BoBigRed
Guest
I guess there's 2 sides to every story.
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/02/24/bo-pelini-forced-patrick-witts-hand/
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/02/24/bo-pelini-forced-patrick-witts-hand/
looks like $38k of work study to me. imagine that you win a FREE cruise. then you get to the ship, and they make you peel potatoes all day. their stance is that you are getting a FREE ride on the ship, because you did not pay any money to the cruiseline. did you just get a "free ride"?
^^:congrats:^^
somebody
Well-Known Member
Let's say all the above happens, but you're a walk-on. So not only do you get to pay the same price work-wise, but you don't playing time AND you paid all those fees. Did those other guys get a free ride? :smile2:
I'm just saying this is not clear-cut, it's a lot more free to some than others, e.g., some guys turn a game they played for fun into a pretty good living (NFL, CFL, coaching, etc.).
I'm just saying this is not clear-cut, it's a lot more free to some than others, e.g., some guys turn a game they played for fun into a pretty good living (NFL, CFL, coaching, etc.).
no, they still had work study. they just negotiated more lucrative terms.
We could go around and around on this topic, but I still argue that most of these guys would play football even if they weren't getting their education paid for, so the guy peeling potatoes on a cruise ship is a bad analogy.
it is a bad analogy because you do not want to acknowledge the meaning of the word free. whether or not someone would agree to such an arrangement is a side issue. FWIW, i would peel a potato or two for a room on The World. the exchange would not be a free one. an exchange of your time for educational dollars in the collegiate world is termed work study.
here are a smattering of meanings of the word FREE, compliments of dictionary.com:
* exempt from external authority, interference, or restriction (sorry, schollie players have a CRAPLOAD of external authority placed on them during their work study)
* provided without, not subject to, a charge or payment (capable or injured, each schollie player pays with time as directed by the staff).
* given without consideration of a return or reward (HELLS NO! they are offered tuition in exchange for a service - that is hardly "no strings attached" education).
Last edited:
Agree that it is not free, but the terms are more than know before the player hits campus. Now if I was told it was free and then I was expected to peel tators when that was not part of the original deal, I would be pissed. If I knew I had to peel tators, then I get what I signed up for.
In either case, the player knows what they signed up for and no, it is not free.
Buffsfan09
Member
I think J-Fly ends up returning kicks for TDs for the Buffs this fall...Darryl brings him back...
I hope so but u have to spell darrell Scott's name right first
Deleted member 807
Guest
A) There are walk-on players on the team who choose to play football without an academic subsidy, and have the ways and means to do so.
B) There is a population who would walk on to the program in a perfect world, but are restricted by financial circumstance and/or academic standing. Some of these are on campus. Many will never set foot on campus.
C) There are scholarship players who have an opportunity to play because of the subsidy(scholarship), but would otherwise not play football if the scholarship were not available.
D) There is a segment of the scholarship athletes with the ways and means to play football even without the scholarship.
The arguement that scholarship athletes play for free because of the comparison between categories A and D is flawed. It misses the importance of B and C. Both B & C indicate that there are barriers to playing football beyond 'love of the game.' There are barriers to playing football with or without a scholarship that require some dues to be paid. These dues include some combination of athletic ability, academic aptitude, financial means and life-style commitment in exchange for the rare opportunity to be coached. Where an exhange of goods or services take place, it is by definition, not free.
Free would be a no-strings attached opportunity to strap on a helmet and use the athletic facilities without any athletic, academic, financial or lifestyle commitments.
Lets take this issue back to Josh. Josh probably fits into category C. Without the scholarship, he might fall into category B. Josh wants to modify his lifestyle commitment (rap) and still maintain his educational subsidy. He is free to go to any school on the planet if he pays his own way. But he may require a scholarship to have the ability to both play football and pursue his music interests. The very existance of these trade-offs only proves that his opportunity on the CU football program is not free. If it were free, Josh could do whatever the hell he wants to do absent any consequence.
Again, Josh's education is heavily subsidized, but it is incorrect to confuse a full ride with a free ride.
B) There is a population who would walk on to the program in a perfect world, but are restricted by financial circumstance and/or academic standing. Some of these are on campus. Many will never set foot on campus.
C) There are scholarship players who have an opportunity to play because of the subsidy(scholarship), but would otherwise not play football if the scholarship were not available.
D) There is a segment of the scholarship athletes with the ways and means to play football even without the scholarship.
The arguement that scholarship athletes play for free because of the comparison between categories A and D is flawed. It misses the importance of B and C. Both B & C indicate that there are barriers to playing football beyond 'love of the game.' There are barriers to playing football with or without a scholarship that require some dues to be paid. These dues include some combination of athletic ability, academic aptitude, financial means and life-style commitment in exchange for the rare opportunity to be coached. Where an exhange of goods or services take place, it is by definition, not free.
Free would be a no-strings attached opportunity to strap on a helmet and use the athletic facilities without any athletic, academic, financial or lifestyle commitments.
Lets take this issue back to Josh. Josh probably fits into category C. Without the scholarship, he might fall into category B. Josh wants to modify his lifestyle commitment (rap) and still maintain his educational subsidy. He is free to go to any school on the planet if he pays his own way. But he may require a scholarship to have the ability to both play football and pursue his music interests. The very existance of these trade-offs only proves that his opportunity on the CU football program is not free. If it were free, Josh could do whatever the hell he wants to do absent any consequence.
Again, Josh's education is heavily subsidized, but it is incorrect to confuse a full ride with a free ride.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe he meant the other Darrell...:smile2:
somebody
Well-Known Member
:lol: you compare playing football to peeling potatoes
you are confusing work and play
:lol: you are confusing a no-strings-attached concept of free with an exchange.
somebody
Well-Known Member
:rofl2: Thanks for playing, but I merely said that it's seems more free for some than for others, and gave credible reasons. However, actual work and playing football are two very different things.
Deleted member 807
Guest
The English language has thousands of words, many of them precise.
Subsidize does not appear in the thesaurus next to free.
Subsidize = bankroll, fund, underwrite, pick up the check.
Free = handout, complimentary, for nothing, on the house.
Which one is the better fit?
Buffsfan09
Member
no I don't
"more free"? do you make things up as you go along?
free is free. there are not varying strata of free.
Can't wait to hear how this works out. J-Fly can't know if USC or ASU would offer him a scholly as that would be a violation (tampering). CU is evidently giving him his release for USC only.
Does anyone here think J-Fly is going on scholarship at USC immediately? I'm not thinking they will. I'm not of the impression that J-Fly has the bucks to attend USC without a scholarship.
What is the chance that he didn't think this thru any more than he's though the play book thru?
Does anyone here think J-Fly is going on scholarship at USC immediately? I'm not thinking they will. I'm not of the impression that J-Fly has the bucks to attend USC without a scholarship.
What is the chance that he didn't think this thru any more than he's though the play book thru?
If he wasn't playing much I could see a need for a change of scenery but coming into your jr year? It's mind boggling but this is CU where every off-season lends another trip into the twilight zone.
:lol::lol::lol:
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
i'm sure j-fly will rip shizz up at USC not wanting to work in the classroom, workout or learn a complex O. because top 5 teams just coast on flow. like i said since day 1 of Flygate, i don't see Carroll having a scholly for him.
i don't dislike the kid and i think we are a better team with him than without but he's getting some bad advice about his importance in the world.
i don't dislike the kid and i think we are a better team with him than without but he's getting some bad advice about his importance in the world.
Last edited:
What happened to all these great character guys hawk is bringing in? You know,the guys who smile have a great attitude yet guys are leaving in droves?
Hawk needs to start winning games, nobody cares about his character speeches every interview and his bail-out "bohn knows are vision and where were at BS" DRIVEL.
buffs04
Well-Known Member
Yes, I do find it somewhat interesting that four years later, interviews are still addressing primarily "changing the culture" and "being winners" rather than X's and O's or W's and L's.
Frankly, I think CU may have intentionally prioritized PR and touchy-feely over W/L. Do the people in charge really care whether or not football or hoops are successful as long as the coaches and AD are good media people? Sometimes I wonder. And by sometimes, I mean all the time. If the guys running the athletic department (Bohn, Hawkins) don't really care about winning, I have to wonder what they are doing being involved in major college athletics, besides making a lot of money and not, up to current point in time, really producing in any significant capacity.
