Lightningwar
Administrator
Maybe an equipment manager? I'd think it pretty easy to track down who didnt turn in their equipment at the end of the year.
-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
NCAA Loses O'Bannon Case
- Thread starter GuyIncognito
- Start date
Wooly
Well-Known Member
This is the deep south, that equipment manager is already dead, ruled a suicide, and there will be no further investigation. Geaux Tigers!
Brick
Well-Known Member
Lightningwar
Administrator
Hello nail, this is the head of the hammer.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/201...an-michael-bennett-seattle-seahawks-bash-ncaa
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/201...an-michael-bennett-seattle-seahawks-bash-ncaa
Wooly
Well-Known Member
I don't find this a sympathetic argument.
He is mad that other people made money off his work. I get that. You are no one special, welcome to America if you are not one of the 1%. Rich people make money off of your labor, looks like your college gave you a real world experience. I am sure someone will argue that this is different because College sports has illegal laws protecting them from having to pay fairly, or have a real market, or something like that. It's not different, it works that way everywhere.
Also, the NCAA didn't make much money off him, the schools and their business partners did. That is not the NCAA.
Lastly, he worked hard in school, good for him. Guess what, plenty of people worked as hard as him, plenty didn't too. That includes athletes and non-athletes. Plenty of players slack off and have plenty of free time. Plenty of regular students work as hard as athletes. They go to class, they go to work, they spent time at free research labs and internships. Of course the athlete doesn't leave school with years of debt either, no matter how hard either party works. If you had a lot of free time in school, I am guessing you didn't work much or have a demanding major.
Sorry football players, I don't feel that bad for you. You were not oppressed. You feel slighted, so what, get in line.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Oh please.
There's an obvious difference between some guy who works an assembly line doing work a trained monkey or robot could do and a guy whose individual market value is in the tens of millions.
And it is the NCAA, because it's the NCAA's rules that create these conditions in the first place. What did Mark Emmert make last year? $11 million? He's just an innocent bystander in all this? The schools ARE the NCAA.
And hard work is irrelevant. The point is that his work was worth more. A lot more than he was paid for it. That's not true for your working-class hero nonsense.
And you completely missed his point that players are not allowed to take advantage of the offerings of the university because of their 60-hour-a-week work schedules. The point of that isn't to show "how hard they work," the point is to establish that that "free education" indignant white critics are always yapping about isn't as great as it sounds when you consider how limited their experience actually is.
And I know that for a fact, because that's one of the reasons I stopped playing. The University of Miami only had a couple of Middle East and Arabic classes at that time, and they were all during football. When I decided that stuff was more important to my future than playing football, I had to quit. But I was on academic money. A football scholarship doesn't have that option, he just has to major in something else.
So yeah. They're spot on. The difference between Student Wooly "working hard" and not getting paid as much as he thinks he should and Richard Sherman doing it is that Richard Sherman's work is literally worth tens of millions of dollars and Student Wooly's isn't.
They're not playing by the same rules.
Student Wooly is free to sign endorsement deals, to appear in commercials, to get paid to wear Nikes to class. His $0 in endorsement money is only the byproduct of the fact that there's no market worth to his endorsement.
Richard Sherman's $0 in endorsement money is only the byproduct of the NCAA ruling he's not allowed to have it, because we can't have these poor black kids flashing all this money around. It makes the suits uncomfortable. His endorsement is worth millions, he's just barred from giving it.
There's an obvious difference between some guy who works an assembly line doing work a trained monkey or robot could do and a guy whose individual market value is in the tens of millions.
And it is the NCAA, because it's the NCAA's rules that create these conditions in the first place. What did Mark Emmert make last year? $11 million? He's just an innocent bystander in all this? The schools ARE the NCAA.
And hard work is irrelevant. The point is that his work was worth more. A lot more than he was paid for it. That's not true for your working-class hero nonsense.
And you completely missed his point that players are not allowed to take advantage of the offerings of the university because of their 60-hour-a-week work schedules. The point of that isn't to show "how hard they work," the point is to establish that that "free education" indignant white critics are always yapping about isn't as great as it sounds when you consider how limited their experience actually is.
And I know that for a fact, because that's one of the reasons I stopped playing. The University of Miami only had a couple of Middle East and Arabic classes at that time, and they were all during football. When I decided that stuff was more important to my future than playing football, I had to quit. But I was on academic money. A football scholarship doesn't have that option, he just has to major in something else.
