Now we find our self in a battle with the power five and NCAA!
Questions now wonder how this will, eventually this effect the recruiting at ODU. I think the C-USA has agreed on the stipend but what else looms? Lets hope the stipend is reduced. I wonder what ODU sports will be effective with the stipend and what sports get it permanent 4 year grants, even if you show you will not be helpful in 4 years and sit on the bench,:lauramac: like others we have seen. Will we have to drop sports programs because, of title nine
Now, we have the five power conferences only wanting to play football games, against only with power conference teams (again more money). I know all these final decisions have not been made, but what happens in basketball, where 341 schools play, over thirty games per year? It looks like things are getting worse, vice better for the other independents and college D-1 conferences.
Also, maybe the power five will have the ability to offer more money for stipends, since the rest of the D-1 conferences don't make the same money for TV etc, thus cutting what different conferences can pay. Still so many questions are to be answered. We are just getting started!
Football programs may be dropped, in some conferences (like the CAA)
Mr. Yeagher start spending some of that basketball money you made before you lost ODU, VCU and GMU
The CAA will basically be a non-factor if this all plays out like the P5 want. Conferences like CUSA will be the new CAAs. Even our home town paper calls CUSA a "mid-major" football league.
Not to be repetitive, but the bigger problem here is Title IX, not the P5 gaining autonomy. The latter is good for college athletics, while the former has been a mistake from day one and will undoubtedly hurt the proposed system moving forward if it is not abolished or at the very least amended.
Much like the Occupy folks, we have legitimate concerns but the blame is being cast in the wrong direction.
Wondering how many "non-revenue/minor/olympic" sports will be dropped at the P5 schools despite the fact they can easily afford them.
I said on Twitter the other day, if they want to give $5k a year to those money athletes and put it in a trust, make the funds available to them after the GRADUATE not when their eligibility expires. If they don't graduate within x-number of years (exceptions for those drafted, for example), that money goes into the kitty for athletes/sports who have to use coffee filters for toilet paper because their 1/5th of a scholarship and practice schedule makes it difficult for them to find jobs too.
If you want to get paid to play and the NCAA is going to let it happen, do something about graduation rates. Division I football also doesn't need 85 FULL scholarships. That's another issue entirely though.
Make them graduate and honor the "scholar" part of their scholarship for them to get the benefits.
(08-14-2014 10:28 AM)ODUwildman Wrote: [ -> ]Wondering how many "non-revenue/minor/olympic" sports will be dropped at the P5 schools despite the fact they can easily afford them.
I said on Twitter the other day, if they want to give $5k a year to those money athletes and put it in a trust, make the funds available to them after the GRADUATE not when their eligibility expires. If they don't graduate within x-number of years (exceptions for those drafted, for example), that money goes into the kitty for athletes/sports who have to use coffee filters for toilet paper because their 1/5th of a scholarship and practice schedule makes it difficult for them to find jobs too.
If you want to get paid to play and the NCAA is going to let it happen, do something about graduation rates. Division I football also doesn't need 85 FULL scholarships. That's another issue entirely though.
Make them graduate and honor the "scholar" part of their scholarship for them to get the benefits.
Why? That's unnecessary complexity and more confusing legislation. Just give them the money. It's theirs and they earned it.
Did they really earn it? Did a guy who went to practice every day for five years and saw 20 seconds of real playing time deserve $5K a year? Did he have any such impact on the already-sold out season tickets at State U.?
What about the kid who comes in, stays barely eligible and jumps to the NFL Draft as a 7th round pick with nothing towards a degree to show for it? The kid who doesn't get run off the team, but does enough to stay on it to collect money and he benefits because this nation has an affinity for football and basketball.
All the while across campus ...
... student athletes who need an extra 5K a year or the 20K at the end of the line to pay for student loans their grants or scholarship didn't cover are getting looked over because a nation's fanbase doesn't care about their sport.
People want to talk about likeness and making money off someone's image -- set some type of statistical benchmark. Hey, did you punt once all season? Here's your 5K. It's all caste-system bullhonkey.
The bellyaching from full-scholarship athletes about not having money to eat is their own fault. They just don't want to eat what's available, they have to eat when they want and what they want, not what the meal plan covers. That's not "going to bed hungry," that's going to bed stupid.
You graduate, you get the money, otherwise the school wasted its "scholar"ship on you. Why not do something that's for the school that bent its admissions rules to get you in only to have that spot vacated in two years.
Or you end your eligibility eligible to receive the funds. I don't think it's an issue at ODU, because they're not P5, but if you think a 5th string DL should get paid 5K a year and the 1/3rd-ride swimmer should get nothing .... is it because he earned it? How exactly does he earn it? Playing a sport this country seems to favor or because they work hard, make the grades and are not going pro.
I hate ONLY paying full-ride athletes. Give the cost of attendance to those who need it. The NCAA are no angels, but if you're on a scholarship, you should go to class and work towards a degree. I'm looking at you Bob Huggins of Cincinnati (as an example) or Michael Vick at VT, who would have been ineligible had he gone back to play.
Again, I don't believe ODU has the degree-progress problems we see with one-and-dones in basketball as an example. It won't be an issue in Norfolk I believe.
Your entire argument is based off the assumption all athletes will be paid the same. I don't think that should be the case. That will cause this whole thing to fall apart.
And to answer your question, yes...they earned it. Don't try to compare a normal student to these athletes because it's not the same...not even close.
(08-14-2014 10:07 PM)Monarch Maniac 10 Wrote: [ -> ]Your entire argument is based off the assumption all athletes will be paid the same. I don't think that should be the case. That will cause this whole thing to fall apart.
And to answer your question, yes...they earned it. Don't try to compare a normal student to these athletes because it's not the same...not even close.
Your right ... It's not even close.
Some kids are college material, some are not. Those that are not, in many cases, are given the opportunity and paid very well ... with a full ride.
(08-14-2014 10:07 PM)Monarch Maniac 10 Wrote: [ -> ]Your entire argument is based off the assumption all athletes will be paid the same. I don't think that should be the case. That will cause this whole thing to fall apart.
And to answer your question, yes...they earned it. Don't try to compare a normal student to these athletes because it's not the same...not even close.
I'm not, I'm comparing half-ride athletes to full-ride athletes from favored sports like basketball and football.
(08-14-2014 11:33 PM)ODUwildman Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2014 10:07 PM)Monarch Maniac 10 Wrote: [ -> ]Your entire argument is based off the assumption all athletes will be paid the same. I don't think that should be the case. That will cause this whole thing to fall apart.
And to answer your question, yes...they earned it. Don't try to compare a normal student to these athletes because it's not the same...not even close.
I'm not, I'm comparing half-ride athletes to full-ride athletes from favored sports like basketball and football.
There are no half-ride athletes in FBS football. They either get a full athletic scholarship or nothing (in terms of ath. scholarships). At least in the eyes of the NCAA, all players receiving a scholarship are counted against the limit of 85 as getting a full-ride.
(08-14-2014 11:33 PM)ODUwildman Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2014 10:07 PM)Monarch Maniac 10 Wrote: [ -> ]Your entire argument is based off the assumption all athletes will be paid the same. I don't think that should be the case. That will cause this whole thing to fall apart.
And to answer your question, yes...they earned it. Don't try to compare a normal student to these athletes because it's not the same...not even close.
I'm not, I'm comparing half-ride athletes to full-ride athletes from favored sports like basketball and football.
What you really mean is you are comparing athletes from sports that generate revenue with athletes from sports that cost money. Your crusade for the "poor" Olympic sports athlete is completely off base. The difference is that the existence of those sports benefits virtually nobody except the athletes, while football and basketball benefit the school, the non revenue sports, the students, and alumni.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
(08-14-2014 11:24 PM)4Heads Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2014 10:07 PM)Monarch Maniac 10 Wrote: [ -> ]Your entire argument is based off the assumption all athletes will be paid the same. I don't think that should be the case. That will cause this whole thing to fall apart.
And to answer your question, yes...they earned it. Don't try to compare a normal student to these athletes because it's not the same...not even close.
Your right ... It's not even close.
Some kids are college material, some are not. Those that are not, in many cases, are given the opportunity and paid very well ... with a full ride.
I get that argument, but the problem is these kids are forced to go to college. They have no other realistic route. Please don't mention going pro overseas over college basketball because what 18 year old wants to leave the country? And historically speaking that hasn't exactly been a great way to start a career.
The NCAA has them trapped. There is not other route but to play for them and make them tons of money while they receive nothing but a phony claim of an "education". The whole UNC debacle has thrown a dagger into that discussion.
To combat the issue of which you speak without paying college athletes what they're worth, you'd need an American professional development league that allowed kids to go pro right out of high school (much like Minor League Baseball). The NCAA has a monopoly on teenage athletes, and the way they use them to earn record profits is just wrong...all under the stupid guise of the so-called "student-athlete". The guy who invented that term did so mainly to avoid paying workman's comp, and he was on record later after his career as saying it's all sham and will fall apart. I believe we have reached the beginning of that day, my friend.
(08-15-2014 06:09 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote: [ -> ]There are no half-ride athletes in FBS football. They either get a full athletic scholarship or nothing (in terms of ath. scholarships). At least in the eyes of the NCAA, all players receiving a scholarship are counted against the limit of 85 as getting a full-ride.
I know this. I didn't say there were half-ride athletes in FBS football. There are partial scholarships in equivalency sports, not head-count sports (which football and basketball are).
Please re-read my statement.
(08-15-2014 03:05 PM)ODUwildman Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2014 06:09 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote: [ -> ]There are no half-ride athletes in FBS football. They either get a full athletic scholarship or nothing (in terms of ath. scholarships). At least in the eyes of the NCAA, all players receiving a scholarship are counted against the limit of 85 as getting a full-ride.
I know this. I didn't say there were half-ride athletes in FBS football. There are partial scholarships in equivalency sports, not head-count sports (which football and basketball are).
Please re-read my statement.
Touché, salesman. I would like everyone to recognize the time I posted that as an excuse for my misinterpretation of your post. I'm not my sharpest before 8 am.
(08-15-2014 07:04 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ]What you really mean is you are comparing athletes from sports that generate revenue with athletes from sports that cost money. Your crusade for the "poor" Olympic sports athlete is completely off base. The difference is that the existence of those sports benefits virtually nobody except the athletes, while football and basketball benefit the school, the non revenue sports, the students, and alumni.
Just because an athlete is "on the team" with a revenue-generating sport like football or basketball shouldn't make them automatically privy to extra benefits because NCAA scholarship maximums benefit 85 players.
Star QB's, RB's and LB's ... boom. Revenue-sport generating athletes. Is the backup punter doing anything to produce revenue for the school? No. Neither are the 30+ players each year who are on the team who never play a snap. They automatically get ADDITIONAL benefits because our culture favors their sports?
I don't believe my crusade is off base in any way shape or form. I lived with athletes from non-revenue sports, full scholarship sports and associated with pretty much most of the athletic teams during my time on campus. The scrub basketball player averaging 1.2 minutes per game is driving around in a pimped out Yukon and getting priority scheduling and the fifth-ranked wrestler in the nation is driving around in a P.O.S. Geo getting 50 percent scholarship and having to work a job to pay the rent.
I've seen how our own fanbase could give two sh*ts about anything other than football and basketball. Unfortunately that's the norm most places, but not every place.
I'm a Monarch ... not just a football or basketball Monarch.
I think you'd be super surprised how many of those "poor" Olympic sport athletes are business leaders and donors for ODU, so they definitely provide a value to the school in the longrun, rather than just benefitting the athlete for 4-5 years, especially since there's decades of sporting alumni giving to the school.
I love ODU football, but if you're telling me the those guys work harder than any other athlete on campus, I'm calling shenanigans. I'm sure the lion's share (no pun intended) all work hard and feel they bust their butts to represent the school and validate their pittance of a scholarship money just as much as the footballers and roundballers do.
There's how many sports on campus? Support them all. They're all athletes who wear the blue and silver and they represent us all. Just because you don't give two sh*ts about them or their sport doesn't mean they're any less valuable to the school or they work less.
Also think athletes should be held to a higher attendance standard too. During the Capel years, I had several classes each semester with basketball players. Their attendance was dismal as a whole. So if you want that money, you go to class, you get eligible, you honor your side of the "scholar" part of the scholarship, and then if you graduate, then you get your trust stipend, even if you only played one snap in five years.
no worries drunkard, there was a reason I never had a class before 9 am too!