Immediate eligibility for transfers under consideration by the NCAA

[Pewterschmidt]

These athletes put as much time if not more to become college athletes than doctors do to become doctors and.....it's easier to become a doctor than a d1 athlete in a revenue producing sport.

What you have just said is the most insanely idiotic thing I've ever heard. Go ask your PCP what it took him/her to become a doctor, and that's the easiest path to becoming an MD out there. Go ahead and ask and then compare that to what it took Kim to become a D1 athlete.

 

[Tee09]

What you have just said is the most insanely idiotic thing I've ever heard. Go ask your PCP what it took him/her to become a doctor, and that's the easiest path to becoming an MD out there. Go ahead and ask and then compare that to what it took Kim to become a D1 athlete.

My father-in-law is a primary care doc. He did 5 years in the air force afterwards to pay for his medical school and didn't start making money until he was 32 or 33. I guess you could trade that 5 years for $250 K in debt, but it's a huge time commitment to be sure. Like I said before, being a D1 athlete comes town to the talent you are born with and then the time it takes to be a decent high school player. Hell, a lot of the talented guys don't even have to put in a ton of time to be good football players, as their physical gifts allow them to dominate other HS kids without using proper technique. It's an absolutely idiotic comparison from somebody who seems bent on playing the victim regarding this issue.

 

[Sportsfan24]

You are equating getting a free education & job opportunities to the civil rights movement? Wow. You are so far gone on this that it isn't worth discussing.

Please remind me where I said they paid their own buyout clauses, since I don't remember ever writing that. How about this: the school that the kid transfers to would have to pay back that kid's scholarship money to the school he is leaving. Would that make it equal enough to you?

Your bias on this issue because of your son is clouding your judgment. Face the facts: the players are in no way oppressed. They get a free education, free room and board, and FAR more job opportunities when leaving college than the average student. In return, they play football (something they say they love and the majority of college football players do for free). Seems like a pretty good deal.

Your son chose to go to Minnesota rather than take a scholarship at another school.
Unlike the civil rights case that you so ridiculously compared this to (where the
woman had no other options and was actually being oppressed), your son DID have
another option and did not have to pay for school.

My god. When people invoke the civil rights movement when discussing college
athletics, it makes me sick. Get over yourself.

You are all over the place on this one aren't you? Hell, I have a minute let me see if can dumb it down for you.

The civil rights analogy was spot on. The premise of your convoluted all over the place argument is that because athletes knew what they were getting into before the signed they should except it. I was attempting in a nice way to show you that there are exceptions and maybe this is one of them. Unfortunately you appear to be one of those folks who see red and go into blind rage whenever you percieve someone to be talking about a racial issue. Here let me help you; civil rights refers to a class of rights that protects our freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments or private organizations (NCAA).

The point I was making was in reference to your comment they don't have to play if they don't like it. Just like the women who had to take a less pay for the sake of feeding her family. These young men have to take what they get from the NCAA because there is no other/better option...therefore your point is not valid. Or the ramifications the same for both examples? I would lean toward the no it isn't side; that a woman having to work for less pay is worse. However, an argument could be made that some of these young would never be able to go to college if it weren't for the football scholarship therefore they are forced to take the scholarship.

Either way it was just a off handed comment no need to get your blood pressure up.

Kim? He's a walk-on...none of this would apply to him. Therefore I'm not influenced/jaded by the topic. Besides...I'm much to cool for that (lol).

 

[Sportsfan24]

What you have just said is the most insanely idiotic thing I've ever heard. Go ask your PCP what it took him/her to become a doctor, and that's the easiest path to becoming an MD out there. Go ahead and ask and then compare that to what it took Kim to become a D1 athlete.

Not that I'm any less idiotic but....two of my siblings (Kim's aunt and uncle) are doctors and after years of watching him get to this level they believe it's (football) harder.

Maybe they are being kind.

I know.....why don't we look at the number of high school kids playing football versus the number who make it to d1 and compare the percentage of applicants to or those admitted to medical school versus the number who finish?

Here is what we will find. NOTHING! They both are insanely hard with different levels of complexity. Folks are born with different levels of athleticism and intelligence, requiring different levels of effort.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Not that I'm any less idiotic but....two of my siblings (Kim's aunt and uncle) are doctors and after years of watching him get to this level they believe it's (football) harder.

Maybe they are being kind.

I know.....why don't we look at the number of high school kids playing football versus the number who make it to d1 and compare the percentage of applicants to or those admitted to medical school versus the number who finish?

Here is what we will find. NOTHING! They both are insanely hard with different levels of complexity. Folks are born with different levels of athleticism and intelligence, requiring different levels of effort.

:facepalm

 

[Sportsfan24]

My father-in-law is a primary care doc. He did 5 years in the air force afterwards to pay for his medical school and didn't start making money until he was 32 or 33. I guess you could trade that 5 years for $250 K in debt, but it's a huge time commitment to be sure. Like I said before, being a D1 athlete comes town to the talent you are born with and then the time it takes to be a decent high school player. Hell, a lot of the talented guys don't even have to put in a ton of time to be good football players, as their physical gifts allow them to dominate other
HS kids without using proper technique. It's an absolutely idiotic comparison from somebody who
seems bent on playing the victim regarding this issue.

As folks are born with different levels of athleticism they also are born with different levels of intelligence. Both D1 football and becoming a doctor require the person to be born with a certain
amount of intelligence and athleticism and they also require a certain amount of hard work.

For the record. My man, I have never considered myself a victim. Unlike some I don't have to be
effected to show apathy for someone else's plight. Kim has nothing to do with my point of view; he's a walk on football player...none of this applies to him. Right or wrong I'm just a guy voicing his opinion.

 

[To Be Named Later]

You are all over the place on this one aren't you? Hell, I have a minute let me see if can dumb it down for you.

The civil rights analogy was spot on. The premise of your convoluted all over the place argument is that because athletes knew what they were getting into before the signed they should except it. I was attempting in a nice way to show you that there are exceptions and maybe this is one of them. Unfortunately you appear to be one of those folks who see red and go into blind rage whenever you percieve someone to be talking about a racial issue. Here let me help you; civil rights refers to a class of rights that protects our freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments or private organizations (NCAA).

The point I was making was in reference to your comment they don't have to play if they don't like it. Just like the women who had to take a less pay for the sake of feeding her family. These young men have to take what they get from the NCAA because there is no other/better option...therefore your point is not valid. Or the ramifications the same for both examples? I would lean toward the no it isn't side; that a woman having to work for less pay is worse. However, an argument could be made that some of these young would never be able to go to college if it weren't for the football scholarship therefore they are forced to take the scholarship.

Either way it was just a off handed comment no need to get your blood pressure up.

Kim? He's a walk-on...none of this would apply to him. Therefore I'm not influenced/jaded by the topic. Besides...I'm much to cool for that (lol).

Apparently I missed something...at what point did I mention race? Please tell me.

You have taken a discussion about transfer rights and made it about race. That's one hell of a jump. Let me summarize your argument, just so I can be sure I am following correctly:

- Getting a free education to play football means the athletes were forced to take the scholarship
- It is easier to be a doctor than a D1 athlete
- D1 athletes work harder than doctors to get where they are
- D1 athletes having to sit out a year is the same as women not getting paid the same as men
- Saying the above statement is not true makes me a racist

Are there other points you would like to add to the list? Nicely crafted argument, Socrates.

Thank goodness I just have to cheer for the players and not their parents.

 

[Sportsfan24]

Apparently I missed something...at what point did I mention race? Please tell me.

You have taken a discussion about transfer rights and made it about race. That's one hell of a jump. Let me summarize your argument, just so I can be sure I am following correctly:

- Getting a free education to play football means the athletes were forced to take the scholarship
- It is easier to be a doctor than a D1 athlete
- D1 athletes work harder than doctors to get where they are
- D1 athletes having to sit out a year is the same as women not getting paid the same as men
- Saying the above statement is not true makes me a racist

Are there other points you would like to add to the list? Nicely crafted argument, Socrates.

Thank goodness I just have to cheer for the players and not their parents.

You certainly have issues. Damn...you're not gonna cheer for me! What will I ever do?

By the way, I'm more a Plato type cat.

 

[t-docious]

back on the subject; does it seam fair if we are going to offer 4year schollys then there be some sort of lean/incentive to make these kids stay all four years? TL;DR sorry if someone already made this point...

 

[To Be Named Later]

You certainly have issues. Damn...you're not gonna cheer for me! What will I ever do?

By the way, I'm more a Plato type cat.

Yes, you certainly have a dizzying intellect. Still, you have not answered my first question about why I am a racist. Surely a great mind like yours would recognize the importance of supporting your arguments.

That is a pretty serious charge, so I would love for you to look back at what I wrote and please find evidence supporting your claim.

 

[jovs]

So coaches could leave a program for a new one and then take players with them? Great idea!

As bad as this change would be, as many problems that it would create, this is by far the worst of them. When Holtz left he just took his new recruits that hadn't enrolled, with this rule he probably would have taken a half a dozen or so of the existing players.

 

[Sportsfan24]

Yes, you certainly have a dizzying intellect. Still, you have not answered my first question about why I am a racist. Surely a great mind like yours would recognize the importance of supporting your arguments.

That is a pretty serious charge, so I would love for you to look back at what I wrote and please find evidence supporting your claim.

While I disagree with most of the things you have written on this topic, I have not read anything that I would believe makes you a racist (nor have I called or inferred to you being a racist). How did you come the conclusion that I consider you a racist?

As to supporting my arguments...it's obvious we should agree to disagree and just leave it at that. Are we cool?

 

[Sportsfan24]

As bad as this change would be, as many problems that it would create, this is by far the worst of them. When Holtz left he just took his new recruits that hadn't enrolled, with this rule he probably would have taken a half a dozen or so of the existing players.

I believe there should be some change, but I agree that we can't have folks jumping ship every year. I would be for keeping the players in the current system and installing a system that limits the coaches movement (head coaches). Not to contradict myself but maybe a system that allowed players to transfer if the coach leaves within 2 years of them arriving on campus. This would force the AD's to tighten up on the coaches contracts thereby limiting movement.

 

[Sportsfan24]

back on the subject; does it seam fair if we are going to offer 4year schollys then there be some sort of lean/incentive to make these kids stay all four years? TL;DR sorry if someone already made this point...

Yeah I see what you are getting at. With 5 years to play 4, it would make transferring easier. Maybe they would lose a year off the 5?

 

[Swede]

If you want parity, lower the number of scholarships to 65.

Why not require athletes to be real students? Maybe make them all subject to the same standards as an average student. Maybe even a higher standard since all the time away from the classroom is tough on the academic regimen.