- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
When will someone put the smackdown on the NCAA?
Posted on 7/24/11 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 7/24/11 at 1:10 pm
I'm looking at the details of all of these crazy "compliance issues" that have surfaced at LSU and other schools and wondering what it would take to bring a civil suit against the NCAA. For example, the Shep situation, a kid working his way through school and playing football is living with his girlfriend. Why should the NCAA have any say whatsoever if she covers the rent? As long as it isn't done through the university, the kid should be free to make any sort of arrangement that any other college student can. I understand why they WANT to police that, I'm just not sure why they should have the authority to do so. In trying to identify and control every possible way that a school could provide a financial benefit to a player, they have made it damn near impossible for universities to remain compliant.
13
Posted on 7/24/11 at 1:14 pm to ffishstik
I agree. The ridiculousness is pretty evident, and the problem is they can't control every aspect of a player's college career. Who he comes in contact with, who he meets, etc.
They are basically trying to herd cats. No good comes of it.
They are basically trying to herd cats. No good comes of it.
Posted on 7/24/11 at 1:14 pm to ffishstik
Posted on 7/24/11 at 1:15 pm to ffishstik
quote:Since they are the governing body of college athletics I'm going to go ahead and say never.
When will someone put the smackdown on the NCAA?
Posted on 7/24/11 at 1:19 pm to ffishstik
No one believed it when USC fans were saying this.
Posted on 7/24/11 at 1:20 pm to Geauxtiga
quote:No one believes it now either.
No one believed it when USC fans were saying this.
Posted on 7/24/11 at 1:24 pm to Guava Jelly
I'm thinking more along the lines of a player who has had their eligibility revoked for some bullshite issue that they, by rights, should have been able to do. I doubt that a lone university would take that action. If something were to come from the universities, it would more likely be the decision from the major conferences to leave the NCAA altogether. And, although it isn't likely to happen, there HAS been talk of that.
This post was edited on 7/24/11 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 7/24/11 at 1:26 pm to ffishstik
time for a no holds barred, no punches pulled, all $ paid super league across the nation and drop out of the ncaa. leave boise state and rutgers and texas tech for the ncaa.
Posted on 7/24/11 at 2:11 pm to ffishstik
quote:
I understand why they WANT to police that, I'm just not sure why they should have the authority to do so. In trying to identify and control every possible way that a school could provide a financial benefit to a player, they have made it damn near impossible for universities to remain compliant.
since you understand why they want to police extra financial benefits i do not understand your complaint. Shep is not in trouble yet, i think it's being looked into. his girlfriend works for LSU so there is a concern on the part of the ncaa that LSU is paying more than the allowable (since i think his schollie provides room and board). yes, this situation appears to be the act of an overzealous compliant person and, if so, time will tell and everything will be OK. the fact is, we need rules to run any organization and the ncaa is charged with enforcing these rules. if not them, there would be another organization that would, so what's the difference? there is a reason why rules are so complicated; that reason being that repeated attempts are made to circumvent existing rules so the enforcement people have to keep refining them. it's just like our legal system. between the rules circumventors and the lawyers, how can it be possible to have simplicity?
Posted on 7/24/11 at 2:34 pm to ffishstik
Yes they can. They can bring back the athletic dorms along with all other necessities that a young man or woman athlete/student needs in order to be just that an athlete-student for the university(training table etc.). It would at least centralize everything and bullshite situations like this one might at least be reduced. Oh but some liberal tree huggin academiac thinks that is showing preferential treatment. Nevermind the fact that 80% of their time is owned by the university and millions of dollars are made many of which go to each universities general fund and more importantly pay these pricks salaries so they can spend their time justifying themselves undergoing investigations like this. 
Posted on 7/24/11 at 2:38 pm to ffishstik
I'm sure we've had lots of players who have had parents that have worked for the university. Because they pay the mortgage, does that make them all ineligible. It's just too crazy.
Posted on 7/24/11 at 3:04 pm to ffishstik
Let's say you have rich parents and you're a scholly athlete. If your parents pay all your scholly expenses, you cannot get a check from the University equal to those expenses. Now you could accept your scholly benefits and your parents could give you equivalent money and that would be okay.
Both ways net the same amount of money, but one is illegal. The legal method is just easier to monitor, frankly just looks cleaner, and keeps university money from being used in embarrassing ways. The university is simply paying for specific verifiable expenses.
From what I've read, and I haven't read everything, it seems like Shep's girlfriend paid the rent and Shep pocketed the university money. The legitimate way was to reverse that. Because of this equivalence, because his girlfriend is legitimate and not some booster paid working girl, Shep will be able to straighten things out with little penalty imo.
Both ways net the same amount of money, but one is illegal. The legal method is just easier to monitor, frankly just looks cleaner, and keeps university money from being used in embarrassing ways. The university is simply paying for specific verifiable expenses.
From what I've read, and I haven't read everything, it seems like Shep's girlfriend paid the rent and Shep pocketed the university money. The legitimate way was to reverse that. Because of this equivalence, because his girlfriend is legitimate and not some booster paid working girl, Shep will be able to straighten things out with little penalty imo.
Posted on 7/24/11 at 3:41 pm to LSUGradATL
quote:
time for a no holds barred, no punches pulled, all $ paid super league across the nation and drop out of the ncaa. leave boise state and rutgers and texas tech for the ncaa
it's a thought. to me, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater but by alleviating a segment of ametuer sports and making it pro what will happen? i'm a saints fan and they don't have all of these rules. but i went to college at LSU and, to me, the university is the reason why the football team exists not the reverse. my personal opinion is that we keep it as ameteur as possible but i would still be a fan of LSU's semi-pro football team. in my day, there were athletic dorms and the athletes got $25 per week "laundry money" (about $250/week today) and they got 6 tickets to each home game to supposedly to give to their parents and friends but many were sold for xtra spending money. and then they had "summer jobs", some which were real jobs and some which were play jobs. now, the athlete gets none of that. it may be possible to work some in the summer but football is basically year round. therefore, i'm not at all opposed to providing spending money , HOWEVER, nowdays the same amount would have to be provided to ALL ATHLETES; male, female, track, volleyball, lacrosse, etc. most schools could not afford this so they would cut non-revenue sports and therefore cut scholarships down to the bone. i wish there was a way that all college athletes could get spending money included in their scholarship, at least a reasonable amount. it would not put much of a dent in the cheating though; some people would always want more and some alumni would always want them to have more.
Posted on 7/24/11 at 3:52 pm to LSU GrandDad
Very good point. So why not at least bring back the athletic dorms as they once were?
Posted on 7/24/11 at 4:03 pm to LSU GrandDad
quote:This...
Yes they can. They can bring back the athletic dorms along with all other necessities that a young man or woman athlete/student needs in order to be just that an athlete-student for the university(training table etc.). It would at least centralize everything and bullshite situations like this one might at least be reduced. Oh but some liberal tree huggin academiac thinks that is showing preferential treatment. Nevermind the fact that 80% of their time is owned by the university and millions of dollars are made many of which go to each universities general fund and more importantly pay these pricks salaries so they can spend their time justifying themselves undergoing investigations like this.
quote:...and this!
it's a thought. to me, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater but by alleviating a segment of ametuer sports and making it pro what will happen? i'm a saints fan and they don't have all of these rules. but i went to college at LSU and, to me, the university is the reason why the football team exists not the reverse. my personal opinion is that we keep it as ameteur as possible but i would still be a fan of LSU's semi-pro football team. in my day, there were athletic dorms and the athletes got $25 per week "laundry money" (about $250/week today) and they got 6 tickets to each home game to supposedly to give to their parents and friends but many were sold for xtra spending money. and then they had "summer jobs", some which were real jobs and some which were play jobs. now, the athlete gets none of that. it may be possible to work some in the summer but football is basically year round. therefore, i'm not at all opposed to providing spending money , HOWEVER, nowdays the same amount would have to be provided to ALL ATHLETES; male, female, track, volleyball, lacrosse, etc. most schools could not afford this so they would cut non-revenue sports and therefore cut scholarships down to the bone. i wish there was a way that all college athletes could get spending money included in their scholarship, at least a reasonable amount. it would not put much of a dent in the cheating though; some people would always want more and some alumni would always want them to have more.
Also justifiable since they are not allowed by rule to work during the school year and don't have the time during the summer - pay a supplement only to revenue producing sport athletes based on a percentage of revenue (individual, conference, or national average).
Posted on 7/24/11 at 4:12 pm to DVtiger
YES! YES! YES! Why is that so hard. Fire these S.O.B.'s that are acting like members of Congress(Go figure. They all need to be fired to.), make the changes back to a more centralized structure and Play Ball! 
Posted on 7/24/11 at 4:36 pm to ffishstik
i think the bigger question is
"Why is it ok for your dad to solicit money from a booster to send your kid to a school and the school gets off clean, but its not ok for a player to shack up with his ole lady without the knowledge of the school but the school could potentially get in trouble?"
"Why is it ok for your dad to solicit money from a booster to send your kid to a school and the school gets off clean, but its not ok for a player to shack up with his ole lady without the knowledge of the school but the school could potentially get in trouble?"
Posted on 7/24/11 at 4:38 pm to ffishstik
You folks are all missing a key point here. The NCAA is a voluntary membership organization. Everyone who is subject to their rules gets there by voluntarily subjecting themselves to them. The rules are actually voted on by the member institutions themselves. The only "smack down" available is for schools to withdraw. Until one or probably several institutions make a serious move toward withdrawal, you aren't going to see anything happen.
Posted on 7/24/11 at 4:53 pm to ffishstik
The same rules apply to everyone.
I think Emmert is going attempt tostreamline and modernze the rules AND make certain that major violations are well defined.
Some rules are silly but they got that way because too many programs have done creative and shady things to skirt rules and gain unfair advantage.
I think Emmert is going attempt tostreamline and modernze the rules AND make certain that major violations are well defined.
Some rules are silly but they got that way because too many programs have done creative and shady things to skirt rules and gain unfair advantage.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News