The last 7 maybe soon to be 8 BCS champions have been from the SEC, there's at least a case to be made for the opposite being true.
Pollard on Deadspin
- Thread starter HILL
- Start date
Damn.. in less than 24 Hours?!?!
I really, really hope TXCyclones is a coach...
Yeah, I don't get why this is such a huge deal. For one, it shouldn't be that much money. I mean, we are talking about 10K for the four years. Most people don't get out of four years with under 100K if they come from out of state, which a lot of players do. A 10K loan should be a very small undertaking if you come out of college with more than a communications degree or something. I don't think enough pressure is put on kids to get a degree that will be worth something when they graduate relative to just getting good grades. If they choose, that degree is worth much more than what tuition costs.
Haha -- Prove it
If you feel the college game is as good as its ever been right now. I would like to hear your reasoning.
Last edited:
Why should the school have to pay for things that occur outside of the University like tires or gas. This really isn't any different that students doing research. In fact it's the same. They cash in on little of the direct research they do but down the road when they say they were behind the discovery of this or the invention of that, they cash in on other opportunities.
I'm not sure how useful it is to compare college athletics, mostly football, with research. Not really related or comparable at all.
I didn't say it was as good as it has been. Before the last 5-10 years, how many times had Appalachin St. and the like beaten a top 25 team. How about now? How is it that you still have the powers (Bama, LSU, OSU, etc.) but yet have teams like OKlahoma St competing year in and year out with teams like Louiville, WVU, Boise, TCU, USF. I'm talking top to bottom here, not just separation of the top 60 teams. Besides that, don't you think ISU, as the second worst program in the Big 12 is much closer to the top than they have been.
ISU is much, much closer to the bottom than they are to the top. Be much more likely for is to go 2-10 than 10-2. Every year there's maybe 5-7 different teams that have a legitimate shot at a national championship, put of over 100.
But how many were there in the nineties? I'm not looking at this from a year by year standpoint. Every year, now there are teams cropping up that wouldn't have in the nineties. I think it's due to mostly scholarship limits. We have taken 15 kids from, say, the top 20 perennial powers and displaced them into the non-powers. Yes, the SEC has cropped up as a conference because of championships but is that due to them being that much better or is it due to "Yeah, OSU got killed by UF and LSU a few years ago so the SEC is still that far ahead?" I tend to think it's more of the latter. I want to see those teams line up and play the Pac 12 top to bottom. I wanted to see it with the Big 12 last year. I don't think perception is reality. Where ISU is right now isn't my point. It's where they are now relative to where they were 15 years ago.
As for explaining the research comparison. The University owns that research. If a student discovers something worth a million bucks, he doesn't get a cut of that. He does, however get to attach his name to it for future opportunities to make money.
This is just ridiculous. Who are you or anyone to say how much money a person keep from a huge pot that THEY generated?
Oh really? I think that's an NCAA violation.
It isn't a big deal.
Here's my theory...I see the pressure for this student athlete stipend coming from two places:
1) A certain set of schools that have big AD income and want to break away into an "elite" league. Their spending on facilities and infrastructure has reached a point where there is no increase in competitive advantage for spending more on those things, and they are looking at other areas where they can spend to give them an advantage. They know full well that if stipends for the athletes are implemented, they will have to be implemented across all sports to be compliant with equality laws (lawsuits will force this). This will necessitate a split in FBS, as most of the teams in the lesser conferences (and perhaps a few in the major conferences) will not be able to afford this. The competition for the best athletes will be reduced because the number of schools who can pay for their services will be smaller.
2) Entitlement-minded social activists who don't understand the costs associated with a college education and what an enormous benefit it is to receive a full ride tuition/room/board/books scholarship. Or they do understand, and just want more.
It's a match made in Hell...
Last edited:
Care to elaborate... because you are walking a fine line in context of recruiting violations.
One thing to add some context to this discussion. How many student-athletes does ISU have? It appears appx 500. We are discussing an additional $2,000 per athlete, which equates to an appx total of $1M per year on a $60.6M current budget. This would be a 2% impact on the budget.
Would we see a greater return from this "investment" or from some other investment? Again, I can see both sides of the conversation.
Would we see a greater return from this "investment" or from some other investment? Again, I can see both sides of the conversation.
My understanding is that ANY booster talking to ANY unsigned recruit about a specific school is a violation. So please enlighten me if I'm wrong or if what you're doing somehow doesn't fall into this category?
