collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

2024 Coaching Carousel by the eagle
[Today at 06:05:16 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Scoop Snoop
[Today at 05:36:13 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Frenns Liquor Depot
[Today at 04:57:21 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by MuMark
[Today at 04:40:13 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by BrewCity83
[Today at 04:40:04 PM]


Where is Marquette? by Dr. Blackheart
[Today at 04:38:52 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 03:24:51 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: Well that was a waste  (Read 206364 times)

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #625 on: September 27, 2019, 08:51:56 PM »
Actually, it has a ton to do with it. One of the reasons for the year in residence is for students to acclimate to the new environment to keep them on track to graduate while they are still a student athlete.

Part of that acclimation is adapting to differences in degree tracks, and catching up on any credits that didn't transfer. So the original reasons for why athletes sit out a year has a ton to do with athletics. It also has a lot to do why graduate transfers can be immediately eligible. The same doesn't apply, in terms of catching up, adjusting, when you are starting over from scratch.

You can stick your head in the sand and ignore these obvious aspects, but then all you are doing is deciding what you believe in and denying any reality that disagrees with your preconceived notion.

Yes, that year in residence is crucial for student athletes.
Unless their sport is golf, tennis, water polo, swimming, diving, fencing, track, cross country, wrestling, softball, crew, lacrosse, field hockey, women's hockey, volleyball or bowling, among others.
Also, unless they play in Division II or III.
But otherwise, very important.


Shooter McGavin

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2678
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #626 on: September 27, 2019, 08:54:41 PM »
Don’t be absurd. No one is arguing that no rules should exist.

But I guess if that’s what you have to resort to...

Ah but these are the absolutes you, Rico, Brew and 82 are espousing.  Anyone who believes that freedom of movement and paying players for their likeness may lead to trouble are “idiots”.  There have been no concessions from you guys.  Nothing has been thought out to its conclusion.  No ideas of how to regulate what you are proposing have been given that would benefit the athletes and the schools. 

 I just wanted to start a discussion on how this could happen with rules.  At least you recognize that it would need to be regulated.   Others are blindly saying that a free for all for student athletes that benefits the players is the only honorable goal, schools be damned.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #627 on: September 27, 2019, 08:59:21 PM »
Nah.

Your lame arguments are easily shot down once it is pointed out that the NCAA doesn’t require a year in residence at the D2 and D3 levels. Nor do they require it in most D1 sports.

So it really has nothing to do with academics.

Any other softballs that I can bang out of the park or are you heading to the showers?

Your statement is an invalid argument. You are starting with the assumption that the NCAA doesn't care about academics, and then using comparisons to D2 and D3 schools (and some D1 sports) as proof. The only variable present is not academics. There are dozens of variables that differentiate the situations. You have thrown out all other variables, and assumed that the only one that matters is the one convenient to you. That is invalid logic.

It does not refute the fact that the year in residence aids in ensuring that a student can adapt to new curriculum and get caught up on any missing credits to stay on track to graduate. That fact is consistent with the stated reasons for requiring a year in residence.

Yes, that year in residence is crucial for student athletes.
Unless their sport is golf, tennis, water polo, swimming, diving, fencing, track, cross country, wrestling, softball, crew, lacrosse, field hockey, women's hockey, volleyball or bowling, among others.
Also, unless they play in Division II or III.
But otherwise, very important.


See above. Incorrect usage of logic.

Uncle Rico

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9608
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #628 on: September 27, 2019, 09:00:11 PM »
 i
Ah but these are the absolutes you, Rico, Brew and 82 are espousing.  Anyone who believes that freedom of movement and paying players for their likeness may lead to trouble are “idiots”.  There have been no concessions from you guys.  Nothing has been thought out to its conclusion.  No ideas of how to regulate what you are proposing have been given that would benefit the athletes and the schools. 

 I just wanted to start a discussion on how this could happen with rules.  At least you recognize that it would need to be regulated.   Others are blindly saying that a free for all for student athletes that benefits the players is the only honorable goal, schools be damned.

I’m not calling those that disagree idiots.  I fully understand the real concerns. 

I’m fine with the one transfer for four/five years of eligibility as a limit.

I’m fine with athletes earning of their skill/likeness and schools not contributing a dime beyond that.

