T1B

By Eamonn Brennan

Last week, Renardo Sidney, a 6'10 power forward ranked No. 16 overall in the 2009 Rivals 150, decided to take his game to Mississippi State. It was a minor recruiting coup for the Bulldogs, and slightly out of nowhere: Since when do big power forwards with versatile perimeter games choose Starkville -- and no offense, MSU, but we all know it's true -- over places like USC and UCLA? What made the Bulldogs so appealing?

In fact, Sidney had already chosen USC. His family threw a lavish party for his signing announcement, and in dramatic fashion, Sidney pulled a USC cap from a box, packing peanuts and all, as the party clapped in celebration. But later, USC rescinded its scholarship offer, and now Sidney is headed back to Mississippi. Huh?

The Los Angeles Times got some athletic director subordinate types at USC and UCLA on the record about Sidney, and their answer for the confusing result is simple: They were worried about Sidney's money issues:

LA Times wrote:Though they are from rival schools who often wage intense battles for the same athletes, the sources agreed on this about Sidney: The reward of suiting up such a prodigious talent was not worth the larger risk. Bruins and Trojans sources both say they were wary of potentially intense NCAA scrutiny prompted by these issues: Despite what was perceived as a limited income, the family moved multiple times and resided in upscale homes during Sidney's high school years; and stepfather Renardo Sr. directed a club basketball team with financial backing that was unclear beyond a relatively modest shoe company sponsorship. Plus there was this: A source intimately familiar with Sidney's recruitment said a university official thought the stepfather had strongly hinted that he expected to be compensated if his son signed with the school.

In other words, even USC, a school that took in O.J. Mayo sight unseen and whose football program has been under investigation for what seems like the last five years thought Renardo Sidney's father was too much of a loose cannon to deal with. Same goes for UCLA before them.

So a family that is potentially living beyond their means is not ok, but a family of an enrolled athlete getting housing help, loans, and trips is ok. Only at U$C. Spin on SC fan.

Sam, you'd do Kim Kardashaian five ways from Sunday. Don't even bother trying to deny it. In fact, there isn't a person on this board, females included, who wouldn't tear that up, given the opportunity.

Kim Kardashaian

There wasn an explosion in my pants when I read that. My boss is PISSED.

Van wrote:Sam, you'd do Kim Kardashaian five ways from Sunday.

You mean this worthless tramp?



I'll pass, Van. And the AIDS rate in DC will thank me. What a worthless fucking sloot.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Van wrote:Sam, you'd do Kim Kardashaian five ways from Sunday.

You mean this worthless tramp?



I'll pass, Van. And the AIDS rate in DC will thank me. What a worthless fucking sloot.

Yes, that worhtless tramp. Quit lying. You're not even coming close to convincing anyone. If by some incredibly bizarre twist of narcotics she decided, "I'm gonna have me sum Screw _Michigan," christ, you'd be wetting the bed for her at the snap of her fingers.

You'd do it just for the shopping spree.

Van wrote:[Yes, that worhtless tramp. Quit lying. You're not even coming close to convincing anyone. If by some incredibly bizarre twist of narcotics she decided, "I'm gonna have me sum Screw _Michigan," christ, you'd be wetting the bed for her at the snap of her fingers.

You'd do it just for the shopping spree.

Maybe he'd rather have her sister, who I find more attractive.

Fine. You'd both still do either one. Gladly.

I'll grant you a pass on the fat, mouthy sister, but Kim and the little one? STFU. Don't even begin to try and say you haven't done way worse, and been proud of it. No way in hell either one of you turn down either of those two...

Jsc, with just the batting of an eye she'd have you wrenching out your IVs and gargling her ass.

Van, why are you so attracted to some worthless slut who only gained notoriety because she ended up in some internet sex film? Oh, and she sucks Reggie Bush's dick. Kardashian is probably the most overrated whore on the face of the earth, and I'll readily admit the vapid space known as Miss Cali is definitely preferable to Kardashian.

And yes, as Mucho said, her sister is much, much more attractive.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Kardashian is probably the most overrated whore on the face of the earth

What about hilton and that other chick she had a show with? Hannah Montana? A Rod? Charlie Weis?

I doubt she even cracks the top 10.

Edit:



1,2,5

Anybody here who says they wouldn't do the one on the left and the one in the middle is just straight up lying. You could be talked into it...easily.

Even the one on the right, in a pinch. Don't act like you haven't done worse.

As for the "worthles/skank/whore/whatever" factor, again, don't act like you haven't done people who only wish they could be as much of a worthless skank whore.

If these chicks hit you up in a bar or at a Club Med or whatever, and the timing is right, and you aren't in a situation where wifey is preventing you from doing something about it?

Please. You're on it. Fine, you may insist on wearing six sport coats, but you're not saying no, not if they push you hard enough.

so you pretty much went .van2 and posted pics rather than just admit sc cheats.

Huh?

S_M and Mr T posted the pics. I merely commented on 'em.

Anyway, so, if I'm understanding you correctly here, in the absence of any proof that USC cheats the fact that USC took a pass on a kid who looked shady suffices for you as proof that USC cheats.

Solid logic.

Come on Van, you are smarter than this. The parties involved have admitted their wrong doing, but claim they didn't know it was wrong.

There is no doubt Bush's family got loans and trips that even if they repaid at a later date are in violation of NCAA rules. Not to mention the house they lived in.

Even if it were proven to be true, which still hasn't happened, even this many years later, it still would only mean someone who was completely unaffiliated with USC managed to lure one USC player and his family into wrongdoing.

USC didn't do anything wrong there, and they didn't benefit from it. USC didn't cheat there. The best you're going to come up with is this nonsense that a university is supposed to keep tabs on the whereabouts and housing situations of the family members of USC's players.

When nothing happens, when nothing is proven and no punitive action is taken by the NCAA, the hue and cry changes...

"Oh, they're guilty. They're huge cheaters. We all know it. The NCAA just won't do anything about it, because they're USC."

Simply make the accusation, and it's self fulfilling. Guilty, until proven innocent. No proof is necessary. No conviction is necessary. Just say it enough, and it becomes true.

The bottom line is you guys are living off this "USC cheats!" mantra, when all you've got to base it on is a nothing incident with Dwayne Jarrett's apartment deal, which never amounted to anything, and this Reggie deal, which still hasn't amounted to anything. There is no demonstrable pattern of cheating with this football program, yet you guys keep crying bloody murder.

You don't require proof. You don't require common sense. You don't require anything. You just want USC to be cheating...so, they're cheating. You're still clinging to this hope that USC will be taken down, by cheating. We see it all over this board; all over the internet. It's as if people have given up on USC going away, so everybody's hoping and even needing the NCAA to take down USC.

It reeks of sour grapes.

the tallest Kardashian looks like someone baby swapped the K's at the hospital with the John Candy-Julia Childs love child. and on the by and by, when i stand in line at the grocery store and check out the celeb mags (a very dire look into the soul of contemporary life)...I can't help but notice that Miley Cyrus's face is starting to look like a catcher's mitt or like she drinks a 1/5 of Old Crow a couple times a day.

Van,

Just like you know what everyone finds attractive, I know that you would be all over this if it was another school. UCLA, Cal, OU, ND, FSU, Texas, etc.

Second, now you are so used to being attacked on SC cheating that you can't see the truth. Your post talks all about "you guys" and "all over the internet" etc, when I am only discussing one specific athlete and two examples. I have never said a word about Jarrett's apt, or steroids with the LB corps. No proof on those issues, and while my eyes and brain lead me to an opinion, that is all it is.

Bush is completely different. You are correct in saying that someone outside of the SC athletic dept was the one providing the housing and loans. We all agree on this. However, by accepting that housing and loans, no matter how small, that brings USC into the picture. By NCAA rules this makes Bush unable to compete. You actually hit on it in your post but really tried to hide from it.

The best you're going to come up with is this nonsense that a university is supposed to keep tabs on the whereabouts and housing situations of the family members of USC's players.

Regardless if you agree on this issue it is one that SC must be involved in. The NCAA has said as much. Further, SC just like every other D1 program has an program for parents each year in Aug. I know SC talks about this just as everyone else does, RICE included. SC even has someone on the payroll to keep tabs of just this type of situation. Parents of athletes are getting stuff in the mail from the athletic dept on a very regular basis. Real easy to see when the address changes from the 'hood, to the hills that something is up.

So let's keep this discussion above board and not bring "everyone" and "everything" into it. We are only talking about Bush and his family.

Van wrote:Huh?

S_M and Mr T posted the pics. I merely commented on 'em.

Anyway, so, if I'm understanding you correctly here, in the absence of any proof that USC cheats the fact that USC took a pass on a kid who looked shady suffices for you as proof that USC cheats.

Solid logic.

this thread began with lefty bringing up cheating by sc and sam mentioning a skank. yours was the second response in a thread about your team and you chose to respond to.... the skank. ja, logic.

USC didn't do anything wrong there, and they didn't benefit from it. USC didn't cheat there. The best you're going to come up with is this nonsense that a university is supposed to keep tabs on the whereabouts and housing situations of the family members of USC's players.

they totally didn't benefit from playing an ineligible reggie bush. and i don't know which you'd prefer, my solid logic or your willful ignorance, but it's entirely sensible that an AD of sc's stature keep tabs on their players' families, especially the ones carrying around entourages. technically, their livelihoods depend on doing just that.

but i doubt this conversation ever took place between, say, a coach and his star player:

-hey reggie, how's your family?

-uh... they good, living in the hillz and shit.

it's really not that hard to send some entry-level administrative asst. on a paper chase to investigate these things. not a lot of magnum, p.i. goes into:

-hey, drive by this address and tell me what sort of palace those poor people can all of a sudden afford now that their son is an amateur athlete.

this has more to do with circling the wagons more than it does any sour grapes. i don't think anyone begrudges you your pac 10 titles and annual unsubstantiated claims about who's the best team right now. i don't even mind when sc butcher rapes my team in the rose because it's easy to dismiss a four-game bowl losing streak when you can say, ja, but half of those were to sc.

Left Seater wrote:Van,

Just like you know what everyone finds attractive, I know that you would be all over this if it was another school. UCLA, Cal, OU, ND, FSU, Texas, etc.

Nonsense. When have you ever heard me make a big deal about cheating, from any school?

Name me one time. I can guarantee you, it's never happened. You've never heard me rag on any school for cheating. Not once.

Michigan, with the Chris Webber scandal? FSU, with the free test grades, or the stupid free shoes deal? OU, with Rhett Bomar?

Any team, about anything?

You're barking up the wrong tree. I loathe the NCAA. I've never whined about somebody getting caught breaking their stupid rules.

I have argued in favor of paying the kids, and this goes back to long before the Reggie situation.

Be careful in your arguments with me. Don't go Nick on me, lumping me in with sweeping generalization arguments. Know what you're talking about, before you label me.

I know exactly what I've posted on these matters. What I've posted has been the exact opposite of your charge.

Second, now you are so used to being attacked on SC cheating that you can't see the truth.

I see the truth just fine. USC is labeled as this renegade program and PC is constantly referred to as "Cheatey Petey," despite no evidence that he or the USC football program did anything wrong. People act as if there is a long laundry list of NCAA violations proven to be committed by Pete's USC football program, when in fact there are...none.

Your post talks all about "you guys" and "all over the internet" etc, when I am only discussing one specific athlete and two examples.

That's all anyone is talking about, plus the occasional reference to the Dwayne Jarrett situation. That's all there is to talk about, yet USC is labled as the poster child for cheater programs.

See, that's kinda the point.

I have never said a word about Jarrett's apt, or steroids with the LB corps. No proof on those issues, and while my eyes and brain lead me to an opinion, that is all it is.

Your eyes and brain would also lead you to believe hundreds if not thousands of football players all over the country were juicing, were you to see similar pics to the Cushing pics.

My point to you is that all you have is the lone Reggie case, which hasn't amounted to anything, yet you're perfectly willing to label USC as cheaters, as if they're habitually cheating.

Bush is completely different. You are correct in saying that someone outside of the SC athletic dept was the one providing the housing and loans. We all agree on this. However, by accepting that housing and loans, no matter how small, that brings USC into the picture. By NCAA rules this makes Bush unable to compete. You actually hit on it in your post but really tried to hide from it.

Then why hasn't the NCAA taken any action against USC? They've taken action against other programs who are just as prominent as USC (OU certainly is), so why not USC?

Either they don't have sufficient proof that this was anything but a slimy agent attempting to blackmail Reggie and his family, or they don't have proof that USC was complicit in any wrongdoing.

In either situation, neither Reggie himself nor USC as a program have been found in violation of anything by the NCAA, and we're now five years down the road.

When does this bullshit stop? When do people finally say, "Innocent, until proven guilty," which is supposed to be how we do things in this country? Are we forever going to just smugly find people guilty in perpetuity, because a couple of douches from yahoosports.com reported something?

The best you're going to come up with is this nonsense that a university is supposed to keep tabs on the whereabouts and housing situations of the family members of USC's players.

Regardless if you agree on this issue it is one that SC must be involved in. The NCAA has said as much.

I want to see a link showing where the NCAA mandates a private university must keep tabs on the housing whereabouts, rental agreements and payment methods of the extended families of its players. Next, I want to see what the prescribed punishment is for violating this mandate. Finally, I want to see where the NCAA has found USC to be in violation of this rule, in the Reggie case.

Further, SC just like every other D1 program has an program for parents each year in Aug. I know SC talks about this just as everyone else does, RICE included.

A "program" isn't the same as a foolproof private detection agency. If a family wants to hide their private financial business from the university, they're going to do so, and they're going to be successful in doing so.

Welcome to the real world.

No university has the resources to track down and pin down the specifics of each family member of its players, as to where they live and how they're paying for where they live. That's insane. People lie, and they do so, skillfully. In the case of many black student athletes, in particular, you're talking about broken homes, step-step in laws, and wholly unaccounted for family members.

No way in hell one person or one small group of persons sitting in some office at USC is going to be able to accurately suss all that out, not if the people involved don't wish to be sussed out.

SC even has someone on the payroll to keep tabs of just this type of situation.

Like I said, good luck with that. People habitually fool the IRS. People fool the police. People fool the courts. People fool actual private investigators. People fool their own bosses. People fool their landlords. People fool their own parents. People fool their own spouses. People...lie. There is no way in hell they aren't going to be able to fool some bureaucrat clown working behind a desk at USC, or any other university.

You know full well that at best such a position is purely a functionary position. It has no teeth to it, and no weighty resources behind it. It's there to handle the rote paperwork, not to be a detective agency. It isn't designed to go Jack Bauer, in dogged pursuit of the truth.

Parents of athletes are getting stuff in the mail from the athletic dept on a very regular basis. Real easy to see when the address changes from the 'hood, to the hills that something is up.

Real easy to not report such changes to the athletic department, too. Real easy to dummy up addresses, as well. Real easy to simply have someone forward your mail for you, and it's real easy to not give a fuck one way or the other about mailers sent out by the university.

This is hardly an airtight, foolproof system of detecting things.

So let's keep this discussion above board and not bring "everyone" and "everything" into it. We are only talking about Bush and his family.

Exactly. So, let's stop calling USC cheaters, when all we have is one slimy agent and one family of one USC player, and one unproven set of allegations.

Van wrote:I loathe the NCAA.

Then why would you want to blow up the current system, and allow the NCAA to dictate which teams play in which conferences?

As imperfect as the status quo is, why would you have any confidence that the NCAA could or would come up with something better?

Terry, I don't require that the NCAA take part in any re-structuring of BTPCF. I'd prefer the NCAA take a long walk off a short plank. If, however, they are to continue to be in charge, there are a number of things I'd like to see them mandate, after we blow up the current system and begin from scratch.

Pretty simple.

Nevermind Van. If you don't understand that the parties involved (Bush included) have admitted to making loans and allowing trips to be purchased on credit cards, then we can't discuss.

As for the NCAA rules regarding benefits, just call the SC compliance office and ask if it is ok to purchase a trip to an away game for one of the players families next year. Make sure you let them know the family will pay you back within a year. See what they say.


As for paying players, that will be the end of college football. Pretty soon you will have maybe 30 teams that could and they might as well become minor leagues for the NFL. If you pay the football players, then you have to pay the men's golf team and the women's field hockey teams too. As a former scholarship athlete there is no reason to pay athletes. They have more than enough given to them.

King Crimson wrote:I can't help but notice that Miley Cyrus's face is starting to look like a catcher's mitt or like she drinks a 1/5 of Old Crow a couple times a day.

Wow, really? I have 10 years on her, I better slow down.

Left Seater wrote:As for paying players, that will be the end of college football. Pretty soon you will have maybe 30 teams that could and they might as well become minor leagues for the NFL. If you pay the football players, then you have to pay the men's golf team and the women's field hockey teams too. As a former scholarship athlete there is no reason to pay athletes. They have more than enough given to them.

I get what you're saying to an extent. But football, and to an extent, mens' basketball are different animals because they produce revenue for the schools. Other sports do not, except in relatively rare cases.

Not saying necessarily that football players should be paid, since doing that would accelerate, perhaps unnecessarily, the inequality that already exists in college football. But saying that a football player should be paid is not the same thing as saying that a member of the mens' golf team should be paid.

M Club wrote:

Van wrote:Huh?

S_M and Mr T posted the pics. I merely commented on 'em.

Anyway, so, if I'm understanding you correctly here, in the absence of any proof that USC cheats the fact that USC took a pass on a kid who looked shady suffices for you as proof that USC cheats.

Solid logic.

this thread began with lefty bringing up cheating by sc and sam mentioning a skank. yours was the second response in a thread about your team and you chose to respond to.... the skank. ja, logic.

In case you haven't noticed, Sam and I are board "friends." He and I often tend to go on singularly directed tangents, as do Terry and I. I tend to post directly to Sam, ribbing him about things, and vice versa, regardless of what else is going on in a thread.

Sam posted about the women, so I posted to Sam about Sam and the women. That's what we do.

Also, S_M made a ridiculous claim, similar to the one he made about Miss California, and that also prompted me to respond. It's an ongoing silly discussion.

So, yeah, it made perfect sense for me to respond in the way I did. Talking about these guys claiming they wouldn't fuck Kim Kardashian is way more fun than once again re-hashing the "USC football are cheaters!" argument...especially when the evidence this time is that USC hoops passed on a shady kid.

The agenda of the author of the thread was clearly implicit, right there in the title of the thread.

So, excuse me, if I rather preferred to joke around with Sam and S_M, about fun stuff.

USC didn't do anything wrong there, and they didn't benefit from it. USC didn't cheat there. The best you're going to come up with is this nonsense that a university is supposed to keep tabs on the whereabouts and housing situations of the family members of USC's players.

they totally didn't benefit from playing an ineligible reggie bush.

He was never ineligible. Show me where the NCAA ever ruled him ineligible. It's been five years; by now, you ought to have a fuckload of edifying links.

and i don't know which you'd prefer, my solid logic or your willful ignorance,

Your solid logic is that USC football is guilty of cheating...as evidenced by their hoops program taking a pass on a shady player.

In the meantime, the NCAA has yet to find Pete's football program to be in violation of anything.

Thanks, but I'll go with my own brand of solid logic.

but it's entirely sensible that an AD of sc's stature keep tabs on their players' families, especially the ones carrying around entourages. technically, their livelihoods depend on doing just that.

It's possible he keeps tabs on them, yes. It's completely impossible for him to keep accurate tabs on them, if they don't want him to know their personal business.

but i doubt this conversation ever took place between, say, a coach and his star player:

-hey reggie, how's your family?

-uh... they good, living in the hillz and shit.

it's really not that hard to send some entry-level administrative asst. on a paper chase to investigate these things. not a lot of magnum, p.i. goes into:

-hey, drive by this address and tell me what sort of palace those poor people can all of a sudden afford now that their son is an amateur athlete.

You really do still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Change You Can Believe In, don't you?

this has more to do with circling the wagons more than it does any sour grapes.

Circling the wagons means taking care of your own. Lashing out at USC can only be an example of circling the wagons if it's USC who's doing it. When fans of Michigan and other programs constantly label USC as cheaters it's not circling the wagons, it's sour grapes.

The "circling" phrase you meant to use is "the vultures are circling." That's what's going on here.

Dude, don't go TBO on me. You're better than that. Keep it up and we'll, umm, send you to wenst you came.

i don't think anyone begrudges you your pac 10 titles and annual unsubstantiated claims about who's the best team right now. i don't even mind when sc butcher rapes my team in the rose because it's easy to dismiss a four-game bowl losing streak when you can say, ja, but half of those were to sc.

You have got to be kidding me. There are people out there who are pining away for USC to be stripped of wins, a Heisman, two Pac 10 titles and even the '04 national title. It's been slobbered over, right here on this board, multiple times.

There are plenty of people who begrudge the fuck out of USC, and they aren't willing to let a little thing like a complete lack of any findings of wrongdoing by the NCAA stop them in their wet dream of taking down USC.

Right. Reportedly, in an effort to entice the kid to leave USC early, some jackass agent preys on the family of one of USC's established star players, and because of this USC should be forced to forfeit two years.

Nah, nobody's suggesting this at all.

Lefty wrote:As for paying players, that will be the end of college football. Pretty soon you will have maybe 30 teams that could and they might as well become minor leagues for the NFL.

That's what we have now, so what's the difference? BTPCF is already the NFL's mnor league, and it's already ruled by less than thirty teams.

Ghetto thugs playing football at UC Berkeley, what's that tell you?

If you pay the football players, then you have to pay the men's golf team and the women's field hockey teams too.

Nonsense. They drain money. Vince Young brought in money. Some kids bring millions to a school, and the NCAA even forbids them from working a job to earn pocket money, which is perfectly okay for non athletes.

This is good??

Nonsense. These kids are professional entertainers, there to fill the school's coffers. They should be allowed to work and they should be given a commensuate stipend. The cost of their scholarship (especially when they don't even finish it, or, in the case of someone like Clay Mathews, Jr, a non-scholarship walk-on who paid his way there) doesn't even begin to approach the amount of money these kids bring to the university.

Or, if you prefer, they should be allowed to take part in structured profit sharing. Tim Tebow should get his fair share of the millions Florida and other merchants are making off him.

As a former scholarship athlete there is no reason to pay athletes. They have more than enough given to them.

No, they don't, and yes, there are plenty of really good reasons to pay athletes. Eliminating the need for financial cheating, which has you in such a tizzy, that'd be just a starting point.

Van wrote:in the case of someone like Clay Mathews, Jr, a non-scholarship walk-on who paid his way there

Clay Mathews, Jr. never had a scholarship? And he was a first-round draft choice this year. Wow.

Then again, his father played in the NFL. Could be a situation similar to Nate Montana in that regard. I'm not quite sure Nate warrants a scholarship even if Dad couldn't afford to pay full freight, though (but in fairness, he's behind only two very highly-recruited players on the depth chart).

Terry, he was originally a non scholarship walk-on. By his senior season, yeah, he'd earned a scholarship. Still, he paid (and then played) his way into that opportunity, and USC reaped the financial benefits of his being there, both as a walk-on and a scholarship athlete.

For what its worth, the home the Griffens lived in while Reggie played at Helix High School and the house that they leased during Reggies Junior year were in the same zip code, town, school district. The proceeds from the home they sold before moving in to the one they leased paid for the trips they took during Reggies Junior year. The person who leased them the home said that they made all of the payments on the home during the 9 months they lived in it.
Now if you're employed by a school to look after a players parents living conditions and they move within the same postal code town and school district they lived in before and their landlord, who is from one of the indian casinos and not tied to the school in any form, says that the family is making their lease payments, why would a flag be raised?

Van, no way should college athletes get paid. How can you measure how much a certain player is responsible for bringing in? These guys get an opportunity at a free education, they have their own private tutors where regular students have to pay tutors. They have free access to all the athletic facilities where at some schools regular students don't. They have the best medical care offered to them where regular students don't. Some schools have training tables with the best food available as opposed to the regular student who has the shit the cafeteria cooks. Should they be allowed to have a job? Sure, however they don't need the money because mom and dad have been paying for their needs since birth. Don't give me this bullshit about little LeRoy coming from the projects and not having money either. At our school we've got more fucking kids on the free lunch program meanwhile they all have Ipods, cell phones and 100 dollar sneakers. But dammit they are on the free lunch program. If they need money have mom and dad send them some. Last I checked that wasn't illegal. They also get to play a sport for a university, travel all over the country get free shit thrown at them, and get that free education which is worth a lot of money. Then throw on top of that the business connections they get from playing the sport in college. Once they go out into the job market there are alumni that will take care of them just because they played a sport at a certain college. Most are in a school because they are athletes and would have zero chance of getting into if they didn't play a sport. So please enlighten me again why they should get paid. I wonder what they'd be doing if they didn't play a sport. It certainly wouldn't be attending schools like $UC.

Van,

Good luck getting Title IX changed. Pres Hussein has that high on his list I am sure. As soon as you get football exempted from Title IX then you can start paying football players. Might as well start paying HS players too since they bring in money for their schools. The only difference is the amounts.

Pay college athletes and the game is dead. Now I will agree that athletes should be allowed to work. However, it should be in Univ jobs and the paychecks should come thru the conf office. No more than 10 to 15 hours per week.

Why exactly should the athletes be paid? Sure the schools make money off of the team, but they are already compensated for their efforts with free room, board, tuition, fees, gear, gifts, trips, etc. Any other reason besides the school makes money on football games?

Sometime we need to get together in person and discuss all this over beers. Would be so much easier.

Just the money Texas made from the sale of #10 VY jerseys alone dwarfed what Texas spent to have VY go to school there. Then there's the millons they made from going to BCS games.

You can't even begin to compare the fractional dollars it cost to have him play at Texas, compared to the dollars he brought to Texas.

Florida could build another Swamp off of what they've made off of Tim Tebow. Please, guys, get a grip. Books, food, lodging, travel expenses, tutors and tuition costs (at state schools, nonetheless, which don't cost nearly that much)...compared to many millions of dollars? Hell, Florida will still be making money off of Tebow long after he's gone.

Lax, no, not all college players have parents who can send them money. Sorry, but some of those kids really do come from dirt poor broken homes, with no dad, seven siblings and a mom working three jobs.

Why do you hate Jim Nance?

First off you have to address how you are going to change Title IX.

Second, do you work for a company Van? If you do are you compensated for every single dollar you bring to your company? Let me help you with that, the answer would be no.

Third, where does the money come from to pay the players at 60% of the Division 1 schools? Do the teams with huge pockets like SC, Texas, OU and Ohio State have to pay into a fund to pay the kids at Stanford, Texas Tech, South Carolina, etc?

Bottom line, if the players want money instead of a chance at a college education, let them go to the AFL, CFL, Intense Football league, etc.

How would you pay them? Easy. Profit sharing. That's what many companies do. Or, bare minimum, christ, at least give them a realistic monthly stipend, since they're not allowed to work...like non athletes are. Many of these kids can barely afford to do anything, and I'm talking even just taking some girl out to a nice dinner, once a month. Many of these kids, and their stories are legion, they're doing the Top Ramen thing, just to make ends meet.

Considering the money these kids bring to their universities, the least they should receive is a realistic monthly stipend; enough so, that they have reasonable walking around money.

Lax, no, not all college players have parents who can send them money. Sorry, but some of those kids really do come from dirt poor broken homes, with no dad, seven siblings and a mom working three jobs.

I'm sure the % of really poor kids is very small compared to those who can afford their kids. OTOH, how did they feed and clothe their kids before getting to college. Then again these people have no formal education so if we just give them money they'll waste it and end up back in the hood where they came from. Hell they should be thankful they're even in college because without the fact that they can play a sport the only reason they're in college is because of the sport. OK, let's do this then.....pay them while they're in college and once the graduate and get a job they can pay back that money they were paid.

Van wrote:How would you pay them? Easy. Profit sharing. That's what many companies do.

Now we are getting somewhere. So now we are only discussing the 30 to 40 programs that make money on football. So does D1-A get narrowed down to 30+ schools? What do you do if a program makes money one season and a recruit signs, then the next season they don't make any money? Do the players get to transfer since there is no profit to share?

Van wrote:Many of these kids, and their stories are legion, they're doing the Top Ramen thing, just to make ends meet.

Come on now Van. At least be honest with your arguements in favor. There are no football players eating Top Ramen to make any ends meet. The players can eat every single meal in Univ dinning halls 365 days a year if they want to. Most schools have athletic dining rooms that are off limits to the general student population. The athletes have access to nutritionist whenever they want. Not to mention all the food that can found around the locker rooms, study halls, and meeting rooms.

Of course this is all moot until you decide how to overturn Title IX.

Lefty, I can't count how many times I've heard people like Tom Tolbert (Arizona Wildcats hoops star from one of their Final Four teams), Mark Schlereth (ESPN football analyst), Lincoln Kennedy (former Washington Husky and Oakland Raiders stand out) and countless other former college football and basketball stars talking about how broke they were in college. They all tell the same stories of never even having sufficient pocket money to go out for pizza; no money for a decent car, or a trip back home; no money for anything.

"We used to eat a lot of Top Ramen. We were masters at coming up with different ways to use Top Ramen," being a common refrain.

Meanwhile, their fellow students were allowed to have jobs, just to have some spending money, or whatever.

These guys all talk about the need for at least a monthly stipend; in part, to reduce the temptation to cheat. Unless they're all lying, which I find difficult to believe, I have to agree with them.

Van wrote:Lefty, I can't count how many times I've heard people like Tom Tolbert (Arizona Wildcats hoops star from one of their Final Four teams), Mark Schlereth (ESPN football analyst), Lincoln Kennedy (former Washington Husky and Oakland Raiders stand out) and countless other former college football and basketball stars talking about how broke they were in college. They all tell the same stories of never even having sufficient pocket money to go out for pizza; no money for a decent car, or a trip back home; no money for anything.

"We used to eat a lot of Top Ramen. We were masters at coming up with different ways to use Top Ramen," being a common refrain.

Meanwhile, their fellow students were allowed to have jobs, just to have some spending money, or whatever.

These guys all talk about the need for at least a monthly stipend; in part, to reduce the temptation to cheat. Unless they're all lying, which I find difficult to believe, I have to agree with them.

this is a familiar refrain....from my cousin who played baseball at OU or some of the national media revile Barry Switzer used to get (he advocated a stipend for players over 20 years ago). as a university educator, i find myself in Lefty's camp some.....these kids piss away the borderline plagiarism/academic misconduct "tutoring" they are given. how any kid can't make C's in college these days with grade inflation, blows me away. don't get me wrong....i've taught college classes at two US News and World Report top 100 Universities....so i'm not talking Juco grades. i do think out of the proceeds the AD's make, a small % stipend of ticket sales for 100$ a week for pizza and taking a girl out on Saturday night is not unfeasible or threatening anyone's amateur status.

Here's the other obvious question...

How on earth is any college player not entitled to a cut of the merchandising profits that result from the sales of items bearing their name or likeness?

There's the easiest way to "profit share." The people who bring in the most money will reap the most reward. There is no reason VY or Tim Tebow shouldn't get a cut from every item sold which bears their likeness, whether it be a $75 football jersey, a $20 t-shirt or a $5 coffee mug.

This has nothing to do with their "amatuer status," or Title IX, or anything else. It's basic capitalism. If a kid at M.I.T. comes up with a marketable product, hey, good for him. He's allowed to sell it, and profit from it. Tim Tebow has come up with a marketable product. He should likewise be able to profit from it, at least to some extent. UF and all those merchandizing companies don't make a dime from sales they don't make. They're making those Tim Tebow merchandise sales because of Tim Tebow. Whatever the percentage, he deserves a fair cut.

Van wrote:Here's the other obvious question...

How on earth is any college player not entitled to a cut of the merchandising profits that result from the sales of items bearing their name or likeness?

There's the easiest way to "profit share." The people who bring in the most money will reap the most reward. There is no reason VY or Tim Tebow shouldn't get a cut from every item sold which bears their likeness, whether it be a $75 football jersey, a $20 t-shirt or a $5 coffee mug.

This has nothing to do with their "amatuer status," or Title IX, or anything else. It's basic capitalism. If a kid at M.I.T. comes up with a marketable product, hey, good for him. He's allowed to sell it, and profit from it. Tim Tebow has come up with a marketable product. He should likewise be able to profit from it, at least to some extent. UF and all those merchandizing companies don't make a dime from sales they don't make. They're making those Tim Tebow merchandise sales because of Tim Tebow. Whatever the percentage, he deserves a fair cut.

just to say it: basic capitalism and profit share are sort of at odds in today's "everything is socialism" economy analysis.

and for every Tim Tebow, there's 90 other guys on scholarship. do they get the same coin?