FB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:06:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

formerd3db

D306:

Glad you had the opportunity to make the west MI visit.  Hope's construction is the new huge music building, which is long overdue.  On the site of the old music building from the 1950's will be the new Student Center, gathering place, with deli, etc. named for recently retired Hope President and former coach Dr. James Bultman and his wife Marti, who also served the college in many capacities.  $ is being raised also for the football building to be eventually built at the open end of the stadium to house new locker rooms for Hope/Visitors and Holland H.S., the football coaches offices and a concourse for fans, with concessions.

Anyway, hope you are doing well. 

BTW, agree with you and ExTartanPlayer about Pryor.  While he has great athletic ability,  he still needs to grow up.  I still have not regained my respect for him since he really has had no remorse for his actions at Ohio State and that is sad.  I don't see him doing much in Seattle.   
"When the Great Scorer comes To mark against your name, He'll write not 'won' or 'lost', But how you played the game." - Grantland Rice

ExTartanPlayer

#8746
Quote from: formerd3db on April 22, 2014, 08:03:27 PM
I still have not regained my respect for him since he really has had no remorse for his actions at Ohio State and that is sad.

At risk of stirring up another contentious discussion about the NCAA and amateurism, I found the Ohio State "scandal" a bit off-putting.  Let's recap: Pryor (and others) were suspended for selling championship rings and memorabilia, as well as receiving free tattoos, in theory capitalizing on their "status" granted as Ohio State football players.  The free tattoos constitute a "benefit" of course, but I want to talk about the memorabilia selling (which amounted to the grand sum of $2,500 for Pryor and about $1,000 for the other athletes).  DeVier Posey's mother said this at the time:

"They didn't do anything that any other person wouldn't have done," Julie Posey told the newspaper. "They looked around to see what they could do to help [their families]. There's no crime here. None. They're not involved with agents. They didn't steal anything. They didn't borrow anything from anybody. It was theirs. Nobody told them it 'almost belongs to you.' It belonged to them."

Having watched Pryor since high school, I've always felt that he had a pretty big head, so I'm not saying you're wrong if you believe he's a jerk; I kinda think he is.  However, I'm not really sure what actions at Ohio State he's supposed to be remorseful for.  The school gave him a championship ring and other memorabilia.  It was his stuff.  You can certainly argue that he should have known he wasn't allowed to sell it, but I'm still not sure why that's a rule in the first place.  Why give him the stuff at all if he's not allowed to do what he wants with it?  He could have burned it, chucked it in a river, thrown it down a sewer grate...but heaven forbid he SELL it to someone who wants to give him money for it.

Note to add: Pryor is from Jeannette, PA - a small depressed town in PA where the median household income is $31,498, and about 15% of the population is below the poverty line.  It's pretty believable that his mother could have used a little extra cash.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

bashgiant

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on April 23, 2014, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: formerd3db on April 22, 2014, 08:03:27 PM
I still have not regained my respect for him since he really has had no remorse for his actions at Ohio State and that is sad.

At risk of stirring up another contentious discussion about the NCAA and amateurism, I found the Ohio State "scandal" a bit off-putting.  Let's recap: Pryor (and others) were suspended for selling championship rings and memorabilia, as well as receiving free tattoos, in theory capitalizing on their "status" granted as Ohio State football players.  The free tattoos constitute a "benefit" of course, but I want to talk about the memorabilia selling (which amounted to the grand sum of $2,500 for Pryor and about $1,000 for the other athletes).  DeVier Posey's mother said this at the time:

"They didn't do anything that any other person wouldn't have done," Julie Posey told the newspaper. "They looked around to see what they could do to help [their families]. There's no crime here. None. They're not involved with agents. They didn't steal anything. They didn't borrow anything from anybody. It was theirs. Nobody told them it 'almost belongs to you.' It belonged to them."

Having watched Pryor since high school, I've always felt that he had a pretty big head, so I'm not saying you're wrong if you believe he's a jerk; I kinda think he is.  However, I'm not really sure what actions at Ohio State he's supposed to be remorseful for.  The school gave him a championship ring and other memorabilia.  It was his stuff.  You can certainly argue that he should have known he wasn't allowed to sell it, but I'm still not sure why that's a rule in the first place.  Why give him the stuff at all if he's not allowed to do what he wants with it?  He could have burned it, chucked it in a river, thrown it down a sewer grate...but heaven forbid he SELL it to someone who wants to give him money for it.

