Official 2010-2011 NCAA Football Thread

[iamshack]

You can tell Pryor is a bit of a brash, loudmouthed kid, but I sort of don't blame him. And what do you expect, honestly? Many of these athletes have not had the most stellar of upbringings, and while it is nice of the colleges to allow them an education for their services, but compared to the money they are generating for the NCAA and the schools, that's really nothing. I have a hard time placing judgment on kids who accept other perks, or even cash, when the NCAA so clearly looks out for its own interests in situations like the Ohio State ruling and the Cam Newton ruling. They're going to make their money off these bowl games and then punish the player and the school later on after they have already cashed their check.

 

Sorry NCAA, but you created this mess, and until you come up with a better system, I hope you squirm.

[danman31]

Whoa. Oregon was leading that game at halftime. Stanford had a lead after one quarter. If a team is too tired to play after the 1st quarter and that's the reason they lost, they aren't very good. They looked good early and then couldn't stop Oregon the rest of the game. There was no killing.

 

You can support a playoff, but I'm not sure this is the game that quite does it.

Stanford was up 7 at half. It was a bizarre game. Stanford led 21-3 and then got outscored 49-10.

 

I absolutely think this supports a playoffs. Can you honestly tell me that you watched Stanford tonight and didn't think it would be cool to see this team play TCU or Auburn? I know they played and lost to Oregon and it was clear who deserved to be in the title game this year, but every year there are a few top teams that finish the year so strong. I want to see the hot teams play each other. No more questioning how good a team like Va. Tech actually was because they got killed. We already know Stanford is very legit and TCU is very legit. Let's see those teams play again against another hot team that's very legit.

 

Frankly, given the popularity of playoffs in this country and in the rest of football I don't see how anyone can say a playoff wouldn't be infinitely better in every way possible. I want someone to argue that the NFL should get rid of the playoffs and just vote for the Super Bowl contenders. Having no playoff in college football sounds as dumb.

[RockRaines]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news...=dw-pryor010311

 

To say this story paints Ohio State in an unfavorable light would be a vast understatement.

More like Pryor, the University isnt giving them anything out of compliance, and they would have self reported if they had caught something. Pryor is simply a moron. However, getting a loaner car while yours is in the shop backed up by documentation isnt even as bad as what I saw at a MAC school.

Edited January 4, 2011 by RockRaines

[NorthSideSox72]

I think some of the rules and expectations surrounding NCAA football are a joke, just like the writer is saying. But I disagree with his overall stance that the players should be compensated financially.

 

College football is not minor league football. The NFL wants it to be - but it still isn't, and shouldn't be. These are universities, first and foremost, so the idea that players should be paid to play (beyond what other students get through scholarships and assistantships) is stupid. If the NFL wants a minor league system, then they can pay to create one.

 

And the argument that players should be able to cheat or break the rules or laws because they rake in money for the school is intentionally keeping one eye closed to the math. A football team at a university rakes in money... which then goes out the door to more scholarships, to allow more students to go to school and get an education. So the money these players help rake in is really benefiting them anyway. Its just the full circle.

 

Its amazing to me that people talk about players raking in millions, and then dismissing the tuition, room, board and even job oppportunities that these pay for. Last I checked, tuition/room/board/part-time job at a university like OSU or other schools would typically cost something like $50k-$100k over four years for out of state residents, not to mention the huge value having a degree at all gives these players. Even if you split up the million dollars (net) that a very successful program might rake in, each player would STILL get less money that the value they currently receive.

 

And how about the fact that a lot of these athletes would likely not be able to get in OR afford school if it weren't for these programs? I'm sorry but people whining for the players here as if they are victims is laughable.

 

That's from the perspective of the University. But... I also have zero problem with players finding ways to make money outside of the university, as long as it doesn't interfere with the operation of the team or the school. Getting free tattoos, selling memorabilia, etc., I think should be perfectly fine. Its immature and stupid, but that's what 19 year olds go through, and they need to learn their way through the life lessons. As long as they aren't actually cheating in the games, or cheating the school in some fashion, then I see no reason why its not OK.

 

These players are adults - treat them as such. Don't coddle them or write a zillion stupid little rules they have to follow, and don't allow them to take something of great value and then complain when they don't get more. Let them make money outside of school however they want to, even if its immature and idiotic - as long as it doesn't result in cheating on the field or breaking real, actual laws (not NCAA rules).

 

The set-up is f***ed up, no doubt. But not in the way the author states.

 

[LittleHurt05]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news...=dw-pryor010311

 

To say this story paints Ohio State in an unfavorable light would be a vast understatement.

 

Like the author mentions, I hate the fact that all these USC players who probably have never met Reggie Bush can't play in bowl games because of the money Bush took, but Pryor & Co. broke rules themselves and are allowed to play tonight.

 

[Balta1701]

That's from the perspective of the University. But... I also have zero problem with players finding ways to make money outside of the university, as long as it doesn't interfere with the operation of the team or the school. Getting free tattoos, selling memorabilia, etc., I think should be perfectly fine. Its immature and stupid, but that's what 19 year olds go through, and they need to learn their way through the life lessons. As long as they aren't actually cheating in the games, or cheating the school in some fashion, then I see no reason why its not OK.

 

These players are adults - treat them as such. Don't coddle them or write a zillion stupid little rules they have to follow, and don't allow them to take something of great value and then complain when they don't get more. Let them make money outside of school however they want to, even if its immature and idiotic - as long as it doesn't result in cheating on the field or breaking real, actual laws (not NCAA rules).

 

The set-up is f***ed up, no doubt. But not in the way the author states.

A lot of these zillion little NCAA rules seem arcane and wierd, but when you spend some time thinking about how they relate to the recruiting process and where the money is, they start making more sense.

 

For example, selling memorabilia, one of the exact ones you cite, is a great way for people to buy off athletes to make decisions that a booster or gambler would want. Memorabilia in particular is odd because it's hard to come up with an exact value for it...the market value of the materials that go into making a Big Ten Championship ring could be $1000, but if I were a graduate of a Big Ten school and my team won a big ten championship, I might be willing to pay a lot more than that for the item and I could testify accurately about that. Meanwhile, the guy who sells me the ring, or pants, or helmet, whatever, gets $500,000 with the understanding that he's going to stay at Ohio State as a Senior rather than go pro.

 

That's a great way to set up a bribery system.

 

The one I always come back to is the Kelvin Sampson at Indiana mess. His biggest crime was sending too many calls and text messages to recruits. How awful is that right? He's just calling them too much. Big Deal. Well, for one coach to do it maybe it's not a big deal, but then the other 30 coaches trying to recruit that player realize the NCAA thinks it isn't a big deal, and next thing you know, the recruit isn't sleeping because he's spending 24/7 receiving recruiting calls.

 

Free Tattoos? Fine. Where do you draw the line on free stuff that a player can get? The NCAA has chosen to define anything free as an inappropriate gift. Say you allow each gift if it's under $100 in market value. Hey, five star recruit, I've got 10,000 alums lined up each of whom are willing to give you a $99 gift. Oh sure, they're just coffee makers, baseball cards, and collectables, but you can sell them all off and pocket everything you want. Or, you're never paying for your own meals again, just come to our school

[NorthSideSox72]

A lot of these zillion little NCAA rules seem arcane and wierd, but when you spend some time thinking about how they relate to the recruiting process and where the money is, they start making more sense.

 

For example, selling memorabilia, one of the exact ones you cite, is a great way for people to buy off athletes to make decisions that a booster or gambler would want. Memorabilia in particular is odd because it's hard to come up with an exact value for it...the market value of the materials that go into making a Big Ten Championship ring could be $1000, but if I were a graduate of a Big Ten school and my team won a big ten championship, I might be willing to pay a lot more than that for the item and I could testify accurately about that. Meanwhile, the guy who sells me the ring, or pants, or helmet, whatever, gets $500,000 with the understanding that he's going to stay at Ohio State as a Senior rather than go pro.

 

That's a great way to set up a bribery system.

 

The one I always come back to is the Kelvin Sampson at Indiana mess. His biggest crime was sending too many calls and text messages to recruits. How awful is that right? He's just calling them too much. Big Deal. Well, for one coach to do it maybe it's not a big deal, but then the other 30 coaches trying to recruit that player realize the NCAA thinks it isn't a big deal, and next thing you know, the recruit isn't sleeping because he's spending 24/7 receiving recruiting calls.

 

Free Tattoos? Fine. Where do you draw the line on free stuff that a player can get? The NCAA has chosen to define anything free as an inappropriate gift. Say you allow each gift if it's under $100 in market value. Hey, five star recruit, I've got 10,000 alums lined up each of whom are willing to give you a $99 gift. Oh sure, they're just coffee makers, baseball cards, and collectables, but you can sell them all off and pocket everything you want. Or, you're never paying for your own meals again, just come to our school

I understand how they arose, I just think they got lazy. Instead of actually enforcing reasonable rules, they layered on a multitude of arcane, ridiculous ones in the hopes of burying players into submission.

 

The rules should be about cheating, competition, recruiting violations, etc. - things that actually effect the team, the school, the league.

 

[Balta1701]

I understand how they arose, I just think they got lazy. Instead of actually enforcing reasonable rules, they layered on a multitude of arcane, ridiculous ones in the hopes of burying players into submission.

 

The rules should be about cheating, competition, recruiting violations, etc. - things that actually effect the team, the school, the league.

I don't think it's laziness...I think it's one case where a "Slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy, it's reality.

 

I mean, honestly, if Tom Crean could go out to every IU alum and ask for a contribution of something valued at $5 to help him sign a basketball player, you don't think he'd be able to cut the kid a million dollar check the next day? He'd have $5 from this alum. And you could even give me something of value, like an autograph, back, so that I'm buying merchandise.

 

These are all cases where the benefits of getting a player or keeping a player are so much larger than the costs, and where the competition is so massive (100+ universities) that the arcane, restrictive, seemingly silly rules wind up being useless if they're not written so strictly that they sound stupid on the surface.

[Jenksismyhero]

Probably because I'm not shocked at all on what big time college athletes are doing. It happens everywhere so when I hear it I think, "sounds about right...".

 

 

I dont condone cheating and we all know its wrong but I feel the total disrespect Pryor showed is more telling of what type of person he really is.

 

Here's the thing though, and Tressel said this at his press conference - you're a 19-20 year old kid whose been in the media spotlight for a number of years. This guy continues to talk about you, mostly negative, and you don't have the right to say something back? Obviously he shouldn't have said it (from the perspective of "we don't pay attention to the media and what they are saying, we concentrate on the task ahead of us"), but IMO if you're going to publicly criticize someone, it's fair game for that person to criticize you back.

 

And sorry, but no. Cheating means you're a cheat. Lying and breaking ethical rules means you don't abide by the rules everyone else has agreed to play by. That's much more damning than throwing it back to a media talking head.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think it's laziness...I think it's one case where a "Slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy, it's reality.

 

I mean, honestly, if Tom Crean could go out to every IU alum and ask for a contribution of something valued at $5 to help him sign a basketball player, you don't think he'd be able to cut the kid a million dollar check the next day? He'd have $5 from this alum. And you could even give me something of value, like an autograph, back, so that I'm buying merchandise.

 

These are all cases where the benefits of getting a player or keeping a player are so much larger than the costs, and where the competition is so massive (100+ universities) that the arcane, restrictive, seemingly silly rules wind up being useless if they're not written so strictly that they sound stupid on the surface.

