|
Burn down the NCAA. I hope more schools follow suit and attack the NCAA from multiple angles at once.
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
I think unionizing is the way to go. Right now, the only people talking about paying players is coming for the media and there are so many things a union or organization of players can accomplish other than pay for athletes. For one, eliminating the the three year rule. Right now it serves no purpose. Its even more ridiculous in basketball with the one year rule. Could you imagine if Lebron spent a year in college? Plenty of NBA athletes are ready right out of high school. Its a ridiculous system of collusion. I think that NCAA athletes of all sports shouldn't have to be afraid of losing their scholarship year to year, or be prevented from moving on when they clearly have the talent too. Clowney, Winston, Bridgewater, Luck, etc. How many of these guys would have been first rounders despite the extra year in college? Its not just pay, its about being appropriately compensated and not being beholden to a system that literally gives you no other choice. The NCAA rules are designed to force a player to stay at the school they initially commit too. All in all, if this results in the collapse of college football then I am fine. What will happen is the top 80 or so school will form their own teams, and still be tax free and basically we will have what college football has been moving towards for years, 4-5 super conferences with the top tier teams that can pay to sustain a few other teams. They can design the system however they want and basically create a true minor league NFL. Then you will have another 80 or so colleges that will have student athletes in the sense that it was initially envisioned.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Anyone want to post the Sarah Ganim article about the reading levels of college athletes. Apparently graduating from UNC gets you the ability to read at the 3rd grade level and not much else. Good thing they have access to this education!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
I think a lot of people are equating unionizing with getting paid, and that isn't the case. Currently the NCAA unilaterally makes the rules and students have little to no recourse with any punishment they are given for violations of NCAA rules. There have been tons of documented cases of unfair and unequal treatment when players break rules. Not only does the NCAA treat schools unequally, but also the players. In fact, the NCAA is notorious for coming at a school or player even harder when they appeal. Having the players have the ability to negotiate some of these rules, and have a fair and unbiased appeal process would be a huge step towards improving the college football system. edit: beaten by the above, and I am sure the article is much more explicative than I was.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Femur posted:Well you see, universities are enlightened places of learning. Rick Perry would rather die than work for UT.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Open transfer in general is a tough subject because if you don't limit it in some way teams would have to just be assembled from free agents every season. Well, they did say you would only have a one-time chance. So you can transfer anywhere once without penalty, but afterwards maybe they would institute the sit out a year part. Actually, that might work. Say you go to Texas for your first year and are red-shirted. It becomes clear that you aren't going to be a starter or see much time, so year two you transfer and can play immediately at TCU. If you don't like it, then you would have to sit out your junior year and play your senior year at Nebraska. The tricky part is that credits don't always transfer and such, but I think that would be one way of doing it. I think maybe (emphasis on maybe, not sure yet) that a ban on transferring within conference or a scheduled opponent in the next two years wouldn't be a bad idea. I mean, schemes in college do change a lot, so I doubt you would see teams picking up players just for the inside info, but I can see how tampering on the side of the coaches might become an issue, and you want to insulate the kid from that. I think if a player wanted to go to a scheduled school, he should be able to appeal to some body and say why. Often times players are transferring to be closer to family, and a guy shouldn't be forced to play at Arkansas St. when he can easily play at Arkansas. I just think the rules on transferring need to be changed significantly and the player should have a little more freedom where he goes without sacrficing his potential as a professional athlete.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I'm more thinking about the opposite situation. You go to, say, Houston and redshirt, and then have a breakout sophomore year. Suddenly you're getting calls from A&M and Texas about transferring up to the big leagues. Ahh, yeah, that part could be an issue. Maybe a rule could be made that if you are a starter you have to demonstrate why you want to transfer to a joint committee. Or just say if you are a starter, or played a full season (or certain percentage of a season) then you have to sit out a year. Also, I think the potential of making scholarships 4 years instead of year to year would help mitigate that. If you are that good that teams are recruiting, you have a pretty good shot at getting drafted and most guys are going to choose money over the small chance they can win a NCG.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
HappyHelmet posted:I think it depends on the position. QBs absolutely need time to grow, but a lot of RBs would probably benefit from having less college wear on their bodies. RB might be the only position that most players could jump straight to the NFL from high school. Linemen definitely need time to grow, hell most of them focus on putting on weight once they enter the NFL as it is now. CB might be another position that would have the easiest transition. Yeah, there are freak athletes, but for the most part college is where most players bulk up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Paying players isn't even on the agenda for what the Northwestern players want. All this does is allow them the right to unionize and therefore bargain for fair conditions. Recall that the list of things that players want are things like a scholarship that covers full cost of attendance, not the estimated 80% that current athletic scholarships provide. They want things like a 4 year contract as opposed to year to year where they can be booted for any reason like injury, performance on the field, or even a Schianoesque "I just don't like you". Is this the first step towards paying players? Yes, but only in the sense that the first step to going to the moon is getting out of bed. There is still a lot more work to be done and before we arrive at the point of paying players, a lot more will be done to make the treatment of student athletes more fair.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Again, for all you people saying this is going to end college sports and result in paying players, here is an excellent article which goes over their stated goals: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/1/28/5354718/college-football-players-union-pay-for-play In case you are lazy, here are the bullet points: 1. Minimize college athletes' brain trauma risks. 2. Raise the scholarship amount. 3. Prevent players from being stuck paying sports-related medical expenses. 4. Increase graduation rates. 5. Protect educational opportunities for student-athletes in good standing. 6. Prohibit universities from using a permanent injury suffered during athletics as a reason to reduce/eliminate a scholarship. 7. Establish and enforce uniform safety guidelines in all sports to help prevent serious injuries and avoidable deaths. 8. Eliminate restrictions on legitimate employment and players ability to directly benefit from commercial opportunities. 9. Prohibit the punishment of college athletes that have not committed a violation. 10. Guarantee that college athletes are granted an athletic release from their university if they wish to transfer schools. 11. Allow college athletes of all sports the ability to transfer schools one time without punishment. edit: The only one I even partially object to, or I guess pause to think about is number 8, only because it can and likely will create an imbalance in recruiting. Even then the argument that it would happen isn't 100%. swickles fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. Non one is asking for a salary. Maybe look at what they actually want (hint: look up two posts!) and then make a decision on it. Or you know, continue to poo poo post, whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:I'm for it all except 10. I think 10 should be standardized where a student is granted an athletic release to any school not in the same conference. 9 is a little strange. The rest is fine by me. Nine is basically saying don't punish players for the violations committed by the coaching staff or athletic department or other players on the team. Things like bowl bans and scholarship reductions hurt the players. Instead, the coach should be fined/suspended/show caused based on the severity of his crime, and the people who work in the athletic department should be somehow held to a higher standard to make sure they do what they are supposed to. If a player commits violations, punish the player more severely but leave the rest of the team alone. Also, I don't see why there should be any restriction on transferring. I mean, I understand the "oh, we will have to play them!" argument, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Especially when players transfer its either because they can't crack the depth chart or for family reasons. Well, if they can't crack your depth chart, then why are you afraid of playing them? If its for family reasons, chances are the next school that is geographically close is also going to be in your conference (Big 12 aside).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:It's the whole "spy" thing. That player knows your entire playbook and how you look at film and it wouldn't be too hard to share things that you'd prefer to keep quiet about your game planning. I understand that reasoning in the NFL, but in college, I am not buying into it as much. I don't think its as huge an advantage as you think it is. Its kind of paranoia that assuming letting players transfer once that there will suddenly be a bunch of moles that go to a school for a year then jump ship. Even if that was the case, its something every school could engage in equally which would nullify any advantage gained.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
If a school doesn't have basic amenities like a gym or some kind of recreational facility, that seems like they would have trouble drawing in students based on campus life. Like, no gym or such would raise some red flags in my mind.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
They also found in the code though that players were referenced by name. Apparently there were sets of plays that were designed for particular players like TEBOW1, TEBOW2, etc. It was never seen on the front end, but was pretty prevalent in the code.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Man black people sure have zany names. To be fair they are both half black and half white so they are half allowed to make fun of black people names.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
I had a long effort post typed up why you are being dumb, but I think the Sash! next to the post will let people know that. Its not a perfect or even accurate analogy, but to pretend that just because their plight isn't as bad means it isn't bad is still pretty dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Sash! posted:I believe you may know very little about the coal strikes. All we are saying is that you are taking an offhand comment that included the use of the phrase "sort of like" way too seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Mark Emmert's comments about this new food regulation change are completely insufferable. All of a sudden those rules are 'absurd' despite him never talking about it before that I'm aware of. I really think the Shabazz Napier comments are what prompted this. Before that I didn't hear anything. I guess you could also throw in the fact that they're under pressure thanks to the NLRB ruling to make themselves look less insane. The funny thing is that if you want to squash unions and the threat of their formation, all the NCAA has to do is give in to the demands. Thats sounds bad but when you realize the demands are things like medical care and guaranteed scholarships, the NCAA could not only squash it but also win a huge PR victory demonstrating that they care for the players. The public push for fairness wojld be eliminae and the argument over paying players will get pushed into the forefront, and that is one area that the NCAA actually has the public support for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 22:14
|
|