I guess the rule against quality control guys monitoring stretching before official practice time is "un-stupid". What a tool: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6633220
I guess the rule against quality control guys monitoring stretching before official practice time is "un-stupid". What a tool: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6633220
I'm no fan of the NCAA, but I think Bob is the one that is a little out of touch with reality and integrity concerning this matter
I'm more interested in hearing Lou Holtz's opinion on the NCAA and their meddling ways.
If it wasn't for them and their dog.
He's not exactly wrong.
he is wrong because without that rule, kids will be able to give away their memoribilia for hundreds of thousands of dollars. imagine the ed martin thing not being a big deal because webber gave him a signed jersey. it creates a dangerous loophole.
EDIT: but i still love bob knight. he's hilarious.
Ahhh right. It's terrible to sell personal property. As long as it's a rule, they should be punished. It doesn't make it any less of a stupid rule.
If you want to argue against the importance of amateurism in college sports, that's fine -- you certainly wouldn't be the only one. But to act like this is a matter of property rights is more than a little off base. Allowing universities to give players memorabilia that you then allow the players to redeem for exhorbitant prices from boosters means that you're allowing boosters to pay players. Again, if that's the system you want, fine. But you should argue for it more directly.
You don't seem to understand why it's a rule.
Imagine if players could sell personal property during their college years; every week boosters could "buy" autographs or worn t-shirts from the star players. Agents representatives would be at every game buying used shoes as a way to get close to the player.
Eliminating the rule would be chaos.
It is a stupid rule. I still think players should be able to make any money they can from anyone they want, like other Americans are allowed to do.
That being said, TSIO broke the rules and should be punished, just like Michigan basketball was. They have cheated for all of the Tressel era and deserve to have it all erased. The issue isn't the fairness of the rule; it's the fact that the rules were broken and TSIO gained an unfair competitive advantage by breaking them.
Greater recruiting advantage: free tattoos, discount cars, and money from boosters or extra practice time?
Yeah, but "other Americans" can't sell their autograph for thousands of dollars.
Tater, it's not a stupid rule, and here's why: You have to think about the rule to its natural conclusion. What would happen is that boosters would "buy" pieces of memorabilia at insane sums as a way to funnel money to players. The money at big-time programs would be there. Think about it: Friends of the football program pay, say, $25-50k for a game-worn jersey each year. Before you say "well, that's clearly preposterous and not what they're worth," you have to think about the fact that "what they're worth" is, in a free market economy, "what someone will pay." It would, without a doubt, be a way to funnel extra sums of money to players. They get something for free- the jersey, cleats, whatever- then "sell" it, and reap windfalls, and are, essentially, professional players, with the money just being funnelled through the conduit of memorabilia. It's no different than using a special purpose entity to funnel money from corporation A to corporation B; corp A in this scenario is the booster, corp B is the player, and the special purpose entity is the "sale" of a jersey/cleats, whatever. Further, the NCAA doesn't want to get bogged down in making adjudications regarding what is a "reasonable" or "fair" price for said memorabilia, as "what someone will pay" is what it's worth.
Take whatever Knight says with a grain of salt, he is a OSU grad and learned from Woody. I guess calling out UK and having all the facts wrong wasnt enough, he had to find another way to make a ass out of himself.
Bo Schembechler was "an OSU grad and learned from Woody."
If by "OSU grad" you mean played at Miami of OH
He got a Master's Degree from tOSU. Look it up.
In fact, I'll do one better. From his official biography on umich.edu:
After earning his diploma from Miami (Ohio) University in 1951, Schembechler received his master's degree from Ohio State in 1952 while serving as a graduate assistant coach.
I've seen this clip a million times over the years, and for the first time I'm struck by the cheap-a$$ chair that was courtside at IU. It looks like the chair I used in kindergarten.
You can love or hate the BTN, but the influx of extra TV revenue has allowed our conference to upgrade their courtside seating, which, in turn, has to help recruiting. (Following the theme of "any facility upgrade including new drinking fountains and dual-flush toilets in the locker room will help in recruiting").
LOL... My mother, an OSU grad the other night told me that when she was attending OSU during the Woody years that the players were allowed to cheat on the exams openly and the professors did nothing. She said that during one physical education exam the players actually passed the answers to the exam around amongst themselves. She jokingly said that maybe she was just bitter because they didn't pass her the answers. She also mentioned that the basketball players did not appear to do the same type of things. FWIW my mother was a Health and PE major.
I think having to wear my seatbelt is stupid but it's the law. If I get caught I have to pay the consequences. So should the OSU players.
I still don't have the slightest clue how that's a law... It's been proven by the Supreme Court time and again that we have a right to do things that may be considered dangerous. Cliff jumping - legal, bungee jumping - legal, riding a freaking motorcycle WITHOUT A HELMET(!!!) - legal. I have always worn my seat belt and always will but it baffles my mind how there's a seat belt law when there are instances where wearing a seatbelt can kill you and while there is no law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.
/off soap box
I'd imagine that it has to do with state constitutional regimes. Or, it is highly likely that no one has challenged the constitutionality of it, or if they did, the SCOTUS refused to grant cert to hear the case.
Now, if Congress enacted a nationwide safety belt law, I could see it getting challenged and struck down as an overextension of the Commerce Clause. But the seatbelt laws are state laws. It makes me wonder if no one has taken the challenge to Circuit Courts of Appeals; it is also a different standard when the courts of appeals/SCOTUS are looking at laws made by the states (think of the 10th amendment, which states that duties not specifically given to Congress are reserved for the states).
every time he opens his mouth all of his accomplishments get tarnished. I also think he's likley to say "get off my lawn"
No he wouldn't. He'd just deck you.
I am actually one of the people in the camp that believes college athletes should be allowed to do whatever they want with their stuff. With that being said, I still think that since it's a rule, albeit a silly one, they have to follow it if they want to be able to play college athletics and deserve to be punished if they break it. So in that sense, I kinda agree with Bob Knight.
Quite honestly, I think a lot of folks on the board here are pretty big hypocrites and aren't able to look at things objectively (See: reactions to Darryl Stonum vs. Michael Floyd situations). And I think that if Michigan players got caught doing this, a lot of posters here would be saying those rules are stupid. Just my two cents.
Ok, so if the NCAA allowed this to happen boosters would give the players $10,000 for a good game and say it was for a autographed t shirt. Then what would the ncaa do? It would be a free for all.
If someone offered you money because you could throw a football really well, would you have a problem with it? How about instead of saying it was for an autographed tshirt, they said it was because "I'm really fucking rich and I felt like it because it strokes my ego, also the kid probably deserves a chunk of change".
So the schools with the richest boosters would dominate and ruin the sport like the nfl, hey how about we make a NCAA PA and start a CBA and say fuck you to all the little schools. What makes college football the greatest game on earth is the fact that they dont get paid yet they give it everything they have in hopes of one day cashing in once they get to the nfl. Do you need to hear the "team" speech by Bo? can someone embed that for these guys.
You mean like how the schools with the richest boosters already dominate college football with the occasional little guy sprinkled in? What does the Bo speech have do with anything? I hate it when people refer back to something like that and act like it's Moses coming down with the 10 commandments etched in stone.
Occasional little guy sprinkled in? What about Boise St? TCU? UTAH? Ive seen one every year since the BCS started. Kansas,Uconn, and Kansas St. Arizona has turned its program around. The speech was a reference about playing for a team not a pay check, you add money like that into the fold and it will not be a team sport anymore.
I'm not trying to troll or start an argument, I just think that people need to try to look at things more objectively.
I think they should both be suspended for the first few games of the season, and certainly M-ND at the very least. However, Kelly's "all games or no games" ruling on Floyd's eligibility for the season, at his own personal discretion, makes me more than a little cynical about the disciplinary procedures at ND. I don't expect either player to be suspended for the whole season but they should be suspended for a few games. My $0.02.
I don't like the "all games or no games" ruling, but I do think that if Kelly doesn't suspend Floyd, he'll catch a lot of flak here, while if Hoke doesn't suspend Stonum, I think most people here would defend the decision.
but neither coach has given a definitive ruling. It's premature to condemn the board for being hypocritical at this point in the process because nothing is set in stone yet. I hope that cooler heads on the board will prevail when disciplinary rulings are released to the public, but for the moment we're speculating without any real news to debate, other than the fact that Floyd is cleared for summer workouts.
I should not accused the board of such things before anything went down. Point taken.
I may get pasted for this, but I disagree completely with you on this one. First, unless I am mistaken Floyd is in trouble for the third time, but this is his first DUI (I read somewhere that the previous offenses were just drinking underage) while Stonum has been caught drinking and driving, had a probabtion violation and then got caught drinking and driving again.
Stonums offenses are worse in my opinion. Whatever Stonum got for his first DUI (I don't remember exactly) would be fair for Floyd since it is his first, but I can't see anything other than a suspension for the season for Stonum being fair.
I wouldn't condemn a kid for underage drinking as I was a teenager once and know how difficult it can be at times. It is a crime, but not one I would list under the "serious" category. I could even see not being to outraged at a first DUI offense (as much as I hate the fact that people do it), I could chalk that up to a kid doing something stupid and not thinking before they act.
When you look at Stonum's history, it shows something a lot worse IMHE. He has got caught drinking and driving twice and violated his probabtion. To me that shows a distinct disregard for authority and the law.
... is a bully and a joke. Like Jim Tressel, he has become a punch line. At some point, as a live on-air analyst, he will do exactly what he did as a coach -- he will begin to believe he is somehow superior to everyone else and let loose with a totally racist or anti-gay or other similar inappropriate remark and he will be fired by ESPN. Finally, that will be the end of Bob Knight.
If you ever met Bob Knight would so say that to his face?
If you are asking whether I would stand up to a bully, gee I hope so. I'm no longer 12 years old. How about you?
I don't ever remember seeing you here before and I read this thread and just about every other post is you picking fights with people. Get a life.
His Indiana teams won three national titles. His program was squeaky clean. His players graduated and went on to enjoy productive lives. Knight-coached teams had a way of overcoming talent deficits and beating teams "they shouldn't have". He won more Big Ten titles than any other coach during his era. He donated his time and money to support women's basketball at Indiana, the library, and countless smaller entities. As a commentator, does he provide candid and valuable insight on basketball and society? I and a lot of others think so, even if we don't always agree with him.
Did he throw that chair? Yes. Did he act like a jerk in public? Numerous times. Did he grab a kid by the neck, on camera? Yes he did. Did he have contempt for most sportswriters? Absolutely, but you know what? They generally deserved it.
To dismiss the guy as a bully and a joke suggests you don't know very much about Bob Knight. To think he'd say a "totally racist or anti-gay remark" pretty much proves the point.
The problem I have is that you can say this anonymously on the internet, but if the situation presented itself, I doubt you'd ever say it to him.
It must be tough going through life worrying about whether your views meet with Bob Knight's approval. Or whether he might beat you up for thinking them.
I literally said none of those things. And you still never directly answered my question. It's ok though, the answer is pretty obvious.
I totally don't know what I would do without your approval of my answer.
It seems like you respond very maturely when challenged.../s
I'm sure you will learn to handle yourself maturely too, when you grow up.
Brian's 50 year old African-American Female demographic must be going up...
I think agasp just may be the Oracle from the Matrix movies.
It's clear that some of you don't agree but this IS a stupid rule.
But (as many have failed to point out) just because it's a stupid rule doesn't mean the solution is to break it and hope you don't get caught.
Lobby the NCAA, the university presidents, and the fans get the players behind you do ESPN interviews show them statistics to try to get the rule changed while you continue to enforce it. That's how you get rules changed.
This is something the Jim Tressels, SEC schools, and Jason Whitlocks of the world don't understand. Just because a rule might suck doesn't mean you ignore it. You need to go through the proper channels to change the rules or quit being a part of the organization. No one ever forced Tressel to be a college football coach and if he didn't like the rules he shouldn't have been one.
Bobby needs to check in @!
Excuse me Nurse Betty. Coach Knight is out of his "chair" again!
That's what I thought.
Coming from a guy who thinks it's appropriate to throw a chair across the court, I'll just keep on walking instead of listening.
I don't want to get into the whole Jerzy debate again, but the comments suggesting players should be allowed to take booster money brought up a serious question for me.
"Why watch college football?"
From a purely objective standpoint, the NFL is better football. The players are more talented. The game is faster. Routes are sharper. Passes are crisper. Hits are more violent.
What the NFL no longer offers are the traditions and the pure joy of the game. The marching bands, the student sections, the traditional sights and sounds of a fall Saturday. But maybe more importantly, it's the sense that we (or at least I) get that these young men play for the glory of the game and their universities.
Each time I see a Pro Combat uniform or hear the piped in sounds of Stadium Jamz 27, an aspect of what makes college football special dies just a little bit more. Every time I step into a corporate sponsored stadium to see every square inch of space covered with advertising that obscures championship banners and retired numbers, I feel like something's been stolen. Once we openly clear college players to take on the mercenary role and sell their skills to the highest bidder, the remainder of what makes college football my favorite sport will be gone.
I'll still watch, because, god knows I can't ever watch enough football, but I'll likely do so with the same enthusiasm most people put into AA Baseball. I just can't get that excited about my favorite NFL D-League team.
Where is the "Awesome" moderate option?
I agree with you whole-heartedly on the tradition and pride aspects of it. Advertisements in stadiums don't bother me too much, really, until, like you said, it becomes a distraction/obstruction of what you are really there for.
And it may just be me, but I kinda like the occasional Pro Combat uniform for a little change up every once in a while.
I read it, and I really don't know what the big deal is. He apparently believes that trading memorabilia for tats is not wrong, and that the rule that prohibits it is "idiotic." Well, that's his opinion, and I disagree. But many other columnists (even those who are not OSU slappys) have expressed similar views, so it's not like he's out in left field.
I also find it hard to disagree with this comment:
I think this NCAA that we're currently involved with is so far out of touch with the integrity of the sport that it's just amazing.
Many of us on this blog have written as much. So, it's hard to find fault with that, either.
He doesn't, apparently, say anything about what Tressel did. Considering that Knight, for all his faults, was never even remotely accused of cheating, I find the omission deliberate. I think his silence on that issue is deafening.
Ok Bob, if you say so
He's wrong on the issue of selling awards and equipment.
But he's no gung-ho Buckeye, even if he went there. His position is based on his beliefs, and isn't some pro-OSU slant.