(04-12-2017 10:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  JR ... I still don't buy even a single iota of the sentiment that people will be turned off to watching college teams if the players are no longer students at the school.

I think we're talking 0.1% loss max.

The would easily lose more than 1/10th of 1 percent. I doubt that would lose 20% in the worst case scenario. But let's say that Baylor's player were not students. I could see a dramatic drop of 10 to 15% participation there. Folks do have the Cowboys. Righteous indignation would occur. Now, if there are no crimes committed by the players I think your estimate would be closer to being accurate. As long a they wore the school name they would be supported.

Baylor is Waco's team. Zero percent loss in attendance there.

The only people who watch Baylor games on TV are Baylor alums, so zero loss there, unless its a nationally relevant game.


Just not seeing it. Zero chance 20%.

There is too much at stake to strike a death blow.

It may not be popular among the idealistic or those who dislike UNC but the truth is that a death blow would be worse than anything else, for a lot of people.

(04-12-2017 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Baylor is Waco's team. Zero percent loss in attendance there.

The only people who watch Baylor games on TV are Baylor alums, so zero loss there, unless its a nationally relevant game.


Just not seeing it. Zero chance 20%.

Bison I'm not having another discussion in which there is no proof of the merits of either side of the argument. I picked Waco because Baylor is Baptist. They will suffer a loss of fans, not necessarily alumni or donors, but fans who are morally outraged.

First - obviously there is no proof. We're just stating our opinions. I am more than willing to leave it at agreeing to disagree.

Second - are we talking about the Baylor rape scandal or are we talking about a hypothetical where Baylor major teams (along with all other P5 and/or FBS teams) no longer use (exclusively) students for the players??

I can't possibly believe you're suggesting that the morally obligated would look past the former, but would not look past the latter.

(04-12-2017 11:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  First - obviously there is no proof. We're just stating our opinions. I am more than willing to leave it at agreeing to disagree.

Second - are we talking about the Baylor rape scandal or are we talking about a hypothetical where Baylor major teams (along with all other P5 and/or FBS teams) no longer use (exclusively) students for the players??

I can't possibly believe you're suggesting that the morally obligated would look past the former, but would not look past the latter.

No, I'm specifically talking about the rape cases. I'm saying that some degree of wait and see would be there for students. I don't believe any would be there for a paid player. I picked the most extreme example intentionally. I was surmising that those who associated themselves with the school for religious reasons would have very little tolerance for conduct that violated their standards whereas more secular fans would likely have a much higher degree of tolerance under those circumstances. Actually I have been aghast at the denial thus far in that case. I'll be watching the attendance figures next season to see.

Oh, then we're talking about completely different things then. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

I'm talking only about if P5 and/or FBS teams switch to using mostly/all non-student players. In that case, and given everything else staying the same, I don't see how attendance/viewership would be affected.

(04-12-2017 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Oh, then we're talking about completely different things then. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

I'm talking only about if P5 and/or FBS teams switch to using mostly/all non-student players. In that case, and given everything else staying the same, I don't see how attendance/viewership would be affected.

Actually I see a form of a compromise here. Sports majors would be given which required no more than an associates degree to complete. The athletes would be essentially exempt from core curriculum and would spend their time learning how to train, care for their bodies, and prepared to assume coaching roles once their playing careers ended. Some of them could even be trained in sports analysis and a form of sports journalism.

If an athlete has aptitude for academic study their scholarship will be redeemable in the form of education at anytime in their lives.

(04-12-2017 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Actually I see a form of a compromise here. Sports majors would be given which required no more than an associates degree to complete. The athletes would be essentially exempt from core curriculum and would spend their time learning how to train, care for their bodies, and prepared to assume coaching roles once their playing careers ended. Some of them could even be trained in sports analysis and a form of sports journalism.

If an athlete has aptitude for academic study their scholarship will be redeemable in the form of education at anytime in their lives.

We will see.

The Kessler lawsuit is going to be interesting.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...gent-probe

Ex-NFL agent Terry Watson pleads guilty to giving cash to 3 former UNC players.

The hits keep on coming for UNC.

IMO, I don't see why that should be considered a violation against UNC's athletic dept.


You can't mind control people, and prevent them from doing the wrong thing 100% of the time. The former NFL agent broke a North Carolina state law against luring players into contracts with cash. That's his crime, not UNC's.

(04-11-2017 01:05 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  If Penn State didn't get it (covering up a child predator using university facilities to molest children) no one will.

This.

I'd be mildly surprised if the DP is given to anybody, but I'd be shocked if it's *ever* used against any P5 program.

(04-12-2017 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There is too much at stake to strike a death blow.

It may not be popular among the idealistic or those who dislike UNC but the truth is that a death blow would be worse than anything else, for a lot of people.

There's some truth to this in other arenas as well.

For example, look at when Arthur Anderson (the accounting firm that overlooked Enron's crimes) was "given the death penalty." Everyone knows that Anderson was guilty, but everyone I've talked to (from regulators to academics to former AA workers to competitors) agrees that the cure was worse than allowing the disease to continue.