|
superaielman posted:I don't want to pile on since you already have a dozen people hammering at you, but I think you're being unfair. There are definitely going to be negative consequences to this, but the current system as it stands is so hosed up that the fallout of that is better than having a system where coaches make millions while star football players get suspended for signing autographs for money. It's not only pretty outrageously unfair, but it practically begs for corruption. (See: Miami football scandal where that one booster was literally handing out cash for strip clubs. Nevis I think?) The rules don't exist just for the hell of it. They themselves are solutions to previous problems. Corruption has existed in college football since it was invented. Blaming the rules for the problems is getting the causation backwards.
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
superaielman posted:The rules are there to protect the NCAA, not the athletes. This is an extreme example, but: College football has always been a huge moneymaker and the source of endless corruption. These are not new issues. Complaints about the amount of money football was making started about 1885, almost as soon as the sport was invented. Drop by the football history thread sometime. The rules could probably use a good overhaul, but whatever problems the rules cause, they prevent even worse ones.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:What are the worse problems that are being prevented? Well, at one time 30-year-old "freshmen" who had played college football for 10 years without ever attending a class was fairly common.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:You could also play for a team as long as you were taking one class or were employed by the school. This led to one University of Minnesota player being on the team for six or seven years in the early 1900s, and then as a professor they called him back in for a game a couple of years later when they needed him at QB. Basically, there were no standard eligibility rules of any kind. It was entirely up to individual schools and negotiation between schools when they played. So every team was responsible for doing its own detective work on every player on every team they played.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
vaginal culture posted:It is inevitable that the NCAA gets shithoused by the courts in the upcoming years and they might as well try and hold onto every last bit of their power until it all goes bust. This won't be fixed with marginal changes here and there. The best is they really brought it all upon themselves with the absurd TV deals and conference realignment poo poo. Vulgar. The real problem is that the NCAA has always operated by mutual consent and cooperation of its member institutions, and has never had any actual legal authority to do anything outside of that. It seems the legal issues involved in college athletics are getting too complicated for that sort of arrangement, and some sort of federally-chartered organization with real legal teeth is going to be needed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That really isn't that much worse. It's a big deal if you think athletes representing colleges should actually be students at those college. If you reject that notion, then there really isn't anything to argue about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Alereon posted:This ruling wouldn't affect those programs, right? It seems limited to schools where athletics is a big enough deal for the players to be fulltime athletes who are also students rather than full-time students who are also athletes. The ruling only applies to private universities, as unions at public universities would be subject to state laws. If the argument that time spent with athletics > time spent on education makes them employees holds up on appeal, the quickest response would be to limit the time spent on athletics to get under the cap. IMO, this ought to be done regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Well more to the point is it worse because it is brazen? Because you could argue that right now effectively the same thing is happening now. As I assume the big deal you are saying it is has more to do with him being a ringer who isn't there for college as opposed to his age. Lack of control of eligibility led to the formation of conferences, first, and the NCAA, second. It was complete chaos otherwise. It was not "better" in any sense whatsoever. I'm sure there's some subtle, clever point you're trying to make, but I'm not getting it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
LARGE THE HEAD posted:Maintenance and upkeep is ridiculously expensive, too. If you lump in gym facilities with athletic facilities, they cost your average university $10 million a year or more in general maintenance. That could pay for the education of around 200 students for the entire year. Fancy recreational facilities are tools for recruiting students and retaining local alumni interest (and donations). There's more space in universities than students to fill it, so they're starting to compete on amenities.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Breaky posted:Not sure about all of this. I could have cared less how nice the gym was when I was looking for schools. I was looking at location of the school, graduation rates and the scholarship offers I could get. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/education/10education.html?_r=0 The point is that academics only gets them so far, as there are lots of similar colleges with similar academics. Thus they're going for quality-of-life and recreation as a hook to get the last few students they need. Ed: Here's an actual study on the issue: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18745?