PDA

View Full Version : Yahoo: Why Miami is in Trouble



bdoughty
08-16-2011, 05:48 PM
Fan of "the U" might want to find a new school to root for. If you see a Yahoo reporter near yhour college, you might just prepare yourself for the worst.

http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/news?slug=cr-renegade_miami_booster_details_illicit_benefits_08 1611


• Abortion: In one instance, Shapiro described taking a player to the Pink Pony strip club and paying for a dancer to engage in sex with the athlete. In the ensuing weeks, Shapiro said the dancer called one of his security providers and informed him that the player had gotten her pregnant during the incident. Shapiro said he gave the dancer $500 to have an abortion performed, without notifying the player of the incident.

“I was doing him a favor,” the booster said. “That idiot might have wanted to keep [the baby].”
Due to the sensitivity of the allegation, Yahoo! Sports has chosen not to name the player allegedly involved.



:fp:

Bounties on Tebow and Chris Rix. You really have to question putting a bounty on Chris Rix. I would think him being on the field would be beneficial to your success.

bdoughty
08-16-2011, 05:57 PM
A follow up to the article above.

http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/news?slug=dw-why_miami_is_in_trouble_081611

SmoothPancakes
08-16-2011, 06:19 PM
If all of that stuff in the article is true, people can stop their crusades against Ohio State. Because Miami just blew them out of the water.

morsdraconis
08-16-2011, 06:51 PM
:smh:

Got to love college football...

JeffHCross
08-16-2011, 07:23 PM
If all of that stuff in the article is true, people can stop their crusades against Ohio State. Because Miami just blew them out of the water.Why would that make a difference? They're guilty just because an article came out.

cjg225
08-16-2011, 07:55 PM
If all of that stuff in the article is true, people can stop their crusades against Ohio State. Because Miami just blew them out of the water.
I've always thought OSU would get off without any penalty, but I'm not sure why Miami being worse means OSU should no longer be attacked. If you torch your neighbor's car, you committed a crime whether or not your neighbor is a mass murderer.

I think OSU doesn't have to worry about the kind of canary this Shapiro guy is. I firmly believe that OSU is a filthy program, but they have a loyalty amongst their supporters perhaps unlike any other in college sports.

baseballplyrmvp
08-16-2011, 08:16 PM
throw the hammer at em. tell em they cant recruit anyone for the next 3 years. lol

psusnoop
08-16-2011, 09:37 PM
This is going to be fun to watch :popcorn:

th3 last tiger
08-16-2011, 09:41 PM
The irony that Paul Dee was Miami's AD during a majority of the violations should not be lost. For those who aren't aware, Paul Dee is the chair on the NCAA committee on infractions.

baseballplyrmvp
08-16-2011, 09:44 PM
The irony that Paul Dee was Miami's AD during a majority of the violations should not be lost. For those who aren't aware, Paul Dee is the chair on the NCAA committee on infractions.what would be icing on the cake, were if someone from :USC: was put as the head guy on the ncaa's COI investigation of miami. lol payback would indeed be a bitch then.

th3 last tiger
08-16-2011, 09:50 PM
what would be icing on the cake, were if someone from :USC: was put as the head guy on the ncaa's COI investigation of miami. lol payback would indeed be a bitch then.

Justice would be served

baseballplyrmvp
08-16-2011, 10:42 PM
Justice would be servedonly if the :USC: rep convinved enough people that 5 years of no football was a suitable penalty. :nod:

BaylorBearBryant
08-16-2011, 11:25 PM
College football is a mess. It's a sad state of affairs these days. I never would of thought it would come to this. I'm really not sure how to fix it at this point. All the top programs are dirty.

AustinWolv
08-17-2011, 12:12 AM
The irony that Paul Dee was Miami's AD during a majority of the violations should not be lost. For those who aren't aware, Paul Dee is the chair on the NCAA committee on infractions.
Which is funny because OSU's Gene Smith was also on that committee.

Nothingface
08-17-2011, 01:18 AM
Feels good to be a Cane fan. =(

SmoothPancakes
08-17-2011, 04:49 AM
Why would that make a difference? They're guilty just because an article came out.

It may not make a difference to anyone else, but I'm one of those stupid fools in this country who still actually believe in innocent until proven guilty, whether it be something in athletics or a court of law. To hell with the court of public opinion. If that court had it's way, every goddamn person in this country would be in prison for something.

While it's a seemingly damning report, until there is officially something from the NCAA, I'm viewing it with a grain of salt.


I've always thought OSU would get off without any penalty, but I'm not sure why Miami being worse means OSU should no longer be attacked. If you torch your neighbor's car, you committed a crime whether or not your neighbor is a mass murderer.

I think OSU doesn't have to worry about the kind of canary this Shapiro guy is. I firmly believe that OSU is a filthy program, but they have a loyalty amongst their supporters perhaps unlike any other in college sports.

It doesn't mean OSU should no longer be attacked, I'm just saying, for all the people on the internet and all the talking douches on TV or radio or in newspapers, this will probably turn their attention partially away from Ohio State, so OSU won't be getting blasted quite so often and much. They've been blasting the hell out of Ohio State for months now, and then here comes Miami with supposed violations and infractions beyond worse than Ohio State's.

cjg225
08-17-2011, 07:25 AM
It doesn't mean OSU should no longer be attacked, I'm just saying, for all the people on the internet and all the talking douches on TV or radio or in newspapers, this will probably turn their attention partially away from Ohio State, so OSU won't be getting blasted quite so often and much. They've been blasting the hell out of Ohio State for months now, and then here comes Miami with supposed violations and infractions beyond worse than Ohio State's.
My big concern is that the NCAA uses this as an excuse to let OSU slide with their self-imposed retroactive "penalties," which are absolutely useless and deter nothing. They'll say they've got bigger fish to fry.

SmoothPancakes
08-17-2011, 07:49 AM
My big concern is that the NCAA uses this as an excuse to let OSU slide with their self-imposed retroactive "penalties," which are absolutely useless and deter nothing. They'll say they've got bigger fish to fry.

Well, I think they'll still come down hard, since Ohio State's infractions are still pretty big violations. With as much as Ohio State and their violations have been news and talked about all summer, I don't think the NCAA can let them off easy without basically showing everyone in the world they are nothing but a sham when it comes to big time programs.

oweb26
08-17-2011, 07:58 AM
Get your shovels out someone if about to die! This isn't looking good if even half is true.

morsdraconis
08-17-2011, 08:26 AM
I'm not gonna lie, I didn't even read any of the article. I'm just so tired of all the bullshit with college football. All of this wink wink nudge nudge shit with these programs just piss me off. You can't tell me that schools don't know that these coaches, athletic directors, and boosters aren't doing this shit cause every time this shit comes out, almost everyone immediately says, "Well, duh, they're a big time program; of course they're doing this, they all do it."

The NCAA needs to shit or get off the pot with this shit.

Shit: Actually do something worthwhile against these programs besides playing fuckin' pattycake with them and hire somebody to fuckin' police this shit better.

Get off the pot: Fuck all this "scholarship" shit. Fuck all this "higher learning" shit. Pay players as semi-professionals and get it over and done with.


I'm pretty sure that if you take into account how much schools are making off of TV markets, how much schools are making off of merchandising from these guys playing football, and how much the corrupt fuckin' bowl games are making off of these guys, they're probably making more money than the NFL is, cause it's pretty fuckin' obscene how much money is being made off of "student" athletes.

skipwondah33
08-17-2011, 08:35 AM
Tell em how you really feel Mors :D

morsdraconis
08-17-2011, 08:42 AM
I'm just sick of it. It's all swept under the rug while a good 80% of the players that play in college basically have nothing afterward they graduate. They're there solely to play football/basketball and nothing else. They take some of the most ridiculous classes available so that they can skate by so that they can just play football/basketball and that's it. They get nothing from the education process because they're not there for the education. Then, when they don't make it to the NFL, they've got nothing (or, they make it to the NFL, and only last 2-3 seasons).

Why fuck around about it? Just make a damn semi-pro league like baseball (the only smart thing baseball has going for it) and stop fuckin' about.

SmoothPancakes
08-17-2011, 08:53 AM
I'm not gonna lie, I didn't even read any of the article. I'm just so tired of all the bullshit with college football. All of this wink wink nudge nudge shit with these programs just piss me off. You can't tell me that schools don't know that these coaches, athletic directors, and boosters aren't doing this shit cause every time this shit comes out, almost everyone immediately says, "Well, duh, they're a big time program; of course they're doing this, they all do it."

The NCAA needs to shit or get off the pot with this shit.

Shit: Actually do something worthwhile against these programs besides playing fuckin' pattycake with them and hire somebody to fuckin' police this shit better.

Get off the pot: Fuck all this "scholarship" shit. Fuck all this "higher learning" shit. Pay players as semi-professionals and get it over and done with.


I'm pretty sure that if you take into account how much schools are making off of TV markets, how much schools are making off of merchandising from these guys playing football, and how much the corrupt fuckin' bowl games are making off of these guys, they're probably making more money than the NFL is, cause it's pretty fuckin' obscene how much money is being made off of "student" athletes.


I'm just sick of it. It's all swept under the rug while a good 80% of the players that play in college basically have nothing afterward they graduate. They're there solely to play football/basketball and nothing else. They take some of the most ridiculous classes available so that they can skate by so that they can just play football/basketball and that's it. They get nothing from the education process because they're not there for the education. Then, when they don't make it to the NFL, they've got nothing (or, they make it to the NFL, and only last 2-3 seasons).

Why fuck around about it? Just make a damn semi-pro league like baseball (the only smart thing baseball has going for it) and stop fuckin' about.

:+1:

baseballplyrmvp
08-17-2011, 09:09 AM
I'm just sick of it. It's all swept under the rug while a good 80% of the players that play in college basically have nothing afterward they graduate. They're there solely to play football/basketball and nothing else. They take some of the most ridiculous classes available so that they can skate by so that they can just play football/basketball and that's it. They get nothing from the education process because they're not there for the education. Then, when they don't make it to the NFL, they've got nothing (or, they make it to the NFL, and only last 2-3 seasons).

Why fuck around about it? Just make a damn semi-pro league like baseball (the only smart thing baseball has going for it) and stop fuckin' about.arent you required, by the school, to declare a major by your junior year though?

AustinWolv
08-17-2011, 09:48 AM
Random thought: I always have rooted for the service academy teams as underdogs. It is increasingly satisfying to see those teams beat larger programs.

SmoothPancakes
08-17-2011, 11:55 AM
Random thought: I always have rooted for the service academy teams as underdogs. It is increasingly satisfying to see those teams beat larger programs.

Yes it is. While, as a Navy fan, I wouldn't shed a tear about Air Force or Army going 0-12 during a season, it's always nice to see them take down big programs. I went to the Navy-Ohio State game two years ago, and it was tough to watch Navy come fighting back and then fall short right at the end. What a win that would have been for Navy.

bdoughty
08-17-2011, 12:57 PM
I think anyone with a college loan is going to start playing the worlds smallest violin right about now. You start paying the football players, then you have to start paying the basketball players, womens soccer, lacrosse, gymnastics, etc, etc, etc. Most college football teams do NOT make a profit. Now you want to add more cost to all these sports that do not make a dime and lose money? Guess who is going to foot that bill? Read sentence numero uno.

There have been numerous studies that have shown only a handful of FBS college programs make a profit.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686

A newly released NCAA report shows that just 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year, down from 25 the year before.

The NCAA doesn't release individual schools' revenues and expenses. But Fulks confirmed that Alabama, Florida, Ohio State, Texas and Tennessee are among the select group that made money. So is Missouri, which reported generating $2 million in profits from campus athletics in 2009.

The research was done by accounting professor Dan Fulks of Transylvania University, a Division III school in Lexington, Ky.

oweb26
08-17-2011, 03:11 PM
In 2009 everything was down so you will need to compare a more recent article. Things have three folded since 2009.

AustinWolv
08-17-2011, 03:19 PM
Doesn't change the fact that a lot of the smaller schools simply couldn't afford it.

bdoughty
08-17-2011, 03:55 PM
In 2009 everything was down so you will need to compare a more recent article. Things have three folded since 2009.

Is that you President Obama? I thought you were busy campaigning (oops I mean "discussing economic recovery") in the Midwest while riding in a bus that was made in Canada. :P I would rather see your figures where things have "three-folded" since 2009. I know our debt has three-folded but not for the positive.

Have no clue why you would need newer statistics, it does not change the fact that you could not get away with paying just football players. You start adding up all the sports each school has, then add up all the players, multiply that by the amount you feel each player deserves and the post the results. I can save you some time and give you a rough estimate.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTlNtodweXipoZd_Gxl1e3VXMSBfwbq3 _x7nnn9A6EQfVMInyRrHg

AustinWolv
08-17-2011, 04:20 PM
:+1:

ram29jackson
08-17-2011, 04:46 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15446543/miamis-exad-new-poster-child-for-college-football-hypocrisy

ram29jackson
08-17-2011, 04:48 PM
its only a few schools, right ? LOL this is the cultural norm people. Big time college sports means big time fraud

ram29jackson
08-17-2011, 04:51 PM
I think anyone with a college loan is going to start playing the worlds smallest violin right about now. You start paying the football players, then you have to start paying the basketball players, womens soccer, lacrosse, gymnastics, etc, etc, etc. Most college football teams do NOT make a profit. Now you want to add more cost to all these sports that do not make a dime and lose money? Guess who is going to foot that bill? Read sentence numero uno.

There have been numerous studies that have shown only a handful of FBS college programs make a profit.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686

A newly released NCAA report shows that just 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year, down from 25 the year before.

The NCAA doesn't release individual schools' revenues and expenses. But Fulks confirmed that Alabama, Florida, Ohio State, Texas and Tennessee are among the select group that made money. So is Missouri, which reported generating $2 million in profits from campus athletics in 2009.

The research was done by accounting professor Dan Fulks of Transylvania University, a Division III school in Lexington, Ky.

you should only pay the sports who make money..women lacrosse wont be getting crap as they always never do anyway

SmoothPancakes
08-17-2011, 04:55 PM
you should only pay the sports who make money..women lacrosse wont be getting crap as they always never do anyway

Yeah, that would never stand a chance in court. Every D-IA college would be sued by the hundreds.

ram29jackson
08-17-2011, 05:06 PM
Yeah, that would never stand a chance in court. Every D-IA college would be sued by the hundreds.

how can you sue from what you cant defend? its pointless to waste money on something you cant generate income from or for

ram29jackson
08-17-2011, 05:08 PM
I'm just sick of it. It's all swept under the rug while a good 80% of the players that play in college basically have nothing afterward they graduate. They're there solely to play football/basketball and nothing else. They take some of the most ridiculous classes available so that they can skate by so that they can just play football/basketball and that's it. They get nothing from the education process because they're not there for the education. Then, when they don't make it to the NFL, they've got nothing (or, they make it to the NFL, and only last 2-3 seasons).

Why fuck around about it? Just make a damn semi-pro league like baseball (the only smart thing baseball has going for it) and stop fuckin' about.

Don Coryell was a PE major, didnt hurt him any :D...its because he dropped forrestry

oweb26
08-17-2011, 05:09 PM
Doesn't change the fact that a lot of the smaller schools simply couldn't afford it.

Its not an every school problem is it? i am not saying you should pay them just pointing out a flaw in his article to today's time.


Is that you President Obama? I thought you were busy campaigning (oops I mean "discussing economic recovery") in the Midwest while riding in a bus that was made in Canada. :P I would rather see your figures where things have "three-folded" since 2009. I know our debt has three-folded but not for the positive.

Have no clue why you would need newer statistics, it does not change the fact that you could not get away with paying just football players. You start adding up all the sports each school has, then add up all the players, multiply that by the amount you feel each player deserves and the post the results. I can save you some time and give you a rough estimate.


You need a newer stat because college sports has been increasing every year since 2001 or 2002. So in the sense I was being generous with the three-fold. You wouldn't be paying every player or at least paying every player the same. You have to face facts even if you split up a pot of money between all athletics you would have to put it on some sort of sliding scale where the departments that bring in the most gets the most to distribute to its players. Is it fair by todays standards probably not, but I also believe in the failures of egalitarianism. If you bring in more money you get more of the money, honestly some third string golf player should be happy with his full-cost of attendance because his sport practically brings in nothing, but the star running back by himself is bringing in millions of dollars. You cant sign a new 2 billion dollar TV deal and expect people to be happy with 100K of free tuition. If that's the case then why did the NFL players want more money? Its the exact same concept they are providing a service and they want more money because the service they are providing is bringing in more money, whats the difference, college players don't have agents, college players don't have unions.

Again I don't care whether they are being paid or not, but I understand why the kids are doing it. If you are going to post stats or articles then be ready for them to be criticized.

I didn't know you can make debt go up towards positive? Could have sworn it stops at zero, and if you want to discuss politics we can go to the off-topic forum.

bdoughty
08-17-2011, 05:10 PM
you should only pay the sports who make money..women lacrosse wont be getting crap as they always never do anyway

You are not paying a sport you are paying a player. All players are under NCAA rules and regulations, to even think this could be done (paying only players who play sports that make money) is to ignore US Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

bdoughty
08-17-2011, 05:25 PM
Its not an every school problem is it? i am not saying you should pay them just pointing out a flaw in his article to today's time.



You need a newer stat because college sports has been increasing every year since 2001 or 2002. So in the sense I was being generous with the three-fold. You wouldn't be paying every player or at least paying every player the same. You have to face facts even if you split up a pot of money between all athletics you would have to put it on some sort of sliding scale where the departments that bring in the most gets the most to distribute to its players. Is it fair by todays standards probably not, but I also believe in the failures of egalitarianism. If you bring in more money you get more of the money, honestly some third string golf player should be happy with his full-cost of attendance because his sport practically brings in nothing, but the star running back by himself is bringing in millions of dollars. You cant sign a new 2 billion dollar TV deal and expect people to be happy with 100K of free tuition. If that's the case then why did the NFL players want more money? Its the exact same concept they are providing a service and they want more money because the service they are providing is bringing in more money, whats the difference, college players don't have agents, college players don't have unions.

Again I don't care whether they are being paid or not, but I understand why the kids are doing it. If you are going to post stats or articles then be ready for them to be criticized.

I didn't know you can make debt go up towards positive? Could have sworn it stops at zero, and if you want to discuss politics we can go to the off-topic forum.



three·fold/ˈTHrēˌfōld/
Adjective: Three times as great or as numerous: "a threefold increase in debt".

Hence the term "not for the positive as in an increase in our debt would be a negative."


As for the rest of what you wrote I am a bit dazed and confused.


"You need a newer stat because college sports has been increasing every year since 2001 or 2002."

What does that even mean? Increasing how exactly? I already have shown that less schools were making a profit in both 2009 and (now with added 2010 figures) than they were in 2008.

I posted where in 2009 only 14 of the FBS schools made a profit, down from 25 schools in 2008.
I did find that it has increased to 22 of the 120 FBS schools in 2010 (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html).

Of course 2010 was not all good news.

The median net surplus of the 22 moneymaking athletic departments was roughly $7.4 million, while the median net deficit for the other 98 FBS schools was $11.3 million. The gap of $18.7 million is much higher than the $15.6 million difference in last year's report.

So back to this increasing thing you are talking about? Can you expound on that for me? If you are simply stating that things like money colleges make on TV revenues, etc go up, well you also have to factor in that the COSTS running a college go up too.

New buildings
Raises in Teachers and Administrators salaries
Insurance costs
and on and on and on and on

That also raises the cost of tuition which makes that free education even more of a value to the athlete. Just as the food being served for free to the athlete in the lunch hall and the athletic dorms they sleep in at night.

ram29jackson
08-17-2011, 05:27 PM
You are not paying a sport you are paying a player. All players are under NCAA rules and regulations, to even think this could be done (paying only players who play sports that make money) is to ignore US Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

red tape bullshit...just like a job, the sport that generates the most, gets the most, plain and simple..and it wouldnt be that much anyway

bdoughty
08-17-2011, 06:11 PM
and it wouldnt be that much anyway

Pretty generic reply. It is not like you are having to pay for any of it. Unless you are an alumni, attend games, buy collegiate clothing, NCAA branded video games, etc. When costs go up someone has to foot the bill and it won't be the University or the Players.

So let's have some fun with math and just toy with the figures.

120 schools * 85 = so roughly 10,000 athletes assuming we are only paying football players. Football is a year round sports with training, etc. So lets go with the lowest figure we can use ($7.25 minimum wage) and estimate they spend 3 hours a day on football and pay them for 7 days a week.

$7.25 * 3 hours = 21.75 a day
365 days * $21.75 = $7938.75 a year per football player
10,000 athletes * $7938.75 = $79,387,500 a year the colleges would have to pay out.

What about players on scholarships that do not play? Do we have incentive bonuses for players who start? Is it fair to play a star QB a mere $8K a year when some scrub is making that sitting on the bench? Should a QB or RB make more money than say and RT because their name makes more money for the school? What about kickers and punters, need I say more? Then we have to get to injuries. If a person is not on the field they are making nothing for the school. Should they not be paid for time they are not working out, lifting weights and playing in games?

Have fun with all that.

JeffHCross
08-17-2011, 06:42 PM
You can't tell me that schools don't know that these coaches, athletic directors, and boosters aren't doing this shit cause every time this shit comes out, almost everyone immediately says, "Well, duh, they're a big time program; of course they're doing this, they all do it."Only the cynics immediately say "Well, duh, they're a big time program". Plenty of people are oblivious (hell, half of any fan base that's accused seems to think that somebody "has it out for them," they're so oblivious). And there's a big difference between "it wouldn't surprise me" (which is what your latter statement really is) and "I know this is happening".

Would it surprise me that any co-workers I've had over the years have falsified a time card so they could get a little extra pay? No. Do I know anybody that did? Also no.

red tape bullshitDoesn't matter, at all, if you think it's bullshit or not. It's the law, and any school found to be violating that (especially blatantly) would be in a ton of trouble.

