College kids are dumb, and college athletes are dumber. We saw last year the result of the "roll the ball out" coaching style. I don't think very many people watched Pitt games from their 4-14 season and said, "Wow, THAT is beautiful basketball!"
Screw Sean Miller and Arizona, Wildcats allegedly offered a recruit $150,000 per FBI documents
- Thread starter PittPoker
- Start date
College kids are dumb, and college athletes are dumber. We saw last year the result of the "roll the ball out" coaching style. I don't think very many people watched Pitt games from their 4-14 season and said, "Wow, THAT is beautiful basketball!"
Why are you against watching games in which players are fairly compensated for what they do?
Yes, because stallings not coaching and saving all his timeouts worked so well. I really loved when the other team went on a 30-2 run and he sat there in the Syracuse game.
What if athletic scholarships where banned and the schools teams would just be whatever guys showed up for an open tryout open to all regular students a month or two before the opening games? Would you watch that? Actually it would be interesting. LOL.
OK OK take it easy, It was just a comment about too many timeouts in college basketball, sorry to offend the JIGs.
These kids are getting free tuition to attend college. That's enough compensation. They're getting paid a lot more than that. My gripe is that in 90% of the cases, these kids don't have the smarts to attend college to begin with. They're dumb. I know that's not kind, but they really aren't the smartest kids out there. If they can't get into college on the basis of academics, they shouldn't be attending. And if they're admitted based only on athletics, then pay them a lot more than an athletic scholarship, quit hiding behind it, and be done with it. Call them what they are...semi-pro. Then I'll quit watching them.
if colleges admitted basketball players using enrollment qualifications they used on the regular student body, NCAA basketball would be intramurals between colleges, held in an open gym in front of a parent or two, nothing more..
The operative word is "fairly". Since when is it "fair" to pay a dumb lunkhead $20mil/yr. just because he can play with his balls while the heart surgeon who saves lives every day gets paid less than $1mil/yr.?? This society is f'ed up big time.
Then pay them and make it semi-pro. That's all I'm saying. Quit pretending these are "student-athletes". They aren't. Most never attend class. And the ones that do, couldn't pass a course if they weren't force fed the answers or didn't cheat. College athletics as it exists right now is a complete joke.
My prediction is that in 25 years, college sports won't exist as it does right now, at least not in the major revenue sports. It may not exist at all. That will turn into a separate system of pro teams and a farm system for the major pros. And football won't be played as it is right now. That game will change dramatically, college and pro.
semi pro ball doesn't work, no one wants to go. they've tried many times, no one cares.. if they try again, it will fail again.
If the "amateur" status is changed in college athletics, if these athletes can market their name, their brand, if they can get paid, it will end college athletics as we know it, I agree with you on that. 90%+ of college athletic depts. work in the red now, most cant survive and wont survive this change.
That would be a shame because I like college football and college basketball. No one in this country will spend more than 5 bucks to see minor league football or basketball.
I can't believe the double talk going on in this thread. 'I don't like to watch people get paid to play...Also, none of these kids deserve to be in college!'
Like I said in another thread, if you want to watch people play 'for the love of the game', go down to the local Y...Or better yet, as suggested earlier, abolish the system entirely: no athletic scholarships, no lower enrollment standards.
It is paradoxical that you don't want student-athletes to be paid, but you also don't want the entire system abolished because then the quality of the sport would suffer. It's a limbo that maximizes your entertainment and minimizes their benefit, and I don't think I need to explain how ****y that is...
Like I said in another thread, if you want to watch people play 'for the love of the game', go down to the local Y...Or better yet, as suggested earlier, abolish the system entirely: no athletic scholarships, no lower enrollment standards.
It is paradoxical that you don't want student-athletes to be paid, but you also don't want the entire system abolished because then the quality of the sport would suffer. It's a limbo that maximizes your entertainment and minimizes their benefit, and I don't think I need to explain how ****y that is...
here is a question and I ask this in all seriousness, not trying to push a point. Why is semi pro hoops not even an option in America yet NCAA basketball is a multi billion dollar business? WHy is the idea of a semi pro football league not even worth the time to discuss yet College football, again, is a multi billion dollar industry?
Lets stick with hoops. quality of play is probably better with a semi pro, D league play than it is in college, right? Why are people sleeping in tents overnight to go to a duke v. unc hoops game but you cant give a ticket away to some of these D league games/
I don't want student athletes to get paid and I don't want the entire system abolished because the quality would suffer. why is that paradoxical?
Burnie, you pay these guys in an open market, college hoops is over. hell, you pay them a universal and uniform stipend, a lot of programs will fold. its really not that complex of an issue. these athletes have other options, they don't have to come to college. a lot of European league options will take a talented 18 year old. if you want to say the one year rule is unfair, ok, I agree.
Can you imagine, for one second, the doors you open if you start giving a college athlete a portion of their merchandise sold? Or allow an athlete to have an open bidding process for him to attend your school? Can you imaging how quickly college hoops crumbles if that happens?
maybe some people want that, I like college sports so I don't..
Whoever said that has to be the system? Why not just let athletes control their image and marketing rights? If Grayson Allen wants to rep Gatorade while he's at Duke, he can do that; if James Conner wants to cut commercials with #1 Cochran while he's at Pitt, he can do that. It lets players capitalize on their market value (at least to a greater extent), and it is wholly independent of the schools. The only argument against it is that boosters could abuse the system, but they already do that anyways! At least bring it out into the open.
College athletics would not change in a material way if student-athletes could sign endorsement deals, sell autographs/merchandise, etc.
Are you comfortable with most state's highest paid public employee being the college football coach?
yes, that system would create a ridiculous advantage for some schools. You don't think UNC would get anyone they'd want, just offer them a Nike commercial.
This would destroy college hoops..
Because in college, it's more about the name on the front of the shirt than the back. People root for Pitt because they have a connection to the school, they don't root for the Pittsburgh Parana's just because they play in Pittsburgh because it was a minor league team.
come on man, you don't think the larger schools would separate the gap even further? You are being naïve. of course there is a disadvantage now, you are basically creating a system that increases this..
And I would argue you are naive for assuming that these big schools aren't already stacking the deck like that; you think only one kid on UA's roster got a payout? C'mon.
Moreover, so what if there is less parity? You want to arbitrarily restrict student-athletes (who are, ostensibly, grown men) just out of fairness to the system? If a school can't field a good team because it doesn't have Gatorade or Nike money behind it, then too bad for that school.
Irrelevant. The guy was complaining about pro athletes making more than doctors. I'm asking if he feels the same way about college coaches.
You didn't answer my question? Would you watch teams of regular students playing each other?
What if Ohio State played Pitt and there where 2 teams in the same uniforms as we see now, lining up in the Horseshoe and they where just regular students from each university that probably played high school ball and just showed up for tryouts 2 months earlier before school started? In reality it might be a better test of Columbus vs. Pittsburgh if you think about it, it wouldn't be two high school all star teams with players from all over the country. Would people show up to watch? That's what the earliest college sports where.
Last edited:
Pitt is the prime example of having a fanbase that is almost entirely made up of alumni. Most of PGH couldn't care less about Pitt football. If simply having talented football players, potentially future NFL stars, then Pitt would have tons of fans in the city, yet they clearly do not. Fans of college sports are fans of their college first and foremost, and the players a distant second.
To some extent, the enthusiasm for college sports stems from the inherent inequity of the league. People will camp out in tents at Duke because Duke is almost always better than their competition. Duke doesn't have to worry about draft picks or salary caps. For teams without that history, let's say, PSU, fans don't care.
I have more interest in Pitt baseball succeeding, because they represent my alma mater, than I have interest in the Washington Wild Things. If the Wild Things were the greatest team in Frontier League history next year, I still would not give a crap. If Pitt was even moderately competitive to get an NCAA bid, I'd be pretty interested. I'd go see a few games for sure. I attended a Pitt baseball game a few years back when they beat the #1 ranked team. That's a cool memory, because it is my school, not some random collection of players sharing a logo on their shirts.
The irony of the critics saying that players need to be paid their fair value is that it is actually the NBA that is quasi-forcing these kids to go to school, not the NCAA. The NBA doesn't want to pay these kids anything, and that is why they are left to develop in an amateur league without any income. If Grayson Allen could get money from Gatorade, then he should take it. He'd then be playing in the G-League and I definitely would not have any idea who he is.
Point being if most people go because they are alumni and have ties to Pitt or any other university, does having a high quality, professional grade athlete really matter, if their just there to root on the dear old alma mater?
No. Are you? That's why I said the whole system is f'ed up and it needs blown up and overhauled. But it won't be, because people are sheep and they'll keep spending money on it and they'll keep worshiping these coaches and players. The system sucks big time as it is now.
That's part of the reason why the FBI will weed out some of the culprits and maybe clean it up a little when maybe 100 or so coaches are fired or worse. But that won't be enough. It has a life of its own now.
Yep. I always do. I watch Little League baseball and high school basketball. Much more enjoyable for me. But that's just my preference.
I would too, and I'd argue that some of the same players might even be there. The vast majority aren't going pro, someone like DiNucci, local kid, might be our starter in that scenario. The quality of play won't be as good, but I don't watch sports for quality of play, I need rooting interest and ties to the team. My daughter's high school soccer team REALLY SUCKS, but I never miss a game, I'd choose to watch them over Man U vs. Barcelona and I'm not joking. I'd still watch Pitt football if it was all regular students for sure.
I'm more upset college coaches make millions while players make nothing.
And yet, money is every bit as involved in little league and HS as it is college or sports. Think ESPN airs the little league world series for free? And look at Rivals. They've helped build an industry around high school athletics.
Yeah, but that's just for the minority of kids, most don't go to the LLWS. If the college thing folds than all the kids sports will go back to what they where. If you can't con parents into paying big fees for travel teams with promises of SCHOLARSHIPS fine but what will they pay the big money for if scholarships don't exist anymore? The HS athletics industry would crash if college scholarships went away or where significantly cut.
PS, IMO I can't believe people watch the LLWS, get a life, I can watch my own kid play, but watch someone else's kids on TV? Who cares?
Latest posts
-
-
-
I hate to sound like the ideaman (SMF) but I have a solution. And I am serious
- Latest: ChiefJusticeMarshall
-
