure. Everybody will adjust. It will be no more of an atom bomb that blows up college sports than when women were allowed to earn athletic scholarships.

I look forward to these hard-working young Americans (and hard-working athletes from other countries playing here, too) being able to profit from their likenesses, just as their non-athletic peers - and the rest of us - can.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TSmith34 on September 30, 2019, 02:27:54 PM
California continues to lose more citizens last five years.....they know what is best for the people and spending time on taking care of NCAA athletes must mean they have solved the worst homeless crisis in the nation.
Politics. Again. pretty boy.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 30, 2019, 02:30:07 PM
Then again:

The bill prohibits the NCAA from barring a university from competition if its athletes are compensated for the use of their name, image or likeness beginning in 2023.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-30/college-athlete-endorsement-deals-ncaa-california-law

I'm not sure if the NCAA fought this, that it would hold up on the state's part..The NCAA isn't breaking any laws(at least in the other 49 states) by banning athletes from competing if they accept payments. I'm no lawyer, but I'm not sure a state can tell an organization like the NCAA what rules they can or can not have, which is essentially what this is doing.

To me it's like the Kansas government passing a bill that says the NCAA can't ban the Kansas basketball team from postseason competition even if they were found to be breaking the rules. That just doesn't fly.

And...the kicker here may be..even if the NCAA can't ban them, who says the individual University or conference can't??
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 02:57:13 PM
Proving I have way too much time on my hands today, I went through what claims to be a complete list of grad transfers this year.
What I found might surprise no one other than Chico's, but there are more than twice as many grad transfers moving on to a lower or similar level than moving up to a higher level.
From the list:

148 committed grad transfers when the list was compiled:
47 moving to a higher level
59 moving to a lower level
42 moving to a similar level (i.e. P6 to P6, mid-major to mid-major, etc.)

And keep in mind, many of those grad transfers moving to a higher level are heading to the mid-major programs Chicos says are being decimated. It's not all big schools stealing kids from the poor mid-majors.
Tulane picked up a kid from Norfolk State. UCF snagged a kid from William & Mary. St. Louis got a player from Eastern Kentucky. Detroit got a player from Abilene Christian. St. Joe's picked up a grad transfer from Maine. And so on.
Haven't done the math, but from looking at the list I'd say only about 15 or so percent of grad transfers are low- and mid-major kids being plucked by the P6.

Here's the list I'm working from:
https://watchstadium.com/news/comprehensive-list-of-college-basketball-players-transferring-12-29-2018/

Why would it surprise me when i already said that was happening.  I’ve already acknowledged down transfers....hate to break it to you with common sense, but down transfers do not hurt teams.  Addition by subtraction.  Up transfers do hurt teams.

But carry on with the silliness of trying to equate the two.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 02:57:55 PM
but I thought you said all the grad transfer rule does is raid mid majors?

Show me where I said that is all it does. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on September 30, 2019, 02:59:05 PM
Why would it surprise me when i already said that was happening.  I’ve already acknowledged down transfers....hate to break it to you with common sense, but down transfers do not hurt teams.  Addition by subtraction.  Up transfers do hurt teams.

But carry on with the silliness of trying to equate the two.


But. They. Help. The. Teams. They. Are. Going. To.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 03:00:02 PM
There was nothing that needed to be admitted to. Not giving a sh*t about mid-majors doesn't disqualify my opinion that they are just fine and will be just fine. Since the grad transfer rule was relaxed, only one low-major (Savannah State) dropped from D1 and I doubt that grad transfers had anything significant to do with that. Mid and low majors will still exist in pratical irrelevancy...like they always have.


If they are just fine and will remain fine, why are so many concerned?  I’m just curious why they have so much fear and I am also curious what you tell the team that loses three players in on season that were supposed to come back...are they just fine?  Are these coaches all liars and making this up?  Is Sports Illustrated making stuff up along with USA Today and others saying it is HURTING some programs?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 03:02:05 PM
so, this cheeks guy is talking out of his cheeks?

I also said there are more down transfers than up transfers....but down transfers don’t hurt programs, up transfers do.

When a guy is sent down to the minors does the big club get hurt? 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 03:07:02 PM

If they are just fine and will remain fine, why are so many concerned?  I’m just curious why they have so much fear and I am also curious what you tell the team that loses three players in on season that were supposed to come back...are they just fine?  Are these coaches all liars and making this up?  Is Sports Illustrated making stuff up along with USA Today and others saying it is HURTING some programs?

Any time a good player transfers, regardless of circumstances, the program he leaves is hurt.
So what?

And if ensuring  that no program ever gets hurt is your priority here, why are you OK with player like Joey Hauser being allowed to transfer? Joey likely would have had three more productive years at Marquette. His departure hurts MU way more than Duane Wilson's grad transfer, yet you're fine with one and not the other.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on September 30, 2019, 03:07:54 PM
Seriously?  If they have to sit out a year, less will transfer.  That’s why.  Thus not leaving as many high and dry.  It also curtails poaching and tampering.  That is why. Maybe you are fine with that behavior, I am not. 

It is a disincentive, like a tax.  That’s exactly right.  It is there for a reason.  Why are we penalizing schools for investing in kids, developing them and they just leave on a whim? 

You love to keep making employee comparisons...you realize how many companies if you invest in education or training require a payback or non compete (sit out for a few years)? 

We reap what we sow, all the grad transfer situation has done is penalize mid majors, made high majors into vultures who tamper and poach...what a great outcome.
cheeks. Your last paragraph.  All the grad transfer situation...
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muwarrior69 on September 30, 2019, 03:57:36 PM
Then again:

The bill prohibits the NCAA from barring a university from competition if its athletes are compensated for the use of their name, image or likeness beginning in 2023.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-30/college-athlete-endorsement-deals-ncaa-california-law

Here is Mark Cuban's take:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/mark-cuban-ncaa-players-profit-implode
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 04:13:05 PM
Here is Mark Cuban's take:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/sports/mark-cuban-ncaa-players-profit-implode

Cuban clearly doesn't understand the law.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 30, 2019, 04:16:31 PM

If they are just fine and will remain fine, why are so many concerned?  I’m just curious why they have so much fear and I am also curious what you tell the team that loses three players in on season that were supposed to come back...are they just fine?  Are these coaches all liars and making this up?  Is Sports Illustrated making stuff up along with USA Today and others saying it is HURTING some programs?

No they aren't making things up. It is possible for something to hurt, but the person it hurt to also be fine. The grad transfer rule isn't forcing mid/low majors programs to shut down their basketball programs. And rescinding the grad transfer rule wouldn't lead to a bunch of mid-majors suddenly becoming major players or making final fours regularly. With or without the grad transfer rule, mid/low-majors would be exactly where they are right now, getting beat by high majors 95% of the time and getting beat 99% of the time in Elite Eight, Final Four, and National Championship games.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 30, 2019, 04:51:20 PM
Next state up:

https://twitter.com/mlahammer/status/1178775523159347200?s=21

Poor Barry Alvarez won’t be able to schedule anyone
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 30, 2019, 05:29:08 PM
Next state up:

https://twitter.com/mlahammer/status/1178775523159347200?s=21

Poor Barry Alvarez won’t be able to schedule anyone

There's going to be a lot of ineligible players/teams for postseason.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 30, 2019, 05:30:51 PM
There's going to be a lot of ineligible players/teams for postseason.

There will be zero teams ever made ineligible over this issue
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 30, 2019, 07:54:35 PM
There will be zero teams ever made ineligible over this issue

So you think...tell me who exactly is going to stop a private organization(NCAA), from enacting their own rules?? If the Kansas and Arizona governments both pass bills soon saying "under this bill, the NCAA can not punish the state University basketball programs from postseason for any rules violations they commit", would you say then that means the NCAA can't punish Kansas and Arizona for violations or rules they broke as members of the NCAA?? There is ZERO chance that would hold up in a court of law if the NCAA pursued it, neither would this..if the NCAA pursues it, there is NO way a state can pass a law that tells a private organization that they can't enforce the same rules for their state that they have for all other 49 states.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: jesmu84 on September 30, 2019, 07:59:06 PM
So you think...tell me who exactly is going to stop a private organization(NCAA), from enacting their own rules?? If the Kansas and Arizona governments both pass bills soon saying "under this bill, the NCAA can not punish the state University basketball programs from postseason for any rules violations they commit", would you say then that means the NCAA can't punish Kansas and Arizona for violations or rules they broke as members of the NCAA?? There is ZERO chance that would hold up in a court of law if the NCAA pursued it, neither would this..if the NCAA pursues it, there is NO way a state can pass a law that tells a private organization that they can't enforce the same rules for their state that they have for all other 49 states.

I think what he's trying to say, and perhaps backed up by the NCAAs recent statements, is that the NCAA will cave/change before it becomes a state law vs NCAA issue.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 30, 2019, 08:04:36 PM
I think what he's trying to say, and perhaps backed up by the NCAAs recent statements, is that the NCAA will cave/change before it becomes a state law vs NCAA issue.

I really don't think they will...as you can see already, conferences are already coming out against it. One of the ways they can MAYBE come to some sort of compromise is IF then the student athlete signs a BINDING agreement that ties him to that University for his tenure. You sign a "rights" agreement with "Joe bob's furniture shop" that's fine but then you are tied to this University for 4 years. Period, no transferring etc.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on September 30, 2019, 08:25:37 PM
I really don't think they will...as you can see already, conferences are already coming out against it. One of the ways they can MAYBE come to some sort of compromise is IF then the student athlete signs a BINDING agreement that ties him to that University for his tenure. You sign a "rights" agreement with "Joe bob's furniture shop" that's fine but then you are tied to this University for 4 years. Period, no transferring etc.

Again, multiple states are pursuing similar legislation.  The NCAA can choose to fight all of these states and declare a bunch of their members ineligible or they can come up with a solution. 

In a nation where nothing is bipartisan, legislators are reaching across the aisle in support of these bills. 

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on September 30, 2019, 08:37:18 PM
Again, multiple states are pursuing similar legislation.  The NCAA can choose to fight all of these states and declare a bunch of their members ineligible or they can come up with a solution. 

In a nation where nothing is bipartisan, legislators are reaching across the aisle in support of these bills.

As most here have said, the FBI investigation was the tipping point. The cartel of the NCAA and its members, apparel manufacturers and media companies damaged itself fatally. The longer they fight, the worse their case because of those wiretaps.This all started with the stream of of money already being paid under the table to athletes...and the NCAA response.

Again, if Bill Self worked in any of our companies, he would have been fired in a New York Minute.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: brewcity77 on September 30, 2019, 09:08:15 PM
JFC this is over. The only thing left is for the NCAA to come out with details that satisfy the states that have passed or are close to passing legislation.

This is NOT a question of if. It's when. Period.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 30, 2019, 09:39:02 PM
JFC this is over. The only thing left is for the NCAA to come out with details that satisfy the states that have passed or are close to passing legislation.

This is NOT a question of if. It's when. Period.

Oh I'm not questioning that "likeness" compensation will become a thing, I'm sure of that. What I'm wondering about is truly how much the NCAA will cave on this..If they have the support of the conferences, and in turn the individual Universities(which I'm fairly certain they will), then what?? The NCAA can't cave to the majority to please the few. They can dig their heels in on this. I mean what happens(and I can see a scenario where this occurs), if the Universities themselves decide to make the players ineligible?? Nothing stopping them from doing that. Or the Universities decide to only give them partial scholarships because they will be making money off their likenesses??

I just think there's many layers to this that have to be peeled back yet. If the NCAA doesn't/won't under any circumstances support this, and the Universities(the NCAA membership) don't support it(which I'm sure they won't), then what??
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TAMU Garcia on September 30, 2019, 09:45:59 PM
I just think there's many layers to this that have to be peeled back yet. If the NCAA doesn't/won't under any circumstances support this, and the Universities(the NCAA membership) don't support it(which I'm sure they won't), then what??

Then the California universities follow the state law, because they have to.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 30, 2019, 09:51:02 PM
Again, multiple states are pursuing similar legislation.  The NCAA can choose to fight all of these states and declare a bunch of their members ineligible or they can come up with a solution. 

In a nation where nothing is bipartisan, legislators are reaching across the aisle in support of these bills.

Yep.

The vast majority of Americans believe that college athletes should be able to profit off their own likenesses. It's 2-to-1 in favor.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 09:51:40 PM
JFC this is over. The only thing left is for the NCAA to come out with details that satisfy the states that have passed or are close to passing legislation.

This is NOT a question of if. It's when. Period.

Until the mess has to be cleaned up because this wonderful “solve” didn’t work...and it won’t. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on September 30, 2019, 10:06:31 PM
Then the California universities follow the state law, because they have to.

But what does the law say?? It says athletes in the state of Cali can profit off their likenesses, and it says the NCAA can't deem them ineligible for competition(I'm still not sure they can legally dictate that, but whatever), but there is NOTHING that says the conferences themselves or the Universities themselves can't make the athletes ineligible. We already know the Pac -12 issued a statement against it, I'm sure that wasn't done without all the members approval, which means they don't support it either.

I mean there's a State law that says I HAVE to wear a seat belt, but no one can force me to do it, if I choose not to. I didn't read the bill, but what exactly is California going to do to the NCAA(or the Universities) if they choose NOT to follow their law?? Fine them??
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on September 30, 2019, 10:41:44 PM
But what does the law say?? It says athletes in the state of Cali can profit off their likenesses, and it says the NCAA can't deem them ineligible for competition(I'm still not sure they can legally dictate that, but whatever), but there is NOTHING that says the conferences themselves or the Universities themselves can't make the athletes ineligible. We already know the Pac -12 issued a statement against it, I'm sure that wasn't done without all the members approval, which means they don't support it either.

I mean there's a State law that says I HAVE to wear a seat belt, but no one can force me to do it, if I choose not to. I didn't read the bill, but what exactly is California going to do to the NCAA(or the Universities) if they choose NOT to follow their law?? Fine them??

Be patient, grasshopper.

This is just the first volley. When 15, 20, 25 states - or more, because elected officials of both parties are in favor of this - the NCAA and its conferences will have to decide if it wants to make athletes in half the country (including most of the highly populated states) ineligible or if it wants to come up with a compromise that makes sense.

I mean, if say, California, Oregon, Washington and Colorado all pass laws similar to this - and they very well might - the Pac-12 is going to make athletes from 9 of its institutions ineligible? Pac-3, here we come?

Stay tuned, my friend. This has only just begun, and it's about time.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 30, 2019, 10:43:01 PM
Again, multiple states are pursuing similar legislation.  The NCAA can choose to fight all of these states and declare a bunch of their members ineligible or they can come up with a solution. 
The NCAA does not have to fight any state.

The NCAA has the right to continue business as usual.

The states have the right to pass laws that make their student athletes ineligible under NCAA rules.

What happens if California passes a law prohibiting gender division of sports because it is not PC to restrict people because of their gender? Are you cool with MU's women's v-ball team playing a Stanford team of all men in the NCAA tournament?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 10:47:26 PM
The NCAA does not have to fight any state.

The NCAA has the right to continue business as usual.

The states have the right to pass laws that make their student athletes ineligible under NCAA rules.

What happens if California passes a law prohibiting gender division of sports because it is not PC to restrict people because of their gender? Are you cool with MU's women's v-ball team playing a Stanford team of all men in the NCAA tournament?

Oh you just wait for that last question to be answered....we already know by answers here that it is super cool for women to lose NCAA and high school championship races, wrestling matches, etc....their rights be damned....their rights get trumped by other rights....so I have no doubt some here would be just fine with your hypothetical because they have already supported similar situations in actual events.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 10:54:41 PM
Oh you just wait for that last question to be answered....we already know by answers here that it is super cool for women to lose NCAA and high school championship races, wrestling matches, etc....their rights be damned....their rights get trumped by other rights....so I have no doubt some here would be just fine with your hypothetical because they have already supported similar situations in actual events.

Examples, please.
Also, I didn't know people had a right to win wrestling matches. Must have slept that day in Constitutional law.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on September 30, 2019, 11:06:37 PM
Dan Wetzel crushes the chicken littles.
(Ad hominems to follow?)


This is painfully ridiculous. Start with this, Pac-12 schools have billions in operating expenses and cash on hand to easily afford, if it so chooses, to field teams in dozens and dozens of sports. Stanford has its $24.7 billion endowment, after all. A dozen softball scholarships isn’t going to break them.
What the league is saying is that it doesn’t value those sports or those athletes. Essentially, Stanford, or USC or Arizona State, doesn’t want to pay for a softball team. Yes, they have the money to, but they are acknowledging that it doesn’t make much sense for a university to fund.
As such, they would stop (or lower) the funding unless they can continue to have football and men’s basketball players to pay for them based on those athletes not getting their own endorsement deals. It’s like a forced donation to the athletic department.
If those players get their money, the schools are saying, then they shut down the Olympic sports. But if the schools don’t care about those sports, why should the football and basketball stars care? Why is that their obligation?
Really, though, if the Pac-12, or anyone else, really cared about scholarship opportunities for Olympic sports (men or women), then they would have worked over the years to increase the NCAA limits on the amount of full rides that can be offered. The more scholarships the better, right?
College sports have been booming of late, with television money filling and refilling the coffers. Yet there has been very little movement on increasing the number of athletes (male or female) who receive scholarships.
Almost all teams run at a deficiency. It’s not uncommon for a women’s soccer team to have 30 players on the roster. Yet the NCAA allows just 14 scholarships, forcing the deals to be divided up. Same with baseball or track or swimming or so on.
Instead the administrators just spent all the new billions on themselves. In 2010-11 — just this decade — the University of Michigan employed 253 people (coaches and administrators) at an average salary of $73,382, according to school records. By 2018-19, it was up to 388 and $101,137. So almost no new scholarships for the players and their families, but 53.3 percent more employees are making 37.8 percent more money.
And college administrators want to claim they care about Olympic sports and female athletes?
When the arguments go that off-kilter and that far from reality, you know one side has nothing to stand on.
That was the IOC in the 1980s. That’s the NCAA today.
Whatever happens with SB 206 and name, image and likeness, the world will survive. Doomsayers be damned.



https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 11:07:23 PM
Examples, please.
Also, I didn't know people had a right to win wrestling matches. Must have slept that day in Constitutional law.

It’s a tough situation, but in my opinion women have a right to compete in a competition for women that has biological women, not men that identify as which puts women at a massive physical disadvantage.  Do the rights of those young women matter?

Examples...in the sidebar there have been a number of them here with the most recent example of a male who won a NcAA title this Spring in a women’s track event after the year prior competing as a male and getting destroyed.  The women that dreamed of winning a national title in that event never had a chance,  their opportunity trumped by having to compete against the opposite gender.  Several wrestling examples on the sidebar.  That seems to fit the comparison to a tee that the poster was stating.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 11:11:36 PM
Dan Wetzel crushes the chicken littles.
(Ad hominems to follow?)