Its simple, really. Document. As a player, you have to document what money you receive, from whom, and for what. Any free or discounted services, same thing. No need to make it against the rules to receive it - just make the actual, real, material problems illegal.

 

Got a free tattoo from a parlor, because they want the marketing? Fine, just write it down. Got a check for a million from a guy in Vegas right before the bowl game? Uh, probably not fine. This should not be hard, and the slippery slope argument should not be used to excuse to universally place ridiclous rules on everyone.

 

NCAA rules should have their place. They should be about cheating the game, cheating the school, breaking actual laws, setting up competition, officiating, etc. And, colleges should get to add whatever more rules they want, individually - that's up to them (this part is sort of true now).

 

[Jenksismyhero]

A lot of these zillion little NCAA rules seem arcane and wierd, but when you spend some time thinking about how they relate to the recruiting process and where the money is, they start making more sense.

 

For example, selling memorabilia, one of the exact ones you cite, is a great way for people to buy off athletes to make decisions that a booster or gambler would want. Memorabilia in particular is odd because it's hard to come up with an exact value for it...the market value of the materials that go into making a Big Ten Championship ring could be $1000, but if I were a graduate of a Big Ten school and my team won a big ten championship, I might be willing to pay a lot more than that for the item and I could testify accurately about that. Meanwhile, the guy who sells me the ring, or pants, or helmet, whatever, gets $500,000 with the understanding that he's going to stay at Ohio State as a Senior rather than go pro.

 

That's a great way to set up a bribery system.

 

The one I always come back to is the Kelvin Sampson at Indiana mess. His biggest crime was sending too many calls and text messages to recruits. How awful is that right? He's just calling them too much. Big Deal. Well, for one coach to do it maybe it's not a big deal, but then the other 30 coaches trying to recruit that player realize the NCAA thinks it isn't a big deal, and next thing you know, the recruit isn't sleeping because he's spending 24/7 receiving recruiting calls.

 

Free Tattoos? Fine. Where do you draw the line on free stuff that a player can get? The NCAA has chosen to define anything free as an inappropriate gift. Say you allow each gift if it's under $100 in market value. Hey, five star recruit, I've got 10,000 alums lined up each of whom are willing to give you a $99 gift. Oh sure, they're just coffee makers, baseball cards, and collectables, but you can sell them all off and pocket everything you want. Or, you're never paying for your own meals again, just come to our school

 

You're ignoring the entire ethical element there. Stupid rule or not, he broke them. Repeatedly. He told his assistants to cheat. After being caught and fired for the first violation. After holding the chair of the NCAA's ethical committee. It was much, much more than simply making a few extra calls.

 

[RockRaines]

Like the author mentions, I hate the fact that all these USC players who probably have never met Reggie Bush can't play in bowl games because of the money Bush took, but Pryor & Co. broke rules themselves and are allowed to play tonight.

do you really think those are the same situations? USC was punished because coaches knew about the over $1 million dollars in benefits that Bush was given in his time at USC and then tried to hide and mislead the investigators during the process.

Edited January 4, 2011 by RockRaines

[IlliniKrush]

Stanford was up 7 at half. It was a bizarre game. Stanford led 21-3 and then got outscored 49-10.

 

I absolutely think this supports a playoffs. Can you honestly tell me that you watched Stanford tonight and didn't think it would be cool to see this team play TCU or Auburn? I know they played and lost to Oregon and it was clear who deserved to be in the title game this year, but every year there are a few top teams that finish the year so strong. I want to see the hot teams play each other. No more questioning how good a team like Va. Tech actually was because they got killed. We already know Stanford is very legit and TCU is very legit. Let's see those teams play again against another hot team that's very legit.

 

Frankly, given the popularity of playoffs in this country and in the rest of football I don't see how anyone can say a playoff wouldn't be infinitely better in every way possible. I want someone to argue that the NFL should get rid of the playoffs and just vote for the Super Bowl contenders. Having no playoff in college football sounds as dumb.

