Recent Comments
I don't know what's worse: losing top notch recruits to outside schools or losing them to the cavs
I hope he qualifies but it sounds like he'll end up like Drew Harris
The sooner he is cleared to join the roster, the better I'll feel.
Fortunately LT3 has an extremely strong arm; the trick will be if he can iron out the issues he had last year. Bama will have a relatively inexperienced (but talented) secondary, so that might help us too.
i'd feel a lot better about the whole running the ball thing if we had an established back, and if we werent breaking in new tackles on either end of the line. they're gonna make logan beat them through the air.
That wasn't a slight at Loeffler by any means, but say if VT had its pick of anyone in the country to takeover its offense, I'd go with the man who developed the Manning Bros.
Give him credit where credit is due: he has Duke play us tough every year and has them humiliate UVA quite often (#LOLUVa)!
We have to hold our own or beat them in the trenches on both sides of the ball. They'll give us everything they got, and we must return fire with a withering barrage. We do that, run the ball and not turn it over and we stand a damned good chance of winning.
Yes, just ask Costanza
So architecture is fine?
We need to have Bud storm the NCAA HQ, and yell at them until they investigate Bama! If VT pulled some of the stunts these other schools do, we'd land Top-10 classes every year. Probably a Crystal Football, too.
The other problem with endorsement deals is they wouldn't be equal. You reference Nike. Imagine if Nike coul offer every player who signs with Oregon a deal (or UnderArmour with MD)? That would be boosters paying for recruits. No way even a UGA or OK could compete with that...much less VT.
+1 for the Satan/Saban reference. In response the the market/capitalist argument, most of the NCAA member universities are non-profit, although take that with a grain of salt. I support the idea of a stipend which is currently in place, maybe tweak it slightly to modern standards. This topic goes deeper into going pro early and whatnot. Basketball and football are most affected because of this. I believe the one-and-done philosophy is ridiculous. Make it standard across all sports whether it be 3 mandatory years of college ball or something similar. Then have the option of developmental leagues out of high school if you do not want to participate in the college game.
I agree with you, but just to play Saban's advocate, the argument against the scholarships being enough is that it is nowhere near proportional to the amount of revenue they bring in. From a market-value standpoint, its a valid argument. The market value of a star player at a major FBS school is much, much more than the value of their scholarship/gear/etc.
But again, I agree with you. I think turning collegiate sports into a semi-pro or minor league is a disservice to the majority of student-athletes who really are student-athletes. (There are over 380000 student athletes and most of them will go pro in something other than sports!!!) If kids want to get paid to play ball, they should join a different league that pays its players.
Full Rides already provide these athletes with plenty of money. After tuition and all the other fees, the athlete is still cut a check for about $4200 each semester. This is to pay for housing, food, etc. Still though, my apartment is about $430 a month including utilities and for the, say 6 month semester (since you almost always have to sign a 12 month lease) that's only $2,580. That means the athlete is still getting about 2 grand per semester plus stipends to use at their own discretion. So as long as you live modestly and don't go rent out some ridiculous apartment or house, they are still receiving a generous amount of "extra" money. A report by the NCAA in 2009 said the average D1 college athlete receives approximately $76,000 in scholarships over their 4 years. Isn't that enough? I also don't want college sports to turn in to professional sports. College football is so much more fun to watch than the NFL. Also what about the practice squad that never sees the field? Would they get paid too? Just some thoughts. I wrote a paper on this last semester so I have a lot of information on the topic.
2nd anniversary! Congrats, you young puppies. We old Hokies wish you both the best, and many more.
I was just about to post this. In the pros, endorsement deals are expected, so it's not an issue. In college, you've got guys on a team that range from 5-star featured recruits to walk-ons who are playing their tails off trying to earn a scholarship.
College sports are definitely commercialized, but I think athletes, especially in revenue-generating sports like football, have a damn good deal. A free ride for as long as they're there, trips to bowl games (and swag associated with the bowls), national media exposure, and basically a fun time auditioning for the NFL, where they can make huge amounts of money. I know from people who have worked in college sports that the scholarships do fall short in some cases, causing the athletes to bear some burden, which some have a hard time meeting. In that sense, additional grant or stipend funding can be added, but solely to cover necessary costs.
I'm not so sure I agree with that quite so much...
First off, that sort of situation could harbor some discord in the locker room. Imagine a locker room where one guy makes $2 million per year off of endorsements, and almost everyone else is making enough to get by, sounds like you're asking for trouble.
Here's another scenario: imagine that Nike comes in and signs Johnny Manziel to a huge deal. Manziel starts playing absolutely terribly for the first couple games, and gets benched. Now Nike is suddenly spending tons of cash on a kid who is riding the bench. What's to keep them from trying to use some ties with the school to influence the coach to put their guy back in?
I'm against schools paying the student athletes but you bring up a good point in regards to sponsors/advertising. I don't see why they can't get paid from sponsors. They work hard to make a name for themselves and if they want to cash in on their name they should be able to. As long as it's not coming from the school that already gives them a free ride, I'm for it.
That would help ease the argument of non revenue sports vs revenue sports as well because not only would non revenue athletes not get paid but the large majority of athletes in revenue sports wouldn't get paid either. It's pretty much a level playing field. If you ball out and gain stardom, you reap the benefits. If not, shut up and take your free education.
lol i loved that episode of south park
I dont understand. Arent they being paid with scholarships and education? (scratches head). While i understand certain schools have required qualifications, but a large chunk are in school due to the fact they perform well on the field. I am also aware not all athletes are on scholarship, but the stars of the teams that receive all the scollies thats alot of "money" towards paying for school.
I mean i had to pay for my school. I would have gladly taken the place of someone who wants monies and killed myself on a football field for a free ride
yeah thanks. think I got your turkey leg. Here take this one.
over = larger number = worse team.
I'll take the under, just because I'm a homer...
thanks.
As with any capitalist enterprise, pay should be based on output, not input. Both athletes put in the same amount of work, but only one is really profitable. That's why I'm against paying any athletes. They all work hard, and are rewarded equally: with an education. That should be enough. Furthermore, it should be a contract that requires them to either get a degree or pay back the scholarship if they leave early to go pro.
at least when we lose recruits to the cavs they'll still lose to us...