VC Transfers

[Fightingscot82]

LOL you wish.

Nah. Joe's up there - early 60s I believe. He's made some good money and his wife works in pharma sales so money shouldn't be an object. I imagine he's a guy who would work as long as it makes sense but if there's a window closing it allows him to go out on his own terms. 100% wish Joe the best.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

LOL you wish.

The day will come but it will obviously be one of the more-coveted jobs in D2 when he eventually retires. IUP was winning long before Redshirt Joe and will win long after Joe. Fortunately we'll get to enjoy the ride for another 5-6 years.

Joe's the Dean of IUP Basketball. No doubt. But, Kurt K. and Gary had some teams just as good (or perhaps better) than Joe's best teams. Where Joe elevated the program wasn't so much in winning but he turned IUP Basketball in to a primetime event (in Indiana).

IUP Football has been winning forever -- and the games still feel like going to a high school event. Joe's games have a totally different vibe to them. Granted, the KCAC helped, but building this current following didn't happen by accident.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Nah. Joe's up there - early 60s I believe. He's made some good money and his wife works in pharma sales so money shouldn't be an object. I imagine he's a guy who would work as long as it makes sense but if there's a window closing it allows him to go out on his own terms. 100% wish Joe the best.

Window closing? LOL. Not even close. He's a celebrity in this town and in very good health. Early 60s aren't what they used to be. I think he could easily go another 10 years.

[Fightingscot82]

Window closing? LOL. Not even close. He's a celebrity in this town and in very good health. Early 60s aren't what they used to be. I think he could easily go another 10 years.

I also think he could go another 10 years. I guess it depends on what's going on with their health and his kids. He's not on the pension plan either. You were the one who mentioned there's a window possibly closing on making a deep run. I wonder if he'll stick around Indiana or if he'll head somewhere warmer. Isn't his wife from Homer City or somewhere local?

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I also think he could go another 10 years. I guess it depends on what's going on with their health and his kids. He's not on the pension plan either. You were the one who mentioned there's a window possibly closing on making a deep run. I wonder if he'll stick around Indiana or if he'll head somewhere warmer. Isn't his wife from Homer City or somewhere local?

He has a current window to really make a title run these next two years -- perhaps this year in particular with Demo and Shawndale coming back to go along with Armoni, Morris, Porterfield, etc.

But, he'll always have a team capable of winning the conference. Those teams actually capable of winning the whole thing, however, take some build up (and, he's now built up).

[Columbuseer]

I'm a big free market guy. Big capitalism guy. I understand the argument for, and have long supported the argument against. This is just such a unique situation. So many fail to realize that outside of about 12-15 schools, most aren't making money hand over fist. In fact, most are lucky to break even when they siphon the money generated by roughly 2-4 revenue sports to back into the athletic department to simply field the non-revenue generating Olympic sports. I have yet to see a rational model where it shows who actually pays these players. And the ones which I have seen aren't equitable for all student athletes and will likely result in the death of both Title IX and athletic departments/programs at universities who don't have a dominant football program that has a cult-following.

Again, big free market guy. And what I'm about to say makes me a huge hypocrite. I've always supported a model where all athletes, of all sports, in both genders, are paid an equal sum. Or something that is considered salary based given the level you play at (D1, D2, D3, etc.). If recruiting in college football or basketball becomes a literal bidding war based on which elite program can get an 86 year old booster to write the biggest check, everything is ruined.

Fans at schools like Alabama or Ohio State have no issue with this model. They care about football. They breathe football. It's why their respective university exists. It's the schools that aren't like those ones (which is the vast majority) that this will destroy.

I wonder if the "unique situation" is the inherent contradiction between the primary mission of a college, which
is academics, and running an athletic sports business. The incongruity of these missions is comng to a head. NCAA has been able to avoid much of the expenses assocIated with running the athletic business by fixing the cost and fringe benefits of their workers (players). No longer.

The following dominoes may possible start to fall:

1. name image likeness costs
2. Workers comp costs
3. Compensation for CTE and other adverse health outcomes
4. Additional educational benefits for athletes
5. Non athlete students and public will protest any of their tuition going to athletics.
6. In the past, colleges justified funding huge athletic deficits by claiming good sports teams increase academic donations, while avoiding rigorous scrutiny of this claim. If many schools drop to d3 and donations don't drop, then it could have a snowball effect of more schools dropping to D3.
7. With fewer scholarships, secondary school students will shift more of their time to academics and away from athletics, which will improve the USA educational standing in the world. So there could be some good from this upheaval.

[IUP24]

I wonder if the "unique situation" is the inherent contradiction between the primary mission of a college, which
is academics, and running an athletic sports business. The incongruity of these missions is comng to a head. NCAA has been able to avoid much of the expenses assocIated with running the athletic business by fixing the cost and fringe benefits of their workers (players). No longer.

The following dominoes may possible start to fall:

1. name image likeness costs
2. Workers comp costs
3. Compensation for CTE and other adverse health outcomes
4. Additional educational benefits for athletes
5. Non athlete students and public will protest any of their tuition going to athletics.
6. In the past, colleges justified funding huge athletic deficits by claiming good sports teams increase academic donations, while avoiding rigorous scrutiny of this claim. If many schools drop to d3 and donations don't drop, then it could have a snowball effect of more schools dropping to D3.
7. With fewer scholarships, secondary school students will shift more of their time to academics and away from athletics, which will improve the USA educational standing in the world. So there could be some good from this upheaval.

-Always have supported #1. I never thought that was an issue.

-In terms of 2 and 3, I'm admittedly not well read on the insurance offerings to student-athletes, so I can't fully comment. I was under the impression all medical costs were paid for and covered by the university or the NCAA as it relates to injuries. They wouldn't be eligible for workers comp benefits; rather, they would be paid their salary just like every other pro sport in the event that they cannot compete due to injury. The CTE discussion is certainly an ever evolving issue in all sports.

-Regarding #4, what do you mean by that? Why should they be offered any more educational benefits than what they already receive? It's a different discussion at Division 2, but a football or basketball player on scholarship at a D1 university is on a full-scholarship. They pay very, very little for their education, room/board, and cost of attendance. Additionally, they receive plenty of other benefits - educational, health, dietary, and fitness related - that are not offered to the general student body. If you honestly ask me, the second you rip the band aid off and pay these players, they are no longer getting free educations. They should pay that out of their own pocket using the salary they are now earning. Whatever tuition discounts made available to university employees should obviously be made available to them as well.

[Columbuseer]

-Always have supported #1. I never thought that was an issue.

-In terms of 2 and 3, I'm admittedly not well read on the insurance offerings to student-athletes, so I can't fully comment. I was under the impression all medical costs were paid for and covered by the university or the NCAA as it relates to injuries. They wouldn't be eligible for workers comp benefits; rather, they would be paid their salary just like every other pro sport in the event that they cannot compete due to injury. The CTE discussion is certainly an ever evolving issue in all sports.

-Regarding #4, what do you mean by that? Why should they be offered any more educational benefits than what they already receive? It's a different discussion at Division 2, but a football or basketball player on scholarship at a D1 university is on a full-scholarship. They pay very, very little for their education, room/board, and cost of attendance. Additionally, they receive plenty of other benefits - educational, health, dietary, and fitness related - that are not offered to the general student body. If you honestly ask me, the second you rip the band aid off and pay these players, they are no longer getting free educations. They should pay that out of their own pocket using the salary they are now earning. Whatever tuition discounts made available to university employees should obviously be made available to them as well.

Nil is a huge potential loss of revenue for d1 colleges.

I am thinking about coverage for long term medical issues. I have a friend who was a d1 receiver. By late 40s he had surgery on back and knee replacement that Dr said was due to football. When his former teammates meet all the talk about are ther ailments.

I could be wrong but I thought a focus of the scos decision was eliminating restrictions on educational benefits. Right now, d1 football is like a 35 hr a week job that beats u up. Colleges have created phantom courses (UNC) and worthless majors to keep d1 players eligible. They need support for education after eligibility is over.

[IUP24]

Nil is a huge potential loss of revenue for d1 colleges.

I am thinking about coverage for long term medical issues. I have a friend who was a d1 receiver. By late 40s he had surgery on back and knee replacement that Dr said was due to football. When his former teammates meet all the talk about are ther ailments.

I could be wrong but I thought a focus of the scos decision was eliminating restrictions on educational benefits. Right now, d1 football is like a 35 hr a week job that beats u up. Colleges have created phantom courses (UNC) and worthless majors to keep d1 players eligible. They need support for education after eligibility is over.

The NCAA has mandates related to all mandatory team related activities. It's actually not close to 35 hours a week. It's like 24 hours in-season and somewhere around 16 out of season. I could be off by a slim margin up or down, but you get the picture. But that's consistent across every sport. So football players are not mandated by their "employer" to "work" 1 extra hour than a water polo player. What they do outside of that cannot under any circumstances be mandatory team activities. The NCAA takes that very seriously; if you recall Rich Rod got Michigan put on hefty sanctions for that exact thing. The NCAA also mandates that for an 8-10 week stretch every year, where there are no team activities permitted.

I've never been a "pay for play" supporter, and perhaps that's showing. I read an article a while ago where a coach from a bygone era broke this down. Consider that you are mandated to work only 42 weeks out of the year. Consider that for the 20 weeks of the academic year that your sport is considered "in-season" you work no more than 24 hours a week. And in your "off-season" weeks, you are required to work no more than 16 hours a week. When you break down the hours worked as it compares to paying for the dollar value of their scholarship, especially for an out of state student-athlete, their wage is considerably high. I don't know about you, but I would love to work 42 weeks a year and work no more than 24 hours in a week. Pretty sweet deal lol..

The eligibility issue is a sad conversation, in my opinion. The UNC story was atrocious. Cardale Jones frighteningly said it best, "We didn't come here to play school." I'm not sure though why additional education support is necessary for players at the completion of their eligibility. Are you suggesting financial assistance? Or educational resource assistance? Barring a medical hardship redshirt, a player at a Division 1 school has 5 years to be "eligible" on scholarship. A player can obtain both an undergraduate and graduate degree in that time frame. If the player failed to graduate with an undergraduate degree in 5 years, I'm not sure why that should fall back on the school, or employer, to provide after their employment is over. If they were unable to graduate, I feel as though that is their own personal dilemma to deal with. That sounds harsh. But so is life.

The medical thing, I think, is a tricky conversation. I see your point there. I believe that tangible injuries obtained during their career should be covered, and I think, for the most part, they are (I could be totally wrong though). Although there might be a point where those funds are cut off - I have no clue. I agree that the head injury thing is an evolving discussion. And I think eventually, that stuff will somehow be covered. I feel for your friend, but my grandfather has had both knees replaced. He was a supervisor at at Westinghouse and worked there for nearly 40 years. His orthopedic doctor said that his knee issues were likely the result of pounding the concrete floor for nearly four decades. Should Westinghouse pay for that? You probably would say "no." I do as well. People who work other jobs that are physically and labor intensive may spend an entire career not getting injured at work. But years of wear and tear cause the injuries later. Should the construction company they worked for pay for those medical costs? I recognize that these aren't football, but the same principle you're applying for your friend exists in what I shared.

I like these kind of discussions.

[Columbuseer]

Just a followup on hours spent by d1 athletes. Total time is more than team time.
Source: https://www.ncpanow.org/solutions-an...rces/academics

[Columbuseer]

Followup on effects of football on brain imaging among youth football without presence of concussions.

https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/News...otball-Players

[boatcapt]

I wonder if the "unique situation" is the inherent contradiction between the primary mission of a college, which
is academics, and running an athletic sports business. The incongruity of these missions is comng to a head. NCAA has been able to avoid much of the expenses assocIated with running the athletic business by fixing the cost and fringe benefits of their workers (players). No longer.

The following dominoes may possible start to fall:

1. name image likeness costs
2. Workers comp costs
3. Compensation for CTE and other adverse health outcomes
4. Additional educational benefits for athletes
5. Non athlete students and public will protest any of their tuition going to athletics.
6. In the past, colleges justified funding huge athletic deficits by claiming good sports teams increase academic donations, while avoiding rigorous scrutiny of this claim. If many schools drop to d3 and donations don't drop, then it could have a snowball effect of more schools dropping to D3.
7. With fewer scholarships, secondary school students will shift more of their time to academics and away from athletics, which will improve the USA educational standing in the world. So there could be some good from this upheaval.

I think you overestimate the "critical thinking ability" of your average HS student! Doubt many HS power forwards are going to think "DAM! They did away with basketball in college! Guess I better focus on my academics now so I can get a scholly THAT way."

To your point that academic giving will increase if schools do away with athletics. I disagree. What happens when a school does away with athletics is that the monies previously given to the school for an athletic program or the athletic department generally now go to the schools general fund. A signifigant portion of the $'s given to support athletics at a typical college are endowed funds given by donors for the school to manage on a year to year basis. Once these $'s are given, it is a difficult process to "ungive" them. SOOOOO...If I give a million dollars to WLU with the specific intent and instructions that the resulting procedes from the schools management of this money be used to fund basketball scholarships AND WLU does away with basketball, my million dollars and the annual procedes there from would revert to the colleges general fund. It would give the apperance that "academic" donations to WLU had gone up by $1M when really, they had not.

[boatcapt]

Followup on effects of football on brain imaging among youth football without presence of concussions.

https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/News...otball-Players

Everyone seems to be focusing on CTE as a solely football related injury. I remember reading a study a couple years ago that compared HIE among a number of sports and activities engaged in by adolecents. Study found that the most dangerous activity was skateboarding followed by wrestling, soccer, football and basketball. As I said at the time on this board, the focus on football is driven by the deep pockets of persons, teams and companies involved in football...Not going to generate much media attention or $'s from suing Anti-Hero Skateboard Company for your clients CTE buuutttt...If that same client ALSO played HS football, you'll get a LOT more attention by suing the School District and Nike for the CTE related to the same persons football playing.

[Columbuseer]

Just a followup on funding of d1 athletics.
source Forbes : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...-programs/amp/upwards of 80% of the total fee amount at many institutions not in Power Five conferences

[boatcapt]

Just a followup on funding of d1 athletics.
source Forbes : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...-programs/amp/upwards of 80% of the total fee amount at many institutions not in Power Five conferences

I considered endowing a scholarship in my fathers name...YES, you need a lawyer to decipher the agreement. The general premise revolves around "as near as possible." The school will only agree to using the funds you provide to them as nearly as possible for the purpose you gave it to them for. Soooo...If you gave the money for the purpose of funding a basketball scholly and the school does away with basketball, it is up to the college to determine the future use of the dollars.