AroundWorldFrog
Full Member
LOL
already claiming a Michigan fan called him a midgetTate Martell going to throw a tantrum if he’s not eligible at Miami
Not arguing your point, but a lawyer can argue racism whether or not it occurred and use JF’s case as the precedent for immediate eligibility. I truly hope you’re right in your premise.
Got the headline wrong. FIFY.Maybe they have. Maybe they haven't. However the NCAA did not want the following headline in papers across the country: "You Won't Believe Who NCAA Denied Eligibility! Was Racism Involved? Click To Find Out!"
Not really the hill they feel they need to die on.
Not sure what you mean here.
Yeah, I think this is somewhat of a one off scenario. NCAA wanted no part of dealing with the racism stuff. Al Sharpton started talking about it already. No way the NCAA wanted to deal with backlash if they forced him to sit out a year.
I don't understand why it has to be one or the other. How about "students are important, but so is competitive balance if we're going to have a product that the public is interested in". Do you think everyone would be better off if football was a club sport with no scholarships so student-athletes could play wherever they want all the time?
Nobody could give a crap about watching these guys play their sport if it weren't for the schools, the conferences, and by extension the NCAA. Justin Fields and all his 5-star buddies could start their own league and I wouldn't spend one second watching them or caring a\one damn bit about it. That's how valuable these guys are without their attachment to a school. And all the money that is generated that allows the football teams to fund 85 scholarships every year to mostly kids that wouldn't go to college otherwise is possible because the structure that is in place generates fan interest. I don't see any problem at all with the NCAA drawing as hard a line as they want to in cases like this. If the kids don't want to play along, then go find another organization to play under.
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 don't understand why it has to be one or the other. How about "students are important, but so is competitive balance if we're going to have a product that the public is interested in".
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".Nobody could give a crap about watching these guys play their sport if it weren't for the schools, the conferences, and by extension the NCAA. Justin Fields and all his 5-star buddies could start their own league and I wouldn't spend one second watching them or caring a\one damn bit about it. That's how valuable these guys are without their attachment to a school.
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.And all the money that is generated that allows the football teams to fund 85 scholarships every year to mostly kids that wouldn't go to college otherwise is possible because the structure that is in place generates fan interest
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:
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.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.
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.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?
Tate Martell going to throw a tantrum if he’s not eligible at Miami
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?
The NCAA is an absolute joke. They would grant a darnin' hardship waiver for sniffles if the kid was transferring to the right school.