Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IUP Women's Basketball | 2019-20

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • IUP CRIMSON HAWKS
    replied
    Originally posted by IUPbigINDIANS View Post

    Boosters -- mega boosters -- don't play by rules. They are alpha business people who make the rules ... not abide by them. An AD making $125k a year doesn't tell them what to do.

    That guy in Blue Chips, Happy, ... that's a mythical, real guy. They exist. Look at your H2P ... the power Golden Panthers run that whole athletic department. Not officially, of course, but they call all the shots.
    Great post! Yup, the film Blue Chips absolutely nailed it. If anyone thinks that you have a great college athletic program just by playing by the rules then you have another thing coming. Same as running for high political office. What did they say that the last successful US Senate campaign cost in PA? I wish I could remember the figure but it was a crazy number like $100-200 million. Which is really nuts for a job that only pays a mere tiny fraction of that money.

    Leave a comment:


  • IUPbigINDIANS
    replied
    Originally posted by IUP24 View Post

    It wouldn't.

    If you can find a way to pay an equal sum to every athlete, in every sport, at every level, I'm all for it. But that presence doesn't necessarily exist. And as I said, I'm a big free market guy. Big capitalist. Big "get what you're worth" guy. I just don't know the ultimate solution.

    The under the table deals have happened since college athletics started. Is it worse now? Maybe. But it could also just be relative to the era and society we live in also.
    Boosters -- mega boosters -- don't play by rules. They are alpha business people who make the rules ... not abide by them. An AD making $125k a year doesn't tell them what to do.

    That guy in Blue Chips, Happy, ... that's a mythical, real guy. They exist. Look at your H2P ... the power Golden Panthers run that whole athletic department. Not officially, of course, but they call all the shots.

    Leave a comment:


  • IUPbigINDIANS
    replied
    Originally posted by IUP CRIMSON HAWKS View Post

    It would require sweeping changes to college athletics that is for sure. I think most would agree that the NCAA is a broken down system anyways. That would be a real good place to start. I'm just saying that by lining the pocket books of the true elite stars you could keep them around longer and increase the interest and profits in the sport.
    Well, not really. If Zion must play one year at Duke ... so be it. But, on Day 1 (after that year) he's going to hit the PowerBall.

    Leave a comment:


  • IUP24
    replied
    Originally posted by Chuck Norris View Post

    Something tells me this wouldn’t work out too well, on literally every possible level.
    It wouldn't.

    If you can find a way to pay an equal sum to every athlete, in every sport, at every level, I'm all for it. But that presence doesn't necessarily exist. And as I said, I'm a big free market guy. Big capitalist. Big "get what you're worth" guy. I just don't know the ultimate solution.

    The under the table deals have happened since college athletics started. Is it worse now? Maybe. But it could also just be relative to the era and society we live in also.

    Leave a comment:


  • IUP24
    replied
    Originally posted by IUP CRIMSON HAWKS View Post

    It would require sweeping changes to college athletics that is for sure. I think most would agree that the NCAA is a broken down system anyways. That would be a real good place to start. I'm just saying that by lining the pocket books of the true elite stars you could keep them around longer and increase the interest and profits in the sport.
    How does paying large salaries to college athletes, while not reducing your operating costs elsewhere result in higher profits?

    Leave a comment:


  • IUP CRIMSON HAWKS
    replied
    Originally posted by Chuck Norris View Post

    Something tells me this wouldn’t work out too well, on literally every possible level.
    It would require sweeping changes to college athletics that is for sure. I think most would agree that the NCAA is a broken down system anyways. That would be a real good place to start. I'm just saying that by lining the pocket books of the true elite stars you could keep them around longer and increase the interest and profits in the sport.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck Norris
    replied
    Originally posted by IUP CRIMSON HAWKS View Post

    My premise is to NOT pay all college athletes-----but the special elite players in the sports that rake in big money aka football and men's basketball. Do you pay the five-star center at Kentucky who averages 20 points a game? Absolutely. Do you pay the gal playing field hockey or lacrosse at IUP? Absolutely not!

    The time has come to amend the rules that govern the NCAA and allow the cream of the crop to cash in and get a share of the profits that they are bringing in.

    I'm all for girls sports and I think Title IX was a very noble idea. No doubt about it. But what I am talking about seperating the money sports from the run of the mill sports that make up a college athletic department. There is football and men's basketball (in some cases maybe women's hoops and a few others may fit into the category of true revenue sports) and the rest of them that are not in the same universe.
    Something tells me this wouldn’t work out too well, on literally every possible level.

    Leave a comment:


  • IUP CRIMSON HAWKS
    replied
    Originally posted by IUP24 View Post

    You know, this who discussion is one that I really enjoy having. I am not against paying collegiate athletes, but I'm against it in the premise that you list. The biggest, and I mean biggest, misconception about college athletic programs is that they are making money hand over foot. It's a huge business, but the reality is that on the final balance sheets at the end of the year, most are scraping to break even. The big money that's pumped in for facility upgrades, massive recruiting budgets, etc. - some of it comes from how the department allocates resources, but most is all private donations. I wrote a paper about this my sophomore year of college (and granted - that was in 2012 at this point, but still). Annually, there's only about 12 schools that have athletic departments that actually break even. They are the ones you would expect... Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Florida, Oregon, Florida State, and USC. I found my paper (I still kept it to reference for conversations like this), and at the time, those were the only D1 schools raking in profits.

    The real question you have to ask is what is the purpose of revenue sports? Why do they even exist in the first place? There's multiple reasons. But without football, men's basketball, and depending on the school and the geography hockey, baseball, women's volleyball/basketball, there's no chance other sports even exist. So the money the football team brings in pays for women's water polo, or men's fencing, etc. Alabama is one of the most profitable athletic departments. They also offer almost the fewest number of sports that anybody in America offers in terms of their athletics. They have football, pump money into that, and then have the bare minimum number of sports/scholarships that they are required to have to remain in compliance with Title 9.

    College sports is a massive business. MASSIVE. But there's so much more to this discussion than simply saying "it's time to pay these guys what they are worth." 1% of collegiate athletes advance to play their sport at the professional level. Nobody requires anybody to go to college. Basketball players have the ability to go to Europe or they can even play in the G League. But hardly any of them actually do that. Why? Perhaps the college model isn't all that bad when they really look at it.

    I have very strong fiscal views. I'm a big free market guy. I'm believe in capitalism. All of that stuff. But this is one of those things where I contradict my own views and beliefs. There's numerous roadblocks to this idea of paying athletes. First off, what do you pay them and who pays them? Are we recruiting based on how much of a salary a player is offered now? The NCAA has very rigid mandates on the maximum number of hours teams can hold activities in and out of season. Teams who violate that are punished; coaches are typically fired. That's why Rich Rod got canned in Michigan. You're essentially advocating for massive salaries for players who are already receiving a degree (worth in many cases $100,000+) that is mostly paid for all while they are not required to "work" more than 20 hours in a week. Again, I get the "get what you're worth" approach, but that's absurd to me.
    My premise is to NOT pay all college athletes-----but the special elite players in the sports that rake in big money aka football and men's basketball. Do you pay the five-star center at Kentucky who averages 20 points a game? Absolutely. Do you pay the gal playing field hockey or lacrosse at IUP? Absolutely not!

    The time has come to amend the rules that govern the NCAA and allow the cream of the crop to cash in and get a share of the profits that they are bringing in.

    I'm all for girls sports and I think Title IX was a very noble idea. No doubt about it. But what I am talking about seperating the money sports from the run of the mill sports that make up a college athletic department. There is football and men's basketball (in some cases maybe women's hoops and a few others may fit into the category of true revenue sports) and the rest of them that are not in the same universe.

    Leave a comment:


  • IUP CRIMSON HAWKS
    replied
    Originally posted by IUP24 View Post

    I think all professional leagues should eliminate age requirements (they aren't education requirements which is the common talking point - you have to be a year removed from high school for the NBA and 3 years removed for the NFL). If you think you can play in the NFL at 19 if your Trevor Lawrence, go do it. I think that eliminates a ton of this. Nobody talks about paying any of the down the liners in college sports (which I view as an issue). We're talking about Zion, Trevor Lawrence, etc. "The 1%." If they want to go straight to the show because they view themselves as an unpaid serf in college, let them.
    Actually, I think there needs to be a three-year time span from high school until you can declare for the riches of the NBA----same as what the NFL has. It really does enrich the college game and it gives the student-athlete time to grow and develop. Now, if you are that special Five-star recruit and likely top ten NFL pick or NBA draft lottery then I think you need to earn compensation for your time in the college game for what you are bringing to it and your respective university.

    How lousy would it have been had Patrick Ewing did not play four years at Georgetown? How cool would it have been had the Fab Five of Michigan actually stayed for four years? I think you see what I am getting at. I am pretty adamant that the NFL and NBA should both require players to say for three years at the collegiate level. This practice has greatly enhanced the type of player that the NFL gets each April in their draft.

    Leave a comment:


  • IUP24
    replied
    To add, I'll say this... I think a lot of this can be solved by the professional leagues actually forming a partnership with the NCAA. I know that's always been a "taboo" type of relationship, but that's what they have to do. The only pro league to have effectively bridged the gap between college/pro and utilized the college game for amateur development and growth is the NHL. If you're not familiar they have a great system in place (and it works the same for when players are playing Junior Hockey.

    The NHL entry draft is held in June every year (July this year). In North America, players are eligible to be drafted at the conclusion of their senior year in high school. In the rest of the world, they are eligible to be drafted at the age of 17. Teams can draft a player knowing they'll be in college for 3 years. If you draft Joe Smith from Minnetonka, Minnesota, he might be playing for Minnesota-Duluth next year. You might tell Joe, "We like you a lot, but you aren't ready for the pro game yet. Go play for 1-2 years and we'll talk to you then." So Joe plays his freshman year and has a big season. The NHL team he is the property of might say, "Joe, would you like to sign a pro contract with us?" And Joe can agree and likely play in the AHL for a year before getting the call to the NHL. Or, Joe can say, "You know what, I like playing in college and I want to keep working on my game here."

    After getting drafted, teams have a player's "rights" for 3-4 years (age dependent). If at the end of those 3-4 years, neither sides can come to terms or the team simply chooses not to offer a pro contract, that player is a free agent and can choose to sign with any professional team he would like. That's a big thing with hockey.

    I think this approach is very effective. It still utilizes the college/amateur system for development and does act as an informal "feeder" or "minor league" system. I think the NFL/NCAA can solve a ton of problems this way. Expand the draft, create a payment structure for amateur players, and bring them into the fold when they're ready. Don't tell me Trevor Lawrence couldn't have played for the Jets last year or the year before.

    Leave a comment:


  • IUP24
    replied
    Originally posted by IUPbigINDIANS View Post


    The whole premise is so screwed up.

    So, Zion Williamson is, say, a senior in high school -- and by far the No. 1 recruit in the country. He could go Top 5 in that year's NBA Draft. But, instead he has to be one year removed from his high school class. OK. So, he can go to college for a couple months. Or, play in Europe, whatever, ...

    To you're point, why do we even pretend these are 'student athletes'? The NBA guys don't go to another class once the final whistle blows of their one and only season. Duke happened to win/buy the rights to his services for one season.

    The under-the-table recruiting just continues to get worse and worse -- and much more sophisticated (minus Tennessee football giving wads of cash with your Big Mac).
    I think all professional leagues should eliminate age requirements (they aren't education requirements which is the common talking point - you have to be a year removed from high school for the NBA and 3 years removed for the NFL). If you think you can play in the NFL at 19 if your Trevor Lawrence, go do it. I think that eliminates a ton of this. Nobody talks about paying any of the down the liners in college sports (which I view as an issue). We're talking about Zion, Trevor Lawrence, etc. "The 1%." If they want to go straight to the show because they view themselves as an unpaid serf in college, let them.

    Leave a comment:


  • IUP24
    replied
    Originally posted by IUP CRIMSON HAWKS View Post

    I think that it is absolutely time for that for the actual revenue sports on the big college campuses. It's already happening in the darkness and has been for many years. Just make it official and we can read about how much cash the latest hotshot football or basketball recruit earned in a sign on bonus. I heard somebody say that Zion Williamson got $350,000 under the table. Just bring this stuff out to the light of day once and for all.......pay these guys what they are worth and what they bring their academic institutions in terms of dollars.

    Anybody who believes that big time college sports is purely an amatuer sport is living on Fantasy Island.
    You know, this who discussion is one that I really enjoy having. I am not against paying collegiate athletes, but I'm against it in the premise that you list. The biggest, and I mean biggest, misconception about college athletic programs is that they are making money hand over foot. It's a huge business, but the reality is that on the final balance sheets at the end of the year, most are scraping to break even. The big money that's pumped in for facility upgrades, massive recruiting budgets, etc. - some of it comes from how the department allocates resources, but most is all private donations. I wrote a paper about this my sophomore year of college (and granted - that was in 2012 at this point, but still). Annually, there's only about 12 schools that have athletic departments that actually break even. They are the ones you would expect... Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Florida, Oregon, Florida State, and USC. I found my paper (I still kept it to reference for conversations like this), and at the time, those were the only D1 schools raking in profits.

    The real question you have to ask is what is the purpose of revenue sports? Why do they even exist in the first place? There's multiple reasons. But without football, men's basketball, and depending on the school and the geography hockey, baseball, women's volleyball/basketball, there's no chance other sports even exist. So the money the football team brings in pays for women's water polo, or men's fencing, etc. Alabama is one of the most profitable athletic departments. They also offer almost the fewest number of sports that anybody in America offers in terms of their athletics. They have football, pump money into that, and then have the bare minimum number of sports/scholarships that they are required to have to remain in compliance with Title 9.

    College sports is a massive business. MASSIVE. But there's so much more to this discussion than simply saying "it's time to pay these guys what they are worth." 1% of collegiate athletes advance to play their sport at the professional level. Nobody requires anybody to go to college. Basketball players have the ability to go to Europe or they can even play in the G League. But hardly any of them actually do that. Why? Perhaps the college model isn't all that bad when they really look at it.

    I have very strong fiscal views. I'm a big free market guy. I'm believe in capitalism. All of that stuff. But this is one of those things where I contradict my own views and beliefs. There's numerous roadblocks to this idea of paying athletes. First off, what do you pay them and who pays them? Are we recruiting based on how much of a salary a player is offered now? The NCAA has very rigid mandates on the maximum number of hours teams can hold activities in and out of season. Teams who violate that are punished; coaches are typically fired. That's why Rich Rod got canned in Michigan. You're essentially advocating for massive salaries for players who are already receiving a degree (worth in many cases $100,000+) that is mostly paid for all while they are not required to "work" more than 20 hours in a week. Again, I get the "get what you're worth" approach, but that's absurd to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • IUPbigINDIANS
    replied
    Tom has offered Latrobe rising senior Anna Rafferty (6'1" PF).

    Leave a comment:


  • IUPbigINDIANS
    replied
    Originally posted by IUP CRIMSON HAWKS View Post

    I think that it is absolutely time for that for the actual revenue sports on the big college campuses. It's already happening in the darkness and has been for many years. Just make it official and we can read about how much cash the latest hotshot football or basketball recruit earned in a sign on bonus. I heard somebody say that Zion Williamson got $350,000 under the table. Just bring this stuff out to the light of day once and for all.......pay these guys what they are worth and what they bring their academic institutions in terms of dollars.

    Anybody who believes that big time college sports is purely an amatuer sport is living on Fantasy Island.

    The whole premise is so screwed up.

    So, Zion Williamson is, say, a senior in high school -- and by far the No. 1 recruit in the country. He could go Top 5 in that year's NBA Draft. But, instead he has to be one year removed from his high school class. OK. So, he can go to college for a couple months. Or, play in Europe, whatever, ...

    To you're point, why do we even pretend these are 'student athletes'? The NBA guys don't go to another class once the final whistle blows of their one and only season. Duke happened to win/buy the rights to his services for one season.

    The under-the-table recruiting just continues to get worse and worse -- and much more sophisticated (minus Tennessee football giving wads of cash with your Big Mac).

    Leave a comment:


  • IUP CRIMSON HAWKS
    replied
    Originally posted by CALUPA69 View Post

    The whole transfer portal mess reminds me of the baseball free agency debate back in the day in one particular way. Instead of getting ahead of the curve and controlling how free agents could move, MLB fought it tooth and nail until it was forced on them and they lost control. NCAA could have established a reasonable and favorable transfer structure years ago and instead kept insisting on a penalty year and here we are. Highly likely the same result is coming down the road as far as athlete compensation. You have a pretty good idea when Congressional hearings begin and you're getting slammed by both parties, you're in some deep [email protected]#&.
    I think that it is absolutely time for that for the actual revenue sports on the big college campuses. It's already happening in the darkness and has been for many years. Just make it official and we can read about how much cash the latest hotshot football or basketball recruit earned in a sign on bonus. I heard somebody say that Zion Williamson got $350,000 under the table. Just bring this stuff out to the light of day once and for all.......pay these guys what they are worth and what they bring their academic institutions in terms of dollars.

    Anybody who believes that big time college sports is purely an amatuer sport is living on Fantasy Island.

    Leave a comment:

Ad3

Collapse
Working...
X