MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: sailwi on October 15, 2019, 06:29:37 PM
-
https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state/spartans/2019/10/15/michigan-state-basketball-joey-hauser-ncaa-appeal/3990196002/
Sorry, you transferred those are the rules. There is no dying grandma etc. I didn't like the transfers but in my mind I let it go until this kind of BS.
-
I don’t see any issue with his comments. Seems like he doesn’t expect to get it, but based on some head scratching NCAA decisions, it doesn’t hurt to try.
-
Who?
-
I would be surprised if he got it. The guy from OSU, who didn’t even play at all, didn’t get a waiver and can’t play till 2nd semester for da Vadgers...
-
Who?
I think you were talking about him when you started this thread:
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57531.msg1078359;topicseen#msg1078359
Or was that a different Joey Hauser?
-
I think you were talking about him when you started this thread:
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57531.msg1078359;topicseen#msg1078359
Or was that a different Joey Hauser?
Never heard of him.
-
Trying a different angle? Anybody have any idea what that'd be?
-
Trying a different angle? Anybody have any idea what that'd be?
He wrote the NCAA a letter telling them how they should be doing their job.
-
Trying a different angle? Anybody have any idea what that'd be?
That it was a hardship for him to enter Marquette early, get operated on and treated by doctors and physical therapists who have worked with pro athletes versus staying in high school how he wanted and getting treated by the town veterinarian in The Point.
It's worth a try, right? Izzo has gotten his players out of felony charges and has claimed ignorance on a massive sexual abuse cases right underneath his nose. This is just a parking ticket.
-
Why are you all so invested in this?
-
He wrote the NCAA a letter telling them how they should be doing their job.
He? He who? I thought you never heard of the guy(s) you were slurping all over 9 months ago. You know, the "winners"? What's up with that?
-
Will be interesting to see if he progresses at MSU.
-
He? He who? I thought you never heard of the guy(s) you were slurping all over 9 months ago. You know, the "winners"? What's up with that?
Who?
-
Move along
-
I hope he is successfully granted his waiver.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/e329c206beebf6fbacb7d89fbaf0ba44/tenor.gif)
-
The scoop meltdown would be epic and entertaining. And it would cement Sparty as the #1 team in the country.
-
I hope he is successfully granted his waiver.
I do not. He knew the deal, take responsibility for one’s decisions.
-
This quote was interesting from Izzo:
"What impressed me about Joey is he's a little more physical than I thought, a little more defensive than I thought, "
He was really a liability last year defensively, maybe he is learning.
-
He was really a liability last year defensively, maybe he is learning.
Immature players let their offense affect how they defend. Joey struggled on the offensive end, and it showed on defense.
-
I do not. He knew the deal, take responsibility for one’s decisions.
Joey doesn't issue waivers. I think you should take up your grievance with the member institutions that form the NCAA.
-
I mean, it's not like the NCAA would ever abandon its principles regarding transfers to benefit a high-profile Big 10 program.
Just ask Justin Fields and Shea Patterson.
-
(https://external-preview.redd.it/tHD8JJOMpCfqq_Z_rHPJ4fdaoe1hAVN5kAZxq2-PoX8.jpg?auto=webp&s=f77f3e27ed742627f909a980f21af387afc13a72)
-
I think it’s interesting that Joey mentioned “something came up” in a conversation with Izzo that led to him applying for a waiver, but wouldn’t elaborate other than to say it was a long story. Both the Hausers and Wojo have been tight-lipped about the actual reasons for the transfer. Perhaps the other shoe will drop if he’s granted his waiver.
-
I don’t see any issue with his comments. Seems like he doesn’t expect to get it, but based on some head scratching NCAA decisions, it doesn’t hurt to try.
“When we filed the appeal, I was planning on not playing this year. … It’s something we looked into, and it got my hopes up a little bit,” he said. “You never know. Some guys get it, some guys don’t.”
I'm with you, I see nothing to take issue within his comments. He sounds very realistic. But, when people have jilter lover syndrome...
-
I wonder if one could FOIA the waiver, not from the NCAA but from MSU.... or at least any communications related to said waiver (from an MSU account).
I suppose it would depend on whether you could craft such a request such that it does not raise any health or privacy issues. Perhaps something along the lines of "all communications between Mr. Izzo and _________ (NCAA people) between X and Y dates pertaining to special consideration for the benefit of MSU"
Of course, you could try to FOIA the waiver, but if the waiver request is any way health-related, the request is going to be denied completely; however, if the waiver request was less about Joey and more about other peoples' actions, you might get something, even if it is heavily redacted.
-
The waiver request would be private subject to FERPA law.
-
Dear Mr. NCAA,
Markus didn’t share the ball and Coach didn’t rain him in despite a letter signed by all my teammates and my mom wouldn’t let me play for Coach Gard after a Marquette alum paid her off
Signed,
Joey Hauser
-
All sarcasm aside, Joey has nothing to lose by trying and playing the starting school early argument. Sam may have had a stronger appeal.
That said, Izzo is a slimy as they come based on all the sexual assaults he has continually turned a blind eye towards--and he shouldn't be holding a job of responsibility in a college setting. How did a dead Joe Paterno get vilified and this guy skate free as the Great Izzo on offenses far greater in number?
And that sets up the two camps here: Cheeks in favor of strict adherence of NCAA guidelines or many of us who favor a free market. In between is our fear on both sides is that Slimy Tommy will get his way once again, which will infuriate both camps. And, then there will be the Badger fans who will go anaphylactic if Joey gets cleared while their new stiff didn't.
That said, I agree that all things Hauser should be Superbarred. Good luck to the Hausers.
-
All sarcasm aside, Joey has nothing to lose by trying and playing the starting school early argument. Sam may have had a stronger appeal.
That said, Izzo is a slimy as they come based on all the sexual assaults he has continually turned a blind eye towards--and he shouldn't be holding a job of responsibility in a college setting. How did a dead Joe Paterno get vilified and this guy skate free as the Great Izzo on offenses far greater in number?
And that sets up the two camps here: Cheeks in favor of strict adherence of NCAA guidelines or many of us who favor a free market. In between is our fear on both sides is that Slimy Tommy will get his way once again, which will infuriate both camps. And, then there will be the Badger fans who will go anaphylactic if Joey gets cleared while their new stiff didn't.
That said, I agree that all things Hauser should be Superbarred. Good luck to the Hausers.
Never understood this side of the argument for izzo.
He had nothing to do with the gymnastics program. Why would the head coach of basketball be involved or care about any of that
-
Never understood this side of the argument for izzo.
He had nothing to do with the gymnastics program. Why would the head coach of basketball be involved or care about any of that
He's had, at least, 3 players involved with sexual assault and an assistant coach who is on camera punching a woman in a bar for not taking him up on his advances and never suspended or fired the assistant coach. There is quite a bit of bad that has come out of MSU basketball, not just their gymnastics doctor.
-
Never understood this side of the argument for izzo.
He had nothing to do with the gymnastics program. Why would the head coach of basketball be involved or care about any of that
https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2018/10/11/tom-izzo-speaks-about-michigan-state-sexual-assault-accusations
-
Joey doesn't issue waivers. I think you should take up your grievance with the member institutions that form the NCAA.
Joey did know by entering early he burned a redshirt year. Are you suggesting he didn’t
-
He's had, at least, 3 players involved with sexual assault and an assistant coach who is on camera punching a woman in a bar for not taking him up on his advances and never suspended or fired the assistant coach. There is quite a bit of bad that has come out of MSU basketball, not just their gymnastics doctor.
The ignorance plea and dumbfounding statements in a department lacking institutional control is always an interesting defense too. His victimhood syndrome is quite woeful.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-tom-izzo-aly-raisman-20180121-story.html%3foutputType=amp
-
Izzo is trash and his program is trash and the school is trash
-
Is Sam asking for the same? Whatever excuse Joey uses, Sam could use too.
-
The waiver request would be private subject to FERPA law.
If you know something we don’t, please share.
-
If you know something we don’t, please share.
I don't know anything about the letter. But the letter would likely contain information on Joey that would require it to not be subject to FOIA laws.
-
I don't know anything about the letter. But the letter would likely contain information on Joey that would require it to not be subject to FOIA laws.
Is butt hurt a recognised medical condition?
Just finished a very nice dinner with a very nice bottle of wine.
-
I don't think Joey has to many "smarts"
-
I don't think Joey has to many "smarts"
We have logged this post into the irony records
Signed,
The Internet
-
If I'm Joey, I would do the exact same thing. If a player can find some kind of loophole or precedent that can help him avoid losing a year of eligibility, why not give it a shot? There is zero risk/downside here for Joey. (outside of riling up some jilted Scoopers) Why would this even bother or surprise anyone?
The only thing that surprises me is that we don't see this situation more. Why wouldn't every player who transfers file some kind of appeal? What do they have to lose?
-
If I'm Joey, I would do the exact same thing. If a player can find some kind of loophole or precedent that can help him avoid losing a year of eligibility, why not give it a shot? There is zero risk/downside here for Joey. (outside of riling up some jilted Scoopers) Why would this even bother or surprise anyone?
The only thing that surprises me is that we don't see this situation more. Why wouldn't every player who transfers file some kind of appeal? What do they have to lose?
Agree 100% with this take.
Otherwise, though, my only comment is that this whole thread belongs in the Superbar. The Hausers are no longer Hangin' at the Al. They matter less to Marquette basketball than you and I do.
-
Why do we care again that Joey is seeking a waiver to play immediately? He doesn't play for us anymore and we have a preseason top 25 team. Not to mention the NCAA rules are ridiculous as it is that players are forced to sit for a year by some archaic transfer rule.
-
He doesn't play for us anymore and we have a preseason top 25 team.
Source?
-
He only writes the easy letters.
-
Now Becky’s transfer is lawyered up and appealing.
Kids crying about the rules. Smh
-
Now Becky’s transfer is lawyered up and appealing.
Kids crying about the rules. Smh
And of course, UW and OSU are fine with the kid playing first semester, since it only affects non conference games, and would help.conference RPI if he played.
-
Best part about this article was Izzo calling Joey physical and a better defender than he thought.
Made me laugh.
-
NCAA denies the waiver request, MSU appeals.
https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state/spartans/2019/10/22/michigan-state-basketball-joey-hauser-ncaa/2449391001/
-
NCAA denies the waiver request, MSU appeals.
https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state/spartans/2019/10/22/michigan-state-basketball-joey-hauser-ncaa/2449391001/
.
They publicly say it’s a long shot yet they are still fighting it? That’s has to hurt your case when you call it a long shot.
-
Why do we care again that Joey is seeking a waiver to play immediately? He doesn't play for us anymore and we have a preseason top 25 team. Not to mention the NCAA rules are ridiculous as it is that players are forced to sit for a year by some archaic transfer rule.
Because the rules aren’t archaic, because free agency in college basketball would be a nightmare, and because he should have to sit.
Good for the NCAA denying the request.
-
.
They publicly say it’s a long shot yet they are still fighting it? That’s has to hurt your case when you call it a long shot.
Nothing to lose. With the team Sparty has, a healthy Joey could put them over the top, even coming off the bench and doing nothing but being a spot up shooter.
-
.
They publicly say it’s a long shot yet they are still fighting it? That’s has to hurt your case when you call it a long shot.
Micah Potter of Wisconsin was denied, and he too is appealing. But, Sultan will be here soon to tell us that it's the student athletes right to do so, and we should leave them alone, even though they will be denied again and just waste everyone's time and resources.
-
Nothing to lose. With the team Sparty has, a healthy Joey could put them over the top, even coming off the bench and doing nothing but being a spot up shooter.
Thought I read that one of their front court guys is out until January with a foot issue...same guy that missed a bunch of last season with same foot issue. Could be the motivation to get Joey out there.
-
Langford didn't play against Gonzaga. No down side for MSU to appeal.
edit: Langford out until January.
-
Micah Potter of Wisconsin was denied, and he too is appealing. But, Sultan will be here soon to tell us that it's the student athletes right to do so, and we should leave them alone, even though they will be denied again and just waste everyone's time and resources.
If it helps the team, shouldn’t MSU take every possible step? The NCAA opened this door by head scratching decisions and inconsistency.
-
If it helps the team, shouldn’t MSU take every possible step? The NCAA opened this door by head scratching decisions and inconsistency.
Joey I understand a bit more, you are talking a full year(even though he knew that when he transferred). Micah Potter however has ZERO grounds for appeal(other than, "I can so I'm going to"). His case doesn't meet the criteria to be granted a waiver, and with him, he only has to miss one semester...big deal. Those are the rules, he knew that when he transferred.
-
Micah Potter of Wisconsin was denied, and he too is appealing. But, Sultan will be here soon to tell us that it's the student athletes right to do so, and we should leave them alone, even though they will be denied again and just waste everyone's time and resources.
Yes. The rules allow for an appeal so I’m not sure why you criticize them for actually appealing.
-
Yes. The rules allow for an appeal so I’m not sure why you criticize them for actually appealing.
Murderers, rapists, etc all have the right to keep appealing their verdicts, too...until they run out of appeals, I'm 100% certain you support that too. You're one of these "if i don't get my way, let's sue or appeal until i do get my way" type of people. That speaks volumes.
-
Cut the crap. Joey isn't a criminal and appeals are permitted and cost you nothing. I doubt it matters as I don't think Joey has a case. Bit there is zero reason to lake it a personal attack. Weak sauce.
-
Murderers, rapists, etc all have the right to keep appealing their verdicts, too...until they run out of appeals, I'm 100% certain you support that too. You're one of these "if i don't get my way, let's sue or appeal until i do get my way" type of people. That speaks volumes.
Yes. Our justice system allows criminals to appeal. That is their right and should be respected. So yes I support that as well.
-
Murderers, rapists, etc all have the right to keep appealing their verdicts, too...until they run out of appeals, I'm 100% certain you support that too. You're one of these "if i don't get my way, let's sue or appeal until i do get my way" type of people. That speaks volumes.
Appeals have led to the exoneration of more tha. 150 people on death row and literally hundreds of others serving time for crimes they didn't commit.
muguru thinks appeals are bad.
That speaks volumes.
-
Appeals have led to the exoneration of more tha. 150 people on death row and literally hundreds of others serving time for crimes they didn't commit.
muguru thinks appeals are bad.
That speaks volumes.
Not all appeals are bad, don't put words in my mouth. Appeals are bad and a waste of time and resources when someone knows they are guilty as hell(and the evidence proves that), and still appeal because well..they are trying to hopefully somehow, someway beat the system, like it shouldn't apply to them, even though again, they know they are guilty. In the case of Micah Potter, he KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt he has no case, but just because some others have gotten waivers(even though every case is different), he decides to appeal, for no other reason then he can, so why not just keep appealing until we can't anymore, and maybe if nothing else they will get tired of dealing with me and give me a waiver anyway, even though I don't meet the criteria for one.
That's what this world has become...it's all about wanting something for nothing, being fair and being offended by every little thing, and because someone else got this or that, I should to, even if you don't deserve it. Sultan supports a world like this
-
Yes. Our justice system allows criminals to appeal. That is their right and should be respected. So yes I support that as well.
Go watch more CNN, you also obviously respect them as a viable news source too. Your thoughts and ideas are in lockstep with them. Not surprisingly.
-
Not all appeals are bad, don't put words in my mouth. Appeals are bad and a waste of time and resources when someone knows rthey are guilty as hell(and the evidence proves that), and still appeal because well..they are trying to hopefully somehow, someway beat the system, like it shouldn't apply to them, even though again, they know they are guilty. In the case of Micah Potter, he KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt he has no case, but just because some others have gotten waivers(even though every case is different), he decides to appeal, for no other reason then he can, so why not just keep appealing until we can;t anymore, and maybe if nothing else they will get tired of dealing with me and give me a waiver anyway, even though I don't meet the criteria for one.
That's what this world has become...it's all about wanting something for nothing, being fair and being offended by every little thing, and because someone else got this or that, I should to, even if you don't deserve it. Sultan supports a world like this
Lol @scooptakes
-
So apparently appeals are good when guru says they are good. But bad when guru says they are bad.
What article of the Constitution is that clause listed?
-
Go watch more CNN, you also obviously respect them as a viable news source too. Your thoughts and ideas are in lockstep with them. Not surprisingly.
I haven’t watched cable news in years and will not be starting now. But thanks for the recommendation.
-
Grimes did get a waiver, supposedly because KU didn't have a scholarship for him if he came back. Good on Wojo to have the foresight not to oversign last spring.
-
Grimes did get a waiver, supposedly because KU didn't have a scholarship for him if he came back. Good on Wojo to have the foresight not to oversign last spring.
So Grimes was Self cut?
-
Oh...my apologies, I didn't realize you use the Huffington Post and others like that as your main news source. It all makes sense now.
Pump the brakes buddy and take a deep breath. This thread is about an ncaa transfer waiver.
-
Micah Potter of Wisconsin was denied, and he too is appealing. But, Sultan will be here soon to tell us that it's the student athletes right to do so, and we should leave them alone, even though they will be denied again and just waste everyone's time and resources.
Well since we're not compensating the players yet, it's fortunate the NCAA has a plethora of 'resources' just lying around
-
we should leave them alone, even though they will be denied again and just waste everyone's time and resources.
It's not wasting my resources. I doubt it's wasting yours, either. That's two people whose resources aren't being wasted, so it obviously isn't "everyone's."
And not that a college basketball player wanting to play immediately is even remotely similar to a "criminal" filing an appeal ... but you're right, it's terrible when "criminals" appeal. Especially when they end up being exonerated by DNA evidence or the real criminal being identified, etc.
I know your hero hated it when the Central Park 5 ended up being exonerated. The fact that they weren't executed before they were exonerated ... yet another sign of the wussification of America, right guru?
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpjpXMFPshSYGLm/giphy.gif)
-
Murderers, rapists, etc all have the right to keep appealing their verdicts, too...until they run out of appeals, I'm 100% certain you support that too. You're one of these "if i don't get my way, let's sue or appeal until i do get my way" type of people. That speaks volumes.
Your position is that our judicial systems shouldn't allow for appeals?
-
Sir, this is an Arby's.
-
First time i agree with guru
-
I really hope Micah Potter and Joey get their waivers now.
-
I really hope Micah Potter and Joey get their waivers now.
For the record, I have ZERO issue with Joey getting one, I guess I have to make that clear. Potter has ZERO business getting one, he does NOT meet the standard to get one.
-
For the record, I have ZERO issue with Joey getting one, I guess I have to make that clear. Potter has ZERO business getting one, he does NOT meet the standard to get one.
Really? I would suspect the other way around. Didn’t Potter not play at OSU last year and just stay to complete the semester? I think he has a much stronger case than Joey (without knowing any behind the scenes stuff).
Is it because he’s a Badger he shouldn’t get the waiver? I don’t think either have a strong case, but I can see Potter’s argument.
-
Neither of them meet the standard for a waiver, but comparing the two cases it would be Potter with the better argument. The NCAA responded rather quickly to Joey, as they should...it’s a non-starter from the get go.
-
Not all appeals are bad, don't put words in my mouth. Appeals are bad and a waste of time and resources when someone knows they are guilty as hell(and the evidence proves that), and still appeal because well..they are trying to hopefully somehow, someway beat the system, like it shouldn't apply to them, even though again, they know they are guilty. In the case of Micah Potter, he KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt he has no case, but just because some others have gotten waivers(even though every case is different), he decides to appeal, for no other reason then he can, so why not just keep appealing until we can't anymore, and maybe if nothing else they will get tired of dealing with me and give me a waiver anyway, even though I don't meet the criteria for one.
That's what this world has become...it's all about wanting something for nothing, being fair and being offended by every little thing, and because someone else got this or that, I should to, even if you don't deserve it. Sultan supports a world like this
I support a system that allows people to file appeals when the rules allow it. I don't know why that is strange.
I mean, the concept of appeals has been around in various leagal systems historically for millenia. This isn't something recent.
And yes I want the world to be more fair. I still can't quite understand why that's a problem for you.
-
For the record, I have ZERO issue with Joey getting one, I guess I have to make that clear. Potter has ZERO business getting one, he does NOT meet the standard to get one.
I hope Micah Potter gets his waiver
-
I hope Micah Potter gets his waiver
Of course you do...of course you do Rico..even if it means he would play against MU, go off for 30 and help UW beat MU. That's not what's important though, right?? Not to mention, he'd be getting one unjustly..HE DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA. Hand outs for everyone! That's one of your strongest beliefs Rico.
-
Of course you do...of course you do Rico..even if it means he would play against MU, go off for 30 and help UW beat MU. That's not what's important though, right?? Not to mention, he'd be getting one unjustly..HE DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA. Hand outs for everyone! That's one of your strongest beliefs Rico.
How do you know he doesn't meet the criteria for a waiver?
-
Of course you do...of course you do Rico..even if it means he would play against MU, go off for 30 and help UW beat MU. That's not what's important though, right?? Not to mention, he'd be getting one unjustly..HE DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA. Hand outs for everyone! That's one of your strongest beliefs Rico.
It’s not what’s important. It’s just a basketball game.
-
Bananas! They have both appeal and a peal
-
Sitting here at Columbus Ohio airport at my gate waiting to fly home. Just saw and heard Clark Kellogg talking 20 feet away. Should I ask him what he thinks of Joey's letter writing techniques?
-
I hope Micah Potter gets his waiver
Ditto.
The day when athlete/students no longer have to sit out a year after transferring will come. And college basketball and football will survive, just as they survived all the other things over the last half-century or more that many thought would spell certain doom.
EDIT: fixed typo.
-
Ditto.
The day when athlete/students have to sit out a year after transferring will come. And college basketball and football will survive, just as they survived all the other things over the last half-century or more that many thought would spell certain doom.
It has already came you buffoon!
-
It has already came you buffoon!
Priceless.
-
How do you know he doesn't meet the criteria for a waiver?
Because look at his case, the bylaws are pretty clear. Oh and in case you forgot, you also have said he doesn't meet it. No going back on that now. ;)
-
It has already came you buffoon!
I omitted a word and just edited it.
But yes, now that you mention it, I do feel like a buffoon for having to be corrected by somebody who can't spell and who thinks grammar is the old woman he wants to shtup.
-
This thread sums up our little basketball board quite nicely.
(https://memeshappen.com/media/created/-This-is-why-we-can39t-have-nice-things-meme-27962.jpg)
-
This thread sums up our little basketball board quite nicely.
This board is demonstrably worse than it was even a couple years ago, in my opinion. Almost every thread eventually becomes insufferable, and it's almost always because of the same few posters.
-
Agreed—you have to weed through all the stupidity and agenda seekers to get real MUBB info.
-
This board is demonstrably worse than it was even a couple years ago, in my opinion. Almost every thread eventually becomes insufferable, and it's almost always because of the same few posters.
It directly coincided with Sultan's return...just sayin'
-
It directly coincided with Sultan's return...just sayin'
You're blissfully unaware of irony, aren't you?
-
Didn’t Potter not play at OSU last year and just stay to complete the semester?
No. This is a false narrative people keep reading/believing. He decided during the first semester that he wanted to transfer. His decision, during the semester, not before. So the fact that he didn't transfer until the end of the semester, vs. dropping classes and not advancing his education, is not something that should be praised.. it's like, "duhhhh,... when he decided to not continue playing at that school, he finished up the classes he was already mid-way through and then jetted... " big effin deal.
Sit the year in residence, you turd.
-
You're blissfully unaware of irony, aren't you?
Post of the week.
-
No. This is a false narrative people keep reading/believing. He decided during the first semester that he wanted to transfer. His decision, during the semester, not before. So the fact that he didn't transfer until the end of the semester, vs. dropping classes and not advancing his education, is not something that should be praised.. it's like, "duhhhh,... when he decided to not continue playing at that school, he finished up the classes he was already mid-way through and then jetted... " big effin deal.
Sit the year in residence, you turd.
wondering if he still practiced with OSU the whole semester. Personally, I hope the waiver is granted and Bucky proceeds to lose every game
-
Ditto.
The day when athlete/students no longer have to sit out a year after transferring will come. And college basketball and football will survive, just as they survived all the other things over the last half-century or more that many thought would spell certain doom.
EDIT: fixed typo.
Yes, it will survive just like CART and Indy Car survived for a time, but to what extent. Your scenario will lead to mass chaos and it will “survive”, but teams will be raided by bigger programs, etc. Is that what you want?
-
Yes, it will survive just like CART and Indy Car survived for a time, but to what extent. Your scenario will lead to mass chaos and it will “survive”, but teams will be raided by bigger programs, etc. Is that what you want?
Wow, what a comp. Nice pull. And what a disaster that was. To think there was a point where Indy car was huge and guys like Foyt, Unser(s), Andretti(s), Danny Sullivan and more were household names.
-
Yes, it will survive just like CART and Indy Car survived for a time, but to what extent. Your scenario will lead to mass chaos and it will “survive”, but teams will be raided by bigger programs, etc. Is that what you want?
Dopey, as usual.
What I want is for athletes to have the same freedom of movement that all other students do.
There have been so many "if this happens, it will be the death of college sports" fake worries, and this is just another one.
-
Wow, what a comp. Nice pull. And what a disaster that was. To think there was a point where Indy car was huge and guys like Foyt, Unser(s), Andretti(s), Danny Sullivan and more were household names.
It's a terrible comp for a number of reasons. CART and IRL was about a power struggle over who should run open wheel racing in the United States, which was already struggling with the rise of NASCAR from a regional to a national sport at the time.
Regardless, I'm not sure how that how that has anything to do with college basketball transfers not sitting out a season but whatever...
-
Wow, what a comp. Nice pull. And what a disaster that was. To think there was a point where Indy car was huge and guys like Foyt, Unser(s), Andretti(s), Danny Sullivan and more were household names.
As a grad student at IU we did some work for the Indy motor speedway. It was right before the split, so we got to be in on some of the craziness leading up to it.
One of many examples of stupid ideas taking a sport backward. The amount of damage done was spectacular...but they “survived” for a time.
-
Stupidest break of all-time!! IRL was never going to lose that one!, never ever. Wish i could have placed a bet on that one. They had the Indy 500, game over.
-
Stupidest break of all-time!! IRL was never going to lose that one!, never ever. Wish i could have placed a bet on that one. They had the Indy 500, game over.
Maybe IRL didn't lose, but I don't think anyone was a winner in that fight (except maybe NASCAR).
-
Dopey, as usual.
What I want is for athletes to have the same freedom of movement that all other students do.
There have been so many "if this happens, it will be the death of college sports" fake worries, and this is just another one.
You can see the potential issues that could arise in this situation, though. If there was no transfer penalty Power 6 schools could use mid-majors like AAA affiliates to scoop up rising talent. The Kentuckys and Michigan States of the world would be able to plug that last roster spot with a high quality veteran player each year. Top teams could evolve into college All Star teams, luring away the best players on good but not great teams. We could see Hauser-gate scenarios every year.
Now, I know those scenarios aren't highly like to happen, but it's possible. Personally, I think every player should get one mulligan. Things change when you get to campus, coaching staffs get re-shuffled, teams don't gel as expected, etc. Give kids one chance to re-open their recruitment (while requiring them to finish the current academic period), and let them move on to greener pastures.
That could create more headaches for coaches that need to fill roster spots, but it gives more flexibility to the athletes. The kids deserve a chance to change their mind, and the coaches get paid enough to deal with a little additional recruiting work.
-
What I want is for athletes to have the same freedom of movement that all other students do.
They do have the same freedom of movement that all other students do, PLUS they can be on scholarship right away if they switch to a new school. They are very blessed.
All other students - can transfer and be a student immediately elsewhere.
BBall student-athletes - can transfer and be a student immediately elsewhere.
Very fair, and protects the student-athletes by giving them a year to get acclimated before formal competition. #StudentFirst #ProtectOurYouth
-
Maybe IRL didn't lose, but I don't think anyone was a winner in that fight (except maybe NASCAR).
1. Tony George (of the Hulman family who owns the Indianapolis Motor Speedway) was right to be concerned about the future of open wheel racing. Drivers like Tony Stewart, who was an Indiana native and wanted to be an open wheel racer at the time, couldn't latch on to a CART team because they were focusing more on brining in drivers who couldn't make it in Formula 1.
2. He also had a right to be concerned about his family's major asset, which was getting squeezed financially. This is why he brought NASCAR to the track a couple years earlier, why he developed a championship level golf course around the track, etc.
3. Going nuclear with the CART split was a poor way of managing 1 and 2. You are correct that it benefitted NASCAR the most, but it also helped his family in the long run. It did kill open wheel racing for a generation, and really harmed the reputation of the Indy 500.
4. This still has nothing to do with college basketball players not sitting out a year when transferring.
-
Personally, I think every player should get one mulligan. Things change when you get to campus, coaching staffs get re-shuffled, teams don't gel as expected, etc. Give kids one chance to re-open their recruitment (while requiring them to finish the current academic period), and let them move on to greener pastures.
That could create more headaches for coaches that need to fill roster spots, but it gives more flexibility to the athletes. The kids deserve a chance to change their mind, and the coaches get paid enough to deal with a little additional recruiting work.
Reasonable compromise. A start. I respect this.
-
They do have the same freedom of movement that all other students do, PLUS they can be on scholarship right away if they switch to a new school. They are very blessed.
All other students - can transfer and be a student immediately elsewhere.
BBall student-athletes - can transfer and be a student immediately elsewhere.
Very fair, and protects the student-athletes by giving them a year to get acclimated before formal competition. #StudentFirst #ProtectOurYouth
The Marquette Tribune editor has a full scholarship. If she or he wants to leave to be the editor at the Georgetown Hoya, she or he can, and she or he can get a scholarship to do it, and she or he can be the editor the very next school year. There is no redshirt year.
Nor is there a redshirt year for the drama student, the classical violinist or the brilliant science student.
The athlete should have the exact same freedom of movement. StudentFirst, indeed.
-
Dopey, as usual.
What I want is for athletes to have the same freedom of movement that all other students do.
There have been so many "if this happens, it will be the death of college sports" fake worries, and this is just another one.
That’s so weird. You mean when a basketball player transfers to a new school they aren’t allowed to take classes at the new school like other students can? Since you are comparing to freedom of movement, can provide a source that shows they cannot go to another school just like other students, go to class just like other students. What is this lack of freedom of movement that they cannot do that regular college students can do?
-
That’s so weird. You mean when a basketball player transfers to a new school they aren’t allowed to take classes at the new school like other students can? Since you are comparing to freedom of movement, can provide a source that shows they cannot go to another school just like other students, go to class just like other students. What is this lack of freedom of movement that they cannot do that regular college students can do?
Don't be obtuse. See my above response to BJ.
-
The Marquette Tribune editor has a full scholarship. If she or he wants to leave to be the editor at the Georgetown Hoya, she or he can, and she or he can get a scholarship to do it, and she or he can be the editor the very next school year. There is no redshirt year.
Nor is there a redshirt year for the drama student, the classical violinist or the brilliant science student.
The athlete should have the exact same freedom of movement. StudentFirst, indeed.
Lol. So you are saying the student, be it a basketball player, violinist, drama student or Tribune editor can all transfer to different schools, have complete freedom of movement and be students at new schools right away including their scholarship from day 1. Got it. Glad that canard was laid to rest and with your help, too.
-
Lol. So you are saying the student, be it a basketball player, violinist, drama student or Tribune editor can all transfer to different schools, have complete freedom of movement and be students at new schools right away including their scholarship from day 1. Got it. Glad that canard was laid to rest and with your help, too.
Are you claiming the Marquette Tribune editor couldn't transfer to Georgetown and receive a full scholarship for being the editor of The Hoya the first year after the transfer?
Just because you don't like a fact, just because you wish the fact weren't a fact, it doesn't mean that the fact isn't a fact.
-
Are you claiming the Marquette Tribune editor couldn't transfer to Georgetown and receive a full scholarship for being the editor of The Hoya the first year after the transfer?
Just because you don't like a fact, just because you wish the fact weren't a fact, it doesn't mean that the fact isn't a fact.
You want freedom of movement, and players not having to sit out when they transfer?? This will be great...a kid can play for Dayton on Sunday, decides he doesn't like it there anymore, decide to transfer to Kentucky and play for them Saturday. Yeah, that will be great!
-
Are you claiming the Marquette Tribune editor couldn't transfer to Georgetown and receive a full scholarship for being the editor of The Hoya the first year after the transfer?
Just because you don't like a fact, just because you wish the fact weren't a fact, it doesn't mean that the fact isn't a fact.
You also need to include that the student can be editor of the paper right away. The student doesn’t need to sit out a year from the paper.
Since even in the year the basketball player sits out, they are still on scholarship. Everyone else gets what you mean.
-
Are you claiming the Marquette Tribune editor couldn't transfer to Georgetown and receive a full scholarship for being the editor of The Hoya the first year after the transfer?
Just because you don't like a fact, just because you wish the fact weren't a fact, it doesn't mean that the fact isn't a fact.
You originally said freedom of movement like other students.
Well, you were wrong. Student athletes can move to other schools just like any other students, go to classes, be on scholarship, etc, all on day one at their new school. There is no freedom of movement restriction. You made the wrong claim. Sorry about those facts. Now you want to argue something else.
-
You originally said freedom of movement like other students.
Well, you were wrong. Student athletes can move to other schools just like any other students, go to classes, be on scholarship, etc, all on day one at their new school. There is no freedom of movement restriction. You made the wrong claim. Sorry about those facts. Now you want to argue something else.
Freedom of movement while remaining on full scholarship and not having to sit out a year of active participation in their chosen activity.
That's obviously what I was talking about. But for the denser folk who like to argue for the sake of arguing, I hope that clarifies it.
-
Freedom of movement while remaining on full scholarship and not having to sit out a year of active participation in their chosen activity.
That's obviously what I was talking about. But for the denser folk who like to argue for the sake of arguing, I hope that clarifies it.
They are allowed to practice the first year which requires active participation last I checked. They can attend home games, be in the locker room, etc...work hard, sweat, game plan, and help their team win.
No freedom of movement restrictions. Thanks
-
Freedom of movement while remaining on full scholarship and not having to sit out a year of active participation in their chosen activity.
That's obviously what I was talking about. But for the denser folk who like to argue for the sake of arguing, I hope that clarifies it.
Here's an idea...how about these young adults be punished for making a bad decision?? Isn't that what happens when you're a kid?? or actually anytime in life?? There are consequences for making bad decisions. In this instance the "punishment" is having to sit out a year after you transfer. That seems hardly harsh at all. You aren't going to jail, or paying a fine, or anything else that could could result from making a bad decision.
I mean keep in mind, when kids do transfer, it's not like they are losing a year of eligibility. They just have to sit out a year. I don't get why you are seemingly so against the lessons this could teach them about life. First of all, they shouldn't be "quitting" anyway. Isn't that what you were calling the Hauser's when they decided to transfer?? I know for a fact you were, I remember. You wished them ill will. You don't mind one bit that they have to sit out a year. those are the rules. How can you be so PO'd about them transferring, or as you put it "quitting", yet want players to be able to "quit" anytime they want, and not be punished for it??
That's extremely hypocritical, isn't it??
-
They are allowed to practice the first year which requires active participation last I checked. They can attend home games, be in the locker room, etc...work hard, sweat, game plan, and help their team win.
No freedom of movement restrictions. Thanks
Seek mental help, hoopy.
Here's an idea...how about these young adults be punished for making a bad decision??
So that's what it's about for you? Punishment? Why not just punch them in the face?
Here's an idea...why don't you stop worrying about something that doesn't affect you one iota?
-
What a wonderfully dumb idea. Let schools like MU, and others develop players, and if they are good enough let the cream of the crop poach them their junior and senior years like a minor league system. Sounds awesome. Terrific. What could go wrong? How many schools will say what’s the point as fans are no longer interested in those schools from the player pillaging going on? Terrific idea. Amazing....brilliant.
The rich getting richer again. Oh, and couple this with NIL, so the bidding gets into it so the rich schools with lots of businesses and alumni businesses can load up to buy players that were developed....fantastic. This sounds like it would be great for college basketball. I’m sure a ridiculous comparison to free agency with limited teams and salary caps is coming any second now.
-
How many schools will say what’s the point as fans are no longer interested in those schools from the player pillaging going on?
I'm not against making transfers sit but the answer to this question is zero. Fans haven't been interested at low majors and most mid-majors for years yet only one school has dropped from D1 basketball this decade...and at least a dozen have moved up to D1 basketball.
-
Seek mental help, hoopy.
So that's what it's about for you? Punishment? Why not just punch them in the face?
Here's an idea...why don't you stop worrying about something that doesn't affect you one iota?
Why don't you stop worrying about it...it doesn't affect you one iota either. I have never advocated for punching anyone in the face. But of course you being a journalist, you spin things to fit a false narrative, and to cater to whatever agenda it is you have. Lot of that going on in this country today.
-
A Modest Proposal:
Players can transfer and be immediately eligible if coaches can punch them in the face
-
Here's an idea...why don't you stop worrying about something that doesn't affect you one iota?
That’s going to eliminate about 99.99% of Scoop. The vast majority of things here don’t affect any of us one iota.
-
A Modest Proposal:
Players can transfer and be immediately eligible if coaches can punch them in the face
Like I said, this will be great for guys like you that want it...they can play for Dayton on Sunday, be fed up, transfer to Kentucky and play for them on Saturday. It will be great! Let's goooooooo!
-
Like I said, this will be great for guys like you that want it...they can play for Dayton on Sunday, be fed up, transfer to Kentucky and play for them on Saturday. It will be great! Let's goooooooo!
Yes, that’s what we want, in-season transfers. Has anyone said that?
-
Can we move this to the Superbar?
-
Can we move this to the Superbar?
Behind the Bar.
-
What a wonderfully dumb idea. Let schools like MU, and others develop players, and if they are good enough let the cream of the crop poach them their junior and senior years like a minor league system. Sounds awesome. Terrific. What could go wrong? How many schools will say what’s the point as fans are no longer interested in those schools from the player pillaging going on? Terrific idea. Amazing....brilliant.
The rich getting richer again. Oh, and couple this with NIL, so the bidding gets into it so the rich schools with lots of businesses and alumni businesses can load up to buy players that were developed....fantastic. This sounds like it would be great for college basketball. I’m sure a ridiculous comparison to free agency with limited teams and salary caps is coming any second now.
Nope. Just a "ridiculous comparison" to all of the other things that Chicken Little Liars claimed would ruin or kill big-time, major-revenue college sports over the decades. We could start with Title IX and then go from there.
What's far more likely to hurt a non-blueblood program, of course, is a good coach up and bolting to a blueblood or near-blueblood program. This happens constantly despite a "contract" with a meaningless buyout clause.
What a wonderfully dumb idea. Let schools like MU, and others, find and hire promising coaches, and if they are good enough let the cream of the crop poach them, leaving the school's program in tatters. Sounds awesome. Terrific. What could go wrong? How many schools will say what’s the point as fans are no longer interested in those schools from the coach pillaging going on? Terrific idea. Amazing....brilliant.
The rich getting richer again. Oh, and couple this with the NCAA not giving a rat's rear about major academic fraud so blueblood coaches are empowered even more, and the bidding to poach coaches from non-blueblood programs gets into it so the rich schools with lots of businesses and alumni businesses can load up to buy coaches that were developed....fantastic. This sounds like it would be great for college basketball.
-
Nope. Just a "ridiculous comparison" to all of the other things that Chicken Little Liars claimed would ruin or kill big-time, major-revenue college sports over the decades. We could start with Title IX and then go from there.
What's far more likely to hurt a non-blueblood program, of course, is a good coach up and bolting to a blueblood or near-blueblood program. This happens constantly despite a "contract" with a meaningless buyout clause.
What a wonderfully dumb idea. Let schools like MU, and others, find and hire promising coaches, and if they are good enough let the cream of the crop poach them, leaving the school's program in tatters. Sounds awesome. Terrific. What could go wrong? How many schools will say what’s the point as fans are no longer interested in those schools from the coach pillaging going on? Terrific idea. Amazing....brilliant.
The rich getting richer again. Oh, and couple this with the NCAA not giving a rat's rear about major academic fraud so blueblood coaches are empowered even more, and the bidding to poach coaches from non-blueblood programs gets into it so the rich schools with lots of businesses and alumni businesses can load up to buy coaches that were developed....fantastic. This sounds like it would be great for college basketball.
You continue to push academics as if the NCAA has a say. They are an athletic association. When does that sink into your head?
One coach can be replaced, it happens all the time. Losing 2, 3, 4 talented players on a roster yearly growing into their peak performance of maturity and having to replace them with lesser talented players is the issue.
There is a reason the rule is in place, because it makes sense. Thankfully.
-
Nope. Just a "ridiculous comparison" to all of the other things that Chicken Little Liars claimed would ruin or kill big-time, major-revenue college sports over the decades. We could start with Title IX and then go from there.
What's far more likely to hurt a non-blueblood program, of course, is a good coach up and bolting to a blueblood or near-blueblood program. This happens constantly despite a "contract" with a meaningless buyout clause.
What a wonderfully dumb idea. Let schools like MU, and others, find and hire promising coaches, and if they are good enough let the cream of the crop poach them, leaving the school's program in tatters. Sounds awesome. Terrific. What could go wrong? How many schools will say what’s the point as fans are no longer interested in those schools from the coach pillaging going on? Terrific idea. Amazing....brilliant.
The rich getting richer again. Oh, and couple this with the NCAA not giving a rat's rear about major academic fraud so blueblood coaches are empowered even more, and the bidding to poach coaches from non-blueblood programs gets into it so the rich schools with lots of businesses and alumni businesses can load up to buy coaches that were developed....fantastic. This sounds like it would be great for college basketball.
Based on the arguments of some, they must assume rosters are going to be unlimited.
-
Who would be willing to agree to remove all restrictions on transfers in exchange for a blanket prohibition on compensation (which would include an actual, zero-tolerance crackdown on the dark money as well)?
-
Here's an idea...how about these young adults be punished for making a bad decision??
Hello ScoopTakes
-
Seek mental help, hoopy.
So that's what it's about for you? Punishment? Why not just punch them in the face?
Here's an idea...why don't you stop worrying about something that doesn't affect you one iota?
These people are displaying very powerful Sadistic Bootlicker energy. Extremely creepy!
-
You continue to push academics as if the NCAA has a say. They are an athletic association. When does that sink into your head?
One coach can be replaced, it happens all the time. Losing 2, 3, 4 talented players on a roster yearly growing into their peak performance of maturity and having to replace them with lesser talented players is the issue.
There is a reason the rule is in place, because it makes sense. Thankfully.
Thanks for going on the record as saying that every rule that is in place "makes sense."
It is very good to know that you now love the grad-transfer rule; the NBA's rule that lets teams advance the ball when they call late timeouts; and many other rules that you have railed against but you now obviously love because they are "in place."
Fairly soon, you will love the coming rule that will let athletes profit off their likenesses, something that 66% of Americans support.
Who knew you were so agreeable, hoopy? If it's a rule, and it's in place, it makes sense. Thankfully. Got it!
-
Hello ScoopTakes
Hey tool, you never made a bad decision when you were younger?? And were never punished for it, by the law, your parents, etc?? You drink and drive and get caught you get punished, right?? That's a bad decision.
-
Hey tool, you never made a bad decision when you were younger?? And were never punished for it, by the law, your parents, etc?? You drink and drive and get caught you get punished, right?? That's a bad decision.
Initially choosing a college and transferring to a different one isn’t a “bad decision” that should be punished. Absurd.
-
Hey, at least guru is being honest in his way.
Being forced to sit out a year as "punishment for a bad decision" -- that's how he really feels. He really thinks transferring should be a "punishable offense."
Those who laud the sit-out-a-year rule as a "favor" to the the athlete, that smacks as something disingenuous.
-
I'm not against making transfers sit but the answer to this question is zero. Fans haven't been interested at low majors and most mid-majors for years yet only one school has dropped from D1 basketball this decade...and at least a dozen have moved up to D1 basketball.
You will start to impact more than the mid majors. You will start to impact the high majors as well. Why not let Xavier, MU, Etc find the gems, coach them up rather than take a chance on high school seniors? Throw in the payment aspect, the deep pockets will just buy talent.
This isn’t hard.
-
Throw in the payment aspect, the deep pockets will just buy talent.
You are literally describing what is already happening.
-
You will start to impact more than the mid majors. You will start to impact the high majors as well. Why not let Xavier, MU, Etc find the gems, coach them up rather than take a chance on high school seniors? Throw in the payment aspect, the deep pockets will just buy talent.
This isn’t hard.
1. I was responding to this:
How many schools will say what’s the point as fans are no longer interested in those schools from the player pillaging going on?
So unless your argument is that high majors are going to give up D1 basketball over this, your response isn't relevant to the point I was making.
2. The blue bloods and almost blue bloods can already do this to other high majors with the grad transfer rule. Yet there's only about 1 or 2 grad transfers a year that go from a lesser high major to one of the top programs. Most transfer down or laterally. So even if your top player did get poached, you can go out and replace him.
3. I think the the payment aspect can be regulated properly. We found a way to keep boosters from giving recruits bogus 6 figure internships, I'm sure we can find a way to regulate this as well. Like you I'm a believer in the NCAA.
4. Deep pockets already buy the talent, yet only one school has dropped from D1 in the last decade with over a dozen more rising up to join D1.
-
Hey tool, you never made a bad decision when you were younger?? And were never punished for it, by the law, your parents, etc?? You drink and drive and get caught you get punished, right?? That's a bad decision.
You're right! We must PUNISH anyone that DARES transfer between colleges! And we should treat them like drunk drivers because their situations are VERY similar--put them on trial, jail them, fine them, and take away their privileges! It's the only logical answer!
And if someone miscreant wants to move houses, they NEED to be punished for their bad decisions too!
Don't even get me started on HERETICS that want to change jobs. Suffice it to say, the Salem witches had it EASY in comparison to how they should be PUNISHED!
-
Like I said, this will be great for guys like you that want it...they can play for Dayton on Sunday, be fed up, transfer to Kentucky and play for them on Saturday. It will be great! Let's goooooooo!
Actually, most think that that should be a special rule applicable to Dayton transfers only.
-
You're right! We must PUNISH anyone that DARES transfer between colleges! And we should treat them like drunk drivers because their situations are VERY similar--put them on trial, jail them, fine them, and take away their privileges! It's the only logical answer!
And if someone miscreant wants to move houses, they NEED to be punished for their bad decisions too!
Don't even get me started on HERETICS that want to change jobs. Suffice it to say, the Salem witches had it EASY in comparison to how they should be PUNISHED!
Yeah you're right, that's the way the world is now...whatever people want, we'll just give it to them "here ya go...you get a car! You get a car! You get a car!" So you don't think that when they get out of college, they will never have any BIG decisions to make?? Who to marry, what job to take, how much house can I afford?? You make a bad decision with one of those things, guess what?? there's going to be consequences in some way, shape or form. Are these little kids, or are they young ADULTS??
Learning that, if you make a mistake(sine you don't seemingly like the word bad decision, even though that's what it is), that's okay(we all make them), but..most of the time there's consequences for those mistakes. In this case, you sit out a year. I know you're one of those "let's give everyone a handout" type of people, but guess what?? They are still getting the same scholarship, housing, etc no matter where they transfer too. So they sit out a year?? Maybe by sitting out a year it helps them get acclimated to their new surroundings, so they are truly happy this time and don't want to transfer again. Nah, that can't be.
So, when you are a little kid(which you are implying they are) and you're trying to make a decision on which school you want to attend and continue your athletic career, perhaps, you should make 100% certain(along with your parents), that you are truly making the right choice. Do you like the way the program is run?? Will you get the playing time you desire(if you earn it)?? What about the coaches?? Do you like them?? And most importantly which is so lost on most of these SA's now days, is...do you like the SCHOOL, the city, the academics, the girls etc. Because after all, you SHOULD be committing to the University, NOT the Coach. If he leaves, will you still be happy there?? That to me should be the most important thing that SA's consider above all else. Not enough do. I think that's wrong.
You make a commitment, you stick with it..isn't that what we are taught growing up?? If you marry someone, and you aren't truly happy, are you going to just leave right away, after all you have been through, or are you first going to see if you can try to make it work somehow, and then after that, if all else fails, you can move on.
I know this much, my dad point blank told me growing up, if I played sports at the college level and made a commitment to that school, that was were i was staying. Period. None of this transferring BS. I made a commitment, I stick with it. He wasn't going to hear any of that "but I don't get to play enough etc etc" nonsense.
Much, much, different world we live in now. Sadly enough, a vast majority of society just shrugs their shoulders over things now and just says "oh well, that's the way it is". No one is held responsible anymore. It's sad.
-
1. I was responding to this:
So unless your argument is that high majors are going to give up D1 basketball over this, your response isn't relevant to the point I was making.
2. The blue bloods and almost blue bloods can already do this to other high majors with the grad transfer rule. Yet there's only about 1 or 2 grad transfers a year that go from a lesser high major to one of the top programs. Most transfer down or laterally. So even if your top player did get poached, you can go out and replace him.
3. I think the the payment aspect can be regulated properly. We found a way to keep boosters from giving recruits bogus 6 figure internships, I'm sure we can find a way to regulate this as well. Like you I'm a believer in the NCAA.
4. Deep pockets already buy the talent, yet only one school has dropped from D1 in the last decade with over a dozen more rising up to join D1.
Superb work here, TAMU.
We had many misinformed alarmists talking about the horrors of the grad-transfer rule. When the facts came out, however, we learned that the rule actually has BENEFITED most of the schools that the alarmists had contended were negatively affected by it.
College sports not only would survive but thrive if transfers didn't have to sit out a year. It would be no more of a rich-get-richer situation than we have now, and it wouldn't be the kids who were getting "punished."
That, of course, is only my opinion. Just as the alarmists have their own opinions. What we do know as fact is that on issue after issue after issue over the decades, all of the incremental changes that supposedly were going to "ruin" college basketball (or all of college sports!) ... well, that simply didn't happen.
I'm not as big a believer in the NCAA as you are, but I think it would work out OK despite them!
-
Actually, most think that that should be a special rule applicable to Dayton transfers only.
Players going from D2 to D1 deserve special rules.
-
Speaking of Joey wanting a waiver.....
I see Grimes got his even though he played the entire year for Kansas. I guess he deserved it cuz Kansas recruited over him.
-
Yeah you're right, that's the way the world is now...whatever people want, we'll just give it to them "here ya go...you get a car! You get a car! You get a car!" So you don't think that when they get out of college, they will never have any BIG decisions to make?? Who to marry, what job to take, how much house can I afford?? You make a bad decision with one of those things, guess what?? there's going to be consequences in some way, shape or form. Are these little kids, or are they young ADULTS??
Learning that, if you make a mistake(sine you don't seemingly like the word bad decision, even though that's what it is), that's okay(we all make them), but..most of the time there's consequences for those mistakes. In this case, you sit out a year. I know you're one of those "let's give everyone a handout" type of people, but guess what?? They are still getting the same scholarship, housing, etc no matter where they transfer too. So they sit out a year?? Maybe by sitting out a year it helps them get acclimated to their new surroundings, so they are truly happy this time and don't want to transfer again. Nah, that can't be.
So, when you are a little kid(which you are implying they are) and you're trying to make a decision on which school you want to attend and continue your athletic career, perhaps, you should make 100% certain(along with your parents), that you are truly making the right choice. Do you like the way the program is run?? Will you get the playing time you desire(if you earn it)?? What about the coaches?? Do you like them?? And most importantly which is so lost on most of these SA's now days, is...do you like the SCHOOL, the city, the academics, the girls etc. Because after all, you SHOULD be committing to the University, NOT the Coach. If he leaves, will you still be happy there?? That to me should be the most important thing that SA's consider above all else. Not enough do. I think that's wrong.
You make a commitment, you stick with it..isn't that what we are taught growing up?? If you marry someone, and you aren't truly happy, are you going to just leave right away, after all you have been through, or are you first going to see if you can try to make it work somehow, and then after that, if all else fails, you can move on.
I know this much, my dad point blank told me growing up, if I played sports at the college level and made a commitment to that school, that was were i was staying. Period. None of this transferring BS. I made a commitment, I stick with it. He wasn't going to hear any of that "but I don't get to play enough etc etc" nonsense.
Much, much, different world we live in now. Sadly enough, a vast majority of society just shrugs their shoulders over things now and just says "oh well, that's the way it is". No one is held responsible anymore. It's sad.
I like gladiator movies
-
Yeah you're right, that's the way the world is now...whatever people want, we'll just give it to them "here ya go...you get a car! You get a car! You get a car!" So you don't think that when they get out of college, they will never have any BIG decisions to make?? Who to marry, what job to take, how much house can I afford?? You make a bad decision with one of those things, guess what?? there's going to be consequences in some way, shape or form. Are these little kids, or are they young ADULTS??
Learning that, if you make a mistake(sine you don't seemingly like the word bad decision, even though that's what it is), that's okay(we all make them), but..most of the time there's consequences for those mistakes. In this case, you sit out a year. I know you're one of those "let's give everyone a handout" type of people, but guess what?? They are still getting the same scholarship, housing, etc no matter where they transfer too. So they sit out a year?? Maybe by sitting out a year it helps them get acclimated to their new surroundings, so they are truly happy this time and don't want to transfer again. Nah, that can't be.
So, when you are a little kid(which you are implying they are) and you're trying to make a decision on which school you want to attend and continue your athletic career, perhaps, you should make 100% certain(along with your parents), that you are truly making the right choice. Do you like the way the program is run?? Will you get the playing time you desire(if you earn it)?? What about the coaches?? Do you like them?? And most importantly which is so lost on most of these SA's now days, is...do you like the SCHOOL, the city, the academics, the girls etc. Because after all, you SHOULD be committing to the University, NOT the Coach. If he leaves, will you still be happy there?? That to me should be the most important thing that SA's consider above all else. Not enough do. I think that's wrong.
You make a commitment, you stick with it..isn't that what we are taught growing up?? If you marry someone, and you aren't truly happy, are you going to just leave right away, after all you have been through, or are you first going to see if you can try to make it work somehow, and then after that, if all else fails, you can move on.
I know this much, my dad point blank told me growing up, if I played sports at the college level and made a commitment to that school, that was were i was staying. Period. None of this transferring BS. I made a commitment, I stick with it. He wasn't going to hear any of that "but I don't get to play enough etc etc" nonsense.
Much, much, different world we live in now. Sadly enough, a vast majority of society just shrugs their shoulders over things now and just says "oh well, that's the way it is". No one is held responsible anymore. It's sad.
So your dad used to hit you and give you unreasonable demands.
Sounds like a great guy.
-
I like gladiator movies
Scraps is a boy dog, isn't he?
-
Speaking of Joey wanting a waver.....
I see Grimes got his even though he played the entire year for Kansas. I guess he deserved it cuz Kansas recruited over him.
He probably claimed it didn't count as a year, because Kansas' check bounced.
-
Scraps is a boy dog, isn't he?
“Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?”
-
All right Joey/Quentin et al, you want a consistent rule regarding immediate eligibility, consider this:
A student athlete would be immediately eligible to play for another member institution if the following conditions were met:
1) The coach at the school from which the student-athlete is transferring is fired, resigns or otherwise terminated for cause.
2) The school from which the student-athlete is transferring is placed on probation for violations of NCAA rules and regulations so as to limit or eliminate post-season eligibility.
3) The student-athlete has one year of eligibility remaining and has received his Bachelor's degree at the school from which he is transferring.
4) The school from which the student-athlete is transferring releases the student athlete from the contract governing his scholarship.
Item 4 would allow for hardship cases. Every school has them from time to time. We had them with Duane Wilson and Haanif. Item 3 is today's grad-transfer rule and Items 1 and 2 is very student favorable.
Under this very reasonable rule, neither Joey nor Quentin Grimes would have been allowed to play this year. Sorry Joey, your ego does not qualify for a hardship.
-
I like gladiator movies
Yes. A classic line uttered by Capt. Over Peter Graves in Airplane " Joey do you like Gladiator movies?" As he then succumbed to his fish dinner.
"Shirley you cant be serious"
-
All right Joey/Quentin et al, you want a consistent rule regarding immediate eligibility, consider this:
A student athlete would be immediately eligible to play for another member institution if the following conditions were met:
1) The coach at the school from which the student-athlete is transferring is fired, resigns or otherwise terminated for cause.
2) The school from which the student-athlete is transferring is placed on probation for violations of NCAA rules and regulations so as to limit or eliminate post-season eligibility.
3) The student-athlete has one year of eligibility remaining and has received his Bachelor's degree at the school from which he is transferring.
4) The school from which the student-athlete is transferring releases the student athlete from the contract governing his scholarship.
Item 4 would allow for hardship cases. Every school has them from time to time. We had them with Duane Wilson and Haanif. Item 3 is today's grad-transfer rule and Items 1 and 2 is very student favorable.
Under this very reasonable rule, neither Joey nor Quentin Grimes would have been allowed to play this year. Sorry Joey, your ego does not qualify for a hardship.
Grimes would still be eligible this year. Kansas released him from his scholarship because they filled it with another player and also wrote a letter of recommendation that he be allowed to play immediately.
-
All right Joey/Quentin et al, you want a consistent rule regarding immediate eligibility, consider this:
A student athlete would be immediately eligible to play for another member institution if the following conditions were met:
1) The coach at the school from which the student-athlete is transferring is fired, resigns or otherwise terminated for cause.
2) The school from which the student-athlete is transferring is placed on probation for violations of NCAA rules and regulations so as to limit or eliminate post-season eligibility.
3) The student-athlete has one year of eligibility remaining and has received his Bachelor's degree at the school from which he is transferring.
4) The school from which the student-athlete is transferring releases the student athlete from the contract governing his scholarship.
Item 4 would allow for hardship cases. Every school has them from time to time. We had them with Duane Wilson and Haanif. Item 3 is today's grad-transfer rule and Items 1 and 2 is very student favorable.
Under this very reasonable rule, neither Joey nor Quentin Grimes would have been allowed to play this year. Sorry Joey, your ego does not qualify for a hardship.
Duane graduated to my recollection, not hardship. Did you mean Deonte?
-
Yes
-
So your dad used to hit you and give you unreasonable demands.
Sounds like a great guy.
And we've seen the results.
-
https://youtu.be/M8KdtJOCzOU
-
Why don't you stop worrying about it...it doesn't affect you one iota either.
You asked a serious question, guru, so I will give you a serious answer, with no mud-slinging or name-calling or anything of that sort ...
Because I am for what benefits the young athlete/students who work so hard for my alma mater, who bring me school pride and who provide a lot of entertainment during the college basketball season. To me, it is important that they be treated like their peers, who are allowed to profit off their own likenesses without having to give up eligibility in their chosen activities and who are allowed to attend a different school without having to give up their chosen activities for a year.
I really do understand your reluctance to those concepts, though. The prospect of status quo changing significantly can seem scary.
It's a big reason why there were people at southern schools who were against their schools recruiting black athletes; why there were lots of fans of men's sports who were vocally opposed to women receiving athletic scholarships; why there were people against freshmen being eligible to play varsity college sports; why there were people against athletes being able to go pro before they exhausted their college eligibility; why there were people against college basketball adopting the 3-point line and shot clock; why there were (and still are) people against the grad-transfer rule; etc, etc, etc.
People tend to want to hang onto what they have known, and that's just human nature. But it's pretty important to note that none of those scary changes to the status quo actually "ruined" college sports as many feared they might. Indeed, many would argue that at least some of those things enhanced college sports.
Athletes being able to profit off their own likenesses without having to give up their eligibility won't ruin college sports IMHO. Nor would athletes being able to transfer without having to sit out a season.
College sports are resilient. They have been for well over a century.
-
First, equating those who do not want free transfers to those who did not want african Americans to play sports is a load of crap.
If student athleyes k ow there is no penalty to transfer, the number of transfers wil multiply. IMHO
Second, I feel that allowing NIL in theory wil work. I think the big shoe companies will sign the major players and have them sign exclusive deals. This wil effectively end shoe company deals with schools. Less money to schools. Less money to coaches. Not a problem, spread the wealth. I do see a problem with the NCAA trying to review NIL agreements with local businesses/boosters both before an athlete enrolls and after.
-
First, equating those who do not want free transfers to those who did not want african Americans to play sports is a load of crap.
If student athleyes k ow there is no penalty to transfer, the number of transfers wil multiply. IMHO
Second, I feel that allowing NIL in theory wil work. I think the big shoe companies will sign the major players and have them sign exclusive deals. This wil effectively end shoe company deals with schools. Less money to schools. Less money to coaches. Not a problem, spread the wealth. I do see a problem with the NCAA trying to review NIL agreements with local businesses/boosters both before an athlete enrolls and after.
I wasn't "equating" it to that, or to Title IX, or to other things. I was simply saying that there have been a number of major events/rules/legislation/etc that have happened, and each was preceded by much hand-wringing by many people who didn't want the status quo to change.