“This is bar none atrocious.  Mitchell cannot shoot either.  What a pile of dung”

Nukem2

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4973
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #629 on: September 27, 2019, 09:01:30 PM »
Ah but these are the absolutes you, Rico, Brew and 82 are espousing.  Anyone who believes that freedom of movement and paying players for their likeness may lead to trouble are “idiots”.  There have been no concessions from you guys.  Nothing has been thought out to its conclusion.  No ideas of how to regulate what you are proposing have been given that would benefit the athletes and the schools. 

 I just wanted to start a discussion on how this could happen with rules.  At least you recognize that it would need to be regulated.   Others are blindly saying that a free for all for student athletes that benefits the players is the only honorable goal, schools be damned.
The proposed Washington law is interesting as it allows payments that are commensurate with the “services” provided by the SA.  NCAA could piggyback on something like that.

The Sultan of Semantics

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11519
  • "Private message me coward" - panda
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #630 on: September 27, 2019, 09:02:35 PM »
Ah but these are the absolutes you, Rico, Brew and 82 are espousing.

Never done that. Very weak.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

The Sultan of Semantics

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11519
  • "Private message me coward" - panda
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #631 on: September 27, 2019, 09:06:24 PM »
Your statement is an invalid argument. You are starting with the assumption that the NCAA doesn't care about academics, and then using comparisons to D2 and D3 schools (and some D1 sports) as proof. The only variable present is not academics. There are dozens of variables that differentiate the situations. You have thrown out all other variables, and assumed that the only one that matters is the one convenient to you. That is invalid logic.

It does not refute the fact that the year in residence aids in ensuring that a student can adapt to new curriculum and get caught up on any missing credits to stay on track to graduate. That fact is consistent with the stated reasons for requiring a year in residence.

See above. Incorrect usage of logic.

Nah. You got caught making a stupid argument and got called out.

I never said the NCAA doesn’t care about academics. They just don’t care all that much. I mean look how much class time athletes miss due to scheduling.

But you are doing a great job mimicking NCAA propaganda. Congrats!!???!!!???
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #632 on: September 27, 2019, 09:09:06 PM »
Here are for facts regarding transfer students.

The average transfer student loses 43% of the credits they obtained at their previous institution. They lose 37% of their credits if they transfer from a public school to another public school, 50% from private to private, and 54% from private to public.

That leads to a significant delay in graduation for any student.

This is particularly true for D1 basketball and football players being instructed by their institution to take low course loads, and focus on courses/degree tracks that are unlikely to successfully transfer to another degree track at a transfer institution, for the purpose of maintaining eligibility.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #633 on: September 27, 2019, 09:12:14 PM »
Nah. You got caught making a stupid argument and got called out.

I never said the NCAA doesn’t care about academics. They just don’t care all that much. I mean look how much class time athletes miss due to scheduling.

But you are doing a great job mimicking NCAA propaganda. Congrats!!???!!!???

It's called facts. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change the fact that they exist. 

Feel free to say anything you want. My purpose is done, to interject a couple facts and logic that contradict common talking points for those thinking somehow the athlete is getting screwed or treated different than a normal student.

Fact is, all students are detrimentally affected from transfer to no fault of their own, and based on somewhat arbitrary rules. In the case of D1 football and basketball players, the rules are there to aid in a student athlete actually being able to obtain a degree, while on scholarship from their final institution.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #634 on: September 27, 2019, 09:12:30 PM »
Your statement is an invalid argument. You are starting with the assumption that the NCAA doesn't care about academics

1. If this had anything to do with academics and the need to adjust after transferring, the NCAA would impose it universally, not just to a handful of sports.

2. The same NCAA you're telling us cares about academics schedules football games during the week, plays games during finals and allows schools to funnel students into sham classes.

Logic dictates the NCAA has other motives for imposing a sit-out year for some athletes, and logic shows it has nothing to do with academics.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #635 on: September 27, 2019, 09:12:54 PM »
Ah but these are the absolutes you, Rico, Brew and 82 are espousing.  Anyone who believes that freedom of movement and paying players for their likeness may lead to trouble are “idiots”.  There have been no concessions from you guys.  Nothing has been thought out to its conclusion.  No ideas of how to regulate what you are proposing have been given that would benefit the athletes and the schools. 

 I just wanted to start a discussion on how this could happen with rules.  At least you recognize that it would need to be regulated.   Others are blindly saying that a free for all for student athletes that benefits the players is the only honorable goal, schools be damned.

So as payment is unequivocally coming based on the minimum six states having passed or in the process of passing likeness rights legislation, would you then advocate for contracts between players and schools to restrict that movement?
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #636 on: September 27, 2019, 09:16:02 PM »


Fact is, all students are detrimentally affected from transfer to no fault of their own, and based on somewhat arbitrary rules. In the case of D1 football and basketball players, the rules are there to aid in a student athlete actually being able to obtain a degree, while on scholarship from their final institution.

The question you absolutely refuse to answer is why, if it's an academic issue, is this rule not imposed on all NCAA athletes?
Please answer.

The Sultan of Semantics

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11519
  • "Private message me coward" - panda
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #637 on: September 27, 2019, 09:16:38 PM »
It's called facts. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't change the fact that they exist. 

Feel free to say anything you want. My purpose is done, to interject a couple facts and logic that contradict common talking points for those thinking somehow the athlete is getting screwed or treated different than a normal student.

Fact is, all students are detrimentally affected from transfer to no fault of their own, and based on somewhat arbitrary rules. In the case of D1 football and basketball players, the rules are there to aid in a student athlete actually being able to obtain a degree, while on scholarship from their final institution.

False. The rules are in place to control the student athlete and the transfer process.

The FACT that it may benefit the student academically doesn’t change the FACT that it’s not why the NCAA has the rule in place.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #638 on: September 27, 2019, 09:22:29 PM »
The question you absolutely refuse to answer is why, if it's an academic issue, is this rule not imposed on all NCAA athletes?
Please answer.

Why, are all the sports and academics the same?  I can show you a TON of data that shows that not to be the case.  Graduation rates, academic eligibility, etc, different in basketball than other sports.  Doesn’t make basketball the worst, but far from the best.

Let’s not also kid ourselves that the pro leagues draft options also play a role on these rules.  Baseball and hockey draft rules are different than football and are different than basketball.  They all play a role in this. 
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #639 on: September 27, 2019, 09:25:23 PM »
Singling out California seems silly. South Carolina, Washington, Colorado, Maryland, and North Carolina are all either looking into similar legislation or changing tax codes to allow something similar. Over the next 4 years, that will likely be the tip of the iceberg. By the time we get to 2023, there will almost certainly be more than a dozen states (and that's probably a conservative number) with different rules all their own. Is the NCAA going to ban a quarter or more of the country?

There is only one answer to that question. The NCAA must come up with their own model to allow players to earn money off their likeness rights. Though I'm curious how we got here when this was about the sanctions coming then not coming now coming again but not in the time promised and probably not to the extent promised and OH MY GOD LOOK OUT GEORGIA TECH!!!

Only one has actually put legislation through it’s state assembly and gotten this far, that’s why.

And no, the NCAA does not HAVE to do this.  They probably will and then years later when college sports is even worse then it is now you guys can all pat yourselves on the back, but the NCAA does not have to do it.  The funding for the NCAA is the basketball television contract from the tournament which is secured revenue into the 2030’s for the association.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #640 on: September 27, 2019, 09:27:07 PM »
Why, are all the sports and academics the same?  I can show you a TON of data that shows that not to be the case.  Graduation rates, academic eligibility, etc, different in basketball than other sports.  Doesn’t make basketball the worst, but far from the best.

Are you saying the kind of person who's likely to play basketball or football is academically different from one who plays golf or water polo?
How so?

Quote
Let’s not also kid ourselves that the pro leagues draft options also play a role on these rules.  Baseball and hockey draft rules are different than football and are different than basketball.  They all play a role in this.

What do draft rules have to do with it?

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #641 on: September 27, 2019, 09:27:43 PM »
1. If this had anything to do with academics and the need to adjust after transferring, the NCAA would impose it universally, not just to a handful of sports.

2. The same NCAA you're telling us cares about academics schedules football games during the week, plays games during finals and allows schools to funnel students into sham classes.

Logic dictates the NCAA has other motives for imposing a sit-out year for some athletes, and logic shows it has nothing to do with academics.

You are unable to prove or show that the existing NCAA transfer rule requiring a year in residence does not academically benefit the student athlete. That is a requirement of any logical argument.

You also ignore other factors differentiating the cases. There are many more variables at play than you are acknowledging. Ignoring other factors at play, to arbitrarily select the factor that supports your argument is faulty logic.

You also ignore the counterpoint to your stance, that the NCAA perhaps doesn't care about the academic performance of D2 and D3 athletes or athletes from other sports, so does not institute the same rules in those cases. Technically, this would neglect other factors differentiating the cases, but you already did that, so excluding this conclusion because it doesn't support your argument is also faulty logic.

