So it is just and fair to take a year of eligibility away from a kid because he made a decision believing a guy who lied to his face, while that same liar gets to improve his situation with absolutely no consequences. Got it.
Interesting thought with all this coach hopping..
- Thread starter RegionWarrior101
- Start date
You're not taking away a year of eligibility. Good grief, man. Nobody "lied to his face".
You think Brohm leaving would have "no consequences"? You've not been paying attention.
You're unhinged on this topic. The rules are pretty clear for a student/athlete as well as a coach under contract. Don't like the rules? Don't play.
I just wanted to make sure I was clear on your position. I will not argue with stubborn and stupid.
Again a coach coming to your living room and saying "in the 4 years you play for me" only to have him leave 363 days later is not lying?
How is a forced year of sitting out, not taking away a year of eligibility?
I just can't figure out your inane reasoning. I am just saying, you are not going to ever pay the kids, at least relax transfer restrictions when a coach leaves.
I can't make this any simpler for you. You appear to be hellbent on not understanding, and if that's the way you want to be, that's okay.
These student/athletes are committing(!) to a school(!) for an education in exchange for playing a sport. Period. Not a coach, not a system, but a school, for an opportunity(!) to play in exchange for an education. Education first. That's the purpose. Period. Any coach that isn't a snake oil salesman will be emphasizing that to each and every recruit. If they don't pay attention and make a decision based on something else, well, that's dumb. That's on them.
If the STUDENT/athlete comes here, plays a year and doesn't like it for whatever reason, they can transfer, sit out a year and continue with the same eligibility with which they left. They played a year. They transfer. They still have 3 years of eligibility. That's not losing eligibility. That's elementary math. If you can't get the math, I can't help you on that, either. Now, you can set up any number of different scenarios, but simply transferring does not affect eligibility.
Now. . . for the larger point: If you think it's unreasonable that a STUDENT/athlete make a commitment IN EXCHANGE FOR a tuition-free education, I can't help you on that, either. If they're going to a school solely to play for ONE COACH AND ONE COACH ONLY, they're going for the wrong reason. They're making a decision based on stinkin' thinkin'. In other words, they're not being smart.
You seem to be carrying a grudge. That's too bad. This just shouldn't be that hard. Go to school, play football/baseball/soccer/volleyball/basketball in exchange for a tuition-free world-class education, if you choose wisely! If you choose poorly, make a stupid decision, and commit to an institution for some moronic reason like a coach's personality, that's just being a dumb@ss. There just aren't enough rules we can put in place for future Darwin award candidates.
Brother, I've owned my own profitable & successful businesses, and I've worked for different organizations. One recruited me, relocated me, in exchange I was asked to sign a contract for (X) years. If I left early, I owed them money. If I stayed, I didn't. But, in spite of your efforts to deflect your position onto me, I wasn't an idiot, and I knew what my obligations were going in. And, surprise! The management team that brought me in left within 6 months of my hire date. That was well before the end of my contractual commitment. I was STILL expected to fulfill my obligation. (I would have done it anyway, because that's what we should do . . . honor our commitments.) That's life!
That's not "stubborn", that's not "stupid", and it's just not that difficult. Coaches have a contractual commitment with the university, not the kids. The STUDENT/athletes know that. As an example, look at the classy way UCF fans and players reacted to Scott Frost's departure. THAT is college athletics. THAT is the way to handle it with class. Not like the example in this thread.
Now, go explain to UCF fans/players how they exercised "inane reasoning" . . .
So a coach has NO influence in that process. Ok. Again, just making sure. Drew Brees, Kyle Orton, Curtis Painter, etc. came to Purdue just for the school. Joe Tiller and his QB friendly scheme had 0 to do with it and they would have come to Purdue to run the wishbone.
My personal experience, from my coaching days, after a college visit, ask a player how it went, these were factors or the first things they said 95% of the time:. 1. Facilities were great, 2. Coaching staff, 3. Scheme/plan for them, 4. Tradition, 5. Social life, 6. Dorms/Food, 7. Campus social life, 8. Physical location. After some prodding you got to the academics. It was an after thought, I know that is wrong to you, but it is what it is.
When committing and I would ask why (overwhelmingly): 1. I like Coach X, 2. They want me to play Y, 3. It is only Z hours away so my mom can see me play. I had 2 who cited academics, both Ivy League caliber academics. Even then coach played a role in the process.
Now the goal post has been moved to simply consider "influence". That was your position? (No . . . no, it wasn't.)
There's "influence" all throughout life, brother! Just because you're "influenced" doesn't mean you get a pass for making bad decisions.
No, make SMART decisions that are right for YOU and YOUR LIFE! Make SMART decisions, especially when entering into a commitment! Don't make decisions based on variables that can change TOMORROW.
And, it's not an issue of "being wrong" for one person or another, but making a smart decision, based on the contract into which you're entering!
I don't understand why you're getting so angry about this.
You're using an extremely narrow definition of the word employee. An employee is someone who performs assigned tasks in return for compensation. Most frequently that compensation takes the form of money, but it could absolutely be argued that student athletes are employees of the university. They perform assigned tasks (i.e. compete in their sports) in return for compensation (their education, which can be valued - at a minimum - in terms of the cost of tuition, room, board, textbooks, etc).
What your anger sounds like is sour grapes - pissed off that they got a "free" education while you had to work for it. But that doesn't take into account the amount of work they put in to get where they are. You can "pay" for an education in multiple ways. There are lots of athletically gifted kids who don't get scholarships because they don't put the work in. It's absurd to dismiss the hard work that gets these players where they are.
Further, they are not "kids." Not according to the law, which considers them adults at the age of 18. This is not an argument about children. This is an argument about adults with marketable skills being told that they cannot market those skills - and if they complain, they get told that they should shut up and be grateful for what they do get. That is what I find troubling.
I can see the argument for schools paying players, and I can see the argument for not. I lean towards the latter. What I can't see - and what neither you nor anyone else on the other side of this issue has explained to me - is a rational argument as to why these athletes should not be able to capitalize on their own names while in school. I'm willing to be convinced, but I haven't seen a convincing argument. And no, "because it's against the rules" is not a convincing argument. This whole conversation is about the way the rules are currently unfairly restrictive on the players.
As a 45 year old man, I get that. Honestly I was probably 30 before understanding how the world works. Asking a 17-18 year old kid to understand those factors is a whole different ball game.
My only issue that I think realistically can and should be changed is the transfer penalty. Interesting thoughts though.
I don't understand why you're ascribing "anger" to logical position, or an emotionless internet forum post.
It appears as if you're projecting . . . Pastor.
These are some of the dumbest remarks you've posted. Your rant appears to be an attempt to put me on the defensive. Won't work. I've plainly and directly stated my position.
An "employee" is quite a specific definition. Don't like it? Change it. And, you're wrong. Just because someone "performs assigned tasks in return for compensation" does NOT make them an employee. I had my oil changed today. The unseen mechanic who did the work was NOT an employee of mine, but I sure as hell compensated him/her!
You get butthurt about my use of the term "kids"? Really? Well, I hate to break it to you, but when they're making a commitment as a HS Sr, many of them are just that: Kids. Regardless their age. (And some of them are still under 18, Pastor.) And nobody used the term "children", yet you went on a senseless rant in order to get there. Take your anger somewhere else.
Now, you can get as pissy as you want over my terminology, but you're refusing to argue the basic facts at hand. They (and their parents/guardians) willingly enter into an agreement to come to a university to play a sport in exchange for a tuition-free education. And, yes, I'm happy for them, whatever that means for you. (It's irrelevant to the discussion, and nothing more than a distraction.)
You want to try to ride the fence on this which is ridiculous. Either you're for paying them or you aren't. You clearly are, in spite of them entering into an agreement otherwise. You're all for them agreeing to one thing, then wanting to change the rules after the fact.
It's a loser's argument. Have some b@lls. Take a stand. And claiming the only argument you've seen is, "because it's against the rules" means you're not paying attention, and only interested in arguing to be arguing.
Pastor.
Last edited:
I think a reasonable discussion can be had over that, and I wouldn't be opposed to seeing it change. But a coach's contractual obligation is irrelevant, and should have no bearing on the discussion.
Careful. Pastor doesn't agree and will quickly remind you're they're not children.
I tend to agree, and that's why they need the guidance of parents/guardians, to counsel them to make the best choice for their future. Not all of them will listen, but we learn the most from our failures, not our successes. Sometimes you need to make bad decisions (as long as they don't endanger you) to learn valuable life lessons!
Unfortunately, there are numerous people raising kids (!) who try to shield them from every form of failure. That's going to be devastating for those . . . kids.
Let me try this again, without the emotion. I apologize for mistaking the emotion and insults in your posts for anger, and I will leave off further comment on semantics and word choice.
What you seem to be arguing is that the coach's situation and the players' situation are completely different and unconnected, and that since the players are aware of "the deal" when they sign, they need to not complain and/or seek greater compensation. Is that a fair summary? If not, please help me understand better.
If so, these are my thoughts:
1. I think the coach's situation and players' situation are more connected than you believe. They aren't identical, of course, but they are connected in ways that bear thinking about when it comes to the rules of the game. I don't know that the coach's contract should be part of the conversation about players' issues, but certainly the ability of the coach to leave without penalty while the players are forced to stay is seen by many to be an issue.
2. I absolutely agree with you that the players and their parents know what they are getting into. Where we appear to go our separate ways is that I think that they have every right, even knowing what they signed up for, to ask for more. It is within everyone's right to ask for a raise, to ask for more when they think they deserve more. It is, of course, within the rights of the NCAA to say no. And then it is within the rights of the players to use whatever leverage they have to try to effect change.
3. I still don't understand what give the NCAA the right to control the personal image rights of all of the players. That's what I was referring to when I made the comment about the "because the rules say so" argument. I'm sure there is some argument out there for the NCAA's position, but to this point all I have heard on this particular question is some variation of "they knew what they were signing up for." That's true, but it doesn't answer the larger question of why the NCAA is able/allowed to do that.
My position, as it stands right now, is as follows:
- I do not think that the NCAA or universities should be paying players.
- I do not think that the NCAA or universities should prevent players from capitalizing on their personal image, if they are able to do so.
- I think the transfer rule should be changed to allow players whose coaches leave to transfer without sitting out an entire year.
You must be talking about the 30 and 35 year old adults some of my friends still have living with them. Lol!
Sorry but that would quickly get out of hand. A five-star athlete would be promised a $100,000 advertising contract from Adidas the day he arrives at the University of Louisville. The shady crap that now goes on illegally behind closed doors would become open and legitimate.
Many of those kids, in my personal case it was probably 80% of kids, were single parent or living with grandparents. The home structure is not there like an ideological world.
If Bob Rohrman wants to pay Gelen Robinson, for example, to appear in one of his idiotic commercials, Robinson should be able to make that choice.
So by the logic above, the greater Columbus auto dealers could pay the OSU football team $20,000 each to appear in adds throughout the year. Or even OSU, could pay their football players $25,000 as part of adds to lure perspective students to OSU.
Seems logical to me. (TIC)
Why not just allow boosters to pay athletes?
Good grief, man. You have such thin skin. My directness is causing you way too much anger and pain. It's okay for you to (according to your guidelines) hurl insults. Either your position has merit or not. Either it's weak or it's strong. If people don't agree with it, move on. Stop whining.
You insulted me by saying I'm angry because I paid for my education and scholarship athletes didn't. (This, in spite of the fact I never missed a FB or BB game in school, and have donated THOUSANDS to the JPC, supporting those very people I hate.) Big deal. It was a really ignorant remark, but that happens.
Yes, the players and coaches situations are completely different, in spite of how much you continue to deny it.
Re #1, the coach frequently does NOT leave without penalty. Many times there is a significant financial penalty. It's common for a coach to have a buyout. If another organization/school chooses to pay for it, that's a different conversation entirely. What's more, the players aren't "forced" to stay. (My, you have a flair for the dramatic, and an ability to "stretch the truth".) They can leave, but (yes) with their own "penalty", as it should be. (They have to sit out a year.) There are multiple reasons for that, which I'll cover.
Re #2, all that is irrelevant. Nobody ever suggested players shouldn't use any leverage to affect change. Glad we agree that they understand what they're getting into. NEXT!
Re #3, that's also part of what they sign up for. They know going in games are going to be promoted, their images used to promote the games, the universities, etc. The only solutions are to censor NCAA promotions, or slide the kids some cash for use of their image. (Ahem . . . that's paying them!)
On the transfer business, I don't think you're thinking this through at all. Let's say Brohm leaves in 2, 3, 4 years. Do you REALLY want the NCAA to say to all the Purdue players, "hey, since Brohm recruited most of you, you're all free to go elsewhere and screw the very university (and FANS!) who have been paying for your education. Happy days, boys! Oh, and to all you Purdue fans, administrators, etc., go scr#w yourselves! Your entire team just flipped you the bird and left." (Now THAT is dramatic writing. !)
Do you really want other schools poaching our players, just because Brohm left? REALLY? Because that's what you're advocating, Pastor! What you want would become a nightmare.
No, we don't want this. Neither does the NCAA, Purdue, IU, Northwestern, or any other school.
Last edited:
Uh, YUP!
That, too, is PAYING players, and completely contradictory to their amateur status.
That rationale doesn't really make sense.
Everyone knows shady deals go on, but instead of bringing them out in the open, you want to keep them shady and illegal. Allow the deals, get them in the open, and put rules in place that cap the amounts of said deals. Every school is represented by shoe companies that would pay a 5* basketball player (not football players) $100,000. So allowing that to happen doesn't give an advantage to any one school.
The real key to enforcement is harsh penalties for breaking rules and actually dealing out those punishments for EVERY school that would break the rules, not just the smaller brands. I'm not sure if it is possible without some schools getting advantages because of their large and wealthy alumni groups (Texas, OSU, Bama, etc). But saying we can't try because those deals we want to not happen, but know they happen anyway, can't happen because it would just be out of control if we allowed them! Is not much of an argument.
And doing this would allow EA, or any other video game company, to start making NCAA Football again! Which is much more important than the kids getting payed (in the open or behind closed doors) anyway!!
Oh for crying out loud, forget it.
I don't have thin skin. I couldn't care less what you think of me. I was merely attempting to have a reasonable conversation about the subject, without the over the top rhetoric to which you continually resort. Apparently, that kind of conversation is beyond your capability.
Merry Christmas.
You do not understand. An Under Armor school offers a kid a $25,000 contract (before he arrives, the kid is still in HS). Then a Nike school offers him $50,000. The an Adidas school ponies it up to $75,000. It will quickly become part of the recruiting process for all schools and any school with too much integrity to do it will be left in the dust. As I said before, it will quickly get out of hand.
No, I don't think you get it. If all 3 companies will pay the player, and it is IN THE OPEN that it is happening, there is no advantage to say an Adidas school. There is no moral dilemma for schools with "too much integrity." Since it is allowed, and an OPEN part of the process, Nike knows Adidas wants to pay HS player X 75,000 so they can match. And each program gets a cap on the benefits at say 500k per team, like a salary cap almost.
I do agree with it possibly getting out of hand, but isn't it already? The worst scenario just about everyone thought about CBB recruiting came out to be true with the FBI investigation becoming public. Again, the key is harsh penalties for abusers and actually giving out the punishments.
Not all of the kids on any given team will be getting paid and of those who are, some will be getting big payouts while others get chump change. A cap on each program doewsn't fix that. It's an entirely new can of worms that we'd be opening. We're better off with the status quo, warts and all.
What we really need is HARSH punishment for cheaters. Louisville deserves a ten-year death penalty.
No, not all the kids would be getting paid, why is that an issue? The cap would be to keep say Oregon from getting more Nike money to spend than Purdue, not so all the kids get the same amount. If I'm in charge of getting kids to sign with Nike, I'm paying Bagley III a hell of a lot more money than Dakota Mathiad.
Glad we do agree on harsh punishments. And changing the rules to allow this may make things worse, but keeping things the same isn't what we want either so why just keep then the same?
Glad we do agree on harsh punishments. And changing the rules to allow this may make things worse, but keeping things the same isn't what we want either so why just keep then the same?
And to support your values, Penn State deserves the indefinite death penalty for football. Never give up this thought
If you pay kids for one sport you're going to have to pay ALL kids from EVERY sport. And the pay will have to be equal for every player. You could potentially have schools drop a sport to avoid having to pay those athletes.
Last edited:
Right, it's an idea that sounds good superficially but once you get down in the weeds of doing it, there are many issues of equity and fairness. It will create far more problems than it resolves.
But it's not the schools paying the players, it's the free market determining who gets payed by sponsors. Since when does the free market have to be fair?
I'm sure there would be some track and field athletes who would make as much in sponsorships as many revenue sport athletes.
My scenario would allow student-athletes to make money much like Olympic athletes do, not having the schools pay all scholarship athletes. The biggest issue would be one we already deal with, wealthy boosters trying to curry favor with HS athletes.
I'm sure there would be some track and field athletes who would make as much in sponsorships as many revenue sport athletes.
My scenario would allow student-athletes to make money much like Olympic athletes do, not having the schools pay all scholarship athletes. The biggest issue would be one we already deal with, wealthy boosters trying to curry favor with HS athletes.
How so? There are numerous collegiate athletes that participate and excel in the Olympics. They could make money just like anyone else, except the NCAA won't let them.
I never really posted what I think of you. And you might want to look in the mirror before making accusations.
Pastor.
My arguments and points have been well-articulated, thought-out, but presented with confidence and clarity. Yours have been wishy-washy, fence-riding, and (IMHO) you've been unable to present a strong case. As a result, you've lashed out at me with accusations for my motivations and weakly-worded retorts and outbursts (like this one).
Merry Christmas to you, as well.
