Jump to content

FBI Ramification


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, jimmykc said:

I think some equitable way to remunerate athletes could be achieved for those who actually want to go to college and also play pro ball. It would necessitate an entirely new set of "amateur" rules however. The NCAA as it now exists is obsolete. Again (as Doc would say) I recommend reading Michael Sokolove's book on Pitino for another viewpoint on the present "scandal". There should be a review of his book in the LJS in a couple of weeks for anyone interested in the subject. Meanwhile, how about those Red Sox! (You knew I would get this in somewhere) 

 

When Norman Dale shows up at HHC, that's how you know it's officially basketball season!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, HB said:

Yep, it appears that McDermott has gone dirty.  

Oh, I'm not so sure. This could've happened on the 28-minute May 8 call.

 

  • Dawkins: Hi, Greg! The bidding is at $100K and good jobs for Bowen and his family. Is Creighton interested?
  • McDermott: Oh, no. We don't do those sorts of things here.

{{{{{      27: 47 of silence      }}}}}

  • Dawkins: You sure?
  • McDermott: Yes.
  • Dawkins: OK. Is it all right if I call you eight more times over the next six weeks and ask the same thing?
  • McDermott: Sure. We basketball coaches have all the time in the world to waste on multiple phone calls when a simple 'no' should take care of it. Talk to you later!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

My problem with paying athletes is that not all athletes and not all sports are created equal. The guys who are paying the bills is a relatively small group of people in an athletic department.  Should the guys on the golf team -- which generates no revenue at all -- get a cut of the athletic department profits off of football?  Few would probably make that argument.

 

Should the back-up long-snapper get as much of a share of football profits as the starting QB?

 

But those are not the places where "profit sharing" is going to cause issues.  The places where "profit sharing" would cause issues is where Title IX comes into play.

Along these lines I personally think you should have certain tiers that you can pay top players so like you could pay 1 player $20,000 5 players $15,000 10 players $5,000 and the rest $2,000 for a football team and not for those exact numbers. I think this all stems back to Title IX which was obviously a good idea but when you are forced to give female players the same things as male players who bring in basically all of the money into the program that carries over into people saying the golf team should get same amount as the football team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cjbowbros said:

Along these lines I personally think you should have certain tiers that you can pay top players so like you could pay 1 player $20,000 5 players $15,000 10 players $5,000 and the rest $2,000 for a football team and not for those exact numbers. I think this all stems back to Title IX which was obviously a good idea but when you are forced to give female players the same things as male players who bring in basically all of the money into the program that carries over into people saying the golf team should get same amount as the football team.  

 

I don't think Title IX is "obviously" a good idea.  I think it is arguably a good idea, but I think it's arguably also been bad in some ways.  Without getting too far off in the weeds, I think there were some unintended (negative) consequences. And the older Title IX has gotten, the more the DOJ tries to expand its reach.  Title IX means the Princeton basketball player, whose occasional hook-up partner claims the last time they had sex wasn't consensual even though she seemed a willing participant, gets kicked out of school and doesn't get any sort of due process in the adjudication of his student misconduct claim because the Feds are threatening to pull funding from schools because they don't think universities are doing enough to combat this "rape culture" that people say exists on campus, and that now falls under Title IX.

 

Anyway, I don't want to get off into the weeds about Title IX; however, I do want it noted that it's not "obvious" and not everyone agrees. And the people who disagree generally keep quiet about it because it's not a popular opinion to have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the deal in my mind.  If a kid leaves school, whether he is 16 or 19, he/she has a right to make a living.  He/she can go to the service, he/she can fight in a war, he/she can die in a war.  He/she can get a job at a convenience store.  He/she can make a movie.  He/she can go on and continue his/her education.  To say that individual cannot go into the pro leagues and attempt to make it and either succeed or fail is just wrong.  The kid should have the right to attempt it.

 

But, if he/she decides to go to college, then he/she should do so as an amateur and not expect to make money beyond his/her scholarship.  They should be able to work in their off-seasons in order to make coin, just like any college student.  That work would need to be monitored.  Here is the change I would make.  If a kid attempted to go pro in a sport, and failed to make a pro team (at whatever level, and whatever sport) colleges should allow the kid to pick up a scholarship and play his/her sport.  Currently a kid can go pro in baseball, and then play college football.  Alter that rule, and then all may be well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

Good for Tim Miles.  He's saying what needs to be said: the ones getting screwed in all this are the schools who try to play by the rules.  Here are some of his quotes.

On how you know that things aren't right in recruiting:

“You know when you’re dancing with the devil,” Miles said Monday. “You might suspect it like, eh, this one is a little funky here. Like, why is this kid interested in us, and whatever it may be. And then pretty soon somebody asks for something and we’re like, ‘No, sorry, we don’t play that game.’”

“We don’t operate that way.” 

On what the NCAA needs to do with cheaters:

“Get the cheaters out of the game.”  "they think that’s fine. The shoe companies, everybody, but it’s not fine, obviously.”  “It’s just sad."

What's needed is "a contraction to expand and flourish to be even better."  "hopefully, the NCAA comes out strong.”

On how it affects the players:

"families and coaches are taking the joy out of a kid's recruitment. Bowen, Miles said, wanted to go to Michigan State or Arizona. He ended up at Louisville instead . . . "Where's the joy in going to Louisville? You've robbed that kid of that decision."

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

Here is the deal in my mind.  If a kid leaves school, whether he is 16 or 19, he/she has a right to make a living.  He/she can go to the service, he/she can fight in a war, he/she can die in a war.  He/she can get a job at a convenience store.  He/she can make a movie.  He/she can go on and continue his/her education.  To say that individual cannot go into the pro leagues and attempt to make it and either succeed or fail is just wrong.  The kid should have the right to attempt it.

 

But, if he/she decides to go to college, then he/she should do so as an amateur and not expect to make money beyond his/her scholarship.  They should be able to work in their off-seasons in order to make coin, just like any college student.  That work would need to be monitored.  Here is the change I would make.  If a kid attempted to go pro in a sport, and failed to make a pro team (at whatever level, and whatever sport) colleges should allow the kid to pick up a scholarship and play his/her sport.  Currently a kid can go pro in baseball, and then play college football.  Alter that rule, and then all may be well. 

 

why would any high profile college recruit accept this proposition when everyone else around them is making money? tv networks, conferences, agents, shoe company employees. everyone except the athlete gets paid in college athletics. if there wasn't a market for college athletics, if there was no money involved then what you are proposing would be fair. however, that just isn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

Here is the deal in my mind.  If a kid leaves school, whether he is 16 or 19, he/she has a right to make a living.  He/she can go to the service, he/she can fight in a war, he/she can die in a war.  He/she can get a job at a convenience store.  He/she can make a movie.  He/she can go on and continue his/her education.  To say that individual cannot go into the pro leagues and attempt to make it and either succeed or fail is just wrong.  The kid should have the right to attempt it.

 

But, if he/she decides to go to college, then he/she should do so as an amateur and not expect to make money beyond his/her scholarship.  They should be able to work in their off-seasons in order to make coin, just like any college student.  That work would need to be monitored.  Here is the change I would make.  If a kid attempted to go pro in a sport, and failed to make a pro team (at whatever level, and whatever sport) colleges should allow the kid to pick up a scholarship and play his/her sport.  Currently a kid can go pro in baseball, and then play college football.  Alter that rule, and then all may be well. 

 

It's literally a billion dollar industry, and the players, who are the reason for all of the money, get very, very, little.   They shouldn't have to "make it" in the NBA.  They are making it right now, in the NCAA.  And they don't get paid for it . . . they may receive a small stipend, but realistically, scholarship, room, board, meals, etc... is in no way fair compensation when you are talking about a billion dollar industry.  Why should these talented kids not expect a share of the money made off their backs?  In what other situation do we expect workers, or entertainers, or those who have a skill that is worth billions of dollars, to not get paid at all?   And why would we expect the players to have to adhere to these kind of sacrifices?  Who does that benefit?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I don't think Title IX is "obviously" a good idea.  I think it is arguably a good idea, but I think it's arguably also been bad in some ways.  Without getting too far off in the weeds, I think there were some unintended (negative) consequences. And the older Title IX has gotten, the more the DOJ tries to expand its reach.  Title IX means the Princeton basketball player, whose occasional hook-up partner claims the last time they had sex wasn't consensual even though she seemed a willing participant, gets kicked out of school and doesn't get any sort of due process in the adjudication of his student misconduct claim because the Feds are threatening to pull funding from schools because they don't think universities are doing enough to combat this "rape culture" that people say exists on campus, and that now falls under Title IX.

 

Anyway, I don't want to get off into the weeds about Title IX; however, I do want it noted that it's not "obvious" and not everyone agrees. And the people who disagree generally keep quiet about it because it's not a popular opinion to have. 

Well since I now feel safe to say that I agree with you without being hated on I will. I think it's crazy that football being an only male sport I would guess for safety reasons and having so many players prohibits UNL from having some popular sports like soccer and the due process is probably an even a bigger issue. Just didn't want to spend the time formulating a perfectly politically correct post when that wasn't my main point. Thanks for defending the other side Norm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wordyginters said:

 

It's literally a billion dollar industry, and the players, who are the reason for all of the money, get very, very, little.   They shouldn't have to "make it" in the NBA.  They are making it right now, in the NCAA.  And they don't get paid for it . . . they may receive a small stipend, but realistically, scholarship, room, board, meals, etc... is in no way fair compensation when you are talking about a billion dollar industry.  Why should these talented kids not expect a share of the money made off their backs?  In what other situation do we expect workers, or entertainers, or those who have a skill that is worth billions of dollars, to not get paid at all?   And why would we expect the players to have to adhere to these kind of sacrifices?  Who does that benefit?    

I think another issue is not how much what they get is worth vs how much of it they can use for the things they want. I think a lot of players would love to help their mom pay the mortgage on her house but instead we give them $5,000 worth of adidas shoes and act like its worth the same amount as $5,000 cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wordyginters said:

 

It's literally a billion dollar industry, and the players, who are the reason for all of the money, get very, very, little.   They shouldn't have to "make it" in the NBA.  They are making it right now, in the NCAA.  And they don't get paid for it . . . they may receive a small stipend, but realistically, scholarship, room, board, meals, etc... is in no way fair compensation when you are talking about a billion dollar industry.  Why should these talented kids not expect a share of the money made off their backs?  In what other situation do we expect workers, or entertainers, or those who have a skill that is worth billions of dollars, to not get paid at all?   And why would we expect the players to have to adhere to these kind of sacrifices?  Who does that benefit?    

 

Apple, Inc. made $229B revenue in 2017. Is it wrong for them to pay somebody $75,000 who agreed to sign the contract? That's only 0.00003% of the value of Apple. I agree that the valuation/worth the students are getting probably isn't in line with market value (since there's arbitrage/"cheating" going on) but just because a company/organization is making billions off of the contributions of the employees/athletes, that doesn't mean they deserve a sizeable cut of that money. The NCAA just hasn't figured out a legal way to reach market value yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wordyginters said:

 

It's literally a billion dollar industry, and the players, who are the reason for all of the money, get very, very, little.   They shouldn't have to "make it" in the NBA.  They are making it right now, in the NCAA.  And they don't get paid for it . . . they may receive a small stipend, but realistically, scholarship, room, board, meals, etc... is in no way fair compensation when you are talking about a billion dollar industry.  Why should these talented kids not expect a share of the money made off their backs?  In what other situation do we expect workers, or entertainers, or those who have a skill that is worth billions of dollars, to not get paid at all?   And why would we expect the players to have to adhere to these kind of sacrifices?  Who does that benefit?    

True dat.  So maybe the solution is to do away with intercollegiate athletics.  Build a new system that is not affiliated with colleges.  Then colleges can go back to what they do, educate.  For sports entertainment, colleges still have intramural activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

True dat.  So maybe the solution is to do away with intercollegiate athletics.  Build a new system that is not affiliated with colleges.  Then colleges can go back to what they do, educate.  For sports entertainment, colleges still have intramural activities.

Unless you are directly taking the teams and keeping them in the same cities and practicing and playing at the same places (which are almost all owned by the universities) it would not only never happen but be a huge waste of infustructure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cjbowbros said:

Unless you are directly taking the teams and keeping them in the same cities and practicing and playing at the same places (which are almost all owned by the universities) it would not only never happen but be a huge waste of infustructure. 

 

I vote no for paying college athletes; not that it matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Apple, Inc. made $229B revenue in 2017. Is it wrong for them to pay somebody $75,000 who agreed to sign the contract? That's only 0.00003% of the value of Apple. I agree that the valuation/worth the students are getting probably isn't in line with market value (since there's arbitrage/"cheating" going on) but just because a company/organization is making billions off of the contributions of the employees/athletes, that doesn't mean they deserve a sizeable cut of that money. The NCAA just hasn't figured out a legal way to reach market value yet.

 

I can kinda sorta see what you are saying, but I still think comparing players to employees at a company is a skewed comparison.   I typically identify with the individual and the worker instead of the bossman or the company.  But in this case, my main point is that the players aren't employees, they are the product.  The game doesn't exist without players.  Apple, and the iphone, an ipads, etc. still exist without 75k a year employees.  They can be replaced.  You tell college athletes to take it or leave it, and they leave it, there isn't a game anymore.  Maybe 25 or 30 years ago, the idea of collegiate sports, and student athletes, and scholarships in return for playing was more realistic, more equitable.  The value of an education was more in line with the big picture.  For me, now that college basketball is such a huge money making endeavor, players not getting paid is completely unfair.   If things don't change, someday, there is going to be a strike or a no-show from teams at a Final Four, and then things will change quick.   I don't understand why we should expect college athletes to be treated like free labor.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, wordyginters said:

 

I can kinda sorta see what you are saying, but I still think comparing players to employees at a company is a skewed comparison.   I typically identify with the individual and the worker instead of the bossman or the company.  But in this case, my main point is that the players aren't employees, they are the product.  The game doesn't exist without players.  Apple, and the iphone, an ipads, etc. still exist without 75k a year employees.  They can be replaced.  You tell college athletes to take it or leave it, and they leave it, there isn't a game anymore.  Maybe 25 or 30 years ago, the idea of collegiate sports, and student athletes, and scholarships in return for playing was more realistic, more equitable.  The value of an education was more in line with the big picture.  For me, now that college basketball is such a huge money making endeavor, players not getting paid is completely unfair.   If things don't change, someday, there is going to be a strike or a no-show from teams at a Final Four, and then things will change quick.   I don't understand why we should expect college athletes to be treated like free labor.  

 

If you look at it in the sense of allowing them to go pro right away, the player becomes the employee and not the product correct?  The game will still exist without players who leave early.  They can be replaced by the ones who choose to go to college.  The only thing that we would lose as a fan is those all-star players who were only going to be around for a year or two anyways.  We will still have the Thomas Allens, Glynn Watsons, etc that are going to be playing college ball with the hope that they can make it big.

 

It's a really interesting topic and I think there are multiple right answers to the problem on both sides.  Unfortunately, I think there is just too many hurdles to jump through with paying a college athlete and making sure it is done fairly and equally.  If you give a mouse a cookie... their going to want a glass of milk.  I can 100% see the argument for and against paying the college athlete.  I tend to lean against until I see a solution that would make me say otherwise.

Edited by hskr4life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

Anyway, I don't want to get off into the weeds about Title IX; however, I do want it noted that it's not "obvious" and not everyone agrees. And the people who disagree generally keep quiet about it because it's not a popular opinion to have. 

 

It's probably unpopular because you need to make a 'seat belts can actually kill you so maybe we shouldn't wear them' sort of argument to make your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...