Jennings To Play In Europe

[Clyde]

Does it change the fact that a great deal of that cash goes to non revenue sports?

 

...

 

To this debate and to Whitlock's point , the above is 100% irrelevant. We all agree that the other sports could not exist without major revenue football and basketball programs.

 

The point that is trying to be made, apparently without getting through, is that in order to do the above, NCAA and universities take in athletes that are not students nor have any desire to be students. That's the point. The NCAA is using these kids to generate revenue for itself and the universities are using them to generate revenue. Lets stop pretending that they are in it for the kids. Sure, if the kids do well like the kids you mentioned, they're happy. However, the #1 reason and ONLY reason these kids are brought in is to generate revenue. So, Whitlock's point that these kids are being used is 100% correct. If those kids don't take advantage of it, a)too bad for them and b)the university has another class of athletes coming in next year to keep the gravy train going.

[Lucky Charms]

To this debate and to Whitlock's point , the above is 100% irrelevant. We all agree that the other sports could not exist without major revenue football and basketball programs.

 

The point that is trying to be made, apparently without getting through, is that in order to do the above, NCAA and universities take in athletes that are not students nor have any desire to be students. That's the point. The NCAA is using these kids to generate revenue for itself and the universities are using them to generate revenue. Lets stop pretending that they are in it for the kids. Sure, if the kids do well like the kids you mentioned, they're happy. However, the #1 reason and ONLY reason these kids are brought in is to generate revenue. So, Whitlock's point that these kids are being used is 100% correct. If those kids don't take advantage of it, a)too bad for them and b)the university has another class of athletes coming in next year to keep the gravy train going.

 

GT's argument is that point could be made for about all of 0.5% of all "student athletes"...

 

Is that hard to understand? Why change the system for a such a small percentage of student athletes.

 

And about the second bolded section...

Yeah, that's true. This is called life. Sometimes the door only opens once.

[Clyde]

GT's argument is that point could be made for about all of 0.5% of all "student athletes"...

 

Is that hard to understand? Why change the system for a such a small percentage of student athletes.

 

And about the second bolded section...

Yeah, that's true. This is called life. Sometimes the door only opens once.

 

340*12 for college basketball = 4080 players

120*80 for colelge football = 9600 players

 

Total of about 13,600 scholarship athletes in D1. 1/2% of 13,600 = 68 players. (Its always best to know the facts before you bust out the "is that so hard to understand" shot.)

 

You and GT think there are only 68 unqualified students in Division 1 basketball and football? 68 is too low for the SEC by itself in just football.

 

Every conference in both sports takes way too many players that are not qualified.

 

Where your math really goes astray is if you just count the major powers.

[gametime]

340*12 for college basketball = 4080 players

120*80 for colelge football = 9600 players

 

Total of about 13,600 scholarship athletes in D1. 1/2% of 13,600 = 68 players. (Its always best to know the facts before you bust out the "is that so hard to understand" shot.)

 

You and GT think there are only 68 unqualified students in Division 1 basketball and football? 68 is too low for the SEC by itself in just football.

 

Every conference in both sports takes way too many players that are not qualified.

 

Where your math really goes astray is if you just count the major powers.

By your logic Brandon Jennings would be playing at Arizona. Or Liggins would be going to Europe.

 

I think you join Whitlock on the list of people clawing the surface of a very minor problem...

[Clyde]

By your logic Brandon Jennings would be playing at Arizona. Or Liggins would be going to Europe.

 

I think you join Whitlock on the list of people clawing the surface of a very minor problem...

 

As I said before, if Brandon Jennings or Liggins can't work hard enough in school to be qualified to play D1, they're simply lazy or they truly are not smart enough to be at a university. We've all seen the kids that get in that shouldn't be and if these 2 aren't at that level, Plan B had better be a good one.

 

I'm not sure if you're being naive, defensive, or simply hate Whitlock. Whatever it is, your head is in the sand regarding the fact that the NCAA is NOT looking out for the best interests of the athletes but, rather, their own pocketbooks.

 

Even Z , who once made a big stink about it, has seen the green lights.

[gametime]

Even Z , who once made a big stink about it, has seen the green lights.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Alex Daniels and academics? You have zero desire to go there...

[Clyde]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Alex Daniels and academics? You have zero desire to go there...

 

Free advice: Don't assume I was talking about Alex Daniels just because I say he should not be allowed to participate in football. I know he a 3.0 so I'm not talking about him.

 

You do remember Nancy Z banging on Huggs about the quality of his student-athletes, correct?

[gametime]

Free advice: Don't assume I was talking about Alex Daniels just because I say he should not be allowed to participate in football. I know he a 3.0 so I'm not talking about him.

 

You do remember Nancy Z banging on Huggs about the quality of his student-athletes, correct?

Several of the "idiots" you hint at were good students on the way in. I'll say it again. You don't want to go here...

[Clyde]

Several of the "idiots" you hint at were good students on the way in. I'll say it again. You don't want to go here...

 

Dude, you are becoming the king of assumptions on here. I'm using Z to prove my point that colleges talk a good game but they don't back it up because of the green. Z was not happy with the qualify of young men Huggs was bringing in - right or wrong doesn't matter. It was her perception. Nothing changed. Why? She needs the money to fund other programs so she will take chances on kids. Some work out. Some don't.

 

For the record, I know Huggs got a bad rap for his NCAA acclaimed record of "zero graduates." I know the flaw of the system and how it doesn't account for lots of actual graduates. So, preach to someone else about where they don't want to go.

 

If you think the NCAA presidents are altruistic in their actions, fine. I say you live in a fantasy world but that's one man's opinion. While I appreciate your advocacy for the UC boys that have succeeded, my discussion has always been bigger than one school.

 

By the way, we haven't even touched the surface of schools taking many unqualified students and guiding them through cake classes just to keep them eligible. That, of course, would be even more ammo for my point.