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw High-achieving students focus primarily on academics, while those a cut below care more about the gnarly rock-climbing wall than the reputation of the math department. Both fork over the same amount of money, so appealing to the more casual student pays. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It is tangentially related as the main reason a lot of athletic programs are in the red is that they're deemed separate institutions by the university. If they received support from the university like Every Other Program on Campus instead of having to be entirely self-sufficient, there wouldn't be a problem. This goes back to the history issue, as intercollegiate athletics started as a student-run operation outside of faculty control. Despite their best efforts, the faculties have never really gotten it under their own control. Colleges have never had enough money to fund their academic pursuits, and athletics have always depended on gate receipts to stay afloat. Related to that, intercollegiate athletics, and particularly football, proved to be incredibly popular with administrators when it appeared. The first thing they noticed was that incidents of students getting drunk and tearing up the town, and most other off-campus problems, dropped considerably when football appeared, and student academic performance increased. It seemed that students getting wild and crazy for a few weeks in the confines of a stadium each Fall allowed them to burn off a bunch of excess energy and got them more able to focus on their studies. They also noted that the increased esprit de corps created by athletics made for a greater sense of community and commitment to the school from both students and alumni, and made general governance far easier. I posted a comment to that effect from the President of Cornell from 1905 a few days ago in the Football History thread: Jacob Gould Schurman posted:“However strange it may sound to the critics,” he said, “it is nevertheless true that athletics have made it possible to govern, (because athletics have developed an esprit de corps,) hundreds, yes thousands of students in a single university year after year without the help of jury, court, or policeman. If the critics abolished baseball or football we should implore them, in the interest of academic discipline, to devise suitable substitutes or restore these games themselves. So a pretty good argument can be made that athletics do indeed contribute to the academic environment of a college or university, and treating them as a purely mercenary venture is not accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:Anyone that says "get the facts" sounds like the most corporate shmuck Yeah, I don't see the upside of Fitzgerald getting into it. Once he takes a side the losing side is going to resent him no matter what the result is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Doesn't this just mean that they could unionize as private employees? Who would be their private employer? Everybody else at a state university is a public employee.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Detroit_Dogg posted:Other things that may hurt Northwestern's chances of winning the Big Ten: This is actually a very subtle and clever plot by our SAT overlords. Their plan is to convince the other 13 teams that unions are cool so they all unionize, then yell, "PSYCH!" and not form one of their own - leaving the path to the Big 10 championship wide open for them. This time, The Brain will win, you'll see!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
R.D. Mangles posted:you fuckers just wait Northwestern getting good at football would be one of the signs of the Apocalypse. They win a naitonal championship, and the world gets destroyed in a hail of brimstone and locusts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:No analogy is perfect. You're only being so pedantic because you know you are standing for an indefensible position. Trying to trivialize college football players as "a few thousand guys who may not be getting properly compensated" is an incredible understatement considering what they actually go through. The difference is that the college players knowingly and willingly entered into the contract of playing football in exchange for a scholarship and an education. They are getting exactly what they were promised. They were under no obligation to play college football, and had plenty of other options. The odd thing about this whole situation is that the anger about their "exploitation" doesn't come from the players themselves, for the most part. It is largely outsiders doing most of the agitation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:But sometimes they don't. Many players who sign scholarship papers don't know that the scholarship is for one year at a time and if their coach oversigns that their scholarship can be taken away from them on a whim. True. There are problems that need to be corrected. The current state of affairs is not good. I personally don't think the way to fix the problems is to blow the whole thing up, however.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Why would the players having a union blow the whole thing up? They do work for a huge company with tremendous influence and every group of workers should have their interests represented. It wouldn't, necessarily. I'm not opposed to the concept of a players' union. Turning the players into professionals would blow it up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:No the last bullet point about them claiming that scholarships have nothing to do with their football skills is the best. Have you actually seen Northwestern play?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 04:10
|
|