NCAA threatens to boot the whole state of California if bill becomes law

[Townie72]

This is ridiculous. They get into college based on a very specific, very valuable skill. This skill allows them entry into a world that would be very closed in most cases (speaking of "our biggest problems")...

For every kid interviewed on TV that you take offense to, there are thousands who grab the chance to be the first from their family to graduate from college.

One might draw the opposite inference... that a kid who is removed from a toxic environment go on to become something through hard work, caring and committed professionals, and a good meal. Imagine a world where the toxic environment wasn't so toxic.

I have no problem with qualified students going to school on scholarships. Especially if they wouldn’t be able to go without a scholarship.

But that’s not what is occurring with a significant number of these kids.

If they are not academically qualified and oriented that world is still closed to them if they sit in classes mystified by the lecture and the conversation of their fellow students. They might get a degree under the supervision of the Academic Supprt system, but leave the campus no better “educated” than when they arrive.

These are the kids that are being ripped-off by the current system.

Their time is wasted. Their bodies punished, maybe permanently. And they are handed a piece of paper at the end of the four years that is virtually meaningless because they haven’t learned anything.

 

[TheCusian]

I have no problem with qualified students going to school on scholarships. Especially if they wouldn’t be able to go without a scholarship.

But that’s not what is occurring with a significant number of these kids.

If they are not academically qualified and oriented that world is still closed to them if they sit in classes mystified by the lecture and the conversation of their fellow students. They might get a degree under the supervision of the Academic Supprt system, but leave the campus no better “educated” than when they arrive.

These are the kids that are being ripped-off by the current system.

Their time is wasted. Their bodies punished, maybe permanently. And they are handed a piece of paper at the end of the four years that is virtually meaningless because they haven’t learned anything.

It’s the height of arrogance to believe that they leave no better educated than when they arrive. Just because you start “further back” doesn’t mean growth doesn’t occur.

Embarrassing.

 

[Townie72]

It’s the height of arrogance to believe that they leave no better educated than when they arrive. Just because you start “further back” doesn’t mean growth doesn’t occur.

Embarrassing.

It’s not a question of no growth. It’s about is that growth enough to make a difference.

The value of a college degree is dropping precipitously. Jobs that used to require a high school degree now require college diplomas and it’s still the same job.

Many of these college experiences are shams producing “graduates” that can’t speak or write effectively.

As evidenced by this forum in which some posters try to look smarter than they actually are.

 

[HtownOrange]

It’s the height of arrogance to believe that they leave no better educated than when they arrive. Just because you start “further back” doesn’t mean growth doesn’t occur.

Embarrassing.

The issue in the scenario was that the player was not qualified academically. Regardless of how far back a student starts, if they are not qualified, they are not qualified. Prep school would be the correct solution to become academically qualified, or junior college.

As to whether a kids walks out with a degree can often be a joke, see UNC and their no-class degrees. That is embarrassing. Many players are not academically qualified (standard fare in the SEC), awarding academically undeserving players a scholarship steels the opportunity for an academically deserving student athlete.

Life is full of standards. People either meet them or they don't. Sometimes there are multiple standards that must be met for a particular task or job. Kids not meeting minimum academic standards should not be offered scholarships. That does not mean they have no hope, they can attend prep school or junior college and improve themselves. Regardless, strawman arguments are neither intellectually honest nor are they beneficial to the discussion; not once was it stated that those that "start “further back” doesn’t mean growth doesn’t occur."

We can have a real debate about issues with differing opinions, maintain disagreements, and still respect each other and enjoy the fact that we love SU and its sports teams.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This is ridiculous. They get into college based on a very specific, very valuable skill. This skill allows them entry into a world that would be very closed in most cases (speaking of "our biggest problems")...

For every kid interviewed on TV that you take offense to, there are thousands who grab the chance to be the first from their family to graduate from college.

One might draw the opposite inference... that a kid who is removed from a toxic environment go on to become something through hard work, caring and committed professionals, and a good meal. Imagine a world where the toxic environment wasn't so toxic.

I knew a girl that got into Yale basically because she played clarinet.

More power to her.

 

[TheCusian]

It’s not a question of no growth. It’s about is that growth enough to make a difference.

The value of a college degree is dropping precipitously. Jobs that used to require a high school degree now require college diplomas and it’s still the same job.

Many of these college experiences are shams producing “graduates” that can’t speak or write effectively.

As evidenced by this forum in which some posters try to look smarter than they actually are.

I’m not making the case that some squander their opportunity. I’m questioning the arrogance it takes to believe what you’ve said.

 

[TheCusian]

The issue in the scenario was that the player was not qualified academically. Regardless of how far back a student starts, if they are not qualified, they are not qualified. Prep school would be the correct solution to become academically qualified, or junior college.

As to whether a kids walks out with a degree can often be a joke, see UNC and their no-class degrees. That is embarrassing. Many players are not academically qualified (standard fare in the SEC), awarding academically undeserving players a scholarship steels the opportunity for an academically deserving student athlete.

Life is full of standards. People either meet them or they don't. Sometimes there are multiple standards that must be met for a particular task or job. Kids not meeting minimum academic standards should not be offered scholarships. That does not mean they have no hope, they can attend prep school or junior college and improve themselves. Regardless, strawman arguments are neither intellectually honest nor are they beneficial to the discussion; not once was it stated that those that "start “further back” doesn’t mean growth doesn’t occur."

We can have a real debate about issues with differing opinions, maintain disagreements, and still respect each other and enjoy the fact that we love SU and its sports teams.

We are talking about kids who get opportunities others wouldn’t because they have a particular skill that is sanctioned by, sought after, and rewarded with a scholarship. These students, while sometimes steered towards “easier” majors - still must meet minimum requirements on campus to remain on the team.

My take is simple - if you’re in a college environment, being asked to complete course work and maintain a demanding schedule, *some* athletes will take the time and opportunity to make a run at it. This is good. It’s a trade the University willingly partakes in and a risk worth taking.

It’s easy to watch a show, listen to an interview, or read a bad headline and let bias steer you to conclusions that are far from reality. My wife works at a college with athletes - there are so many stories that end in success and growth.

 

[SU2NASA]

I’m not making the case that some squander their opportunity. I’m questioning the arrogance it takes to believe what you’ve said.

I’ve seen firsthand in engineering some that have been accepted to schools because of non-academic reasons, and watched them struggle and flunk out because they just either 1) didn’t have the basis necessary, or 2) don’t have the aptitude to do the work.

And trust me, there are plenty of courses in engineering that my brain just doesn’t function at a level where I can understand the math behind it. It’s just the nature of the discipline.

It’s not fair to the students. It’s not fair to the kids that were robbed of a seat in the class as a result.

It’s not arrogance, it’s real.

 

[HtownOrange]

We are talking about kids who get opportunities others wouldn’t because they have a particular skill that is sanctioned by, sought after, and rewarded with a scholarship. These students, while sometimes steered towards “easier” majors - still must meet minimum requirements on campus to remain on the team.

My take is simple - if you’re in a college environment, being asked to complete course work and maintain a demanding schedule, *some* athletes will take the time and opportunity to make a run at it. This is good. It’s a trade the University willingly partakes in and a risk worth taking.

It’s easy to watch a show, listen to an interview, or read a bad headline and let bias steer you to conclusions that are far from reality. My wife works at a college with athletes - there are so many stories that end in success and growth.

I'm glad you are back on track. The majority of student athletes are not going pro and make the most of the scholarship.

However, integrity demands that we be honest and recognize not all schools play by the rules (which is part of why the schools set up a policing agency to enforce rules). I gave samples of UNC and SEC schools wherein players rarely, if ever (yes, UNC, I am pointing at you), attend class. There are players that are not academically worthy of a scholarship. Not being worthy of a scholarship does not equate to non-improvement. I doubt anyone on this board would argue that people should stop learning because we all understand that learning is a lifelong process. Yet, there remain minimum academic standards for scholarships and all players should be required to meet them.

It was your bias that presumed a post was alluding to non-growth because the players were not eligible to begin with.

Back to the OP: I understand the fundamental point that many believe a player should make as much money as fast as they can, the alleged purpose of the California law. I agree, in principle, not in their execution nor in the simple belief that this will eliminate corruption.

 

[CuseLegacy]

It's ACC BB Media Day today in Charlotte.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[Townie72]

This, of course, is the reasoned, adult response.

Those cheerleading this politics-based law ought to read this a couple of times.

 

[RandomGuy]

I think the problem here, is that the schools have been increasingly following the professional model, since the 1980's. It's difficult to have it both ways. It's been going down the slippery slope of professionalism for some time.

 

[NKR1978]

This, of course, is the reasoned, adult response.

Those cheerleading this politics-based law ought to read this a couple of times.

He makes 3.5m/year. He has a vested interest in keeping the system as it is.

Though I at least respect that he appears to acknowledge that changes are coming.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This, of course, is the reasoned, adult response.

Those cheerleading this politics-based law ought to read this a couple of times.

Why? He said something without saying anything.

Acknowledging the possibility of unintended consequences isn't an enlightened statement.

There are more Qs than As? Sure. Because nobody in the NCAA appears to even be a little interested in proposing As.

The slippery slope of professionalism? Come on.

His statement is more noncommittal BS because he knows he needs to say anything, but can't actually say anything.

 

[Newhouser]

The NCAA and its member institutions know they can't say anything that will stem the Tsunami coming there way. They have lost the battle of optics here, and they know change is coming. All they can do is mitigate the change that is coming to their world. The light that has been an oncoming train for decades is about to pull in the station, and they are too late to stop it, all they can do now is protect their relevance and their money. That is all that matters to them.

 

[dan7800]

If any money is taken from the schools and goes for funding athletes, there will be an outcry over the lost availability of funds for the areas they money is being taken from.

 

[TheCusian]

This, of course, is the reasoned, adult response.

Those cheerleading this politics-based law ought to read this a couple of times.

Of course, imagine where we'd be without "politics-based law"... no where.

It seems that when a privately run operation continues to do the wrong thing to protect it's pockets, a catalyst like a democratically elected government seems to be big enough to pressure to move things. This, Townie72 is an old, old story. "Protected powerful interest acts in it's own interests to the detriment of the less powerful until forced to change by democratic legislation" is a very American story. I'm here for it.

 

[RandomGuy]

We are talking about kids who get opportunities others wouldn’t because they have a particular skill that is sanctioned by, sought after, and rewarded with a scholarship. These students, while sometimes steered towards “easier” majors - still must meet minimum requirements on campus to remain on the team.

My take is simple - if you’re in a college environment, being asked to complete course work and maintain a demanding schedule, *some* athletes will take the time and opportunity to make a run at it. This is good. It’s a trade the University willingly partakes in and a risk worth taking.

It’s easy to watch a show, listen to an interview, or read a bad headline and let bias steer you to conclusions that are far from reality. My wife works at a college with athletes - there are so many stories that end in success and growth.

I completely agree.

I think the larger point is that kids that may not otherwise be qualified for a specific University are often accepted for 1 reason only. The monetary value they bring to the school. To me, this doesn't represent the academic mission of the school, or support the amateur narrative. It's a business decision.

 

[TheCusian]

I completely agree.

I think the larger point is that kids that may not otherwise be qualified for a specific University are often accepted for 1 reason only. The monetary value they bring to the school. To me, this doesn't represent the academic mission of the school, or support the amateur narrative. It's a business decision.

I hear you. I think it's tricky though. A truly academic institution wouldn't be reliant on money from sports on TV or pay their coaches more than their Presidents. It's out of whack. But the least we can do is allow the players who, in part, bring in that money a chance at a world class education. I think it's important to talk about the numbers too. How many questionably academic kids on campus vs academically eligible kids? Less than 1%?

Truthfully, I got into Syracuse with less than stellar academics on the strength of my art portfolio. I doubled down on the opportunity and kicked butt in all my classes. High School me was 1000% different than college me - thank God I had a skill that was valuable to the University.

 

[RandomGuy]

I hear you. I think it's tricky though. A truly academic institution wouldn't be reliant on money from sports on TV or pay their coaches more than their Presidents. It's out of whack. But the least we can do is allow the players who, in part, bring in that money a chance at a world class education. I think it's important to talk about the numbers too. How many questionably academic kids on campus vs academically eligible kids? Less than 1%?

Truthfully, I got into Syracuse with less than stellar academics on the strength of my art portfolio. I doubled down on the opportunity and kicked butt in all my classes. High School me was 1000% different than college me - thank God I had a skill that was valuable to the University.

Agreed. If the amateur model had been followed, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation. If the highest paid coach was paid Bear Bryant Alabama 1982 $$? That's $275k in todays $$.

To be clear, I have no problem with some of the schools profit taking.(Often converted to salaries, facilities, as they spend to their income. ) Love any portion used for academic excellence. The imbalance has just become too great.

I dont have a problem with a less qualified student(with minumums) if they bring value to the University. Just call it what it is. A professional business decision.

 

[RandomGuy]

With 12 states, and a national proposal, this looks like a given. The most interesting one to me, is the Florida proposal. Expected to pass next spring, and go into effect for the 2020 football season. ACC and SEC P5 schools.

EA Sports NCAA 2020? Lol

 

[Scooch]

An easy way to end this complicated debate would be for academic institutions to get out of the business of athletics altogether. Absent that, this is all an exercise in seeing how much lipstick can be applied to a pig.

 

[Hoo's That]

If any money is taken from the schools and goes for funding athletes, there will be an outcry over the lost availability of funds for the areas they money is being taken from.

I can't speak to what will happen at private schools, but most every state has a law which requires that athletics be funded from a totally separate pot of money that doesn't include any tax money or money from donations made to the academic side of the house.

 

[Scooch]

Noted disruptive, firebrand Mike Krzyzewski, supports the CA law.

Coach K backs California's Fair Pay to Play law

Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski has joined the chorus of support for fair pay to play laws for student-athletes.

www.espn.com