Pitt and Syracuse to ACC

[M2]

Are you just going to keep glossing over Lefty's point in hopes that if you post this often enough, it will be true?

Yes he will...



There should be a caged thread match between Vannie and McGoober42 where they're the only ones posting and I can guarantee that it would go to 14 pages in a matter of hours...

[Van]

Killian, I already addressed Lefty's point(s). The resposes I've received were: 1. People are lying. 2. It's against the rules.

Great. How am I supposed to refute an accusation of widespread student-athlete lying?

As far as the rules, yes, I understand that what I'm suggesting is against the current rules. I want to see them changed. I also want the NCAA to die a slow, painful death. As others have also stated, BTPCF is the NFL's minor leagues, yet it's also a place where student-athletes theoretically attend classes with other students who aren't scholarship athletes. It's about time to end the charade.

I don't see a wholesale marketing of college athletes happening in the near future, but it seems patently obvious that change is coming. The talk so far has centered around possible increased stipends and the loosening of work restrictions.

Now, are Larry Scott and his ilk lying too? I don't know. Maybe they are. If so, then oh well.

[Killian]

I'm talking specifically of this one:

But as I pointed out full ride athletes can work. If they earn over a certain amount it comes back out of their stipend

Which you keep following up with:

Never mind working for a rival program, an athlete cannot go to work for Safeway during football season, much less for the Houston Texans.

And this:

I don't see a wholesale marketing of college athletes happening in the near future, but it seems patently obvious that change is coming.

is so "patently obvious" that is has recieved exactly zero extra time on the major networks, and there are just as many people against it as there are for it.

[Dinsdale]

Dins, it's so asinine that the NCAA and its conference presidents are currently in talks regarding its implementation.

Again, you seem to be ignoring that pesky Title IX thingy... you know, that the same benefits must be given to athletes across the board?

Let me know when the NCAA overrides congressional authority.

Either 'plum' or 'plumb' is acceptable in that instance. I used to use 'plumb' until I was talked into going with 'plum' by an English professor from U.C. Davis whose point was that they're interchangeable, so why not go with the simpler version? He abhored what he referred to as the "pretentious Frenchification" of our common language.

[grammatical aside]Sounds like a self-worshiping idiot of Academia. I guess they're "interchangeable" in that our society of tards likes to give in when aspelling error is commited enough times, for example "running amuck."

Where do we draw the line? Are "there" and "their" now "interchangeable"?

As for this "professor" -- must be one hell of a well-educated "english" professor to not know the etymology of "plumb." Maybe you can relay it to him (since I guess they don't get the internet at Davis)...

"Plumb" became an adjective from it's use with the word "crazy."

While the idiot you consulted somehow attached this to the French (not even sure where he got that), it's straight-up Latin -- from plubum, Latin for "lead" (the metal).

See, the Romans invented plumbing. The pipes were made from "plubum," since it's what they could mold with their technology. After a couplefew generations, they realized that those who drank from the plumbing system tended to get a little goofy in the head over the years, while those who lived outside the area serviced by the plumbing didn't suffer the same fate. They put two and two together, and pinpointed the cause.

Hence the term "plumb crazy," which is synonymous with "suffering from lead poisoning." While the expansion of the adjective was a little shaky, "plumb" was later used to modify other words describing mental defects.

And the Fucking French had nothing to do with it, whatsoever.

"Plum" is a fruit, and the variations of its use as an adjective indicate positive qualities, ie. "plum job," "plum salary," etc. (And no, ie. and etc. aren't Fucking French, either.)

However, if it will make you happy, I'll go back to using 'plum.'

Maybe it was a typo in the first place?

Regardless, this "professor" sounds like a serious tard.

Your chemistry student analogy falls flat.

Oh, as I'm about to demonstrate, it clearly doesn't...

A chem student is free to go work for Big Pharm, Inc, while still in school. He can earn a serious paycheck. In fact, he could even accept a paying gig at a rival university.

And a football player can go work for the NFL, Arena League, or anywhere else he chooses while still in school. If he wants to use the university's facilities and name to promote himself for future finacial rewards, then he's subject to very similar policies that the chemistry student is.

And frankly, I'm struggling to see why you're struggling with this.

Never mind working for a rival program, an athlete cannot go to work for Safeway during football season, much less for the Houston Texans.

So, you're now dead-set on backing your argument with complete falsehoods?

They're all more than welcome to work wherever the fuck they please, including the Houston Texans, and remain enrolled at school. If they want the compensation in the form of the free ride, then they have to abide by certain rules, which are reasonably consistent for anyone on a scholarship. Those rules include the university's right to retain the fruits of their facilities, images, logos, and anything else associated with the university. The chemistry student has it no different in this regard.

And lest you think a student is going to take a paid position at a different school, and get a free pass to retain their patents/intellectual property outside of either their university or their employer...

well, then I can't help you. Crack a law book sometime.

[Left Seater]

Van,

Love your people are lying line. Come on you are smarter than that! I don't see you disagreeing that student athletes can eat their meals in the school cafeteria just like other students. So why are you hiding behind that. Instead of just taking the word of someone, why not ask one of these former athletes you have access too, why they didn't eat in the cafeteria? Or when did the school not furnish them meals? If this was really going on you don't think the Yahoo Sports guys or some local station in Alabama wouldn't blow the lid off of this? The headlines would scream and there would be a huge photo above the fold of some star player eating his ramen and another photo of his shelves empty. So rather than hide behind this lying line, why not ask yourself what these others have to gain?

As far as its against the rules, EXACTLY! You have yet to show a plan or thoughts on how to get these rules changed, the least of which is Title IX.

[Dinsdale]

Killian, I already addressed Lefty's point(s). The resposes I've received were: 1. People are lying. 2. It's against the rules.

Great. How am I supposed to refute an accusation of widespread student-athlete lying?

Step 1: Get down off your high horse and wipe the egg off your face.

It's not "an accusation of widespread lying." It IS widespread lying, provable beyond any and all shadow of a doubt.


Unless you're going to actually try and argue that student-athletes don't have access to free food.

Is that really what you're going with?

When you've dug yourself a deep hole, the way out of it doesn't involve more digging... Confucius said that, or somebody.

[Van]

I'm talking specifically of this one:

But as I pointed out full ride athletes can work. If they earn over a certain amount it comes back out of their stipend

Which you keep following up with:

Never mind working for a rival program, an athlete cannot go to work for Safeway during football season, much less for the Houston Texans.

And this:

I don't see a wholesale marketing of college athletes happening in the near future, but it seems patently obvious that change is coming.

is so "patently obvious" that is has recieved exactly zero extra time on the major networks, and there are just as many people against it as there are for it.

Okay, one at a time then...

Regarding the first one, well, if it comes out of their stipend, then how does that amount to any sort of equality? A chem student's earnings while working a job during the school year aren't deducted from...anything. Assuming he's even on scholarship, he's free to keep the entirety of his scholarship monies. If I'm mistaken about this, please correct me.

Regarding the second one, I don't know what media you're listening to/watching, but I've seen and heard all sorts of discussion on the TV and radio pertaining to this subject. Just a short while ago KNBR's Drive-Time radio show featuring Ralph Barbieri and Tom Tolbert had Pac 10 commissioner Larry Scott as their guest, and the two primary topics were conference realignment and student-athlete stipends. Scott mentioned that he and the other conference commissioners are in talks regarding both these subjects. When asked by Tolbert about stipends, Scott offered that the NCAA knows something needs to be done about it, and his opinion was that change is definitely coming. He said he's well aware of the fact that there are far too many underprivileged student-athletes who are living well below the poverty line, which makes simple things like attending class on a regular basis difficult for some, and his feeling was that it's a situation requiring immediate attention.

Now, as far as this source is concerned, I don't know whether you consider the Pac 10 commissioner's shoes to be relevant or credible in terms of walking in them, but there you go.

I've heard similar interviews with other NCAA luminaries on ESPN radio.

[Left Seater]

Regarding the first one, well, if it comes out of their stipend, then how does that amount to any sort of equality? A chem student's earnings while working a job during the school year aren't deducted from...anything. Assuming he's even on scholarship, he's free to keep the entirety of his scholarship monies. If I'm mistaken about this, please correct me.

You are mistaken. There are full ride academic scholarships for the very top tier students that offer everything, room, board, tuition, fees, books, and the same $2000 stipend per year that athletes can get. To get the $2000 these students have to work for the school. They can also apply for Pell Grants that everyone else can that gives them an additional amount of walking around money.

[Van]

Dins, what you described with an athlete staying in school while working during the football season would be a violation of the terms of his scholarship. He would be running afoul of NCAA guidelines. The chem student isn't bound to a similar degree. Unless I'm mistaken, which you haven't shown me to be, a chem student is free to go work at DuPont while still attending classes at the university, and his standing at said university will not be affected.

Also, he can go to work in his chosen profession with no time constraints. A kid coming out of high school cannot go straight to the NFL or NBA, not until he's sat out a sufficient period of time. That being the case, he's pretty much forced to stay in school until he becomes eligible for the NFL or NBA. His only other options are to sit out and bide his time, or attempt to find work in the minor league hinterlands.

Oh, and by "Frenchification" the guy didn't mean that using 'plumb' instead of 'plum' makes it French. No, it was merely a term he used to describe some people's penchant for always using the wordier phrase or longer spelling of a given word, just to make themselves appear smarter. His original example was, well, boneheaded names similar to LaMichael, then he went on to mention instances whereby garden variety Americans opt for things like 'colour' over 'color.'

It was just a pet peeve of his, and I think you know what he's talking about.

Regarding 'plum' vs 'plumb,' his point was simply that they're both nonstandard colloquialisms, and as such either one is equally goofy. He felt it unnecessary to insist on either one over the other, so when in doubt go with the shorter one.

Nonetheless, since I'm loathe to offend your linguistic sensibilities, I shall henceforth endeavor to use 'plumb' over 'plum' every fucking time I'm faced with a similar situation.

Lefty, a couple of issues and questions regarding your Title IX response...

First off, how would it apply to private institutions that receive no Federal funding? Moreover, how would it apply to a private business that wishes to pay a private university's student-athlete to represent their company?

I know the latter runs afoul of NCAA guidelines, but how does Title IX come into play there?

Secondly, as you are no doubt well aware, Title IX is, as Jsc likes to refer to the Constitution, a "living document." Its various applications are constantly being tested in court. With that being the case, who's to say that this issue we're talking about here won't at some point fall beyond the guidelines of Title IX?

It would seem that the tougher roadblock regarding the marketing of players has to do with NCAA guidelines which, again, can simply be changed.

[Van]

Regarding the first one, well, if it comes out of their stipend, then how does that amount to any sort of equality? A chem student's earnings while working a job during the school year aren't deducted from...anything. Assuming he's even on scholarship, he's free to keep the entirety of his scholarship monies. If I'm mistaken about this, please correct me.

You are mistaken. There are full ride academic scholarships for the very top tier students that offer everything, room, board, tuition, fees, books, and the same $2000 stipend per year that athletes can get. To get the $2000 these students have to work for the school. They can also apply for Pell Grants that everyone else can that gives them an additional amount of walking around money.

Okay, so what if they're willing to forgo the stipend? Should they choose to forfeit the $2000 per year—which is basically nothing—in lieu of earning a much larger salary for working a job, do they lose their scholarship?

If not, then that's a no-brainer. When all you're talking about is $2K per year, you're pretty much proving my point that these kids are chronically broke.

Now, what about the Pell Grants? Do those also carry work-income limitations?

[Left Seater]

They can choose not to work for the school, but then they don't get the $2K. They also can't work outside the school. If they were to work outside of the school then the scholarship can be yanked and the student made to repay the benefit. The purpose is to allow them to focus on school and not have to worry about paying for anything.

Pell grants can be used for anything. If these athletes are as broke as you claim we are, then why aren't more of us applying for them? If you are on a full ride these grants are basically spending money. There are plenty of grants out there so why not use them? If these athletes truly are below the poverty line then they won't have any trouble qualifying for them.

[Van]

They can choose not to work for the school, but then they don't get the $2K. They also can't work outside the school.

Wait. What?



I'm sorry, but you lost me with the way you worded that first sentence. Are you saying that they're required to work for the school in order to get their stipend? Or did you mean that if they choose to work, it must be for the school?

On top of that, you're saying that they cannot work outside the school, lest they lose their scholarship?

I guess where you lost me is that earlier you said they lose the stipend if their work-income exceeds $2K per year. Now you're saying that they're required to work for the school, and if they go beyond the school to work they don't merely lose their stipend, they lose their entire scholarship.

Please excuse my confusion.

If they were to work outside of the school then the scholarship can be yanked and the student made to repay the benefit. The purpose is to allow them to focus on school and not have to worry about paying for anything.

See above.

Pell grants can be used for anything. If these athletes are as broke as you claim we are, then why aren't more of us applying for them?

I didn't include you ("we" and "us") in my statement, nor did Larry Scott. Lefty, believe it or not, there are kids out there whose circimstances are quite different than yours ever were.

If you are on a full ride these grants are basically spending money. There are plenty of grants out there so why not use them? If these athletes truly are below the poverty line then they won't have any trouble qualifying for them.

And still the commissioner of the Pac 10 says such student-athletes exist, to a point that he feels there's a compelling need to address the issue. Imagine that.

I guess he's lying too.

In any case, if what you're saying about scholarship students and their restrictions on working is true, and I'm reading you correctly, then I stand corrected.

[Left Seater]

So these poverty stricken athletes can apply for grants. Amazingly they don't. What does that tell you?

Anyway, I don't see this changing anytime soon. You believe what all these former athletes told you, I will believe what I saw and experienced.

Don't forget my dad was killed, and up until that point my mother didn't work. I didn't have the typical family.

[Van]

So these poverty stricken athletes can apply for grants. Amazingly they don't. What does that tell you?

That they're likely unaware of them, or don't know how they work, or don't know how to apply for them. Obviously a lot of kids slip through the cracks.

Anyway, I don't see this changing anytime soon. You believe what all these former athletes told you, I will believe what I saw and experienced.

If it were only them, you might be on to something. Since it's not, there's clearly more going on than just those things you've seen and experienced.

Don't forget my dad was killed, and up until that point my mother didn't work. I didn't have the typical family.

I never knew your dad was killed. My condolences. I hope the rest of your family was able to pick up the pieces. You've done well for yourself, so that's a positive.

And with that, it's time to conclude this conversation. I don't wish to become involved in message board discussions pertaining to those types of real-life personal matters.

[Left Seater]

Lefty, a couple of issues and questions regarding your Title IX response...

First off, how would it apply to private institutions that receive no Federal funding? Moreover, how would it apply to a private business that wishes to pay a private university's student-athlete to represent their company?

I know the latter runs afoul of NCAA guidelines, but how does Title IX come into play there?

Secondly, as you are no doubt well aware, Title IX is, as Jsc likes to refer to the Constitution, a "living document." Its various applications are constantly being tested in court. With that being the case, who's to say that this issue we're talking about here won't at some point fall beyond the guidelines of Title IX?

It would seem that the tougher roadblock regarding the marketing of players has to do with NCAA guidelines which, again, can simply be changed.

Van, sorry I missed this yesterday. If there is a private institution or a public institution that doesn't receive any federal money then they don't have to abide by Title IX. But this federal funding isn't limited to just the athletic departments. It extends to the whole school and student body. So if even one student is getting even $100 in some sort of federal grant then the school has to abide by Title IX. I don't think you can find a single school that therefore isn't bound by Title IX. It doesn't apply to the private business at all, but as stated above it does apply to the school if they receive any federal money. The private business could do it all day and Title IX doesn't apply to them.

As to how does Title IX come into play in a situation where a private company was paying an athlete, I am not exactly sure, ask some of the lawyers here. Title IX was written in just a few words, so implementation was open to interpretation. Title IX addresses discrimination based on sex. The original decree didn't mention sports directly. However, repeated attempts to get sports, or revenue producing sports exempted have all failed. Current interpretation calls for spending and number of athletes in proportion to the student body. So if 52% of the student body is female, then 52% of the schools student athletes should be female and 52% of the athletic budget should be spent on female sports. This is why at schools such as Texas, OU, USC, OSU, Michigan, etc, the women's golf team often flies on charters to their events.

So if you start paying the football team, all it will take is 15 seconds for Gloria or Barbara or Shelia to cry fowl. You are correct in that it is only as strong as the last court case, so it is possible that this could be changed, but I just don't see it. Especially since it came directly out of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[Van]

So if you start paying the football team, all it will take is 15 seconds for Gloria or Barbara or Shelia to cry fowl.

BrrrrrrAWWWK!

:grin:

J/k

Odd factoid: I don't know if it still holds true, but I read somewhere that LSU is/was one of only three public schools that receives absolutely zero Federal funding. This was their strategic response to a Title IX case brought against them, in which they were found in violation.

[Mr T]

Two more b-ball schools. Hooray.

Fuck the ACC.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Since Mr. T brought this thread back to its original topic, I'll address the parting shot at ND that Boeheim took on his way out the door . . .

It seems that Boeheim, in his old age, is starting to develop a shaky memory. A little perspective:

1. Syracuse was one of the ACC's original targets back when it first eyed expansion in 2003.

2. At that time, Boeheim was adamantly opposed to joining the ACC.

3. ND's role in the Big East was pretty much the same back in 2003 as it was in 2011. In fact, if anything, you could make an argument that ND is more committed to the Big East now than it was in 2003, given that El Bueno Medico Blanco moved heaven and earth in an effort to get ND into either the ACC or the Big Ten back then.

So, to blame ND for Syracuse's departure from the Big East is pretty much asinine. Or at least wrong.

I suppose, from a purely literal standpoint, Boeheim might be correct: if ND had joined the Big East for football, the Big East wouldn't be quite the target that it is for other conferences looking to expand. Where he goes wrong, though, is in insinuating that ND somehow broke an express or even implied promise to do just that.