Football is a year round sports with training, etc.IIRC, players are permitted to get jobs during the offseason, or at least during the summer. So it wouldn't be quite year-round. But for the sake of your example, might as well consider it year-round (since you're obviously generalizing).

ram29jackson
08-17-2011, 06:47 PM
Pretty generic reply. It is not like you are having to pay for any of it. Unless you are an alumni, attend games, buy collegiate clothing, NCAA branded video games, etc. When costs go up someone has to foot the bill and it won't be the University or the Players.

So let's have some fun with math and just toy with the figures.

120 schools * 85 = so roughly 10,000 athletes assuming we are only paying football players. Football is a year round sports with training, etc. So lets go with the lowest figure we can use ($7.25 minimum wage) and estimate they spend 3 hours a day on football and pay them for 7 days a week.

$7.25 * 3 hours = 21.75 a day
365 days * $21.75 = $7938.75 a year per football player
10,000 athletes * $7938.75 = $79,387,500 a year the colleges would have to pay out.

What about players on scholarships that do not play? Do we have incentive bonuses for players who start? Is it fair to play a star QB a mere $8K a year when some scrub is making that sitting on the bench? Should a QB or RB make more money than say and RT because their name makes more money for the school? What about kickers and punters, need I say more? Then we have to get to injuries. If a person is not on the field they are making nothing for the school. Should they not be paid for time they are not working out, lifting weights and playing in games?

Have fun with all that.

you assume too much..it wouldnt be 120 schools only the top conferences that actually generate income...NIU and Wyoming wont be paying crap..only maybe the top 40 schools..or a sliding scale if the lower schools get anything

SmoothPancakes
08-17-2011, 06:51 PM
you assume too much..it wouldnt be 120 schools only the top conferences that actually generate income...NIU and Wyoming wont be paying crap..only maybe the top 40 schools..or a sliding scale if the lower schools get anything

Again, would never happen and would never stand up in court. Same thing as your previous thought, hello lawsuits.

bdoughty
08-17-2011, 06:54 PM
you assume too much..it wouldnt be 120 schools only the top conferences that actually generate income...NIU and Wyoming wont be paying crap..only maybe the top 40 schools..or a sliding scale if the lower schools get anything

There are not enough :fp: emoticons to insert in my reply... but I shall try.

:fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp: :fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp:
:fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp: :fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp:
:fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp: :fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp:
:fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp: :fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp:
:fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp: :fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp:
:fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp: :fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp:




Errors
The following errors occurred with your submission

You have included a total of 5,806 images and/or videos in your message. The maximum number that you may include is 300. Please correct the problem and then continue again.

:D

SmoothPancakes
08-17-2011, 06:55 PM
There are not enough :fp: emoticons to insert in my reply... but I shall try.

:fp:.......


Errors
The following errors occurred with your submission

You have included a total of 5,806 images and/or videos in your message. The maximum number that you may include is 300. Please correct the problem and then continue again.

:D

:+1:

:D

JeffHCross
08-17-2011, 07:01 PM
There are not enough :fp: emoticons to insert in my reply... but I shall try.Your post caused my browser to fail.

bdoughty
08-17-2011, 07:11 PM
Your post caused my browser to fail.

I think your browser was trying to do you a favor and prevent you from seeing any further posts on this subject by RAM29. ;)

Too :easy:

ram29jackson
08-18-2011, 06:26 AM
There are not enough :fp: emoticons to insert in my reply... but I shall try.

:fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fpfp::fpfp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp: :fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::f p::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp::fp:




Errors
The following total of 5,806 images and/or videos in your message. The maximum number that you may include is 300. Please correct the problem and then continue again.

:D


LOL all I did was paint a possibility thats no less ridiculous than any other and of course none of it will ever happen.

your figures mean nothing..if they did pay it would be a glorified allowance anyway. But they do generate income for the schools and the NCAA should change rules for players to get money in some legal fashion..why would the legal system need to be involved? small schools would just have to accept they cant pay money to good talent anyway because they dont get the better talent as it is. The better the school-the better the money, nothing facepalm worthy about that..just another idea to work around..or they should just plain drop the stupid rules that penalize for under the table money because its obvious most big schools are giving it out anyway..as long as theres no test cheating or other illegal crap, giving a kid a financial gift shouldnt be a problem

bdoughty
08-18-2011, 12:48 PM
What is ridiculous is that you lost your argument back in 1972. It has nothing to do with the NCAA changing a rule, you would have to change a law.

souljahbill
08-18-2011, 02:35 PM
If only the top 40 paid their players, it would be an even bigger competitive advantage for the top schools. We'd hardly ever see an upset ever again.

And Ram, I worked in women's collegiate athletics. You absolutely CAN NOT, under ANY circumstances, pay the football and basketball players and not pay every athlete on campus. Hell, most schools have to field a BS women's team just to equal out with the football team to be in compliance with Title IX.


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SmoothPancakes
08-18-2011, 02:43 PM
If only the top 40 paid their players, it would be an even bigger competitive advantage for the top schools. We'd hardly ever see an upset ever again.

And Ram, I worked in women's collegiate athletics. You absolutely CAN NOT, under ANY circumstances, pay the football and basketball players and not pay every athlete on campus. Hell, most schools have to field a BS women's team just to equal out with the football team to be in compliance with Title IX.


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what I was about to type. If only the top 40 teams play their players, the other 80 schools may as well just shut down their football programs, because no one worth a damn would ever go to those schools. Now, of course, this being Ram we're talking about, we all know anyone who is not in the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12, or SEC are a waste of time in any topic of discussion when it comes to football, but these retarded ideas would never stand up in any place in this country. Ram, you need to get the hell out of the 1970s man, this is 2011, time to start thinking of things in today's time and laws.

ram29jackson
08-18-2011, 04:37 PM
What is ridiculous is that you lost your argument back in 1972. It has nothing to do with the NCAA changing a rule, you would have to change a law.

what Law? supporting sports with school funding that no one watches has nothing to do with the actual money generated by them or the under the table money given to the better players in the more popular sports. The so called law in 72 hasnt stopped the major programs from greasing the palms of the players the sports fans actually pay attention to. Schools still drop sports programs because if you cant fund something=you cant fund it and need to drop it regardless of a law...by by womens field hockey and lacrosse

ram29jackson
08-18-2011, 04:41 PM
Exactly what I was about to type. If only the top 40 teams play their players, the other 80 schools may as well just shut down their football programs, because no one worth a damn would ever go to those schools. Now, of course, this being Ram we're talking about, we all know anyone who is not in the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12, or SEC are a waste of time in any topic of discussion when it comes to football, but these retarded ideas would never stand up in any place in this country. Ram, you need to get the hell out of the 1970s man, this is 2011, time to start thinking of things in today's time and laws.

no, because I already stated, theyll get the players they always get anyway..this wont change the landscape of the quality of players and how many..that will never change..all this is doing is legalizing the gifts the big schools give their players anyway

SmoothPancakes
08-18-2011, 05:06 PM
no, because I already stated, theyll get the players they always get anyway..this wont change the landscape of the quality of players and how many..that will never change..all this is doing is legalizing the gifts the big schools give their players anyway

And again, goodbye to any and every chance or time a team outside those top 40 would ever be able to compete. Look at it this way, what would have happened if this came into effect 5-10 years ago? Boise State and TCU would have never became good and never would be competing with the big name schools for recruits and winning games against those big name schools. At the time, they would have ended up with nothing but scrubs because at the time they wouldn't be paying players, and those players would go somewhere they would get paid. As souljahbill said, goodbye upsets and it would literally be the top 40 competing for BCS game and national championships every year from here to eternity as long as something like your "bright" idea was in effect. The other 80 teams would be competing for who would get a slot in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl and nothing else.

ram29jackson
08-18-2011, 05:21 PM
And again, goodbye to any and every chance or time a team outside those top 40 would ever be able to compete. Look at it this way, what would have happened if this came into effect 5-10 years ago? Boise State and TCU would have never became good and never would be competing with the big name schools for recruits and winning games against those big name schools. At the time, they would have ended up with nothing but scrubs because at the time they wouldn't be paying players, and those players would go somewhere they would get paid. As souljahbill said, goodbye upsets and it would literally be the top 40 competing for BCS game and national championships every year from here to eternity as long as something like your "bright" idea was in effect. The other 80 teams would be competing for who would get a slot in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl and nothing else.


so, are you saying that Boise pays their players under the table now and thats why they got the talent they did ? I say no, the guys that go to Boise are the kind that cant get bribed in the first place..at least 15 out of 20 LOL

Sob stories about 2 schools getting to the elite hump or not getting there doesnt drastically change the landscape...the 20 players Boise got who can actually play, they can still get regardless of legal gifts by the LSU's of the world.

my bright idea? In case you havent noticed, they already do it ( money under the table to bribe players)

SmoothPancakes
08-18-2011, 05:38 PM
so, are you saying that Boise pays their players under the table now and thats why they got the talent they did ? I say no, the guys that go to Boise are the kind that cant get bribed in the first place..at least 15 out of 20 LOL

Sob stories about 2 schools getting to the elite hump or not getting there doesnt drastically change the landscape...the 20 players Boise got who can actually play, they can still get regardless of legal gifts by the LSU's of the world.

my bright idea? In case you havent noticed, they already do it ( money under the table to bribe players)

Not necessarily true. If those players knew they could go to one of those top 40 schools and were guaranteed all this money every year, do you honestly believe the majority of them would have still gone to Boise State or TCU? Why go play for some run of the mill WAC and MWC school who won't give you shit, even though you'd probably get to start right away or early in your career with them, when you could go play for a top 40 in one of the BCS conferences and get money. A lot of them would have said to hell with Boise State and TCU and followed the money, like almost every human does.

Same thing with other schools. Houston, SMU, USF, Cincinnati, UConn, Nevada, Southern Miss, Utah. All schools that have had some good or great seasons the past couple years, who for the most part were bad or so-so back in the late 90s, and early and mid-2000s. They all would have fallen outside the top 40 schools. They all would have lost a lot of those players and talent that has started them on winning tracks the past few years, because a bunch of those players would have gone to a top 40 school for the money, rather than go to some "run of the mill" school, again, even if it meant the chance to instantly start, because they'd rather have the money than nothing. Something like that becoming legal and open and up front will change the face of college football forever. It really would be the top schools and the little sisters of the poor. The Top 40 and the Little Poor 80.

And regardless of whether schools are already doing it, it's illegal, and schools are paying the price now. Just look at Miami. If people thought Ohio State was going to get bent over by the NCAA, their punishment, which will probably (hopefully) be rather harsh, will be a popcorn fart to the punishment coming Miami's way if they are truly guilty of all those allegations. The NCAA is going to fuck Miami hard. Hell, Miami honestly is the best candidate since SMU to be, in discussions, considered for the death penalty. The amount of allegations, the severity of allegations, and Miami being a school with many run-ins and issues in the past, the NCAA is going to fuck them up. Hope it was worth it for them.

cjg225
08-18-2011, 05:44 PM
If people thought Ohio State was going to get bent over by the NCAA, their punishment, which will probably (hopefully) be rather harsh, will be a popcorn fart to the punishment coming Miami's way if they are truly guilty of all those allegations. The NCAA is going to fuck Miami hard. Hell, Miami honestly is the best candidate since SMU to be, in discussions, considered for the death penalty. The amount of allegations, the severity of allegations, and Miami being a school with many run-ins and issues in the past, the NCAA is going to fuck them up. Hope it was worth it for them.
What evidence is there that the NCAA will come down hard on OSU?

I agree that they'll have to demolish Miami. Unfortunately for them, they still sucked over most of the time period during which this stuff occurred.

SmoothPancakes
08-18-2011, 06:04 PM
What evidence is there that the NCAA will come down hard on OSU?

I agree that they'll have to demolish Miami. Unfortunately for them, they still sucked over most of the time period during which this stuff occurred.

None, but I've thought and believed since day 1 that the NCAA is going to come down hard on OSU to make an example out of them to everyone else. While Ohio State avoided the lack of institutional control charge, they still had some serious violations. The NCAA can't afford to not come down hard on OSU. This is the perfect chance for them to show that they are serious about cleaning up college football. If they let Ohio State off easy, they will entirely, 100% lose any and all credibility with the schools, the teams, the coaches, the players, the fans, and the general public.

They say their going to do everything it takes to clean up the illegal stuff going on. They got off a fair start with USC. Now is the time to show they mean business. If they don't follow through, the NCAA will expose to everyone that they are nothing more than a shell of an organization and that it is not in any way about the student-athletes, and it's the boosters and agents and whatnot running the sport and not the NCAA.

bdoughty
08-18-2011, 07:02 PM
what Law? supporting sports with school funding that no one watches has nothing to do with the actual money generated by them or the under the table money given to the better players in the more popular sports. The so called law in 72 hasnt stopped the major programs from greasing the palms of the players the sports fans actually pay attention to. Schools still drop sports programs because if you cant fund something=you cant fund it and need to drop it regardless of a law...by by womens field hockey and lacrosse

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/About+The+NCAA/Diversity+and+Inclusion/Gender+Equity+and+Title+IX/faq.html

Q. Who does Title IX apply to?

Title IX applies to all educational institutions, both public and private, that receive federal funds. Almost all private colleges and universities must abide by Title IX regulations because they receive federal funding through federal financial aid programs used by their students.

top

Q. How is Title IX applied to athletics?

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:

Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.


Q. Who is responsible for enforcing Title IX?

Institutions are responsible for complying with federal laws. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education enforces Title IX. OCR has the authority to develop policy on the regulations it enforces. In regard to athletics programs, OCR developed an Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation that was issued December 11, 1979. The 1979 Policy Interpretation remains current policy. On April 2, 1990, OCR issued an athletics policy document called "Title IX Athletics Investigator's Manual" that has assisted athletics departments with enforcement and compliance issues with Title IX. Anyone may file an OCR complaint, and the identity of the party who files the complaint will be kept confidential.

Q. How do I know if my institution is in compliance with Title IX?

You just need to ask. It has become easier for anyone to find out if an institution is in compliance with Title IX. In 1994, the U.S. Congress passed the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which requires all colleges and universities to report each year on athletics participation numbers, scholarships, program budgets and expenditures, and coaching salaries by gender. Information may be obtained by contacting your institution's athletics department and requesting this information. The results are identified by gender, and a reader may use this information to assist in assessing an institution's compliance with Title IX.

--------------------------------

Compliance is a top priority of any school. Now what you seem to fail to understand is that colleges that cheat and boosters that pay players are somehow associated with Title IX. These are NCAA Violations and as such the NCAA punishes the universities for breaking NCAA rules.



I think I am starting to get a headache.

ram29jackson
08-18-2011, 07:58 PM
dude, spewing the definitions of laws doesnt mean crap or disprove the possibility of my idea in some form working. . Title 9 hasnt stopped major programs from doing what they do to get what they consider better players and it never will...and title 9 doesnt protect weaker sports programs if the school cant support that budget..you drop what is least popular and least money making. Title 9 cant force you to fund something you simply cant fund. getting a headache? LOL dont take it so seriously cause it really doesnt matter in your life or mine, and i'm just killing time,typing thoughts. Title 9 hurts schools more than it benefits them in the first place...just like there is absolutely no reason to have a womens pro basketball league, its just a tax right off for the NBA

JeffHCross
08-18-2011, 08:26 PM
Ram, good grief. On the one hand, you're saying that boosters and others of ill-repute are just going to keep paying people under the table. No one is disputing that. That has nothing to do with Title IX. One is an NCAA problem, the other is Federal Law.

On the other hand, you're saying that if schools increased money paid to student-athletes, they should only pay the sports that make money. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of schools (not even "Top 40", more like "Top 10") don't make money on athletics in the long run, that would be in direct violation of Title IX, which could result in loss of federal funding. No school is going to egregiously violate Title IX and run the risk of losing federal funds.

The two are not related.


they still had some serious violations.Not really. Tressel did, yes, but not the school. Most of the "serious violations", so far, have had no corresponding findings from the NCAA. There's really nothing for the NCAA to come down hard on -- so far.

SmoothPancakes
08-18-2011, 08:54 PM
Not really. Tressel did, yes, but not the school. Most of the "serious violations", so far, have had no corresponding findings from the NCAA. There's really nothing for the NCAA to come down hard on -- so far.

Yeah, my mistake, I worded that poorly. Yeah, it was Tressel and Pryor who were the main players in the violations, and both are no longer affiliated with the school. I still think the NCAA will make the penalties pretty tough to make an example of Ohio State and show everyone that no matter what school it is, they'll all be punished and penalized equally and show that the NCAA is more than serious about cleaning up this booster crap.

As for Miami, well, they better still be savoring the 2001, 2002 (they may have lost the NC, but it was still a hell of a season), 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2009 seasons, because it will be a long time before they ever see days like that again after the NCAA gets done with them.

JeffHCross
08-18-2011, 09:10 PM
Yeah, my mistake, I worded that poorly. Yeah, it was Tressel and Pryor who were the main players in the violations, and both are no longer affiliated with the school. I still think the NCAA will make the penalties pretty tough to make an example of Ohio State and show everyone that no matter what school it is, they'll all be punished and penalized equally and show that the NCAA is more than serious about cleaning up this booster crap.I agree with you, though I don't think our punishment will be nearly as harsh as some people expect/want it to be. I certainly expect it to include something we haven't already given ourselves (our self-imposed penalties were, literally, the least we could do).

Personally, the only thing that I fear now is Pryor. When he announced he was leaving, he made a comment that suggested, to me, "I'm leaving Ohio State so that people don't find out the other stuff I've done, and this great university that I care so much about (gag) doesn't get in more trouble." The man could go play football on the Moon for all I care, it'll find a way to bite us in the ass (as well it should, really).

The worst part, to me, is that it seems like nobody has this figured out. And, by that, I mean that no school has figured out how to stay on the straight and narrow and avoid problems. I made the comment a few months back about "if even Mark Richt and Joe Paterno are committing secondary violations ..." -- just look at the scope of who all is getting in trouble now.

Think about it ... since the news of Jim Tressel's actions broke, we've seen: Georgia Tech get punished for an investigation that no one knew was happening; North Carolina finally get its notice of investigation (goodness, what took so long?); Miami get taken out behind the woodshed by a former booster; USA Today oddsmaker Danny Sheridan claim he knows who's been running cash between Auburn and Cam Newton; and today, of all schools, Central Florida is being investigated for recruiting violations (???). Oh, and, regarding the alleged Miami problems ...they basically started at the peak of Miami's football program in the last 15 years, and increased in inverse proportion to Miami's success. As Miami got worse, the (alleged) violations increased. Well, hell, that just goes against every tenant of cheating.

EDIT: Oh, and, by the way, Miami's entire administration may have known of the NCAA investigation while they fired Randy Shannon and hired Al Golden -- and conveniently forgot to mention to him that they might be in trouble.

And the guy in charge of the NCAA's Committee on Infractions during USC's case? Remember him? The one who said "high-profile athletes demand high-profile compliance." Turns out he was the AD at Miami during, well, all of this (alleged) crap.

Good grief, what's next?

bdoughty
08-19-2011, 12:58 AM
dude, spewing the definitions of laws doesnt mean crap or disprove the possibility of my idea in some form working. . Title 9 hasnt stopped major programs from doing what they do to get what they consider better players and it never will...and title 9 doesnt protect weaker sports programs if the school cant support that budget..you drop what is least popular and least money making. Title 9 cant force you to fund something you simply cant fund. getting a headache? LOL dont take it so seriously cause it really doesnt matter in your life or mine, and i'm just killing time,typing thoughts. Title 9 hurts schools more than it benefits them in the first place...just like there is absolutely no reason to have a womens pro basketball league, its just a tax right off for the NBA

While Jeff pretty much summed up what I would have said to this post, I just... This clip from Mallrats came to mind.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8QmUR8Z4Zg


Look hard enough and you might just one day find that sailboat.

ram29jackson
08-19-2011, 02:04 AM
Ram, good grief. On the one hand, you're saying that boosters and others of ill-repute are just going to keep paying people under the table. No one is disputing that. That has nothing to do with Title IX. One is an NCAA problem, the other is Federal Law.

On the other hand, you're saying that if schools increased money paid to student-athletes, they should only pay the sports that make money. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of schools (not even "Top 40", more like "Top 10") don't make money on athletics in the long run, that would be in direct violation of Title IX, which could result in loss of federal funding. No school is going to egregiously violate Title IX and run the risk of losing federal funds.

The two are not related.

Not really. Tressel did, yes, but not the school. Most of the "serious violations", so far, have had no corresponding findings from the NCAA. There's really nothing for the NCAA to come down hard on -- so far.

I never actually stated one was related to the other nor do I care if it is or isn't. This is all fantasy conjecture but title 9 will obviously be gotten rid of if they find a way to raise the status of players that can actually go pro in their sports..title 9 is a useless meaningless law for useless meaningless unpopular sports and is a waste of money whether its from taxes or what ever.. I don't give a damn what title 9 is or isnt..this is about;should really good players in high ranking well known schools be compensated and the answer is obviously yes ! When a player gets his face shown nation wide by media , I believe he deserves some form of compensation that isnt just meal money, but the NCAA is stuck in the 1940s and just as dishonest as the coaches they bust because they want to take that money from the players and schools for themselves ..amateur status is pointless and has been screwing with athletes since Jim Thorpe

JeffHCross
08-19-2011, 05:27 AM
title 9 will obviously be gotten rid of if they find a way to raise the status of players that can actually go pro in their sportsNo. No, it won't.

title 9 is a useless meaningless law for useless meaningless unpopular sports and is a waste of money whether its from taxes or what everNo. No, it isn't.

I don't give a damn what title 9 is or isntYou should, because any discussion of compensating plays must take Title IX into consideration. They schools cannot choose to pay some players and not others, because of Title IX and other considerations, without risking lawsuits.

ram29jackson
08-19-2011, 06:44 AM
No. No, it won't.
No. No, it isn't.
You should, because any discussion of compensating plays must take Title IX into consideration. They schools cannot choose to pay some players and not others, because of Title IX and other considerations, without risking lawsuits.

title 9 isnt a god or isnt etched in stone. It can be taken down like anything else..it was put in place so weaker ,lesser cared for sports could get something they neither earned nor deserve. :) and what do you mean I should care Jeff LOL? The reason I bother having fun typing about this is to escape stuff I actually care about LOL and you quoted the most boring parts of my post :D..when i say I dont care, it means I dont care, it doesnt mean I didnt know what it is or means. But that doesnt mean I wont have fun throwing out ideas about it anyway :D..forum post boards is the last place i'm going to have serious long form conversations, its just no worth it in most cases :);) ..now ,on to the next trivial topic...:)

JBHuskers
08-19-2011, 09:40 AM
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s159/jbennett98/miami.jpg

psusnoop
08-19-2011, 09:56 AM
:D:D:D

AustinWolv
08-19-2011, 10:06 AM
Tressel did, yes, but not the school. Most of the "serious violations", so far, have had no corresponding findings from the NCAA. There's really nothing for the NCAA to come down hard on -- so far.
Seriously?
Except that O$U was warned about Sarniak years ago?
Despite the clear lack of compliance diligence?
Despite the 300+ recruiting violations in the past decade?

Yeah, O$U is totally innocent. It was all Tressell and Pryor. Bullshit. Tressell is almost a victim in this in that he's willingly being the fall guy for O$U administration and that has been the strategy from the beginning. Make those two out as the ones that broke the rules in order to distance the program from them to play innocent. Except when you see all the holes in the stories......you'd have to be an idiot to fall for their strategy or just a kid's mentality perhaps, both of which might just work with the NCAA. If that is the case, other schools will follow suit......that's why you hear the word "rogue" so much now.


And the guy in charge of the NCAA's Committee on Infractions during USC's case? Remember him? The one who said "high-profile athletes demand high-profile compliance." Turns out he was the AD at Miami during, well, all of this (alleged) crap.
Agreed, that whole thing with him is ridiculous.
Much like Gene Smith's arrogance in threatening the NCAA that he'll on the offensive if they impose more sanctions on O$U. Or his blatant excuses and silly statements about them being a model of compliance. Joke.

*****

JB, great flow chart. :D:D

bdoughty
08-19-2011, 01:07 PM
title 9 isnt a god or isnt etched in stone. It can be taken down like anything else..it was put in place so weaker ,lesser cared for "B _ _ _ _ _" could get something they neither earned nor deserve.

Go ahead and fill in the blanks. It is obvious that you have no clue that Title IX is is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from state courts with segregationist judges and all-white juries to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists who could not get a fair trial in state courts.

A 1972 addition to Title IX states: "No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid."


I would agree with you that at this point you should stop posting in this thread, as it is only making you look more foolish with each reply you make.

oweb26
08-19-2011, 02:20 PM
No. No, it won't.
No. No, it isn't.
You should, because any discussion of compensating plays must take Title IX into consideration. They schools cannot choose to pay some players and not others, because of Title IX and other considerations, without risking lawsuits.

The other considerations would actually cause them more problems than title IX would, title IX was based more on schlorships and sex discrimination than anything else, this isnt a sex discrimination thing, its purely a money thing. Now I do think they would have problems in other arenas with only say paying the football players and no one else, or just paying the guys athletics and not anyone else(which is where title IX would come back into play). The more I think about it the more, I tend to believe that if you pay the players anything then you will tilt the scale of college athletics, but something has to be changed to deal with the notion amateurism that is truly not relevant or prevalent anymore.


Go ahead and fill in the blanks. It is obvious that you have no clue that Title IX is is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from state courts with segregationist judges and all-white juries to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists who could not get a fair trial in state courts.

A 1972 addition to Title IX states: "No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid."


I would agree with you that at this point you should stop posting in this thread, as it is only making you look more foolish with each reply you make.

I can agree its funny you are still arguing with him everyone knows to not argue with RAM, its not healthy and slightly pointless, as you are now aware of. No offense RAM

ram29jackson
08-19-2011, 02:57 PM
listen to Oweb ,..daughty..your reading comprehension is poor. I already said this is in fun and I dont give a damn LOL I know what title 9 is..youre wasting time thinking your educating me about it while I'm thinking outside your finite box.. I dont give a flying fuck about title 9..this is about needing to compensate players who get their faces all over national media and getting nothing for it...and equating compensating high profile athletes with civil rights is just fucking stupid LOL..more liberal bullshit about spreading the wealth to people who didnt earn it or deserve it because they are the last best player on the womens bowling team LOL..youre such a boring literalist dude LOL this is trivial fun stuff

ram29jackson
08-19-2011, 03:15 PM
The more I think about it the more, I tend to believe that if you pay the players anything then you will tilt the scale of college athletics
the tilts been around for years already, the schools that win are the schools that, in so many words, pay their players. --USC, OHIO State are just the extreme, known examples..you think that when Miami got good in the 80s it was from luck and hard work ? LOL.


,
but something has to be changed to deal with the notion amateurism that is truly not relevant or prevalent anymore.
Oweb gets it



I can agree its funny you are still arguing with him everyone knows to not argue with RAM, its not healthy and slightly pointless, as you are now aware of. No offense RAM

LOL dude, I already explained this but he ignores it... I dont hate him, nor am I trolling him, i'm just having fun with hypotheticals in what is ultimately very unimportant.....another school gets busted LOL, I already told you guys 3 months ago. This is the cultural norm and not the exception...welcome to winning,high profile college football...who wants to make Vegas odds of if or when Penn State gets busted for something within 5 years ? I'll take the over LOL

SmoothPancakes
08-19-2011, 03:16 PM
Well this could cause some worry for Miami fans.

NCAA prez: Death penalty an option (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6877907/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-says-death-penalty-option-punish-rule-breakers)

I seriously doubt the NCAA would actually use it, even in Miami's case, but as I've said in the past, they are certainly the best candidate since SMU to be considered for it if all those allegations turn out true.

bdoughty
08-19-2011, 03:24 PM
Glad to see the option is on the table.

SmoothPancakes
08-19-2011, 03:35 PM
Glad to see the option is on the table.

Yep, the NCAA needs to bring out the big guns. Make the death penalty, multi-season TV bans, severe scholarship restrictions, multi-season bowl bans, the works, all options laid out on the table for violations. Teams have never worried about the death penalty for decades now after the NCAA pretty much tabled it after the severe damage it did long-term to SMU. If it's an option that the NCAA will honestly and seriously consider, that might make some of these teams and booster and whatnot start thinking a little bit before they pull some of this crap. Especially a booster. Just imagine the hell their life would become from the fans and whatnot of a school if they were directly responsible for getting a team hit with the death penalty.

oweb26
08-19-2011, 03:41 PM
They will not use it, actually let me rephrase if they do use it I will be shocked! I think you can give teams now days something so close to death penalty without actually giving it to them. I do agree they are the most serious candidates since SMU for it to even be considered but I wouldn't bank my life savings on it that they will get it.

SmoothPancakes
08-19-2011, 03:47 PM
They will not use it, actually let me rephrase if they do use it I will be shocked! I think you can give teams now days something so close to death penalty without actually giving it to them. I do agree they are the most serious candidates since SMU for it to even be considered but I wouldn't bank my life savings on it that they will get it.

Oh I agree completely. I too would be completely shocked if they actually used it. But as long as it's an option, then maybe it will help with these other teams and boosters who think about pulling this crap. As for Miami, yeah, the NCAA can hit Miami with so many penalties, and such severe penalties, that it'll essentially be a death penalty without the actual death penalty being used, and I think they will do exactly that if all those allegations turn out true.

ram29jackson
08-19-2011, 04:02 PM
I vote, it aint happening as well.

JeffHCross
08-19-2011, 08:56 PM
Seriously?You did see "so far", right?

Except that O$U was warned about Sarniak years ago?And the NCAA said nothing was wrong -- years ago. Doesn't mean nothing happened since, and I'm not sticking my head in the ground and saying it didn't. I'm just saying so far nothing has actually been proven that's major at the school level.

Despite the clear lack of compliance diligence?
Much like Gene Smith's arrogance in threatening the NCAA that he'll on the offensive if they impose more sanctions on O$U. Or his blatant excuses and silly statements about them being a model of compliance. Joke.Agreed.

AustinWolv
08-19-2011, 11:52 PM
You did see "so far", right?
Yeah, I hear you. Understand what you mean by nothing proven yet. However, I think you get my point that we all know and that O$U knows that we know but the whole thing is just playing chicken with the NCAA to see how little penalty can be applied.


And the NCAA said nothing was wrong -- years ago.
Technically, they said knock it off, he's a booster. And for some reason didn't rule Pryor ineligible which was weird since they have ruled players in the past as ineligible for very similar and less egregious situations.

JeffHCross
08-20-2011, 06:30 PM
Yeah, I hear you. Understand what you mean by nothing proven yet. However, I think you get my point that we all know and that O$U knows that we know but the whole thing is just playing chicken with the NCAA to see how little penalty can be applied.No, actually, "we" don't "know" anything. I know it's still up for debate whether the NCAA is still investigating Ohio State, but last I heard they weren't (though I'm sure Pryor running his mouth has changed that). As far as I'm concerned right now all I "know" that has happened at Ohio State is what we've received a notice of allegations on. Everything else is supposition, assumption, and exaggeration, until proven otherwise.

I think you and I have enough history (8 years or more by now, right?) to know that I want us to get punished for everything that we deserve. If Pryor did more shit than the NCAA knows about, it pains me that he's escaping to the NFL so he doesn't have to talk about it. But it's another thing to be cracked down on for the sake of cracking down.


And for some reason didn't rule Pryor ineligiblePerhaps it was the "could not conclude that the benefits ... constituted a violation" part.

AustinWolv
08-22-2011, 03:03 PM
Jeff, I wish I could believe that, but just like any corporation, it is who you know and who you have relationships with, and it seems the NCAA fits into that corporation environment, not an unbiased equal organization for all. The strategy has been to leverage those relationships between Emmert, the committee, and Smith amongst others........

They know where the money comes from and it is a LOT of money.

Let's not forget it is just Pryor. There are at least 5 other players that are still obligated to talk to the NCAA if the NCAA really wanted to pursue this. However, as history shows thus far, it is how much pressure the media applies that will keep this stuff going, not that the NCAA actually wants an equal, fair playing field.

JeffHCross
08-22-2011, 08:07 PM
Did anybody else watch ESPN's Blueprint for Change this weekend? It was a good discussion (though I'm legitimately shocked by some of the opinions that were floated), but overall I was very disappointed by the end product. A lot of reasonable arguments were bypassed for more sensationalized discussions. The playoff discussion was perhaps the only honest piece of the hour. For those that didn't watch, one of the points made is that if the BCS combusts, we're much more likely to go back to the old bowl system then toward a playoff.

HWill
08-22-2011, 08:15 PM
I watched it, but didn't make much of it. Matter of fact, the only thing I remember was ignoring Mark May.

bdoughty
08-26-2011, 03:01 PM
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6894959/thirteen-miami-hurricanes-players-ineligible-reinstated-ncaa-source-says

Source: Up to 13 Miami players ineligible

That includes QB Jacoby Harris

http://cleatsandlapels.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/jacory-harris.jpg?w=450

SmoothPancakes
08-26-2011, 03:03 PM
The Ohio State-Miami game just got really interesting. http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx305/SmoothPancakes/Smilies/e133156.png

morsdraconis
08-26-2011, 03:39 PM
The Ohio State-Miami game just got really mediocre.

Fixed it for ya. ;)

SmoothPancakes
08-26-2011, 03:42 PM
Fixed it for ya. ;)

That's why it got really interesting. :D I'm not going to be watching to see who wins. I'm going to be watching to see who sucks the most. :D

ram29jackson
08-26-2011, 04:50 PM
it would be interesting if they decide to televise another match up instead since this one is so scarred. Unless its on a day thats not a Saturday ?

ram29jackson
08-26-2011, 04:52 PM
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6894959/thirteen-miami-hurricanes-players-ineligible-reinstated-ncaa-source-says

Source: Up to 13 Miami players ineligible

That includes QB Jacoby Harris

http://cleatsandlapels.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/jacory-harris.jpg?w=450


Raiders overalls = that explains alot

steelerfan
08-26-2011, 04:57 PM
Raiders overalls = that explains alot

http://tapatalk.com/mu/62c401e2-16b3-910f.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

ram29jackson
08-26-2011, 06:26 PM
one of the reasons, full color photography is not a good idea

SmoothPancakes
08-26-2011, 07:02 PM
http://tapatalk.com/mu/62c401e2-16b3-910f.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk


one of the reasons, full color photography is not a good idea

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx305/SmoothPancakes/62c401e2-16b3-910f.jpg

I don't think it's the full color photography.

ram29jackson
08-26-2011, 07:32 PM
http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx305/SmoothPancakes/62c401e2-16b3-910f.jpg

I don't think it's the full color photography.


Yes , but I can look at the black and white longer without getting depressed or grossed out or disturbed...the color gives immediate shock

steelerfan
08-26-2011, 07:35 PM
the color gives immediate shock

:nod:

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

SmoothPancakes
08-26-2011, 08:52 PM
Still pretty ass-ugly either way.

JeffHCross
08-30-2011, 08:37 PM
Nothing? Wow.


(in terms of discussion, I mean)

bdoughty
08-30-2011, 08:42 PM
That Al Davis is butt ugly or the Hurricane players that were suspended?

oweb26
08-30-2011, 11:24 PM
LOL at the final conclusion to this scandal. All I have to say is the NCAA is now officially a joke, if this didn't consistute harsh sanctions, then everyone should get of this easy from OSU to USC. If I am USC I am screaming at the top of a mountain right now claiming bullshit.

I hope there is more to come on this, if not I really don't know what to say. Maybe it wasn't as bad as it seems?? Though I think it was as bad as it seems.

SmoothPancakes
08-30-2011, 11:27 PM
Yep. There are not enough :fp: in the world to describe what the NCAA has done, thus far.

JeffHCross
08-31-2011, 09:04 PM
That Al Davis is butt ugly or the Hurricane players that were suspended?The Canes. The less discussion about Al Davis (and certainly the less pictures), the better.

AustinWolv
09-05-2011, 03:55 PM
LOL at the final conclusion to this scandal. All I have to say is the NCAA is now officially a joke, if this didn't consistute harsh sanctions, then everyone should get of this easy from OSU to USC. If I am USC I am screaming at the top of a mountain right now claiming bullshit.

I hope there is more to come on this, if not I really don't know what to say. Maybe it wasn't as bad as it seems?? Though I think it was as bad as it seems.
Nah, the NCAA is slow and takes a long time. Far from over, I'm willing to bet.
It took the better part of a year for the piddly bullshit that UM got nicked with, so something like what happened at Miami will likely take some time.

Nothingface
09-05-2011, 04:13 PM
http://tapatalk.com/mu/62c401e2-16b3-910f.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

saw him in the nightmare on elm street remake. Did a decent job.

281