Oklahoman: OU LB Mike Reed's Paternal Priorities

[SoonerShark]

http://newsok.com/article/3184300/1198385840?pg=1

OU's Reed has dreams of playing in the NFL and being a good father
By Berry Tramel
The Oklahoman
NORMAN — Monrina Reed walked into St. Thomas More Catholic Church a few months back. She needed help with her rent.

She and her husband have two small children. Monrina had been sick, unable to work, and even then who would take care of the kids? Her husband's check brings in $616 a month. Their rent and electric bill averaged $630 a month.


You do the math.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul was willing to help. The volunteer organization is the world's most distinguished friend of the poor, helping the needy since 1833.

But a de Paul member first checked with the OU athletic department and was asked to refrain from helping. Aiding Monrina Reed with her rent was a possible violation of NCAA rules.

Monrina's husband is Mike Reed, a Sooner linebacker.

This is the shadowy underside of big-time college football. The sport of multimillion-dollar coaching contracts and multimillion-dollar bowl payouts and multimillion-dollar television deals, is built upon the backs of people like Mike Reed, who borrows soap from neighbors to take a shower and speed-trains 23-month-old daughter Makhya on the potty because he can't afford the Pampers and who slept on the floor of their west Norman apartment until his parents came from Florida in September and scrounged enough money to buy some second-hand furniture.

But Mike Reed's life is not a story of darkness. It is a story of light.

Mike Reed is in Oklahoma chasing two dreams. The football, you know about it. He wants to play on Sundays. Wants to be an NFL linebacker.

The other dream is less glamorous but richer in spirit. Mike Reed wants to be a father to his children and a husband to his wife.

In a sport filled with players, including Mike Reed himself not so long ago, who have children living hundreds of miles away, Reed has decided he will be absent no more.

So with a ready smile and a cheery heart, he lives in virtual poverty with Monrina and Makhya and 3-year-old Mike Jr.

"It's hard for me to live without 'em,” Reed said. "I need to see they're OK. I don't need to hear it over the phone.

"If we're going to struggle, we're going to struggle together.”

Mike Reed makes us ask: Who's the real all-American?

• • •

Eddie and Willie Mae Reed raised their grandson. He calls them his parents. They raised him to be God-fearing. Raised him to be a family man.

Mike Reed hasn't always listened. While in a California junior college, Reed was arrested for possession of stolen property and spent 30 days in jail. Monrina was back in Florida with Mike Jr.

But good raising usually takes. It took to Mike Reed.

Reed transferred to a different school, stayed out of trouble and became one of the nation's top recruits. He signed with OU because of defensive coordinator Brent Venables and the Sooner linebacking tradition.

And last spring, after spending a semester alone at OU, Reed heeded the words of Willie Mae.

"I raised him that you've got your children and you love the mom,” Willie Mae Reed said.

"They were talking about shacking up. Marriage is honorable. You be married, and God will bless you.”

So in May, Mike and Monrina married, and he brought his family to Oklahoma.

Venables wasn't thrilled when he found out. Venables knew what such a load could mean, but what kind of system encourages a man to be apart from his family?

"He's a terrific person,” Venables said. "The way he has handled himself, you have so much respect for him.

"The biggest issue for him, he's been overwhelmed. A lot on his mind. Slowed his transition here. He came with a lot on his plate.”

You'd be overwhelmed, too, if your wife was pregnant and had an appendectomy and there was no money to feed your kids.

Reed was supposed to be the next Torrance Marshall, the next Lance Mitchell. Both linebackers came to OU from junior college, became stars and went on to the NFL.

Reed was more highly touted than either. Some rated him the No. 2 juco player in America last year. Most wrote him in as the starting middle 'backer as soon as he hit campus last January.

Reed is a monster physically; 6-foot-2, 260 pounds, good speed. Delivers vicious hits.

But Reed didn't pick up the defensive calls so quickly. And middle linebacker Curtis Lofton exploded into the 2007 Big 12 defensive player of the year.

Monrina was sick all summer and eventually hospitalized, so Reed missed workouts, taking care of his children. Monrina had surgery in October. It all became too much for Reed to carry.

"She was going through hell,” Reed said of Monrina. "I had to stay home with them.”

OU dropped Reed's class load from 15 hours to six, making him ineligible to practice or play. He hadn't been playing anyway.

"I've talked to Coach V about that,” Reed said. "I'm sure he felt he's not comfortable with me in there. In meetings, he asked me questions, and I had to think too long. You have to be sharper than I was.”

Reed is not a knucklehead. If he was, he'd have been long gone. Coaches have little patience for a guy who can't make it to summer workouts, much less practice. They would have run off Reed if they didn't believe he was a good person.

Reed will be back to full-time academic status in January. He plans to go through spring practice and crack the lineup next autumn, though middle linebacker seems safely taken unless Lofton turns pro.

"I just hope he gets a chance to play football, see what he's got,” said Eddie Reed, Mike's grandfather. "Play in one of those big games at Oklahoma. He's trying to fulfill his dream.”

But how will 2008 be any easier than 2007?

• • •

OU asked the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to hold off on helping the Reeds while it explored other avenues.

It would not have been an NCAA violation for the church to help the Reeds. Former NCAA investigator Brent Clark, now a Norman lawyer, cited Section 16.11.2 of the NCAA manual, which addresses non-permissible extra benefits.

The rule prohibits extra benefits from school employees or representatives of schools' athletic interests. Neither describes the de Paul society, which began helping people before Amos Alonzo Stagg was born, much less Mike Reed.

OU said no because most schools live in fear of violating NCAA rules; the answer is no before the question is asked. The Sooners, particularly, are gun-shy, because of recent sanctions after Rhett Bomar and J.D. Quinn were paid by Big Red Sports & Imports for work they did not do.

Last August, Houston high school player Herman Mitchell, who had committed to OU, was murdered. A Sooner fan in Houston began raising funds to help with funeral expenses, but the NCAA warned OU that could be a rules violation. OU asked for a waiver and was allowed to administer a fund that could provide the family up to $10,000.

OU compliance director Jason Leonard said the school would have asked the NCAA for a waiver to help Reed, had other options not materialized.

The department steered Reed toward a little relief. Federal grants provide him $4,300 a year, plus a $500 clothing allowance out of a student-athlete special assistance fund. OU also had Reed apply for food stamps.

There's the $616 monthly scholarship check. His grandparents pay his car insurance and telephone bill and send $60 every two weeks to help out.

"I don't look for too much more help than I'm getting,” Reed said. "They're my responsibility. They're my kids. I love 'em to death. And my parents do it because they love us.

"I don't get down on the system. We're going to be all right regardless.”

Eddie and Willie Mae Reed are not affluent people. Eddie, 61, drives a truck for the city of Vero Beach, Fla. Willie Mae, 59, is disabled.

"We promised him if he would do the right thing, get his education, we'll go all the way, even if we have to borrow money,” Willie Mae said.

Reed says he's 24 hours shy of his sociology degree and hopes to graduate next December.

OU could apply for an extra year of eligibility for Reed; if granted, he says he would start working on a master's degree.

"I hope they continue to weather the storm they're going through financially,” said Willie Mae. "He keeps a positive attitude. He's never negative. I just love that so much.

"He told me, as long as he can get his education, take care of his wife and children, me and his granddaddy, that's the most important thing. That makes me feel good.”

• • •

Mike and Monrina were high school sweethearts in Vero Beach.

Monrina was raised by her father; her mother was a junkie and now is in prison.

Mike Reed never knew his father. His mother wasn't around much; he went to live with his grandparents in second grade.

"When I was a little boy, I always wanted my dad in my life,” Reed said. "I didn't know he didn't want to see me. I figured that out, it hurt me.

"With my kids, I never want them to feel I'm neglecting them.”

The Reeds stay broke. They borrow a little money here or there. They scrimp. They do without. They endure. Reed could obtain permission to work while on scholarship, but lack of time already has hindered his football hopes, with school and weight-room workouts and taking care of two little kids and a pregnant wife who is better but still not well.

There are no easy answers for Mike Reed.

"We made some decisions that we have to accept responsibility for,” Reed said.

"I don't ever think about sendin' 'em back. I've been without 'em too much. I wanted us to be together.”

He still holds that football dream. Monrina said her husband won't be disappointed if his football career falls flat, but you don't really believe her.

He talks about all the obstacles. Not making his ACT scores out of high school. The trouble in California. His family being sick. Being in Oklahoma a full year without even getting to play.

"I just want to go out there and have a super season,” Reed said. "Have a great year on the field.”

Monrina doesn't dream so much. In this sparse apartment 1,500 miles from home, with little to her name and no prospects for quick relief, she says she has what she wants.

"I have us,” said Monrina Reed. "My kids being with their father every day. This is what makes me happy. We don't have much, but we have us.”

[TripleOption14]

With that size I still think they should try him at DE. If he can't pick up the D calls at LB just line him up and say "go get the QB." I don't think he's a Will or Sam which hurts his cause.

[SoonerShark]

It is understandable why Mr. Reed would be distracted. I hope that he can have a well compensated career after he leaves here. But today and forever, his children are a much more important priority than OU football in the whole scheme of things, but I hope football can enable financial stability for his family.

The fact that we would need to be be fearful of charitable organization's actions when they are unaffiliated with the University is absurd. If a person or their family is hungry or cold or sick or unclothed or spiritually weary, you would have to be horrible person to not help the needy if you have the ability.

[boomersooner28]

And another reason why the NCAA sucks ***.


Good luck to you Mike Reed, we are pulling for you!

[SoonerShark]

Didn't Switzer's book reveal that the actual violations he admitted to were not about football players, but when he ran into track athletes on campus who could not afford to go home when everyone else was gone from campus for the holidays and he paid for them to be able to go home? I realize that the NCAA cannot readily differentiate between benefits unfairly given, but I could never stand by and not help someone in need like that. Sadly, I realize that if I help Mr. Reed that OU could face sanctions since I donate to Joe Castigleone's charity as well. Still, if anybody was in my presence and needed something, if I was physically or fiscally able, I would "donate" to them.

[MextheBulldog]

Could not imagine trying to play D-1 ball, going to school and raising a family at the same time. Props to Mr. Reed for trying to make it all work.

[PLaw]

Boz had it right - National Communist Against Athletes. On the one hand, the NCAA allows a school to go over all over the country or world to recruit kids. On the other hand, when those kids have legitimate needs, the school, alumni, and community are prevented from meeting the most basic needs. It's particularily sad when a kid like Mike Reed gets caught in that trap. The NCAA should be ashamed.

BOOMER

[XFollower]

His character just grew 10 fold in my eyes. Stay diligent Mike Reed and put your family first, and you will succeed, with or without football. If you will though, become a beast and knock some heads around next year.

[Leroy Lizard]

It would not have been an NCAA violation for the church to help the Reeds.

OU is just being extra careful. The NCAA does allow players to receive help from charities.

I have few problems with NCAA rules. My problem with the NCAA is that it punishes teams from certain conferences more severely than others.

[bringit]

It's a shame he got caught up into so much "life" before he got his education and playing time. Finish school and get a decent job, but I don't see NFL in his future at all.

[Desert Sapper]

Best of luck to Mike and his family. I hope he is able to draw a fat NFL paycheck in the future. He has his priorities straight, at least. **** the NC double *******s. Hard. Wherever they keep their giant fat pocketbooks. Those executives make serious bank off of these kids, then rule 'unfair advantages' to such an extent that schools are afraid to let kids accept help from unbiased charities. Talk about a ****ed up agenda. Maintaining amateurism is one thing (although I strongly question their ability to do even that). Taking food out of the mouths of children is another thing altogether.

I hope Mike and Monrina can be strong enough to weather this. Their kids will benefit from such an example. God Bless them all.

[Leroy Lizard]

Mike's family is not the NCAA's responsibility. If Mike wants to quit school and get a job, he is free to do so. If he wants to attend school in anticipation of getting a better job, the NCAA will provide a scholarship for him to do so.

Mike is lucky: He is able to have someone else pay for his schooling. It is hypocritical to turn around and suggest that the NCAA is hurting Mike and his family. Not true.

[sooner59]

Man whatever.

[Doged]

Mike's family is not the NCAA's responsibility. If Mike wants to quit school and get a job, he is free to do so. If he wants to attend school in anticipation of getting a better job, the NCAA will provide a scholarship for him to do so.

Mike is lucky: He is able to have someone else pay for his schooling. It is hypocritical to turn around and suggest that the NCAA is hurting Mike and his family. Not true.

So you support student athletes... except the ones with families? Or maybe, except the ones with long hair? While we're making exceptions, let's support all the student athletes except the ones that sign to play football for Notre Dame! Yea!

You're dead wrong. Mike shouldn't have to choose between school and family simply because he's a student athlete. Also, the NCAA doesn't provide the scholarship, the school does. The NCAA is the oversight organization, but that's beside the point.

The NCAA is hurting Mike and is family, though not directly, just like the NCAA hurt Herman Mitchell's (sp?) family. There are reasons for the rules to be the way they are, but that doesn't make them good rules. Would the fat cats at the NCAA change things so that the rules are effective, yet hurt no one if they could? I'd like to think so, but that's just an "if they could". They can't, and in the meantime saying their rules aren't hurting Mike Reed and his family is just hypocritical and not true.

[sooner59]

Well said.

[Leroy Lizard]

So you support student athletes... except the ones with families? Or maybe, except the ones with long hair? While we're making exceptions, let's support all the student athletes except the ones that sign to play football for Notre Dame! Yea!

If you are referring to my playoff arguments, I am far more consistent than my opponents. Mike is enduring a tremendous ordeal in order to obtain an education. I respect that. I want to create a system that allows him the most reasonable chance of earning his degree, because that is what will allow him to escape his current situation. If anything, I want to scale down college football so that athletes can focus on their studies.

The real hypocrites are those that display phony sympathy for Mike's plight, then advocate a system that makes it harder for him to succeed academically. They don't sympathize with Mike; they only care about him so that he can play football for their favorite team. (I am not necessarily referring to you, by the way.)


You're dead wrong. Mike shouldn't have to choose between school and family simply because he's a student athlete.

First, I know a lot of people who have had to choose between school and family.

Second, he isn't having to choose between the two -- he is attending school and taking care of his family. The only reason he is able to attend school at all is because of his scholarship. A lot of other people are not given this opportunity, so he should be thankful that he is big and can run fast. Some that are smaller and slower will simply have to do without a college education. (Strange how physical attributes play in to a person's ability to receive an education -- I have never understood that completely.)

So I fail to see how the NCAA is hurting Mike. What are they taking away from Mike that he rightfully deserves? What do you think the rules should be?


Also, the NCAA doesn't provide the scholarship, the school does. The NCAA is the oversight organization, but that's beside the point.

True. Although the NCAA partially funds the scholarships, they are awarded by the school.


Would the fat cats at the NCAA change things so that the rules are effective, yet hurt no one if they could?

What do you want them to do? They already allow charitable organizations to pay for necessary living expenses. What else do you want?

And no, I don't think allowing coaches to give student athletes money on their own whim is a good idea. Switzer did it on occasion, and I fully understand Switzer's decision; I probably would have done the same. But these were violations, nonetheless.

[zeke]

God Bless Mike Reed and his family.

[Big Red Ron]

He seems to be a good guy but I doubt that this is the situation Brent and Bob bargained for when they signed him. No wonder he's not the staff's favorite player.

[MextheBulldog]

Strange how physical attributes play in to a person's ability to receive an education -- I have never understood that completely.


Universities award scholarships for all kinds of characteristics - superior intellect, playing in the band or exceptional singing/dancing/painting. Students, who happen to be athletes, need an education too.

[Leroy Lizard]

Universities award scholarships for all kinds of characteristics - superior intellect, playing in the band or exceptional singing/dancing/painting. Students, who happen to be athletes, need an education too.

These aren't students who happen to be athletes; these are students because they are athletes.

I just find it odd.

[Ton Loc]

These aren't students who happen to be athletes; these are students because they are athletes.

I just find it odd.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't let get him started again!!!!!

[Leroy Lizard]

I have no more interest in pursuing this point than anyone else.

[Collier11]

It's a shame he got caught up into so much "life" before he got his education and playing time. Finish school and get a decent job, but I don't see NFL in his future at all.


Good thing its not up to you :rolleyes:

[Collier11]

These aren't students who happen to be athletes; these are students because they are athletes.

I just find it odd.


You are a real jerk at times, plain and simple and im sorry but it needs to be said. This guy is twice the man that you could ever hope to be and the fact that you cant see how wrong it is that this billion dollar business that he is a part of wont even allow people to help him out is typical for you, but really sad!

I dont even care about the playoff argument, we can argue all day and have 100 people on both of our sides of the argument, but you are dead wrong about this topic. I dont have the time to quote every one of your stupid posts in this thread but just once it would be nice for you to realize how off base you really can be!

The only consistency you show is within your inconsistency on everything you say, I cant imagine what your students must put up with but I can only imagine that it is pretty consistent with something resembling a load of crap!

Lastly, you dont know sh*t about sympathy and I am sure that you cant even define empathy or anything that might relate to that, your holier than thou propaganda that you spew on here is nauseating to say the least!

[Leroy Lizard]

You are a real jerk at times, plain and simple and im sorry but it needs to be said. This guy is twice the man that you could ever hope to be and the fact that you cant see how wrong it is that this billion dollar business that he is a part of wont even allow people to help him out is typical for you, but really sad!

What part of "the NCAA allows charities to help needy student athletes" do you not understand?


I dont even care about the playoff argument,

Neither do I, but I didn't bring it up.


we can argue all day and have 100 people on both of our sides of the argument, but you are dead wrong about this topic. I dont have the time to quote every one of your stupid posts in this thread but just once it would be nice for you to realize how off base you really can be!

Okay, show me where I am wrong.

I stated that Mike Reed is getting an education because of his athletic scholarship. Hmmm... looks right to me. If you think otherwise, just say so.

I stated that Mike Reed is lucky for being able to obtain an education. That is a matter of opinion, but hardly a wild one.

I stated that the NCAA is not to blame for Mike Reed's situation. I think that is well-justified. The NCAA did not make MIke Reed poor, and they aren't responsible for taking care of his family.

Show me where I am incorrect.


Lastly, you dont know sh*t about sympathy

Actually, I am one of the few in there that has stood up for the players' ability to focus and study for final exams so that they can go on and succeed academically, despite the entertainment I am sure the athletes would provide me.

I would be perfectly okay with there being no bowl games at all if it helped the student athletes do better on their tests. Can you say the same? (**** no.)

No, you are the phony. You don't care about Mike Reed or his family. All you want is more FOOTBALL!!! If Mike Reed was not a football player and was just another struggling college student, do you think you would be concerned over his plight? Hell no, and you know it!

So cut the phony bull****.

[Collier11]

What part of "the NCAA allows charities to help needy student athletes" do you not understand?



Neither do I, but I didn't bring it up.



Okay, show me where I am wrong.

I stated that Mike Reed is getting an education because of his athletic scholarship. Hmmm... looks right to me. If you think otherwise, just say so.

I stated that Mike Reed is lucky for being able to obtain an education. That is a matter of opinion, but hardly a wild one.

I stated that the NCAA is not to blame for Mike Reed's situation. I think that is well-justified. The NCAA did not make MIke Reed poor, and they aren't responsible for taking care of his family.

Show me where I am incorrect.

no the ncaa didnt make him poor and no they didnt cause him to have 2 children before graduating, that was life which probably doesnt come too hard for you and that is why you are so far off point on most topics you discuss on here, the point is that the ncaa and their stupid *** rules are hurting this particular player and many others like him because he is an athlete, if he were a regular student and myself as a sympathetic Ou grad wanted to help him, I could.

You could argue that I wouldnt have even known about him without him being an athlete but that doesnt change the fact that if I was a little more well off I would be more than willing to give him my next check athlete or not because I care about other people!

And despite your stance that I couldnt go on without sports and that sports are all that are important in my life, I have a few things that are a whole lot more important in my life that I couldnt live without, and sports is way down on that list unlike your need to prove to yourself that you are smarter than anyone on here and that academics are going down the toilet due to athletics!


Actually, I am one of the few in there that has stood up for the players' ability to focus and study for final exams so that they can go on and succeed academically, despite the entertainment I am sure the athletes would provide me.

I would be perfectly okay with there being no bowl games at all if it helped the student athletes do better on their tests. Can you say the same? (**** no.)

No, you are the phony. You don't care about Mike Reed or his family. All you want is more FOOTBALL!!! If Mike Reed was not a football player and was just another struggling college student, do you think you would be concerned over his plight? Hell no, and you know it!

So cut the phony bull****.


how can you say you didnt bring the playoff up if it is the basis for most of your entire idiotic post?!

[SoonerShark]

And no, I don't think allowing coaches to give student athletes money on their own whim is a good idea. Switzer did it on occasion, and I fully understand Switzer's decision; I probably would have done the same. But these were violations, nonetheless.


Exactly. Always err on the side of humanity.

[Leroy Lizard]

how can you say you didnt bring the playoff up

The following was in reference to my anti-playof stance. (Or, that is the way I took it.)


So you support student athletes... except the ones with families?

Does it really matter? It isn't like the pro-playoff people are quiet. They bitch about the BCS in just about every thread in this forum.

[Collier11]

Exactly. Always err on the side of humanity.


God forbid we did that as a society, maybe that would take care of a lot of our problems...but thats a topic for a whole other thread!

[stoopified]

Can the NCAA do anything about anonymous cash donations sent through the mail ?

[Collier11]

Can the NCAA do anything about anonymous cash donations sent through the mail ?

until they are no longer anonymous and then OU gets in a much larger world of trouble :(

[Leroy Lizard]

If the IRS can't, I doubt the NCAA can either. :)

[sooneron]

These aren't students who happen to be athletes; these are students because they are athletes.

I just find it odd.
There is a lot in this statement that I find very telling about you.

[Leroy Lizard]

Okay, and...?

[A Sooner in Texas]

So did you two ever figure out whose is bigger?









:D


It was a great thread when it was about Reed and his doing the right thing by his family. Then it just turned into "Real World: Soonerfans.com."

[sooneron]

A bit of a superiority complex there. Seriously, dude. Don't walk away mad, just walk away. Your posts in this thread have been hilarious. First, you bring up the whole play off thing, then you try to call someone out for bringing it up. Greatness. Who's troll are you b/c you are almost as golden as Jenni.

[Desert Sapper]

How on earth did we go from talking about Mike Reed and his ****ed up situation to playoff/no-playoff? Haven't we hit that one ad nauseum?

I'd rather discuss how the NCAA and their constant hounding of potentially 'unfair advantages' has led to a potentially unfair advantage facing a student-athlete. Namely, that coaches are afraid to allow him to accept help from a charitable organization that does not base its help on his status as a student-athlete. This article is very telling of the culture that the NCAA is engendering amongst those it is meant to protect. I find it very disturbing.

[Collier11]

So did you two ever figure out whose is bigger?









:D


It was a great thread when it was about Reed and his doing the right thing by his family. Then it just turned into "Real World: Soonerfans.com."


I agree, the whole point of the thread has been lost. Good luck to MR and his family, I am pulling for the guy in a big way!!!

[Leroy Lizard]

How on earth did we go from talking about Mike Reed and his ****ed up situation to playoff/no-playoff? Haven't we hit that one ad nauseum?

That one is easy. Any time I post in a thread, someone is sure to mention something snide about my stance on the playoffs in response. And there it goes.

Also, this thread isn't so much about playoffs, but rather how heartless and cruel I am for not blaming the NCAA for Reed's problems. I simply pointed out that at least *I*care about Reed's ability to get his degree in a timely manner, unlike playoff... oh, crap... let's not start that again.


I'd rather discuss how the NCAA and their constant hounding of potentially 'unfair advantages' has led to a potentially unfair advantage facing a student-athlete.

My view is that the NCAA is not guilty so much of hounding potentially unfair advantages, but that they apply their focus unequally on certain schools. Rules are rules and the NCAA has to enforce them. What else are they expected to do?

It's like the police. Speed, and you get a ticket. That's the way it ought to be. But the NCAA has set up speed traps in certain communities and doesn't even patrol others. And the fine for speeding seems to be harsher in some areas than others.


A bit of a superiority complex there.

Well, it's better than an inferiority complex, I suppose. Whatever.


Seriously, dude. Don't walk away mad, just walk away.

Don't post any more responses in this thread and you will at least be heeding your own advice. That goes for everyone else too. We'll see which side can hold out the longest.

[sooneron]

Well, it's better than an inferiority complex, I suppose. Whatever.
Not really, it's another sign of a person that NEEDS to feel better about themselves when they have little to feel good about, so they look down upon others. Pretty pathetic either way.


Don't post any more responses in this thread and you will at least be heeding your own advice. That goes for everyone else too. We'll see which side can hold out the longest.

Oh, so it's up to you to tell me when to leave Mr. 600 something posts? I'm not the one coming out with dooshbaggerous posts about OU players.

Someone ( mods), please rid us of this pox.

[Leroy Lizard]

Dude, are you mad? If so, you're supposed to just walk away from it. Remember?

:P

[KingDavid]

Good luck to Mike. And great article. I was wondering what happened to him this year and why they didn't give him a crack at DE when we got so thinned out there this year. That article answered my questions.

I really hope this story has a great ending for Mike and that he logs so minutes next year. It would be awesome if we could get him an extra year of eligibility. Dude has earned it.

And somebody kick this other heartless basturd, off the board, please.

[Leroy Lizard]

Hoo boy. Now that sooneron has walked away to defuse his anger, in comes mburton to keep the thread going. Nice work.

For the record, Mike Reed is a great guy I am sure. I applaud his efforts to keep his family together and to obtain his education. Nothing I have said indicates otherwise.

Mike needs to stay on track to finish his degree. THAT is his best route for ensuring success for himself and his family. The school, the NCAA, and the fans need to support him in his quest for a college education. For Mike (and most players on the team), academics is more important than sports. If he never plays another down of football, it will be worth it if he can get his degree and become a success. Anyone that disagrees has misplaced his priorities.

I suppose that makes me heartless. Well, then heartless I am.

[insuranceman_22]

Guys this scenario is pretty typical for most college's I'd think. If you take football, baseball (softball) and basketball at most universities, there is at least one person, on one team that's got a family and they are struggling to get by. I really hate to say this, but Lizard makes a point, it's not OU's fault that Reed is in the situation he's in, nor is it the NCAA'a. My nerves get struck with the way it's stated, Lizard, you about a subtle as a chainsaw and that's tough when it's a situation like Reed is in. He's part of OUr favorite team and we want him to do well in all aspects of life, not just football. I went to an NAIA in Oklahoma and had two guys on our baseball team that were married with kids. One made it pretty well (family helped a lot), the other lasted one season and had to quit the team to work full time. His family couldn't support him. We had three guys make to professional baseball (none to the majors), most of us knew we weren't ever going to make it, but it was about living a dream. We got to extend our playing days for 4 yrs beyond what most people do. We made to the World Series. Quite honestly most of us didn't care to much about school at that point, we were there to play ball.

The article was exceptional. It puts another light on the hardships people face, not a war or anything, but a family trying to make. Man that's got to tug at your heart somewhere. I wish them the best, hope he can hang on and get the degree....but I also hope he gets his shot next year.

[Vaevictis]

Mike's family is not the NCAA's responsibility.

No, it's not, but it shouldn't be putting up obstacles for him to support his family, either.


If Mike wants to quit school and get a job, he is free to do so. If he wants to attend school in anticipation of getting a better job, the NCAA will provide a scholarship for him to do so.

I think you mean that OU will.


Mike is lucky: He is able to have someone else pay for his schooling. It is hypocritical to turn around and suggest that the NCAA is hurting Mike and his family. Not true.

The NCAA pretends that its major sport athletes aren't professionals. That's a load of horse ****. They train, they practice, they play just like professionals. The fact that they are compensated mostly in the form of tuition and fees doesn't change this fact.

The fiction that these athletes are amateurs is adamantly maintained by the NCAA because it keeps money flowing into the coffers of the NCAA and its member universities.

Mike is not "lucky." He has a talent/skill that is in demand. He is a professional football player, irrespective of the fiction that he is not. This is no different than a kid on any other kind of scholarship, or someone who earns enough money in their part time job to pay for school. Well, except for the rules that prevent him from earning extra money off of his persona and reputation on the side, which anyone else would be able to do, which are in place exclusively to maintain the "amateur athlete" fantasy.

(Which, again, exist to keep money flowing into the NCAA and member university's coffers. The 85 scholarship limit is basically just a salary cap like you'd see in any pro league.)

[Collier11]

Anyone that disagrees has misplaced his priorities.

I suppose that makes me heartless. Well, then heartless I am.


You never stop amazing me, I really thought with this post that you were for once going to say something rationally, something that really was well represented and well said, and then you turn it right around and make it about yourself again!!! Sad, Sad you really are!

[Collier11]

For what its worth, Mike Reed and people like him are what makes us 'Oklahoma', the fact that he plays football just makes it that much more impressive how he has handled his responsibilities. I think I have a new player that can be in the honorary 'underdog' fan club that myself and my friends have unofficially kept up with for a while, he joins Matt mccoy, brandon shelby, and brodney pool(we just liked the guy even though he doesnt exactly fit the billing) as the 4th member! :)

[Leroy Lizard]

My nerves get struck with the way it's stated, Lizard, you about a subtle as a chainsaw and that's tough when it's a situation like Reed is in.

The problem is the way some people in here read my posts. Any sentence can be interpreted in many ways depending on your preconceived notion of the writer. Since I'm not the most popular person in here, most interpret any statement I make in the negative.

We all know that Reed is having a tough time of it. We all feel bad for him. I simply don't think the NCAA is to blame, that's all.


No, it's not, but it shouldn't be putting up obstacles for him to support his family, either.

One of the obstacles he faces is the time he spends away from his studies to prepare for football games. I am one of the few in here that thinks he should have to spend less time on football and more time on academics. That is why I want to see the emphasis on sports scaled back, so that Mike can do better academically.

Not playing freshmen, reducing the number of regular season games, reducing practice time, not practicing for bowl games until a week before the game... those are the things I would like to see happen. Not gonna' happen, though.

[Leroy Lizard]

The NCAA pretends that its major sport athletes aren't professionals. That's a load of horse ****. They train, they practice, they play just like professionals. The fact that they are compensated mostly in the form of tuition and fees doesn't change this fact.

Okay, so let's have them train less, practice less, and play fewer games. I'm all for it. (Actually, there are FAR more restrictions on practice time in college football than in pro football. The two are really not that similar. And why would college football restrict practice time at all if it was really a professional sports organization?)

By the way, How many days in the year can a college football player be required to practice? How does that compare to an NFL player?


Mike is not "lucky." He has a talent/skill that is in demand. He is a professional football player, irrespective of the fiction that he is not.


This is no different than a kid on any other kind of scholarship, or someone who earns enough money in their part time job to pay for school. Well, except for the rules that prevent him from earning extra money off of his persona and reputation on the side, which anyone else would be able to do, which are in place exclusively to maintain the "amateur athlete" fantasy.

We don't want these athletes to make money on the side based on their reputation. That would completely destroy college football.

The rules are in place for good reasons.


(Which, again, exist to keep money flowing into the NCAA and member university's coffers. The 85 scholarship limit is basically just a salary cap like you'd see in any pro league.)

Actually, the 85-limit rule is basically just like the cap they have on the number of players on any pro team. The ban on fringe benefits is more like the pro salary cap and serves the same purpose -- to keep things fair.

[Leroy Lizard]

You never stop amazing me, I really thought with this post that you were for once going to say something rationally, something that really was well represented and well said, and then you turn it right around and make it about yourself again!!! Sad, Sad you really are!

Hoo boy! :rolleyes:

[Crucifax Autumn]

Wow...I choose to not post here!

Oops...Too late!

How about if I just go back to the REAL topic at hand and say I totally respect Mike and all his struggles and really wish NCAA rules could be ammended in some way to allow for legitimate charities to help out where they can. This whole story makes me wonder what the hell is going on with those 23 married BYU players they were rambling about in the game the other night, most of who have kids and all that. I realize a large number of families in Utah are well off, but I'm sure it's not all of them, particularly the scholarship players from the more rural parts of the state. How do they make it? Does the LDS church help them out? If so, how's that different from a church charity other than that in this case it's even more of a problem in my eyes since BYU is a Mormon institution?

I feel like this is a pretty important rule to review and sort out. Switzer got busted for helping a kid go to a family member's funeral right? Seems like that was one of the violations if my old memory isn't failing me. That was just wrong if you ask me.

And Leroy...the only reason you get a pass on this one as far as the spek goes is that you've been decent to me most times, so I'm not gonna give you red. Besides...I've probably negged someone on this board a total of 4 times and all of those were pure trolls rolling through for one game week.

[Leroy Lizard]

Maybe the NCAA can institute some sort of trust fund for players. As long as the amounts were reasonable and were only given out in needy cases, that would be a good solution.

No one wants to see the players destitute. The problem is that too many coaches will turn the trust fund into a slush fund. So how it is regulated is pretty important.

Or the school can pay for the player's housing since they are not living in the dorms. As long as the rent equaled the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment, I don't see a big problem here. Just make sure all checks are made out to the landlord, not the player.

[Crucifax Autumn]

That's the most reasonable thing you've said in this thread. Let's help out these guys that wouldn't be getting an education without their sports talent.

[Leroy Lizard]

It isn't like anyone else was offering any ideas, just bitching about the NCAA.

I suggest we try it. We could call it the Barry Switzer Rule.

Nice try with the last sentence, btw. Nope, not gonna' bite.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Didn't expect you would...

But we definitely need some rule changes to allow a bit more for special circumstances.

[Leroy Lizard]

mumble, mumble, mumble... PLAYOFFS (oh ho! I think I woke sooneron up with that one!)

Okay, okay, okay, I'll try to be more serious next time.

[Collier11]

Maybe the NCAA can institute some sort of trust fund for players. As long as the amounts were reasonable and were only given out in needy cases, that would be a good solution.




I cant believe it, LL had a good post that made sense and showed some heart...there may be hope for you yet, you do have a heart! :eek: ;)

[sooneron]

mumble, mumble, mumble... PLAYOFFS (oh ho! I think I woke sooneron up with that one!)

Okay, okay, okay, I'll try to be more serious next time.
For the record, I am against almost all playoff scenarios. Your reading comprehension sucks really bad for an instructor at the collegiate level (or so we have been told). I have no idea why you thought that would stir me up. I merely pointed out earlier that you brought it up first in this thread only to accuse another poster of mentioning it. Once again, sucky reading comprehension. :rolleyes:

Oh, and you are probably the least popular poster on here. I would venture to guess EASILY the least popular "OU fan". I wonder why you chose Leroy Lizard as your name, I guess it's because Condescending Sooner was taken. Since you are so unpopular, why do you stick around here, anyway?

[Collier11]

Since you are so unpopular, why do you stick around here, anyway?


my question would be, why register for a SPORTS MESSAGE BOARD if you seem to be against almost all things sports. And for the record, I am not talking about a playoff, I am talking about how your frustration with sports vs. academics leads you to argue against almost all things pro-sports!?

[Leroy Lizard]

I have no idea why you thought that would stir me up.

Sooneron, I just pulled your name out of the air. It was more of a "Don't get started on playoffs again!" reference rather than a "Sooneron is a playoff proponent!" reference.

Sheesh, some of you are sure grouchy for it being so close to Christmas. :mad:

[Leroy Lizard]

my question would be, why register for a SPORTS MESSAGE BOARD if you seem to be against almost all things sports.

I like sports. AMATEUR sports. I want to keep them amateur sports. Yes, college football is becoming a mini-NFL, but I don't want to be a part of the problem. And most of all, I want to ensure that academics is given priority over athletics. After all, it is the UNIVERSITY of Oklahoma.


I cant believe it, LL had a good post that made sense and showed some heart...there may be hope for you yet, you do have a heart!

Nothing I have said in here suggests otherwise.

[Collier11]

I like sports. AMATEUR sports. I want to keep them amateur sports. Yes, college football is becoming a mini-NFL, but I don't want to be a part of the problem. And most of all, I want to ensure that academics is given priority over athletics. After all, it is the UNIVERSITY of Oklahoma.



If you are so for academics then you of all people should welcome college athletics, especially big time athletics such as Football and basketball. These sports bring in huge amounts of money to the school that you claim to teach at, they give thousands of kids a year the oppurtunity to go to college when they may not have been able to otherwise(money or the ability to be guided very closely through a degree and having access to excpetional tutors etc...), they provide a sense of direction, character, hard work, and scholarship to many who come from neighborhoods where kids arent taught moral, educational, or ethical values, they provide a distraction to many problem children and a way to get off the street, and they give these same kids good or bad many people to look up to, people who can offer them structure academically and in their lives, and they afford them mentors which helps keep them off the street.

Of course there are problems with the system, but there are problems with every system. Who knows how many people sit in prison today that were wrongly convicted?

Or how about all the people who are in prison because they had no structure or guidance, if they had athletics and leadership they may have been able to correct their lives. I can say with complete confidence that athletics, especially big time athletics does way more good than bad!

For every michael vick, there are 100 Roy williams's and josh heupels who give countless hours and dollars to charity and churches and most of what they are able to give is due to athletics and the character and values that they were taught through athletics and family.

[Vaevictis]

(...) And why would college football restrict practice time at all if it was really a professional sports organization?

To protect the useful fiction that these are amateurs.


By the way, How many days in the year can a college football player be required to practice? How does that compare to an NFL player?

Not relevant. These guys are required to practice. They are required to play. They are required to train, and often eat how they're told to eat.

They're compensated with a stipend, room, board and a scholarship. So they practice less. Big deal. They also get paid less. It's like a part time job v. a full time job.


The rules are in place for good reasons.

The rules were in place for good reasons. Back when, you know, college athletes were actually amateurs.

That hasn't been the case for decades, not in the "major" sports anyway.


Actually, the 85-limit rule is basically just like the cap they have on the number of players on any pro team. The ban on fringe benefits is more like the pro salary cap and serves the same purpose -- to keep things fair.

All are the same thing. The 85 limit rule, the limit on number of players, salary cap, "amateur athletes", etc, are all designed to limit the concentration of talent and control expenses.

NCAA Division I football is a professional league. The NCAA and its member universities wish to pretend it isn't to protect their cash cow. It wouldn't make nearly as much money if they had to pay players their market value.

[Leroy Lizard]

If you are so for academics then you of all people should welcome college athletics, especially big time athletics such as Football and basketball. These sports bring in huge amounts of money to the school that you claim to teach at,

Almost all of that money is spent on athletics. Usually, when a team plays badly a university has no problem dipping into the general education fund to make up lost revenue. (OU did it during the Steve Owens era.) However, when times are good, the money doesn't go the other direction. Sure, you get a lot statues dedicated and you might get some new brickwork for your building, but I can't think of any time that I have directly benefited from sports revenue.

Mind you, it doesn't bother me. But I see no way that I have benefit from a team's success any more than a professor from the University of Arizona. I have a colleague from the University of Arizona, and as far as I can tell he has as much access to the things professors need as I do, and yet his team hasn't done squat in decades.

What disadvantages does a professor from the University of Minnesota have because his Golden Gopher team loses every year? The same goes for the University of Washington.

In fact, I see no correlation between winning in sports and the academic environment of a university. Can you show me one? If anything, it is an inverse relationship, with the weaker sports programs correlated to better academics.

Top-ranked schools
1. Princeton University (NJ)
2. Harvard University (MA)
3. Yale University(CT)
4. Stanford University(CA)
5. University of Pennsylvania
5. California Institute of Technology
7. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
8. Duke University(NC)
9. Columbia University(NY)
9. University of Chicago -- quit football, didn't hurt their ranking
11. Dartmouth College(NH)
12. Washington University in St. Louis
12. Cornell University(NY)
14. Brown University(RI)
14. Northwestern University(IL)
14. Johns Hopkins University(MD)
17. Rice University(TX)
17. Emory University(GA)
19. Vanderbilt University(TN)
19. University of Notre Dame(IN) -- no longer a powerhouse
21. University of California—Berkeley * -- when did they last win a title?
22. Carnegie Mellon University(PA)
23. University of Virginia *
23. Georgetown University(DC)
25. University of California—Los Angeles * -- good basketball program
25. University of Michigan—Ann Arbor * -- a traditional power
27. University of Southern California -- a powerhouse
28. University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill *
28. Tufts University(MA)
30. Wake Forest University(NC)
31. Lehigh University(PA)
31. Brandeis University(MA)
33. College of William and Mary(VA) *
34. New York University
35. University of Rochester(NY)
35. Georgia Institute of Technology *
35. Boston College
38. University of Wisconsin—Madison *
38. University of California—San Diego *
38. University of Illinois—Urbana - Champaign *

So out of 41 schools, three are what we would consider big-time sports powers. Even if you look at only public schools, there is almost no correlation. Sure, the University of Wisconsin fields some decent teams from time to time, but they are hardly a sports powerhouse. And they are tied with the UC San Diego that I don't think even fields Div. 1 sports teams.


they give thousands of kids a year the oppurtunity to go to college when they may not have been able to otherwise(money or the ability to be guided very closely through a degree and having access to excpetional tutors etc...), they provide a sense of direction, character, hard work, and scholarship to many who come from neighborhoods where kids arent taught moral, educational, or ethical values, they provide a distraction to many problem children and a way to get off the street, and they give these same kids good or bad many people to look up to, people who can offer them structure academically and in their lives, and they afford them mentors which helps keep them off the street.

Sounds great. What does any of this have to do with my stance on the amateur status of sports?

If anything, you have proven my point. None of the things you mention require playoffs or any other trappings of big-time sports, which do nothing but to distract players from the ideals you mentioned. If anything, those characteristics you name allude to the need to keep the spirit of the sports geared on amateurism and academics.


Or how about all the people who are in prison because they had no structure or guidance, if they had athletics and leadership they may have been able to correct their lives. I can say with complete confidence that athletics, especially big time athletics does way more good than bad!

Sorry, but the purpose of the University of Oklahoma is not to sweep derelicts off the street. The University is an academic institution, not a juvenile correction program.

Now the University of Texas, on the other hand...

Somewhere along the line, you assumed that I was anti-sports. My position on this is very clear: I am in favor of AMATEUR athletics and the need to keep academics above athletics as a priority.


they give thousands of kids a year the oppurtunity to go to college when they may not have been able to otherwise(money or the ability to be guided very closely through a degree and having access to excpetional tutors etc...)

So why institute any changes in the system that could potentially hurt their chances of succeeding academically?

If you really value these things, then argue for changing the system to ENHANCE the academic experience of our athletes.

[Leroy Lizard]

To protect the useful fiction that these are amateurs.

You're argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any evidence I offer will be just proof that the NCAA is out to fool us. It is like arguing science with a Creationist, where every shred of evidence is proof that God is out to trick us.


These guys are required to practice.

In professional sports, the practice time is bargained by the players and the organization. Amateur athletics places limits on practice time regardless of how much the coaches and players want to practice.

If college football was really professional sports, they would up the practice time as much as they could. However, they limit the practice time more than most coaches want, and not based on what the players want.


They're compensated with a stipend, room, board and a scholarship. So they practice less. Big deal. They also get paid less. It's like a part time job v. a full time job.

I think we simply disagree on what is meant by "professionalism." To me, a professional is one who requires an advanced degree to perform his or her work and whose focus is purely on performance. The very fact that college football players have to go to class is a good indication that they are not professional athletes in any reasonable sense of the word.


The rules were in place for good reasons. Back when, you know, college athletes were actually amateursThat hasn't been the case for decades, not in the "major" sports anyway.

So, let's reel the system back in, rather than make it worse.

I fully realize that college football has become prostituted by money and an overemphasis on winning at the expense of amateurism. On that, we agree. I want to invoke changes that will prevent college football from becoming more and more like the NFL.

The big difference between you and me is that I haven't quite given up on the system. However, if Div. 1A institutes a playoff, I will. At that point, I will be the first in line to say, "Pay the players!"

[sooneron]

Newsflash, Stanford is consiedered one of the better schools for athletics.

Duke gets no mention as a basketball powerhouse? Go figure.

Didn't Rice win the CWS recently?

[Frozen Sooner]

C'mon, Ron, the argument was about revenue-producing sports. What revenue-producing sports is Stanford (other than an occasional basketball team) good at? How much revenue does Baseball bring in for Rice?

[Frozen Sooner]

Oh, and good for Mike Reed for keeping his family together and pursuing his dreams. I hope he makes it on the field and gets an opportunity to shine for the NFL scouts-or at least manages to finish that degree.

[Desert Sapper]

Mike needs to stay on track to finish his degree. THAT is his best route for ensuring success for himself and his family.

I agree with this fully, and hope that Mike continues his efforts to (apparently) earn a Master's Degree before his eligibility is up. As it stands, I think he is looking to graduate next December with a Sociology degree. A Master's Degree in that field (depending on the focus) could prove very lucrative. That would be ideal, whether the NFL comes calling or not. I hope Mike has the head for academics that he will need to succeed at this.


Maybe the NCAA can institute some sort of trust fund for players. As long as the amounts were reasonable and were only given out in needy cases, that would be a good solution.

No one wants to see the players destitute. The problem is that too many coaches will turn the trust fund into a slush fund. So how it is regulated is pretty important.

I like this solution. If such a thing is owned and operated by the NCAA itself, perhaps it could maintain its integrity. The applications would come from the universities on a case by case basis for this support. As long as the criteria remain sufficiently high, the awarding of funds could be conrolled.

[SoonerKnight]

With all that is on his plate. His wife being sick and his children being sick and only $615 a month to survive on is nearly impossible. The NCAA sucks. Why should a school have to let their players and families suffer because of the NCAA. Hopefully he gets the help he needs so he can focus on football. If he wants to play on Sundays then football WILL be as important as his family because it will be a way to take care of his family.

[Vaevictis]

You're argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any evidence I offer will be just proof that the NCAA is out to fool us. It is like arguing science with a Creationist, where every shred of evidence is proof that God is out to trick us.

It's not a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's an observation. Amateurs aren't supposed to get paid for their participation. But scholarship athletes ARE getting paid in the form of room, board, tuition and stipend. There's not a real amateur among them.

The idea that these are amateurs is a fiction. It's a fiction that's maintained because of greed, and one designed to keep as much revenue as possible in the hands of the powers that be. As long as we insist these people are "amateurs", we can prevent them from demanding their fair share.


I think we simply disagree on what is meant by "professionalism." To me, a professional is one who requires an advanced degree to perform his or her work and whose focus is purely on performance. The very fact that college football players have to go to class is a good indication that they are not professional athletes in any reasonable sense of the word.

I think you have a complete misunderstanding as to what it means to be an "amateur" versus a "professional" athlete -- or you're deliberately confusing the issue. Does every NFL player have an advanced degree? No -- but they're still considered "professional" athletes.

A "professional" athlete gets paid to participate. Amateurs don't. That's it. It has nothing to do with education level.


So, let's reel the system back in, rather than make it worse.

The genie is out of the bottle. You can't "unmake" this. Universities make millions of dollars on a football home game, and anywhere there's millions of dollars, there's going to be people looking for a piece of the pie. And as long as there are people getting a piece of the pie, I don't see why it's reasonable to exclude the people who make it all happen.

[Big Red Ron]

Isn't this essentially a wasted Scholarship for OU?

If he doesn't take a full load again next year (remaining ineligible), do we have to continue to pay for his education until his 6 hours per semester get him graduated?

[XingTheRubicon]

Some of you guys need to read the early '70s CFB book "Meat on the Hoof."

Todays players get fed like gladiators, fly to games to pick up their free plasmas at one of the 5 bowl parties, tutors, the best medical care available, oh and yeah, a tuition free education. That's about a quarter mil when it's all said and done.

People like Mike Reed are inspirational because you just know he'll be a success regardless of how football turns out. He's struggling right now. All college age kids with families do. Some run from their responsibility, and some people are Mike Reed.


Oh, and as soon as CFB players get a grand a month stipend beyond room, travel, equipment, endless buffets, books, tutors, etc.....then a 2nd team female soccer player gets a grand a month, too, to buy tight shirts at Abercrombie.

Pass.

[MextheBulldog]

then a 2nd team female soccer player gets a grand a month, too, to buy tight shirts at Abercrombie...

No way dude. It's all about Hollister now. Abercrombie is sooooo 1998.

[XingTheRubicon]

No way dude. It's all about Hollister now. Abercrombie is sooooo 1998.

I'm old.





fyi, A&F owns Hollister and Hollister is already done. Gilly Hicks is next.....(A&F's latest)

[Leroy Lizard]

The idea that these are amateurs is a fiction. It's a fiction that's maintained because of greed, and one designed to keep as much revenue as possible in the hands of the powers that be. As long as we insist these people are "amateurs", we can prevent them from demanding their fair share.

So if we pay them their fair share, are they not already employed? If so, why should they attend classes? At that point, why even associate the players with the university?

And if the university has to pay Sam Bradford $5,000/month, do they not also have to pay the leader of the women's soccer team $5,000/month?

And if Sam Bradford wants $7,000/month, and we are only offering him $5,000/month, can he move to a school that is willing to pay more? If not, then why not just offer him $600/month?

What if Sam Bradford gets injured? Does he get paid for four years? Does he get a settlement?

Will Akron University be able to pay its players as much as USC?

And what will all this do to ticket prices?

[MextheBulldog]

I'm old.

fyi, A&F owns Hollister and Hollister is already done. Gilly Hicks is next.....(A&F's latest)

Gilly Hicks will be an Australian theme men's and women's underwear store.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilly_Hicks

:confused:

FYI, you're ahead of the curve on Gilly Hicks - never heard of 'em

[XingTheRubicon]

Gilly Hicks will be an Australian theme men's and women's underwear store.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilly_Hicks

:confused:

FYI, you're ahead of the curve on Gilly Hicks - never heard of 'em

I was just givin you a hard time. GH is going to debut in Jan '08 in the States with quite a bit more than underwear. It's all for 13 year olds anyway.

[Leroy Lizard]

Hijacked by underwear? Is this a first in SF?

[MextheBulldog]

Same here Xing. Just havin' fun.

G'Day mate - welcome to Gilly Hicks, over here we have the Crocodile Dundee speedos, and over there is the Nicole Kidman bikini collection, and by the back we have the Russell Crowe tighty-whitey vintage line...

Never mind...its clearly time to exit this thread :)

[Vaevictis]

So if we pay them their fair share, are they not already employed? If so, why should they attend classes? At that point, why even associate the players with the university?

In addition to being a benefit, their education is part of their job. Some will come for the education; some will come for the opportunity to further their football careers. Some will come for both.

As far as why associate them with the university, well, the university is doing the sponsoring. It's not like the university doesn't get something from it. Publicity and cash are not bad things.


And if the university has to pay Sam Bradford $5,000/month, do they not also have to pay the leader of the women's soccer team $5,000/month?

Hypothetically, I don't see why you would have to pay the leader of the women's soccer team the same. It wouldn't be sexism that's the root of the disparity. The women's soccer team might bring in a few tens of thousands of dollars on a good day (and likely not even that); the men's football team brings in $4+ million per game in tickets alone, nevermind concessions and associated licensing.

(Yes, I know about Title 9, but since we're talking about a hypothetical here, I'm tossing that out.)


And if Sam Bradford wants $7,000/month, and we are only offering him $5,000/month, can he move to a school that is willing to pay more? If not, then why not just offer him $600/month?

He can move to another school now, if they offer him something better.


What if Sam Bradford gets injured? Does he get paid for four years? Does he get a settlement?

This is what contracts are for. You can negotiate the things, you know.


Will Akron University be able to pay its players as much as USC?

Probably not. It goes with the territory of not generating as much revenue. It's not like Akron University is able to "pay" its players as much as USC now anyway, even when we're talking about just the above board stuff. There's a reason why the best players flock to certain universities, and want little or nothing to do with the Akron Universities of the nation.


And what will all this do to ticket prices?

I doubt it would do much, if anything. I expect that with the exception of student tickets, the universities are already charging what they perceive to be the profit maximizing price.

[Leroy Lizard]

Hypothetically, I don't see why you would have to pay the leader of the women's soccer team the same. It wouldn't be sexism that's the root of the disparity. The women's soccer team might bring in a few tens of thousands of dollars on a good day (and likely not even that); the men's football team brings in $4+ million per game in tickets alone, nevermind concessions and associated licensing.

(Yes, I know about Title 9, but since we're talking about a hypothetical here, I'm tossing that out.)

You are tossing out Title IX because you are dealing with a fantasy.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that the football team can get away with paying its players a lot more than females in other sports. The top-paid athletes on campus will be male football and basketball players, which make up a large percentage of the overall sports population. There is no chance in Hell that the university can get away with it.

Equal pay for female athletes will be the reality. Your arguments are based on a false premise.


[Sam Bradford] can move to another school now, if they offer him something better.

Not quite. The University of Texas cannot offer Sam Bradford anything (even non-monetary items like prestige) without it being an NCAA violation.

So it's all about the highest bidder? UT can come in and offer Sam Bradford more money and just take him from us?

And then naturally we will have to up the ante, creating a bidding war. Maybe OU can hang in there and keep him, but a school like Tulsa has no chance of keeping its athletes. Any player that begins to shine will simply be lured away.

I will be glad I am no longer paying tuition if such becomes the case. You will have college athletes making thousands of dollars/month, all the while college students will have huge increases in their tuition to cover the increased expenses.

The money has to come from somewhere.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Why does it have to be "the highest bidder"? Can't all scholarship athletes or even all athletes in all sports just receive a reasonable amount that is the same for all schools? And can't this be financed by a simple percentage of ALL sports tickets sold? And as for the academic argument, why not have a very simple academic requirement as per GPA to receive said moneys?

In reality I think they probably shouldn't do this, but there is a fair and Title IX friendly way to handle it IMO.

[Desert Sapper]

Why does it have to be "the highest bidder"? Can't all scholarship athletes or even all athletes in all sports just receive a reasonable amount that is the same for all schools? And can't this be financed by a simple percentage of ALL sports tickets sold? And as for the academic argument, why not have a very simple academic requirement as per GPA to receive said moneys?

In reality I think they probably shouldn't do this, but there is a fair and Title IX friendly way to handle it IMO.

This is the only solution that makes even a shred of sense. This bidding war BS is insane.

Student-athletes need to be students first. That is part of what makes intercollegiate athletics so much fun. This isn't all they do. Some of them will go on to be doctors, lawyers, chemists, etc. The select few with the talent and work ethic to get there will play professionally. But these kids are not 'professionals' any more than a para-legal is a professional lawyer. That para-legal may be going to law school, may be paying for that school by working for that lawyer, but until they complete school and pass the bar, they are NOT a professional lawyer. These football players are amateurs. They want to be professionals, but they are not. Not until they move on and sign a contract. Right now, they may receive some compensation for their efforts in the form of a scholarship, but they have not passed through all the gates to earn professional money.

So, back to the discussion of compensation. Players should, IMHO, receive a larger sum than they currently receive for spending money. It is not entirely reasonable to have someone that spends a large percentage of their time on football and most of the rest of their time studying to get a job that will support them adequately. Let's face it, some of these kids come from broken backgrounds and some come from more than a day's drive away. The University should be allowed to help the exceptional cases in some way, without facing 'violations' for helping a kid buy a plane or bus ticket. If cases cannot be judged on their individual merit, then the rules need serious revision.

[Vaevictis]

Equal pay for female athletes will be the reality. Your arguments are based on a false premise.

Heh, the whole premise of the NCAA admitting that its athletes really are professionals is fantasy. It will never happen; since we were talking about something that will never happen anyway, it's no stretch to toss title 9 and assume compensation commensurate with revenue driven.


Not quite. The University of Texas cannot offer Sam Bradford anything (even non-monetary items like prestige) without it being an NCAA violation.

The implication of that is that whenever a player transfers from one school to another, they have no expectation of receiving a scholarship when they arrive. I don't buy that for a second.

Do you think that, say, Tommy Grady woke up one day and said, "Gee, I think I'll transfer to Utah, and maybe when I arrive, they'll have a scholarship waiting for me." No, you can bet that deal was worked out in advance.


And then naturally we will have to up the ante, creating a bidding war. Maybe OU can hang in there and keep him, but a school like Tulsa has no chance of keeping its athletes. Any player that begins to shine will simply be lured away.

You deal with this through the use of contracts, same as in any other pro league.


The money has to come from somewhere.

OU earns ~$4 million a game in ticket revenue alone. On top of that, there's concessions, donations, TV, licensing, bowl game payouts and conference distributions.

At big time programs, there's plenty of money to pay the athletes in the big time sports. And at smaller ones, it's won't present as much of a problem as you want to believe because the lower demand players that play there won't be able to command the kind of pay that would disrupt the programs. (ie, at the smaller programs, the best they might be able to command is what they're getting now.)

[Little Al]

If Mike enters Grad School, would he qualify for the - generally higher - graduate stipend?

[Collier11]

Players do not need to be paid...bottom line! I would not see a problem in players getting a bigger stipend but nothing crazy. As far as different stipends for different schools and sports, there is nothing wrong with that. If you are a big time sport at a big time school you can obviously afford more but there would def. need to be a cap on it, say max $1000/mth.

Second, anyone who legitimately wants to help out MR the person should be allowed to, whether that is money from a church, setting up a fund, whatever. I can see the NCAA's wanting to monitor it and I am fine with that completely so you don't have some anonymous donor handing out $50k or something crazy like that, but it should be allowed to an extent and with a cap as well. Something similar to the Clemson player whom we spoke of earlier!

[Leroy Lizard]

Heh, the whole premise of the NCAA admitting that its athletes really are professionals is fantasy. It will never happen; since we were talking about something that will never happen anyway, it's no stretch to toss title 9 and assume compensation commensurate with revenue driven.

With your argument, they may as well continue calling them amateurs, because the alternative you provide them requires that they violate Title IX, which cannot happen.

So you have blown your own argument out of the water.


The implication of that is that whenever a player transfers from one school to another, they have no expectation of receiving a scholarship when they arrive. I don't buy that for a second.

They can contact a university and inquire about a transfer, but the university cannot contact them. That would be an NCAA violation and a very, very bad one.



You deal with this through the use of contracts, same as in any other pro league.

Since the NCAA has no control over high school students, the abuses will be horrendous.

Does anyone else in here really think that seeing high school seniors pimping with sports agents will be good for college football? There are going to be thousands of fraudulent agents ripping off high school athletes left and right. While some of these student-athletes will benefit financially, many will spend four years on campus playing sports and seeing their monthly checks go into a local businessman's bank account. And if some of them become injured and unable to perform, they could be financially liable to the agent for many years afterwards.

This is bad. Let's not go there.


OU earns ~$4 million a game in ticket revenue alone.

Keep in mind that playing Division 1A college football is extremely expensive. While you may think that athletic departments rake it in, only a handful stay in the black each year. During the Blake years, the Athletic Department actually lost money. Add on to that a monthly stipend of thousands of dollars per month, and most athletic departments will go belly up. (Actually, they will just raid the rest of the university for the money.

The break-even point for the University is probably about 60,000 spectators per game.

Read Murray Sperber's College Sports Inc. for another view of athletic department budgets. It is not nearly as rosy as you think. College sports budgets have been ballooning out of sight; if anything, the NCAA needs to find a way to reduce budgets, not increase them.

Paying the athletes at OU an average of $2000/month could cost up to $10,000,000. And since they would be considered state employees, they would probably be entitled to benefits as well.


At big time programs, there's plenty of money to pay the athletes in the big time sports. And at smaller ones, it's won't present as much of a problem as you want to believe because the lower demand players that play there won't be able to command the kind of pay that would disrupt the programs. (ie, at the smaller programs, the best they might be able to command is what they're getting now.)

So why not just watch the NFL?

[Leroy Lizard]

For those that think college football can afford to pay its players what the market bears, read the following:

http://www.ur.umich.edu/9899/Jul06_99/16.htm

The University of Michigan's Athletic Department is in the red. IN THE RED. MICHIGAN. The land of 100,000 spectators per game.


The advisory committee’s report was released June 23, the same day Athletic Director Tom Goss announced that the department’s fiscal 1998–99 budget is $2 million in the red. The department will tap its reserve fund to cover the deficit, and is expected to take steps to present to the Regents at their July meeting a balanced fiscal year 1999–00 budget that will take into account the committee’s recommendations.

The bulk of the shortfall results from a $1.35 million decrease in licensing royalties for items bearing U-M logos. The remaining $650,000 is attributed to a $400,000 drop in men’s basketball ticket sales (a $200,000 decrease was budgeted); the $500,000 cost of the department’s Internet project, mgoblue.com ($350,000 more than was projected); and unrealized income from the unsuccessful M-Vision project (selling seats in Crisler Arena for viewing of away football games on large screens).

The report notes that athletic departments nationwide are under increasing financial pressure, reflecting the expense of adding new sports, few of which produce enough income to cover expenses, with the revenue-generating sports bearing “an increasingly large financial burden. Even for the revenue sports, the future is uncertain,” the report states, citing the move toward a national championship football game, affecting potential revenue generated by bowl games. “The revenue impact . . . cannot be predicted and therefore adds even more uncertainty and risk.”

More people attend Michigan games than OU games. More people probably watch them on tv. I would be that UM outsells OU in merchandise. And yet UM is in the red.

Does the Athletic Department at OU make money? Probably. But I doubt it is as solvent as many of us think.

[TXBOOMER]

Players that choose to have several kids and get married and can't afford to pay attention, need to give up football and go get a job. Dude will never start at OU and never see the NFL. He needs to move on. We all must pay for our choices and Mr. Reed should not be any different just because he plays for OU. Seems like a good guy and I wish him and his large family the best as I am sure they are in for a long struggle.

[Vaevictis]

For those that think college football can afford to pay its players what the market bears, read the following:

http://www.ur.umich.edu/9899/Jul06_99/16.htm

The University of Michigan's Athletic Department is in the red. IN THE RED. MICHIGAN. The land of 100,000 spectators per game.

... it ain't the football team that's doing the dragging. Cut the programs that don't perform financially, and it ain't a problem. (Once again, you'll say, "You can't violate Title IX!@#!@#!$#@!" as if it's something sacred, and I'll say, "Yeah, but you can amend it.")

(Oh, and $500k for an "internet project?" Expecting $100k of revenue by CHARGING people to come watch a football game in the basketball arena? Sounds like not being retards would help too.)

FWIW, as of 2003, Oklahoma's football program generated $33.6 million in revenue on $14.4 million of expenses. There's plenty of room to pay the players a reasonable salary.

[Vaevictis]

Players do not need to be paid...bottom line! I would not see a problem in players getting a bigger stipend but nothing crazy. As far as different stipends for different schools and sports, there is nothing wrong with that. If you are a big time sport at a big time school you can obviously afford more but there would def. need to be a cap on it, say max $1000/mth.

A stipend is getting paid. Being on athletic scholarship is getting paid. Receiving Room and board is getting paid. Receiving health insurance coverage is getting paid.

The cat is out of the bag. Scholarship college athletes are not and have never truly been amateurs. Players are already getting paid. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

The only reasonable question is: Is the pay reasonable given what they bring to the table?

[Crucifax Autumn]

No...it's not. Particularly at successful programs or powerful conferences that get all that bowl money. And even the smaller schools in loser conferences make big bucks just for playing lamb to the lions. And many schools actually use their athletic accomplishments to recruit students. Imagine some smart kid that sucks at football looking at 2 schools who are academically equal...he just might pick the one with the good football team to enhance his overall college experience.

And as far as the scholarship=being paid thing, then does that make a college newspaper kid with a scholarship a professional? If so, I am a professsional journalist.

[Collier11]

A stipend is getting paid. Being on athletic scholarship is getting paid. Receiving Room and board is getting paid. Receiving health insurance coverage is getting paid.


I strongly disagree, even kids on athletic scholarships get stipends and room and board! The Stipend is due to the fact that when a school or organization ponies up the money for a big time scholarship they dont want that money being wasted so in most cases they ask that that student not work in return.

Now, one thing I do think should happen is that the NCAA should allow all those bazillion dollars that they make off of jerseys, hats, etc... to go to the athletes in some portion. Why should a particular school(obviously OU in this example) be able to sale a #7 jersey but not give Demarco Murray a little bit of the cut just cus they conveniently leave his name off the back?

[Crucifax Autumn]

I totally agree, but what if someone bought the #7 for some past player they really like?

Other than that wrinkle, you are absolutely correct.

[Leroy Lizard]

... it ain't the football team that's doing the dragging. Cut the programs that don't perform financially, and it ain't a problem. (Once again, you'll say, "You can't violate Title IX!@#!@#!$#@!" as if it's something sacred, and I'll say, "Yeah, but you can amend it.")

Uhhhh... Title IX is a federal law. Sure, the U.S. Government can amend it to make room for your fantasy league, but they're not going to.

At what point are you going to look at this situation realistically? Are we next going to pretend that all athletic departments are in the black to uphold your ideas?


(Oh, and $500k for an "internet project?" Expecting $100k of revenue by CHARGING people to come watch a football game in the basketball arena? Sounds like not being retards would help too.)

Actually, that isn't such a bad idea. This is one of those programs that probably cost a lot more than they figured, a typical problem with Internet projects.

But of all Division 1A schools (and there are hundreds), only 19 are in the black. So obviously the problem is much deeper than overpaying on Internet projects.


FWIW, as of 2003, Oklahoma's football program generated $33.6 million in revenue on $14.4 million of expenses. There's plenty of room to pay the players a reasonable salary.

Great. So you have a football league with one institution participating. It would be nice to have some other teams in the league as well, because playing football without any opposition is kind of boring.

Besides, even if OU is in the black, it is only a few bad seasons from being in the red. For example, the athletic department was $6 million in debt in 1996.

http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/minutes/s596jrn.htm

You might want to read the Faculty Senate notes. Guess who was in attendance? That's right:


Members of the Gender Equity Subcommittee of the Athletics Council were present to answer questions: Jack Kasulis (Athletics Council Chair), Lex Holmes, Connie Dillon, Pat Weaver-Meyers, and Dan Gibbens (faculty representative to the conference).

By the way, the OU athletic department spent $25.3 million in 2000.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20000609/ai_n10136567

Here are last year's budgets for major Div. 1A powers according to Money Magazine.

[quote]
1. Ohio State University $104.7 million
2. University of Texas $97.8 million**
3. University of Virginia $92.7 million
4. University of Michigan $85.5 million
5. University of Florida $82.4 million
6. University of Georgia $79.2 million
7. University of Wisconsin $78.9 million
8. University of Notre Dame $78.2 million
9. Texas A&M University $70.9 million**
10. Penn State University $70.5 million
[\quote]

Conclusion: Your ideas are bogus.

[Frozen Sooner]

Hey! Lex Holmes! I remember that guy-really good professor for upper-division Econ.

[Collier11]

I totally agree, but what if someone bought the #7 for some past player they really like?

Other than that wrinkle, you are absolutely correct.


well obviously it would be a cyclical thing!