The gig is up. The NCAA knows it, and there's only one solution

[WVUALLEN]

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/the-gig-is-up-and-the-ncaa-knows-it/

Let’s cut to the chase, shall we?

The gig is up, and the NCAA knows it.

That’s why, at long last, leaders from its most powerful conferences said Wednesday that there cannot be athletes on the field without students in the classroom.

Take that, Mike Gundy.

It was a moment to remember, an administrative end-around.

The key question is why? Why did Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby reveal the money quote Wednesday?

“Our players are students. If we’re not in college, we’re not having contests,” Bowlsby said, according to CBS Sports. “Our message was, we need to get universities and colleges back open, that we were education-based programs, and we weren’t going to have sports until we had something closer to normal college going on.”

Are the college power brokers concerned about the players’ welfare?

Let’s be human and say, yes, absolutely.

Are they concerned beyond belief that playing games without students on campus would present the most compelling, complete evidence yet that they are a professional sports business acting under the protection and pretense of amateurism?

Let’s be realistic and say, yes, absolutely.

They hammered home that point Wednesday.

“The management committee members explained how college sports is different from pro sports,” Bill Hancock said, according to Yahoo! Sports. “For example, college (sports) can’t resume until students are back in class.”

In all honesty, I wasn’t expecting to hear that, in part because the NCAA easily could have noted that kids are in class, just online, and few would have blinked.

I’ve grown so conditioned to the NCAA’s rigid stance on athletes’ rights that Wednesday’s news took me by surprise. I understand wanting to distance themselves from Gundy’s tone-deaf comments. But it seemed odd that they dove into the pro-vs.-college deep end, when, until Wednesday, much of the debate about college football this fall was framed around a different question: As long as kids were taking classes, could colleges play football in empty stadiums? Over the past few weeks, most of us reluctantly came to the conclusion that football in empty stadiums is far more tolerable than no football at all. Basically, for the same reason eating broccoli is better than going hungry. At least it’s something.

So, OK, pass the greens, strap ’em up and let’s play some ball.

Optimism was building and it seemed real.

Professional sports are pushing ahead, leading the charge. As well they should. The NFL Draft will be held next week. The PGA is planning tournaments as early as June. Major League Baseball is working on scenarios to play a season in Arizona and Florida. The NBA hasn’t given up hope of having a postseason. Every bit of it might be held sans fans. Bygones.

Their athletes, after all, are paid to play. It’s a business, with billion-dollar TV contracts. It’s not quite business as usual, but it’s still big business. They have none of the optical pitfalls college administrators have.

Make no mistake, that issue — pay for play, which has been percolating for decades in the college ranks — is at the forefront of Wednesday’s game-changing declaration.

Power 5 athletes receive a nice stipend, but they want more. This isn’t about whether you agree or disagree about paying the players.

This is much more fundamental.

This goes to the heart of the legal ground the NCAA has stood on as long it has existed. These are students, amateurs. They are not employees. They are not professionals. The ADs reminded us of that Wednesday.

There is no hiding now. The curtain has been removed.

The NCAA said athletes can’t be the only students on campus and still pretend it’s all just fun and games for good ol’ State U.

I firmly believe, had the NCAA reached some sort of amenable pay-for-play model years ago, Wednesday’s conversation would have been a lot different. They, too, would be pushing ahead, just like the professional sports commissioners who participated in a conference call with the President.

But pay-for-play hasn’t happened. Not yet, anyway. And NCAA leaders want to keep it that way.

The NCAA backed itself into the corner Wednesday.

What’s the solution? The same as it’s always been. At long last, quit pretending these athletes aren’t employees, that they don’t generate revenue, fund stadiums and create 7-figure head coaches. Quit pretending they don’t deserve a slice of the pie that they harvested and made.

Want to play football in the fall if the kids aren’t back on campus?

The bill is due.

More and more, it looks like that’s the price the NCAA is going to have to pay.

 

[MikeRafone]

Allen, I knew of a OL in the WVAIC who pulled down 250$ a game to play in the very early 80's. The school wasn't bothering to hide it, they split the scholarship between the guy I knew and a J.C. guy.

 

[MikeRafone]

BTW, my youngest was offered a teaching position at WVU after her Fr. year, as the Prof realized my kid was better in the field than she was. At least they were honest about it,

 

[Nova Mountaineer]

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/the-gig-is-up-and-the-ncaa-knows-it/

Let’s cut to the chase, shall we?

The gig is up, and the NCAA knows it.

That’s why, at long last, leaders from its most powerful conferences said Wednesday that there cannot be athletes on the field without students in the classroom.

Take that, Mike Gundy.

It was a moment to remember, an administrative end-around.

The key question is why? Why did Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby reveal the money quote Wednesday?

“Our players are students. If we’re not in college, we’re not having contests,” Bowlsby said, according to CBS Sports. “Our message was, we need to get universities and colleges back open, that we were education-based programs, and we weren’t going to have sports until we had something closer to normal college going on.”

Are the college power brokers concerned about the players’ welfare?

Let’s be human and say, yes, absolutely.

Are they concerned beyond belief that playing games without students on campus would present the most compelling, complete evidence yet that they are a professional sports business acting under the protection and pretense of amateurism?

Let’s be realistic and say, yes, absolutely.

They hammered home that point Wednesday.

“The management committee members explained how college sports is different from pro sports,” Bill Hancock said, according to Yahoo! Sports. “For example, college (sports) can’t resume until students are back in class.”

In all honesty, I wasn’t expecting to hear that, in part because the NCAA easily could have noted that kids are in class, just online, and few would have blinked.

I’ve grown so conditioned to the NCAA’s rigid stance on athletes’ rights that Wednesday’s news took me by surprise. I understand wanting to distance themselves from Gundy’s tone-deaf comments. But it seemed odd that they dove into the pro-vs.-college deep end, when, until Wednesday, much of the debate about college football this fall was framed around a different question: As long as kids were taking classes, could colleges play football in empty stadiums? Over the past few weeks, most of us reluctantly came to the conclusion that football in empty stadiums is far more tolerable than no football at all. Basically, for the same reason eating broccoli is better than going hungry. At least it’s something.

So, OK, pass the greens, strap ’em up and let’s play some ball.

Optimism was building and it seemed real.

Professional sports are pushing ahead, leading the charge. As well they should. The NFL Draft will be held next week. The PGA is planning tournaments as early as June. Major League Baseball is working on scenarios to play a season in Arizona and Florida. The NBA hasn’t given up hope of having a postseason. Every bit of it might be held sans fans. Bygones.

Their athletes, after all, are paid to play. It’s a business, with billion-dollar TV contracts. It’s not quite business as usual, but it’s still big business. They have none of the optical pitfalls college administrators have.

Make no mistake, that issue — pay for play, which has been percolating for decades in the college ranks — is at the forefront of Wednesday’s game-changing declaration.

Power 5 athletes receive a nice stipend, but they want more. This isn’t about whether you agree or disagree about paying the players.

This is much more fundamental.

This goes to the heart of the legal ground the NCAA has stood on as long it has existed. These are students, amateurs. They are not employees. They are not professionals. The ADs reminded us of that Wednesday.

There is no hiding now. The curtain has been removed.

The NCAA said athletes can’t be the only students on campus and still pretend it’s all just fun and games for good ol’ State U.

I firmly believe, had the NCAA reached some sort of amenable pay-for-play model years ago, Wednesday’s conversation would have been a lot different. They, too, would be pushing ahead, just like the professional sports commissioners who participated in a conference call with the President.

But pay-for-play hasn’t happened. Not yet, anyway. And NCAA leaders want to keep it that way.

The NCAA backed itself into the corner Wednesday.

What’s the solution? The same as it’s always been. At long last, quit pretending these athletes aren’t employees, that they don’t generate revenue, fund stadiums and create 7-figure head coaches. Quit pretending they don’t deserve a slice of the pie that they harvested and made.

Want to play football in the fall if the kids aren’t back on campus?

The bill is due.

More and more, it looks like that’s the price the NCAA is going to have to pay.

what if a university opens up on-line classes - is that considered "in the classroom?"

 

[WVUALLEN]

what if a university opens up on-line classes - is that considered "in the classroom?"

I think they may just be referring to on campus just to save face and say their Student athletes are amateur athlete.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/the-gig-is-up-and-the-ncaa-knows-it/

Let’s cut to the chase, shall we?

The gig is up, and the NCAA knows it.

That’s why, at long last, leaders from its most powerful conferences said Wednesday that there cannot be athletes on the field without students in the classroom.

Take that, Mike Gundy.

It was a moment to remember, an administrative end-around.

The key question is why? Why did Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby reveal the money quote Wednesday?

“Our players are students. If we’re not in college, we’re not having contests,” Bowlsby said, according to CBS Sports. “Our message was, we need to get universities and colleges back open, that we were education-based programs, and we weren’t going to have sports until we had something closer to normal college going on.”

Are the college power brokers concerned about the players’ welfare?

Let’s be human and say, yes, absolutely.

Are they concerned beyond belief that playing games without students on campus would present the most compelling, complete evidence yet that they are a professional sports business acting under the protection and pretense of amateurism?

Let’s be realistic and say, yes, absolutely.

They hammered home that point Wednesday.

“The management committee members explained how college sports is different from pro sports,” Bill Hancock said, according to Yahoo! Sports. “For example, college (sports) can’t resume until students are back in class.”

In all honesty, I wasn’t expecting to hear that, in part because the NCAA easily could have noted that kids are in class, just online, and few would have blinked.

I’ve grown so conditioned to the NCAA’s rigid stance on athletes’ rights that Wednesday’s news took me by surprise. I understand wanting to distance themselves from Gundy’s tone-deaf comments. But it seemed odd that they dove into the pro-vs.-college deep end, when, until Wednesday, much of the debate about college football this fall was framed around a different question: As long as kids were taking classes, could colleges play football in empty stadiums? Over the past few weeks, most of us reluctantly came to the conclusion that football in empty stadiums is far more tolerable than no football at all. Basically, for the same reason eating broccoli is better than going hungry. At least it’s something.

So, OK, pass the greens, strap ’em up and let’s play some ball.

Optimism was building and it seemed real.

Professional sports are pushing ahead, leading the charge. As well they should. The NFL Draft will be held next week. The PGA is planning tournaments as early as June. Major League Baseball is working on scenarios to play a season in Arizona and Florida. The NBA hasn’t given up hope of having a postseason. Every bit of it might be held sans fans. Bygones.

Their athletes, after all, are paid to play. It’s a business, with billion-dollar TV contracts. It’s not quite business as usual, but it’s still big business. They have none of the optical pitfalls college administrators have.

Make no mistake, that issue — pay for play, which has been percolating for decades in the college ranks — is at the forefront of Wednesday’s game-changing declaration.

Power 5 athletes receive a nice stipend, but they want more. This isn’t about whether you agree or disagree about paying the players.

This is much more fundamental.

This goes to the heart of the legal ground the NCAA has stood on as long it has existed. These are students, amateurs. They are not employees. They are not professionals. The ADs reminded us of that Wednesday.

There is no hiding now. The curtain has been removed.

The NCAA said athletes can’t be the only students on campus and still pretend it’s all just fun and games for good ol’ State U.

I firmly believe, had the NCAA reached some sort of amenable pay-for-play model years ago, Wednesday’s conversation would have been a lot different. They, too, would be pushing ahead, just like the professional sports commissioners who participated in a conference call with the President.

But pay-for-play hasn’t happened. Not yet, anyway. And NCAA leaders want to keep it that way.

The NCAA backed itself into the corner Wednesday.

What’s the solution? The same as it’s always been. At long last, quit pretending these athletes aren’t employees, that they don’t generate revenue, fund stadiums and create 7-figure head coaches. Quit pretending they don’t deserve a slice of the pie that they harvested and made.

Want to play football in the fall if the kids aren’t back on campus?

The bill is due.

More and more, it looks like that’s the price the NCAA is going to have to pay.

This is all so silly.

Remove the players from scholarship.

Pay the players a salary equal to scholarship and room/board.

Require they maintain a full time course load (or whatever is required currently).

...and watch how many players dont want to take the deal.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

what if a university opens up on-line classes - is that considered "in the classroom?"

The universities have already done that.

The point is, if the students cant return to campus, neither can football players. If the players aren't on campus, you can't field a football team.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/the-gig-is-up-and-the-ncaa-knows-it/

Let’s cut to the chase, shall we?

The gig is up, and the NCAA knows it.

That’s why, at long last, leaders from its most powerful conferences said Wednesday that there cannot be athletes on the field without students in the classroom.

Take that, Mike Gundy.

It was a moment to remember, an administrative end-around.

The key question is why? Why did Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby reveal the money quote Wednesday?

“Our players are students. If we’re not in college, we’re not having contests,” Bowlsby said, according to CBS Sports. “Our message was, we need to get universities and colleges back open, that we were education-based programs, and we weren’t going to have sports until we had something closer to normal college going on.”

Are the college power brokers concerned about the players’ welfare?

Let’s be human and say, yes, absolutely.

Are they concerned beyond belief that playing games without students on campus would present the most compelling, complete evidence yet that they are a professional sports business acting under the protection and pretense of amateurism?

Let’s be realistic and say, yes, absolutely.

They hammered home that point Wednesday.

“The management committee members explained how college sports is different from pro sports,” Bill Hancock said, according to Yahoo! Sports. “For example, college (sports) can’t resume until students are back in class.”

In all honesty, I wasn’t expecting to hear that, in part because the NCAA easily could have noted that kids are in class, just online, and few would have blinked.

I’ve grown so conditioned to the NCAA’s rigid stance on athletes’ rights that Wednesday’s news took me by surprise. I understand wanting to distance themselves from Gundy’s tone-deaf comments. But it seemed odd that they dove into the pro-vs.-college deep end, when, until Wednesday, much of the debate about college football this fall was framed around a different question: As long as kids were taking classes, could colleges play football in empty stadiums? Over the past few weeks, most of us reluctantly came to the conclusion that football in empty stadiums is far more tolerable than no football at all. Basically, for the same reason eating broccoli is better than going hungry. At least it’s something.

So, OK, pass the greens, strap ’em up and let’s play some ball.

Optimism was building and it seemed real.

Professional sports are pushing ahead, leading the charge. As well they should. The NFL Draft will be held next week. The PGA is planning tournaments as early as June. Major League Baseball is working on scenarios to play a season in Arizona and Florida. The NBA hasn’t given up hope of having a postseason. Every bit of it might be held sans fans. Bygones.

Their athletes, after all, are paid to play. It’s a business, with billion-dollar TV contracts. It’s not quite business as usual, but it’s still big business. They have none of the optical pitfalls college administrators have.

Make no mistake, that issue — pay for play, which has been percolating for decades in the college ranks — is at the forefront of Wednesday’s game-changing declaration.

Power 5 athletes receive a nice stipend, but they want more. This isn’t about whether you agree or disagree about paying the players.

This is much more fundamental.

This goes to the heart of the legal ground the NCAA has stood on as long it has existed. These are students, amateurs. They are not employees. They are not professionals. The ADs reminded us of that Wednesday.

There is no hiding now. The curtain has been removed.

The NCAA said athletes can’t be the only students on campus and still pretend it’s all just fun and games for good ol’ State U.

I firmly believe, had the NCAA reached some sort of amenable pay-for-play model years ago, Wednesday’s conversation would have been a lot different. They, too, would be pushing ahead, just like the professional sports commissioners who participated in a conference call with the President.

But pay-for-play hasn’t happened. Not yet, anyway. And NCAA leaders want to keep it that way.

The NCAA backed itself into the corner Wednesday.

What’s the solution? The same as it’s always been. At long last, quit pretending these athletes aren’t employees, that they don’t generate revenue, fund stadiums and create 7-figure head coaches. Quit pretending they don’t deserve a slice of the pie that they harvested and made.

Want to play football in the fall if the kids aren’t back on campus?

The bill is due.

More and more, it looks like that’s the price the NCAA is going to have to pay.

The article seems to overlook that the NCAA and universities dont have full authority on how to continue.

Governors will have the most influence, and all it will take is one governor (say in CA, or Michigan) to be a hold out. Then what do you do?

If D1 gets cleared, then they would need to clear ALL SPORTS at all divisions.

The decision will need to be made from a health point of view, and theres no way to sell its safe to play football but not attend a class on campus.

 

[TownesVanZandt]

The article seems to overlook that the NCAA and universities dont have full authority on how to continue.

Governors will have the most influence, and all it will take is one governor (say in CA, or Michigan) to be a hold out. Then what do you do?

If D1 gets cleared, then they would need to clear ALL SPORTS at all divisions.

The decision will need to be made from a health point of view, and theres no way to sell its safe to play football but not attend a class on campus.

This might be true.
I think that is why they keep highlighting the importance of fans.
Even to a point of lying about the numbers

 

[Rootmaster]

This is all so silly.

Remove the players from scholarship.

Pay the players a salary equal to scholarship and room/board.

Require they maintain a full time course load (or whatever is required currently).

...and watch how many players dont want to take the deal.

Good idea with the exception of pay a salary. Students in good standing play sports for the school period. Get back to the core. Stop operating the college model like it is a professional one.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Good idea with the exception of pay a salary. Students in good standing play sports for the school period. Get back to the core. Stop operating the college model like it is a professional one.

I'm fine with that.

Start by requiring athletes to meet the same academic requirements as other incoming students.

 

[Rootmaster]

I'm fine with that.

Start by requiring athletes to meet the same academic requirements as other incoming students.

And maintaining them as well.

 

[oceantide83]

Pay a player's salary based off their GPA and the level of difficulty of their classes.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Pay a player's salary based off their GPA and the level of difficulty of their classes.

The level of difficulty of a class is subjective and individual.

Just make them take actual courses...the same ones real students take. No fake classes.

 

[Rootmaster]

Pay a player's salary based off their GPA and the level of difficulty of their classes.

So taxpayers should pay some 18 year old to actually attend classes because he can bounce a ball...jump higher than the average dude...run fast...or throw a football? Screw the waste of money. They should be students first and EARN the privilege of playing for their school. And why the hell shouldn't a med student...engineering student...or any other student then not be paid? Hell just get rid of tuition and pay all children to go to class. Dumb ass progressive bs.

 

[oceantide83]

So taxpayers should pay some 18 year old to actually attend classes because he can bounce a ball...jump higher than the average dude...run fast...or throw a football? Screw the waste of money. They should be students first and EARN the privilege of playing for their school. And why the hell shouldn't a med student...engineering student...or any other student then not be paid? Hell just get rid of tuition and pay all children to go to class. Dumb ass progressive bs.

It's comical you're complaining about taxpayers' money being wasted. Have you never heard of "government waste"? Your money is going to get wasted one way or another, so get used to it. You're not very in tune with today's younger generation if you think they care to have to EARN the privilege of playing for a school. Sorry, doesn't work that way and isn't a selling point at all. The easier the road to playing time, the better.

 

[westsiderSJHS77]

Paying players will be the end of college athletics as we know it. Pick the blue bloods (LSU, Georgia, Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, etc). All those programs have the financial backing to afford that. And to be sure, bonuses, incentive payment, endorsements and the like will be piled on top of that. The Iowa States, WVU, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Oregon States, etc will not be able to keep up.
The blue bloods will splinter off and garner all the TV rights and it will go back to the way the NCAA ran it before the CFA came along. Everyone will get sick of watching Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama every week ONLY.
The rest of the P5 schools will be streamed with some of the G5 that reform into a classification and the rest of the G5 will maybe get on local TV.

At that point Universities will just have a payroll for 100 players, and 40-50 support staff that are just there to play football. Cooks, janitors, financial aid staff, etc will be looking at a kid making more money than they do just because they can jump higher, run faster, etc. Wonder how that will go over?

This will turn people off and interest will drop, TV rights will not feed the beast it created and then more “outside” money will be pumped in by boosters, but more important gambling interests. Which I have said before, gambling will ruin college athletics, sooner than later now. The Woohoo Virus has speed up the schedule.

Stay tuned.

 

[Rootmaster]

It's comical you're complaining about taxpayers' money being wasted. Have you never heard of "government waste"? Your money is going to get wasted one way or another, so get used to it. You're not very in tune with today's younger generation if you think they care to have to EARN the privilege of playing for a school. Sorry, doesn't work that way and isn't a selling point at all. The easier the road to playing time, the better.

So according to your uber juvenile basement dwelling opinion...why have student in student athlete at all...that would be quickest journey to playing time! And while they are at it....get rid of all academics and meet in a parking lot on Saturdays and pick sides?

 

[WVUALLEN]

Paying players will be the end of college athletics as we know it. Pick the blue bloods (LSU, Georgia, Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, etc). All those programs have the financial backing to afford that. And to be sure, bonuses, incentive payment, endorsements and the like will be piled on top of that. The Iowa States, WVU, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Oregon States, etc will not be able to keep up.
The blue bloods will splinter off and garner all the TV rights and it will go back to the way the NCAA ran it before the CFA came along. Everyone will get sick of watching Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama every week ONLY.
The rest of the P5 schools will be streamed with some of the G5 that reform into a classification and the rest of the G5 will maybe get on local TV.

At that point Universities will just have a payroll for 100 players, and 40-50 support staff that are just there to play football. Cooks, janitors, financial aid staff, etc will be looking at a kid making more money than they do just because they can jump higher, run faster, etc. Wonder how that will go over?

This will turn people off and interest will drop, TV rights will not feed the beast it created and then more “outside” money will be pumped in by boosters, but more important gambling interests. Which I have said before, gambling will ruin college athletics, sooner than later now. The Woohoo Virus has speed up the schedule.

Stay tuned.

Sounds like the 70's and 80's with only the big names on TV with scraps here and there for the little ones.

 

[The Bell Tolls for Thee]

The level of difficulty of a class is subjective and individual.

Just make them take actual courses...the same ones real students take. No fake classes.

Except all of a Political Science major classes are a cake walk compared to say Chemical Engineering or Biochemistry.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Except all of a Political Science major classes are a cake walk compared to say Chemical Engineering or Biochemistry.

Sure...unless you are a poor writer, or have issues publicly speaking....or struggle with conceptual topics.

Someone great at math can struggle in an art class.

A student who can breeze through Calculus might find a public speaking, or debate course extremely difficult.

....so the idea to prorate money based on class difficulty is silly.

Although I think the country should incentivize needed skills in STEM.

 

[The Bell Tolls for Thee]

Sure...unless you are a poor writer, or have issues publicly speaking....or struggle with conceptual topics.

Someone great at math can struggle in an art class.

A student who can breeze through Calculus might find a public speaking, or debate course extremely difficult.

....so the idea to prorate money based on class difficulty is silly.

Although I think the country should incentivize needed skills in STEM.

Point taken, but I went to WVU and was required to take Arts and Humanities classes along with "Social Sciences" and the bare minimum to pass those was far lower than the bare minimum to pass equivalent level STEM classes. Most of it was subjective BS that required you to stroke the profs ego or back their opinions on things. Not to say that is every case, but pretty much all the one's I met during my time there were more concerned with activism than truth and political correctness over intellectual debate.

 

[LAMountaineer]

So taxpayers should pay some 18 year old to actually attend classes because he can bounce a ball...jump higher than the average dude...run fast...or throw a football? Screw the waste of money. They should be students first and EARN the privilege of playing for their school. And why the hell shouldn't a med student...engineering student...or any other student then not be paid? Hell just get rid of tuition and pay all children to go to class. Dumb ass progressive bs.

This BS sounds more like red-neck conservative than progressive.

 

[The Bell Tolls for Thee]

So taxpayers should pay some 18 year old to actually attend classes because he can bounce a ball...jump higher than the average dude...run fast...or throw a football? Screw the waste of money. They should be students first and EARN the privilege of playing for their school. And why the hell shouldn't a med student...engineering student...or any other student then not be paid? Hell just get rid of tuition and pay all children to go to class. Dumb ass progressive bs.

I'll never fault someone for looking out for their best interest unless it directly subverts someone else's. The problem is the entire system that pretty much uses college athletics as a farm system in regard to basketball and football. If your primary goal is athletics, you should not be at college. However, there isn't much of an alternative for these players and the people have voted with their eyes and wallets. Thus tacitly condoning this system by rewarding the schools with massive amounts of money. The body gives out long before the mind and the natural order of operations should be that the 18 year old explores their athletic potential first. Ideally with the ability to just work on their game and then join the college ranks second if they are up to college student standards, but not ready to advance professionally. Now we have this one size fits all system where players like Sherman and McCaffery can easily be college level students and professional level athletes. However we also try to cram guys who have no business having a high school diploma much less a college degree into this system just because they are athletic.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Point taken, but I went to WVU and was required to take Arts and Humanities classes along with "Social Sciences" and the bare minimum to pass those was far lower than the bare minimum to pass equivalent level STEM classes. Most of it was subjective BS that required you to stroke the profs ego or back their opinions on things. Not to say that is every case, but pretty much all the one's I met during my time there were more concerned with activism than truth and political correctness over intellectual debate.

Not going to denying that.

Keep in mind, most players arent poli sci majors either.....I was a poli sci major and never had a football or basketball player in any of my classes.

I took an athletic coaching elective blow off course and it was all football players, and the course was impossible to fail.

 

[oceantide83]

So according to your uber juvenile basement dwelling opinion...why have student in student athlete at all...that would be quickest journey to playing time! And while they are at it....get rid of all academics and meet in a parking lot on Saturdays and pick sides?

I am a proponent of getting rid of colleges. They are nothing more than a money-making scheme. Most of what is learned in college is useless. All job functions I've ever had to perform involve me personally having to learn by the sink or swim method since employers don't train people to do their jobs anymore. They expect you to be able to do things that are not taught in college and be able to do them right now. Colleges are going to keep a lot of people in debt for a long time, if not until the day they die.

 

[spartansstink]

I wouldn't go that far but I am a big proponent of apprenticeships. Our forefathers had it right. It's true that a lot of what is taught and learned in college ( and high school) is relatively useless. Still, having knowledge in a broad area is a useful trait; a jack-of-all-trades so to speak. However, in today's world, being a master of just one pays the bills quite well.

Sadly, too many today aren't jacks of any trade - they are barely a pair of 5's.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

I am a proponent of getting rid of colleges. They are nothing more than a money-making scheme. Most of what is learned in college is useless. All job functions I've ever had to perform involve me personally having to learn by the sink or swim method since employers don't train people to do their jobs anymore. They expect you to be able to do things that are not taught in college and be able to do them right now. Colleges are going to keep a lot of people in debt for a long time, if not until the day they die.

You are also a proponent of ending constitutional rights...not much of what you say makes very much sense.

If the IRS is up your ass, I bet you wouldnt hire a CPA who never went to college.

I think you just have trouble delivering your opinions effectively.

 

[The Bell Tolls for Thee]

I am a proponent of getting rid of colleges. They are nothing more than a money-making scheme. Most of what is learned in college is useless. All job functions I've ever had to perform involve me personally having to learn by the sink or swim method since employers don't train people to do their jobs anymore. They expect you to be able to do things that are not taught in college and be able to do them right now. Colleges are going to keep a lot of people in debt for a long time, if not until the day they die.

It's a fallacy since LBJ was president. Correlation does not equal causation. College graduates were better positioned in the job market and that was seen as because if the value of education. Then that morphed into everyone should go to college followed by everyone needed a degree. It is more likely that when getting into college and graduating was rare because it was rigorous, graduating meant you had something others didn't. You likely had work ethic, time management skills, some degree of acumen and deductive reasoning skills. Hence you had useful qualities even if the job at hand was not in your field of study. But it has morphed into a paper mill where students I went to school with 18 years ago were bitching and moaning that just attending 3 lectures a week was not enough for them to pass Calculus. Now everyone wonders why it's not the same despite the obvious answer being that when college was difficult enough that the more than half the population couldn't cut it, a degree distinguished you. Now people who likely couldn't have graduated High School half a century ago have a college degree with only have beer drinking along with whining about society's ills as discernable "skills"

 

[Darth_VadEER]

It's a fallacy since LBJ was president. Correlation does not equal causation. College graduates were better positioned in the job market and that was seen as because if the value of education. Then that morphed into everyone should go to college followed by everyone needed a degree. It is more likely that when getting into college and graduating was rare because it was rigorous, graduating meant you had something others didn't. You likely had work ethic, time management skills, some degree of acumen and deductive reasoning skills. Hence you had useful qualities even if the job at hand was not in your field of study. But it has morphed into a paper mill where students I went to school with 18 years ago were bitching and moaning that just attending 3 lectures a week was not enough for them to pass Calculus. Now everyone wonders why it's not the same despite the obvious answer being that when college was difficult enough that the more than half the population couldn't cut it, a degree distinguished you. Now people who likely couldn't have graduated High School half a century ago have a college degree with only have beer drinking along with whining about society's ills as discernable "skills"

College is the new high school....

A diploma doesn't separate you.

Most jobs shouldnt require a degree. A 2 year degree should be adequate for many.

 

[spartansstink]

If what you all are saying is true, then what is your value?

Honest question - if literally any dolt, with a degree or without, can do YOUR job, as you all claim, what value do you bring?

If supply and demand determines worth, and literally anyone can do your job, then do you deserve the pay/salary that you get? Do you earn what your worth?

Just something to ponder...

I do definitely agree that academic rigor has been lost by progressive educational practices. If you take a look back at a high school textbook from the 1920's, the content studied then would likely be high college/post-grad work today - and that's a high school textbook. Lowered standards has hurt WVU for a long time across many metrics, and perception often becomes reality.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

If what you all are saying is true, then what is your value?

Honest question - if literally any dolt, with a degree or without, can do YOUR job, as you all claim, what value do you bring?

If supply and demand determines worth, and literally anyone can do your job, then do you deserve the pay/salary that you get? Do you earn what your worth?

Just something to ponder...

I do definitely agree that academic rigor has been lost by progressive educational practices. If you take a look back at a high school textbook from the 1920's, the content studied then would likely be high college/post-grad work today - and that's a high school textbook. Lowered standards has hurt WVU for a long time across many metrics, and perception often becomes reality.

Doing the job well.

The degree is just a starting point.

For example, sales. I dont work in sales, but i know good sales managers, and regional sales managers who have no degree.

They are all near retirement.

But new hires for the same position all require degrees...which arent necessary to excel in the job.

Also IT. I have seen lots of people do well in that function with no degree, but new hires all require a degree...its really not necessary.

 

[oceantide83]

You are also a proponent of ending constitutional rights...not much of what you say makes very much sense.

If the IRS is up your ass, I bet you wouldnt hire a CPA who never went to college.

I think you just have trouble delivering your opinions effectively.

I think you have difficulty with reading comprehension. No, I know you do.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

I think you have difficulty with reading comprehension. No, I know you do.

Ending colleges is silly, which is what you proposed.

Make them better, yes...more affordable, yes...

But society needs a buffer for folks operating on our bodies and engineering our bridges.

 

[The Bell Tolls for Thee]

If what you all are saying is true, then what is your value?

Honest question - if literally any dolt, with a degree or without, can do YOUR job, as you all claim, what value do you bring?

If supply and demand determines worth, and literally anyone can do your job, then do you deserve the pay/salary that you get? Do you earn what your worth?

Just something to ponder...

I do definitely agree that academic rigor has been lost by progressive educational practices. If you take a look back at a high school textbook from the 1920's, the content studied then would likely be high college/post-grad work today - and that's a high school textbook. Lowered standards has hurt WVU for a long time across many metrics, and perception often becomes reality.

You seem to be reading things into what is being said. Not any old dolt can do my job and my job does require specific college education in the field. However, not all jobs do. Most actually don't. And even if they do, just having a degree doesn't distinguish you much when dozens of other candidates have the same degree. I'm not saying there is no value for education, I'm saying people are not valuing education but rather valuing a degree. They think that by having that degree it shows they are educated and it should result in a lucrative job. There are plenty of learning opportunities even at small or non prestigious schools for the students that seek them out. And education in things other than purely practical job skills such as history, philosophy, etc... are not completely useless. However a majority of graduates just do the bare minimum which has been so diluted that it means next to nothing to "just have a degree" unless it's in a select few fields. When the only requirement now for getting into a college is having a pulse and the ability to sign loan paperwork the school will actually pretty much do for you, going to college puts in with a not very selective bunch. And when a majority of them can graduate while doing less than 40 hours of work per week, coming out the otherside isn't a very selective bunch either. Unfortunately people still view just having a college degree now like having a college degree in the 50's. Problem is having a degree in the 50's was more like being elite special forces in the military than our higher learning centers are now. Even if you were the worst person to ever make it through, you were still elite because just getting in was selective and the bare minimum to graduate was still a higher bar to clear. Today you must do MORE than just have a degree to set yourself apart and that can be done within the education system or without. But just doing what it takes to obtain a 4 year degree in most fields of study isn't the pathway to a higher paying job and most people who start that journey are under the impression it is.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/the-gig-is-up-and-the-ncaa-knows-it/

Let’s cut to the chase, shall we?

The gig is up, and the NCAA knows it.

That’s why, at long last, leaders from its most powerful conferences said Wednesday that there cannot be athletes on the field without students in the classroom.

Take that, Mike Gundy.

It was a moment to remember, an administrative end-around.

The key question is why? Why did Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby reveal the money quote Wednesday?

“Our players are students. If we’re not in college, we’re not having contests,” Bowlsby said, according to CBS Sports. “Our message was, we need to get universities and colleges back open, that we were education-based programs, and we weren’t going to have sports until we had something closer to normal college going on.”

Are the college power brokers concerned about the players’ welfare?

Let’s be human and say, yes, absolutely.

Are they concerned beyond belief that playing games without students on campus would present the most compelling, complete evidence yet that they are a professional sports business acting under the protection and pretense of amateurism?

Let’s be realistic and say, yes, absolutely.

They hammered home that point Wednesday.

“The management committee members explained how college sports is different from pro sports,” Bill Hancock said, according to Yahoo! Sports. “For example, college (sports) can’t resume until students are back in class.”

In all honesty, I wasn’t expecting to hear that, in part because the NCAA easily could have noted that kids are in class, just online, and few would have blinked.

I’ve grown so conditioned to the NCAA’s rigid stance on athletes’ rights that Wednesday’s news took me by surprise. I understand wanting to distance themselves from Gundy’s tone-deaf comments. But it seemed odd that they dove into the pro-vs.-college deep end, when, until Wednesday, much of the debate about college football this fall was framed around a different question: As long as kids were taking classes, could colleges play football in empty stadiums? Over the past few weeks, most of us reluctantly came to the conclusion that football in empty stadiums is far more tolerable than no football at all. Basically, for the same reason eating broccoli is better than going hungry. At least it’s something.

So, OK, pass the greens, strap ’em up and let’s play some ball.

Optimism was building and it seemed real.

Professional sports are pushing ahead, leading the charge. As well they should. The NFL Draft will be held next week. The PGA is planning tournaments as early as June. Major League Baseball is working on scenarios to play a season in Arizona and Florida. The NBA hasn’t given up hope of having a postseason. Every bit of it might be held sans fans. Bygones.

Their athletes, after all, are paid to play. It’s a business, with billion-dollar TV contracts. It’s not quite business as usual, but it’s still big business. They have none of the optical pitfalls college administrators have.

Make no mistake, that issue — pay for play, which has been percolating for decades in the college ranks — is at the forefront of Wednesday’s game-changing declaration.

Power 5 athletes receive a nice stipend, but they want more. This isn’t about whether you agree or disagree about paying the players.

This is much more fundamental.

This goes to the heart of the legal ground the NCAA has stood on as long it has existed. These are students, amateurs. They are not employees. They are not professionals. The ADs reminded us of that Wednesday.

There is no hiding now. The curtain has been removed.

The NCAA said athletes can’t be the only students on campus and still pretend it’s all just fun and games for good ol’ State U.

I firmly believe, had the NCAA reached some sort of amenable pay-for-play model years ago, Wednesday’s conversation would have been a lot different. They, too, would be pushing ahead, just like the professional sports commissioners who participated in a conference call with the President.

But pay-for-play hasn’t happened. Not yet, anyway. And NCAA leaders want to keep it that way.

The NCAA backed itself into the corner Wednesday.

What’s the solution? The same as it’s always been. At long last, quit pretending these athletes aren’t employees, that they don’t generate revenue, fund stadiums and create 7-figure head coaches. Quit pretending they don’t deserve a slice of the pie that they harvested and made.

Want to play football in the fall if the kids aren’t back on campus?

The bill is due.

More and more, it looks like that’s the price the NCAA is going to have to pay.

I’ve been saying for over a month that there would be no sports if campuses were closed to students. I was told that over a month ago by the highest level at Pitt. Of course I had to bare through the local morons claiming different.....ah ah uh uh Texass.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

This might be true.
I think that is why they keep highlighting the importance of fans.
Even to a point of lying about the numbers

Changing your tune I see. You still don’t get it though. Has absolutely nothing to do with fans. Only opened Campuses. As I mentioned before I was told at highest level that no open campuses no athletics. You were predicting money would drive the decision. Now you’ve changed to fans. It’s obvious that was never the priority that was making decisions. You just have this weird internet persona that you can’t be wrong. You were wrong about the money angle. You’re wrong about fans in the building. It’s all about when campuses open back up sports will be back.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Changing your tune I see. You still don’t get it though. Has absolutely nothing to do with fans. Only opened Campuses. As I mentioned before I was told at highest level that no open campuses no athletics. You were predicting money would drive the decision. Now you’ve changed to fans. It’s obvious that was never the priority that was making decisions. You just have this weird internet persona that you can’t be wrong. You were wrong about the money angle. You’re wrong about fans in the building. It’s all about when campuses open back up sports will be back.

Right...unless we admit these are football teams with their own school, and not the other way around.

 

[TownesVanZandt]

Changing your tune I see. You still don’t get it though. Has absolutely nothing to do with fans. Only opened Campuses. As I mentioned before I was told at highest level that no open campuses no athletics. You were predicting money would drive the decision. Now you’ve changed to fans. It’s obvious that was never the priority that was making decisions. You just have this weird internet persona that you can’t be wrong. You were wrong about the money angle. You’re wrong about fans in the building. It’s all about when campuses open back up sports will be back.

Problem with that narrative is schools still play games when campuses are closed.

Don't know why you keep bringing this up.
Your stadium isn't even on campus and your students don't show up anyways.

Try again...

College Football without fans is pretty much worse than the XFL.

The fans, excitement and Pageantry in college football is what makes us watch. We have a connection to these schools.

If you remove this people will see it for what it really is
Average football.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Problem with that narrative is schools still play games when campuses are closed.

Don't know why you keep bringing this up.
Your stadium isn't even on campus and your students don't show up anyways.

Try again...

College Football without fans is pretty much worse than the XFL.

The fans, excitement and Pageantry in college football is what makes us watch. We have a connection to these schools.

If you remove this people will see it for what it really is
Average football.

Stop it.

If they could play games and get TV revenue without fans they would. They do not give a f?ck about pageantry...that is just marketing.

Stop being such a mark.

Btw...the xfl was good.