This is painfully ridiculous. Start with this, Pac-12 schools have billions in operating expenses and cash on hand to easily afford, if it so chooses, to field teams in dozens and dozens of sports. Stanford has its $24.7 billion endowment, after all. A dozen softball scholarships isn’t going to break them.
What the league is saying is that it doesn’t value those sports or those athletes. Essentially, Stanford, or USC or Arizona State, doesn’t want to pay for a softball team. Yes, they have the money to, but they are acknowledging that it doesn’t make much sense for a university to fund.
As such, they would stop (or lower) the funding unless they can continue to have football and men’s basketball players to pay for them based on those athletes not getting their own endorsement deals. It’s like a forced donation to the athletic department.
If those players get their money, the schools are saying, then they shut down the Olympic sports. But if the schools don’t care about those sports, why should the football and basketball stars care? Why is that their obligation?
Really, though, if the Pac-12, or anyone else, really cared about scholarship opportunities for Olympic sports (men or women), then they would have worked over the years to increase the NCAA limits on the amount of full rides that can be offered. The more scholarships the better, right?
College sports have been booming of late, with television money filling and refilling the coffers. Yet there has been very little movement on increasing the number of athletes (male or female) who receive scholarships.
Almost all teams run at a deficiency. It’s not uncommon for a women’s soccer team to have 30 players on the roster. Yet the NCAA allows just 14 scholarships, forcing the deals to be divided up. Same with baseball or track or swimming or so on.
Instead the administrators just spent all the new billions on themselves. In 2010-11 — just this decade — the University of Michigan employed 253 people (coaches and administrators) at an average salary of $73,382, according to school records. By 2018-19, it was up to 388 and $101,137. So almost no new scholarships for the players and their families, but 53.3 percent more employees are making 37.8 percent more money.
And college administrators want to claim they care about Olympic sports and female athletes?
When the arguments go that off-kilter and that far from reality, you know one side has nothing to stand on.
That was the IOC in the 1980s. That’s the NCAA today.
Whatever happens with SB 206 and name, image and likeness, the world will survive. Doomsayers be damned.



https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html

Ice cream for everyone.  A car for you...and you...and you.   I like Dan a lot, but a terrible argument.  4% annual raise for those Michigan employees....wow, they are making out like bandits.   :o. Hmm, how many of those staff positions were to better the experience for student athletes...tudors, academic advisors, trainers, coaches, etc, etc.  Ah yes, don’t want to talk about that part.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on September 30, 2019, 11:27:48 PM
Dan Wetzel crushes the chicken littles.
(Ad hominems to follow?)


This is painfully ridiculous. Start with this, Pac-12 schools have billions in operating expenses and cash on hand to easily afford, if it so chooses, to field teams in dozens and dozens of sports. Stanford has its $24.7 billion endowment, after all. A dozen softball scholarships isn’t going to break them.
What the league is saying is that it doesn’t value those sports or those athletes. Essentially, Stanford, or USC or Arizona State, doesn’t want to pay for a softball team. Yes, they have the money to, but they are acknowledging that it doesn’t make much sense for a university to fund.
As such, they would stop (or lower) the funding unless they can continue to have football and men’s basketball players to pay for them based on those athletes not getting their own endorsement deals. It’s like a forced donation to the athletic department.
If those players get their money, the schools are saying, then they shut down the Olympic sports. But if the schools don’t care about those sports, why should the football and basketball stars care? Why is that their obligation?
Really, though, if the Pac-12, or anyone else, really cared about scholarship opportunities for Olympic sports (men or women), then they would have worked over the years to increase the NCAA limits on the amount of full rides that can be offered. The more scholarships the better, right?
College sports have been booming of late, with television money filling and refilling the coffers. Yet there has been very little movement on increasing the number of athletes (male or female) who receive scholarships.
Almost all teams run at a deficiency. It’s not uncommon for a women’s soccer team to have 30 players on the roster. Yet the NCAA allows just 14 scholarships, forcing the deals to be divided up. Same with baseball or track or swimming or so on.
Instead the administrators just spent all the new billions on themselves. In 2010-11 — just this decade — the University of Michigan employed 253 people (coaches and administrators) at an average salary of $73,382, according to school records. By 2018-19, it was up to 388 and $101,137. So almost no new scholarships for the players and their families, but 53.3 percent more employees are making 37.8 percent more money.
And college administrators want to claim they care about Olympic sports and female athletes?
When the arguments go that off-kilter and that far from reality, you know one side has nothing to stand on.
That was the IOC in the 1980s. That’s the NCAA today.
Whatever happens with SB 206 and name, image and likeness, the world will survive. Doomsayers be damned.



https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html
Dan makes some decent points but this is mostly 'drive by journalism'.

Okay, we know Stanford's endowment, which I assume Dan includes as a good representation of Div I schools in California. I mean, that's what one would put in a persuasive piece, not some ridiculous extreme; that's what you'd expect from low brow 'click baits'.

Somebody tell me what Cal State Northridge's endowment is?

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - can proceeds from endowments be used for need the university sees fit or are they 'ear marked' by donors for the benefit of particular programs? Dan's article makes it seem like these funds can be used for whatever the school wants. I doubt Dan would mislead his readers.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on September 30, 2019, 11:34:12 PM
Dan makes some decent points but this is mostly 'drive by journalism'.

Okay, we know Stanford's endowment, which I assume Dan includes as a good representation of Div I schools in California. I mean, that's what one would put in a persuasive piece, not some ridiculous extreme; that's what you'd expect from low brow 'click baits'.

Somebody tell me what Cal State Northridge's endowment is?

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - can proceeds from endowments be used for need the university sees fit or are they 'ear marked' by donors for the benefit of particular programs? Dan's article makes it seem like these funds can be used for whatever the school wants. I doubt Dan would mislead his readers.

Cal state Long Beach is $77 million.  Fullerton is $65 million.  Northridge $110M.  Bakersfield is $26M. You are absolutely correct, nothing but clickbait and tapping into the extreme examples....just like the 1% these folks are try to benefit so they use 1% examples.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on October 01, 2019, 02:44:42 AM
Assuming this goes through without some kind of cap, what should MU do to get ahead of it?  This may need a thread of its own but I’d like here everyone’s ideas.  For example, should MU start a new division in the athletic department whose sole job is canvassing local businesses to get money for players?  Should Wojo have concrete financial offers that he can extend to prospective recruits during in home visits?  What ideas do people have to help MU keep up with larger/wealthier schools?   
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: dgies9156 on October 01, 2019, 04:17:44 AM
Ok, a couple of thoughts on the future of college athletics.

1) The idea that a university will spend its endowment on sports is absurd. The endowment is an investment fund. Spending the endowment is like eating seed corn. Dumb. The endowment kicks off an investment return. The return is what you spend on things like scholarships, buildings, new programs etc.

2) One must ask why universities offer athletics. Division 1 college athletics exists primarily for public relations. A good football or basketball program generates visibility, gets people interested and ultimately generates a broader student body and more alumni contributions. At some schools, it even makes money! There are secondary benefits, including quality of life, community spirit and loyalty, but the real reason athletics exist is to further the institution.

3) Given the rationale for athletics, one has to ask, "what's the purpose of Olympic sports and other minor sports?" Apart from meeting the requirements of the law regarding gender opportunity, the only reason for having them either is to meet the requirements of a conference or for student recreation/exercise.

Within this framework, legislation in California and other states allowing athletes to earn off their likeness etc., makes all the sense in the world. Marquette can and will compete with the biggest and financially strongest schools for paid or endorsed athletes if there is economic value to an athlete in coming to Marquette and if there is continued economic value for Marquette in offering basketball and other sports.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 05:17:48 AM
Dan makes some decent points but this is mostly 'drive by journalism'.

Okay, we know Stanford's endowment, which I assume Dan includes as a good representation of Div I schools in California. I mean, that's what one would put in a persuasive piece, not some ridiculous extreme; that's what you'd expect from low brow 'click baits'.

Somebody tell me what Cal State Northridge's endowment is?

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - can proceeds from endowments be used for need the university sees fit or are they 'ear marked' by donors for the benefit of particular programs? Dan's article makes it seem like these funds can be used for whatever the school wants. I doubt Dan would mislead his readers.

Why has Michigan hired 130 new administrators and raised the average salary nearly $30,000?   That money could go to funding more scholarships in the Olympic/non-revenue sports that leagues and administrators are so worried about because some athletes might earn off their likeness.  The truth is, the last thing the NCAA or universities want to do is, spend money on the students, especially those that don’t generate revenue.  The hypocrisy is amazing.

And spare me they may have hired tutors and trainers BS.  You know what would be more beneficial for a woman playing tennis at Michigan than another tutor?  A full scholarship
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Mr. Sand-Knit on October 01, 2019, 06:12:07 AM
Seeing as how the “d” is really not near the “t” on the key board Chicos must be arguing for descendants of the English royal dynasty to be involved.  In addition to littering up the entire board with “pay attention to me” posts he really is losing it. Does some one live near him? Can we alert the family that he is off his meds again?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on October 01, 2019, 06:59:24 AM
I wonder what interwebs fan sites would have said about the "decimated" future of college basketball back in the '70s when athletes were finally allowed to go to the NBA before their eligibility expired.

In retrospect, I cannot fathom how college hoops survived that doomsday scenario.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 07:32:00 AM
Ok, a couple of thoughts on the future of college athletics.

1) The idea that a university will spend its endowment on sports is absurd. The endowment is an investment fund. Spending the endowment is like eating seed corn. Dumb. The endowment kicks off an investment return. The return is what you spend on things like scholarships, buildings, new programs etc.

2) One must ask why universities offer athletics. Division 1 college athletics exists primarily for public relations. A good football or basketball program generates visibility, gets people interested and ultimately generates a broader student body and more alumni contributions. At some schools, it even makes money! There are secondary benefits, including quality of life, community spirit and loyalty, but the real reason athletics exist is to further the institution.

3) Given the rationale for athletics, one has to ask, "what's the purpose of Olympic sports and other minor sports?" Apart from meeting the requirements of the law regarding gender opportunity, the only reason for having them either is to meet the requirements of a conference or for student recreation/exercise.

Within this framework, legislation in California and other states allowing athletes to earn off their likeness etc., makes all the sense in the world. Marquette can and will compete with the biggest and financially strongest schools for paid or endorsed athletes if there is economic value to an athlete in coming to Marquette and if there is continued economic value for Marquette in offering basketball and other sports.

I'm not sure Wetzel is suggesting using the endowment itself on athletic scholarships, but as you say, the return is spent on a variety of university needs. If the universities truly believe in the necessity and benefits of then Olympic sports, why not use some of those endowment proceeds to support them? The answer seems obvious.
Your other points are well taken.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on October 01, 2019, 07:59:07 AM
Former Duke star and current ESPN analyst Jay Williams:

“It’s already been professionalism. It’s been professionalism for everyone else: for the coaches, for the athletic directors, for the assistant coaches, for everybody else but the players. My jersey sales alone did close to $2 million my last year in school. I received no percentage of that, none at all.”
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 01, 2019, 08:02:34 AM
Oh you just wait for that last question to be answered....we already know by answers here that it is super cool for women to lose NCAA and high school championship races, wrestling matches, etc....their rights be damned....their rights get trumped by other rights....so I have no doubt some here would be just fine with your hypothetical because they have already supported similar situations in actual events.


