Daniels Twins decommit

Donate To GopherHole


oleboy41 said:
And the football player is actively making money for the University so what's your point?
Click to expand...

And the student is being compensated for that in the form of a scholarship, tutors, and many other perks of being a scholarship athlete. There is nothing the school can hold over the head of the English Major, if there isn't any scholarships i.e. money attched. I'm not completely disagreeing with your overall feelings, just that to compare the two types of students is not an apples to apples comparison, imo.
 

minibeaver said:
And the student is being compensated for that in the form of a scholarship, tutors, and many other perks of being a scholarship athlete. There is nothing the school can hold over the head of the English Major, if there isn't any scholarships i.e. money attched. I'm not completely disagreeing with your overall feelings, just that to compare the two types of students is not an apples to apples comparison, imo.
Click to expand...

Oleboy41 didn't make the comparison he was responding to someone who insinuated that players aren't paying for their education which is a patented falsehood.

The revenue players generate far exceeds their compensation. Because schools are nonprofit the English major (players can be English Majors also) pays for his education only...as in the school doesn't make a profit. They make a HUGE profit off the football playing student athlete.

Is it a apples to apples comparison? No, but then folks should not throw it out there....because they will lose hands down every time.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
Oleboy41 didn't make the comparison he was responding to someone who insinuated that players aren't paying for their education which is a patented falsehood.

The revenue players generate far exceeds their compensation. Because schools are nonprofit the English major (players can be English Majors also) pays for his education only...as in the school doesn't make a profit. They make a HUGE profit off the football playing student athlete.

Is it a apples to apples comparison? No, but then folks should not throw it out there....because they will lose hands down every time.
Click to expand...

Seems to me this is an investment opportunity for retired players, coaches etc. Form a professional league for players not yet 3 years removed from high school and NFL-eligible. I'm sure this lower tier professsional league would generate massive revenue for all involved. Or not, because the fans care more about the institution and its team and the tribalism involved than the individual players.

Why hasn't this happened yet? So much money sitting on the sidelines. Make it so, Sportsfan. Get the ball rolling. Stop letting the players be victims. The tv contracts would be gold. Gold!
 


Sportsfan24 said:
Oleboy41 didn't make the comparison he was responding to someone who insinuated that players aren't paying for their education which is a patented falsehood.

The revenue players generate far exceeds their compensation. Because schools are nonprofit the English major (players can be English Majors also) pays for his education only...as in the school doesn't make a profit. They make a HUGE profit off the football playing student athlete.

Is it a apples to apples comparison? No, but then folks should not throw it out there....because they will lose hands down every time.
Click to expand...

The university doesn't really make money on sports, does it? Yes, football, hockey, and basketball make money but all that money goes to pay for the other sports. So as a whole, there's no profit, right?

I'm sure you also know that someone with a college education (on average) will make over $1 million dollars more than someone with a high school education. So the players are getting something beyond the price of the credits.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Seems to me this is an investment opportunity for retired players, coaches etc. Form a professional league for players not yet 3 years removed from high school and NFL-eligible. I'm sure this lower tier professsional league would generate massive revenue for all involved. Or not, because the fans care more about the institution and its team and the tribalism involved than the individual players.

Why hasn't this happened yet? So much money sitting on the sidelines. Make it so, Sportsfan. Get the ball rolling. Stop letting the players be victims. The tv contracts would be gold. Gold!
Click to expand...

Your sarcasm may be wasted once you realize there is a very real possibility in the near future you may see whole conferences leaving the NCAA.

Know what will happen then? Players will be compensated....and you will continue watching them play.

Or, the NCAA will realize it's going to lose billions and allow the players to participate in barrels of money being made....and you will continue watching them play.

Institution and tribalism? Funny how a losing record makes people forget about all that sh...t. Game attendance drops, sponsorship drops, local TV money drops. But don't worry, just keep right on believing it's going to continue forever this way.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24 said:
Your sarcasm may be wasted once you realize there is a very real possibility in the near future you may see whole conferences leaving the NCAA.

Know what will happen then? Players will be compensated....and you will continue watching them play.

Or, the NCAA will realize it's going to lose billions and allow the players to participate in barrels of money being made....and you will continue watching them play.

Institution and tribalism? Funny how a losing record makes people forget about all that sh...t. Game attendance drops, sponsorship drops, local TV money drops. But don't worry, just keep right on believing it's going to continue forever this way.
Click to expand...

I really am not sure minor league (paid) football would really be that popular. Hardly anyone watches minor league hockey, baseball, or basketball.
 

Word said:
I really am not sure minor league (paid) football would really be that popular. Hardly anyone watches minor league hockey, baseball, or basketball.
Click to expand...

Nobody watches NHL hockey, take them out of the equation.

College football already is minor league football. They just don't call it that to keep the labor cost down.

