Recent Comments

KJ is an example for #2. After quite a few years, he is back and finishing his degree. Would he be on the hook to repay his scholarship because he left before he was done?

I really, really hope you are wrong on Emelogu.

Not a bad idea, but without thinking through the solutions, here as some quick concerns:

1. What to do about a football player in good academic standing who, after two years, decides football isn't for him anymore. Is he immediately on the hook for those two years? He now has no ability to apply or receive financial aid for those prior semesters, which he may have otherwise qualified for. In addition, you are essentially pressuring players who may no longer be interested in playing (for one reason or another) to continue taking scholarships away from players who deserve them and can contribute.

2. What if a player goes pro prior to receiving his degree? What is the time period in which the player has to begin making payments on the past due tuition? Is there a payment plan? Is he/she required to pay back 100% immediately, seeing as the semesters are long completed? If that player doesn't make it in the pro's, etc. due to some reason (not good enough, injuries, etc.), they would essentially be forced to take out a private loan to pay that amount off, because the amount they could borrow from various academic lending agencies is limited.

3. There is a chance you would be incentivizing specific unnamed questionably-moral programs to confer degrees on students who may not fairly earn them. I mean, lets be honest here...schools are already helping push kids through just to keep them eligible. Recent history suggests something like this would be possible, as a means of going even further to look out for the "student" athletes...

4. What do you do about the added costs included within the stipend to compensate the players above and beyond tuition? Do they owe that back, as well?

The more I think about this, a system that penalizes student athletes for failing to earn their degree isn't a change for the better. The reason why this issue is arising is because players feel taken advantage of. The solution you are proposing puts them in an even weaker position, on top of being taken advantage of. Again, not a bad idea, but it needs tweaking.

I get your point, but in that situation you put points on the board every time you get the chance. Again, this is only my opinion, but I think you kick the fg, make it a 2 score game, give your rookie kicker another opportunity to boost his confidence, keep momentum on your side, keep adding pressure to a struggling UM offense, etc...I feel it would make more sense to go for it the 1st or 2nd time down (I know DW made that a moot point on his one run) rather than the 3rd. To be up 2 scores changes the feel of a game. On defense, a 6 pt lead is only one play away from a 1 pt deficit. I'm not downing CFB or anyone else, my OWN opinion is that was a poorly coached game for him.

This needs a WTF? Caption. LOL

I get your point. Going for it on 4th down near the goal line is not necessarily bad coaching. It's gambling. If you're not a gambler, you may perceive a risky call as a bad call.

Maybe the Rockies? Made the Series a while back, swept by the Sux (sorry I'm a Yankees fan). Either way were good until recently. They have Tulo, CarGo, and had Jimenez when he was really good.

LT3's incredible run in the bowl game......

Aaaaand now I am super glad I haven't paid any attention to the basketball team this year. Way more important things that demand my attention. Things like making guesses at who the next great Hokie QB will be, or winning 11 National Championships in a row at VT in NCAA Football...

Correct, but most ladies value appearance over function in their TP, and think it looks better to the back. My advice: pick your battles...carefully, lol!

Something about her ohh baby

Full moon over the Hudson.