Had their been evidence that the NCAA knew what was going on too? I remember following that a fair deal back in the day as a PA native and cousin of a PSU alum.
As an outsider that has lived in PA for almost a decade now and married someone from State College, my takeaway from the whole Penn State scandal is that the culture of lionizing sports teams and icons is inherently toxic on some level. That stuff was allowed to go on for as long as it did because the public image and support of Penn State Football was so strong that it basically jammed shut all the safety valves that would have prevented it.
Listening to Pennsylvanians talk about that whole scenario was infuriating. On a similar level to listening to Philadelphians talking about Cosby there for a while.
No and by their own mandate, they overreached in punishing Penn State, which they had to retract last year.
The NCAA should have taken a hard line there. And yes, PSU could have sued, and possibly won - but to win, they would have had to destroy their own good name.
As with anything they do, the NCAA reacted far more harshly that they likely should have because the one thing they can't stand is to be embarrassed is publicly.
There was probably a middle ground there. They just chose not to look for it.
No and by their own mandate, they overreached in punishing Penn State, which they had to retract last year.
The NCAA should have taken a hard line there. And yes, PSU could have sued, and possibly won - but to win, they would have had to destroy their own good name.
Morally I agree, but it's the NCAA so...
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The NCAA banned football coaches from hosting off campus camps for athletes. Way for the kids to get exposure and maybe some scholarship offers, but it created more work for whiny and lazy SEC coaches, so the NCAA caved and took aim at (let's face it) Jim Harbaugh.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The NCAA banned football coaches from hosting off campus camps for athletes. Way for the kids to get exposure and maybe some scholarship offers, but it created more work for whiny and lazy SEC coaches, so the NCAA caved and took aim at (let's face it) Jim Harbaugh.
I don't know how they can even pretend this helps anyone outside of the SEC and ACC coaches. Definitely not better for the kids, but, let's be honest, the NCAA has never cared about the kids.
http://www.danreviewstheworld.com
Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
They're deathly afraid that those dang Yankee coaches will convince some Southern prospects that rather than get stockpiled and never play, they can go north and actually have a shot at playing time.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
They're deathly afraid that those dang Yankee coaches will convince some Southern prospects that rather than get stockpiled and never play, they can go north and actually have a shot at playing time.
OK. And this rule has what to do with that?
ed: What does the SEC gain from a rule "bann[ing] football coaches from hosting off campus camps for athletes." that does not also affect, say Big10 teams.
Is it literally sunshine and climate? Or that many/most/some top prospects come from southern states?
VishNub on
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
The second one.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Yeah, the SEC is the problem child of the Power 5. They barely agreed to reining in oversigning (one of the most gooseshittiest policies out there), and the coaches fought for it tooth and nail. Once the current system collapses, expect to see the SEC fall to Earth.
In random the NCAA is absolutely nuts with it's regulations news:
I had the opportunity to do some video interviews for Youtube with a pair of the football players who had operations from the surgeons I worked with. Despite getting waiver clearance from the athletes, asking no actual medical information about their injuries (it was literally all "How did you like the care given to you" style questions), and not really talking details on anything we don't ask a normal patient, the AD came back and killed us using the interviews because they would be an NCAA infraction due to using the athletes to promote our department.
Which confuses me so fucking much, because if I turn on a football game on a Saturday in the fall, I see a dozen commercials all about the athletes promoting the school they go to (or the NCAA in general!), so I am trying really hard to figure out what the fuck is different from those commercials and what we're doing. This could just be the AD being incredibly overprotective, but really, the content was almost annoyingly generic.
In random the NCAA is absolutely nuts with it's regulations news:
I had the opportunity to do some video interviews for Youtube with a pair of the football players who had operations from the surgeons I worked with. Despite getting waiver clearance from the athletes, asking no actual medical information about their injuries (it was literally all "How did you like the care given to you" style questions), and not really talking details on anything we don't ask a normal patient, the AD came back and killed us using the interviews because they would be an NCAA infraction due to using the athletes to promote our department.
Which confuses me so fucking much, because if I turn on a football game on a Saturday in the fall, I see a dozen commercials all about the athletes promoting the school they go to (or the NCAA in general!), so I am trying really hard to figure out what the fuck is different from those commercials and what we're doing. This could just be the AD being incredibly overprotective, but really, the content was almost annoyingly generic.
They are insane with those regulations, because they honestly think that they leave one door open, and everyone will take advantage.
When, in fact, their ridiculous rules are eroding any actual support they might have for more moderate regulations.
In a lot of ways employees have greater protections than college athletes currently do. And if you think Jones would have only brought in $5k, you're a silly goose.
Do NCAA scholarship athletes even get other financial aid? If they did why the hell would there be any single NCAA athlete even on a partial scholarship having to make a decision between playing and sleeping on someone's couch?
Does that guy think that a scholarship covers tuition, r&b, and then just gives you extra money for whatever you want? Does he not realize how much tuition alone can be? Does he not realize how expensive it is even to live on campus?
It's like that super liberal professor meme, it's annoying when people who can't be bothered to attend college talk about how college is.
Do NCAA scholarship athletes even get other financial aid? If they did why the hell would there be any single NCAA athlete even on a partial scholarship having to make a decision between playing and sleeping on someone's couch?
Does that guy think that a scholarship covers tuition, r&b, and then just gives you extra money for whatever you want? Does he not realize how much tuition alone can be? Does he not realize how expensive it is even to live on campus?
It's like that super liberal professor meme, it's annoying when people who can't be bothered to attend college talk about how college is.
Actually, revenue sports scholarships did just move to that model in response to the O'Bannon case - the Power 5 forced the NCAA to allow them to offer player stipends. But even still, it's not much money (top stipends are around 5k at most,) and it was a recent change.
It reminds me of how back in the bad old days, the Montreal Canadiens were allowed the first crack at any young players from Quebec. Which gave them a massive youth advantage since most of the best players of the day came from Quebec.
Not sure how preventing schools/conferences from getting exposure in different regions makes any real sense.
It reminds me of how back in the bad old days, the Montreal Canadiens were allowed the first crack at any young players from Quebec. Which gave them a massive youth advantage since most of the best players of the day came from Quebec.
Not sure how preventing schools/conferences from getting exposure in different regions makes any real sense.
It doesn't - it's just the SEC being the SEC. When the NCAA house of cards collapses, expect to see the conference fall to Earth.
The NCAA will not ban satellite camps, after all.
Three weeks after the NCAA Division I Council voted to put an end to the practice, the Division I Board of Directors rescinded the ruling Thursday.
These camps – and the decision to ban them – have been a source of controversy. The NCAA previously prohibited programs from hosting camps more than 50 miles from their own campus, but several Big Ten coaching staffs, especially Jim Harbaugh and Michigan, took advantage of a loophole that allowed them to participate in camps (which were hosted by other schools) as guest coaches.
The initial ruling closed this loophole, but it came with some unintended consequences, including limiting possible scholarship opportunities for some prospective student-athletes. The outcry prompted the NCAA to take a closer look at the issue.
Right. It was the outcry. Not the DoJ taking an interest.
Either way, the ban was stupid and clearly not thought through in the first place.
It was the SEC being the SEC.
Also the Pac 12 rep voting against what the conference wanted for some reason.
That I've already blame on him being Bruined.
(More seriously, I'd suspect that other school might worry about "poaching" in SoCal, and thus might have thought that with the ban having support, they could get away with tipping the scales.)
As the issue of what bathrooms people may or may not use continues to be a hot-button issue, the NCAA has taken a stand against those states choosing to adopt “bathroom bills” forcing transgender people to use specific bathrooms.
The NCAA Board of Governors approved an anti-discrimination process for championship bids, with the intent of providing equality for all participants and patrons at NCAA events like postseason tournaments. Such events would include NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments, the big money-makers for the NCAA. The NCAA will ask those placing bids to show how they will provide an environment that is free for all to enjoy without the threat of discrimination based on gender.
“The higher education community is a diverse mix of people from different racial, ethnic, religious and sexual orientation backgrounds,” said Kirk Schulz, president of Kansas State University and chair of the Board of Governors. “So it is important that we assure that community – including our student-athletes and fans – will always enjoy the experience of competing and watching at NCAA championships without concerns of discrimination.”
The NCAA has set their own precedent for this type of action. States that have the Confederate flag flown are prohibited from hosting any NCAA-sanctioned event outside of regular season competition. Also, schools that adopt a Native American nickname or mascot are also prohibited from hosting similar events. Exemptions may be made, but the rule has led to a number of schools to change their mascots and nicknames over the years to less offensive icons.
Earlier this year, Dodd—who is dating Tennessee wide receiver Josh Smith—was crowned the “hottest college football girlfriend of the season” by Barstool Sports. Though there’s no trophy or cash prize associated with this title, the honoree is entitled to unlimited free evaluations of her attractiveness by anonymous Barstool commenters. Dodd, though, has been able to capitalize on her fame, earning a position as a social media candy endorser.
A representative from the Hershey Company confirmed for me that Dodd’s Instagram post, which went out to her 23,000 followers on Wednesday afternoon, is part of an ad campaign. Hershey’s Jolly Rancher brand “partnered with 50-plus collegiate influencers” for a campaign called #FinalsSuck. Jolly Rancher found Dodd and all those other “influencers” via a firm called Influential, which uses IBM’s Watson to match Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook users with companies that are seeking “organic brand messaging.” When asked whether Dodd was chosen as an “influencer” due to her relationship with a college football player, a spokesman for Influential said her “relationship with a student-athlete was not a factor.” According to the Hershey rep, Dodd “aligns with the brand’s passion points, attends one of the colleges, Tennessee, where the brand is activating and had a strong social following.”
So, what have we learned? First, the phrase organic brand messaging makes me want to dive to the bottom of the ocean and never come up again. Second, though Influential claims it didn’t choose Dodd as an “influencer” because she’s a college football player’s girlfriend, she became an Instagram demi-celebrity thanks in large part to her status as the “hottest college football girlfriend of the season.” Third, you can hardly blame Breana Dodd for grabbing her piece of the organic brand activation passion point pie. This is the free market at work. Go, market, go.
Back to the sad, candy-less hellscape of NCAA athletics: If Dodd’s boyfriend Josh Smith posted an Instagram photo sponsored by a sweets purveyor, he’d lose his athletic eligibility. According to NCAA rules, “an individual shall not be eligible for participation in intercollegiate athletics if the individual … [a]ccepts any remuneration for or permits the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind.”
The NCAA is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the so-called O'Bannon case that successfully challenged the association's use of names, images and likenesses of college athletes without compensation.
The plaintiffs in the case, which was originally filed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, petitioned the Supreme Court in March to hear the case. The NCAA also filed an opposition Friday to the plaintiff's filing.
In 2014, a U.S. district judge decided NCAA's amateurism rules violated antitrust law. Judge Claudia Wilken ruled schools could - but were not required to - pay football and men's basketball players up to $5,000 per year for use of their names, images and likenesses. The money would go into a trust and be available to the athletes after leaving college. Wilken also ruled schools could increase the value of the athletic scholarship to meet the federal cost of attendance figure for each institution.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year overturned Wilkens' ruling on the NIL payments of $5,000, but left the NCAA's amateurism rules vulnerable to more legal challenges. There are two other antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA working their way through the courts that challenge schools' rights to cap compensation for athletes at the cost of a scholarship. Those suits could be far more damaging to the current system of college athletics and lead to athletes' compensation being determined on the open market.
The NCAA wants the Supreme Court to reaffirm its 1984 ruling in Oklahoma v. Board of Regents that protected amateurism.
''For different reasons, both the NCAA and Ed O'Bannon believe the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used the wrong tests to analyze the NCAA rules,'' NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said in a statement Friday. ''The NCAA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case to obtain unquestionable clarity on key issues of law affecting the NCAA and other similar organizations. In short, we are asking the Supreme Court to reaffirm its antitrust holding in the Board of Regents case, endorse the 9th Circuit's affirmation of amateurism, and define the appropriate scope of the First Amendment. We believe the Supreme Court can conduct this review properly and dictate the appropriate tests by accepting the questions we have presented and rejecting those presented by O'Bannon.''
It sounds like the two big Court rulings regarding the NCAA (Oklahoma, Tarkanian) are on a collision course here.
Unless you’re a die hard college softball enthusiast or love getting down into the double digits of ESPN networks, you may not have known women’s college softball players have the most fun of any players of any sport, perhaps ever. You think I’m joking. I’m not. The current climate in America's softball dugouts is like a modern day sporting renaissance. You thought the Monmouth men’s basketball team bench was clever? You need to watch more softball, friend. Inflatable props, unselfconscious cheers, conspiratorial choreography, and hijinks galore, all adds up to make your average college softball game part finely tuned athletic contest and part improv comedy skit. There’s no need to make softball great again, it’s already doing just fine. But that could all be about to change. The NCAA is reportedly about to shut the fun down ahead of the NCAA National Championship tournament that kicks off this weekend, “curtail[ing] usage of props and uniform alterations in dugouts,” according to the Advocate.
Posts
If that incident doesn't tell you that something is far more in need of extirpation than reform, nothing will.
Also Joe Pa knew nothing and firing him was a travesty and an outrage.
*sarcasm indicator here
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Listening to Pennsylvanians talk about that whole scenario was infuriating. On a similar level to listening to Philadelphians talking about Cosby there for a while.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The NCAA should have taken a hard line there. And yes, PSU could have sued, and possibly won - but to win, they would have had to destroy their own good name.
There was probably a middle ground there. They just chose not to look for it.
Morally I agree, but it's the NCAA so...
The problem is that it has to be all or nothing, and unfortunately, the major schools of the Power 5 have no reason to leave.
I don't know how they can even pretend this helps anyone outside of the SEC and ACC coaches. Definitely not better for the kids, but, let's be honest, the NCAA has never cared about the kids.
Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
They're deathly afraid that those dang Yankee coaches will convince some Southern prospects that rather than get stockpiled and never play, they can go north and actually have a shot at playing time.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
OK. And this rule has what to do with that?
ed: What does the SEC gain from a rule "bann[ing] football coaches from hosting off campus camps for athletes." that does not also affect, say Big10 teams.
Is it literally sunshine and climate? Or that many/most/some top prospects come from southern states?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Last time I went to Ohio I almost froze to death
I had the opportunity to do some video interviews for Youtube with a pair of the football players who had operations from the surgeons I worked with. Despite getting waiver clearance from the athletes, asking no actual medical information about their injuries (it was literally all "How did you like the care given to you" style questions), and not really talking details on anything we don't ask a normal patient, the AD came back and killed us using the interviews because they would be an NCAA infraction due to using the athletes to promote our department.
Which confuses me so fucking much, because if I turn on a football game on a Saturday in the fall, I see a dozen commercials all about the athletes promoting the school they go to (or the NCAA in general!), so I am trying really hard to figure out what the fuck is different from those commercials and what we're doing. This could just be the AD being incredibly overprotective, but really, the content was almost annoyingly generic.
They are insane with those regulations, because they honestly think that they leave one door open, and everyone will take advantage.
When, in fact, their ridiculous rules are eroding any actual support they might have for more moderate regulations.
And why is it that college players speaking out about how horrible the NCAA is always bring out the geese?
In a lot of ways employees have greater protections than college athletes currently do. And if you think Jones would have only brought in $5k, you're a silly goose.
Does that guy think that a scholarship covers tuition, r&b, and then just gives you extra money for whatever you want? Does he not realize how much tuition alone can be? Does he not realize how expensive it is even to live on campus?
It's like that super liberal professor meme, it's annoying when people who can't be bothered to attend college talk about how college is.
Actually, revenue sports scholarships did just move to that model in response to the O'Bannon case - the Power 5 forced the NCAA to allow them to offer player stipends. But even still, it's not much money (top stipends are around 5k at most,) and it was a recent change.
Challenge Accepted!
Not sure how preventing schools/conferences from getting exposure in different regions makes any real sense.
It doesn't - it's just the SEC being the SEC. When the NCAA house of cards collapses, expect to see the conference fall to Earth.
Right. It was the outcry. Not the DoJ taking an interest.
Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
It was the SEC being the SEC.
Also the Pac 12 rep voting against what the conference wanted for some reason.
That I've already blame on him being Bruined.
(More seriously, I'd suspect that other school might worry about "poaching" in SoCal, and thus might have thought that with the ban having support, they could get away with tipping the scales.)
Fuck paying the athletes, however.
It sounds like the two big Court rulings regarding the NCAA (Oklahoma, Tarkanian) are on a collision course here.
Of course the NCAA wants to ban this: