'17 AU WDE Big Kat Bryant

Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
47,761
Likes
41,784
Should’ve and could’ve are two totally different things. Your can’t fire a coach who has won 8 of the last 10 games.
Michigan fired Carr after he won 9 out of their last 11 in 2007. That included 2 top 10 wins, one of which was a Citrus Bowl win. So yes you absolutely can.
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
41,663
Likes
26,023
Michigan fired Carr after he won 9 out of their last 11 in 2007. That included 2 top 10 wins, one of which was a Citrus Bowl win. So yes you absolutely can.
Top programs look at more than just wins and losses. They look at program trajectory. They look at how they're competing against rivals and top tier opponents. Carr had topped out. He couldn't beat OSU. The loss to App St pushed them over the edge.
 
Likes: RDU VOL#14

RDU VOL#14

I’m a Flawed Character
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
15,300
Likes
16,554
Michigan fired Carr after he won 9 out of their last 11 in 2007. That included 2 top 10 wins, one of which was a Citrus Bowl win. So yes you absolutely can.
We had just won a bowl game and were 2-2 in the SEC. It’s easy to make that call now knowing what we know. Gimme a break about Lloyd Carr . How is that even comparable?Fulmer is a lot more comparable.
 

ShreveportVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
95
Likes
248
So... stealing from the office is something "everyone" does... and if you get caught embezzling then you can still be a good role model and person, right? This is nothing like going 5 miles over the speed limit or even helping momma get a better job or giving a kid a shirt against the rules. Those things need to be stopped or regulated too... but Pruitt was WAY beyond that.

I think the NCAA should tighten up on everyone and specifically ENCOURAGE programs to self-police/correct. Covering up should earn harsher punishment than the violation. There are literally MILLIONS of current and former college students that had to live hand to mouth and do jobs they didn't want to do in hopes of a benefit later from an education. They cover the economic spectrum meaning many were every bit as poor/needy as these players. My sons joined the National Guard. Some work two or three jobs. I earned a ROTC scholarship and committed myself to 8 years of service to supplement my loans....which I paid off in full. I didn't get extra spending cash... much less the perks these guys get.


When I graduated, I didn't have long lines of boosters and donors ready to give me a job above the norm in pay and status like many of these players do often well in excess of their academic resume. If you summed their total benefits WITHIN the rules... these kids are getting $50K or more per year. Vets on the GI bill aren't getting that.

These guys are NOT getting cheated. We ALL deal with delayed gratification... and that is NOT "unfair" to anyone. Their "payday" isn't in their 4-5 years as a college athlete. It is in the years after college when those who make an effort see their opportunities explode over what they would have had without that scholarship and few years of "financial suffering".
Strawman. When did I say anything about stealing? How does paying a guy money equate to stealing? Why is it such a crime to compensate someone who is devoting 12-16 hours a day to your university?

I was a poor college student too. I am a poor grad student right now, in tons of debt, and a pizza delivery guy. But I don't generate millions for my university, and there aren't hundreds of thousands of people whose lives revolve around me once a week. It's not the same. And 50k is fine in a vacuum, but they are left with little spending money or money to support anyone while they are earning other people millions. Why dont they get a cut? Why cant they go do a commercial for an entire community that loves them and earn thousands more? Why does my lack of money mean I should think no one else should get any either? What is up with that?
 
Last edited:
Likes: VolByLaw

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
41,663
Likes
26,023
Nope. You are attempting to parse a comparison to escape the moral/ethical comparison.

When did I say anything about stealing? How does paying a guy money equate to stealing?
Yes. It does if there is a rule that you've committed to abide by prohibiting it. Don't like the rule? Change it... don't try to rationalize ignoring it.

Why is it such a crime to compensate someone who is devoting 12-16 hours a day to your university?
Why is it a crime for an accountant who spends 12-16 hours a day for their entire career (NOT playing a game) to dip into the companies finances? Because we have laws and rules that protect everyone.

The athlete is already very generously compensated. Their expenses are fully paid apparently to include a stipend for personal expenses. I do not agree with paying them a salary but if they are going to be paid then it needs to be within the rules so that ALL schools and players benefit equitably. Do you REALLY not understand how unjust it is to programs making an honest effort to do things honestly when people do what Pruitt did? Do you really not understand how corrupting that is to the institution?

