|
|
Post by fresno bee on Feb 12, 2003 14:27:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Psychopotamus on Feb 12, 2003 15:03:38 GMT -5
How is this possible? I see no difference whatsoever between bribery. What does the NCAA have to say about this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roundtable on Feb 12, 2003 15:06:40 GMT -5
This is what happens when a state has nothing else going for it besides football. The one track mind of Nebraskans is very disturbing even for some Nebraskans who hate football. That's why some of them move out to Illinois or Colorado.
|
|
|
|
Post by You do the math on Feb 12, 2003 15:37:52 GMT -5
the university of nebraska football team makes millions and millions of dollars. Now i am going to take a wild guess and say the womens volleyball team there loses money. Thanks to all the revenue the football team makes, the volleyball team is able to have a large budget
|
|
|
|
Post by math guy on Feb 12, 2003 15:42:49 GMT -5
So what does this have to do with the stipend? You can say this about a lot of Div I schools where football flies and vb dies.
|
|
|
|
Post by I say on Feb 12, 2003 16:21:00 GMT -5
Whatever profit the football team makes they get to keep and let them do whatever they want with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by vballmom on Feb 13, 2003 15:07:29 GMT -5
The whole point of NCAA rules is fairness. If Nebraska and other Big 12 teams (they said they would only do it if three other states with teams in teh Big 12 participated) go through with this, than they have an advantage when recruiting players. I don't see how it could possibly be allowed. Scholarships are set for each sport regardless of what esle is going on at that school. Some schools have no football team and have more women's teams than men's teams, but they can still only give 4.5 scholarships to the men on their volleyball team. Penn State and Ohio State get those same 4.5 even though they have a lot more male players in their entire athletic program. It is all in the mindset of fairness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Psychopotamus on Feb 13, 2003 21:10:21 GMT -5
The idea is that any athlete on scholarship is already getting payed, in the form of their education. The idea is that their wage is regulated so that they aren't taking scholarships away from other students.
I argued before that athletics at the college level are a business and the same holds true here. It is a business meant to maximize the quantity and quality of the education it's students recieve.
Nobody is so special that they should recieve extra pay for their services, I don't care how much money your program makes. If they want to lure athletes there, why not do what Stanford has done? Upgrade your academics to the point where the scholarship itself is worth more (to all students) instead of just bribing players and calling it fair to everyone, while students who are actually there for the education foot the bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by vballmom on Feb 13, 2003 22:04:58 GMT -5
I agree with you Not Richee. It is amazing to me that this has even come up and is being considered. I guess I shouldn't be too amazed - look at what is happening in basketball with Lebron James and others before him.
|
|
|
|
Post by VBPLAYA on Feb 13, 2003 23:16:52 GMT -5
Hey i think you guys are thinking in the wrong direction...
I mean, college ball is a business and a very well organized one. If schools make millions of dollars why should players only get an education? Why not give them the financial help also?
it is a business. It is the same thing as saying you will pay an employee by giving it some service like per se dental care....
I think college ball is a business and it should be ran like one...
And about fairness, the world is not fair, so lets leave it to being competitive... that will only improve the quality of college ball
in general...
|
|
|
|
Post by Psychopotamus on Feb 13, 2003 23:23:28 GMT -5
I just said why. A successful business is measured by how much money you have floating around. Colleges (at least the state ones) are around to educate as many students as possible as well as possible for as low a cost as possible. Professors, administration, and even coaches are one thing. They are employees of the university. Athletes are not.
|
|
|
|
Post by VB PLAYA on Feb 13, 2003 23:30:54 GMT -5
THe players probably make the school more money then the professors do.
So they should be paid the same or even more,... You dont see OSU's QB making 100 big ones do you? and i be that he brought more money to OSU then any professor they have...
that is all... college sports and college academics are different and should be treated different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Psychopotamus on Feb 13, 2003 23:39:21 GMT -5
The point is that the players aren't there to make money, or at least they shouldn't be. Whatever money they do make the school should be compesated by the fact they are getting an education, room and board, meals, books and free publicity. I don't see students getting money. The athletes themselves aren't as valuable as graduates who donate the money. If they are interested in making money and think their services are worth more, then turn pro instead of taking up a space in school.
|
|
|
|
Post by Me Again on Feb 14, 2003 0:24:31 GMT -5
Alright man,
I think that we got to a point where none of my arguments are going to change your mind and none of yours are going to change mine. It is time to agree to disagree.
You have a different point of view then mine and that is ok...
I do think that in the near future some different things are going to happen and change college ball...
Take care
|
|