Note to add: Pryor is from Jeannette, PA - a small depressed town in PA where the median household income is $31,498, and about 15% of the population is below the poverty line.  It's pretty believable that his mother could have used a little extra cash.

+1 Well said!

D306

While I am no fan of the NCAA, the lack of logic or consistent application and monitoring of the rules, the fact that some of the rules are just not realistic to today's environment.
Pryor and the OSU bunch were no saints, I seem to recall the sweater vest had a "friendly" car dealer whom followed him from Youngstown. The problem is you can not monitor every "booster"
The fact that Pryor and others at many schools come from rough area's or just want some of the things being offered by hanger on's is a serious issue.
As a former coach, player and long time advocate for sports at many levels, I see and saw the young men come and go everyday, who they hung with and what car they arrived in many times.  When a kid of limited means shows up in different sports cars, SUV's, clothes, watches, and electronic products to school and practice someone notices. Major Universities have more than enough resources to have a official compliance staff that can visually see and "hear" most the scuttle on a campus and help head off some issues before they become an infringement.  The players do not know in many cases the rules let alone some of the rules are unrealistic.

Difficult issue and never will it be resolved, yet Universities certainly can do a better job. The NCAA must take a long hard look at itself and the politics it is involved in.

ExTartanPlayer

I agree D306.  I don't believe the OSU kids were saints.  However, I don't think the specific offense that the NCAA nailed them for was a particularly grievous one, nor do I believe that it warranted the punishment they received.  Pryor, while he may be an arrogant jerk, is within reasonable bounds to wonder why he and his teammates became the target of an NCAA probe for an action that

Re: the compliance staff, a book a few years back entitled "The Draft" gave an interesting look into college and professional football as it followed several NFL prospects through their final season of college football, combine training, and then up to draft day.  The book presented things from the view of a number of stakeholders: players, college coaches, agents, NFL coaches, and what I found very interesting, the college "support staff" which included the compliance officers.  The book spends much time discussing the different approaches each school took to agent recruitment

The compliance officer at Florida State, Brian Battle (now apparently employed by Florida Atlantic: http://www.fausports.com/genrel/brian_battle_887892.html), was a central figure in the book.  Battle obviously found his job exasperating at times, almost a Mission Impossible, as he tried to keep track of all players, agents, organizing a designated day for the agents to meet with prospective players in exchange for their supposedly leaving players alone otherwise (HAH!), and he relates a few anecdotes that he would be powerless to do anything about.  I agree with you that major universities should devote some resources to compliance, but Battle clearly felt that FSU basically had him there as a token nod to "compliance" basically just hoping that if he couldn't find a problem, the NCAA couldn't find it either, not so much to actually ENFORCE much of anything.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

formerd3db

D306 and ExTartanPlayer:

I agree with you guys on most of what you said.  The only problem I have with the issue in question is the following.  Whether we or the players such as Pryor, et al (and anyone else who is a collegiate player any of the NCAA levels) like the rules or not, the simple truth is that those rules are in place and everyone knows them.  Just because a player doesn't like a specific rule does not give him/her the right or privilege to break the rules.  Moreover, even at DIII the players are informed of the rules from day one at pre-season football camp (at least we were at Hope and that continues as I understand it).  As such, there is simply no excuse whatsoever for breaking the rule(s) regardless of how mundane or less "grievous" the player believes or thinks it is.  Trying to support a campaign to get those changed is a legit option no matter how difficult that challenge may be to achieve in reality, however, simply choosing to not follow the rule because they don't like it, is not the answer.  We all make choices and, if we are all honest it, in reality that is what one of the biggest problems in today's society in conjunction with the "entitlement" attitudes (and one's circumstances really have nothing to do with it-I believe that everyone really knows right from wrong, unless they have a legit medical type condition that may impair their thinking and being able to reason in that regard. 

So, the bottom line is that when that happens, i.e. when a student-athlete make his/her, choice whatever that may be, they will have to live with the consequences, perceived right or wrong. That's just way it is in today's society and including that we don't get to make the choices in most situations anymore (I will admit that in some cases, that is okay ;)).  Just MO and the way I was taught/brought up, for which I make no apologies. :)  Good discussion guys, even if there are some divergent opinions to "whatever degree."
"When the Great Scorer comes To mark against your name, He'll write not 'won' or 'lost', But how you played the game." - Grantland Rice

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: formerd3db on April 24, 2014, 04:58:17 PM
As such, there is simply no excuse whatsoever for breaking the rule(s) regardless of how mundane or less "grievous" the player believes or thinks it is.  Trying to support a campaign to get those changed is a legit option no matter how difficult that challenge may be to achieve in reality, however, simply choosing to not follow the rule because they don't like it, is not the answer.

I agree with much of what you said, formerd3db, so pardon me for only highlighting this point rather than your entire post.  The reason that I highlighted this passage is that in certain cases I believe that players may not have known they were committing violations.  I find at least plausible, however unlikely, that the OSU players did not know it was a violation to sell their memorabilia.  There have been other cases in the last 5-10 years where I found it very believable that the offending school/players had no idea that what they were doing was a violation. 

1) A few years ago, Boise State got probation for this:

"The nearly $5,000 in  "benefits" received by 63 players from 2005-09 included "impermissible housing, transportation or meals, where an incoming student-athlete was provided a place to sleep (often on a couch or floor), a car ride or was provided free food by an existing student-athlete."

So recruits staying on campus got to sleep on a current player's couch, a meal on the player's dime, and a ride to the airport.  The players are supposed to know that was a violation?

2) The NCAA threatened to suspend USC receiver Dwayne Jarrett unless he paid Matt Leinart's father an equal share of the cost of living in an apartment with Leinart.  If they weren't athletes, this would have been a nice story of a rich kid's father agreeing to foot the bill for some rent since his buddy doesn't have as much money; but as athletes, this was an NCAA violation.  Jarrett was actually paying some of the rent, too; Leinart's father just picked up most of the tab because it was a pretty upscale place.  Was he really supposed to know it was illegal for his friend's dad to pay most of the rent?  Again, it's not like USC provided the two of them free housing - Leinart's father was paying for the apartment, and Jarrett was chipping in!

3) Dez Bryant was ruled ineligible for merely visiting Deion Sanders, who a) is not an Oklahoma State booster, b) is not an agent, and c) did not provide Bryant anything other than inspirational text messages and mentorship.  It's still not even clear what the violation was in that case.

It's fair to suspend someone for knowingly violating rules.  I won't quibble with you there.  I'm just saying that sometimes the rules are pretty hard to figure out, and in some of the above cases I think it's at least plausible that the offending party did not know they were breaking a rule (especially the Jarrett case).  For example, you may have heard in the recent discussion of the NCAA now allowing unlimited meals for athletes, did you know until recently that a bagel could be provided to an athlete between meals because it's a snack, but if you put cream cheese on it, that's now defined as a "meal" and thus it's illegal?  There are definitely cases where the "violations" are such minutiae that I'd believe the offender did so innocently.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

formerd3db

I've already said I agree with you ExTartan that the NCAA needs to make many changes and those you point out are legit.  I also "won't quibble with you" in regards to your stating that "sometimes the rules are pretty hard to figure out" because indeed they are.  However, some are not and certainly the Ohio State debacle fits in that category without question.  At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens now that the NCAA announced today it some of the changes they have been considering in this regard.  Of course, the critics are already levering that it is only because of this unionization threat and, in part, they might be right, although the NCAA has been working on some of these issues for a long time, yet they are notoriously slow.  Like D306, I am not an entire fan of the NCAA and certainly don't agree with many of the policies they've had over the years, including for our DIII.  On the other hand, we should all be thankful to a large degree, as NCF and Wally have said, because of the NCAA, in receiving all that $ from the TV networks for the March Madness/Final Four, providing all the costs for the championships in the various DIII sports, thereby not costing the colleges any $ or little if any.

Now, to stir up the pot again ;D :o ;).  I had to laugh today at some of the published comments from the union pundits and the former players at Northwestern who are spearheading this unionization push, including the NLRB mouthpieces.  First, they want all encompassing openness, full media coverage, yet they are not going to reveal today's vote for many months or who knows when -what a crock!  Secondly, I also found it amusing that one of the former players, 20-year old Michael Odom, says he quit the team at Northwester because it was affecting his performance in his journalism degree classes. If the truth is known, he unfortunately is someone who just couldn't handle doing both and, he made the right decision in his best interests since the most important reason he is at Northwestern is for the education.  Third, in response to the NLRB charges of included of what they want is medical coverage for the athletes and, get this, special coverage for those pro prospects.  Another crock, especially since, according to Northwestern's spokesman, they already provide extensive medical coverage for student-athletes beyond what most students would get (within the rules, obviously).  Fourth, (as I've said before), if this unionization thing does go through (and we must note this applies only to private universities such as Northwestern, and not public universities-at least for now), and the athletes are declared employees, their "scholarships" will decease to be called that and then will be their salaries and subject to taxable income (and rightly so). And finally, with the union, should there ever be a "strike", then replacement players would certainly be allowed (if the school choose to do so).  Let's see how much the union backing players would like the last two aspects, if those were to occur.  I can hear the whining/howling now. ;D ::) :P ;) :D

Anyway, I will be surprised if the vote is positive as from what we've been hearing from the media, most of the current players are not in favor of the union.  Regardless, I still think the NLRB people are disingenuous in not making the vote public.  They want everything else out in the open and it is just another example of the double standard they push.     
"When the Great Scorer comes To mark against your name, He'll write not 'won' or 'lost', But how you played the game." - Grantland Rice

Mr. Ypsi

My understanding is that the reason for not disclosing the outcome of the vote is because Northwestern is appealing the ruling; that the outcome will be disclosed after the appeal is settled (unless, presumably, it is all moot because Northwestern wins the appeal).

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 25, 2014, 06:28:40 PM
My understanding is that the reason for not disclosing the outcome of the vote is because Northwestern is appealing the ruling; that the outcome will be disclosed after the appeal is settled (unless, presumably, it is all moot because Northwestern wins the appeal).

This was my understanding as well.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

Pat Coleman

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on April 25, 2014, 07:54:25 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 25, 2014, 06:28:40 PM
My understanding is that the reason for not disclosing the outcome of the vote is because Northwestern is appealing the ruling; that the outcome will be disclosed after the appeal is settled (unless, presumably, it is all moot because Northwestern wins the appeal).

This was my understanding as well.

Likewise. But of course, I actually read and listened to news coverage, rather than jumping to conclusions. C'mon, Doc ... you gotta do a little thinking before spouting off!
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

formerd3db

#8756
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on April 25, 2014, 07:54:25 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 25, 2014, 06:28:40 PM
My understanding is that the reason for not disclosing the outcome of the vote is because Northwestern is appealing the ruling; that the outcome will be disclosed after the appeal is settled (unless, presumably, it is all moot because Northwestern wins the appeal).

This was my understanding as well.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 25, 2014, 06:28:40 PM
My understanding is that the reason for not disclosing the outcome of the vote is because Northwestern is appealing the ruling; that the outcome will be disclosed after the appeal is settled (unless, presumably, it is all moot because Northwestern wins the appeal).
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 25, 2014, 09:12:06 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on April 25, 2014, 07:54:25 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 25, 2014, 06:28:40 PM
My understanding is that the reason for not disclosing the outcome of the vote is because Northwestern is appealing the ruling; that the outcome will be disclosed after the appeal is settled (unless, presumably, it is all moot because Northwestern wins the appeal).

This was my understanding as well.

Likewise. But of course, I actually read and listened to news coverage, rather than jumping to conclusions. C'mon, Doc ... you gotta do a little thinking before spouting off!

Come on Pat and you guys.  I know better than that and you all should know me long enough to know that I try to get all the information before making statements and sharing my opinion.  The article I took my information from (which is supposed to be a legit news source and is considered that) mentioned nothing as to the reason why the vote was to be withheld.  It did mention the appeal being in current process and to be heard, which, of course, you, me and everyone who has been following this story in the media all are aware of.  I also do not have such an ego that I can't admit my mistakes, yet, even if I did miss this one, and it appears that I did, not sure why you "ding" me for having a divergent opinion. 

I know I can be passionate at times about certain issues, but certainly no more than anyone else here, including all of you! ;)  But, even though that apparently is the reason for the delay in making the vote public, I personally think that is wrong and disagree with it and would still say so.  In many ways, it's a flawed process. If I were "running the show" it certainly would be a different process, but then, again, it is just like much of everything else in today's society, I/we don't get to make the decisions! ;) :)
"When the Great Scorer comes To mark against your name, He'll write not 'won' or 'lost', But how you played the game." - Grantland Rice

formerd3db

#8757
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 25, 2014, 06:28:40 PM
My understanding is that the reason for not disclosing the outcome of the vote is because Northwestern is appealing the ruling; that the outcome will be disclosed after the appeal is settled (unless, presumably, it is all moot because Northwestern wins the appeal).

So Mr. Ypsi...what is your take (or understanding) as to the following potential scenarios?/court processes? What happens if the vote is negative and  Northwestern doesn't win the appeal?  Conversely, if the vote is negative and Northwestern wins the appeal, the disclosure of the outcome of the vote is moot as you say?  Yet, if the vote is positive yet Northwestern wins the appeal, what happens then?

I guess I'm not sure why they chose to have the vote at this particular time?  Obviously, it is to obtain the support of the eligible players, however, it seems to me the NLRB would want to know that for sure before they even went to the initial hearings that have been held.  The initial support they had was, of course, some of the players there who have concluded their college eligibility/careers (i.e. such as Kain Colter) and former players recently although fairly well removed from their playing careers at other places.  I don't understand that process, although perhaps there is some legal requirements/reasons as to why they had to do it that way.  Again, from all the sources I've read, that has not specifically been explained, other than that is how it was going to be done, basically.  Your further thoughts/comments? (You are more versed in this having been a formerly employed professor at a major university with unions and such! ;)
"When the Great Scorer comes To mark against your name, He'll write not 'won' or 'lost', But how you played the game." - Grantland Rice

Mr. Ypsi

As I see it:

If Northwestern wins the appeal, the vote is moot.  Odds are it will leak out anyway.

If Northwestern loses the appeal, the vote will be trumpeted far and wide (either way).  In fact, you will get absolutely sick over the coverage!  Vote loses: a two day story (but wall to wall).  Vote wins: prepare for a hurricane.

ExTartanPlayer

Doc, I did not "ding" you either, merely seconded that I had also heard the results were being kept private because NW was appealing. With that said, a large basis of your last post was suggesting that the vote's privacy was a disingenuous plot and an example of a "double standard" when they had a valid reason for doing so.

I am curious why you think the "paying taxes" issue would be a deterrent. As I said before, I believe that the players would gladly pay taxes IF they were negotiating their own compensation because all indications suggest that in a free market, the going rate for a Division I football players would be greater than a scholarship.  That's kind of the while point here. Players believe that their market value is greater than that of a scholarship. They are currently unable to do anything about it because they have no negotiating power. If unionized, they would be able to collectively bargain their conpensation. If it's still just a scholarship...then fine, that's what the market dictated. Considering that several coaches and athletic administrators are on record as supporting the "full cost of attendance" movement, I think we already have evidence that schools would go higher than that, and that's before we get to potential bidding wars for recruits.

If they're wrong, yes, this would become a losing financial proposition for them. But given the number of cases that have come to light where schools have been caught (or at least rumored) to be paying for recruits, plus the amount of shady under-the-table payments that are supposedly made, it's not that farfetched to imagine that many schools would pay more than a scholarship. Heck, it's been rumored that the Big Five conferences would break away from the NCAA for that expressed purpose!

I also think that the union vote is likely to fail.  Too many players have publicly expressed that they do not support it. The NCAA is banking on the players not having the stomach for a legal fight here - the same reason this has never been challenged before, the fact that college players turn over every few years.  They want this appeal to drag on as long as possible.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa