NCAA hypocrites sticking it to "student-athlete" again?

[vogue65]

He shouldn't be punished for wanting to switch schools.

Look, I am all for transfers without waiting a year in residence.  But this is actually an intra-year transfer.  He started the academic year at Ohio State.  He should finish it.

Is an "academe year" started in summer school?

[vogue65]

But are they really?

Say you are a women's high school soccer player from Illinois and you receive a full ride to Stanford, USC, Georgetown, Florida.

You receive ~$200K offset to tuition, room and board. A quality education.  Your earning power from one of those schools ~$2 million over lifetime.  Free equipment. Academic tutoring.  Networking with alumni.  If good enough, chance to showcase for bigger and better things athletically post college.

This continued pity party attack on the NCAA and what kids get in return is a heavily slanted argument.   Does Jimmy Butler get drafted into the NBA without him being exploited by Marquette basketball after playing at a community college?  How much did that exploitation earn Jimmy over a lifetime?  $100M?  Jae Crowder?  Steve Novak? Travis Diener? Jim MacIlvaine?  With the exception of some (not all) of the 1 and dones, the value equation for most revenue sports is also in the SA's favor.  99% of them don't play pro ball, but get all of the above.  Yet the vilification of the NCAA continues.  The money the NCAA brings in, almost all of it goes back to the schools for things like scholarships, opportunities for women and minorities, etc, etc.  As a parent of a possible future female scholarship athlete, it blows my mind that some of the same people screaming about injustice for maybe 20 guys a year are forgetting the 150 THOUSAND + minority and female benefactors of the NCAA contract. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These guys agree to terms and get rewarded heavily for those terms and we get upset because the RULES ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM, the rules they agreed to?

Who wright's the contract?  The student, the NCAA or the institution?  Does the student have any say in the terms?  It is a take it or leave it situation, sort of bullying.

[mu03eng]

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Maybe the NCAA should let the student-athlete play in games but make him audit all of his classes for a year.

[tower912]

Nothing beats a Chicos/Vogue 65 pummeling of a subject. 

[StillAWarrior]

Of course, there's no way this EVER happens, and the NCAA views it as the student marrying the university, not the coach.This would prevent the SA from being punished for something that could not have been reasonably anticipated. Set any arbitrary window of time and let's all agree to be adults about it. Set it in stone so the receiving university compensates the old university for cost of attendance, R&B, etc.

I disagree with the premise that a coaching change is "something that could not have been reasonably anticipated."  If you're signing an NLI and you think that a coaching change can't be reasonably anticipated, you haven't been paying attention.  Hell, the NLI specifically says, "Coaching Changes.  I understand that I have signed the NLI with the institution and nor for a particular sport or coach.  If a coach leaves the institution or the sports program (e.g., not retained, resigns), I remain bound by the provisions of this NLI.  I understand that it is not uncommon for a coach to leave his or her coaching position."  Coaches leave all the time.  It's a stretch to say it's unanticipated.

In the case mentioned in the article at the start of this thread, I think the NCAA should make an exception.  But I don't think that exception should be based on whether or not the coaching change could have been anticipated.  A waiver should be given based upon the fact that it's absolutely absurd to make the determining factor in this case the fact that the kid sought to get a jump on the "student" part of being a student-athlete.

[GGGG]

Is an "academe year" started in summer school?

According to the NCAA, yes.

[mu03eng]

I disagree with the premise that a coaching change is "something that could not have been reasonably anticipated."  If you're signing an NLI and you think that a coaching change can't be reasonably anticipated, you haven't been paying attention.  Hell, the NLI specifically says, "Coaching Changes.  I understand that I have signed the NLI with the institution and nor for a particular sport or coach.  If a coach leaves the institution or the sports program (e.g., not retained, resigns), I remain bound by the provisions of this NLI.  I understand that it is not uncommon for a coach to leave his or her coaching position."  Coaches leave all the time.  It's a stretch to say it's unanticipated.

In the case mentioned in the article at the start of this thread, I think the NCAA should make an exception.  But I don't think that exception should be based on whether or not the coaching change could have been anticipated.  A waiver should be given based upon the fact that it's absolutely absurd to make the determining factor in this case the fact that the kid sought to get a jump on the "student" part of being a student-athlete.

I'm not sure they should make an exception. How would this be different than a football player enrolling in spring semester to be involved in spring practice and then the coach getting fired/leave during that spring semester?

[GGGG]

I disagree with the premise that a coaching change is "something that could not have been reasonably anticipated."  If you're signing an NLI and you think that a coaching change can't be reasonably anticipated, you haven't been paying attention.  Hell, the NLI specifically says, "Coaching Changes.  I understand that I have signed the NLI with the institution and nor for a particular sport or coach.  If a coach leaves the institution or the sports program (e.g., not retained, resigns), I remain bound by the provisions of this NLI.  I understand that it is not uncommon for a coach to leave his or her coaching position."  Coaches leave all the time.  It's a stretch to say it's unanticipated.

In the case mentioned in the article at the start of this thread, I think the NCAA should make an exception.  But I don't think that exception should be based on whether or not the coaching change could have been anticipated.  A waiver should be given based upon the fact that it's absolutely absurd to make the determining factor in this case the fact that the kid sought to get a jump on the "student" part of being a student-athlete.

I have said earlier that every player should be granted one transfer without sitting a year in residence per college career.  Now you can get rid of all exceptions, including the grad transfer one.

But I would not allow this to be an exception.  When you show up and campus and use a scholarship, you are committing for the year. 

That being said, wasn't Brett Roseboro granted a half year when he transferred during the summer?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Why is it funny? You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little forked up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to forkin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

82, go home and get your fing shine box!

[MU82]

82, go home and get your fing shine box!

Dis kid was great. Day used ta call him Spitshine Tommy.

[MU82]

I have said earlier that every player should be granted one transfer without sitting a year in residence per college career.  Now you can get rid of all exceptions, including the grad transfer one.

But I would not allow this to be an exception.  When you show up and campus and use a scholarship, you are committing for the year. 

That being said, wasn't Brett Roseboro granted a half year when he transferred during the summer?

As I think I've told you before, I really like your first proposal. Unfortunately, I believe it has as much chance of passing as the Pope agreeing to become Jewish. NCAA institutions like keeping their thumbs on the "students" just the way they do now. I'd guess it's more likely that they find a way to close the grad transfer "loophole" than to open things up more in this way.

Obviously, we respectfully disagree on this case. And that's OK.

[vogue65]

Let's go back to talking about "smokers".  Let the kids play, let the coaches coach, and get the lawyers and contracts out of the picture.   Oh I  forgot, $$$$$$$.

[rocket surgeon]

Why is it funny? You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little forked up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to forkin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

not to digress even though i am, but isn't this a little joe pesci/tommy devito from goodfellas?

http://www.monologuedb.com/quotes-and-one-liners/goodfellas-tommy-devito/

   

[StillAWarrior]

not to digress even though i am, but isn't this a little joe pesci/tommy devito from goodfellas?

http://www.monologuedb.com/quotes-and-one-liners/goodfellas-tommy-devito/

   

Now that you mention it...it is kind of similar.  Probably just a coincidence; he probably didn't even notice.  I don't think TAMU did either.

[MU82]

not to digress even though i am, but isn't this a little joe pesci/tommy devito from goodfellas?

http://www.monologuedb.com/quotes-and-one-liners/goodfellas-tommy-devito/

   

You'll have to ask my agent.

[B. McBannerson]

How would you feel if this system was implemented in general society? Take from the upper end and give to the lower tier because it's for the benefit of everyone

Isn't already the case to some extent?  The military that defends us all, do we all pay for it equally? How about the schools your kids go to? The roads you drive on?  Some of us pay less, others pay much more. Some pay nothing at all.  This happens today in society at varying degrees.

As it applies to this use case, it is hard for me to understand the going in assumption.  If I go to a Texas game, it is because I want to see Texas play.  As a season ticket holder at Marquette, whether they win or lose, I'm still buying the tickets. Not for one star kid one year, or a bunch of average kids the next year. It is because I want to see MU play and win.  The upside for these kids, including revenue sports, is often because of this alleged exploitive system.  99.9% benefit, .1% you can make an argument are undervalued. Even for that .1%, they often maximize their value in the current system.  Would you disagree with that?  How many high school kids can go to the pros? How many pro teams want to take a chance on a high school kid, where instead even for that .1% the system allows them to showcase talent on their way to earning a lot of money.

[B. McBannerson]

Who wright's the contract?  The student, the NCAA or the institution?  Does the student have any say in the terms?  It is a take it or leave it situation, sort of bullying.

OK, but that is normal every day societal living.  When you buy a plane ticket, you are subject to rules and conditions. Did you get to write those terms or contract?  How about going to the movies, ever look at those terms and conditions?  Your insurance contract for life, home, auto, ever read those? Did you get a chance to write them? 

Or better example, the young person receiving an academic scholarship to a university?  So often this comparison is used that the art major can transfer schools.  Did that art major have a chance to write the rules of the scholarship?

It isn't a right to go to the movies, or buy a plane ticket, or play the harp for a school music program. You either agree to the terms, or take the bus, stay home.  There is no right to play college athletics.  You are not forced to sign a grant in aid. If you don't like the terms or rules, do something else.

[B. McBannerson]

First, almost no SAs in non-revenue sports are receiving full rides. I'm willing to bet that the Stanford track athlete is not getting a full ride.

Also, if there is really only one path to success in the pros (via college athletics) you don't really have much negotiating power to get a fair shake.

And how very socialist of you to say "well we should take from the big time athletes so we can provide for the non-revenue athletes"

Yes and no on the scholarships.  Depends on the division and the sport.  NCAA DI volleyball for women has 12 scholarships.  Those are head count and cannot be split up.  Same goes for women's basketball.  Soccer is different, as it is an equivalency sport where scholarships can be split. Track and field fits the latter definition. So it depends.