The same nonsense that lead to the argument that legalizing gay marriage would mean I could marry my dog.  Slippery slope, chicken little nonsense.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 01, 2019, 08:09:19 AM
The NCAA does not have to fight any state.

The NCAA has the right to continue business as usual.

The states have the right to pass laws that make their student athletes ineligible under NCAA rules.

What happens if California passes a law prohibiting gender division of sports because it is not PC to restrict people because of their gender? Are you cool with MU's women's v-ball team playing a Stanford team of all men in the NCAA tournament?


This is all 100% true.  However, what if similar laws are passed in other states?  Is the NCAA really going to disqualify all teams from California and a handful of other states?  That would be absurd.  The NCAA is going to look more and more out of touch, especially when you hear stuff like this:

@DanWolken
Have heard from numerous people inside college athletics who are very discouraged by how poorly the NCAA is messaging its reaction to the California bill.

Coming out with a hard-line on this issue is going to make them look worse.  They have to manage it.  However the way that they managed the agents issue leads me to believe that they'll f*ck this one up too.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 08:33:36 AM
Dan makes some decent points but this is mostly 'drive by journalism'.

Okay, we know Stanford's endowment, which I assume Dan includes as a good representation of Div I schools in California. I mean, that's what one would put in a persuasive piece, not some ridiculous extreme; that's what you'd expect from low brow 'click baits'.

Somebody tell me what Cal State Northridge's endowment is?

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - can proceeds from endowments be used for need the university sees fit or are they 'ear marked' by donors for the benefit of particular programs? Dan's article makes it seem like these funds can be used for whatever the school wants. I doubt Dan would mislead his readers.

Yeah but it's not like Cal State Northridge is gonna lose a lot of money from sponsors because they are racing to pay all the Northridge football or basketball stars. So it's fair that the "rich" schools be the example because this NIL will not impact the lower tier schools all that much because I just don't think sponsorship money moves from the schools to the athletes at that kind of rate to be that impactful.

Further, his point was that schools have had an absolute sprawl of infrastructure growth in terms of number of employees, etc without the work getting more volumous. In the age of automation, virtual engagement tools, etc the fact that athletic department sizes are growing significantly even through the number of athletes and/or sports is not is appalling.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 08:39:39 AM

This is all 100% true.  However, what if similar laws are passed in other states?  Is the NCAA really going to disqualify all teams from California and a handful of other states?  That would be absurd.  The NCAA is going to look more and more out of touch, especially when you hear stuff like this:

@DanWolken
Have heard from numerous people inside college athletics who are very discouraged by how poorly the NCAA is messaging its reaction to the California bill.

Coming out with a hard-line on this issue is going to make them look worse.  They have to manage it.  However the way that they managed the agents issue leads me to believe that they'll f*ck this one up too.

The NCAA will not be able to put their finger in all of the holes in the dam AND there one weapon is disqualification....if more and more states pass some form of legislation like this the NCAA devalues their sole means of revenue generation the athletic events themselves. Let's pretend for a second that California, New York, and Florida alone pass these laws and so all students-athletes at those schools are ineligible to take part in the NCAA basketball tournament.....you're telling me that the tournament has the same value(ie media rights $) it does now in that scenario with teams like UCLA, USC, Oregon, Florida, Florida State, Syracuse, St John's, etc not taking part.

I don't think the California law passes a legal review but the genie is out, enough states will pass laws allowing the NIL profitability that the NCAA "banning" schools in those states from the national competitions will be the nuclear option and will end the NCAA anyway.

The NCAA has to reform on this issue or die.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 08:41:30 AM
Looks like another state that Barry Alvarez can’t schedule in and more schools that will be ineligible

https://twitter.com/jonrothstein/status/1178999274203467776?s=21
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mikekinsellaMVP on October 01, 2019, 09:40:45 AM
The NCAA will not be able to put their finger in all of the holes in the dam AND there one weapon is disqualification....if more and more states pass some form of legislation like this the NCAA devalues their sole means of revenue generation the athletic events themselves. Let's pretend for a second that California, New York, and Florida alone pass these laws and so all students-athletes at those schools are ineligible to take part in the NCAA basketball tournament.....you're telling me that the tournament has the same value(ie media rights $) it does now in that scenario with teams like UCLA, USC, Oregon, Florida, Florida State, Syracuse, St John's, etc not taking part.

I don't think the California law passes a legal review but the genie is out, enough states will pass laws allowing the NIL profitability that the NCAA "banning" schools in those states from the national competitions will be the nuclear option and will end the NCAA anyway.

The NCAA has to reform on this issue or die.

"UC-Eugene" is just a nickname, you know.   :)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 09:58:45 AM
"UC-Eugene" is just a nickname, you know.   :)

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/10PDlC02A1L5Cw/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: bilsu on October 01, 2019, 10:11:06 AM
They talked about this on CNBC this morning. They basically said the NCAA will not challenge, because the federal government would sue them to break up their monopoly.

I am not against players profiting from their likeness. However, I see this benefiting largely the guys that are projected to be draft picks. Lessors players will be receiving very little. In my opinion this is just going to destroy team unity. The way I see it, if this was in effect last year the break down would be something like this.
Markus $50,000
Sam $10,000
Sam & Joey $10,000
Joey $1,000
John $500
You can go through every power 6 team (excluding the blue bloods) and basically only one or two players are going to do well. The rest will get chump change.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 01, 2019, 10:46:22 AM
Hey Cheeks.  Just a reminder that I wanted to take you up on your offer to have access to these research articles.  Thanks!


Free agency has been bad for pro sports except when they put in a salary cap and other mechanisms to offset the negative aspects of it.  It was killing the NBA until the latest CBA.  Surprised you didn’t know this.  MU Sports Law program has done several excellent research articles on this.  Would you like access to them?

Yes.  Please provide these.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 10:52:48 AM
They talked about this on CNBC this morning. They basically said the NCAA will not challenge, because the federal government would sue them to break up their monopoly.

I am not against players profiting from their likeness. However, I see this benefiting largely the guys that are projected to be draft picks. Lessors players will be receiving very little. In my opinion this is just going to destroy team unity. The way I see it, if this was in effect last year the break down would be something like this.
Markus $50,000
Sam $10,000
Sam & Joey $10,000
Joey $1,000
John $500
You can go through every power 6 team (excluding the blue bloods) and basically only one or two players are going to do well. The rest will get chump change.

Star players will always get more at every level ... more media attention, more fan attention, more awards, louder cheers during introductions, special treatment from the coaching staff, etc. If all those things don't decimate team unity, I'm not sure why some endorsement dollars will.

And this sort of imbalance already exists in the pros, of course. Aaron Rodgers earns nearly twice as much as anyone else on the Packers, and five times as much as about 40 guys on the roster. On any NBA roster, the top 4-5 guys eat up the majority of the team's cap space. And that's not even addressing endorsement money, attention, deferential treatment, etc.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on October 01, 2019, 10:55:56 AM
They talked about this on CNBC this morning. They basically said the NCAA will not challenge, because the federal government would sue them to break up their monopoly.

I am not against players profiting from their likeness. However, I see this benefiting largely the guys that are projected to be draft picks. Lessors players will be receiving very little. In my opinion this is just going to destroy team unity. The way I see it, if this was in effect last year the break down would be something like this.
Markus $50,000
Sam $10,000
Sam & Joey $10,000
Joey $1,000
John $500
You can go through every power 6 team (excluding the blue bloods) and basically only one or two players are going to do well. The rest will get chump change.
I think the numbets are the great unknown. How.much would a shoe.companu.pay Markus for his likeness?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 11:30:53 AM
And now Pennsylvania legislators are introducing similar legislation.
That's now four of the five most populous states in the U.S.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on October 01, 2019, 11:40:50 AM
That’s great.  It’s going to happen.  How does MU get in front of this or is it too early to say?  I’m assuming that there will be no cap on earnings because that would be inherently unfair to the players as well.  Do we need to start shaking the bushes now?  Start a new department for student athletes that will pay them more that other ADs/schools.  I’m sure the biggest proponents of this have thought this through.  I’d like to hear your ideas.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on October 01, 2019, 11:50:58 AM
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2019-09-30/fair-pay-to-play-california-ncaa-gavin-newsom-name-image-likeness-college-sports-student-athletes
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 11:53:34 AM
That’s great.  It’s going to happen.  How does MU get in front of this or is it too early to say?  I’m assuming that there will be no cap on earnings because that would be inherently unfair to the players as well.  Do we need to start shaking the bushes now?  Start a new department for student athletes that will pay them more that other ADs/schools.  I’m sure the biggest proponents of this have thought this through.  I’d like to hear your ideas.

Any university that hasn’t anticipated this happening, has done itself and students a disservice.  Marquette should have a plan in place.  Do they?  I don’t know that for a fact.

As for losing talent, Marquette wasn’t recruiting kids, realistically anyway, that would be the biggest beneficiaries of this. 

It’ll be up to local businesses as well to decide what the worth any athlete may be to their business.  A kid like Markus Howard would be very marketable despite what a few here think.  Quite frankly, the Hausers would have probably banked more at Marquette than they will at MSU or Virginia.

My hunch is, shoe companies will be as active pushing kids to play together at Nike schools and so on.  Basically, like before but in the open about it
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 11:54:14 AM
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2019-09-30/fair-pay-to-play-california-ncaa-gavin-newsom-name-image-likeness-college-sports-student-athletes

Keep shaking your fist at the clouds
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 11:55:17 AM
That’s great.  It’s going to happen.  How does MU get in front of this or is it too early to say?  I’m assuming that there will be no cap on earnings because that would be inherently unfair to the players as well.  Do we need to start shaking the bushes now?  Start a new department for student athletes that will pay them more that other ADs/schools.  I’m sure the biggest proponents of this have thought this through.  I’d like to hear your ideas.

The ADs/schools won't be paying anyone.
If the NCAA were smart - and that's a big "if" - they'd be trying to get back out front on this and creating a clearinghouse of sorts to ensure that all endorsement deals are legit, not simply back door means of boosters paying players, and players are being compensated at market value rates (i.e. a rich lawyer from Texas can't pay a 5-star quarterback $2 million for making an appearance at the company BBQ). And also banning endorsement deals that necessitate attendance at a specific school prior to enrollment (i.e. Nike can't sign a kid to a shoe deal on the condition he attends Oregon or Duke or whatever).
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on October 01, 2019, 11:55:31 AM
What I'd like to know for those that are so much for this(why you want college sports to be pro sports is beyond me), what happens if only say 40 states have a law like this, or less?? Or not every single state believes this is the way to go...?? Then what?? How would school in those states ever get players to come to their school?? That's part of the imbalance that will result from this.

So if college sports are going pro, we need to start talking about when Free agency starts, what the salary cap will be, trade deadlines, full and honest injury reports need to be released, maybe instead of recruiting, college sports should start drafting too, right?? All these things need to be figured out since people want to turn this into pro sports.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 11:59:24 AM
What I'd like to know for those that are so much for this(why you want college sports to be pro sports is beyond me), what happens if only say 40 states have a law like this, or less?? Or not every single state believes this is the way to go...?? Then what?? How would school in those states ever get players to come to their school?? That's part of the imbalance that will result from this.

So if college sports are going pro, we need to start talking about when Free agency starts, what the salary cap will be, trade deadlines, full and honest injury reports need to be released, maybe instead of recruiting, college sports should start drafting too, right?? All these things need to be figured out since people want to turn this into pro sports.

I’ll say this slower for you

The
NCAA
is
Going
To
Allow
Likeness
Compensation
It’s
Just
A
Matter
Of
When.
They
Are
Not
Going
To
Allow
Schools
To
Pay
The
Players
Themselves
The
Legislation
Being
Pursued
Is
To
Force
The
Hand
Of
The
NCAA
Who
Doesn’t
Want
Anyone
Else
To
Profit
But
Themselves
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on October 01, 2019, 11:59:36 AM
Here would be my compromise if I'm the NCAA and I stand firm on this...you enroll at whatever school it is, you then have a choice..if you choose to sign a marketing contract, you can no longer participate in the post season. Play with your teammates etc during the year that's fine, but bowl games, NCAA tourney etc, you are ineligible. That's the deal..$$$ or postseason but not both....that will say who's in it for the $$ and who's in it because of school pride etc.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 11:59:41 AM
What I'd like to know for those that are so much for this(why you want college sports to be pro sports is beyond me), what happens if only say 40 states have a law like this, or less?? Or not every single state believes this is the way to go...?? Then what?? How would school in those states ever get players to come to their school?? That's part of the imbalance that will result from this.

If thje NCAA acts, it won't matter if every state is on board. These laws are merely forcing the NCAA's hand. And if 40 of 50 states pass similar laws, there's zero chance the NCAA doesn't capitulate (I mean, they're already capitulating).

Quote
So if college sports are going pro, we need to start talking about when Free agency starts, what the salary cap will be, trade deadlines, full and honest injury reports need to be released, maybe instead of recruiting, college sports should start drafting too, right?? All these things need to be figured out since people want to turn this into pro sports.

How does allowing a player to profit off his likeness necessitate trades and salary caps?
What nonsense.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on October 01, 2019, 12:06:14 PM
I’ll say this slower for you

The
NCAA
is
Going
To
Allow
Likeness
Compensation
It’s
Just
A
Matter
Of
When.
They
Are
Not
Going
To
Allow
Schools
To
Pay
The
Players
Themselves
The
Legislation
Being
Pursued
Is
To
Force
The
Hand
Of
The
NCAA
Who
Doesn’t
Want
Anyone
Else
To
Profit
But
Themselves

You are a flippin idiot if you REALLY and truly believe this isn't going to end up being schools paying the players directly. Anytime you have something like this, there WILL be corruption. I can 100% guarantee you that.

Also, apparently you aren't bright enough to understand...so I will say it slowly for you...Let's say Syganiak planning wants one of the MU players to do a commercial or something..Okay fine, but here's the problem...Cyganiak is a big MU sponsor/booster...so guess what?? That's an NCAA violation. Get it??

You obviously didn't read the SD union article. You go on and on and on about how unfair these poor student athletes have it..poor poor poor babies can't even afford the scholar...oh wait.

So you act like you care about these athletes..well go explain to MU's volley ball and Lacrosse teams why they can't exist anymore. Do you even care??

If you read the article you will understand most schools operate at a deficit.

I wonder what MU can get in a trade for Greg Elliott??
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 12:09:01 PM
You are a flippin idiot if you REALLY and truly believe this isn't going to end up being schools paying the players directly. Anytime you have something like this, there WILL be corruption. I can 100% guarantee you that.

Also, apparently you aren't bright enough to understand...so I will say it slowly for you...Let's say Syganiak planning wants one of the MU players to do a commercial or something..Okay fine, but here's the problem...Cyganiak is a big MU sponsor/booster...so guess what?? That's an NCAA violation. Get it??

You obviously didn't read the SD union article. You go on and on and on about how unfair these poor student athletes have it..poor poor poor babies can't even afford the scholar...oh wait.

So you act like you care about these athletes..well go explain to MU's volley ball and Lacrosse teams why they can't exist anymore. Do you even care??

If you read the article you will understand most schools operate at a deficit.

I wonder what MU can get in a trade for Greg Elliott??

Why can’t they exist?  Did the TV check bounce?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 12:09:52 PM
What I'd like to know for those that are so much for this(why you want college sports to be pro sports is beyond me), what happens if only say 40 states have a law like this, or less?? Or not every single state believes this is the way to go...?? Then what?? How would school in those states ever get players to come to their school?? That's part of the imbalance that will result from this.

So if college sports are going pro, we need to start talking about when Free agency starts, what the salary cap will be, trade deadlines, full and honest injury reports need to be released, maybe instead of recruiting, college sports should start drafting too, right?? All these things need to be figured out since people want to turn this into pro sports.

What you aren't grasping Guru is this isn't the end game. The states have made the first move by enacting(in California first followed by others) legislation that will make it impossible for the current NCAA model to exist (that's the whole point). I have no doubt that the California legislation will be struck down but the NCAA will have to fight every state in court individually(because the laws will be different) and the only other weapon the NCAA has is to disqualify schools in those states. Good luck maintaining any kind of revenue when you ban 4 of the largest states and their universities from the post season in any sport. So the NCAA must reform or die. The NCAA will have to enact some sort of NIL profit structure that will get most, if not all of the states to back off and we'll go from there.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 12:14:01 PM
You are a flippin idiot if you REALLY and truly believe this isn't going to end up being schools paying the players directly. Anytime you have something like this, there WILL be corruption. I can 100% guarantee you that.

As opposed to the corruption that is already going on???

There is a definite possibility that when all is said and done all this really does is take the shadow deals that were going on anyway and give them a means of coming into the light......and guess what, you can now tax that transaction, etc. No different than legalizing pot, you want to bring black market transactions into the open market so you gain efficiencies, regulation, etc.

Also, players profiting off NIL is not a zero sum game with university sponsorship.....some university funding may go down but net new funding for the players will come on to the market as well.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on October 01, 2019, 12:15:26 PM
Schools won’t directly pay players.  BUT,  they will have to get involved if they want to have consistently elite profit from your likeness packages for the players while recruiting.  You better believe these players, families and now agents will know the statistics of schools who can generate more money from the local and national businesses than others.  MU will have to hire more people to get this done. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on October 01, 2019, 12:16:28 PM
Why can’t they exist?  Did the TV check bounce?

Obviously you didn't read the article..It's all explained there. Are you this way with your co workers to?? If they make more money than you do you pi$$ and moan?? I mean the company is making money because of you, right?? Go cry to your boss how unfair that is, and demand he give you a raise because he's "hoarding" all the profits. See where that gets you.

What if your taxes go up to help support these universities that now won't get as much revenue?? Are you going to be okay with that??
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 12:16:44 PM
The ADs/schools won't be paying anyone.
If the NCAA were smart - and that's a big "if" - they'd be trying to get back out front on this and creating a clearinghouse of sorts to ensure that all endorsement deals are legit, not simply back door means of boosters paying players, and players are being compensated at market value rates (i.e. a rich lawyer from Texas can't pay a 5-star quarterback $2 million for making an appearance at the company BBQ). And also banning endorsement deals that necessitate attendance at a specific school prior to enrollment (i.e. Nike can't sign a kid to a shoe deal on the condition he attends Oregon or Duke or whatever).

I'm not totally with ya there Pakuni. I agree the NCAA has to get out in front of this but I really don't want the NCAA involved anymore than necessary. I like the idea of a clearinghouse to validate the legality of contracts, provide players guidance, etc.....but at the end of the day if some rich person wants to spend their money idiotically I'm totally fine with it. Short term there may be some bumps or anomalies but long term the market will correct because the rich don't stay rich but throwing their money around in unprofitable ways. I really don't want the NCAA determining market rates, like at all.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on October 01, 2019, 12:18:08 PM
What you aren't grasping Guru is this isn't the end game. The states have made the first move by enacting(in California first followed by others) legislation that will make it impossible for the current NCAA model to exist (that's the whole point). I have no doubt that the California legislation will be struck down but the NCAA will have to fight every state in court individually(because the laws will be different) and the only other weapon the NCAA has is to disqualify schools in those states. Good luck maintaining any kind of revenue when you ban 4 of the largest states and their universities from the post season in any sport. So the NCAA must reform or die. The NCAA will have to enact some sort of NIL profit structure that will get most, if not all of the states to back off and we'll go from there.

All the NCAA has to do I'd think is take this to federal court, who has already ruled in their favor once..The Ed O Bannon case. Federal law trumps state laws.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on October 01, 2019, 12:24:31 PM
What I'd like to know for those that are so much for this(why you want college sports to be pro sports is beyond me), what happens if only say 40 states have a law like this, or less?? Or not every single state believes this is the way to go...?? Then what?? How would school in those states ever get players to come to their school?? That's part of the imbalance that will result from this.

So if college sports are going pro, we need to start talking about when Free agency starts, what the salary cap will be, trade deadlines, full and honest injury reports need to be released, maybe instead of recruiting, college sports should start drafting too, right?? All these things need to be figured out since people want to turn this into pro sports.

Others already have done a nice job of answering your questions, so I won't chime in there.

What I will say is that, for me anyway, it's not a matter of wanting college sports to be pro sports. College sports already ARE pro sports. Cheating is rampant. Athletes are getting paid left and right. The rich are already getting richer, and will continue to do so under the current system. And I think that the young men and women who make college sports possible - the athletes - should have the right to profit off their own likenesses.

So I'll turn it around ...

Why are you so willing to be happy about the corrupt status quo? Why are you so willing to let the richest schools continue to dominate the game through cheating? Why do you want only the rich institutions, the rich ADs and the rich coaches to benefit from the money flowing in?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 12:25:43 PM
Obviously you didn't read the article..It's all explained there. Are you this way with your co workers to?? If they make more money than you do you pi$$ and moan?? I mean the company is making money because of you, right?? Go cry to your boss how unfair that is, and demand he give you a raise because he's "hoarding" all the profits. See where that gets you.

What if your taxes go up to help support these universities that now won't get as much revenue?? Are you going to be okay with that??

Did you read Dan Wetzel’s article?  Cut the bureaucracy bloat at these universities instead of the athletic programs. 

I don’t have to worry about my taxes going up to support any university system, I live in Wisconsin
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Billy Hoyle on October 01, 2019, 12:28:26 PM
Schools won’t directly pay players.  BUT,  they will have to get involved if they want to have consistently elite profit from your likeness packages for the players while recruiting.  You better believe these players, families and now agents will know the statistics of schools who can generate more money from the local and national businesses than others.  MU will have to hire more people to get this done.

No, but a coach will reach out to boosters and corporate sponsors and ask for them to have a player "endorse" their business.  Businesses aren't going to care about how much these kids will generate in terms of revenue, they'll be more interested in helping the program. Markus will be the face of Allen Edmonds, Theo a local Coca Cola bottler, etc. It will be a huge recruiting advantage for particular schools.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 12:28:40 PM
All the NCAA has to do I'd think is take this to federal court, who has already ruled in their favor once..The Ed O Bannon case. Federal law trumps state laws.

The Ed O'Bannon case was brought by the litigate in Federal Court because the argument was around Federal labor law. In this case, the Federal courts do not have standing because this is a state law so the NCAA would have to fight these laws in state courts unless they can come up with some sort of standing in Federal court around something like interstate commercial or some other thing.......but if they do that they are opening up themselves to congressional action to remove their trade organization standing.

The NCAA could definitely piss off Congress with all of this too and guess what? Going after the NCAA on NIL issues polls as non-partisan and highly popular (2 to 1). So if you are looking for a cheap easy political win in 2020, seems like the NCAA makes a nice fat target.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 12:33:36 PM
No, but a coach will reach out to boosters and corporate sponsors and ask for them to have a player "endorse" their business.  Businesses aren't going to care about how much these kids will generate in terms of revenue, they'll be more interested in helping the program. Markus will be the face of Allen Edmonds, Theo a local Coca Cola bottler, etc. It will be a huge recruiting advantage for particular schools.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/173/576/Wat8.jpg?1315930535)

Of course businesses are well known to give money away just because...........

 Sure some money may be throw away because some executive has an expense account but I guarantee the vast majority of funding has to be tied to a business case before it rolls out to universities and/or athletes.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 12:54:04 PM
Interesting

https://twitter.com/historyrunner/status/1178849636389273600?s=21
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on October 01, 2019, 12:57:43 PM
Interesting

https://twitter.com/historyrunner/status/1178849636389273600?s=21

Sherman and Green jump into the fray.

https://sports.yahoo.com/draymond-green-richard-sherman-praise-california-blast-corrupt-ncaa-dictatorship-235654621.html
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 79Warrior on October 01, 2019, 01:01:09 PM
All the NCAA has to do I'd think is take this to federal court, who has already ruled in their favor once..The Ed O Bannon case. Federal law trumps state laws.

The NCAA ought to worry about the DOJ if they fight this.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 01, 2019, 01:01:10 PM
You are a flippin idiot if you REALLY and truly believe this isn't going to end up being schools paying the players directly. Anytime you have something like this, there WILL be corruption. I can 100% guarantee you that.

Also, apparently you aren't bright enough to understand...so I will say it slowly for you...Let's say Syganiak planning wants one of the MU players to do a commercial or something..Okay fine, but here's the problem...Cyganiak is a big MU sponsor/booster...so guess what?? That's an NCAA violation. Get it??

Right.  But it shouldn't be.  That's the point.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on October 01, 2019, 01:17:55 PM
No, but a coach will reach out to boosters and corporate sponsors and ask for them to have a player "endorse" their business.  Businesses aren't going to care about how much these kids will generate in terms of revenue, they'll be more interested in helping the program. Markus will be the face of Allen Edmonds, Theo a local Coca Cola bottler, etc. It will be a huge recruiting advantage for particular schools.

I agree.  But I think a separate staff/department dedicated to this will have to be hired in order to be on the fore front of the “pay for likeness” opportunities.  Coaches may be the closers for the deals but won’t have the time to do all of it.   
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on October 01, 2019, 01:20:51 PM
No, but a coach will reach out to boosters and corporate sponsors and ask for them to have a player "endorse" their business.  Businesses aren't going to care about how much these kids will generate in terms of revenue, they'll be more interested in helping the program. Markus will be the face of Allen Edmonds, Theo a local Coca Cola bottler, etc. It will be a huge recruiting advantage for particular schools.
The big name players will be having agents do this. I am still curious to see if there will be exclusive licensing agreements. Does the California law have a minimum age requirement?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 01:58:31 PM
More debunking the bunk

https://mgoblog.com/content/it%27s-bad-amateurism-argument-time
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on October 01, 2019, 02:02:07 PM
The big name players will be having agents do this. I am still curious to see if there will be exclusive licensing agreements. Does the California law have a minimum age requirement?

CA has a living wage law.  For Berkeley, they have their own which is higher than the state... for UC that is about $1 million per year...which puts them on par with Lawrence KS for basketball.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on October 01, 2019, 02:02:51 PM
What an epic mess this is going to be.  We had Gavin Newsome on the DP show today and his lack of knowledge on the subject and what this will do is staggering.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: lawdog77 on October 01, 2019, 02:15:32 PM
CA has a living wage law.  For Berkeley, they have their own which is higher than the state... for UC that is about $1 million per year...which puts them on par with Lawrence KS for basketball.
So, could this hypothetical work. Jordan Brand signs #1 ranked player in the class of 2022 to an exclusive licensing agreement- 5 years- $5million. (that would cover him 3 years high school, 1 year college, 1 year pro).  Sounds good for both sides. Problem is the funnelling to certain schools. How do we get that out in the open. We need full transparency if this is to work.

Will California, or other state law, or NCAA rules allow for exclusive NIL rights agreements?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 01, 2019, 02:23:59 PM
So, could this hypothetical work. Jordan Brand signs #1 ranked player in the class of 2022 to an exclusive licensing agreement- 5 years- $5million. (that would cover him 3 years high school, 1 year college, 1 year pro).  Sounds good for both sides. Problem is the funnelling to certain schools. How do we get that out in the open. We need full transparency if this is to work.

Will California, or other state law, or NCAA rules allow for exclusive NIL rights agreements?


Why does it matter if the player is funnelled to a certain school?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 02:28:28 PM
So, could this hypothetical work. Jordan Brand signs #1 ranked player in the class of 2022 to an exclusive licensing agreement- 5 years- $5million. (that would cover him 3 years high school, 1 year college, 1 year pro).  Sounds good for both sides. Problem is the funnelling to certain schools. How do we get that out in the open. We need full transparency if this is to work.

Will California, or other state law, or NCAA rules allow for exclusive NIL rights agreements?

We don't know yet because the California law will be lose a legal challenge and the NCAA will be coming up with some new reform to accommodate NIL. TBD
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 03:26:48 PM
More debunking the bunk

https://mgoblog.com/content/it%27s-bad-amateurism-argument-time

That's really well done. Thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 03:30:02 PM
We don't know yet because the California law will be lose a legal challenge and the NCAA will be coming up with some new reform to accommodate NIL. TBD

You've said this several times. Curious as to why you believe so.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on October 01, 2019, 05:53:46 PM
More debunking the bunk

https://mgoblog.com/content/it%27s-bad-amateurism-argument-time
Well that piece of "journalism" does nothing to move the compensation for athletes argument forward. I think your side of the argument would be better served by thoughtful analysis as opposed to pseudo journalistic, click bait opinions that pander to the NCAA is evil crowd.

Right or wrong the NCAA control of major college basketball and football is coming to a close. There will be winners and losers from this. It is not all good nor all bad.

I think those who are dancing on the NCAA grave are going to be very disappointed with the final results but even so, it may be better the the status quo.

Also, IMO, I think the hand wringing and emotions tied to the issue right now will seem minor compared to when the IRS gets involved. Then we'll see some real changes to college sports. (get ready for the 500 page threads)
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 06:06:23 PM
Well that piece of "journalism" does nothing to move the compensation for athletes argument forward. I think your side of the argument would be better served by thoughtful analysis as opposed to pseudo journalistic, click bait opinions that pander to the NCAA is evil crowd.

Right or wrong the NCAA control of major college basketball and football is coming to a close. There will be winners and losers from this. It is not all good nor all bad.

I think those who are dancing on the NCAA grave are going to be very disappointed with the final results but even so, it may be better the the status quo.

Also, IMO, I think the hand wringing and emotions tied to the issue right now will seem minor compared to when the IRS gets involved. Then we'll see some real changes to college sports. (get ready for the 500 page threads)

Andy Staples has been a long, rationale thinking pragmatist on this subject.  He is also a former player.  He wrote this earlier this year:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.si.com/college-football/2019/05/14/ncaa-working-group-schools-compensation-options-for-athletes


Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 06:09:28 PM
You've said this several times. Curious as to why you believe so.

Because the California law includes the language that the NCAA cannot rule those who athletes that "participate" in the law ineligible. IMO the states do not have the power to dictate NCAA policy as it's a private, national organization.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on October 01, 2019, 06:13:32 PM
Interesting

https://twitter.com/historyrunner/status/1178849636389273600?s=21

LOL of COURSE players and former players are for it. This WILL lead to(eventually), schools paying players directly. The funny thing is, it seems ONLY the general public is so against the NCAA(believe me, I'm not a fan myself). The conferences, and AD's and Universities all seem to be united on this issue. Amazing, isn't it?? So if the NCAA has the backing of their membership, which it seems they do probably unanimously, why should they cave to the general public?? They do that, it pisses off the membership, that's terrible PR if you ask me.

This is actually probably not happening at a great time for those who want it...the NCAA membership has been pleading with the NCAA to get tougher on cheaters etc. Well, if they start taking a hard line stance on that(and the KU allegations are a start), why would they suddenly cave on this??

This seems like an easy compromise IF there needs to be one...Okay star QB, you want to sign a likeness deal, go right ahead, but then you MUST pay for your own schooling(no more scholarship for you), AND oh yeah, you will NOT under any circumstances be eligible to play with your team in the post season. You can watch your teammates participate, but not you. You want the $$ or play in the post season?? take your pick, but you aren't getting both. 100% within the NCAA's rights to do this too. Not a single entity could stop them.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 06:17:00 PM
LOL of COURSE players and former players are for it. This WILL lead to(eventually), schools paying players directly. The funny thing is, it seems ONLY the general public is so against the NCAA(believe me, I'm not a fan myself). The conferences, and AD's and Universities all seem to be united on this issue. Amazing, isn't it?? So if the NCAA has the backing of their membership, which it seems they do probably unanimously, why should they cave to the general public?? They do that, it pisses off the membership, that's terrible PR if you ask me.

This is actually probably not happening at a great time for those who want it...the NCAA membership has been pleading with the NCAA to get tougher on cheaters etc. Well, if they start taking a hard line stance on that(and the KU allegations are a start), why would they suddenly cave on this??

This seems like an easy compromise IF there needs to be one...Okay star QB, you want to sign a likeness deal, go right ahead, but then you MUST pay for your own schooling(no more scholarship for you), AND oh yeah, you will NOT under any circumstances be eligible to play with your team in the post season. You can watch your teammates participate, but not you. You want the $$ or play in the post season?? take your pick, but you aren't getting both. 100% within the NCAA's rights to do this too. Not a single entity could stop them.

Laughable

The universities pleading for tougher regulation is pure PR. If they actually wanted change it would happen
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on October 01, 2019, 06:17:05 PM
Because the California law includes the language that the NCAA cannot rule those who athletes that "participate" in the law ineligible. IMO the states do not have the power to dictate NCAA policy as it's a private, national organization.

Ding ding ding...there isn't a court anywhere that would rule against the NCAA on this. State's can't dictate something like this to a private organization. I think most people think that if more states pass something like this, the NCAA will cave...I really don't think they will, their membership are in lock step with them on this issue.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 06:24:59 PM
Ding ding ding...there isn't a court anywhere that would rule against the NCAA on this. State's can't dictate something like this to a private organization. I think most people think that if more states pass something like this, the NCAA will cave...I really don't think they will, their membership are in lock step with them on this issue.

California over reached, which its wont to do, but the portion of the law that says athletes can profit off NIL is totally legal which would leave the NCAA two choice, reform to accept that standing or rule all California based athletes who profit off NIL ineligible. If enough states enact similar laws the NCAA would be cutting their own throat to make star athletes ineligible
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Uncle Rico on October 01, 2019, 06:25:35 PM
LOL of COURSE players and former players are for it. This WILL lead to(eventually), schools paying players directly. The funny thing is, it seems ONLY the general public is so against the NCAA(believe me, I'm not a fan myself). The conferences, and AD's and Universities all seem to be united on this issue. Amazing, isn't it?? So if the NCAA has the backing of their membership, which it seems they do probably unanimously, why should they cave to the general public?? They do that, it pisses off the membership, that's terrible PR if you ask me.

This is actually probably not happening at a great time for those who want it...the NCAA membership has been pleading with the NCAA to get tougher on cheaters etc. Well, if they start taking a hard line stance on that(and the KU allegations are a start), why would they suddenly cave on this??

This seems like an easy compromise IF there needs to be one...Okay star QB, you want to sign a likeness deal, go right ahead, but then you MUST pay for your own schooling(no more scholarship for you), AND oh yeah, you will NOT under any circumstances be eligible to play with your team in the post season. You can watch your teammates participate, but not you. You want the $$ or play in the post season?? take your pick, but you aren't getting both. 100% within the NCAA's rights to do this too. Not a single entity could stop them.

Why would they cave?  Probably all the lawsuits they’ll have to fight with the multiple states passing laws to allow students to earn off their likeness.  Probably because they don’t want the federal government poking around a not for profit monopoly that rakes in billions.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 01, 2019, 06:36:47 PM
Guru you are way underestimating the PR blowback if the NCAA starts banning multiple schools and players from multiple states. Those schools have fans. Those fans are going to have impact on their schools. Just because members in in lock step now, that doesn’t mean they always will be.

Expect this issue to be managed and players being able to have some rights to profit off their image before this law begins in 2023.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: 79Warrior on October 01, 2019, 07:01:42 PM
Guru you are way underestimating the PR blowback if the NCAA starts banning multiple schools and players from multiple states. Those schools have fans. Those fans are going to have impact on their schools. Just because members in in lock step now, that doesn’t mean they always will be.

Expect this issue to be managed and players being able to have some rights to profit off their image before this law begins in 2023.

This.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 07:16:33 PM
Because the California law includes the language that the NCAA cannot rule those who athletes that "participate" in the law ineligible. IMO the states do not have the power to dictate NCAA policy as it's a private, national organization.

States dictate to private, national organizations all the time. Minimum wage laws dictate how much they have to pay their workers. They impose environmental regulations and health and safety codes. They have anti-discrimination laws that dictate hiring and employment conditions.  They require contractors to use some minority-owned subcontractors on public projects.
The NCAA almost certainly will argue that this is interference with interstate commerce, but with the dominoes falling and other states following California's lead, that may not be a very strong argument for long.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on October 01, 2019, 07:41:31 PM
Andy Staples has been a long, rationale thinking pragmatist on this subject.  He is also a former player.  He wrote this earlier this year:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.si.com/college-football/2019/05/14/ncaa-working-group-schools-compensation-options-for-athletes

Andy has never worked in an athletic dept, or had to deal with these issues firsthand, but he has put an index together on the best foods in college towns for college football fans.  True story.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on October 01, 2019, 07:44:27 PM
California over reached, which its wont to do, but the portion of the law that says athletes can profit off NIL is totally legal which would leave the NCAA two choice, reform to accept that standing or rule all California based athletes who profit off NIL ineligible. If enough states enact similar laws the NCAA would be cutting their own throat to make star athletes ineligible

If you listened to Newsome on our show today to say he over reached and has no grasp of the subject other than platitudes would be kind.  He basically is saying we want to force the NCAA’s hand on this, we have no solution at all, our solution sucks balls, so ncaa you find a better solution because we aren’t smart enough to do it ourselves.  Ready...Go.   And if you don’t do it, well we will have destroyed a system or product as we have done in many other areas, but too bad.

It was cringe worthy. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on October 01, 2019, 07:47:38 PM
What an epic mess this is going to be.  We had Gavin Newsome on the DP show today and his lack of knowledge on the subject and what this will do is staggering.

  read between the lines...Ca needs money...lots of it...he sees "revenue" baby...just sharing the love
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 01, 2019, 07:48:17 PM
  read between the lines...Ca needs money...lots of it...he sees "revenue" baby...just sharing the love

This isn’t going to generate much revenue.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on October 01, 2019, 07:50:50 PM
  the toothpaste is outta the tube
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on October 01, 2019, 07:51:51 PM
This isn’t going to generate much revenue.

  it's for the children though, eenn'er?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Cheeks on October 01, 2019, 08:00:02 PM
  read between the lines...Ca needs money...lots of it...he sees "revenue" baby...just sharing the love

Yup.  That was discussed on the show today.  This is a way to tax and that means revenues.  It was brought up as one of the reasons why they want to do this.  These Guys don’t give a damn about these kids, but more money into state coffers....you got their attention.  E.g Cigarettes = cancer sticks .... no problem....just tax them and look the other way.  If there is a pot of gold at the end of that rainbow, the eyes light up.  Yup, it was definitely one of the subjects on the show.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on October 01, 2019, 08:00:33 PM
The INCREDIBLY well respected Darren Rovell with the grand slam homerun on this...

Darren Rovell
@darrenrovell
·
22h
I’m not arguing for or against college athlete endorsements, but this is what comes with it: 1. The end of the NCAA, 2. Fewer rules, more cheating, 3. Complete professionalization of college sports — players won’t be tied to academics, likely won’t need to go to class.

Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on October 01, 2019, 08:15:18 PM
The INCREDIBLY well respected Darren Rovell with the grand slam homerun on this...

Darren Rovell
@darrenrovell
·
22h
I’m not arguing for or against college athlete endorsements, but this is what comes with it: 1. The end of the NCAA, 2. Fewer rules, more cheating, 3. Complete professionalization of college sports — players won’t be tied to academics, likely won’t need to go to class.

DOOMED! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on October 01, 2019, 08:17:11 PM
The INCREDIBLY well respected Darren Rovell with the grand slam homerun on this...

Darren Rovell
@darrenrovell
·
22h
I’m not arguing for or against college athlete endorsements, but this is what comes with it: 1. The end of the NCAA, 2. Fewer rules, more cheating, 3. Complete professionalization of college sports — players won’t be tied to academics, likely won’t need to go to class.

  no good deed goes unpunished-this is going to be a holy steaming pile of mess

  "send lawyers, guns and money"    lots of it!!
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 08:18:02 PM
The INCREDIBLY well respected Darren Rovell with the grand slam homerun on this...

Darren Rovell
@darrenrovell
·
22h
I’m not arguing for or against college athlete endorsements, but this is what comes with it: 1. The end of the NCAA, 2. Fewer rules, more cheating, 3. Complete professionalization of college sports — players won’t be tied to academics, likely won’t need to go to class.

You lost me at incredibly well respected.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 01, 2019, 08:19:27 PM
You lost me at incredibly well respected.

Lol. Exactly. “The end of the NCAA?”

I mean...how?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on October 01, 2019, 08:22:12 PM
You lost me at incredibly well respected.

so you took him off your Christmas card list
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: rocket surgeon on October 01, 2019, 08:28:20 PM
  up next...high school...ah, what the hell, junior high?  sign em up

not the end of the ncaa, but it's not going to clean anything up.  i just hope i will be able to afford to watch em...on t.v. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on October 01, 2019, 08:42:11 PM
Andy Staples has been a long, rationale thinking pragmatist on this subject.  He is also a former player.  He wrote this earlier this year:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.si.com/college-football/2019/05/14/ncaa-working-group-schools-compensation-options-for-athletes
That was significantly better than the easy and uneducated "let's bash the NCAA because it sells" garbage filling up the internet and newspapers these days.

That said, he, and others, are being disingenuous to paint the issue as though universities are simply opposed to athletes making money. This change will create legitimate inequalities in college sports (mostly basketball and football). Are there already inequalities and illegal payments to athletes? Absolutely.  There are also crimes of theft everyday but that does not justy making theft legal.

Look, Gene Smith conceded today that OSU would benefit the most from this change but he is opposed to it. Why?

I don't care if the NCAA survives. I don't care if student athletes get paid. I care about a level playing field, otherwise it is no different than pro wrestling.

Pure and simple, the California law makes these athletes professionals. (FACT:Stanford golfers will no longer be eligible for the USGA Amatuer Championship). So be it, but the NCAA or the new governing body must institute revenue sharing and salary caps or the house of cards will fall.

Pro sports figured it out years ago so that the Green Bay Packers, KC Royals, etc. could still exist.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Shooter McGavin on October 01, 2019, 08:44:53 PM
Agreed. 
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 08:57:29 PM
If you listened to Newsome on our show today to say he over reached and has no grasp of the subject other than platitudes would be kind.  He basically is saying we want to force the NCAA’s hand on this, we have no solution at all, our solution sucks balls, so ncaa you find a better solution because we aren’t smart enough to do it ourselves.  Ready...Go.   And if you don’t do it, well we will have destroyed a system or product as we have done in many other areas, but too bad.

It was cringe worthy.

I may think Newsome is an idiot but hes spot on, this is about forcing the NCAA's hand  and I 100% support it. The states shouldn't have to have a solution they aren't profiting off the backs of young adults
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 08:58:52 PM
The INCREDIBLY well respected Darren Rovell with the grand slam homerun on this...

Darren Rovell
@darrenrovell
·
22h
I’m not arguing for or against college athlete endorsements, but this is what comes with it: 1. The end of the NCAA, 2. Fewer rules, more cheating, 3. Complete professionalization of college sports — players won’t be tied to academics, likely won’t need to go to class.

Saying Rovell is respected is like saying Maury Povich was a documentarian
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 09:01:06 PM
  up next...high school...ah, what the hell, junior high?  sign em up

not the end of the ncaa, but it's not going to clean anything up.  i just hope i will be able to afford to watch em...on t.v.

18 year olds can fight in endless wars but by all means let's keep them from making some money off their likeness.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 09:03:09 PM
That was significantly better than the easy and uneducated "let's bash the NCAA because it sells" garbage filling up the internet and newspapers these days.

That said, he, and others, are being disingenuous to paint the issue as though universities are simply opposed to athletes making money. This change will create legitimate inequalities in college sports (mostly basketball and football). Are there already inequalities and illegal payments to athletes? Absolutely.  There are also crimes of theft everyday but that does not justy making theft legal.

Look, Gene Smith conceded today that OSU would benefit the most from this change but he is opposed to it. Why?

I don't care if the NCAA survives. I don't care if student athletes get paid. I care about a level playing field, otherwise it is no different than pro wrestling.

Pure and simple, the California law makes these athletes professionals. (FACT:Stanford golfers will no longer be eligible for the USGA Amatuer Championship). So be it, but the NCAA or the new governing body must institute revenue sharing and salary caps or the house of cards will fall.

Pro sports figured it out years ago so that the Green Bay Packers, KC Royals, etc. could still exist.

How? Where is all this money coming from that's going to generate all this inequity? Do you think there is some billionaire OSU donor that's sitting on cash waiting to pay a Justin Fields type to just come to campus?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: muguru on October 01, 2019, 09:05:50 PM
18 year olds can fight in endless wars but by all means let's keep them from making some money off their likeness.

What about the students who aren't athletes who's likenesses are printed all over pamphlet's etc to give to prospective new students??  Shouldn't they also be compensated for their likenesses?? Because I would guarantee, at some point, a normal student will file a lawsuit over something exactly like that.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 09:09:07 PM
  up next...high school...ah, what the hell, junior high?  sign em up

not the end of the ncaa, but it's not going to clean anything up.  i just hope i will be able to afford to watch em...on t.v.

The NCAA has shown little interest (I'm being generous here) in cleaning up college athletics for decades.  Why should the state of California?
And why does "cleaning up" college athletics need to be an outcome for this legislation? This wasn't done to benefit the NCAA or serve its interests.  It was done to benefit the athletes.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Fluffy Blue Monster on October 01, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
What about the students who aren't athletes who's likenesses are printed all over pamphlet's etc to give to prospective new students??  Shouldn't they also be compensated for their likenesses?? Because I would guarantee, at some point, a normal student will file a lawsuit over something exactly like that.


Taking pictures of students in public parts of the campus is perfectly legal. No compensation needed. Oftentimes colleges will pay students for staged photos. Like a gift certificate to the bookstore or something like that.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 09:24:57 PM
And now Illinois is joining the fray.

What's Barry going to do without Illinois and Northwestern to kick around?

https://www.dailyherald.com/sports/20191001/what-if-college-athletes-could-get-paid-here-hillside-legislator-proposes-it
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on October 01, 2019, 09:25:20 PM
What an epic mess this is going to be.  We had Gavin Newsome on the DP show today and his lack of knowledge on the subject and what this will do is staggering.

Politics. As usual.

I may think Newsome is an idiot but hes spot on, this is about forcing the NCAA's hand  and I 100% support it. The states shouldn't have to have a solution they aren't profiting off the backs of young adults

Yep.

What about the students who aren't athletes who's likenesses are printed all over pamphlet's etc to give to prospective new students??  Shouldn't they also be compensated for their likenesses?? Because I would guarantee, at some point, a normal student will file a lawsuit over something exactly like that.

I agree with Sultan, but it wouldn't bother me in the least if a "normal student" profits off his or her likeness. One thing for sure, if that student DOES profit, he or she will not be ruled ineligible for the debate team or the school choir or student media or the dance troupe.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on October 01, 2019, 09:27:19 PM
How? Where is all this money coming from that's going to generate all this inequity? Do you think there is some billionaire OSU donor that's sitting on cash waiting to pay a Justin Fields type to just come to campus?
First, I did not say OSU would benefit the most, Gene Smith did. He did allude to the massive alumni base and corporations in Columbus that would get behind the effort to out spend for the best players. He said that OSU and about four other Power 5 schools will blow away the other 60 in spending for recruits.

This is hardly news. This a proven, known fact related to competitive balance in sports and the ability to provide a product that the public will watch. I don't get why you think anyone is suggesting anything new much less something irrational.

Even Jerry Jones knows that the NFL can not operate as a  pure free market enterprise. If Chicago, New York and LA dominate the NFL and the Cowboys winning the next 25 Super Bowls, most fans (even Cowboy fans) will stop watching and the money will dry up.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: MU82 on October 01, 2019, 09:34:20 PM
First, I did not say OSU would benefit the most, Gene Smith did. He did allude to the massive alumni base and corporations in Columbus that would get behind the effort to out spend for the best players. He said that OSU and about four other Power 5 schools will blow away the other 60 in spending for recruits.

I don't agree with Gene Smith. He is biased on this subject, as so many of us are. I don't know why his view is any more legitimate than Jay Bilas' is. Or yours. Or mine.

It's gonna happen, and it will be sooner than later. So we'll all find out who was "right" and "wrong" here.

All I know is that just about every time there has been a doomsday prediction about something or other "ruining" or "decimating" this sport or that, it has turned out to be a wild exaggeration that did not come true.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: Pakuni on October 01, 2019, 09:36:01 PM
First, I did not say OSU would benefit the most, Gene Smith did. He did allude to the massive alumni base and corporations in Columbus that would get behind the effort to out spend for the best players. He said that OSU and about four other Power 5 schools will blow away the other 60 in spending for recruits.

So what you're saying is that the large, wealthy athletic departments will leverage their ability to outspend their rivals in order to land the top players?
Can't imagine what the college landscape would look like if that happens.
Wait, I can.
From Wetzel's column:

Consider this: In the past three years in football recruiting there have been 97 players ranked as 5-star recruits by Rivals.com. Five schools (Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Ohio State and LSU) signed a combined 55 of them, leaving just 42 for the remaining 125 FBS schools. Five schools got nearly 57 percent of the best players.
The current top five teams in the weekly AP poll? No. 1. Alabama. 2. Clemson. 3. Georgia. 4. Ohio State. 5. LSU.



Shall we talk about what percent of 5-star basketball players wind up at Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kerntukcy and Arizona?
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: mu03eng on October 01, 2019, 09:37:45 PM
What about the students who aren't athletes who's likenesses are printed all over pamphlet's etc to give to prospective new students??  Shouldn't they also be compensated for their likenesses?? Because I would guarantee, at some point, a normal student will file a lawsuit over something exactly like that.

That's governed by public use laws....apples and spaceships
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: TSmith34 on October 01, 2019, 09:52:37 PM
  read between the lines...Ca needs money...lots of it...he sees "revenue" baby...just sharing the love
California has a $21B, as in billion, budget surplus.  But I guess it is easier to spew ignorant misinformation that it is to do even a cursory search.
Title: Re: Well that was a waste
Post by: WhiteTrash on October 01, 2019, 09:53:53 PM