I was a poor college student too. I am a poor grad student right now, in tons of debt, and a pizza delivery guy. But I don't generate millions for my university, and there aren't hundreds of thousands of people whose lives revolve around me once a week. It's not the same. And 50k is fine in a vacuum, but they are left with little spending money or money to support anyone while they are earning other people millions. Why dont they get a cut? Why cant they go do a commercial for an entire community that loves them and earn thousands more? Why does my lack of money mean I should think no one else should get any either? What is up with that?
Did someone trick them into signing that LOI complete with its conditions?

The other things you mentioned are not costs to them... but HUGE benefits. You don't have 100's of thousands of fans many of whom own businesses ready to give you a leg up in life after college. Your path to be a sports radio guy is nowhere near as easy as Ainge's or Swain's. You are listing things that are incredible opportunities that most people don't get.

They have a better situation financially than you and the vast majority of college students. They don't have to worry about it. They even have free health care beyond football related stuff, do you?

I don't agree that they should get those things until after college. But if the NCAA and colleges disagree then that's fine. But you CHANGE THE RULES so that it is fair to everyone. You don't just compete to see who cheats the best.
 

ShreveportVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
95
Likes
248
Nope. You are attempting to parse a comparison to escape the moral/ethical comparison.

Yes. It does if there is a rule that you've committed to abide by prohibiting it. Don't like the rule? Change it... don't try to rationalize ignoring it.

Why is it a crime for an accountant who spends 12-16 hours a day for their entire career (NOT playing a game) to dip into the companies finances? Because we have laws and rules that protect everyone.

The athlete is already very generously compensated. Their expenses are fully paid apparently to include a stipend for personal expenses. I do not agree with paying them a salary but if they are going to be paid then it needs to be within the rules so that ALL schools and players benefit equitably. Do you REALLY not understand how unjust it is to programs making an honest effort to do things honestly when people do what Pruitt did? Do you really not understand how corrupting that is to the institution?


Did someone trick them into signing that LOI complete with its conditions?

The other things you mentioned are not costs to them... but HUGE benefits. You don't have 100's of thousands of fans many of whom own businesses ready to give you a leg up in life after college. Your path to be a sports radio guy is nowhere near as easy as Ainge's or Swain's. You are listing things that are incredible opportunities that most people don't get.

They have a better situation financially than you and the vast majority of college students. They don't have to worry about it. They even have free health care beyond football related stuff, do you?

I don't agree that they should get those things until after college. But if the NCAA and colleges disagree then that's fine. But you CHANGE THE RULES so that it is fair to everyone. You don't just compete to see who cheats the best.
Stealing hurts. Who is being hurt by paying players? They are not the same. I think the rule should be changed, so do a lot of powerful people, and they are changing them as we speak. But if you think paying them in the meantime makes the entirety of coaches morally wrong, then we've reached an impasse. The morality of the coaches is the original point of debate, after all lol.

All these benefits are great, but they are a value of thousands, while the players are the driving force of millions of dollars. Mathematically, that's a bad business deal, and that's why alternatives are being pushed like G League and overseas in basketball. They should at least be able to make money from commercials and social media. Why shouldn't they? I bet Heupel is getting healthcare and perks too, doesnt mean he shouldn't also be paid spendable money.

Why should I want everybody to be as poor as I am? A student is training to become productive, but an SEC player is already extremely economically productive. Take me out of the equation, I am not generating more than a few thousand for my college.

But at this point, I dont think we're gonna change each other's minds lol. Go Vols
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
41,663
Likes
26,023
Stealing hurts. Who is being hurt by paying players?
Opposing teams. Players on opposing teams. Honest coaches. Honest AD's. Honest programs. Teams that get caught. Teams that don't have wealthy, dishonest boosters to supply the cash. EVERYONE that the rules are designed to protect and everyone who has a reasonable expectation of a level playing field.

They are not the same.
You can try this line of diversion all you like... I never said they were the "same". They are parallel in a way that illustrates the notion of "rule of law"... IOW's no one is above the rules or should not be equally protected by them.

I think the rule should be changed, so do a lot of powerful people, and they are changing them as we speak. But if you think paying them in the meantime makes the entirety of coaches morally wrong, then we've reached an impasse. The morality of the coaches is the original point of debate, after all lol.
If you think morals are relative to whether you think demands are "fair" then not only are we at an impasse... but you need to do some serious thinking about the kind of world you want to live in.

It is immoral to sign an agreement saying you will abide by a set of rules and then intentionally violate that oath for ANY reason.

All these benefits are great, but they are a value of thousands, while the players are the driving force of millions of dollars.
The answer to that objection is... so what? No one forced these guys to sign that LOI that specified what they would get and the rules they would be obligated to obey.

Also, welcome to the real world. Companies make lots of money at times. They owe their employees what they agreed to pay them. The players are getting exactly what they were offered AND AGREED TO.

Mathematically, that's a bad business deal, and that's why alternatives are being pushed like G League in basketball.
No. It isn't a bad business deal at all. The value of the education they're offered is measured in millions of dollars. It just isn't immediate gratification. I actually agree that a minor league system for the NFL might be the best solution. AMATEUR college football could then go back to what it was intended to be.

They should at least be able to make money from commercials and social media. Why shouldn't they? I bet Heupel is getting healthcare and perks too, doesnt mean he shouldn't also be paid spendable money.
The agreement they signed and the rules as they exist say that they cannot and that he is a paid professional. You don't realize it but you are tinkering with the door on Pandora's Box. If you and others get this done... you're going to ruin the sport.

Why should I want everybody to be as poor as I am?
I never said you should. You are acting as if someone already receiving much more than you both in financial support and future opportunity is being mistreated... they aren't.

A student is training to become productive, but an SEC player is already extremely economically productive.
You keep applying the same poor reasoning in different ways. They are productive AND they are being compensated PRECISELY as they were promised

Take me out of the equation, I am not generating more than a few thousand for my college.
You said you deliver pizza. On average, an employee must create revenue at least 6 times their pay to be justified. If you are getting $12/hr... then you're probably generating revenues around $100/hr.

You can NEVER pay people in relation to the revenues they generate. That's not how pay is determined.

But at this point, I dont think we're gonna change each other's minds lol. Go Vols
Sadly... no. You are justifying clearly immoral and unjust behavior.[/quote]
 
Likes: igotworms

ShreveportVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
95
Likes
248
Opposing teams. Players on opposing teams. Honest coaches. Honest AD's. Honest programs. Teams that get caught. Teams that don't have wealthy, dishonest boosters to supply the cash. EVERYONE that the rules are designed to protect and everyone who has a reasonable expectation of a level playing field.

You can try this line of diversion all you like... I never said they were the "same". They are parallel in a way that illustrates the notion of "rule of law"... IOW's no one is above the rules or should not be equally protected by them.

If you think morals are relative to whether you think demands are "fair" then not only are we at an impasse... but you need to do some serious thinking about the kind of world you want to live in.

It is immoral to sign an agreement saying you will abide by a set of rules and then intentionally violate that oath for ANY reason.

The answer to that objection is... so what? No one forced these guys to sign that LOI that specified what they would get and the rules they would be obligated to obey.

Also, welcome to the real world. Companies make lots of money at times. They owe their employees what they agreed to pay them. The players are getting exactly what they were offered AND AGREED TO.

No. It isn't a bad business deal at all. The value of the education they're offered is measured in millions of dollars. It just isn't immediate gratification. I actually agree that a minor league system for the NFL might be the best solution. AMATEUR college football could then go back to what it was intended to be.

The agreement they signed and the rules as they exist say that they cannot and that he is a paid professional. You don't realize it but you are tinkering with the door on Pandora's Box. If you and others get this done... you're going to ruin the sport.

I never said you should. You are acting as if someone already receiving much more than you both in financial support and future opportunity is being mistreated... they aren't.

You keep applying the same poor reasoning in different ways. They are productive AND they are being compensated PRECISELY as they were promised

You said you deliver pizza. On average, an employee must create revenue at least 6 times their pay to be justified. If you are getting $12/hr... then you're probably generating revenues around $100/hr.

You can NEVER pay people in relation to the revenues they generate. That's not how pay is determined.


Sadly... no. You are justifying clearly immoral and unjust behavior.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they agreed to it, but just because it is the best deal they can get doesnt make it a good deal. Otherwise, they wouldnt be trying to change it.

But we are clearly built on far different axioms, and it's clear we won't meet in the middle on them. That's okay. I wont villainize you over it, and I hope you wont villianize me. Differences of opinion are what makes the world interesting.
 

Weezer

VolNation Dalai Lama
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
41,396
Likes
65,047
When you start paying players, you open up a new can of worms. Does everyone get paid the same, or do star players get paid more? Do you give incentives for goals achieved? Is each school limited to how much they can spend on a player, or do you institute a salary cap? What happens to the schools that can't pay players, and thus can't field competitive teams? Seems like a lot of people could lose their chance at a free education. What do you do with the transfer portal? When a player signs a NLI, is it the same as an NFL contract giving the school they sign with that player's playing rights throughout their college career? If you're paying a player, wouldn't it be unfair to a school to just allow that player to decide to transfer to another school? When you legally bring money to the table, you have a lot more to consider. Truthfully, if paying players is where we are headed, which I'm not entirely opposed to, then we need to separate football from college and create an NFL minor league governed by similar rules to the NFL. And that part of it would kind of suck simply because for many, their fanhood is tied to a particular school.

The whole reason collegiate football and basketball generate millions is because fans are willing to spend millions. Boosters are willing to donate millions. A lot changes if you separate those sports from the collegiate system. Would fanhood survive? The booster system would obviously go away as it pertains to sports. Like I said, a whole new can of worms.
 

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
41,663
Likes
26,023
Yes, they agreed to it, but just because it is the best deal they can get doesnt make it a good deal. Otherwise, they wouldnt be trying to change it.
But it is a good deal. It is an excellent deal in fact. It is a deal that has launched many, many successful lives and careers apart from the NFL. It is a deal that gives them a boost over most other people. It is a HUGE privilege largely based on gifts they were born with. They're being greedy.

Your generation ascribes to a very destructive ideal that things you do not like are a violation of your "rights". Honor, integrity, and other concepts that protect others don't carry much weight.

Working to change the rules is fine but the rules ARE fair and ARE equitable... and WERE agreed to.

But we are clearly built on far different axioms, and it's clear we won't meet in the middle on them. That's okay. I wont villainize you over it, and I hope you wont villianize me. Differences of opinion are what makes the world interesting.
You aren't a villain. But we don't even have a basis for disagreement. If we both agreed that there is objective truth and morality then we could disagree over how to define those things.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
95
Likes
248
But it is a good deal. It is an excellent deal in fact. It is a deal that has launched many, many successful lives and careers apart from the NFL. It is a deal that gives them a boost over most other people. It is a HUGE privilege largely based on gifts they were born with. They're being greedy.

Your generation ascribes to a very destructive ideal that things you do not like are a violation of your "rights". Honor, integrity, and other concepts that protect others don't carry much weight.

Working to change the rules is fine but the rules ARE fair and ARE equitable... and WERE agreed to.

You aren't a villain. But we don't even have a basis for disagreement. If we both agreed that there is objective truth and morality then we could disagree over how to define those things.
You make a lot of assumptions and keep comparing me and my views to other things. I never said their rights were violated. Their rights are well in tact. They're just getting a bad deal. I'm all about honor, integrity, and protecting others, those are all just subjective things like you said. When a rule is bad, i do not think a person has to lack integrity to break it. And it's not just "my generation," whatever that means. Jesus broke laws. Many people considered great humanitarians ended up in jail at one point or another. The law (or a private company's rules) does not decide morality, and it isnt always just. But you have made several snide comments about me personally for my opinion being different than yours, so this debate is no longer productive or worth the energy for me. Hope Big Kat comes here.
 

T Dog

We are more alike than we are different
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
5,431
Likes
15,288
Opposing teams. Players on opposing teams. Honest coaches. Honest AD's. Honest programs. Teams that get caught. Teams that don't have wealthy, dishonest boosters to supply the cash. EVERYONE that the rules are designed to protect and everyone who has a reasonable expectation of a level playing field.

You can try this line of diversion all you like... I never said they were the "same". They are parallel in a way that illustrates the notion of "rule of law"... IOW's no one is above the rules or should not be equally protected by them.

If you think morals are relative to whether you think demands are "fair" then not only are we at an impasse... but you need to do some serious thinking about the kind of world you want to live in.

It is immoral to sign an agreement saying you will abide by a set of rules and then intentionally violate that oath for ANY reason.

The answer to that objection is... so what? No one forced these guys to sign that LOI that specified what they would get and the rules they would be obligated to obey.

Also, welcome to the real world. Companies make lots of money at times. They owe their employees what they agreed to pay them. The players are getting exactly what they were offered AND AGREED TO.

No. It isn't a bad business deal at all. The value of the education they're offered is measured in millions of dollars. It just isn't immediate gratification. I actually agree that a minor league system for the NFL might be the best solution. AMATEUR college football could then go back to what it was intended to be.

The agreement they signed and the rules as they exist say that they cannot and that he is a paid professional. You don't realize it but you are tinkering with the door on Pandora's Box. If you and others get this done... you're going to ruin the sport.

I never said you should. You are acting as if someone already receiving much more than you both in financial support and future opportunity is being mistreated... they aren't.

You keep applying the same poor reasoning in different ways. They are productive AND they are being compensated PRECISELY as they were promised

You said you deliver pizza. On average, an employee must create revenue at least 6 times their pay to be justified. If you are getting $12/hr... then you're probably generating revenues around $100/hr.

You can NEVER pay people in relation to the revenues they generate. That's not how pay is determined.


Sadly... no. You are justifying clearly immoral and unjust behavior.
[/QUOTE]
A book with its chapters. How is your fingers doing.
 
Likes: VOLSONLY

GregAmsler

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
1,360
Likes
3,166
Which players were paid during CPF's tenure? Majors was famous for not paying Holloway. If CPF was paying players he would not have suffered the recruiting losses he did in multiple classes. Bring some backup with any accusations, and leave the everybody knows stuff at home
Holloway? Jamiele, who went to OU?
 

Roustabout

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
19,211
Likes
15,176
Nope. You are attempting to parse a comparison to escape the moral/ethical comparison.

Yes. It does if there is a rule that you've committed to abide by prohibiting it. Don't like the rule? Change it... don't try to rationalize ignoring it.

Why is it a crime for an accountant who spends 12-16 hours a day for their entire career (NOT playing a game) to dip into the companies finances? Because we have laws and rules that protect everyone.

The athlete is already very generously compensated. Their expenses are fully paid apparently to include a stipend for personal expenses. I do not agree with paying them a salary but if they are going to be paid then it needs to be within the rules so that ALL schools and players benefit equitably. Do you REALLY not understand how unjust it is to programs making an honest effort to do things honestly when people do what Pruitt did? Do you really not understand how corrupting that is to the institution?


Did someone trick them into signing that LOI complete with its conditions?

The other things you mentioned are not costs to them... but HUGE benefits. You don't have 100's of thousands of fans many of whom own businesses ready to give you a leg up in life after college. Your path to be a sports radio guy is nowhere near as easy as Ainge's or Swain's. You are listing things that are incredible opportunities that most people don't get.

They have a better situation financially than you and the vast majority of college students. They don't have to worry about it. They even have free health care beyond football related stuff, do you?

I don't agree that they should get those things until after college. But if the NCAA and colleges disagree then that's fine. But you CHANGE THE RULES so that it is fair to everyone. You don't just compete to see who cheats the best.
Great post. The responses show how little a role logic, integrity and decency play in our society.
 
Likes: sjt18

Roustabout

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
19,211
Likes
15,176
But it is a good deal. It is an excellent deal in fact. It is a deal that has launched many, many successful lives and careers apart from the NFL. It is a deal that gives them a boost over most other people. It is a HUGE privilege largely based on gifts they were born with. They're being greedy.

Your generation ascribes to a very destructive ideal that things you do not like are a violation of your "rights". Honor, integrity, and other concepts that protect others don't carry much weight.

Working to change the rules is fine but the rules ARE fair and ARE equitable... and WERE agreed to.

You aren't a villain. But we don't even have a basis for disagreement. If we both agreed that there is objective truth and morality then we could disagree over how to define those things.
I’m really liking this guy!!
 

Kristy*

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
5,005
Likes
11,785
It's been all but confirmed Trey Smith's sister was the whistleblower. Who leaked it to the press is another question, but I doubt that was Kirby.
I think it's been all but speculated that Trey's sister was the whistleblower. Nothing but a baseless rumor. Plowman said she received a "verbal report from a credible source about potentially serious NCAA violations.” That's it.
 
Likes: MarcoVol

Roustabout

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
19,211
Likes
15,176
I think it's been all but speculated that Trey's sister was the whistleblower. Nothing but a baseless rumor. Plowman said she received a "verbal report from a credible source about potentially serious NCAA violations.” That's it.
How out of touch was Fulmer, and yet they are paying him to go away. I explained to the university that they will not receive a penny from me until they stop paying Fulmer.
 
Likes: Kristy*

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top