Started By
Message
re: Arian Foster admits to taking money at UT
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:52 pm to Tennessee Jed
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:52 pm to Tennessee Jed
quote:
Only the ignorant still think these kids shouldn't be compensated.
I don't think they should get paid. NCAA rules need to be adjusted, but they already are incredibly well treated.
0
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:52 pm to Crompdaddy8
Damn
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:53 pm to sbrian3915
quote:
Oh yes it would. It absolutely would. Whatever outside monies were available to the players would be codified in the NCAA rulebook, and therefore subject to Title IX.
Can you imagine how crazy the bitches would get if men got paid and they did not?
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:53 pm to Crompdaddy8
dang-how many tacos is bama paying--1000 per player--
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:53 pm to BearBait09
quote:
Title 9 is dumb.
make all sports co-ed and let the best players make the roster. Tell me how thats not fair.
Title IX is flawed.
But..
How the hell is your second statement related in any way to Title IX?
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:53 pm to Crompdaddy8
It really is such bullshite.
If the entire team gets put on probation, it is even more bullshite.
While they should just go ahead and let the players get paid, how are they going to justify punishing an entire team that is all different for the actions of a team that was there before?
There are new players and new coaches, so how will the NCAA justify punishing them?
If the entire team gets put on probation, it is even more bullshite.
While they should just go ahead and let the players get paid, how are they going to justify punishing an entire team that is all different for the actions of a team that was there before?
There are new players and new coaches, so how will the NCAA justify punishing them?
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:53 pm to PropJoe
quote:
No it wouldnt. If the schools were paying these kids it would, but you cant force a car dealer to give a field hockey player a car because he did for a football player.
You're even dumber than I thought.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:53 pm to LSUdm21
quote:
If the NCAA tries to mandate it it would.
NCAA wouldnt be mandating anything.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:54 pm to LSUdm21
quote:
You're even dumber than I thought.
Sorry you dont understand title 9. Read up on it, and get back to me.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:55 pm to scrooster
quote:
Can you imagine how crazy the bitches would get if men got paid and they did not?
Meh, the men make the money that keeps their sport afloat.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:55 pm to LSUdm21
quote:
So, with every serious bone in your body, you're actually suggesting we let college athletics become a bidding war? You do understand what Title IX is right?
Yeah. What exactly is the problem with that? The only casualty I see is amateurism, which is kind of a farce as it is given how much money is in college football today anyway.
As for Title IX, it's a completely bullshite statute that screws lower-revenue male athletes out of an educational opportunity in favor of women's sports that no one cares about. For what it's worth, I'd also scrap Title IX. But it's not really pertinent to the larger point -- a practical consideration for sure, but I already said I have no idea how to get to that end point. Like I said before, I was talking about the analysis of the problem itself; I don't think anyone here is a higher-up in the NCAA or an athletic department, so it seems a bit pointless to discuss solutions without that point of view. The data on the problem (if you see it that way) -- scholarship payouts, athletic departments' profit -- is publicly available, though, so that can be analyzed just fine.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:55 pm to PropJoe
quote:
Sorry you dont understand title 9. Read up on it, and get back to me.
I tried, couldn't find title 9 anywhere.
Then, I looked for Title IX, oh there it was.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:55 pm to Crompdaddy8
Total idiot and discrace for a human being.
So, does anyone believe his lie about being hungry ?
Also , the POS said he told the coaches if you don't help me I am about to rob somebody lol , so without money he's just a thug .... dumbazz actually stated this.
So, does anyone believe his lie about being hungry ?
Also , the POS said he told the coaches if you don't help me I am about to rob somebody lol , so without money he's just a thug .... dumbazz actually stated this.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:56 pm to sbrian3915
quote:
I tried, couldn't find title 9 anywhere.
Then, I looked for Title IX, oh there it was
Good one
Now read it and tell me how it has anything to do with an open market.
Ill wait.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:56 pm to Crompdaddy8
This argument is never going to get resolved, but as far as the Foster thing goes, while the SoL hasn't actually expired, it's a dead issue. Tacos are a minor secondary infraction by definition (see Section 12 subparagraph C of the NCAA rules: "Tacos taste so damn good. People gotta eat, right? If coach gets tacos for players, who are we to judge?"(paraphrased)) This was, what, three coaching staffs ago? Nothing would happen, which is why Foster went on record in the first place.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:56 pm to lsutothetop
quote:
As for Title IX, it's a completely bull shite statute that screws lower-revenue male athletes out of an educational opportunity in favor of women's sports that no one cares about. For what it's worth, I'd also scrap Title IX. But it's not really pertinent to the larger point -- a practical consideration for sure, but I already said I have no idea how to get to that end point. Like I said before, I was talking about the analysis of the problem itself; I don't think anyone here is a higher-up in the NCAA or an athletic department, so it seems a bit pointless to discuss solutions without that point of view. The data on the problem (if you see it that way) -- scholarship payouts, athletic departments' profit -- is publicly available, though, so that can be analyzed just fine.
Pointless discussion. Congress is not going to repeal Title IX. Period.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:57 pm to sbrian3915
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:57 pm to PropJoe
quote:
Sorry you dont understand title 9. Read up on it, and get back to me.
I think you need to read up on it. Any sport that receives any financial aid whatsoever is subject to it. You'd have to cut all scholarship funding off first before you could allow any outside source to knowingly give benefits.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:59 pm to sbrian3915
Thanks for sharing. Did you even read what I said? I've been talking about the "problem" (again depending on POV, obv some people don't think it's a problem) from the beginning. Tell your pals that keep asking "well what should we do about it??" that it's a pointless discussion. I'm talking about whether or not they're compensated according to fair market value. There are a thousand different things that are in the way of them getting that compensation if they are, I'm not pretending otherwise
Posted on 9/20/13 at 1:59 pm to LSUdm21
quote:
I think you need to read up on it. Any sport that receives any financial aid whatsoever is subject to it. You'd have to cut all scholarship funding off first before you could allow any outside source to knowingly give benefits.
No, you would just have to say that both male and female athletes are allowed to receive outside funding.
Page 10 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News