(07-29-2013 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 03:01 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:58 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  good lord how has this turned into "Defending Your Life" for ECU?!?!?!?

Quo with another steaming pile of manure argument.

No, absurdly sensitive ECU fans unwilling to admit that you're in the same category as Old Dominion and Delaware.

As Adcorbett said, school's don't turn down money. When you guys boost your revenues and change your vote, your claims about having all this earning potential and being able to afford stipends will ring true. But as of now, it's just Pirates blarney. :phew:by

Your argument is still phoney baloney, because you are totally ignoring how these schools derive their income. ODU and JMU get more revenue from student fees (2:1 clip) than does ECU. ECU's income is more diverse and stems from a lot more sources including ticket sales, etc. Even a non finance person can see that a program that is primarily living off of their student actually has less money than a program whose majority of income comes from sources other than students. Your comparison is not apples to apples unless student fees were at a 1:1 clip, which would easily show ECU has the higher revenues.

Guess Wake Forrest can't afford it either.

Quo are you slow or being that much of a troll. I quoted the revenue figures for you. I've clearly showed that your wrong. Athletic budget has little to do with it. YOUR SCHOOL'S EDUCATIONAL FOUDATION, IE BOOSTER CLUB, IE PIRATE CLUB, BULLS CLUB, ETC., PAYS FOR SCHOLARSHIPS. That is separate from you budget.



Houston is 3.7 million behind ECU in donations to it educational foundation and only a million ahead in athletic budget. Combined Houston is 2 million dollars behind us. Yet they can afford it, but you think (doggedly) that ECU can't and that why we voted no. You are wrong, sorry. The facts say other wise, so does our AD emeritus Terry Holland, and our Chancellor Dr. Steve Ballard. Both of whom have said, yes we can pay the stipend, but we think it should fully comply with Title IX.

The 2011 measure was screaming for a lawsuit to happen from a female athlete that didn't get the stipend. Guess what, the NCAA wouldn't be sued, the school would. No, it wasn't worth a 20 million dollar lawsuit claiming discrimination and violation of federal law.

But, believe what you want.

(07-29-2013 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 03:01 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 02:58 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  good lord how has this turned into "Defending Your Life" for ECU?!?!?!?

Quo with another steaming pile of manure argument.

No, absurdly sensitive ECU fans unwilling to admit that you're in the same category as Old Dominion and Delaware.

As Adcorbett said, school's don't turn down money. When you guys boost your revenues and change your vote, your claims about having all this earning potential and being able to afford stipends will ring true. But as of now, it's just Pirates blarney.

Yep you figured it out Einstein...we are in the exact same position as Old Dominion and Deleware. We might have to have a bake sale if this whole stipend thing goes down to afford it.

clearly from the stats ECU can afford it...which common sense tells you that they voted no almost three years ago for another reason(s). Quo is just picking fights...like the time he said UC was the 40th greatest basketball program of all time, got called on it and then said he meant that they are around 40th today in terms of national prestige blah blah blah blah...just ignore him when he's on one of these rants, he usually hangs himself.

(07-29-2013 10:08 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  clearly from the stats ECU can afford it...which common sense tells you that they voted no almost three years ago for another reason(s). Quo is just picking fights...like the time he said UC was the 40th greatest basketball program of all time, got called on it and then said he meant that they are around 40th today in terms of national prestige blah blah blah blah...just ignore him when he's on one of these rants, he usually hangs himself.

Thanks, the advice is greatly appreciated.

I haven't hung around here as much as I should and didn't realize in this and other threads that I was trying to convince someone who didn't really have a point, but just wanted to argue. I'll know next time to give appropriately deserved credibility to his comments.

(07-29-2013 10:08 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  clearly from the stats ECU can afford it...which common sense tells you that they voted no almost three years ago for another reason(s). Quo is just picking fights...like the time he said UC was the 40th greatest basketball program of all time, got called on it and then said he meant that they are around 40th today in terms of national prestige blah blah blah blah...just ignore him when he's on one of these rants, he usually hangs himself.

That's wrong, I never said that. I put you guys in a range of between 25-40 in terms of prestige. If you think otherwise, then pull up the post and prove it.

(07-29-2013 08:09 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  The facts say other wise, so does our AD emeritus Terry Holland, and our Chancellor Dr. Steve Ballard. Both of whom have said, yes we can pay the stipend, but we think it should fully comply with Title IX.

The 2011 measure was screaming for a lawsuit to happen from a female athlete that didn't get the stipend. Guess what, the NCAA wouldn't be sued, the school would. No, it wasn't worth a 20 million dollar lawsuit claiming discrimination and violation of federal law.

As I've explained, the Title IX objection makes no sense, because a school with Title IX concerns could simply go ahead and pay an equal number of female athletes the same stipend as the male athletes get and thereby suffer no Title IX exposure. Hell, you could then sit back and cackle while some rival school that tries to pay the stipend only to football players gets socked with a $20m lawsuit!

No, the truth is, anyone who voted against the stipend was concerned about the cost of the stipend, and nothing else. Because that's the only thing there was and is to be concerned about. The stipend is a monetary issue, period.

(07-29-2013 11:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 08:09 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  The facts say other wise, so does our AD emeritus Terry Holland, and our Chancellor Dr. Steve Ballard. Both of whom have said, yes we can pay the stipend, but we think it should fully comply with Title IX.

The 2011 measure was screaming for a lawsuit to happen from a female athlete that didn't get the stipend. Guess what, the NCAA wouldn't be sued, the school would. No, it wasn't worth a 20 million dollar lawsuit claiming discrimination and violation of federal law.

As I've explained, the Title IX objection makes no sense, because a school with Title IX concerns could simply go ahead and pay an equal number of female athletes the same stipend as the male athletes get and thereby suffer no Title IX exposure. Hell, you could then sit back and cackle while some rival school that tries to pay the stipend only to football players gets socked with a $20m lawsuit!

No, the truth is, anyone who voted against the stipend was concerned about the cost of the stipend, and nothing else. Because that's the only thing there was and is to be concerned about. The stipend is a monetary issue, period.

Yep, your SLOW. Short bus slow.

(07-29-2013 11:28 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 11:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 08:09 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  The facts say other wise, so does our AD emeritus Terry Holland, and our Chancellor Dr. Steve Ballard. Both of whom have said, yes we can pay the stipend, but we think it should fully comply with Title IX.

The 2011 measure was screaming for a lawsuit to happen from a female athlete that didn't get the stipend. Guess what, the NCAA wouldn't be sued, the school would. No, it wasn't worth a 20 million dollar lawsuit claiming discrimination and violation of federal law.

As I've explained, the Title IX objection makes no sense, because a school with Title IX concerns could simply go ahead and pay an equal number of female athletes the same stipend as the male athletes get and thereby suffer no Title IX exposure. Hell, you could then sit back and cackle while some rival school that tries to pay the stipend only to football players gets socked with a $20m lawsuit!

No, the truth is, anyone who voted against the stipend was concerned about the cost of the stipend, and nothing else. Because that's the only thing there was and is to be concerned about. The stipend is a monetary issue, period.

Yep, your SLOW. Short bus slow.

You keep failing to convince because you try to cite empirical evidence (ECU's financial records) to refute a logical argument, and well, you can't successfully do that. You can cite chapter and verse about how much money ECU has on hand from athletics, but that doesn't put a dent in a logical argument about what ECU's concerns could possibly be. That's because logical necessity always trumps apparent empirical reality. Any time the two clash, it's the empirical "facts" that are always found to be wanting.

In this case, no matter how strong ECU's athletic finances appear to be, it could very well be the case that the school's mission does not contemplate dedicating any dollars towards athletic stipends. That makes your charts and diagrams superfluous.

Really, the only argument you can make is that your administrators are too dumb to realize that Title IX is not a stumbling block to any stipend program. That would be a valid answer to my argument, since its logic assumes intelligence on the part of your leaders, but it wouldn't put your administrators in a positive light. Truth is, your leaders just would rather spend the stipend money on something else but don't want to admit it, so falsely cite Title IX concerns as a cover.

(07-29-2013 11:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 11:28 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 11:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 08:09 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  The facts say other wise, so does our AD emeritus Terry Holland, and our Chancellor Dr. Steve Ballard. Both of whom have said, yes we can pay the stipend, but we think it should fully comply with Title IX.

The 2011 measure was screaming for a lawsuit to happen from a female athlete that didn't get the stipend. Guess what, the NCAA wouldn't be sued, the school would. No, it wasn't worth a 20 million dollar lawsuit claiming discrimination and violation of federal law.

As I've explained, the Title IX objection makes no sense, because a school with Title IX concerns could simply go ahead and pay an equal number of female athletes the same stipend as the male athletes get and thereby suffer no Title IX exposure. Hell, you could then sit back and cackle while some rival school that tries to pay the stipend only to football players gets socked with a $20m lawsuit!

No, the truth is, anyone who voted against the stipend was concerned about the cost of the stipend, and nothing else. Because that's the only thing there was and is to be concerned about. The stipend is a monetary issue, period.

Yep, your SLOW. Short bus slow.

You keep failing to convince because you try to cite empirical evidence (ECU's financial records) to refute a logical argument, and well, you can't successfully do that. You can cite chapter and verse about how much money ECU has on hand from athletics, but that doesn't put a dent in a logical argument about what ECU's concerns could possibly be. That's because logical necessity always trumps apparent empirical reality. Any time the two clash, it's the empirical "facts" that are always found to be wanting.

In this case, no matter how strong ECU's athletic finances appear to be, it could very well be the case that the school's mission does not contemplate dedicating any dollars towards athletic stipends. That makes your charts and diagrams superfluous.

Really, the only argument you can make is that your administrators are too dumb to realize that Title IX is not a stumbling block to any stipend program. That would be a valid answer to my argument, since its logic assumes intelligence on the part of your leaders, but it wouldn't put your administrators in a positive light.

The proposal stipulates that only student-athletes receiving the equivalent of a full grant-in-aid would have access to the additional $2000. Oops, that wouldn't cover many of the female athletes or comply with Title IX. In other words only those receiving full scholarships would be able to get the stipend. According to the damn rule itself, we could NOT just pay it to the rest or we'd be committing violation of the NCAA rule.

But, you know what your right, a career education administrator with a Doctorate, an AD that has been in college sports for 50 years, an Assoc. AD that is the chairman of the NCAA rules committee for baseball and head the selection committee and himself has a doctorate, that is advised by one of the top law firms in New York and Wake Forrest University all know less than you.

Oh and " it could very well be the case that the school's mission does not contemplate dedicating any dollars towards athletic stipends." Is your assumption based on your own opinion, based on zero facts.

(07-29-2013 11:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 10:08 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  clearly from the stats ECU can afford it...which common sense tells you that they voted no almost three years ago for another reason(s). Quo is just picking fights...like the time he said UC was the 40th greatest basketball program of all time, got called on it and then said he meant that they are around 40th today in terms of national prestige blah blah blah blah...just ignore him when he's on one of these rants, he usually hangs himself.

That's wrong, I never said that. I put you guys in a range of between 25-40 in terms of prestige. If you think otherwise, then pull up the post and prove it.

yeah...that's all good except you butted in on a conversation about all time programs. I mentioned that SI ranked UC #10 and you said they were 40th at best. Either you didn't read the entire post and so didn't understand what the conversation was about or you vastly underrated UC hoops in a historical sense, got called out on it and then back peddled. I'm not the only one who noted all this. There were several UofL fans that read your posts when you claimed UC was around #40 in terms of all time historical ranking. They agreed with me that this is how this went down and even called you out on it themselves. At that point you changed the argument and said that you only meant you thought UC was 40th today in terms of national appeal/prestige. But for the record, the conversation you butted in on was about historical position. With two national titles, six final fours, over 40 tourney wins, and a slew of all americans Cincy hoops is hardly #40th all time.

(07-29-2013 10:19 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 10:08 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  clearly from the stats ECU can afford it...which common sense tells you that they voted no almost three years ago for another reason(s). Quo is just picking fights...like the time he said UC was the 40th greatest basketball program of all time, got called on it and then said he meant that they are around 40th today in terms of national prestige blah blah blah blah...just ignore him when he's on one of these rants, he usually hangs himself.

Thanks, the advice is greatly appreciated.

I haven't hung around here as much as I should and didn't realize in this and other threads that I was trying to convince someone who didn't really have a point, but just wanted to argue. I'll know next time to give appropriately deserved credibility to his comments.

Lets put it this way...he was banned from the board...and actually came back disguised as a Temple fan. We spotted him right away because he made the same BS arguments and used the same emoticons such as this one (). You gotta be some kind of special to get banned, then come back in here as a fan of another school lol. And the biggest joke in all this is, he's not even a USF fan, he's an LSU/SEC fan. So...just take his BS with a grain of salt. Intellectual dishonesty is the order of the day for Quo.

(07-30-2013 07:44 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 11:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 10:08 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  clearly from the stats ECU can afford it...which common sense tells you that they voted no almost three years ago for another reason(s). Quo is just picking fights...like the time he said UC was the 40th greatest basketball program of all time, got called on it and then said he meant that they are around 40th today in terms of national prestige blah blah blah blah...just ignore him when he's on one of these rants, he usually hangs himself.

That's wrong, I never said that. I put you guys in a range of between 25-40 in terms of prestige. If you think otherwise, then pull up the post and prove it.

yeah...that's all good except you butted in on a conversation about all time programs. I mentioned that SI ranked UC #10 and you said they were 40th at best. Either you didn't read the entire post and so didn't understand what the conversation was about or you vastly underrated UC hoops in a historical sense, got called out on it and then back peddled.

I remember saying 25-40 and speaking about prestige, not historical accomplishments. Again, if you think otherwise, post my original statement.

(07-29-2013 11:52 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 11:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 11:28 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 11:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 08:09 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  The facts say other wise, so does our AD emeritus Terry Holland, and our Chancellor Dr. Steve Ballard. Both of whom have said, yes we can pay the stipend, but we think it should fully comply with Title IX.

The 2011 measure was screaming for a lawsuit to happen from a female athlete that didn't get the stipend. Guess what, the NCAA wouldn't be sued, the school would. No, it wasn't worth a 20 million dollar lawsuit claiming discrimination and violation of federal law.

As I've explained, the Title IX objection makes no sense, because a school with Title IX concerns could simply go ahead and pay an equal number of female athletes the same stipend as the male athletes get and thereby suffer no Title IX exposure. Hell, you could then sit back and cackle while some rival school that tries to pay the stipend only to football players gets socked with a $20m lawsuit!

No, the truth is, anyone who voted against the stipend was concerned about the cost of the stipend, and nothing else. Because that's the only thing there was and is to be concerned about. The stipend is a monetary issue, period.

Yep, your SLOW. Short bus slow.

You keep failing to convince because you try to cite empirical evidence (ECU's financial records) to refute a logical argument, and well, you can't successfully do that. You can cite chapter and verse about how much money ECU has on hand from athletics, but that doesn't put a dent in a logical argument about what ECU's concerns could possibly be. That's because logical necessity always trumps apparent empirical reality. Any time the two clash, it's the empirical "facts" that are always found to be wanting.

In this case, no matter how strong ECU's athletic finances appear to be, it could very well be the case that the school's mission does not contemplate dedicating any dollars towards athletic stipends. That makes your charts and diagrams superfluous.

Really, the only argument you can make is that your administrators are too dumb to realize that Title IX is not a stumbling block to any stipend program. That would be a valid answer to my argument, since its logic assumes intelligence on the part of your leaders, but it wouldn't put your administrators in a positive light.

The proposal stipulates that only student-athletes receiving the equivalent of a full grant-in-aid would have access to the additional $2000. Oops, that wouldn't cover many of the female athletes or comply with Title IX. In other words only those receiving full scholarships would be able to get the stipend. According to the damn rule itself, we could NOT just pay it to the rest or we'd be committing violation of the NCAA rule.

You are correct: There was a controversy about the Title IX implications of the stipend proposal. I was wrong, and withdraw all claims about ECU not believing it had the money to pay the stipend amount.

(07-30-2013 07:46 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 10:19 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 10:08 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  clearly from the stats ECU can afford it...which common sense tells you that they voted no almost three years ago for another reason(s). Quo is just picking fights...like the time he said UC was the 40th greatest basketball program of all time, got called on it and then said he meant that they are around 40th today in terms of national prestige blah blah blah blah...just ignore him when he's on one of these rants, he usually hangs himself.

Thanks, the advice is greatly appreciated.

I haven't hung around here as much as I should and didn't realize in this and other threads that I was trying to convince someone who didn't really have a point, but just wanted to argue. I'll know next time to give appropriately deserved credibility to his comments.

Lets put it this way...he was banned from the board...and actually came back disguised as a Temple fan. We spotted him right away because he made the same BS arguments and used the same emoticons such as this one (). You gotta be some kind of special to get banned, then come back in here as a fan of another school lol. And the biggest joke in all this is, he's not even a USF fan, he's an LSU/SEC fan. So...just take his BS with a grain of salt. Intellectual dishonesty is the order of the day for Quo.

What A moron. Going to that lengths to troll a college message board for kicks. Having his life must be punishment enough. I will decline from arguing with him then.