So yeah. They're spot on. The difference between Student Wooly "working hard" and not getting paid as much as he thinks he should and Richard Sherman doing it is that Richard Sherman's work is literally worth tens of millions of dollars and Student Wooly's isn't.
They're not playing by the same rules.
Student Wooly is free to sign endorsement deals, to appear in commercials, to get paid to wear Nikes to class. His $0 in endorsement money is only the byproduct of the fact that there's no market worth to his endorsement.
Richard Sherman's $0 in endorsement money is only the byproduct of the NCAA ruling he's not allowed to have it, because we can't have these poor black kids flashing all this money around. It makes the suits uncomfortable. His endorsement is worth millions, he's just barred from giving it.
Last edited:
I think Sherman's point about not being able to take full advantage of the education you receive as "payment" is the most depressing part about college athletics to me. I was able to work enough to get very good grades during college because I had a very open schedule, but if you put me on a football schedule and asked me to repeat the same performance there is no way I could. Even if I was able to grind out acceptable and passing grades, I still wouldn't be getting the same value I did from the education, because I'd be missing class due to traveling, having to sign up for only classes during free spots in the football schedule, etc. I think that offering the option of deferred scholarship would eliminate a lot of problems in this regard. It would also help eliminate the farce that is the "Student Athlete" in major college sports. The idea that you can have that many students working with a football schedule in an academically rigorous environment... and have NONE of them fail classes, is absurd. Everyone knows it is absurd, but people still get indignant when schools are caught in academic "cheating" scandals. The entire system is set up so that cheating, or lowering academic standards to absurd levels are the only possible answer. Even if you took the general student population, failure rates are much higher in those same classes. If students were allowed to defer their education until they were done playing (or take as many credits as they were comfortable with) then this situation is virtually eliminated. I still don't think their compensation would be remotely "fair," but at least they can actually take advantage of the compensation they do receive instead of having it be wasted due to a fucked up system.
@Wooly, the thing I'll never understand is how you can work in higher education research environments and not see the parallels to how college athletics could/should be handled in regards to base compensation (I'm not even talking about letting them accept sponsorship money, which should also be done). I'm sure that at least some of the graduate research assistants get stipends, right? When I was in graduate school my education was covered and I also received $20k a year post tax for working 20 hours a week, a competitive wage for an entry level engineer. I was paid that much because my studies, contributions, and research were valued enough by the university that they could make a competitive offer so that I wouldn't go straight into the workforce instead. Hell, one year we were short on grad students so I was able to double dip and take a GRA and GTA position. $40k post tax for 40 hours of work per week AND they covered all my school costs? Those are real wages. So Universities already operate a system where they pay students for their research contributions at a rate that is pretty darn close to market value (I made right about $40k post tax dollars my first year as an engineer), yet they can't figure out how to do the same thing in sports? Weird.
@Wooly, the thing I'll never understand is how you can work in higher education research environments and not see the parallels to how college athletics could/should be handled in regards to base compensation (I'm not even talking about letting them accept sponsorship money, which should also be done). I'm sure that at least some of the graduate research assistants get stipends, right? When I was in graduate school my education was covered and I also received $20k a year post tax for working 20 hours a week, a competitive wage for an entry level engineer. I was paid that much because my studies, contributions, and research were valued enough by the university that they could make a competitive offer so that I wouldn't go straight into the workforce instead. Hell, one year we were short on grad students so I was able to double dip and take a GRA and GTA position. $40k post tax for 40 hours of work per week AND they covered all my school costs? Those are real wages. So Universities already operate a system where they pay students for their research contributions at a rate that is pretty darn close to market value (I made right about $40k post tax dollars my first year as an engineer), yet they can't figure out how to do the same thing in sports? Weird.
Last edited:
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Yeah, would be all for deferred scholarships. Just make the things good for 8 years or something and say the guy only gets the first 5 to play his 4. It's not like it costs the school that much to provide a seat in a classroom.
And I'm in a unique position to understand this I think because I spent time as both a football player and a regular student. And I'll say this: the first semester I didn't have to do football stuff, I didn't know what to do with myself I had so much time and freedom.
Now admittedly, there are people in college who have external obligations that pose the same kinds of challenges to their educational opportunities, but I'm not sure how common that is, and I am sure that it's irrelevant to the discussion because the reasons these challenges are imposed on athletes are entirely arbitrary and could be erased with a penstroke.
There are entire departments at these schools that have never had a football player, and it's not because football players are all dumbasses. It's because unless you're a Rhodes Scholar like Myron Rolle, trying to play football and go pre-med at the same time is a virtual impossibility. And some majors, due to scheduling issues, are an actual impossibility.
The big takeaway (and the source of indignation) is that there is literally no reason for it to be this way. None. That's unfortunately not true for the single mother of two putting herself through college by working two jobs, but we can't solve THAT problem with an NCAA rule change.
And I'm in a unique position to understand this I think because I spent time as both a football player and a regular student. And I'll say this: the first semester I didn't have to do football stuff, I didn't know what to do with myself I had so much time and freedom.
Now admittedly, there are people in college who have external obligations that pose the same kinds of challenges to their educational opportunities, but I'm not sure how common that is, and I am sure that it's irrelevant to the discussion because the reasons these challenges are imposed on athletes are entirely arbitrary and could be erased with a penstroke.
There are entire departments at these schools that have never had a football player, and it's not because football players are all dumbasses. It's because unless you're a Rhodes Scholar like Myron Rolle, trying to play football and go pre-med at the same time is a virtual impossibility. And some majors, due to scheduling issues, are an actual impossibility.
The big takeaway (and the source of indignation) is that there is literally no reason for it to be this way. None. That's unfortunately not true for the single mother of two putting herself through college by working two jobs, but we can't solve THAT problem with an NCAA rule change.
Lightningwar
Administrator
I was in two sports in college for a couple years before bowing out of Football.
This was my typical day in the off season.
Football Morning workouts 6:15-7:30.
Breakfast 8-8:30
Class 9-2
Track - 3-5
Mandatory football study hall - 7-9. This was useless due to forcing everybody into a cafeteria that was hot and loud.
Track traveling on weekends.
In season
Workouts morning
Class from 8-12
Lunch
Film 1-2:30
Practice 3-5:30
Dinner
Study hall from 7-9(useless as noted above)
Away games add in Friday and Saturday travel. Usually getting back after midnight into Sunday morning after the game.
This was my typical day in the off season.
Football Morning workouts 6:15-7:30.
Breakfast 8-8:30
Class 9-2
Track - 3-5
Mandatory football study hall - 7-9. This was useless due to forcing everybody into a cafeteria that was hot and loud.
Track traveling on weekends.
In season
Workouts morning
Class from 8-12
Lunch
Film 1-2:30
Practice 3-5:30
Dinner
Study hall from 7-9(useless as noted above)
Away games add in Friday and Saturday travel. Usually getting back after midnight into Sunday morning after the game.
BasinBictory
OUT with the GOUT
Wasn't sure where to put this, but, just as I figured, the penalties against USC was just h8erz being h8erz. Except, when the haters have the kind of power the NCAA does, then you get a fucked up situation.
Fuck the NCAA
Fuck the NCAA
Lightningwar
Administrator
One out of three isnt bad.
Anyways it doesnt take unsealed documents to see USC got fucked in that investigation. They lessened penalties against a university that had child rape going on in their showers while putting USC 1 step from the death penalty for Bush taking benefits.
BasinBictory
OUT with the GOUT
Well, a big part of it I imagine was that dem good ol' En-See-Ay-Ay boys didn't much cotton to an uppity opaque AD from Cali-for-Nigh-Ay.
Lightningwar
Administrator
coogrfan
Well-Known Member
Imo the NCAA's position here isn't unreasonable. As a quote from the article points out:
But Rick Burton, professor of sport management at Syracuse University, said it's not realistic to think that the NCAA would regulate every professor and every course an athlete might take at each university across the country.
"I understand, I think, where the NCAA is coming from. We would not let the NCAA come in and tell us how to run our chemistry department at Syracuse University," he said.
"It sounds like someone is trying to say the NCAA should have been supervising that department at the University of North Carolina, and there's no logic to that," he said. "The people who are saying the NCAA should be held accountable for academics at every school are just looking for an opportunity to throw rocks at the NCAA."
ZeekLTK
Well-Known Member
But it is the NCAA's fault that they have requirements about academic performance which are often unreasonable considering the workload that playing football entails. And those unreasonable requirements are what cause schools to "cheat" in order to keep their players eligible.
And now the NCAA has tried to argue BOTH that educational quality and player safety are not their responsibility... so what exactly is their purpose then?
And now the NCAA has tried to argue BOTH that educational quality and player safety are not their responsibility... so what exactly is their purpose then?