(12-26-2013 08:30 AM)Crazier Wrote:  Nope I don't want to see a bunch off grown men playing against 18 year olds.

You hating on Joey Dorsey?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-26-2013 01:38 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  Imagine if a DJ Stephens could have played past his senior season. Why does it have to be written in stone that a players senior season has to be his last? Why not allow players to continue playing while completing their graduate degree??This could supply stability & more identity to a college game that's finding it harder & harder to identify with it's fans outside of coaches. After their senior season they could be identified as a Graduate. Not all players would want to do this, but for the few who might, & who still need to develop on a competitive level for a try at the nba, this could be a huge benefit for the game, the college & most important the student athlete...

Using DJ as an example. he had a wife and child and you want him to stay in college for your home team so you can have some kind of bragging rights and you cover up this desire saying it would help him develop. How obserd. Just exactly how much playing time do you think a 4 year player will get to further develop his skills and more importantly whose playing time will he be taking? I can see that as a hard sell to a recruit. " We have a starting point guard that is a senior but he hasn't quite got what he needs to make it in the NBA so he will still be here another 2 years. But don't worry, you will start your junior year"
Dude I really do not think you thought this idea out very far and others on this board are trying to point that in their own special way.


PS would like to see the 20 on 20 on the football field. Maybe make the rim 18 1/2 feet high with a 5 foot sway from side to side. I think players should be allowed to climb on each others sholders as well.

(12-26-2013 04:01 PM)hongkongtiger Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 01:38 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  Imagine if a DJ Stephens could have played past his senior season. Why does it have to be written in stone that a players senior season has to be his last? Why not allow players to continue playing while completing their graduate degree??This could supply stability & more identity to a college game that's finding it harder & harder to identify with it's fans outside of coaches. After their senior season they could be identified as a Graduate. Not all players would want to do this, but for the few who might, & who still need to develop on a competitive level for a try at the nba, this could be a huge benefit for the game, the college & most important the student athlete...

Using DJ as an example. he had a wife and child and you want him to stay in college for your home team so you can have some kind of bragging rights and you cover up this desire saying it would help him develop. How obserd. Just exactly how much playing time do you think a 4 year player will get to further develop his skills and more importantly whose playing time will he be taking? I can see that as a hard sell to a recruit. " We have a starting point guard that is a senior but he hasn't quite got what he needs to make it in the NBA so he will still be here another 2 years. But don't worry, you will start your junior year"
Dude I really do not think you thought this idea out very far and others on this board are trying to point that in their own special way.


PS would like to see the 20 on 20 on the football field. Maybe make the rim 18 1/2 feet high with a 5 foot sway from side to side. I think players should be allowed to climb on each others sholders as well.

I was using DJ as an example. Not a standard. Obviously, common sense says that the student athlete would have to review their own situation. But at least you got to practice typing.

No need to be mean to the OP. It's a topic for discussion, state why you don't think it will work then move on. It's a message board for discussion.

(12-26-2013 04:09 PM)RADFORD Wrote:  No need to be mean to the OP. It's a topic for discussion, state why you don't think it will work then move on. It's a message board for discussion.

Hey, at least I'm giving peeps something to disagree with. Wouldn't be mt.org without it. It's been boring on this board lately with all the heavy hitting national games we are playing.

(12-26-2013 04:09 PM)RADFORD Wrote:  No need to be mean to the OP. It's a topic for discussion, state why you don't think it will work then move on. It's a message board for discussion.

Oh Gee Mr. Cleaver we were just having some fun.
Respectfully
Eddie H.

(12-26-2013 03:14 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 02:07 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 01:31 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 11:32 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 11:20 AM)Willie Becton Wrote:  anyone else figure stammers didn't get what he wanted for Christmas?

what a wet blanket

I want 40 on 40 basketball with 90 scholarships, with the games being played in airport hangars. Bring back every player that never played pro and have 18 year olds playing 50 year olds with multiple doctorate degrees, as long as they can still bring it.

You're being a little absurd. If you don't care for the discussion get out. It's a legit idea. No one said anything about 40 50 year olds. The original point was 2 extra seasons for those seeking graduate degrees with maybe a maximum of 2 extra scholarships per school, opening the door for more Tarik & Antonio type transfers or for more identity for the game of college basketball which is losing identity. You are arguing with absurdities which makes you look like an idiot.

I'm thrilled that someone that wants players around for 6 years. does not think it is absurd, and thinks I'm an idiot. That is honestly one of the most stupid ideas imagineable.

Well OK. Just find your way out of the conversation then. You open a thread, you read, you agree or disagree and post an opinion and discuss. But all you are doing is posting absurdities. So, see you way out. It's that simple.

Stammers isn't the one posting absurdities.

(12-26-2013 04:26 PM)hongkongtiger Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 04:09 PM)RADFORD Wrote:  No need to be mean to the OP. It's a topic for discussion, state why you don't think it will work then move on. It's a message board for discussion.

Oh Gee Mr. Cleaver we were just having some fun.
Respectfully
Eddie H.

Mr Cleaver.... I love that. There was a time no one would've considered me for the Mr. Cleaver of the board. I will take it.

If you aren't good enough for the NBA after 4 years, you won't be good enough after 6. Your only chance is to make it a full time job, play overseas, or D League.

There are myriad other problems ... I am going to have to agree that this is a ridiculous idea.

(12-26-2013 05:02 PM)NigelTufnel Wrote:  If you aren't good enough for the NBA after 4 years, you won't be good enough after 6. Your only chance is to make it a full time job, play overseas, or D League.

There are myriad other problems ... I am going to have to agree that this is a ridiculous idea.

Well, it wouldn't just be for the nba. It would be to help a student athlete continue their education while still benefiting the program & the college benefiting them with continued scholarships.

(12-26-2013 05:46 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 05:02 PM)NigelTufnel Wrote:  If you aren't good enough for the NBA after 4 years, you won't be good enough after 6. Your only chance is to make it a full time job, play overseas, or D League.

There are myriad other problems ... I am going to have to agree that this is a ridiculous idea.

Well, it wouldn't just be for the nba. It would be to help a student athlete continue their education while still benefiting the program & the college benefiting them with continued scholarships.

I wrote a really long response, and then somehow I hit the back button on my computer and it got deleted. So, I am just going to summarize ...

1. Title IX - you have to do this for all scholarship sports, so there is a legitimate expense issue.
2. Coaches wouldn't like it, too much uncertainty trying to recruit.
3. Fans don't want to see 6 year players. It's called college basketball for a reason (4 year degree, 4 year eligibility).
4. If you want to offer scholarships for grad school for players who finish their eligibility, i.e. an academic scholarship, I'm good with that, but athletic eligibility should end at 4 years. In fact, I think there should be an agreement that if you finish school in 4 years, and are in good standing, the school should reward you with at least a one year academic scholarship for grad school. That said, this certainly involves a big expense.

I actually think its an interesting idea by the original poster.

I wouldn't have a problem with players being allowed to play another two years. It would make for better basketball by having more experienced teams and help prevent some of the one and done players from getting quick glory and then hopping to the NBA. Midmajor teams that have been together for five and six years would be a tough out for a talented but inexperienced group of freshmen.

And to those who say it won't happen because of X,Y and Z. The only real thing that matters is money. If the schools who make up the NCAA think that they will have a better product through any rule (more viewers mean more money), then it will eventually happen if they believe that. Although convincing them that this specific rule would mean a lot more money, may be a tall order.

By the way, all the NCAA would have to say to the people crying foul is "Hey, as long as you are a student and are seeking a degree, you are allowed to play. Why do you have a problem with that?"

By the way, schools are already throwing money down the drain all over the place sending non-revenue sports on expensive plane trips all over the country. For example, why are our men's tennis and women's volleyball teams flying on expensive trips to Rutgers, UCONN and South Florida, when all common sense dictates they should be taking bus rides to play Arkansas State, UT-Martin and Ole Miss? The answer is simple, because even with having to pay these Title IX obligations, you have the potential to make countless more riches by teaming up with other basketball and football powers.

(12-26-2013 04:01 PM)hongkongtiger Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 01:38 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  Imagine if a DJ Stephens could have played past his senior season. Why does it have to be written in stone that a players senior season has to be his last? Why not allow players to continue playing while completing their graduate degree??This could supply stability & more identity to a college game that's finding it harder & harder to identify with it's fans outside of coaches. After their senior season they could be identified as a Graduate. Not all players would want to do this, but for the few who might, & who still need to develop on a competitive level for a try at the nba, this could be a huge benefit for the game, the college & most important the student athlete...

Using DJ as an example. he had a wife and child and you want him to stay in college for your home team so you can have some kind of bragging rights and you cover up this desire saying it would help him develop. How obserd. Just exactly how much playing time do you think a 4 year player will get to further develop his skills and more importantly whose playing time will he be taking? I can see that as a hard sell to a recruit. " We have a starting point guard that is a senior but he hasn't quite got what he needs to make it in the NBA so he will still be here another 2 years. But don't worry, you will start your junior year"
Dude I really do not think you thought this idea out very far and others on this board are trying to point that in their own special way.


PS would like to see the 20 on 20 on the football field. Maybe make the rim 18 1/2 feet high with a 5 foot sway from side to side. I think players should be allowed to climb on each others sholders as well.

I've always wanted to see them make the floor out of a floor-sized trampoline and raise the baskets to 15 feet or so.

And for those of you complaining that an older player may take away a younger player's scholarship because of this rule.

Boo Hoo!

That's sports. The further you go up in sports, the better you have to be to play. Some kids get cut off their freshmen basketball teams. Why don't you shed a tear for them instead? There are more than 300 Division 1 college basketball teams. If you ain't good enough to find a spot on one of these teams even with a 6 year-rule, maybe you should hit the books more and play intramurals.

(12-27-2013 12:07 AM)TIGERBANDIT Wrote:  And for those of you complaining that an older player may take away a younger player's scholarship because of this rule.

Boo Hoo!

That's sports. The further you go up in sports, the better you have to be to play. Some kids get cut off their freshmen basketball teams. Why don't you shed a tear for them instead? There are more than 300 Division 1 college basketball teams. If you ain't good enough to find a spot on one of these teams even with a 6 year-rule, maybe you should hit the books more and play intramurals.

Really...Do you realize the type of masters degree majors that will start being offered to keep kids on the roster...

Masters in Basket weaving and Swimming and the like. This rule would only prolong the inevitable of the kid having to get into the real world and work and if the kid is going to play over seas he would/should leave after 4. Why waist 2 years of earning potential.

I honestly think the OP is screwing around. Nobody could possibly think this; it's impossible.

(12-26-2013 10:28 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 08:30 AM)Crazier Wrote:  Nope I don't want to see a bunch off grown men playing against 18 year olds.

So a 23 & 24 year old is so much older? I guess you don't watch the NBA where 36 year olds play against 19 & 20 year olds? Or baseball where an 18 year old hits against a 40 year old pitcher? Or the NFL where a 20 year old QB gets sacked by a 35 year old linebacker?

You can't be serious. You want to know the difference between all of those groups? Well I will tell you anyway. One group are amatuers and the other group are professionals.

Well, that's up to the schools. If they want to offer basket weaving to the graduate students, then that is fine with me. It seems to me that would be a problem more with the institution. Just because your hypothetical school has low standards, why punish kids who want to play an extra two years who are excelling in the class room?

I don't think there is anything wrong with someone continuing their education. If they want to stay in school to get an advanced degree, why shouldn't they? And why shouldn't they be allowed to stay on the team?

I would also counter your argument by saying giving athletic scholarships is an absurd notion to begin with. No other country in the world but the U.S. gives an academic scholarship to someone because they can hit a ball or shoot a ball. So for you to say it's absolutely absurd to let a college player play for six years, I would say it's even more absurd to give athletic scholarships in the first place.

And those who say its absurd to let one play for 6 years, sure dont mind the Derek roses of the world play a year and jump ship...doesn't that take a scholarship from a kid who truly wants to get an education???

Good debate though. Gives us something to talk about.