NCAA votes Yes for Autonomy

Messages
2,077
I don't think I would be opposed to athletes having the opportunity to profit from their image (much like Olympic athletes do). I am not aware of, nor have I thought through, the potential negatives that could arise from that. The positives I can think of are that schools are not paying players (they are students, not employees), and it eliminates petty NCAA violations regarding players selling jerseys, rings etc. Of course, you only make money on your stuff if you are talented enough that someone wants to pay. I don't know.....I haven't thought it through.

I am for some type of stipend for living expenses. Not a bad idea in my opinion. I do think it opens a can of worms if players became salaried.

I am confused. Isn't the stipend issue that if it is implemented at, say, $3,000 per year, it is not just for football players, it would have to given to all scholarship athletes at the school, male and female? It isn't $3,000 X 85 scholarships per year? It is more like $3,000 X 800 or 1,000 athletes per year.
 
Messages
2,077
Sooo 5 conferences with 80 teams which will essentially create a new Football division. Give it some years and then these conferences will think they need to split up their conferences into smaller conferences creating essentially what we already have now.


Or let's say ACC creates a membership requirement that you have a minimum 75K capacity venue. Five years from now they vote for a TV rating share threshold, then up the scholarship limit to 120 total, and then make bowl eligibility 9 wins. Goodbye slackers like Georgia Tech, Wake and Duke. The big state schools, flush with cash from the ACC Network expand their stadiums to meet the requirment. UCF and South Florida and BYU petition for membership. Cha-ching. I see all sorts of ugliness ahead. Tell me one thing Bobinski has in common with Greg McGarity or Dan Radakovich or Bill Battle.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,527
Location
Georgia
This doesnt equal students getting money. This more equals the threat to the end of the ncaa as we know it. Thank god.

Clearly some things will change like true cost of attending college stipends. But i see this becoming a big 5 break from the other 230 schools first.
 

jchens_GT

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
573
Location
Georgia
I am confused. Isn't the stipend issue that if it is implemented at, say, $3,000 per year, it is not just for football players, it would have to given to all scholarship athletes at the school, male and female? It isn't $3,000 X 85 scholarships per year? It is more like $3,000 X 800 or 1,000 athletes per year.

I honestly don't know either. I haven't done enough homework on this issue.
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,036
"My question is how will this affect other sports? A lot of non-power 5 schools are great at sports that aren't football. Are they now put at a major disadvantage because of what's going on in the football side of things?"
______________________________________________________________________________

For some, yes. A lot of smaller schools use the football money generated by playing the "big boys" to fund their olympic sports programs. The reality is that if these schools are shut off from the income source, then those programs will wither.

Probably true but that's not really what I was referring to here. @WreckinGT nailed what I was trying to say.

I think this is a valid question. The University of Denver has a really good lacrosse program. How are they going to be impacted when some of the other major programs now offer large stipends for their student athletes? Can they afford to offer them as well to keep up? The same goes for a Baseball program like UC Irvine. In sports where some of the smaller schools currently compete quite well, it seems like the football power conferences are giving themselves a significant advantage that may make it tough for the smaller schools to compete in the long run.

Exactly. Well said. For example, I did my undergrad with Northeastern in Boston and hockey is the big sport there. There is no football it was dismantled while I was there. We compete with Boston College. So does this rule change give BC a recruiting advantage in hockey because they can make their own rules and Northeastern can't? It's stuff like that I wanna know about.
 
Messages
2,077
Probably true but that's not really what I was referring to here. @WreckinGT nailed what I was trying to say.



Exactly. Well said. For example, I did my undergrad with Northeastern in Boston and hockey is the big sport there. There is no football it was dismantled while I was there. We compete with Boston College. So does this rule change give BC a recruiting advantage in hockey because they can make their own rules and Northeastern can't? It's stuff like that I wanna know about.

First of all let me say I DON'T KNOW. But my guess would be if BC along with the rest of Division Four voted stipends in, and that meant not just for football players (see Title IX) but for all athletes on scholarship, then a recruit might have to decide between Northeastern with no money, or BC and get a stipend. But if Division Four pushed throught the stipend idea, I don't think it prohibits the non-Division Four programs from offering one. That's when budgetary considerations take over. You might have the stipend be legislated in at a MAX of $3,000--and Georgia Tech could only scrape up enough for $1200 apiece. Then every kid is faced with : Tech and take $1200 or Georgia and get the max. Right now I see a Pandora's box.
 

Supersizethatorder-mutt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,299
Location
Augusta, GA
Or let's say ACC creates a membership requirement that you have a minimum 75K capacity venue. Five years from now they vote for a TV rating share threshold, then up the scholarship limit to 120 total, and then make bowl eligibility 9 wins. Goodbye slackers like Georgia Tech, Wake and Duke. The big state schools, flush with cash from the ACC Network expand their stadiums to meet the requirment. UCF and South Florida and BYU petition for membership. Cha-ching. I see all sorts of ugliness ahead. Tell me one thing Bobinski has in common with Greg McGarity or Dan Radakovich or Bill Battle.
The less MBob has in common with DRad, the better off Tech is. Clemson fans are already questioning that hire.
 
Messages
2,077
The less MBob has in common with DRad, the better off Tech is. Clemson fans are already questioning that hire.

I totally agree, but this is mob rule, there are more of them than of us. The dampening influence on the factories has up until now been the 150 lower tier members that are actually institutes of higher education. The safety switches are now overridden. Meltdown is imminent.
 

Supersizethatorder-mutt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,299
Location
Augusta, GA
Success with Dabo started pre-drad.

Did drad leave Tech in a good condition? Did he leave the 09 trophy behind?
Dabo's success started before DRad arrived. Drad obviously did some good things for Tech, but he never had the best interests of the fans and alums in mind. He has already demonstrated the same attributes at Clemson, and the fans don't trust him. They fear he will try to get rid of IPTAY (like he essentially did with Alexander-Tharpe at Tech), and that will be the nail in his coffin. The Clemson alums won't stand for that.
 

Supersizethatorder-mutt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,299
Location
Augusta, GA
That was Drad's fault? Sounds like some Tech fans are bitter about him leaving us and having success. I wish him the best, that's all I can do.
I'm not bitter. I'm glad he left, and I wish him nothing but failure. And whose fault do you think it was about the 09 championship, if it wasn't his. He threw Johnson under the bus.
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,036
Why? Clemson is rocking with success currently. Their program has gotten better with Dabo and Drad hasn't it?

Radakovich has been at Clemson for less than two years. Any effect he'd have on their on field success is negligible.
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,036
First of all let me say I DON'T KNOW. But my guess would be if BC along with the rest of Division Four voted stipends in, and that meant not just for football players (see Title IX) but for all athletes on scholarship, then a recruit might have to decide between Northeastern with no money, or BC and get a stipend. But if Division Four pushed throught the stipend idea, I don't think it prohibits the non-Division Four programs from offering one. That's when budgetary considerations take over. You might have the stipend be legislated in at a MAX of $3,000--and Georgia Tech could only scrape up enough for $1200 apiece. Then every kid is faced with : Tech and take $1200 or Georgia and get the max. Right now I see a Pandora's box.

Yea it's complicated. For the most part college hockey plays in their own hockey only conferences (Big Ten being the recent exception). BC and Northeastern play in one called Hockey East with teams mostly from the New England area. BC and Notre Dame are the only members that are (kind of) in the P5 conferences. Since the hockey conference is a separate entity is it outside of the vote's jurisdiction? But then like you said Title IX is a factor so the hockey players would have to get the same as football players at ND and BC right? So which one wins? The hockey conference rules or larger conference association and Title IX.

Sounds like a mess to me. I'm glad I don't have to figure it out.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,028
Location
North Shore, Chicago
That was Drad's fault? Sounds like some Tech fans are bitter about him leaving us and having success. I wish him the best, that's all I can do.
It was absolutely 100% his fault. The sanctions had nothing to do with "improper benefits" it had to do with "failure to adhere to NCAA policy." We were accused of hindering the investigation DRad by telling the student-athletes and coach that an investigation was on-going and that they were going to be interviewed prior to that happening, despite being told explicitly not to do that. That was 100% on Radakovich. Do I believe the whole thing was BS? Absolutely, but it fell fully on DRad's shoulders.
 

IronJacket7

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,393
Your college education must have been free????? Mine cost a ton of money even in the stone age. I am still paying for my son's. It is not cheap.
No. Not free at all.

That is why I am for the stipend. The SA will have more funds to pay for additional fees after tuition, room and board, books, etc...

The SA will appreciate it. Their parents will appreciate it.

Not to mention the health care benefits.
 
Top