As for your worries about what the bad things that the imminent NIL rules might usher in, I agree there will be a feeling-out process that could be uncomfortable for some. I happen to still think it's worth it. You don't. We both have opinions. I side with benefiting the athlete/students. I also believe I'm siding with what's actually gonna happen. Folks can kick and scream and worry and resist, but it sure looks like it's gonna happen anyway.
-
I wasn't "equating" it to that, or to Title IX, or to other things. I was simply saying that there have been a number of major events/rules/legislation/etc that have happened, and each was preceded by much hand-wringing by many people who didn't want the status quo to change.
As for your worries about what the bad things that the imminent NIL rules might usher in, I agree there will be a feeling-out process that could be uncomfortable for some. I happen to still think it's worth it. You don't. We both have opinions. I side with benefiting the athlete/students. I also believe I'm siding with what's actually gonna happen. Folks can kick and scream and worry and resist, but it sure looks like it's gonna happen anyway.
I agree that there will be changes in NIL, and I am curious to see who is willing to budge. Will the agents who were vehement about having to be scrutinized by the NCAA now reconsider? Will the NCAA allow NIL deals once they pass a "clearinghouse? How will those guidelines be determined (what is fair market value, etc?) Will states adopt their own NIL laws, or will there be a federal law? Does this trickle down to high school players as well? Will shoe companies not sponsor college teams anymore? And again, for the record, I am for paying players. I also feel they will be considered employees , which is a good thing, the next time they wish to challenge this.
-
I agree that there will be changes in NIL, and I am curious to see who is willing to budge. Will the agents who were vehement about having to be scrutinized by the NCAA now reconsider? Will the NCAA allow NIL deals once they pass a "clearinghouse? How will those guidelines be determined (what is fair market value, etc?) Will states adopt their own NIL laws, or will there be a federal law? Does this trickle down to high school players as well? Will shoe companies not sponsor college teams anymore? And again, for the record, I am for paying players. I also feel they will be considered employees , which is a good thing, the next time they wish to challenge this.
I share much of your curiosity about where this all goes. And I also think you're right about athlete/students eventually being legally defined as "employees."
Have a good one.
-
I share much of your curiosity about where this all goes. And I also think you're right about athlete/students eventually being legally defined as "employees."
Have a good one.
Lol
Even the 9th circuit has shot that down. Good luck.
-
You're right, I'm a great guy, he did a great job with me....My expectations for MU basketball are high, because I have high expectations for not only myself, but also things I have a lot of passion for.
As far as you go...your socialistic views/beliefs come out in every single post. You're type are what's wrong with society today. It flat out disgusts me. You should be freaking ashamed of yourself for being societies filth. Someone messed up badly with how they raised you, that's for damn sure. That is clearly obvious. If you have kids, I feel sorry for them that you injected them with your poisonous views and beliefs. They are never going to have a chance to be respectful members of society. That's a shame. They deserve better.
Looks like somebody has his cranky pants on today. Either that or he got into mom’s cooking sherry.
-
I share much of your curiosity about where this all goes. And I also think you're right about athlete/students eventually being legally defined as "employees."
Have a good one.
So if they're employees who can leave whenever they want can they also be fired when their employer sees fit? Wouldn't it be awesome if Duke could fire 5 guys at the semester (better yet, 2 weeks before the tournament and hire the 5 best players not playing for Kentucky?
-
So if they're employees who can leave whenever they want can they also be fired when their employer sees fit? Wouldn't it be awesome if Duke could fire 5 guys at the semester (better yet, 2 weeks before the tournament and hire the 5 best players not playing for Kentucky?
Yup
And start to tax those scholarships, and pay taxes in every state they play in like the pro jock taxes. And start to contribute to health care which they currently get for free from the school.
Ahh, those unintended consequences the unicorn brigade rarely contemplates. Going to be awesome.
-
Yup
And start to tax those scholarships, and pay taxes in every state they play in like the pro jock taxes. And start to contribute to health care which they currently get for free from the school.
Ahh, those unintended consequences the unicorn brigade rarely contemplates. Going to be awesome.
Thanks for playing
-
So if they're employees who can leave whenever they want can they also be fired when their employer sees fit? Wouldn't it be awesome if Duke could fire 5 guys at the semester (better yet, 2 weeks before the tournament and hire the 5 best players not playing for Kentucky?
Non compete clauses. Simple fix. Can only fire for cause. Which they do now anyway.
-
Yup
And start to tax those scholarships, and pay taxes in every state they play in like the pro jock taxes. And start to contribute to health care which they currently get for free from the school.
Ahh, those unintended consequences the unicorn brigade rarely contemplates. Going to be awesome.
Yes. Tax them. So?
-
Lol
Even the 9th circuit has shot that down. Good luck.
The FLSA is pretty outdated, as well as the DOL's Field Office Handbook. To quote the 7th Circuit
"The Department of Labor believes that the athletic activities are conducted primarily for the benefit of the participants as a part of the educational opportunities provided to the students by the school or institution, and are not work of the kind contemplated by the FLSA.
We find the FOH's interpretation of the student-athlete experience to be persuasive,"
However, the FOH does state that students who participate in a work-study program and, for example, "work at food service counters or sell programs or usher at athletic events, or who wait on tables or wash dishes in dormitories in anticipation of some compensation" are "generally considered employees under the FLSA."
-
You asked a serious question, guru, so I will give you a serious answer, with no mud-slinging or name-calling or anything of that sort ...
Because I am for what benefits the young athlete/students who work so hard for my alma mater, who bring me school pride and who provide a lot of entertainment during the college basketball season. To me, it is important that they be treated like their peers, who are allowed to profit off their own likenesses without having to give up eligibility in their chosen activities and who are allowed to attend a different school without having to give up their chosen activities for a year.
I really do understand your reluctance to those concepts, though. The prospect of status quo changing significantly can seem scary.
It's a big reason why there were people at southern schools who were against their schools recruiting black athletes; why there were lots of fans of men's sports who were vocally opposed to women receiving athletic scholarships; why there were people against freshmen being eligible to play varsity college sports; why there were people against athletes being able to go pro before they exhausted their college eligibility; why there were people against college basketball adopting the 3-point line and shot clock; why there were (and still are) people against the grad-transfer rule; etc, etc, etc.
People tend to want to hang onto what they have known, and that's just human nature. But it's pretty important to note that none of those scary changes to the status quo actually "ruined" college sports as many feared they might. Indeed, many would argue that at least some of those things enhanced college sports.
Athletes being able to profit off their own likenesses without having to give up their eligibility won't ruin college sports IMHO. Nor would athletes being able to transfer without having to sit out a season.
College sports are resilient. They have been for well over a century.
And I will respond in kind...as with you, it affects me as well from the entertainment of it. One of the reasons I love College BB so much, is because it's NOT pro basketball. It's not about the money. It's about playing for school pride, the fans, their future(potentially) and because they love to play.
Now, I don't necessarily disagree with you that it won't hurt college sports...TO START with. But eventually it will. Why?? Because I'm 90% certain that eventually this will lead to directly paying players straight from the University. Once something like this happens, there's no going back, and it won't be enough. Someone always wants more. That's just the way these things work. I also think an unintended consequence could be a SA's effort. What if instead of giving it their all because that's what it's supposed to be about, now they don't put forth as much, because all they are thinking about/care about is that 100K check that's supposed to be coming net week??
Something else that will be affected..say advertiser A has an agreement with said University for advertising etc. Once this becomes a reality, why wouldn't that same advertiser STOP shelling out x amount of dollars to the University, when it's cheaper for them to just hire the QQB to do an ad spot for them, and they essentially get the same results only less $. Which also means, less revenue for the University, which means...higher ticket prices etc. That WILL happen.
As far as so many people saying this will only affect the top 1% of athletes or whatever. I also disagree there..what if there's a video game based on college sports again?? You are using every single player on that teams name, image or likeness, so you HAVE to compensate every single one of them, don't you?? How is that going to work when the back up tackle is negotiating an unreasonable deal??
-
So do NBA and NFL players not try hard because they get a paycheck? :o
And if the backup tackle wants an unreasonable amount of money from the video game company, he gets left out.
-
So do NBA and NFL players not try hard because they get a paycheck? :o
And if the backup tackle wants an unreasonable amount of money from the video game company, he gets left out.
Workers would try so much harder and be so much happier if they worked for company pride and stopped getting those demotivating paychecks.
-
And I will respond in kind...as with you, it affects me as well from the entertainment of it. One of the reasons I love College BB so much, is because it's NOT pro basketball. It's not about the money. It's about playing for school pride, the fans, their future(potentially) and because they love to play.
Now, I don't necessarily disagree with you that it won't hurt college sports...TO START with. But eventually it will. Why?? Because I'm 90% certain that eventually this will lead to directly paying players straight from the University. Once something like this happens, there's no going back, and it won't be enough. Someone always wants more. That's just the way these things work. I also think an unintended consequence could be a SA's effort. What if instead of giving it their all because that's what it's supposed to be about, now they don't put forth as much, because all they are thinking about/care about is that 100K check that's supposed to be coming net week??
Something else that will be affected..say advertiser A has an agreement with said University for advertising etc. Once this becomes a reality, why wouldn't that same advertiser STOP shelling out x amount of dollars to the University, when it's cheaper for them to just hire the QQB to do an ad spot for them, and they essentially get the same results only less $. Which also means, less revenue for the University, which means...higher ticket prices etc. That WILL happen.
As far as so many people saying this will only affect the top 1% of athletes or whatever. I also disagree there..what if there's a video game based on college sports again?? You are using every single player on that teams name, image or likeness, so you HAVE to compensate every single one of them, don't you?? How is that going to work when the back up tackle is negotiating an unreasonable deal??
So shameturism should continue to exist because it entertains you is a terrible argument
-
Non compete clauses. Simple fix. Can only fire for cause. Which they do now anyway.
Honest question, as I know little about law in general and almost nothing about labor law: when you fire someone for "cause", isn't a "cause" because they are bad at their job?.
And wouldn't "non compete" limit transfers?
-
Honest question, as I know little about law in general and almost nothing about labor law: when you fire someone for "cause", isn't a "cause" because they are bad at their job?.
And wouldn't "non compete" limit transfers?
its state specific, but generally, reasons for cause should be written into their contracts. As for non competes, if the school wishes to release the individual, they should wipe away the non compete. That is why I think scholarshups should be for 4 years, and if the school wishes to release someone from scholarship, they should be immediately eligible.
-
Something else that will be affected..say advertiser A has an agreement with said University for advertising etc. Once this becomes a reality, why wouldn't that same advertiser STOP shelling out x amount of dollars to the University, when it's cheaper for them to just hire the QQB to do an ad spot for them, and they essentially get the same results only less $. Which also means, less revenue for the University, which means...higher ticket prices etc. That WILL happen.
If the athletes are treated the same as employees, the athletes wouldn't even be allowed to sign an NIL deal with the advertiser that already has or had an existing contract with the University. It would be a clear financial conflict of interest that any employee is forbidden to sign into by contract.
-
And I will respond in kind...as with you, it affects me as well from the entertainment of it. One of the reasons I love College BB so much, is because it's NOT pro basketball. It's not about the money. It's about playing for school pride, the fans, their future(potentially) and because they love to play.
Now, I don't necessarily disagree with you that it won't hurt college sports...TO START with. But eventually it will. Why?? Because I'm 90% certain that eventually this will lead to directly paying players straight from the University. Once something like this happens, there's no going back, and it won't be enough. Someone always wants more. That's just the way these things work. I also think an unintended consequence could be a SA's effort. What if instead of giving it their all because that's what it's supposed to be about, now they don't put forth as much, because all they are thinking about/care about is that 100K check that's supposed to be coming net week??
Something else that will be affected..say advertiser A has an agreement with said University for advertising etc. Once this becomes a reality, why wouldn't that same advertiser STOP shelling out x amount of dollars to the University, when it's cheaper for them to just hire the QQB to do an ad spot for them, and they essentially get the same results only less $. Which also means, less revenue for the University, which means...higher ticket prices etc. That WILL happen.
As far as so many people saying this will only affect the top 1% of athletes or whatever. I also disagree there..what if there's a video game based on college sports again?? You are using every single player on that teams name, image or likeness, so you HAVE to compensate every single one of them, don't you?? How is that going to work when the back up tackle is negotiating an unreasonable deal??
Thank you for taking the time to respond and for the tone in which you responded.
Some of the things you worry about happening might indeed happen. But I disagree that any of them would do much if any damage to college sports. Might even make them better.
The good news (IMHO) is that it looks like we'll be able to find out, and fairly soon.
-
Non compete clauses. Simple fix. Can only fire for cause. Which they do now anyway.
Scholarships are guaranteed now for 4 years now.
But but but but coaches don’t have non-compete clauses, says the unicorn brigade...that’s not fair.
-
The FLSA is pretty outdated, as well as the DOL's Field Office Handbook. To quote the 7th Circuit
"The Department of Labor believes that the athletic activities are conducted primarily for the benefit of the participants as a part of the educational opportunities provided to the students by the school or institution, and are not work of the kind contemplated by the FLSA.
We find the FOH's interpretation of the student-athlete experience to be persuasive,"
However, the FOH does state that students who participate in a work-study program and, for example, "work at food service counters or sell programs or usher at athletic events, or who wait on tables or wash dishes in dormitories in anticipation of some compensation" are "generally considered employees under the FLSA."
August of 2019.
“The 9th Circuit ruled that the players’ receipt of scholarships from their schools could trigger no expectation of compensation from the NCAA or PAC-12. Any such expectation could not be grounded on the NCAA’s prohibition on student athletes accepting compensation beyond scholarships limited to the cost of attendance.
Second, said the court, the NCAA and PAC-12 lack the power to hire and fire student athletes. Yes, the NCAA and PAC-12 indirectly exercise some control over student athletes by regulating such things as the players’ living arrangements, athletic eligibility, permissible compensation, and allowable behavior. But that is not the kind of control that matters under the FLSA. It is the schools that select, supervise, and discharge players. The power to make rules that member schools enforce is not equivalent to the power to hire and fire the players ultimately subject to those rules.
Third, the court concluded the arrangement between the NCAA/PAC-12 and the student athletes could not have been either conceived or carried out to dodge the mandates of the FLSA because the NCAA rules were first issued in the 1920s -- over a decade before Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938. The court acknowledged that the “economic reality” of college sports is much different today than it was a hundred years ago, but, by itself, the substantial revenue the student athletes generate for the NCAA/PAC-12 could not resolve whether there was an employment relationship.
The 9th Circuit also rejected the student athletes’ claim that they were employees under the state of California’s wage laws. The court rested its conclusion on a provision of the state’s workers compensation law that excludes student athletes from coverage as employees of the schools for which they play.”
-
So do NBA and NFL players not try hard because they get a paycheck? :o
And if the backup tackle wants an unreasonable amount of money from the video game company, he gets left out.
You want examples of pro players after getting guaranteed contracts decided to cruise after it....happy to provide.
-
You want examples of pro players after getting guaranteed contracts decided to cruise after it....happy to provide.
Unless it's 100% of pro athletes and 0% of college athletes, it's a stupid straw man.
-
Unless it's 100% of pro athletes and 0% of college athletes, it's a stupid straw man.
Interesting standard...so that plays out then with everything here about those comparisons? Duly noted and saved in the memory bank.
-
Interesting standard...so that plays out then with everything here about those comparisons? Duly noted and saved in the memory bank.
In the case of the argument Iceman was making? Yes. The idea that college players will start slacking because of financial interests is a stupid straw man.
-
In the case of the argument Iceman was making? Yes. The idea that college players will start slacking because of financial interests is a stupid straw man.
Don't worry, brewski. The other day, hoopaloop said: There is a reason the rule is in place, because it makes sense. That means he believes that 100% of all rules that have ever been put in place by anybody "make sense."
Ipso fatso, he now is for the grad-transfer rule, and he will be 100% behind whatever NIL policy emerges.
He also has indicated many times over the years that if a survey shows the majority strongly favors something, that thing automatically is "right." And he also backs 100% of things that have been affirmed by courts.
-
In the case of the argument Iceman was making? Yes. The idea that college players will start slacking because of financial interests is a stupid straw man.
It’s interesting the old white male brigade assumes players will slack off and not play hard because they might make some money from NILs.
I find that very interesting indeed
-
Rasheem Dunn's waiver was denied...and Cleveland State's AD wouldn't support him playing right away. Honestly, the AD is right, even though his Coach was fired, and his teammates transferred, he COULD have stayed with the team. This is why kids SHOULD be committing to University's/schools and everything about it rather than just a Coach or the program. That in and of itself would reduce transfer numbers.
Zach Braziller
@NYPost_Brazille
Sources told me Cleveland State AD not supporting Rasheem Dunn playing right away and NCAA decision based on fact he could've stayed at Cleveland State, despite his coach getting fired and his teammates transferring. Mind-boggling.
-
Something else that will be affected..say advertiser A has an agreement with said University for advertising etc. Once this becomes a reality, why wouldn't that same advertiser STOP shelling out x amount of dollars to the University, when it's cheaper for them to just hire the QQB to do an ad spot for them, and they essentially get the same results only less $. Which also means, less revenue for the University, which means...higher ticket prices etc. That WILL happen.
This won't happen because sponsors won't get the same results.
Why, for example, would Nike choose to sponsor only Tua, when they can sponsor Alabama athletics and get Tua AND every other Bama athlete in every sport? They'll get way more screen time sponsoring the uniform every Alabama coach and player wears during games than they ever would by sticking a star player in a commercial ..
for which, by the way, they have to buy the screen time, as opposed to having it provided by ESPN and CBS.
The idea that sponsors are going to abandon their deals with schools to sponsor individual athletes makes zero sense from either an economic or marketing standpoint.
-
Rasheem Dunn's waiver was denied...and Cleveland State's AD wouldn't support him playing right away. Honestly, the AD is right, even though his Coach was fired, and his teammates transferred, he COULD have stayed with the team. This is why kids SHOULD be committing to University's/schools and everything about it rather than just a Coach or the program. That in and of itself would reduce transfer numbers.
Zach Braziller
@NYPost_Brazille
Sources told me Cleveland State AD not supporting Rasheem Dunn playing right away and NCAA decision based on fact he could've stayed at Cleveland State, despite his coach getting fired and his teammates transferring. Mind-boggling.
You must not have supported Koby McEwen, Ed Morrow and Jayce Johnson then. You want those kind of kids on your team that can’t keep a commitment?
-
This won't happen because sponsors won't get the same results.
Why, for example, would Nike choose to sponsor only Tua, when they can sponsor Alabama athletics and get Tua AND every other Bama athlete in every sport? They'll get way more screen time sponsoring the uniform every Alabama coach and player wears during games than they ever would by sticking a star player in a commercial ..
for which, by the way, they have to buy the screen time, as opposed to having it provided by ESPN and CBS.
The idea that sponsors are going to abandon their deals with schools to sponsor individual athletes makes zero sense from either an economic or marketing standpoint.
I agree with you. But part of this is then the athletes can't market their likeness to any athletic companies, because it would be a financial conflict of interest that would be prohibited by University agreements. So the athletes would get no compensation from these sources, and be prohibited from contracting with any other competitors, again financial conflict of interest.
In that case, how long until the athletes say they should be paid from these sponsorships by the University?
-
It’s interesting the old white male brigade assumes players will slack off and not play hard because they might make some money from NILs.
I find that very interesting indeed
You know everyone’s age and racial makeup here? That is interesting.
As a 50+ white male, I can only comment on my history, experience that I have seen. Some players will slack off, some will not. Cannot wait for the scenarios where one guy on the team gets a NIL, and another one who is performing better doesn’t. Or the coach decides to sit a NIL player on the bench and the drama that causes. Oh it is going to be fun. So much fun.
But let’s stop pretending you and others ONLY want NIL. You know that is complete crap. This is just phase 1 for you. That’s how it works and to deny it is ridiculous. People aren’t stupid. 5 years from now it will be more, 10 years from now, more. Etc, etc.
-
its state specific, but generally, reasons for cause should be written into their contracts. As for non competes, if the school wishes to release the individual, they should wipe away the non compete. That is why I think scholarshups should be for 4 years, and if the school wishes to release someone from scholarship, they should be immediately eligible.
Wisconsin employees are "at will" and can be fired for any reason (besides the obvious ones). I was let go from a company for looking for other jobs and my non compete was enforced. I was told my multiple lawyers it would never hold up, but it was only a year and probably not worth fighting if I could do something else.
-
Wisconsin employees are "at will" and can be fired for any reason (besides the obvious ones). I was let go from a company for looking for other jobs and my non compete was enforced. I was told my multiple lawyers it would never hold up, but it was only a year and probably not worth fighting if I could do something else.
This is because you were an at will employee, which is default in Wisconsin and most states. It doesn't mean that a legally enforceable contract requiring cause for termination couldn't be drafted.
-
This won't happen because sponsors won't get the same results.
Why, for example, would Nike choose to sponsor only Tua, when they can sponsor Alabama athletics and get Tua AND every other Bama athlete in every sport? They'll get way more screen time sponsoring the uniform every Alabama coach and player wears during games than they ever would by sticking a star player in a commercial ..
for which, by the way, they have to buy the screen time, as opposed to having it provided by ESPN and CBS.
The idea that sponsors are going to abandon their deals with schools to sponsor individual athletes makes zero sense from either an economic or marketing standpoint.
This is so wrong and I say this as someone that has been in the sponsorship business for 20+ years. I’ve already explained this to you and the efficiency of spending. You literally could not be more wrong on this if you tried.
You can spend $500k on Oklahoma or spend $30k on just a Jalen Hurts deal...are you kidding me? The broad school deals where you get exposure to women’s soccer, tennis, track, men’s lacrosse, etc...those are “throw ins” and the value is small. Simple economics and exposure ROI. Even the revenue sports, you are restricted from doing anything with the star players...but now if you can, why not eliminate the middle man...the university? There is no point in doing a school deal when you can spend much less to get the people you want anyway. Sure, some sponsors will continue to use to do so out of “good will”, but you are crazy to think many will not and others will change their strategy.
Guess who is hurt in that situation? The schools and mostly the non revenue sports. These sponsorships pay for staff positions and resources for the very student athletes you are advocating for.
-
I agree with you. But part of this is then the athletes can't market their likeness to any athletic companies, because it would be a financial conflict of interest that would be prohibited by University agreements. So the athletes would get no compensation from these sources, and be prohibited from contracting with any other competitors, again financial conflict of interest.
In that case, how long until the athletes say they should be paid from these sponsorships by the University?
Well, this ultimately is a slippery slope argument, but is it now your contention that there simply aren't any opportunities out there that don't conflict with university sponsorships?
If so, I don't think that's accurate. What about signing autographs at a sports memorabilia show? Or making a personal appearance at a trade show or car dealership? Or appearing in an ad for a local physical therapy clinic.
I tend to believe there will be opportunities beyond shoe companies. And even then, assuming the California bill is the template, there's nothing that prevents a player from endorsing adidas while playing for a Nike school. He just has to wear Nike apparel for team activities.
But if you're right and there aren't significant opportunities out there, then all the chicken littleism that's gone on here will be for naught and muguru will be elated.
-
You know everyone’s age and racial makeup here? That is interesting.
As a 50+ white male, I can only comment on my history, experience that I have seen. Some players will slack off, some will not. Cannot wait for the scenarios where one guy on the team gets a NIL, and another one who is performing better doesn’t. Or the coach decides to sit a NIL player on the bench and the drama that causes. Oh it is going to be fun. So much fun.
But let’s stop pretending you and others ONLY want NIL. You know that is complete crap. This is just phase 1 for you. That’s how it works and to deny it is ridiculous. People aren’t stupid. 5 years from now it will be more, 10 years from now, more. Etc, etc.
You know what I want 5 to 10 years from now? That’s interesting
-
Well, this ultimately is a slippery slope argument, but is it now your contention that there simply aren't any opportunities out there that don't conflict with university sponsorships?
If so, I don't think that's accurate. What about signing autographs at a sports memorabilia show? Or making a personal appearance at a trade show or car dealership? Or appearing in an ad for a local physical therapy clinic.
I tend to believe there will be opportunities beyond shoe companies. And even then, assuming the California bill is the template, there's nothing that prevents a player from endorsing adidas while playing for a Nike school. He just has to wear Nike apparel for team activities.
But if you're right and there aren't significant opportunities out there, then all the chicken littleism that's gone on here will be for naught and muguru will be elated.
1992 Team USA was sponsored by Reebok and the Nike athletes still got paid
-
This won't happen because sponsors won't get the same results.
Why, for example, would Nike choose to sponsor only Tua, when they can sponsor Alabama athletics and get Tua AND every other Bama athlete in every sport? They'll get way more screen time sponsoring the uniform every Alabama coach and player wears during games than they ever would by sticking a star player in a commercial ..
for which, by the way, they have to buy the screen time, as opposed to having it provided by ESPN and CBS.
The idea that sponsors are going to abandon their deals with schools to sponsor individual athletes makes zero sense from either an economic or marketing standpoint.
It makes a lot of sense if courts rule that a school cannot prohibit a player from obtaining a NIL licensing agreement from whichever shoe company they choose. Makes alot of sense in basketball especially.
-
Well, this ultimately is a slippery slope argument, but is it now your contention that there simply aren't any opportunities out there that don't conflict with university sponsorships?
If so, I don't think that's accurate. What about signing autographs at a sports memorabilia show? Or making a personal appearance at a trade show or car dealership? Or appearing in an ad for a local physical therapy clinic.
I tend to believe there will be opportunities beyond shoe companies. And even then, assuming the California bill is the template, there's nothing that prevents a player from endorsing adidas while playing for a Nike school. He just has to wear Nike apparel for team activities.
But if you're right and there aren't significant opportunities out there, then all the chicken littleism that's gone on here will be for naught and muguru will be elated.
It is not really a slippery slope argument. It is a "what are you going to say when the athletes are still not allowed to partake in these contracts, because of a financial conflict of interest (FCI)?"
If it is enforced the same way as Universities treat everyone else, then, boosters/donors cannot contract with athletes as it is an FCI.
Similar to my previous comments on this issue, all I'm doing is highlighting the significant issues that will arise because of these bills. They will result in Universities having to hire additional counsel, meaning costs will likely significantly rise, and it will again come out of the pocket book of education.
-
You can spend $500k on Oklahoma or spend $30k on just a Jalen Hurts deal...are you kidding me?
I think UCLA's and Lousiville's most recent deals are aboutm 15 million/yr.
-
I think UCLA's and Lousiville's most recent deals are aboutm 15 million/yr.
Wisconsin is getting $96 million over 10 years from Under Armour.
-
This is why kids SHOULD be committing to University's/schools and everything about it rather than just a Coach or the program. That in and of itself would reduce transfer numbers.
Everyone who signs an NLI does just that. It's made VERY clear that you're committing to the school, not a coach, not a team.
Yet when kids get upset or sad, they forget what they agreed to and cry that it's not fair.
If you don't like the rules, don't play.
-
You know what I want 5 to 10 years from now? That’s interesting
You have said point blank college athletics are a shamnesty , that amateurism doesn’t exist and players should be paid. I don’t need to know what you want 5 to 10 years from now, you have stated what you want today. Thanks
-
You have said point blank college athletics are a sham wary, that amateurism doesn’t exist and players should be paid. I don’t need to know what you want 5 to 10 years from now, you have stated what you want today. Thanks
Yes, they should be able to earn off their names and likeness.
-
I think UCLA's and Lousiville's most recent deals are aboutm 15 million/yr.
Those are mostly value in kind deals by providing apparel...there is cash as well, but I’m talking about deals from Verizon, AT&T, energy drinks, soda, banking, etc.
Way way way more efficient spend to only go after certain players than an entire athletic dept. I can spend 1/10 or at least 1/5th the amount without inefficiently spending it on things that have no ROI as an advertiser. The problem is these schools need that money dearly to fund positions, etc.
I am pretty sure I am the only person on this board that has sold millions of dollars in sports sponsorships for professional and collegiate teams, including Marquette and also bought millions of dollars of sponsorships with schools, conferences, venues and pro teams.
Schools will be hurt by this, positions will have to be cut, positions that are there to help student athletes. Or, schools will have to budget for them and take away from somewhere else. Budgets are not endless, and that includes advertisers...if we can save a ton or money to get same ROI, we will.
-
Yes, they should be able to earn off their names and likeness.
You have gone far beyond that already, this is just step one for you.
-
Yes, they should be able to earn off their names and likeness.
BS, you want them to be paid directly, by the Universities. You lied...typical...that runs rampant on the left.
-
Everyone who signs an NLI does just that. It's made VERY clear that you're committing to the school, not a coach, not a team.
Yet when kids get upset or sad, they forget what they agreed to and cry that it's not fair.
If you don't like the rules, don't play.
+1000, Jaybee just won the internet. This thread is DONE. Lock it up.
-
+1000, Jaybee just won the internet. This thread is DONE. Lock it up.
If my child signs a NLI with a university that fails to live up to their end of the bargain, you better believe they should be able to transfer without restriction
That includes the coach leaving. No coach is telling a potential recruit, “I might leave before your eligibility is up.”
LOCK IT UP
-
This is so wrong and I say this as someone that has been in the sponsorship business for 20+ years. I’ve already explained this to you and the efficiency of spending. You literally could not be more wrong on this if you tried.
You can spend $500k on Oklahoma or spend $30k on just a Jalen Hurts deal...are you kidding me?
Well, since you say you're right you must be.
But let me make sure I understand you. You believe Nike would receive more value from sponsoring a single athlete - Jalen Hurts, let's say - than the entire Oklahoma program.
So, you believe they get a better deal by paying Hurts $30K, then spending somewhere around six figures-plus to produce an ad, then spend another six figures every time you want to air that ad. So, airing the ad about 10 times during major broadcasts costs them another $1 million. And then you're showing that ad to an audience during a break in the game when a large chunk of the audience is either looking at their phone, going to the bathroom, getting something to eat, talking with someone, channel surfing or fast forwarding the ads because they're watching on DVR.
You're telling us that's a better investment than spending, let's say $1 million a year, to put a swoosh on the jersey of Hurts' and every one of his teammates, and every one of his coaches, etc., for the audience to see during the game, when they're actually paying attention. And when it costs Nike nothing additional, because ESPN or ABC or Fox is airing this for them.
Hmmm.
If all this were true, why is Nike spending roughly $125 million a year to sponsor NBA jerseys? Why is Rakuten spending $240 million a year to sponsor FC Barcelona's kits? Why is adidas paying the NHL $70 million a year to put its logo on hockey sweaters?
Are these all bad business deals, or do they maybe know a thing or two about getting exposure for their products?
-
Those are mostly value in kind deals by providing apparel...there is cash as well, but I’m talking about deals from Verizon, AT&T, energy drinks, soda, banking, etc.
Way way way more efficient spend to only go after certain players than an entire athletic dept. I can spend 1/10 or at least 1/5th the amount without inefficiently spending it on things that have no ROI as an advertiser. The problem is these schools need that money dearly to fund positions, etc.
I am pretty sure I am the only person on this board that has sold millions of dollars in sports sponsorships for professional and collegiate teams, including Marquette and also bought millions of dollars of sponsorships with schools, conferences, venues and pro teams.
Schools will be hurt by this, positions will have to be cut, positions that are there to help student athletes. Or, schools will have to budget for them and take away from somewhere else. Budgets are not endless, and that includes advertisers...if we can save a ton or money to get same ROI, we will.
Unless the soda company is willing to give up pourage rights, there is little danger they will walk away from school sponsorships
-
If my child signs a NLI with a university that fails to live up to their end of the bargain, you better believe they should be able to transfer without restriction
That includes the coach leaving. No coach is telling a potential recruit, “I might leave before your eligibility is up.”
LOCK IT UP
No, it literally explicitly excludes a coach leaving. Read what you sign. It’s simple.
-
If my child signs a NLI with a university that fails to live up to their end of the bargain, you better believe they should be able to transfer without restriction
That includes the coach leaving. No coach is telling a potential recruit, “I might leave before your eligibility is up.”
LOCK IT UP
They are living up to their end of the bargain by giving them a scholarship, room and board etc...all for free. You're getting taken to the cleaners here Rico. have you had enough yet, or??
-
No, it literally explicitly excludes a coach leaving. Read what you sign. It’s simple.
You’re correct. I did not know that was part of the NLI.
-
They are living up to their end of the bargain by giving them a scholarship, room and board etc...all for free. You're getting taken to the cleaners here Rico. have you had enough yet, or??
You never answered the question about cheering for the transfers on Marquette’s roster?
-
You never answered the question about cheering for the transfers on Marquette’s roster?
LOL Ballgame. :) Let's put it another way, you want hypocrisy at it's finest...YOU as well as many others here that SUPPORT transfers, were PISSED as hell and called the Hausers all sorts of names when they left. Now if you don't find any kind of hypocrisy in that, I wouldn't be surprised.
Yes, I cheer for the transfers that MU has. That doesn't mean I have to like all the transfers. And Jayce is a grad transfer so a little different. You know what too?? McEwen and Morrow played by the rules and sat out a year like they were required to do. They never filed a waiver or complained that it wasn't fair etc.
If you wouldn't make your child hold up his end of the bargain, and stay true to his commitment...that says a lot about you as a dad unfortunately. Instead you'd teach him that "it's okay son, it's okay to cry and whine and complain, we'll try to get our way".
-
LOL Ballgame. :) Let's put it another way, you want hypocrisy at it's finest...YOU as well as many others here that SUPPORT transfers, were PISSED as hell and called the Hausers all sorts of names when they left. Now if you don't find any kind of hypocrisy in that, I wouldn't be surprised.
Yes, I cheer for the transfers that MU has. That doesn't mean I have to like all the transfers. And Jayce is a grad transfer so a little different. You know what too?? McEwen and Morrow played by the rules and sat out a year like they were required to do. They never filed a waiver or complained that it wasn't fair etc.
If you wouldn't make your child hold up his end of the bargain, and stay true to his commitment...that says a lot about you as a dad unfortunately. Instead you'd teach him that "it's okay son, it's okay to cry and whine and complain, we'll try to get our way".
I didn’t call the Hausers any names. I hope Joey gets his waiver. Disappointed they left but that’s their choice.
Thanks for the parenting advice!
-
“We didn’t agree with what we agreed to” is a disgusting stance, but that’s what many do.
-
“We didn’t agree with what we agreed to” is a disgusting stance, but that’s what many do.
How about if the coaches tell the kid and his parents we are going to run the offense through you, and other forms of puffery...just playing devil's advocate
-
Unless the soda company is willing to give up pourage rights, there is little danger they will walk away from school sponsorships
The pourage rights are set, it doesn’t mean they have to support it with advertising. When you go to the concession stand they have you hostage...you want a soda, you buy what they have. I did the 10 year Pepsi deal for Angels stadium and also multiple beer deals (ABC laws prevent alcohol pourage rights in California) with Miller, Heineken, etc.
-
“We didn’t agree with what we agreed to” is a disgusting stance, but that’s what many do.
Bingo....but but but but they were forced and it is a cartel, and poopy pants.
-
Well, since you say you're right you must be.
But let me make sure I understand you. You believe Nike would receive more value from sponsoring a single athlete - Jalen Hurts, let's say - than the entire Oklahoma program.
So, you believe they get a better deal by paying Hurts $30K, then spending somewhere around six figures-plus to produce an ad, then spend another six figures every time you want to air that ad. So, airing the ad about 10 times during major broadcasts costs them another $1 million. And then you're showing that ad to an audience during a break in the game when a large chunk of the audience is either looking at their phone, going to the bathroom, getting something to eat, talking with someone, channel surfing or fast forwarding the ads because they're watching on DVR.
You're telling us that's a better investment than spending, let's say $1 million a year, to put a swoosh on the jersey of Hurts' and every one of his teammates, and every one of his coaches, etc., for the audience to see during the game, when they're actually paying attention. And when it costs Nike nothing additional, because ESPN or ABC or Fox is airing this for them.
Hmmm.
If all this were true, why is Nike spending roughly $125 million a year to sponsor NBA jerseys? Why is Rakuten spending $240 million a year to sponsor FC Barcelona's kits? Why is adidas paying the NHL $70 million a year to put its logo on hockey sweaters?
Are these all bad business deals, or do they maybe know a thing or two about getting exposure for their products?
Good Lord. You are equating an apparel company that provides equipment and clothing for an entire program as core to their business.
Now try again with other school sponsors and categories...QSRs, telecom, banking, beverage, etc. Your examples are tied directly to product worn and used by the teams, they are only one small part of sponsorships.
-
How about if the coaches tell the kid and his parents we are going to run the offense through you, and other forms of puffery...just playing devil's advocate
Does the coach provide that in writing that is legally binding in the same way a kid signs with a school in their legally binding document?
-
Just can’t wait for the days when these 17 year olds announce the signing of an NLI along with signing contract(s) for NIL(s). :-\.