It won't come to that anyway, there is far too much money in the table. The big conferences would leave the NCAA long before they allowed that to happen. The players will see an increase in their compensation. The NCAA understands what's at stake and we are seeing a trend in that direction.

We are seeing stipend increases and transfer rules loosening up. I think if we were to see a $100,000 payment to each player upon graduation that would do the trick. To accomplish that they need adjust or preferable do away with title 9. It's time has come and gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Sportsfan24 said:
Nobody watches NHL hockey, take them out of the equation.

College football already is minor league football. They just don't call it that to keep the labor cost down.

It won't come to that anyway, there is far too much money in the table. The big conferences would leave the NCAA long before they allowed that to happen. The players will see an increase in their compensation. The NCAA understands what's at stake and we are seeing a trend in that direction.

We are seeing stipend increases and transfer rules loosening up. I think if we were to see a $100,000 payment to each player upon graduation that would do the trick. To accomplish that they need adjust or preferable do away with title 9. It's time has come and gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually the supreme court has been moving in the other direction, taking extras away (stipends) from the athletes and re-affirming "student athlete" and "amateur". They did leave full cost of attendance and some travel expenses. And like it or not, Title IX will never go away, because it acts as a continued barrier to disenfranchising women. And I don't buy the NCAA has any interest or cares about being a minor league for the NFL. That doesn't matter. What they do want is as much revenue as they can generate. And if the bigger schools ever get the idea they can make more without the NCAA, then they just might leave. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 

minibeaver said:
And the student is being compensated for that in the form of a scholarship, tutors, and many other perks of being a scholarship athlete. There is nothing the school can hold over the head of the English Major, if there isn't any scholarships i.e. money attched. I'm not completely disagreeing with your overall feelings, just that to compare the two types of students is not an apples to apples comparison, imo.
Click to expand...

There is a ton of evidence that their 'compensation' isn't nearly as valuable as its made to appear. First the value of college often goes beyond the classroom to the overall experience of college including clubs, activities, and just college life. Because of their athletic schedule athletes often don't have access to those same experiences. Beyond that there is a TON of evidence out there that athletes aren't receiving the same education because their teams and schools often pressure them into situations in where they aren't able to take full advantage of the education. That's not to mention the players brought in that aren't fully equipped to handle college courses AND don't get the proper help to progress academically as the main concern is keeping them eligible. So its hard to claim that the players are compensated with an education they're often not able to take full advantage of, not necessarily because of poor choices on their part but because the system is set up in a way that makes that difficult for many but the best and brightest. Its like paying workers in Euros but only those that can already afford to get to Europe can spend it
 

Sparlimb said:
Actually the supreme court has been moving in the other direction, taking extras away (stipends) from the athletes and re-affirming "student athlete" and "amateur". They did leave full cost of attendance and some travel expenses. And like it or not, Title IX will never go away, because it acts as a continued barrier to disenfranchising women. And I don't buy the NCAA has any interest or cares about being a minor league for the NFL. That doesn't matter. What they do want is as much revenue as they can generate. And if the bigger schools ever get the idea they can make more without the NCAA, then they just might leave. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...

The rest is currently taking care of itself so I won't bother addressing that other than to say that stipends have been increasing and as well as rules changes.

Title 9? if a barrier exists its put their by women. Women don't support women athletics. Title 9 exists to create interest were none exist, inflate compensation past the market and to have club sports played in mega arena.....while someone else pays for it.

I support women sports because I love sports. I love going to a Lynx game because it's great value for my dollar. But Title 9 is bogus.
 




oleboy41 said:
There is a ton of evidence that their 'compensation' isn't nearly as valuable as its made to appear. First the value of college often goes beyond the classroom to the overall experience of college including clubs, activities, and just college life. Because of their athletic schedule athletes often don't have access to those same experiences. Beyond that there is a TON of evidence out there that athletes aren't receiving the same education because their teams and schools often pressure them into situations in where they aren't able to take full advantage of the education. That's not to mention the players brought in that aren't fully equipped to handle college courses AND don't get the proper help to progress academically as the main concern is keeping them eligible. So its hard to claim that the players are compensated with an education they're often not able to take full advantage of, not necessarily because of poor choices on their part but because the system is set up in a way that makes that difficult for many but the best and brightest. Its like paying workers in Euros but only those that can already afford to get to Europe can spend it
Click to expand...

I don't buy that these kids aren't able to have a good college experience. Different than regular college kids probably, but I'd imagine in many ways it's better.

Really I don't agree with much of your post, but I do agree that at some schools emphasis isn't placed on academics like it should be. In addition, I think kids are often funneled (or decide for themselves) to major in subjects that have less than stellar career outlooks. A lot of these kids might be on the edge academics wise, throw in the demanding schedule of being an athlete, and you can understand kids taking the easy majors with the weaker career prospects. On the flip side, those kids (if it weren't for them being an athlete) may not have made it to college in the first place. So it's a double edged sword
 

Sportsfan24 said:
The rest is currently taking care of itself so I won't bother addressing that other than to say that stipends have been increasing and as well as rules changes.

Title 9? if a barrier exists its put their by women. Women don't support women athletics. Title 9 exists to create interest were none exist, inflate compensation past the market and to have club sports played in mega arena.....while someone else pays for it.

I support women sports because I love sports. I love going to a Lynx game because it's great value for my dollar. But Title 9 is bogus.
Click to expand...

Well that's the nice thing about the law, you don't need to agree, you just need to follow it. I know their are plenty of folks who don't think we should strive to be fair and equal, I'm just not one of them. Money in collegiate athletics should be distributed fairly across gender lines. Whether anyone wants to watch or not. I happen to watch a lot of ladies athletics, but I agree that's on the side. The Lynx draw pretty well because they are good and play great ball. 10 years ago they had 50 people at a game. Anyway, this has gone way off topic, so I'll leave it with Title IX isn't going anywhere.
 

Sparlimb said:
Well that's the nice thing about the law, you don't need to agree, you just need to follow it. I know their are plenty of folks who don't think we should strive to be fair and equal, I'm just not one of them. Money in collegiate athletics should be distributed fairly across gender lines. Whether anyone wants to watch or not. I happen to watch a lot of ladies athletics, but I agree that's on the side. The Lynx draw pretty well because they are good and play great ball. 10 years ago they had 50 people at a game. Anyway, this has gone way off topic, so I'll leave it with Title IX isn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion.

Question. Are you for or against affirmative action?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


minibeaver said:
I don't buy that these kids aren't able to have a good college experience. Different than regular college kids probably, but I'd imagine in many ways it's better.

Really I don't agree with much of your post, but I do agree that at some schools emphasis isn't placed on academics like it should be. In addition, I think kids are often funneled (or decide for themselves) to major in subjects that have less than stellar career outlooks. A lot of these kids might be on the edge academics wise, throw in the demanding schedule of being an athlete, and you can understand kids taking the easy majors with the weaker career prospects. On the flip side, those kids (if it weren't for them being an athlete) may not have made it to college in the first place. So it's a double edged sword
Click to expand...

As a former college football player, it's not the same. After I was done playing I enjoyed school far more as a regular student in grad school.

Would I do it differently? No, I loved football. But I definitely enjoyed school more when I wasn't playing football.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24 said:
I would have to vehemently disagree; your whole argument is based on a faulty assumption that kids have hyper inflated ego's. Even if it were true that would only be inflated by those who follow football.....us. Therefore it would be our fault and our ability to control.

In addition kids get benched for many more reasons than teaching moments. Sometimes they get benched because they were not a recruit of the current coaching staff (DO NOT READ ANYTHING INTO THAT COMMENT) or they are in the wrong class. Brewster may still be the coach if he would have never played Adam Weber (also applies to other players) and went with a younger QB...one who would have been experienced in year 4.

My point is there are a multitude of reasons kids play and some don't and not all of them have anything to do with who is the better player.
Click to expand...

While I enjoy the back and forth, I couldn't let the SF24's statement go without correction........ Adam Weber started as a Freshman in Brew's first year and was a 4yr Sr starter in 2010 (Brew's last season). Not sure how much more experienced a QB can be in yr 4...... Now it might be one thing to say Brew should have gone with a different QB at some point, but what other option did he have?
 

WHB Brewer said:
While I enjoy the back and forth, I couldn't let the SF24's statement go without correction........ Adam Weber started as a Freshman in Brew's first year and was a 4yr Sr starter in 2010 (Brew's last season). Not sure how much more experienced a QB can be in yr 4...... Now it might be one thing to say Brew should have gone with a different QB at some point, but what other option did he have?
Click to expand...

The great thing is Mason the program could have gone to a new level with Weber as his QB. He never got the chance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

MaxyJR1 said:
The great thing is Mason the program could have gone to a new level with Weber as his QB. He never got the chance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Still would have had no defense. Can't win that way.
 

WHB Brewer said:
While I enjoy the back and forth, I couldn't let the SF24's statement go without correction........ Adam Weber started as a Freshman in Brew's first year and was a 4yr Sr starter in 2010 (Brew's last season). Not sure how much more experienced a QB can be in yr 4...... Now it might be one thing to say Brew should have gone with a different QB at some point, but what other option did he have?
Click to expand...

Who the hell do you think you are pointing out when I'm wrong? If I wanted that I would spend more time talking to my wife....or kids....or friends......or anyone else who knows me.[emoji41]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MaxyJR1 said:
The great thing is Mason the program could have gone to a new level with Weber as his QB. He never got the chance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh great. We are back to pretending Weber was anything other than an average QB. Can't wait to see his total yards and total TD stats in yet another thread.
 

minibeaver said:
I don't buy that these kids aren't able to have a good college experience. Different than regular college kids probably, but I'd imagine in many ways it's better.

Really I don't agree with much of your post, but I do agree that at some schools emphasis isn't placed on academics like it should be. In addition, I think kids are often funneled (or decide for themselves) to major in subjects that have less than stellar career outlooks. A lot of these kids might be on the edge academics wise, throw in the demanding schedule of being an athlete, and you can understand kids taking the easy majors with the weaker career prospects. On the flip side, those kids (if it weren't for them being an athlete) may not have made it to college in the first place. So it's a double edged sword
Click to expand...

I didn't say they can't have a good experience. I'm saying that claiming they're paid in education while often not being able to fully take advantage of the educational experience is a problem. You can't claim that education is adequate payment and then demand 30-50 hours of their time each week while also giving them required activities often preventing them from taking certain courses. That argument is hypocritical and self serving and isn't used in any other arena. There is anecdote after anecdote from former players and administers making these claims so you don't have to take my word for it
 

oleboy41 said:
I didn't say they can't have a good experience. I'm saying that claiming they're paid in education while often not being able to fully take advantage of the educational experience is a problem. You can't claim that education is adequate payment and then demand 30-50 hours of their time each week while also giving them required activities often preventing them from taking certain courses. That argument is hypocritical and self serving and isn't used in any other arena. There is anecdote after anecdote from former players and administers making these claims so you don't have to take my word for it
Click to expand...

Any word on the Daniel Twins?
 

Sportsfan24 said:
I respect your opinion.

Question. Are you for or against affirmative action?
Click to expand...

Generally against, but that's because the law is imposed on businesses that don't get federal funding, as do land grant universities. I have no problem if any university chooses to give up federal monies and have a male only sports program. Nor do I at all blame a school like New York University which faced a huge Title IX lawsuit once upon a time and said "forget it, we're giving up sports altogether". Those are choices programs can make. I just feel like picking winners (men's athletes over women athletes) is a problem...
 

Sparlimb said:
Generally against, but that's because the law is imposed on businesses that don't get federal funding, as do land grant universities. I have no problem if any university chooses to give up federal monies and have a male only sports program. Nor do I at all blame a school like New York University which faced a huge Title IX lawsuit once upon a time and said "forget it, we're giving up sports altogether". Those are choices programs can make. I just feel like picking winners (men's athletes over women athletes) is a problem...
Click to expand...

I was wondering if you were a hypocrite....you're not. Thanks for answering.
 

oleboy41 said:
There is a ton of evidence that their 'compensation' isn't nearly as valuable as its made to appear. First the value of college often goes beyond the classroom to the overall experience of college including clubs, activities, and just college life. Because of their athletic schedule athletes often don't have access to those same experiences. Beyond that there is a TON of evidence out there that athletes aren't receiving the same education because their teams and schools often pressure them into situations in where they aren't able to take full advantage of the education. That's not to mention the players brought in that aren't fully equipped to handle college courses AND don't get the proper help to progress academically as the main concern is keeping them eligible. So its hard to claim that the players are compensated with an education they're often not able to take full advantage of, not necessarily because of poor choices on their part but because the system is set up in a way that makes that difficult for many but the best and brightest. Its like paying workers in Euros but only those that can already afford to get to Europe can spend it
Click to expand...

Why don't you guys go find the thread that was about player compensation and quit bumping this thread about the Mili Vanili decommiting.
 

oleboy41 said:
I didn't say they can't have a good experience. I'm saying that claiming they're paid in education while often not being able to fully take advantage of the educational experience is a problem. You can't claim that education is adequate payment and then demand 30-50 hours of their time each week while also giving them required activities often preventing them from taking certain courses. That argument is hypocritical and self serving and isn't used in any other arena. There is anecdote after anecdote from former players and administers making these claims so you don't have to take my word for it
Click to expand...

I had roommates on the football team. They practiced while I worked a job to pay for school. They didn't miss out on anything I did. They were always with. But they sure got a ton more benefits. And 30-50 hours? Please.
 

DLguy said:
I had roommates on the football team. They practiced while I worked a job to pay for school. They didn't miss out on anything I did. They were always with. But they sure got a ton more benefits. And 30-50 hours? Please.
Click to expand...

When was this? I had friends on the basketball team and they missed out on a lot due to schedule. And yes, 30-50 hours a week. Not uncommon for teams to have players from like 7-12 for S&C, meetings and practice daily with guys going in for film study, treatment, extra work, etc throughout the day. That's easily 30 hours during the week for team related activities. That's not cunting travel, Friday night's in the hotel, Sat game day, Sunday film, etc. You may want to rethink your snarky tone
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom