(09-30-2015 01:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  bison you are full of it..

That's what I said. 1/3 of the folks that graduate do so in years 5 and 6. Only 66% of overall graduates do so in 4 years.
and of males- it's closer to 2/5(I was off on that). Only 61% of males that graduate do so in 4 years.

Sorry but to act like 34% overall and 39% of males isn't a huge number is absolutely bat **** crazy. I definitely wouldn't call 61% a vast majority- hell wouldn't even call 66% a vast majority.

So to act like closing up redshirts would help the people graduate- is just insane. It wouldn't, and it would absolutely hurt a lot of people.

And, of course, no one was talking about trying to force players to graduate in four years.

Here we go, all over again ...

That's what he said at the start of it that I replied to:
I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

Sorry but to act like everyone that redshirts- or even a majority- would get their degree in 4 years is moronic. Absolutely no proof to that at all whatsoever. The fact is there is a pretty big number of folks that it takes 5 or 6 years to graduate, regardless if they are athletes or not. Eliminating redshirts wouldn't cause all those athletes who redshirted who didn't get their degrees in 4 years but did in 5 years- to be guaranteed at all to get it in 4 years.

AGAIN ------

no one is saying that we want to force athletes to graduate in four years.

The argument is simple: colleges are historically four-year institutions, so student-athlete eligibility should be four years. Plain and simple.

Except they aren't 4 year institutions in reality. There are a lot of folks that do take 5 and 6 years to graduate. You can say a majority graduate in 4- and you're right. But there is a signifigant part of the population that does take 5 and 6 years to graduate.

Also there's a bit of a racial component to this as well.
only 20.8 of blacks graduate in 4 years. 15.7 of black males graduate in 4 years. That number jumps up to 35.5% overall and 34.1 males in 5 years, and 40.8% overall and 35.3% males in 6 years. So the 4 year overall percentage is 51% graduating in 4 years with males being only 44%. And that's the OVERALL black population, not black athletes.

They are four year institutions. Degrees are set up so that every student can complete the coursework requirements in four years. That's the definition.

Just because they don't require you to complete it in four years does not mean they are not four year institutions. You're being absurd.


Your numbers do nothing to explain why only 51% of the black students who have graduated in at most six years have done it in four years.

Perhaps that number would be 80% if they didn't have to drop out for two different semesters to work or to take care of family, etc.

Thus, those numbers can't be used as the basis of an argument to say that the institution should really be planning degrees for five years.

(09-30-2015 01:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  your point is that redshirting hurts kids, and I'm sorry but that is bull****. There are a lot more kids that get their degrees because of redshirting than you ever want to admit.

It is bull. I never said that. You made that up.

Our point has only to do with eligibility.


That you choose not to comprehend that the end of eligibility is not equivalent to the end of active status at the school is your own fault. Actually, you probably are doing it on purpose to suit your own agenda.

and you are being absurd to say that there isn't a big time part of the school that does take more than 4 years. There are a whole hell of a lot more folks that take 5 years than you ever would want to admit.

(09-30-2015 02:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 01:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  There are a lot more kids that get their degrees because of redshirting than you ever want to admit.

The extra year definitely helps athletes, because participating in their sport takes so much time that it affects their ability to finish a bachelor's degree in 4 or 5 years. The proposal to let scholarship athletes have tuition and R&B paid for as long as they are enrolled in school, even after their eligibility is up, is excellent and ought to be enacted.

Exactly correct.

Four years of eligibility and another year or two to finish up coursework, as needed.


(Note: I already offered that in the other suggested and stever wouldn't budge, he made up some reason why that can never happen)

bottom line, redshirting is never going away so it's like your absurd 5-7 bowling idea. It's never going to happen.

(09-30-2015 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are being absurd to say that there isn't a big time part of the school that does take more than 4 years. There are a whole hell of a lot more folks that take 5 years than you ever would want to admit.

I admit that less than 30% of them take five years, compared to 66% who take four years.

How that proves that athletes deserve five years of athletics eligibility, is beyond me.

(09-30-2015 02:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  bottom line, redshirting is never going away so it's like your absurd 5-7 bowling idea. It's never going to happen.

See. Just like I said.

When he runs out of counter-arguments, his default is "It's not going to happen. It's just not!"


He just conceded the argument.

Time to move on.

(09-30-2015 02:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  bottom line, redshirting is never going away so it's like your absurd 5-7 bowling idea. It's never going to happen.

See. Just like I said.

When he runs out of counter-arguments, his default is "It's not going to happen. It's just not!"


He just conceded the argument.

Time to move on.

Like your 5-7 thing, can you show me 1 college administrator that wants to get rid of redshirting. Just 1.

Yeah, didn't think so.

You are making arguments that have absolutely no shot of ever getting enacted. Pie in the sky.

(09-30-2015 02:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are being absurd to say that there isn't a big time part of the school that does take more than 4 years. There are a whole hell of a lot more folks that take 5 years than you ever would want to admit.

I admit that less than 30% of them take five years, compared to 66% who take four years.

How that proves that athletes deserve five years of athletics eligibility, is beyond me.

Also that's overall. Only 61% of males take 4 years to graduate. 39% take 5 and 6 years.

(09-30-2015 02:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  bottom line, redshirting is never going away so it's like your absurd 5-7 bowling idea. It's never going to happen.

See. Just like I said.

When he runs out of counter-arguments, his default is "It's not going to happen. It's just not!"


He just conceded the argument.

Time to move on.

Like your 5-7 thing, can you show me 1 college administrator that wants to get rid of redshirting. Just 1.

Yeah, didn't think so.

You are making arguments that have absolutely no shot of ever getting enacted. Pie in the sky.

You can't think of a good counter-argument.

Just because it's not changing doesn't mean there is no good argument for why it should change. You know it.

(09-30-2015 02:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are being absurd to say that there isn't a big time part of the school that does take more than 4 years. There are a whole hell of a lot more folks that take 5 years than you ever would want to admit.

I admit that less than 30% of them take five years, compared to 66% who take four years.

How that proves that athletes deserve five years of athletics eligibility, is beyond me.

Also that's overall. Only 61% of males take 4 years to graduate. 39% take 5 and 6 years.

How that proves that male athletes deserve five years of athletics eligibility, is beyond me.

I don't have to think of a good counter-argument because it has absolutely no chance of going away.

(09-30-2015 02:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't have to think of a good counter-argument because it has absolutely no chance of going away.

Right, you conceded the argument.


Even though it won't happen, it's still nice to know that my argument was good enough that you couldn't think of a counter-argument.

I think the argument that so many folks are helped by redshirting that graduate as a result of it is a pretty darn good argument for it.

(09-30-2015 02:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are being absurd to say that there isn't a big time part of the school that does take more than 4 years. There are a whole hell of a lot more folks that take 5 years than you ever would want to admit.

Right. Where and why is what I'd like to examine. Some schools were built for non-traditional sorts. Temple, I would imagine, doesn't see people walk in and out in four as much as, say, Elizabethtown or Messiah, but E-Town and MC don't rely on community college feeders and transfers like TU does.

I'm glad people just complete. Community colleges would love to graduate folks, period.

(09-30-2015 03:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the argument that so many folks are helped by redshirting that graduate as a result of it is a pretty darn good argument for it.

A false argument on both ends:

1) taking a redshirt as a true freshman in no way obligates the player to stay for five years

2) that a redshirted player waited until after his fifth season to graduate does not prove that he could not have graduated in four years, had he not taken the redshirt

Rather than talk about how many years of eligibility an athlete should have, I'd rather address the topic of the thread. From the initial ruling in this case, it seemed to me that the payment for use of image issue made no sense at all, on several levels.

First, it is limited to basketball and football players. Are they the only ones who appear on TV? And why treat each athlete as equal to every other athlete when it comes to the value of his image? Does the anonymous third stringer who plays only on special teams deserve as big a payday as the all-America QB? Or the guy on the end of the bench in hoops? How about the kid who is injured and spends the season in street clothes even though he is still on scholarship and on the roster?

And what justification was there for putting an arbitrary cap on the amount?

I'm puzzled also by the idea that the question of whether an athlete is an employee or not hinges on the need for colleges to retain the figleaf of amateurism. Tax law enumerates specific conditions under which a person is considered an employee. The only question relevant in my view is whether scholarship athletes meet those conditions. If congress thinks college sports should be exempt from those conditions, then the simple answer is to pass a law that says they are exempt.

This isn't over. Not by a long shot.

(09-30-2015 03:57 PM)ken d Wrote:  Rather than talk about how many years of eligibility an athlete should have, I'd rather address the topic of the thread. From the initial ruling in this case, it seemed to me that the payment for use of image issue made no sense at all, on several levels.

First, it is limited to basketball and football players. Are they the only ones who appear on TV? And why treat each athlete as equal to every other athlete when it comes to the value of his image? Does the anonymous third stringer who plays only on special teams deserve as big a payday as the all-America QB? Or the guy on the end of the bench in hoops? How about the kid who is injured and spends the season in street clothes even though he is still on scholarship and on the roster?

And what justification was there for putting an arbitrary cap on the amount?

I'm puzzled also by the idea that the question of whether an athlete is an employee or not hinges on the need for colleges to retain the figleaf of amateurism. Tax law enumerates specific conditions under which a person is considered an employee. The only question relevant in my view is whether scholarship athletes meet those conditions. If congress thinks college sports should be exempt from those conditions, then the simple answer is to pass a law that says they are exempt.

This isn't over. Not by a long shot.

The case was filed because a former men's basketball player for UCLA saw a virtual player in a NCAA basketball video game that looked very similar to himself, yet he had never been paid for that usage of his likeness.

The judge ultimately agreed with him. She said that the NCAA must create rules that allow schools to pay players for using and selling the rights to the players' NILs (Names, Images and Likenesses). And she said that the amount paid to each player could not be less than $5000 per year that the athlete was academically eligible.

Note that it wasn't a cap, it was actually a floor. So if you have football, men's basketball and women's basketball at around 115 athletes total, that's $575k per year in extra compensation, above FCOA.

(She also required that schools not cap scholarship values to be less than FCOA)


Now the federal appeals judge just knocked all of that out, except the part about not allowing the NCAA to cap scholarship values to be less than FCOA.


You raised a ton of valid questions about what was going to be some kind of complex system for determining how much to compensate all those athletes for their NILs. But now that has been wiped out. Schools only need to offer scholarships, so long as the maximum value is capped at FCOA (not less than).



The next step is the Kessler lawsuit. And even in that lawsuit, I don't think the aim is necessarily to make players employees of the school. They just want players to get paid a market value, rather than be capped at a scholarship.


The only people who have talked about making players employees of the school, so far, was the unionization effort at Northwestern. And the federal labor board said no to that specific effort, for now.

(09-30-2015 10:55 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They'd have to cut roster size way down, to even have a chance.

Count me as one who thinks they should.

I'm not a fan of redshirting. It pervades into the rest of the institution, this idea that four-year schools need to place their athletes on five-year plans. It's not okay.

The size of a roster feeds into other aspects of the overall cost structure. Bigger team means more recruitment labor, staff, and time. Bigger coaching staffs. Bigger practice facilities. More trainers. More staff. Top-level requirements also demand different infrastructure requirements, so it's not just owning a certain sized stadium, but staffing it, upkeep, and equipping it for readiness. And that doesn't even touch the "luxury" stuff, like upkeep of VIP spaces and other niche staffing and infrastructure (film, crew, and media).

I don't see why football has to be so big at the college level. The only ones I can see point to anti-competitive behaviors. Colleges are already abusing the benefits of tax-exemption...it doesn't have to be an all-out pillaging.

It can, and should be, reeled in.

And maybe in doing so, the pro leagues can budge. They're not innocent in this by any means.

This makes no sense. More and more people take 5 years to get a bachelor's degree.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(09-30-2015 03:57 PM)ken d Wrote:  Rather than talk about how many years of eligibility an athlete should have, I'd rather address the topic of the thread. From the initial ruling in this case, it seemed to me that the payment for use of image issue made no sense at all, on several levels.

First, it is limited to basketball and football players. Are they the only ones who appear on TV? And why treat each athlete as equal to every other athlete when it comes to the value of his image? Does the anonymous third stringer who plays only on special teams deserve as big a payday as the all-America QB? Or the guy on the end of the bench in hoops? How about the kid who is injured and spends the season in street clothes even though he is still on scholarship and on the roster?

And what justification was there for putting an arbitrary cap on the amount?

I'm puzzled also by the idea that the question of whether an athlete is an employee or not hinges on the need for colleges to retain the figleaf of amateurism. Tax law enumerates specific conditions under which a person is considered an employee. The only question relevant in my view is whether scholarship athletes meet those conditions. If congress thinks college sports should be exempt from those conditions, then the simple answer is to pass a law that says they are exempt.

This isn't over. Not by a long shot.

The arbitrary 5,000 cap was flat out ridiculous. Either you don't have a cap or you don't allow it. That was destined to be destroyed in court one way or the other.