I remembered that wrong, I just remember Oregon trailing early and then dominating the rest of the game.

 

Anyway, I am in favor of a playoff as well, but like you said, Oregon beat Stanford, so it was basically a playoff game. I'm just saying it wasn't the best example of a game to prove it - the TCU/Wisconsin game was.

 

However if you are going to do it you have to do it right - do you have a 4 team playoff? 8? Anything above 8 is probably too much. If it's 8, what I don't think should happen is the 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at larges - it should just be the top 8 teams regardless. There are so many years where a conference deserves 2 or 3 bids, and with only 2 at large spots available, it becomes an issue. Winning your conference shouldn't get you in automatically. I think it could eventually happen, I'm just worried about the formatting they'll come up with if they finally get it done.

[LittleHurt05]

do you really think those are the same situations? USC was punished because coaches knew about the over $1 million dollars in benefits that Bush was given in his time at USC and then tried to hide and mislead the investigators during the process.

 

I absolutely understand those are different situations. My issue is that the current USC players are the ones who are getting punished. Not Bush, not Carroll, not the main people who caused the problem in the first place. The OSU players were caught breaking the rules and are being punished, but not til after the bowl game, cause we wouldn't want to take that away from them (and the sponsors).

 

How can you punish Bush after the fact? I have no idea. Fine him, make him pay for scholarships? I don't know if you can even do that. But the fact that all these players have the chance to play in bowl games taken away from them because of what others did 5 years ago sucks. Then players like Pryor & Co. are caught, and yeah they are suspended, but not til after the bowl game.

[RockRaines]

I absolutely understand those are different situations. My issue is that the current USC players are the ones who are getting punished. Not Bush, not Carroll, not the main people who caused the problem in the first place. The OSU players were caught breaking the rules and are being punished, but not til after the bowl game, cause we wouldn't want to take that away from them (and the sponsors).

 

How can you punish Bush after the fact? I have no idea. Fine him, make him pay for scholarships? I don't know if you can even do that. But the fact that all these players have the chance to play in bowl games taken away from them because of what others did 5 years ago sucks. Then players like Pryor & Co. are caught, and yeah they are suspended, but not til after the bowl game.

The difference is that USC employees were part of the sanctions at USC, thus the school is punished. Thats why the incoming kids are being punished becuase they decided to stick with a schools that is being sanctioned.

 

The bowl game thing was apparently some little loophole in the NCAA rules. I thought Tressel handled it nicely suspending them for the game if they were leaving. If they just missed the bowl game and not the first 5 games of next year, I could live with that, and i think most OSU fans would agree.

[Chisoxfn]

I remembered that wrong, I just remember Oregon trailing early and then dominating the rest of the game.

 

Anyway, I am in favor of a playoff as well, but like you said, Oregon beat Stanford, so it was basically a playoff game. I'm just saying it wasn't the best example of a game to prove it - the TCU/Wisconsin game was.

 

However if you are going to do it you have to do it right - do you have a 4 team playoff? 8? Anything above 8 is probably too much. If it's 8, what I don't think should happen is the 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at larges - it should just be the top 8 teams regardless. There are so many years where a conference deserves 2 or 3 bids, and with only 2 at large spots available, it becomes an issue. Winning your conference shouldn't get you in automatically. I think it could eventually happen, I'm just worried about the formatting they'll come up with if they finally get it done.

Stanford went up early for an extended period of time in that game. Led at the half and was rolling through most of the 1st half until Oregon hit. And you don't go up as big as Stanford went early by being a chump team and you don't roll over a team like VaTech by being just mediocre.

 

Stanford is a great argument for a playoff game. And yes, Stanford lost to Oregon but whose to say the outcome isn't different on a neutral field. Oregon is widely thought of as the biggest home field in the country when it comes to college football. Either way, it was a game of two. Stanford dominated early, Oregon dominated the remaining 2.5 quarters.

[Chisoxfn]

USC got hit incredibly hard for very little to be honest. They tore the whole program apart and didn't find anything more than the Bush scenario.

[RockRaines]

USC got hit incredibly hard for very little to be honest. They tore the whole program apart and didn't find anything more than the Bush scenario.

They attacked a great source of revenue for the entire athletic program where they found violations in more than 1 sport. The knowledge of coaches and the refusal to comply with investigators when they were aware of more than $1 million dollars in benefits given to their star players isnt all that small. I've always felt they just wanted to hit their revenue stream since the track and bball programs probably benefited from the football program.

[LittleHurt05]

The difference is that USC employees were part of the sanctions at USC, thus the school is punished. Thats why the incoming kids are being punished becuase they decided to stick with a schools that is being sanctioned.

 

The bowl game thing was apparently some little loophole in the NCAA rules. I thought Tressel handled it nicely suspending them for the game if they were leaving. If they just missed the bowl game and not the first 5 games of next year, I could live with that, and i think most OSU fans would agree.

 

Kids who are now juniors are also not being allowed to play in bowl games their last two years, even though they played well enough to earn one. You can't expect them to just transfer senior year. For OSU, instead of the bowl game or the first 5 games of 2011, how about the bowl game and the first 4 games of 2011, thats the same amount of games. Plus, I won't believe all 5 players are staying until I see it.

 

I'm not trying to defend any of USC's actions in the past, I just hate the NCAA rules that basically punish students who come around later and had nothing to do with the rules being broken. The taking away of football scholarships is another thing that is pretty hypocritical. I understand a program needs to be punished, and that puts them at a competitive disadvantage. But in the end, all you are doing is taking away Division 1 football scholarships from 15 kids. (I know the USC recruits will go somewhere else, but there is a trickle down effect that will hurt the kids trying to go to the lower D1 programs).

[iamshack]

I think some of the rules and expectations surrounding NCAA football are a joke, just like the writer is saying. But I disagree with his overall stance that the players should be compensated financially.

 

College football is not minor league football. The NFL wants it to be - but it still isn't, and shouldn't be. These are universities, first and foremost, so the idea that players should be paid to play (beyond what other students get through scholarships and assistantships) is stupid. If the NFL wants a minor league system, then they can pay to create one.

 

And the argument that players should be able to cheat or break the rules or laws because they rake in money for the school is intentionally keeping one eye closed to the math. A football team at a university rakes in money... which then goes out the door to more scholarships, to allow more students to go to school and get an education. So the money these players help rake in is really benefiting them anyway. Its just the full circle.

 

Its amazing to me that people talk about players raking in millions, and then dismissing the tuition, room, board and even job oppportunities that these pay for. Last I checked, tuition/room/board/part-time job at a university like OSU or other schools would typically cost something like $50k-$100k over four years for out of state residents, not to mention the huge value having a degree at all gives these players. Even if you split up the million dollars (net) that a very successful program might rake in, each player would STILL get less money that the value they currently receive.

 

And how about the fact that a lot of these athletes would likely not be able to get in OR afford school if it weren't for these programs? I'm sorry but people whining for the players here as if they are victims is laughable.

 

That's from the perspective of the University. But... I also have zero problem with players finding ways to make money outside of the university, as long as it doesn't interfere with the operation of the team or the school. Getting free tattoos, selling memorabilia, etc., I think should be perfectly fine. Its immature and stupid, but that's what 19 year olds go through, and they need to learn their way through the life lessons. As long as they aren't actually cheating in the games, or cheating the school in some fashion, then I see no reason why its not OK.

 

These players are adults - treat them as such. Don't coddle them or write a zillion stupid little rules they have to follow, and don't allow them to take something of great value and then complain when they don't get more. Let them make money outside of school however they want to, even if its immature and idiotic - as long as it doesn't result in cheating on the field or breaking real, actual laws (not NCAA rules).

 

The set-up is f***ed up, no doubt. But not in the way the author states.

 

Well the reason all these rules exist, and they have gone back and forth between trying to make a set of simple rules versus a list of complex rules, is that the universities and their boosters continue to find their way around them. It isn't like the athletes started just demanding cash one day. The money became so great for these schools that they began doing everything and anything possible to recruit the best athletes possible and to trick the NCAA while doing so. Finally, the NCAA had to try and rewrite the rules and instituted stronger penalties, including inserting the famous Repeat Offender or "death penalty" clause into the rules, allowing them to suspend an entire program for a year or more.

 

After SMU got hit with the death penalty and it basically ruined their program for 20 years, I think the NCAA realized that such a penalty was probably not a particularly good idea. Which sort of leads us to where we are now. Schools still try to cheat, and the NCAA still tries to stop them. But this recent pattern of the NCAA just clearly advancing its own interests, despite them making the most foolish arguments in a lame attempt to justify them, while not showing anywhere near the same regard for the kids involved is ridiculous. I think the author was pretty spot on, actually.

Edited January 4, 2011 by iamshack

[Texsox]

I happened to spend Christmas with a retired Division 1 AD and former compliance officer, who also sat on a number of NCAA committees. Of course the suspensions and other issues came up. He mentioned his first NCAA rules book was think and could get lost, years later, when he retired, it was thick and worded much more exactly. Reading between the lines, it seemed to me that it went from a document that athletes could read and understand to a document intended for university lawyers.

 

Overall I came away less jaded, he said the NCAA overall does a good job of equal enforcment.

 

And to add, I agree with NSS with one addition. I would like to see the NCAA allow some personal use items for the athletes. Perhaps a clothing allowance, meal vouchers for off campus eateries, that sort of thing. Just as NSS mentioned in the jobs and college thread, a part of going to college is living on your own, partying, dating, etc. They should have a more authentic experience. Only the very top athletes would be involved in the sort of payoffs and cheating we're trying to stop. Make the rules fit the 95% of the athletes. The cross country runners, the tennis players, the fencing athletes, etc.

[IlliniKrush]

Apparently Rich Rodriguez has been fired

[RockRaines]

I happened to spend Christmas with a retired Division 1 AD and former compliance officer, who also sat on a number of NCAA committees. Of course the suspensions and other issues came up. He mentioned his first NCAA rules book was think and could get lost, years later, when he retired, it was thick and worded much more exactly. Reading between the lines, it seemed to me that it went from a document that athletes could read and understand to a document intended for university lawyers.

 

Overall I came away less jaded, he said the NCAA overall does a good job of equal enforcment.

 

And to add, I agree with NSS with one addition. I would like to see the NCAA allow some personal use items for the athletes. Perhaps a clothing allowance, meal vouchers for off campus eateries, that sort of thing. Just as NSS mentioned in the jobs and college thread, a part of going to college is living on your own, partying, dating, etc. They should have a more authentic experience. Only the very top athletes would be involved in the sort of payoffs and cheating we're trying to stop. Make the rules fit the 95% of the athletes. The cross country runners, the tennis players, the fencing athletes, etc.

Here is what MAC players at my school got, and how they got away with it:

 

The University would fill up their "campus card" with money stipends etc for "food" and "off campus" dining. These players would then empty the account in the nearest bookstore on whatever was for sale. Then would then return these items for cash and having their spending money for normal stuff like ridiculous home entertainment systems. This is of course should be fairly illegal in the NCAA world, but the money trail points to them buying books and meals.

 

 

Of course it was totally legal for the Orange Bowl to provide a free of charge cruise vacation for over 40 AD's and their wives, because of course, they arent students.

Edited January 4, 2011 by RockRaines

[RockRaines]

Apparently Rich Rodriguez has been fired

Not a surprise. Hope that doesnt mean Harbaugh is in the fold.

[SoxFan1]

I am thoroughly enjoying all of the struggles at the University of Michigan right now.