Supreme Court agrees to hear NCAA athlete compensation case

#77
#77
allvol123 said:
Agree with alot of this.

I dont understand title 9 fully, but I dont like what I know about it in how it relates to college sports.

And I say this with 2 of my kids competing pretty seriously in non revenue sports. It is absurd to think others should be burdened with making sure they have the opportunity to compete.
Click to expand...

I remember my sports history professor at Southern Utah University addressing our class of 80 students, paraphrasing:

"The whole point of university athletics is to attract students to your school. How many of you came to SUU, at least in part, because it has sports?"

[10 hands go up]

"And how many of you play sports here?"

[the same 10 hands go up]
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, USAFgolferVol and allvol123
#79
#79
USAFgolferVol said:
I didn't say we had good enough players to beat them, but we do have good enough players to be more competitive with them. Our whole offensive line are big time recruits, but certainly don't play like it because of sub par coaching. Swinney also has some damn good assistants. We don't.
Click to expand...

Our big boys on the line have to play the whole game. Bama, Clemson, and a few others can rotate because of depth. Defensive players have to react to keep up with offensive players who know the play; reacting and playing catch up requires more more energy, strength, quickness, and talent ... and wears down players faster. Watch most teams hanging tough with Bama, Clemson, etc fade later in the game - that's frequently lack of quality depth. Having a great first team is only half the equation.
 
#80
#80
Dobbs put together two 9-win seasons for a program that floundered before and after him. He had 65 TD's in 2 years. He had 7 100-yard rushing games. He had 5 games where he passed for 200 yards and rushed for 100 yards. What is a dynamic QB if it's not a dual-threat guy who can carry a bad team to victory?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Rickyvol77
#81
#81
AM64 said:
Our big boys on the line have to play the whole game. Bama, Clemson, and a few others can rotate because of depth. Defensive players have to react to keep up with offensive players who know the play; reacting and playing catch up requires more more energy, strength, quickness, and talent ... and wears down players faster. Watch most teams hanging tough with Bama, Clemson, etc fade later in the game - that's frequently lack of quality depth. Having a great first team is only half the equation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, LOL, I know. We don't hang with them at all. That's my point about poor coaching
 
#82
#82
allvol123 said:
You do accept they players are purchased?
Click to expand...

A question regarding that. Is thee anything that prohibits athletes from accepting other scholarships? Can "walk on" players in essence still have a free ride even if they don't have an athletic scholarship? Can players with an athletic scholarship also have other scholarships and grants? If so, does the NCAA or SEC look at the other scholarships, grants, and assistantships?
 
#83
#83
n_huffhines said:
Dobbs put together two 9-win seasons for a program that floundered before and after him. He had 65 TD's in 2 years. He had 7 100-yard rushing games. He had 5 games where he passed for 200 yards and rushed for 100 yards. What is a dynamic QB if it's not a dual-threat guy who can carry a bad team to victory?
Click to expand...
Those teams had a lot of talent. Poorly coached. I loved Dobbs. His running was his best weapon
 
#86
#86
AM64 said:
A question regarding that. Is thee anything that prohibits athletes from accepting other scholarships? Can "walk on" players in essence still have a free ride even if they don't have an athletic scholarship? Can players with an athletic scholarship also have other scholarships and grants? If so, does the NCAA or SEC look at the other scholarships, grants, and assistantships?
Click to expand...
That's not what he was referring to with his statement. Yes, athletes can receive other scholarships and not necessarily be on an athletic grant-in-aid. Happens all the time with non-revenue sports. For example, the tennis team may have only 6 full athletic scholarships, but may break them up between 10 players. Some of the players may receive partial academic scholarships to make up for not getting a full "tennis" ride. 123 doesn' t know what he's talking about when he claims all those star football players are getting paid additional money besides their scholarship.
 
#87
#87
Grand Vol said:
His ability to make something out of nothing was his greatest weapon.
Click to expand...
Many of those times he took off and ran, he had missed seeing an open receiver down the field. His skills as a pocket passer were average at best, which is why he hasn't been able to excel in the NFL
 
#88
#88
n_huffhines said:
Not necessarily. You can separate profitable sports from non-profitable. You can have a football team full of university employees and a field hockey team with scholarship "amateur" athletes and non-scholarship amateur club athletes.

BUT, if they go away, is that a bad thing? Why should those uninteresting sports be propped up by interesting sports? The whole system is unnatural and is a market inefficiency. Pretty much the only reason we have field hockey scholarships is title IX. Should that exist?

The issue isn't indentured servitude. It's not that they're not compensated. It's that the NCAA has monopoly power and set up an anti-competitive system that violates anti-trust law and allows firms to collude to pay employees with only benefits. This would not fly in any other arena of life, but we're doing it to kids because they basically have no power.
Click to expand...

Deciding to play college sports is entirely voluntary. Nobody forces it unless you consider the fact that it's the stepping stone to the NFL and NBA, and that problem lies with professional sports twisting college sports as farm teams. I don't agree with the anti-trust aspect. I have a lot more problem with unions bridging entire industries and affecting others as anti-trust violations than I do the NCAA.

I don't have a problem with non-revenue generating sports going away or becoming intramural. It's a choice made by players whether it determines a school, and a choice by schools whether the cost of such programs makes a difference as an institution. UT doesn't have some varsity teams that other schools do ... apparently Title IX doesn't mandate that; that's the reason that if schools were forced to play players that some non-revenue generating varsity sports would be dropped - as you say to clubs or perhaps intramural levels. The concept of paying would change things, and it's not the in the true spirit of amateur athletics by any means. That's my view; there are many different ones available.
 
#89
#89
USAFgolferVol said:
Those teams had a lot of talent. Poorly coached. I loved Dobbs. His running was his best weapon
Click to expand...

Those teams didn't have any more talent than the teams surrounding them. They were just quarterbacked better. That's it. Those two teams had major holes, just like every other team. When Dobbs didn't play great, we usually lost. Hell, we lost to Vandy with him going 31/34 with 393 yards from scrimmage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#90
#90
USAFgolferVol said:
That's not what he was referring to with his statement. Yes, athletes can receive other scholarships and not necessarily be on an athletic grant-in-aid. Happens all the time with non-revenue sports. For example, the tennis team may have only 6 full athletic scholarships, but may break them up between 10 players. Some of the players may receive partial academic scholarships to make up for not getting a full "tennis" ride. 123 doesn' t know what he's talking about when he claims all those star football players are getting paid additional money besides their scholarship.
Click to expand...

I was bridging the gap a bit. Other scholarships, grants, and assistantships could (nothing definite) be additional compensation if they are awarded on the basis of something other than competitively to the entire student body. Definitions ... Like if I had a few million in loose change and decided that I'd award some scholarships or grants to "deserving students who favorably represent the school as leaders and role models" - without defining the criteria or setting academic requirements. There's already some precedent with minority acceptance criteria ... and if it still exists "partial qualifiers". I remember times when someone in the community simply paid the college costs for someone they felt deserved the opportunity but would never be able to attend otherwise.
 
#91
#91
USAFgolferVol said:
That's not what he was referring to with his statement. Yes, athletes can receive other scholarships and not necessarily be on an athletic grant-in-aid. Happens all the time with non-revenue sports. For example, the tennis team may have only 6 full athletic scholarships, but may break them up between 10 players. Some of the players may receive partial academic scholarships to make up for not getting a full "tennis" ride. 123 doesn' t know what he's talking about when he claims all those star football players are getting paid additional money besides their scholarship.
Click to expand...

And you're a damn fool claiming I dont know what I'm talking about. I known enough college football players to know what happens. Hell, everyone knows, except you evidently.
 
#92
#92
AM64 said:
Deciding to play college sports is entirely voluntary. Nobody forces it unless you consider the fact that it's the stepping stone to the NFL and NBA, and that problem lies with professional sports twisting college sports as farm teams. I don't agree with the anti-trust aspect. I have a lot more problem with unions bridging entire industries and affecting others as anti-trust violations than I do the NCAA.

I don't have a problem with non-revenue generating sports going away or becoming intramural. It's a choice made by players whether it determines a school, and a choice by schools whether the cost of such programs makes a difference as an institution. UT doesn't have some varsity teams that other schools do ... apparently Title IX doesn't mandate that; that's the reason that if schools were forced to play players that some non-revenue generating varsity sports would be dropped - as you say to clubs or perhaps intramural levels. The concept of paying would change things, and it's not the in the true spirit of amateur athletics by any means. That's my view; there are many different ones available.
Click to expand...

This is beside the point.

So you have a problem with labor colluding against big business but you have no problem with big business colluding against labor? If you want to be consistent, have a problem with both or neither. If you want to be inconsistent but err on the side of the little guy, that is somewhat acceptable. Inconsistently erring on the side of the big guy makes no sense to me.
 
#95
#95
n_huffhines said:
This is beside the point.

So you have a problem with labor colluding against big business but you have no problem with big business colluding against labor? If you want to be consistent, have a problem with both or neither. If you want to be inconsistent but err on the side of the little guy, that is somewhat acceptable. Inconsistently erring on the side of the big guy makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't spell it out this time, but I've said several times before in posts that there is a problem with government ignoring anti-trust regulation by allowing a union to work across an entire industry while deriving income from some companies to provide strike benefits at an other(s). For example: in the old days the UAW could strike Ford and use "dues" from Chrysler and GM workers to fund those on strike at Ford. GM and Chrysler knowing that they would in turn have to acquiesce to the Ford agreement could do nothing to help Ford weather the strike. To make matters worse the Teamsters and others wouldn't cross picket lines and would use other tactics to support the striking UAW members.
 
#96
#96
USAFgolferVol said:
Many of those times he took off and ran, he had missed seeing an open receiver down the field. His skills as a pocket passer were average at best, which is why he hasn't been able to excel in the NFL
Click to expand...

I'll credit him with the excuse of never having a quality QB coach while he was here. His passing steadily improved over the years but he was never coached properly to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and USAFgolferVol
#98
#98
allvol123 said:
I am sure his receivers were great. When you beat Bama as a college qb you get some cred.

The eye test told me Manziel and Dobbs were both dynamic in college.

I dont care anything about what a player does after college, has no bearing on my view of what they did in college.
Click to expand...
Oh I absolutely agree. My comment was that the sports world acted like Manziel was something out of this world, when his receivers made a lot of acrobatic catches. He threw up a lot of **** that should/could have been picked/incomplete, that weren't. Too bad though he is such a jackass. Then again, I couldn't care less about him.

And Tom Brady was a 6th round pick. College level accomplishments mean bupkis wrt the NFL. I find it really funny that after all these years it is still a guessing game as to who is gonna be great or a bust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and allvol123
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top