But we aren't taking from big time athletes.  The NCAA contract was put into effect with television not knowing who the players will be, only that teams will play.  As we all know, people are just as interested in watching the #14 seed with absolutely no one going to the pros beat a top seeded team.  Each year this proves out. They are watching for the competition, the upsets, the sport of it, not because some future kid is going pro. 

People go to watch teams play, most of those teams have zero players that will make the pros.  ZERO. In other cases it may be 1 kid.  Rare exceptions occur like a Kentucky.  Tickets are bought anyway. Season tickets especially, win or lose. 

There isn't only one path to success to the pros for all sports.  Minor league baseball, minor league hockey, basketball and other leagues exist.  Yes, it is true for football and other sports, but that's the way it goes.  There is no right to play sports in this world. 

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

It would be one thing if the NCAA is consistent, but there nowhere close to that. This also fails to mention the crickets after the North Carolina faux classes scandal, and to be honest, I dont think Smart should have been suspended at all.

https://twitter.com/FauxPelini/status/893521522161274882

[#UnleashSean]

Name one US based player who made an NBA roster without going to a year of college under the current CAN?

Name one player from anywhere who made an NFL roster without going to college.

Brandon Jennings.

[Herman Cain]

Don't agree to things you don't want to obey.

What BB agreed to was that if he did what he did, he'd need to sit out a year in residence.

He agreed to rules, now is upset about it.

Learn.

OK, but that is normal every day societal living.  When you buy a plane ticket, you are subject to rules and conditions. Did you get to write those terms or contract?  How about going to the movies, ever look at those terms and conditions?  Your insurance contract for life, home, auto, ever read those? Did you get a chance to write them? 

Or better example, the young person receiving an academic scholarship to a university?  So often this comparison is used that the art major can transfer schools.  Did that art major have a chance to write the rules of the scholarship?

It isn't a right to go to the movies, or buy a plane ticket, or play the harp for a school music program. You either agree to the terms, or take the bus, stay home.  There is no right to play college athletics.  You are not forced to sign a grant in aid. If you don't like the terms or rules, do something else.

The young man agree to accept an athletic scholarship from The Ohio State University. He elected to start in the summer session which is standard practice for most big time programs. He is transferring mid year in the eyes of the NCAA.

If the kid wanted to truly get a start and yet not be subject to a scholarship,
He could have gone to the local community college and taken a few summer classes there .Until the rules are changed the young man has to live with them.

NCAA is a typical industry self regulatory organization , they are inflexible and full of mediocre people who can't think on their own. It is the same group who would not grant John Dawson an extra year of eligibility after he played 4 minutes.

[vogue65]

Isn't already the case to some extent?  The military that defends us all, do we all pay for it equally? How about the schools your kids go to? The roads you drive on?  Some of us pay less, others pay much more. Some pay nothing at all.  This happens today in society at varying degrees.

As it applies to this use case, it is hard for me to understand the going in assumption.  If I go to a Texas game, it is because I want to see Texas play.  As a season ticket holder at Marquette, whether they win or lose, I'm still buying the tickets. Not for one star kid one year, or a bunch of average kids the next year. It is because I want to see MU play and win.  The upside for these kids, including revenue sports, is often because of this alleged exploitive system.  99.9% benefit, .1% you can make an argument are undervalued. Even for that .1%, they often maximize their value in the current system.  Would you disagree with that?  How many high school kids can go to the pros? How many pro teams want to take a chance on a high school kid, where instead even for that .1% the system allows them to showcase talent on their way to earning a lot of money.

The bogus right wing "rights" argument.   Been there, heard that.   I'll just sit home here tonight with my limited right to life, liberty and try to peruse happiness.  Other than that I'm just at the mercy of the system, got it, thanks.

[vogue65]

The young man agree to accept an athletic scholarship from The Ohio State University. He elected to start in the summer session which is standard practice for most big time programs. He is transferring mid year in the eyes of the NCAA.

If the kid wanted to truly get a start and yet not be subject to a scholarship,
He could have gone to the local community college and taken a few summer classes there .Until the rules are changed the young man has to live with them.

NCAA is a typical industry self regulatory organization , they are inflexible and full of mediocre people who can't think on their own. It is the same group who would not grant John Dawson an extra year of eligibility after he played 4 minutes.

Hay Jackie, we are dealing with absolutist, fundamentalist, cultists.  You can't win playing their game, the deck is stacked, just try your best to navigate a system without love or compassion, but with lots of rules. You have to follow the rules, get it?

[Jay Bee]

Hay Jackie, we are dealing with absolutist, fundamentalist, cultists.  You can't win playing their game, the deck is stacked, just try your best to navigate a system without love or compassion, but with lots of rules. You have to follow the rules, get it?

#BanHammer #Begging #NutJob