There are plenty of other venues in the world - with much less at stake - to teach kids life lessons. High school sports. Little league. In the community.
Fact is, we can talk about character guys all we want. In reality - and this is just from observation, I haven't actually tallied anything - guys are still getting arrested fairly regularly. Guys are occasionally leaving the program (or, in Bz's case, frequently leaving the program). The teams are losing. A lot.
I honestly think at some point the $$ are going to start putting pressure on the AD to win, however, even if it is not a priority now because at some point the casual fans are going to stop going to the football games, like they have done with basketball games, because they don't care to invest signiifcant amounts of time and money to see mediocre teams-at-best teams, which is, IMO, an accurate way to classify CU FB and BB over the past several years.
I have already started to notice significant attendance problems at FB games midway through the season. Students, in particular, aren't showing up because they don't ever remember CU being good and they just don't give a ****. A lot of the guys on this board, I think, don't necessarily realize this because you guys have memories of CU being a really, really good football program. Younger CU fans don't. And reality is, at a school like CU, if the team is bad for years at a time, people stop caring. That is the way at most schools, I would think, actually. Places like Nebraska are an exception. One, they rarely have long down stretches, two, there isn't anything else going on at their university to occupy people's time. Point being, football must start winning games soon, or the AD is going to be really strapped for cash.
Is CU not in the position that losing any more sports programs at all is going to jeaporadize our D1 status? We have a lot riding on the successes of the fb team right now, I think, particularly when you consider the immediate future of the mbb team, which even the most determined optimistic among you I think will admit is pretty bleak atm.
Frankly, I think CU may have intentionally prioritized PR and touchy-feely over W/L. Do the people in charge really care whether or not football or hoops are successful as long as the coaches and AD are good media people? Sometimes I wonder. And by sometimes, I mean all the time. If the guys running the athletic department (Bohn, Hawkins) don't really care about winning, I have to wonder what they are doing being involved in major college athletics, besides making a lot of money and not, up to current point in time, really producing in any significant capacity.
There are plenty of other venues in the world - with much less at stake - to teach kids life lessons. High school sports. Little league. In the community.
Fact is, we can talk about character guys all we want. In reality - and this is just from observation, I haven't actually tallied anything - guys are still getting arrested fairly regularly. Guys are occasionally leaving the program (or, in Bz's case, frequently leaving the program). The teams are losing. A lot.
I honestly think at some point the $$ are going to start putting pressure on the AD to win, however, even if it is not a priority now because at some point the casual fans are going to stop going to the football games, like they have done with basketball games, because they don't care to invest signiifcant amounts of time and money to see mediocre teams-at-best teams, which is, IMO, an accurate way to classify CU FB and BB over the past several years.
I have already started to notice significant attendance problems at FB games midway through the season. Students, in particular, aren't showing up because they don't ever remember CU being good and they just don't give a ****. A lot of the guys on this board, I think, don't necessarily realize this because you guys have memories of CU being a really, really good football program. Younger CU fans don't. And reality is, at a school like CU, if the team is bad for years at a time, people stop caring. That is the way at most schools, I would think, actually. Places like Nebraska are an exception. One, they rarely have long down stretches, two, there isn't anything else going on at their university to occupy people's time. Point being, football must start winning games soon, or the AD is going to be really strapped for cash.
Is CU not in the position that losing any more sports programs at all is going to jeaporadize our D1 status? We have a lot riding on the successes of the fb team right now, I think, particularly when you consider the immediate future of the mbb team, which even the most determined optimistic among you I think will admit is pretty bleak atm.
REP, Great post :thumbsup:
somebody
Well-Known Member
Sorry, honey, the world is not black and white. You'll understand this, some day, maybe. Nice deflection on your comparison of playing and working, though. Congrats!
To borrow a line from Hawk, this is Division 1 Football; its the Big XII. You want to PLAY, go play intramurals, Brother. :thumbsup::lol:
somebody
Well-Known Member
:smile: True, to a degree, but if they aren't having fun at this level (or any level, really) I think it shows up in their play.