Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Scott Nix Frog Fan Forum' started by AroundWorldFrog, Feb 8, 2019.
already claiming a Michigan fan called him a midget
It's deleted now, but Fields had tweeted about how he loved his time at Georgia and loved the school. Kinda ruins his scenario of racism that ruined his college experience. I'm sure his lawyer told him to get that [ steaming pile of Orgeron ] down.
Got the headline wrong. FIFY.
So we have any guys looking to come here that we need to call the N-word to get them eligible?
money making enterprise wrapped under the charade of amateur athletics
why? when you are the only game in town exactly how would they get hurt?
tell me how much kapernick's situations and the portrayal of bob mcnair's comments have hurt the nfl.
college football fan's wouldn't go away, where the hell would the players go, and who gives a [ steaming pile of Orgeron ] about al sharpston.
this worked against the ncaa because they don't have any guts. no different than when miami threatened to sue when the ncaa had them dead after the fed's investigation of the schapiro ponzi scheme.
Maybe the AAF and XFL will be the saving grace of the college student athlete and D-1 football.
When Cam Newton gets offered a $1m signing bonus by the New Jersey Hitmen after his NJCAA championship at Blinn CC, he does not play for Auburn and TCU wins the 2010 NC.
Send the 5 star screw ups to trade school and let the academic institutions have the students that want a role as an athlete on NCAA scholarship play on Fall Saturdays.
curious if the ncaa would have let jerry levias transfer from smu and be immediate eligible?
But that gets to the point of what the goal of the NCAA or college athletics is. If the NCAA's primary goal is to produce "a product that the public is interested in" (and then turn around and sell that product for hundreds of millions of dollars), then that's different than a situation where their stated goal is amateur competition and the wellbeing of the students that compete under their athletic banner. If that's the case, then fine, but call it what it is: A moneymaking enterprise, and with that comes implications of how their athletes are viewed.
I 100% agree with this...and it is 100% irrelevant to the point. "College sports would be less interesting" is not a compelling reason to continue a weird hybrid where the schools / organizations get the benefits of tens of millions of dollars (at least) generated from games, revenue, licensing...while the athletes are stuck with "you're an amateur athlete, and a student first. You get a $30k a year scholarship plus a stipend but you can't earn money elsewhere...oh and we get to tell you where you can and can't transfer if you want to keep playing".
Any discussion over the merits of such system is independent of "can college football survive if we have to change?" If a system is unjust, and I'm not saying it is, then "yeah but we couldn't operate any other way" can not be accepted as an excuse to continue an unjust system.
And you're right, very few people care about minor league sports. MiLB, D-League, AHL, they don't draw flies. Not disagreeing with that at all.
85 scholarships is, what, somewhere around $5mm total using the most generous estimates of attendance cost (and even then that's a weird metric since that's just money they pay themselves)? If the revenue generated by these schools was limited to the cost of attendance for the student athletes plus expenses, this isn't an issue. Even if the financial benefit that these schools generate went to the players in a way proportionate to other sports (e.g. in that 35-55% range you see in the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc), then this conversation is probably pretty different.
OK, fine, let's call it that. I could make just as compelling a case that, because Justin Fields decided to transfer, he shouldn't play football next year so he can acclimate to his new surroundings without the stress and time commitment that playing football adds. Sounds kind of dumb, doesn't it? Especially since I bet academics was about, oh I don't know, a 0% factor in why Fields wanted to transfer.
Just so we're clear, you're saying that if the NCAA really cared about the well being of the kids they should be able to go wherever and play whenever they want, right? Well, I think that's putting the athlete ahead of the student. How am I wrong?
He left because he was not starting ahead of the other qb. That's the only reason he left. The NCAA is such a joke.
1) That would be a quite paternal view of "well being" to say "We aren't going to let you do something for your own good". Especially when we agree that would be a smokescreen and not be the primary concern of the NCAA.
2) I never once mentioned "academics" (inasmuch as we consider athletics to be separate from academics). If it's better for Justin Fields' future to play football at Ohio State than at Georgia, that is just as much about his well-being as any academic consideration he might have.
You're wrong in that the "athlete" and the "student" are not two distinct individuals. They are the same person. You are trying to draw a line between athletics and academics, but that's not really relevant to this discussion. The only debate here should be what takes priority between that individual's betterment vs a "competitive balance" for the product that the NCAA wants to sell tickets and television rights fees for. I think you can make the case for either one, but if you make the case for the latter then you should be willing to accept that's going to change the way the athletes that provide that product are viewed.
I guess if you are transferring to Michigan or Ohio State you don’t have to sit out a year. How are they different from Mayfield, or Michael Collins for that matter?