I will concede that it is possible that the reason for the rule is not because the NCAA is looking out for the student athlete academically, but one can't conclude that by any logical means as there is no concrete evidence to support that assertion. Especially because the rule indeed is to the academic benefit of the student athlete.

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #642 on: September 27, 2019, 09:28:03 PM »
all due respect cheeks, but this was funny-good one pakman!!

I find humor normally when it is locked in truth, and he badly missed on that one.  It would be like someone here calling you a tooth scraper.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #643 on: September 27, 2019, 09:31:09 PM »
I am sure the B1G won’t miss their Rose Bowl/Football Playoff cash and will walk away from its contractual obligations.

I am sure the So Cal, the tournament of Roses, ABC / ESPN won’t miss all the pasty midwesterners coming into Disneyland, etc, etc and the money generated by the event , too. 

Trivia, the Rose Bowl has been held outside the state of California.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2019, 09:44:35 PM by Cheeks »
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #644 on: September 27, 2019, 09:32:20 PM »
I don't think CA give a sh## if OSU boycotts the state. You on the other hand should quickly move your family away. Can't believe you would work in such a state.

One more year and that is it....the giant cesspool leaving it behind.  Cannot unnatural carnal knowledgeing wait.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #645 on: September 27, 2019, 09:33:13 PM »
.

I also know people.  I knew the girl who did a lot of the schoolwork for the ‘98 Badgers Rose Bowl team, at least the defensive side.  aMaTeUrISM

You continue to paint a brush of the few and extrapolate to all, constantly.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #646 on: September 27, 2019, 09:35:25 PM »
Nah.

Your lame arguments are easily shot down once it is pointed out that the NCAA doesn’t require a year in residence at the D2 and D3 levels. Nor do they require it in most D1 sports.

So it really has nothing to do with academics.

Any other softballs that I can bang out of the park or are you heading to the showers?

D3...LOL.  The club team my son is on routinely beats D3 teams they play.  Let’s get real. 
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #647 on: September 27, 2019, 09:39:35 PM »
Are you saying the kind of person who's likely to play basketball or football is academically different from one who plays golf or water polo?
How so?

What do draft rules have to do with it?

I’m saying the data.....simply the data....shows that graduation rates, academic eligibility differ by sport.  Draw your own conclusions because I am not stating any other than to explain your statement that all sports should have same rules on eligibility is questionable since all sports do not perform the same in that sphere.

Why would ‘t draft rules be part of convo?  Earlier today you dismissed that student athletes are non employees (they aren’t as a matter of settled law) vs coaches (actual employees) should be treated the same in their movement despite the legal differences. That was wrong, for the same reason dismissing draft rules is also wrong.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Shooter McGavin

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2678
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #648 on: September 27, 2019, 09:39:44 PM »
The proposed Washington law is interesting as it allows payments that are commensurate with the “services” provided by the SA.  NCAA could piggyback on something like that.

I’ll have to read it.  Thanks for the information.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9876
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #649 on: September 27, 2019, 09:40:54 PM »
You are unable to prove or show that the existing NCAA transfer rule requiring a year in residence does not academically benefit the student athlete. That is a requirement of any logical argument.

You also ignore other factors differentiating the cases. There are many more variables at play than you are acknowledging. Ignoring other factors at play, to arbitrarily select the factor that supports your argument is faulty logic.

You also ignore the counterpoint to your stance, that the NCAA perhaps doesn't care about the academic performance of D2 and D3 athletes or athletes from other sports, so does not institute the same rules in those cases. Technically, this would neglect other factors differentiating the cases, but you already did that, so excluding this conclusion because it doesn't support your argument is also faulty logic.

I will concede that it is possible that the reason for the rule is not because the NCAA is looking out for the student athlete academically, but one can't conclude that by any logical means as there is no concrete evidence to support that assertion. Especially because the rule indeed is to the academic benefit of the student athlete.

I'm not making that argument.
The rule may very well have academic benefits.. But any such benefits are ancillary to the primary purpose of the rule, which, as Fluffy notes, is to control the movement of athletes in revenue producing/major sports.
Any academic benefit is a nice little distraction that those who are willing to carry the NCAA's water will seize upon, but if that were truly the NCAA's aim, it would impose the rule across the board. The fact they do not - and the athletes upon whom they do choose to impose it - reveals the true intent.

Shall I assume that you'll continue to dodge my question?

 

feedback