Snarky's odd questions thread

[papillon]

Re: Snarky's odd questions thread

[quote=RuthlessBurgher]

RB - What percentage is 3 out of all the players to have ever played in the NFL?

Pap - I really don't see the NCAA letting prime football prospects getting away from them because NCAA football is big, big business. The money they make from football goes a long way to them having programs to prepare the average Joe for the workforce.

These kids aren't getting a paid a lick to attend college and, as a matter of fact, can't even accept money for a meal if it comes from anyone other than their parents. They're getting a free education that they don't really want. The UFL will be paying them; I'm not sure how the NCAA stops a kid from getting paid to play football if he so chooses.

Pappt

Well they currently do it by paying the NFL to have rules about how old a player must be to play in the NFL. They'll find a way to make sure it doesn't happen.

And I know what you mean is that players don't get paid a lick "legally" to attend college, right?

We all know it happens, but why shouldn't it? If a kid wants to fly home for Thanksgiving, Christmas or a visit in general he should be allowed to do so at someone's expense that can afford it. The college rules all suck for the players and benefit only the colleges and NFL the two entities that need least amount of benefit.

Age stipulations could still be put in place; the only difference would be the player is actually making a living and it would be based on his skill. Blue chip recruits playing in the UFL will make more than a kid that walks on in an attempt to get paid.

It can work, educators and athletic administrators need to do away with the charade of the student athlete and figure a way to do this.

Pappy
Pappy

You must really feel strongly about this issue if you gave it the rare "Double Pappy" sign-off. [/quote:3u62dbsy]

I noticed the double sign off, but you must have been stalking me and read the post before I could correct it. :P

Pappy

[papillon]

Re: Snarky's odd questions thread

[quote=MeetJoeGreene]

RB - What percentage is 3 out of all the players to have ever played in the NFL?

Pap - I really don't see the NCAA letting prime football prospects getting away from them because NCAA football is big, big business. The money they make from football goes a long way to them having programs to prepare the average Joe for the workforce.

These kids aren't getting a paid a lick to attend college and, as a matter of fact, can't even accept money for a meal if it comes from anyone other than their parents. They're getting a free education that they don't really want. The UFL will be paying them; I'm not sure how the NCAA stops a kid from getting paid to play football if he so chooses.

Pappt

Well they currently do it by paying the NFL to have rules about how old a player must be to play in the NFL. They'll find a way to make sure it doesn't happen.

And I know what you mean is that players don't get paid a lick "legally" to attend college, right?

We all know it happens, but why shouldn't it? If a kid wants to fly home for Thanksgiving, Christmas or a visit in general he should be allowed to do so at someone's expense that can afford it. The college rules all suck for the players and benefit only the colleges and NFL the two entities that need least amount of benefit.

Age stipulations could still be put in place; the only difference would be the player is actually making a living and it would be based on his skill. Blue chip recruits playing in the UFL will make more than a kid that walks on in an attempt to get paid.

It can work, educators and athletic administrators need to do away with the charade of the student athlete and figure a way to do this.

This will also give those kids that may not be the best athletes, but are extremely bright kids the opportunity to continue to play organized football while getting an education and that's a good thing. The blue chippers would be earning a paycheck and the average to above average player would be getting his education and continuing to play.

Pappy

The solution, in my mind, is the following:

Give college players a weekly stipend (say 100 bucks or something).
Give them a "yearly travel allowance" - say 1000 per year.

They can manage those however they want.[/quote:3um0avgj]

That's fine, but my complaint with the whole system is that you have kids taking up a chair in the classroom that don't want to be there and they shouldn't have to be if they don't want to be. If a kid has determined that his vocation in life is to be an NFL football player he should be able to pursue that dream without a classroom interfering. A plumber, electrician, mechanic, etc. aren't made to go school to learn their trade. They can apprentice or go to a trade school if they wish.

I don't believe that the kids in school that want to be there and have to maintain a decent QPA to stay in school should see an atlete get a pass simply because he can run, throw, catch or block.

You should be able to pursue your dreams with fervor and without the encumberment of an education if you do not wish to take advantage of a golden opportunity to get the education. No other job in life requires that you do something unrelated to that job to be able to be employed.

It's just a sham and causes coaches to do things they normally wouldn't do, players to do things they normally wouldn't do, administrators to turn their backs to things they don't want to know about, etc.

Pappy

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Snarky's odd questions thread

That's fine, but my complaint with the whole system is that you have kids taking up a chair in the classroom that don't want to be there and they shouldn't have to be if they don't want to be. If a kid has determined that his vocation in life is to be an NFL football player he should be able to pursue that dream without a classroom interfering. A plumber, electrician, mechanic, etc. aren't made to go school to learn their trade. They can apprentice or go to a trade school if they wish.

I don't believe that the kids in school that want to be there and have to maintain a decent QPA to stay in school should see an atlete get a pass simply because he can run, throw, catch or block.

You should be able to pursue your dreams with fervor and without the encumberment of an education if you do not wish to take advantage of a golden opportunity to get the education. No other job in life requires that you do something unrelated to that job to be able to be employed.

It's just a sham and causes coaches to do things they normally wouldn't do, players to do things they normally wouldn't do, administrators to turn their backs to things they don't want to know about, etc.

Pappy

This issue, though, is that a miniscule percentage of college athletes are actually able to go on to make a living in professional sports. I would hazard to guess that a majority of these athletes think that they are talented enough to be superstars in the NFL or NBA or whatever. Giving those kids a scholarship toward attaining a college degree at least gives the extremely large number of athletes who fail to become pro stars a chance at getting a decent job elsewhere (as opposed to getting minimum wage jobs or burdening the welfare system).

[snarky]

Re: Snarky's odd questions thread

Not going to quote but this is in response to pappy's comments.

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I agree that there are some guys who basically skate through college and are primarily working toward a career in pro sports. But I would also argue that a majority of scholarship athletes (especially in football) have no realistic shot at making it in pro sports and most of them know it and use their athletic skills to a) play a sport they love and b) get a free education.

So I'm not sure I'm ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But on the other hand, having gone to Pitt - I've seen first hand the 'tutors' at the library essentially doing the work for football and basketball players and really that's just plain dumb. I also think it's dumb that these guys don't see a dime from the financial benefit they bring to their schools. So I agree that at the very least, a stipend is in order (but it would have to be a flat rate across all schools).

I'm not sure I buy into the notion of a seat being consumed in the classroom. I transferred to Pitt from a small college and my first class had about 1/4 as many people in it as were attending the four year school I had left. There are plenty of seats in most classes big schools. So in most cases players are not consuming a limited comodity (which also shows that the scholarships don't cost the university anywhere near 'retail value').

And on top of all of this, I don't think the UFL will be a viable option for a kid coming out of high school. They aren't physically developed enough to play against guys in their mid twenties and a lot of careers will be ended before they even begin.

Now, hoops. That's another story. I think we will see an increase in the number of guys going to Europe for a few years to develop their game and earn some money (as opposed to going the college route).

It's interesting, baseball is going the other direction. It used to be that a vast majority of players with pro aspirations skipped college and played in the minors. But over the past fifteen years or so, college has become a viable option. (As a side note, my uncle was offered a minor league contract by the Dodgers when he finished high school but he turned it down to attend college.)

Anyway, I'm not quite sure I have a point - but those are my thoughts.

[snarky]

Re: Snarky's odd questions thread

Giving those kids a scholarship toward attaining a college degree at least gives the extremely large number of athletes who fail to become pro stars a chance at getting a decent job elsewhere (as opposed to getting minimum wage jobs or burdening the welfare system).

Is it my imagination or do a lot of FedEx drivers look like they've played some ball?

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Snarky's odd questions thread

Giving those kids a scholarship toward attaining a college degree at least gives the extremely large number of athletes who fail to become pro stars a chance at getting a decent job elsewhere (as opposed to getting minimum wage jobs or burdening the welfare system).

Is it my imagination or do a lot of FedEx drivers look like they've played some ball?

Be afraid if your wife stays home during the day while you are at work, and she does a lot of online shopping that requires frequent visits from the buff FedEx man.

[papillon]

Re: Snarky's odd questions thread

That's fine, but my complaint with the whole system is that you have kids taking up a chair in the classroom that don't want to be there and they shouldn't have to be if they don't want to be. If a kid has determined that his vocation in life is to be an NFL football player he should be able to pursue that dream without a classroom interfering. A plumber, electrician, mechanic, etc. aren't made to go school to learn their trade. They can apprentice or go to a trade school if they wish.

I don't believe that the kids in school that want to be there and have to maintain a decent QPA to stay in school should see an atlete get a pass simply because he can run, throw, catch or block.

You should be able to pursue your dreams with fervor and without the encumberment of an education if you do not wish to take advantage of a golden opportunity to get the education. No other job in life requires that you do something unrelated to that job to be able to be employed.

It's just a sham and causes coaches to do things they normally wouldn't do, players to do things they normally wouldn't do, administrators to turn their backs to things they don't want to know about, etc.

Pappy

This issue, though, is that a miniscule percentage of college athletes are actually able to go on to make a living in professional sports. I would hazard to guess that a majority of these athletes think that they are talented enough to be superstars in the NFL or NBA or whatever. Giving those kids a scholarship toward attaining a college degree at least gives the extremely large number of athletes who fail to become pro stars a chance at getting a decent job elsewhere (as opposed to getting minimum wage jobs or burdening the welfare system).

Decisions, we all get to make them, if a player is willing to take the chance he should have the opportunity to do so without the education part. I know first hand that the majority of scholarshipped players take advantage of the education and use the free ride wisely, because, they realize they aren't big enough, fast enough or good enough to make a living playing football. For these guys the scholarship, free education and ability to play football is still there, nothing would change.

I'm not concerned with bailing out those athletes that make a poor decision about their life's work. As a matter of fact I've changed vocation three times since I graduated from college. And, even if football didn't work out for them colleges will always be there to teach you a skill. You would have to pay for it now, but, the opportunity is still there. Pell grants, education loans, academic loans, etc are all available regardless of your age.

Pappy

[papillon]

Re: Snarky's odd questions thread

Not going to quote but this is in response to pappy's comments.

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I agree that there are some guys who basically skate through college and are primarily working toward a career in pro sports. But I would also argue that a majority of scholarship athletes (especially in football) have no realistic shot at making it in pro sports and most of them know it and use their athletic skills to a) play a sport they love and b) get a free education.

The option to do this will still exist.

So I'm not sure I'm ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But on the other hand, having gone to Pitt - I've seen first hand the 'tutors' at the library essentially doing the work for football and basketball players and really that's just plain dumb. I also think it's dumb that these guys don't see a dime from the financial benefit they bring to their schools. So I agree that at the very least, a stipend is in order (but it would have to be a flat rate across all schools).

Not only is it dumb that the player (the reason the seats are filled) doesn't get a dime of it, it is simply labor without compensation. Getting a full ride to a major University or any University for that matter is a job if you're trying to maintain any type of GPA. They should be paid and paid equitably for the revenue that they generate, it's scandalous that these kids work for free.

I'm not sure I buy into the notion of a seat being consumed in the classroom. I transferred to Pitt from a small college and my first class had about 1/4 as many people in it as were attending the four year school I had left. There are plenty of seats in most classes big schools. So in most cases players are not consuming a limited comodity (which also shows that the scholarships don't cost the university anywhere near 'retail value').

The real estate (the chair) isn't my gripe; of course, Universities have enough chairs, tables, etc for their students. It's the whole charade of having a player in a classroom that is there only to show his face and get a passing grade is my gripe.

And on top of all of this, I don't think the UFL will be a viable option for a kid coming out of high school. They aren't physically developed enough to play against guys in their mid twenties and a lot of careers will be ended before they even begin.

Now, hoops. That's another story. I think we will see an increase in the number of guys going to Europe for a few years to develop their game and earn some money (as opposed to going the college route).

The NBA is worse; they keep kids in school that could be playing by having a minimum age requirement.

It's interesting, baseball is going the other direction. It used to be that a vast majority of players with pro aspirations skipped college and played in the minors. But over the past fifteen years or so, college has become a viable option. (As a side note, my uncle was offered a minor league contract by the Dodgers when he finished high school but he turned it down to attend college.)

This is quite interesting and I noticed this myself. Rarely was there a college player good enough to play in the MLB 25 years ago. Now, many players opt for college as a path to MLB, good for them, I applaud them provided they are actually attending classes just in case the baseball thing doesn't work out. This is my favorite sport for how to train your future talent and not really get caught up in the whole recruiting scandal. The best of both worlds in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure I have a point - but those are my thoughts.

Thanks Snarky

Pappy

[stlrz d]

Re: Snarky's odd questions thread

The bottom line is NCAA sports make a lot of money for the schools and the NCAA. They're not going to let the best athletes get away from them without a fight.

[papillon]

Re: Snarky's odd questions thread

The bottom line is NCAA sports make a lot of money for the schools and the NCAA. They're not going to let the best athletes get away from them without a fight.

That is probably true; with more than one option out there families get to make the decision not the Universities.

Pappy