RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

The NCAA v UNC continues

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2908



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/17 11:38 pm    ::: The NCAA v UNC continues Reply Reply with quote

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article167782507.html

There has been a hearing that lasted 2 days and comes over 2 years after the infractions were exposed. Now we wait for the committee to rule and then for the promised appeal.

The link below is a airly detailed analysis of the charges and the likely way each side is arguing them.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article167694387.html

Quote:
1. That Julius Nyang’oro and Debby Crowder, the two former African Studies department employees most responsible for administering and creating the bogus classes at the heart of the case, violated principles of ethical conduct and extra-benefit legislation in connection with the classes. The NCAA alleges that UNC’s athletic department “leveraged” the relationship with Nyang’oro and Crowder to obtain “special arrangements” for athletes in violation of extra-benefit legislation. The NCAA has argued that academically at-risk athletes used the classes to maintain their eligibility.

2. That Jan Boxill, the former women’s basketball academic counselor, provided extra benefits in the form of impermissible academic assistance.

3. That Crowder violated NCAA principles of ethical conduct when she failed to furnish information to the NCAA in 2014 and 2015.

4. That Nyang’oro violated NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he failed to furnish information to the NCAA in 2014 and 2015.

5. That UNC lacked institutional control and failed to monitor the conduct and administration of its athletic programs.


My question is why hasn't the organization that gives universities their accredidation done anything?


TechDawgMc



Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 173
Location: Temple, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/17 9:17 am    ::: Re: The NCAA v UNC continues Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article167782507.html



My question is why hasn't the organization that gives universities their accredidation done anything?


SACS did put them on probation when this came to light. I'm not sure what they required of UNC to get things sorted out. They did have to show some procedures put into place to prevent a repeat.

Going beyond probation to actually suspending accreditation is a HUGE step that the agencies are seldom willing to take (because it would end all federal aid to the institution).


Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 707
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/17 7:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

UNC's biggest arguments to the NCAA's case, is that:

1) this is an academic issue and not an athletic issue, which takes it out of the NCAA's jurisdiction.

2) there were as many non-athletic students at UNC taking the bogus classes as there were student-athletes taking them, which therefore makes this not about an impermissible benefit to student-athletes if it was available to all students.



1) The NCAA has always watched over academic improprieties as much as athletic ones where they involved and benefited student-athletes. The NCAA would not even look at the bogus classes if all they involved, were non-athletic students at UNC taking them....

2) this is a very disingenuous argument by UNC: there are on average some 18,000 undergraduate students enrolled at UNC every year, but only some 600 student-athletes enrolled and part of athletic programs. That is a 30:1 ratio of non-athletic student to student-athlete. But the bogus classes were 1:1 for some 18 years it was implemented at UNC.

3,100 students overall were estimated to take those classes, or about 172 per year for 18 yrs. If half of those were student-athletes, that's a rough average of some 86 enrolled per year. That could be the entire football team of scholarship players (they have a maximum of 85), or both the men's and women's BB teams (a total of 28 scholarship players), and still leave spots for 58 others. Every single year.

But 86 non-athletic students is a very small portion of the entire student body. It would be very easy for academic counselors to find a small % of students who have to work to afford their tuition, who are struggling to make the grades, and could use a GPA boost. It's a nothing class that requires no textbook, no homework, and no time invested in it, and they can make an A. They don't even have to sit in a classroom for it.

But it helps UNC stick in top student-athletes into the class for every regular student that takes it, to keep those student-athletes eligible to keep playing FB or BB or whatever. What does it matter to the regular student?? Not much. It matters a whole lot more to the student-athlete, and to the UNC sports program he/she plays for...


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12100



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/17 11:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Then the NCAA should suspend most of the SEC and OhSt for example for giving academic credit just for attending football practice. By your argument, it's the NCAA's job to call bullshit on that being deserving of college credit, and it's an extra benefit not available to the rest of the student body. Among other things, it means players get to graduate with fewer real classes than regular students are required to have. If they just came flat out and said "players only need 90 credits for a degree while everyone else needs 120" no one would tolerate it, but that's actually what they're doing.

I don't think universities want the NCAA determining whether just taking an Arthur Murray Dance class qualifies you as a college student. You must believe the NCAA should penalize USC and strip it of its Leinart championship. But if USC has no shame, and if its accreditors don't care, it's not the NCAA'S job the make those judgements.

The NCAA certainly does NOT routinely assess academic issues. What they penalize is teams who violate the university's own standards of conduct by, for example, cheating by having team employees write student papers, or failing to meet the school's own minimum gpa for eligibility.

It's not remotely the NCAA'S job to decide what is and what is not a credit-worthy course.

And before you create a red herring, I'm not claiming UNC did nothing worthy of being penalized. For example, getting grades changed to maintain eligibility certainly is an NCAA violation.

BTW, it appears the availability of fake classes at UNC was publicized and promoted at least as much by the frat-boy network as by the athletic dept.

If there's anything that was an academic rather than athletic scandal, this would seem to be it.


Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 707
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/17 5:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Then the NCAA should suspend most of the SEC and OhSt for example for giving academic credit just for attending football practice. By your argument, it's the NCAA's job to call bullshit on that being deserving of college credit, and it's an extra benefit not available to the rest of the student body. Among other things, it means players get to graduate with fewer real classes than regular students are required to have. If they just came flat out and said "players only need 90 credits for a degree while everyone else needs 120" no one would tolerate it, but that's actually what they're doing.

I don't think universities want the NCAA determining whether just taking an Arthur Murray Dance class qualifies you as a college student. You must believe the NCAA should penalize USC and strip it of its Leinart championship. But if USC has no shame, and if its accreditors don't care, it's not the NCAA'S job the make those judgements.

The NCAA certainly does NOT routinely assess academic issues. What they penalize is teams who violate the university's own standards of conduct by, for example, cheating by having team employees write student papers, or failing to meet the school's own minimum gpa for eligibility.

It's not remotely the NCAA'S job to decide what is and what is not a credit-worthy course.

And before you create a red herring, I'm not claiming UNC did nothing worthy of being penalized. For example, getting grades changed to maintain eligibility certainly is an NCAA violation.

BTW, it appears the availability of fake classes at UNC was publicized and promoted at least as much by the frat-boy network as by the athletic dept.

If there's anything that was an academic rather than athletic scandal, this would seem to be it.


"Most of the SEC" doesn't participate in such policies, although there are some 30-40 Div I FB programs that do, such as Southern California, Florida State, Penn State, Kansas State, NC State, Brigham Young, Nebraska, Georgia, and yes Ohio State are among those programs that do. It's been done for generations, with FB coaches teaching PE or other sports-related classes. In many of these programs, the credit hours apply towards the classes the student-athletes are taking but do not go toward degree requirements, unless those student-athletes are majoring in sports-related degrees, like Exercise Science, or Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport Studies.

But non-athletic students can also receive elective class credit for playing in a band on Saturdays, or for Drama classes for participating in theater plays, or for degree-related job internship. That's never been the issue, and isn't the issue here. What is, is creating a bogus class for cheap, easy grades, and then stuffing them full of student-athletes in order to keep them academically eligible to play. Just like you said above, although its not just "team employees", it can also be "university employees" such as tutors, teachers, and administration personnel such as Debbie Crowder, who aren't employed by any athletic department, but by the university itself.

Again, as I stated above, if this class only had non-athletic students taking it, the NCAA wouldn't give a damn about how bogus the classes are. And the NCAA doesn't really care how lame the classes are that student-athletes take. Remember the jokes about "Basket Weaving 101"? Well, whether or not those classes ever existed, the NCAA wasn't the entity that made them go away. The NCAA only made student-athletes being the only ones who took those classes go away.

What the NCAA is involved in, is making sure those bogus classes aren't created for student-athletes, or used primarily in order to give them an easy ride academically. If so, then its an impermissible benefit....


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12100



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/17 9:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yeah, the SEC is always so pure. Cleanest conference in the country. Puts the Ivy League to shame. Laughing Laughing Laughing

That must be why Georgia's basketball coach had to resign over his "Basketball Strategy" class, the final exam for which included questions like "How many points does a 3-point field goal account for in a Basketball Game?"; "What is the name of the coliseum where the Georgia Bulldogs play?"; "How many halves are in a college basketball game?"; "Diagram the 3-point line."; "Diagram the half-court line."

BTW, except for the "diagram" questions, these were multiple choice questions. Yes, these are the real questions. Those "A"s in Basketball Strategy helped keep players eligible.


linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 2908



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/17 2:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Let the fan whose school is without sin cast the first stone.


FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 576



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/17 6:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'd guess there are fans of non-power five schools, say the Ivy and Patriot Leagues, who could cast plenty of stones about academic scandals. If the NCAA could force the larger leagues to clean up these issues, maybe there would be more parity across leagues.

Or we could concede that college athletes are actually professional players and rescind academic requirements all together.

Right now we're in no man's land with a fantasy that college players are just like other students except they play sports.


Ladyvol777



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 214



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/17 6:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

"How many halves are in a college basketball game?" Well when are you going to tell us.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8491



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/17 12:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
I'd guess there are fans of non-power five schools, say the Ivy and Patriot Leagues, who could cast plenty of stones about academic scandals. If the NCAA could force the larger leagues to clean up these issues, maybe there would be more parity across leagues.

Or we could concede that college athletes are actually professional players and rescind academic requirements all together.

Right now we're in no man's land with a fantasy that college players are just like other students except they play sports.


X____________

It's a billion-dollar industry, and the employees who generate that income are not ordinary students and should not be treated as such.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4132
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/17 12:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
I'd guess there are fans of non-power five schools, say the Ivy and Patriot Leagues, who could cast plenty of stones about academic scandals. If the NCAA could force the larger leagues to clean up these issues, maybe there would be more parity across leagues.

Or we could concede that college athletes are actually professional players and rescind academic requirements all together.

Right now we're in no man's land with a fantasy that college players are just like other students except they play sports.


X____________

It's a billion-dollar industry, and the employees who generate that income are not ordinary students and should not be treated as such.


Outside of football and men's basketball at some colleges, most college sports generate net losses not net income. Should the student-athlete employees in those negative income sports be financially penalized in some manner vis-a-vis non-athlete students, such as by paying higher tuition or by suffering cuts to their scholarships? Or maybe getting fired?
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8491



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/17 5:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
ClayK wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
I'd guess there are fans of non-power five schools, say the Ivy and Patriot Leagues, who could cast plenty of stones about academic scandals. If the NCAA could force the larger leagues to clean up these issues, maybe there would be more parity across leagues.

Or we could concede that college athletes are actually professional players and rescind academic requirements all together.

Right now we're in no man's land with a fantasy that college players are just like other students except they play sports.


X____________

It's a billion-dollar industry, and the employees who generate that income are not ordinary students and should not be treated as such.


Outside of football and men's basketball at some colleges, most college sports generate net losses not net income. Should the student-athlete employees in those negative income sports be financially penalized in some manner vis-a-vis non-athlete students, such as by paying higher tuition or by suffering cuts to their scholarships? Or maybe getting fired?


Part of the benefit of collegiate sports is branding, marketing and alumni loyalty. The track athlete, say, is probably more likely to have loyalty to a university than a biology major. Probably ...

But sure, I have no problem with that. Fairly compensate the football and basketball players for their time, talent and damage they do to their bodies, and then, as in most California high schools right now, charge a fee to those who want to play sports that lose money.

So the quarterback gets $1 million a year because that's his value (set it on the open market -- let colleges bid, and see what the market says). You want to be a high jumper, it'll cost you $400 per season.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 576



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/17 6:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So does the quarterback have to take a few real classes so he can read his diploma? We all know the high jumper needs some sort of education so he can get a real job after graduation.

Sarcasm aside, if all athletes who are enrolled in a particular school can't meet the school's and NCAA's academic requirements, then they shouldn't be there and shouldn't be allowed to play college sports. The QB, high jumper, and biology major should all be held to the same academic standards. I don't see how paying an athlete changes that. Either they are college students or they're not.


Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 707
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/17 7:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Yeah, the SEC is always so pure. Cleanest conference in the country. Puts the Ivy League to shame. Laughing Laughing Laughing

That must be why Georgia's basketball coach had to resign over his "Basketball Strategy" class, the final exam for which included questions like "How many points does a 3-point field goal account for in a Basketball Game?"; "What is the name of the coliseum where the Georgia Bulldogs play?"; "How many halves are in a college basketball game?"; "Diagram the 3-point line."; "Diagram the half-court line."

BTW, except for the "diagram" questions, these were multiple choice questions. Yes, these are the real questions. Those "A"s in Basketball Strategy helped keep players eligible.


I didn't say the SEC was pure, you must be having a debate with another poster. I merely disputed what you said....

The men's basketball scandal at UGA was one incident that only supports my argument. The NCAA doesn't care if coaches teach courses to their student-athletes. They do not care if they teach "Basket Weaving 101". But let them catch those coaches - or someone else, other than those student-athletes - weaving those baskets for them, and then giving them "A"s for it, then the NCAA has always stepped in. The notion you made that the NCAA isn't involved with academics is in error......


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12100



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/22/17 8:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Yeah, the SEC is always so pure. Cleanest conference in the country. Puts the Ivy League to shame. Laughing Laughing Laughing

That must be why Georgia's basketball coach had to resign over his "Basketball Strategy" class, the final exam for which included questions like "How many points does a 3-point field goal account for in a Basketball Game?"; "What is the name of the coliseum where the Georgia Bulldogs play?"; "How many halves are in a college basketball game?"; "Diagram the 3-point line."; "Diagram the half-court line."

BTW, except for the "diagram" questions, these were multiple choice questions. Yes, these are the real questions. Those "A"s in Basketball Strategy helped keep players eligible.


I didn't say the SEC was pure, you must be having a debate with another poster. I merely disputed what you said....

The men's basketball scandal at UGA was one incident that only supports my argument. The NCAA doesn't care if coaches teach courses to their student-athletes. They do not care if they teach "Basket Weaving 101". But let them catch those coaches - or someone else, other than those student-athletes - weaving those baskets for them, and then giving them "A"s for it, then the NCAA has always stepped in. The notion you made that the NCAA isn't involved with academics is in error......


You just reconfirmed you don't understand the fundamental issue involved with UNC.

On the first point, your inevitable and invariable "SEC schools don't do that", regardless of the issue, is always predictable and hilarious.

But then I just need to recall that this comes from the same person who called the current South Carolina coach the "face of women's basketball" and the Mike Krzyzewski/Nick Saban of women's basketball to recognize this certainly isn't worth wasting any more of my time.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8491



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/17 11:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
So does the quarterback have to take a few real classes so he can read his diploma? We all know the high jumper needs some sort of education so he can get a real job after graduation.

Sarcasm aside, if all athletes who are enrolled in a particular school can't meet the school's and NCAA's academic requirements, then they shouldn't be there and shouldn't be allowed to play college sports. The QB, high jumper, and biology major should all be held to the same academic standards. I don't see how paying an athlete changes that. Either they are college students or they're not.


I agree with some minimum academic standards, but that doesn't affect the pay scale. The reality, though, is that any elite athlete in a revenue sport will not have to spend too much time worrying about eligibility.

There's no reason the QB can't be on salary and still go to class ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
willtalk



Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 261
Location: NorCal


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/28/17 1:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:


I agree with some minimum academic standards, but that doesn't affect the pay scale. The reality, though, is that any elite athlete in a revenue sport will not have to spend too much time worrying about eligibility.

There's no reason the QB can't be on salary and still go to class ...


What you are suggesting is that they create a minor league that is affiliated with a University. What would it be labeled - On the job training?. Why even have them attend classes at all then? The problem with your proposal is that it will not stop there. It will just open the door to the elimination of student athletes. You are just moving the existing line more in that direction and once it starts it will not stop.

Would you also suggest that participants in other forms of entertainment sponsored by the Universities be paid wages for their efforts as well? What about band members, cheer leaders, theater students, etc. You seem to forget that our educational systems are not really part of the real world but closed communities. Many of them are state funded. Should those paid athletes not only get paid but be considered state employee's as well. Should they be treated as students or employee'? The can of worms this opens would be endless once the dividing line between student and employee is clouded.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8491



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/28/17 10:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

willtalk wrote:
ClayK wrote:


I agree with some minimum academic standards, but that doesn't affect the pay scale. The reality, though, is that any elite athlete in a revenue sport will not have to spend too much time worrying about eligibility.

There's no reason the QB can't be on salary and still go to class ...


What you are suggesting is that they create a minor league that is affiliated with a University. What would it be labeled - On the job training?. Why even have them attend classes at all then? The problem with your proposal is that it will not stop there. It will just open the door to the elimination of student athletes. You are just moving the existing line more in that direction and once it starts it will not stop.

Would you also suggest that participants in other forms of entertainment sponsored by the Universities be paid wages for their efforts as well? What about band members, cheer leaders, theater students, etc. You seem to forget that our educational systems are not really part of the real world but closed communities. Many of them are state funded. Should those paid athletes not only get paid but be considered state employee's as well. Should they be treated as students or employee'? The can of worms this opens would be endless once the dividing line between student and employee is clouded.


First, college athletics are minor leagues run by universities in football and basketball -- and to some extent, baseball as well.

Second, college athletics are a billion-dollar industry that have absolutely zero to do with education. (You might be able to argue that Division III athletics complement academics ...)

Third, those who generate income for institutions should be adequately compensated for producing that income. The band does not produce income, thus band members get no compensation. (Negotiations between a student-athlete union and universities could determine whether indirect income, such as donations, marketing, etc., should be compensated.)

Fourth, elite athletes at Power 5 schools are not "student-athletes" in any real sense. They are kept eligible by an army of tutors and support staff, and though some do take advantage of educational opportunities, most are focused on their job -- which is to play a game well enough that the team wins, fans come, alumni are happy and plenty of income, free marketing and donor interest is generated.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
willtalk



Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 261
Location: NorCal


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/28/17 12:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
willtalk wrote:
ClayK wrote:


I agree with some minimum academic standards, but that doesn't affect the pay scale. The reality, though, is that any elite athlete in a revenue sport will not have to spend too much time worrying about eligibility.

There's no reason the QB can't be on salary and still go to class ...


What you are suggesting is that they create a minor league that is affiliated with a University. What would it be labeled - On the job training?. Why even have them attend classes at all then? The problem with your proposal is that it will not stop there. It will just open the door to the elimination of student athletes. You are just moving the existing line more in that direction and once it starts it will not stop.

Would you also suggest that participants in other forms of entertainment sponsored by the Universities be paid wages for their efforts as well? What about band members, cheer leaders, theater students, etc. You seem to forget that our educational systems are not really part of the real world but closed communities. Many of them are state funded. Should those paid athletes not only get paid but be considered state employee's as well. Should they be treated as students or employee'? The can of worms this opens would be endless once the dividing line between student and employee is clouded.


First, college athletics are minor leagues run by universities in football and basketball -- and to some extent, baseball as well.

Second, college athletics are a billion-dollar industry that have absolutely zero to do with education. (You might be able to argue that Division III athletics complement academics ...)

Third, those who generate income for institutions should be adequately compensated for producing that income. The band does not produce income, thus band members get no compensation. (Negotiations between a student-athlete union and universities could determine whether indirect income, such as donations, marketing, etc., should be compensated.)

Fourth, elite athletes at Power 5 schools are not "student-athletes" in any real sense. They are kept eligible by an army of tutors and support staff, and though some do take advantage of educational opportunities, most are focused on their job -- which is to play a game well enough that the team wins, fans come, alumni are happy and plenty of income, free marketing and donor interest is generated.


I actually knew what your response would be and even thought about giving my response before you answered, but I am really writing lazy.

Now there are generally only two sports that produce any measurable income and those are men's basketball and football. Most of the other sports seldom pay for themselves so they could not really be considered a business. Have you ever heard about concerts, recitals or theater productions? They also produce revenue even though they mostly do not break even. That is just like most collegiate athletic programs. So for this argument some of the arts can be put into the same category as most of the athletic programs.

Often even football programs fall into that category. Many college's stopped competing in football because the cost of fielding a team incurred too much of a financial loss. In fact Cal was going too, or at least is considering dropping quite a few Olympic sports athletic programs as a cost saving move. Most college athletic programs do not even pay for them selves.

I spoke of opening a can of worms. The causational effects of your proposal would end up changing college athletics as we knew it. Except for just a few basketball programs it would end most women's programs. Even those few would soon feel the effects because their popularity is based upon their dominance of the other teams. It would also eliminate Olympic sports.

While some programs are big business that does not hold for the majority of the programs. The money is tied to TV and that is fueled by as you pointed out " the Name Brand". You need to consider what creates that name brand. It is not the sport but the college that is affiliated with the sport. Other wise those sports would have minor league systems like the do in Europe and other countries. ND did not get their National TV contract because of their ability alone. It's alumni support. Turn it into a simi pro league and you destroy the college athletic image and the support of the alumni will soon wain. The minor leagues soccer leagues in Europe do make money but not to the degree of the major college programs.

The major football and basketball programs are a business but their success is based on the illusion that they are not. Destroy that illusion and you destroy what separates them from the minor pro leagues. Your proposals are the first steps to the eventual destruction of that illusion. Who knows perhaps it needs to be destroyed.

The illusions that our Universities sell are not limited to athletics. They have long ceased being motivated purely for educational purposes. Academics are as much a business as football. Degree's and their respective values are also about selling a brand. The system has come to represent and reflect the moral of the parable of "the Emperors New Clothes". Our University system is a "philosophic Trojan Horse" reflective of a European class distinctive culture that should have been left in the Old World.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4132
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/28/17 4:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Clay, how would you feel about an alternative solution?

Namely, forbid colleges from making income from sports. No charge allowed for games. No income allowed to be received from TV stations who choose to broadcast the games.

No income, no business. No business, no employer or employees.

Perhaps we let alums make targeted donations if they wish. I don't think that would make the Athletic Department any more of an employment business than the Physics Department re accepting alum donations. But, if necessary, we could also require all alum donations to be unrestricted.

This was essentially the way Ivy League sports were run when I was there. I'm not sure about now.

I believe that physical education is a legitimate component of higher education. I'd just prefer to take the externally-sourced money out of it.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin