serious question

[Jello Biafra]

i hate the NCAA like a bad case of crabs after a night with a chick sporting a penii...

what happens if all the schools get together and just refuse to acknowledge the NCAA?

[Sooner_Tuf]

Interesting analogy.

[Jello Biafra]

Interesting analogy.

it only happened once....

that i know of.

[soonerchk]

CHAOS!!! PANIC IN THE STREET!!!!

[Sooner_Tuf]

it only happened once....

that i know of.

OIC I didn't know you knew Leroy personally, my bad ;)

But to answer your question if the revenue schools withdrew from the NCAA it would fall apart rather rapidly.

[texaspokieokie]

i hate the NCAA like a bad case of crabs after a night with a chick sporting a penii...

what happens if all the schools get together and just refuse to acknowledge the NCAA?

the ncaa is there because the schools want it to be there.

[OKLA21FAN]

i hate the NCAA like a bad case of crabs after a night with a chick sporting a penii...

what happens if all the schools get together and just refuse to acknowledge the NCAA?

see the OU/UGA lawsuit in the early 80s :pop:

[SoonerPride]

The NCAA is comprised of the member institutions. They are it and it is they.

Your question doesn't make sense to me.

[Flagstaffsooner]

Circa 1984, OU and Georgia sued the ncaa, hence the CFA. Then all the stuff since.

[MeMyself&Me]

what happens if all the schools get together and just refuse to acknowledge the NCAA?

The NAIA suddenly gets bigger?

[Jello Biafra]

The NCAA is comprised of the member institutions. They are it and it is they.

Your question doesn't make sense to me.

what doesnt make sense? you mean the assinine jerksticks that are mandating college football are from the member schools? your statement doesnt make sense to me.

[Jello Biafra]

The NAIA suddenly gets bigger?

yup...

my 7yo goes to private lessons once a week. the kid plays catcher for a smaller college...he says he can legally get paid to give lessons. thats awesome. the kid is just trying to put gas in his friggin car. and now (not saying its good or bad either way) these kids are in trouble for sell THIER shiite....

what happens if the car is out of gas and they go to the pawn shop to sell the same stuff?

[MeMyself&Me]

Really though, there is a choice. The NCAA exists cause the members institutions choose for it to exist and that's all there is to it.

[Jello Biafra]

Really though, there is a choice. The NCAA exists cause the members institutions choose for it to exist and that's all there is to it.

so all the schools that get hammered just stand there and let them spank thier peepee? by thier own bylaws?


id be like fugg a buncha you. i dont agree and im not paying to be part of this bullshiite.

[Leroy Lizard]

i hate the NCAA like a bad case of crabs after a night with a chick sporting a penii...

I don't have quite your night life to make such a comparison, but I can say that I don't truly hate the NCAA. The NCAA is like a cop working a tough neighborhood; it is nearly impossible for him to do his job without pissing off half the community. That said, the NCAA has blundered recently, which has hurt its credibility.


what happens if all the schools get together and just refuse to acknowledge the NCAA?

This was discussed back in the 1980s when the CFA formed. Essentially, schools could leave the NCAA and form their own organizations. The problem is that whichever organizations they form, they will have to draft rules of conduct for the member organizations. And as soon as they draft the rules, half of the teams will try to break them. At that point the new organizations will need to impose penalties and the cycle of hatred will start all over again.

If you give an inch, the teams will take a mile. Schools will simply take advantage of any "reasonable" changes to existing NCAA rules. For example, suppose the new organization decides to pay its players a $300 per month stipend. Within short order, schools will find ways to pay the athletes $3,000 per month, because doing so will give them a competitive advantage.

In other words, the problem isn't really the NCAA. The problem is greed driven by fan lust for more entertainment. Solve that problem and the NCAA becomes the benign kindly uncle.




my 7yo goes to private lessons once a week. the kid plays catcher for a smaller college...he says he can legally get paid to give lessons. thats awesome. the kid is just trying to put gas in his friggin car. and now (not saying its good or bad either way) these kids are in trouble for sell THIER shiite....


First of all, teams in the NAIA are not like Auburn. The need to impose stiff penalties for seemingly innocuous behavior does not appear in the NAIA because the big money and pressure to win at all costs isn't there. Besides, players at the FBS level can hold jobs; they just can't work more than a certain number of hours per week.


what happens if the car is out of gas and they go to the pawn shop to sell the same stuff?

They would have to do the same thing that a player from a losing program would have to do if caught in the same situation.

[Leroy Lizard]

so all the schools that get hammered just stand there and let them spank thier peepee? by thier own bylaws?

Yes. That is exactly what happens. The school joined the organization and agreed to abide by its rules and accept its punishments.

[MeMyself&Me]

so all the schools that get hammered just stand there and let them spank thier peepee? by thier own bylaws?


id be like fugg a buncha you. i dont agree and im not paying to be part of this bullshiite.

It wouldn't do USC much good to drop out of the NCAA to join the NAIA all by themselves just because they got their asses handed to them by the NCAA now would it. That would be a one way road to obscurity right there.

Every other NCAA program would be thinking, "Well good, there's one less program we have to deal with" and they'd stay put.

[Sooner_Tuf]

The NCAA allows schools like OSU to have a say in making rules that attempt to stop schools like OU from curb stomping them. It keeps the little guys from taking their toys and going home.

If wasn't for the NCAA there would be about twenty college football teams.

[agoo758]

what happens if all the schools get together and just refuse to acknowledge the NCAA?

Could they please?

[agoo758]

[QUOTE=Leroy Lizard;3097875]


If you give an inch, the teams will take a mile. Schools will simply take advantage of any "reasonable" changes to existing NCAA rules. For example, suppose the new organization decides to pay its players a $300 per month stipend. Within short order, schools will find ways to pay the athletes $3,000 per month, because doing so will give them a competitive advantage.

[QUOTE]

My response to this argument can be summed up in two words: so what?

Money handed out to players by the university/boosters/alumni is only considered a taboo practice because of artificial regulations imposed by the NCAA. Now of course, if any of these used taxpayer money to make a slush fund, then of course it is wrong because it would be nothing more than stealing. But these rediculous rules are put in place not to protect certain entities from harm, but because of entitled brats from smaller schools who whine like 5 year old kids complaining that it isn't "fair" that some universities have more money than them.

That being said, those who have been punished for breaking these rules were rightfully punished as it is not fair for them to act one way while everyone else is trying to abide by the rules, but I challenge you to explain to me how the act of transferring money from one set of people to athletes is unethical if it were not against the rules.

[PhiDeltBeers]

Good stuff. Good stuff. I've learnt a lot.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I would just like to see a couple or 3 conferences boycott the bowls, in an effort to jump-start a playoff.

[Leroy Lizard]

My response to this argument can be summed up in two words: so what?

Money handed out to players by the university/boosters/alumni is only considered a taboo practice because of artificial regulations imposed by the NCAA. Now of course, if any of these used taxpayer money to make a slush fund, then of course it is wrong because it would be nothing more than stealing. But these rediculous rules are put in place not to protect certain entities from harm, but because of entitled brats from smaller schools who whine like 5 year old kids complaining that it isn't "fair" that some universities have more money than them.

There are a number of reasons why we outlaw booster money. The biggest reason is that the schools have decided that it is in their best interests to have a large number of schools competing as close to evenly as reasonably possible.

If you don't believe in such an ideal, then I could see your point. But not many will likely agree with you.

Who would stand to benefit in a free-for-all, no holds barred, competitive environment? Not OU, but Texas. You see, Texas brings in far more money than OU and they could offer a lot more cash to potential recruits. Even worse, as these recruits start to have an impact the school accumulates even more and more cash. At some point, few schools would remain. This would impact all sports.


That being said, those who have been punished for breaking these rules were rightfully punished as it is not fair for them to act one way while everyone else is trying to abide by the rules, but I challenge you to explain to me how the act of transferring money from one set of people to athletes is unethical if it were not against the rules.

It's not inherently unethical, just undesirable. All competitive organizations put in place rules that promote quality competition because such competition heightens interests.

I used to be a big racing fan and we had similar arguments from those who wanted to open up the rules. In my day, the big rule change was to move toward big blocks and roller valve trains. Finally, the rules changed and everyone was happy... except the fields and purses plummeted as racing teams couldn't keep up financially with the larger expenses. At one point we were running main events with eight cars. Is this what the fans wanted?

So be careful what you wish for. You might get it. If you really want college football to operate like the NFL, why not just watch the NFL instead?

[Leroy Lizard]

I would just like to see a couple or 3 other conferences boycott the bowls, in an effort to jump-start a playoff.

FIFY.

And I'm serious. We all want the other teams to stay home to prove a point. But as for OU... give up our BCS bowl??? Are you out of your mind????

:D

[agoo758]

[QUOTE=Leroy Lizard;3098285]There are a number of reasons why we outlaw booster money. The biggest reason is that the schools have decided that it is in their best interests to have a large number of schools competing as close to evenly as reasonably possible. [quote]

No reasonable person doesn't want to see good quality competition at any level. But is completely starving out those who put it hours of practice and generates revenue for the school the best way to go about it? Sure most of them receive scholarships, but considering the time and energy they put into playing college football, they are still way underpraid



[QUOTE=Leroy Lizard;3098285]Who would stand to benefit in a free-for-all, no holds barred, competitive environment? Not OU, but Texas. You see, Texas brings in far more money than OU and they could offer a lot more cash to potential recruits. Even worse, as these recruits start to have an impact the school accumulates even more and more cash. At some point, few schools would remain. This would impact all sports.[Quote]

There are certain ways to address that, such about a salary cap like they do in just about every professional sport, but saying that we shouldn't play players because some universities have more money than others is like saying that private businesses in a free market shouldn't be allowed to pay their employees because some businesses have more money than others.




[QUOTE]It's not inherently unethical, just undesirable. All competitive organizations put in place rules that promote quality competition because such competition heightens interests. [QUOTE]

Once again, you make a fair point, but we don't live in a country were some people are allowed to be entertained at someone else's expense. The current rules may make football a little bit more entertaining for us, but then you are left with the issue of players of putting in a lot of work for very little pay, in my mind that is unethical. It's the same why say it is illegal to own sex slaves, permitting it may be more fun for some people, but we don't do it because of the negative effect it has on others.

[Sooner_Tuf]

I would just like to see a couple or 3 conferences boycott the bowls, in an effort to jump-start a playoff.

The Bowls don't have anything to do with the NCAA. The NCAA could start a playoff if they wanted to. The member institutions don't want one or we would have one.

Personally I don't know why someone would alter a sport that is wildly successful like college football.

[Leroy Lizard]

No reasonable person doesn't want to see good quality competition at any level. But is completely starving out those who put it hours of practice and generates revenue for the school the best way to go about it? Sure most of them receive scholarships, but considering the time and energy they put into playing college football, they are still way underpraid

We've been through this many times. First, paying players anything opens up a can of worms. Their sport is strictly supposed to be an avocation, but once you begin paying them their role begins to look like paid entertainers. College presidents don't want that for amateur athletes. Second of all, paying all the athletes on scholarship would be a tremendous burden on some athletic departments.

This isn't just the NCAA talking; the member institutions oppose it in general.



There are certain ways to address that, such about a salary cap like they do in just about every professional sport, but saying that we shouldn't play players because some universities have more money than others is like saying that private businesses in a free market shouldn't be allowed to pay their employees because some businesses have more money than others.

Any reasonable salary cap is just another rule for rogue colleges to break. The type of money being thrown around out there is going to be far beyond a salary cap that most universities could approach. Do you think Cam Newton would have been satisfied with a $300 per month stipend?

And how will teams get around salary caps? By giving players tons of goodies they can sell on the side. "Here's a cheap ring made of pewter, but we have lined up a buyer for you. He really likes these rings so you can probably get $10,000 for it. Wink, wink."

So you have instituted a system that is more expensive than before but really doesn't solve the problem, which is the propensity for some teams to break the rules to gain an unfair advantage.


Once again, you make a fair point, but we don't live in a country were some people are allowed to be entertained at someone else's expense. The current rules may make football a little bit more entertaining for us, but then you are left with the issue of players of putting in a lot of work for very little pay, in my mind that is unethical. It's the same why say it is illegal to own sex slaves, permitting it may be more fun for some people, but we don't do it because of the negative effect it has on others.

Forget slavery. Unlike slaves, these people can walk away. In fact, they voluntarily join and are quite happy to receive these scholarships. If what they receive wasn't worth their effort, why would they bother?

And it isn't just entertainment for us. The athletes want the good competition too. In fact, everyone wants it.

[swardboy]

I'm sure we'll follow Texas' lead....

[texaspokieokie]

good posting,LL.