slightly shotgunned

Members
  • Content Count

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Prospect

About slightly shotgunned

  • Rank
    Breakin'

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Dark side of the Natti

Recent Profile Visitors

3,135 profile views
  1. You've mentioned this twice now, so I have to ask: Where and how long did you play? The problem really isn't the SEC or the fan hatred, it's that word "maybe." It's easy to accept that the two best teams come from your conference because you're a fan of that conference, but you have no way of knowing, the voters have no way of knowing, the fans have no way of knowing, the coaches have no way of knowing, the players themselves have no way of knowing, their mothers have no way of knowing...you get my point? You can point to the past all you want, but you're only going to bring out more people who argue against it. The past doesn't mean a whole lot once you get on the field. None of the stats do once the game starts, you know that. So, maybe the SEC is the best conference in college football, or maybe they benefit from the idea that the SEC is the best conference in college football. Maybe LSU would have mopped the floor with OK State or maybe the Cowboys offense is for real and they outscore the Tigers. Maybe 'bama is the best team in the country, or maybe they'd get blown out by USC. Maybe you ignore the SEC battle anyway and celebrate a 6th SEC team winning a BCS title?
  2. Maybe I haven't been lurking around here enough, but did I just see Infrared defend AND agree with Tank?
  3. Yeah but he also missed two games due to an injury and split carries with two other backs. So why should a part time player be nominated for Heisman? Precisely! Can't have it both ways. You're looking for logic from the FBS. They make it up as they go.
  4. 2008? If I remember it right, that year was all sorts of crazy in terms of who should play for the BCS title, wasn't it? What did they say that year?
  5. Not sure. Doesn't make much sense to me either, so I'm going to assume it's because Michigan is a traditional draw no matter how overrated they are or how suspect their defense is. It's probably money.
  6. The body of work argument does not apply to the SEC. You know better 'red.
  7. Simply, we're not talking the NFL or the NBA or any other professional league. Not even I want college players to make that kind of money and there is no way the NCAA is going to give up half of its net worth to pay student- athletes on top of giving them a free education, housing, etc. I don't remember who said it (and I'm at work right now, so I don't have time to search it), but someone said that the scholarship was akin to an unpaid internship. That makes a lot of sense to me. Going with that, an "acceptable amount" (maybe reasonable would have been a better word here?) would be the maximum amount of money an employee could earn in their respective part-time job. For example, a student-athlete dishwasher probably isn't going to work a 40 hour week or make $15 an hour, so what is a reasonable amount of money that they could make at a job like that? What's to stop a booster or an agent from hiring the kid to play their respective sport if they have the means to do so?
  8. Exclusive TV contracts, BCS invitations, exercise equipment rooms, ability to produce a wide variety of licensed merchandise, ability to recruit on a national scale, ability to bend academic requirements for particular players, and so on. Those are all things that vary widely among schools, yet we still manage to have a system that most college fans seem to like. NCAA football is fundamentally unfair. I don't see how player salaries would imbalance scales anymore than they already are. You're basing all this on the opinion that they are employees when the fact is that they are students. No, I'm saying it wouldn't be a bad thing if players were employees. I'd be okay with that. That's what professional leagues are for. If a players goes to college, they are making a choice to be a student over an employee. If they want to be an employee instead of a student, they can play professionally somewhere. No ones taking away their free will. Schools take away their ability to make any money at all for fear that they'll be overpaid. That takes away their free will. To my knowledge no other student on campus is forbidden to take a part-time, or a full-time job if they're paying for school with a scholastic scholarship. Read back where we've all mostly said we don't have any issue with them working, selling merchandise or getting a stipen that allows them to maintain a student living. You don't blow up the whole thing when some smaller changes can be made. That small change opens up a need for the system to be regulated and monitored a lot better than the current system would allow for. The reason these things are not allowed is the fear of certain players being overcompensated for their time or their merchandise. It's just not a simple solution. Who monitors the schools athlete's and how? Where does the money for said monitoring come from? Can players be employed by boosters? What are the minimum amount of responsibilities a student-athlete should have at an acceptable job? What is an acceptable amount of compensation to maintain a student living?
  9. Exclusive TV contracts, BCS invitations, exercise equipment rooms, ability to produce a wide variety of licensed merchandise, ability to recruit on a national scale, ability to bend academic requirements for particular players, and so on. Those are all things that vary widely among schools, yet we still manage to have a system that most college fans seem to like. NCAA football is fundamentally unfair. I don't see how player salaries would imbalance scales anymore than they already are. You're basing all this on the opinion that they are employees when the fact is that they are students. No, I'm saying it wouldn't be a bad thing if players were employees. I'd be okay with that. That's what professional leagues are for. If a players goes to college, they are making a choice to be a student over an employee. If they want to be an employee instead of a student, they can play professionally somewhere. No ones taking away their free will. Schools take away their ability to make any money at all for fear that they'll be overpaid. That takes away their free will. To my knowledge no other student on campus is forbidden to take a part-time, or a full-time job if they're paying for school with a scholastic scholarship.
  10. ...The free education and room and food does not stop players from taking money on the side and costing institutions in the future when the truth is revealed. So clearly, it doesn't have the value that you seem to think it does to the players that take the money. Not only that, your sarcastic solution doesn't even begin to sovle that problem. Even if you treat student athletes like professionals, there'd be no real way to regulate what would constitute a signing bonus or incentive bonus. You wouldn't stop students from taking fluff courses and being given their grades...and what's to stop a school from giving out their own scholastic scholarships to athletes that fit the criteria of the award? The reality is just not that simple.
  11. I don't think that anybody here would have a problem with any student athlete having a legit job in the off season months. Additionally, I was told by a friend of mine that coached Big Ten basketball that the players sign a release that their image can be used in promotional materials, videos, games, etc... Acatually, at most colleges all students sign a similiar waiver at their freshman orientation that states pretty much that. I was told by several sources that coach various levels of college basketball and football (NAIA d2 through NCAA "BCS" d1) that is the case, so I know the legalities. What I'm actually asking is, do they deserve a cut of that money? I can't imagine it would be substantial, but I don't know how much the schools get from game sales.
  12. Right, because when being presented with an athletic scholarship, we'd all think "gee, I do have the option of blowing off 4 years of continuing to play a sport I like to play and I am good at while getting a free college education and all the ancillary benefits that come with it, just so I can continue to be just like everyone else." C'mon -Dan. Which was my point: That free school and all the benefits that go with being a college athlete are worth it and do not require a salary. Oh, well then it's just that simple. These are 18-20 year-old students with parents who aren't struggling with bills and teach their children to get that free education and not take the $500 check that arrived in their mailbox in a blank envelope because the education is more important than the money and anyone who would value the money over the education is just being greedy. I'm sure that describes every single college athlete. In the interest of not going this route, I'm going to back up and not be sarcastic in my response. To restate, I don't think the solution is as simple as saying, "the education is worth it" and closing the book on the issue. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. It's been said over and over again already, but right now, college sport is no longer about world class students who are also athletes. Do they need a salary like they're professionals? I don't think so, but if they are restricted from making money on their own and we want to cut down on some of the corruption that is the worst kept secret in sports, then something has to give. The way I see it: either start to pay them outright, continue to pay them under the table, or let them find a source of income on their own. I say, if we're worried about outside elements giving kids too much money for not enough work, have them work through the school. A lot of work done in bursars offices is pretty light during non-enrollment months, isn't it? The dining halls are always looking for student labor, right? Let them do that kind of stuff. It's an income source and it's not one that could overpay without anyone noticing. Another thing, are athletes required to live on-campus if they're on scholarship? I'm asking because I don't know. I'd say make that a requirement as well if it isn't already. Kids don't have to pay rent, then they have no need for money for rent. Again though, should they be compensated for the use of their likeness in video games and/or for the sale of their replica jerseys...I say they should. Don't know how you'd do it, but in no other case (that I know of) is it acceptable to have your likeness used without your permission and/or without compensation.
  13. Right, because when being presented with an athletic scholarship, we'd all think "gee, I do have the option of blowing off 4 years of continuing to play a sport I like to play and I am good at while getting a free college education and all the ancillary benefits that come with it, just so I can continue to be just like everyone else." C'mon -Dan. Which was my point: That free school and all the benefits that go with being a college athlete are worth it and do not require a salary. Oh, well then it's just that simple. These are 18-20 year-old students with parents who aren't struggling with bills and teach their children to get that free education and not take the $500 check that arrived in their mailbox in a blank envelope because the education is more important than the money and anyone who would value the money over the education is just being greedy. Should they get any sort of compensation from the use of their likenesses in video games, or the sale of their replica jerseys (because let's not kid ourselves, the numbers on the jersey's represent the players wearing them that year)? I could be wrong, but neither of those things have anything to do with the trade-off of althetic service for free education.
  14. True, but they're not mocking the religious gesture IMO, they're mocking the celebration. Players mock other player's celebrations all the time. Just so happens that this particular celebration is Tebow's Tebow.
  15. No, that's....Sports In General. *ducks eggs* Seriously, though. As the saying goes, 'that's why they play the games.'