He should ask Eric "New Kids on the Block" Crouch how that worked out for him?
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!
Pryor leaves Ohio State (was: We now take you to Columbus, Ohio)
- Thread starter Duff Man
- Start date
He should ask Eric "New Kids on the Block" Crouch how that worked out for him?
There have been a few, Van Pelt from the sheep (couldn't have happened to a better jerk,) Pat White from WVU, I'm drawing blanks on name but it has happened often.
Wow, it seems like Clarett really grew up in Jail. Pretty insightful perspective.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6640219
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6640219
kalbuff
New Member
I'm not going to argue that Prior will even come close to success as an NFL QB, but there is a world of difference between him and Crouch. When he won the Heisman Crouch threw more interceptions than TD's. He was mostly a runner which the NFL disdains and for good reason. Prior has some potential as a passer. This was the same argument when Vince Young was drafted.
Well, maybe he's matured, but I don't agree with his assesment that "the coaches can't control it" or "schools make $20 million, $30 million, $40 million in profits." BS to both of those statements. A coach can't oversee everything, but they sure as hell should know what kind of car a kid is driving, where he lives, and, to some extent, who he's hanging out with. As for programs making profit, most barely scrap by other than the Texas', Notre Dames, OSU's, etc.
I agree in general, but consider his perspective. He played at one of the "Texas', Notre Dames, OSU's". So yeah no BS to that statement, he lived it. Also not sure how a coach "sure as hell" knows what kind of car the kid is driving. Think about Colorado. The kid either never even drives his car to campus or parks it in some parking lot a quarter mile away from Dal Ward. I'm sure most coaches have the time to drive around hoping to catch the kid in his car.
Last edited:
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
LSUFreak is an icon
buffalofart
Member
Michigan fans getting creative....
[video=youtube;Yy0lP_aNePU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy0lP_aNePU&feature=player_embedded#at=98[/video]
[video=youtube;Yy0lP_aNePU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy0lP_aNePU&feature=player_embedded#at=98[/video]
That he is.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
And athletic college QBs that can't play QB in the NFL...
supahphish
Member
Just heard his lawyer on ESPN arguing that the situation college athletes are in now is comparable to slavery :lol:
I've posted in support of the proposal that scholarships cover the whole cost of attendance and not just tuition/room/books, but really? He would never in a million years have said that if Terrelle Pryor were white.
I've posted in support of the proposal that scholarships cover the whole cost of attendance and not just tuition/room/books, but really? He would never in a million years have said that if Terrelle Pryor were white.
His lawyer should be ashamed of himself. He is belittling all those who suffered under the abomination of slavery when he equates playing under a college scholarship as an amateur athlete. What an asshat.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
How many games did his attorney buy tickets to attend? is he a season ticket holder? watches games on TV?
If so, then he is a gigantic hypocrite as well as douchebag.
As if preparing for a multi-million dollar future at best, a college education at least, is really "against their will"? wow what an idot
kalbuff
New Member
THAT clown gives lawyers a bad name. And we don't need help for god's sake. That's the most ridiculous analogy I can imagine, and as has been noted, really cheapens the degradation and suffering of generations of people over the ages. This jackass needs to read a little more history.
That's almost exactly what it is. In its best form, though.
Kind of like if a company said that it would pay for you to get a Master's Degree but that you had to sign an agreement on a 3-year contract with them for after you finished it.
Or the military...Academy/ROTC style.
Well worth it.
:nod::thumbsup:
It's obviously an unfair and terrible system for the players, that's why they have such a hard time finding kids who are interested in taking the scholarships.
It's the same argument made everywhere, I work hard and somebody else gets more than I do. I agree that it is tough to make it in college on the benefits that the NCAA allows and I also agree that if there were no restrictions certain players would be recieving a huge amount more than they are getting now. At the same time the system works for the vast majority of kids who take advantage of it. We have 119 schools that play BCS level football with a maximum (not counting kids who continue on scholly after an injury) of 85. If we account for unfilled schollies let's make that an average of 80 per school meaning that in any given year there are about 9500 players on schollie. The vast majority of those players will never see a dime from the NFL but if they use it to their advantage they have the opportunity to get an excellent lifelong experience and a college degree, debt free.
Now make a change and start to pay the players. If you give them anything that could be considered compensation you might fall under labor law requiring at least minimum wage which at 20hrs a week for 20 mandatory weeks a year means $2900.00 per player times 80 means $232,000 per year. But it wouldn't end with football. If you pay football you at a minimum have to pay basketball (another revenue sport) to the tune of an additional $37,700 per school per year totaling $259,700 per year. Then the title IX issue kicks in and you have to pay an equal number of female athletes meaning that you now are looking at each school putting out at a minimum $519,400 per year.
For most of the schools in the major conferences like the SEC, Big X, PAC 12, etc. half a million isn't anything close to a deal breaker. At the same time for schools in the non-AQ conferences that amount of money may be half or more of their TV revenue for the year. In a Texas athletic budget of 140 million it is a drop in the bucket, for a MAC school with an athletic budget of 14 million it may mean a re-evaluation of the value of having a football team.
Realistically in a time of tight budgets and increasing cost this could cause enough schools to drop football or move to a lower level that a decrease in available schollies of in excess of 1000 is not unreasonable (this would only mean 12.5 schools dropping football or 50 dropping to FCS with an average of 60 schollies, or a combination of the two.)
What this would mean in the end is that in the interest of paying the stars, most of whom are going to get paid huge amounts in the NFL based on the training they get in college, we eliminate opportunity for 1000 kids a year on the back end.
We all know that most college athletic departments are not making money as it is. A few make big bucks, a lot break even, and a number of them lose money but are subsidised in the interest of the publicity they generate for the school and what they add to campus life and their college communities. There is no magic money tree. Pay players and for those who recieve the money life is good but the overall impact will be felt and somebody will have to pay, much of that payment will be in opportunity for players who are not the probable superstars coming out of HS.
It's the same argument made everywhere, I work hard and somebody else gets more than I do. I agree that it is tough to make it in college on the benefits that the NCAA allows and I also agree that if there were no restrictions certain players would be recieving a huge amount more than they are getting now. At the same time the system works for the vast majority of kids who take advantage of it. We have 119 schools that play BCS level football with a maximum (not counting kids who continue on scholly after an injury) of 85. If we account for unfilled schollies let's make that an average of 80 per school meaning that in any given year there are about 9500 players on schollie. The vast majority of those players will never see a dime from the NFL but if they use it to their advantage they have the opportunity to get an excellent lifelong experience and a college degree, debt free.
Now make a change and start to pay the players. If you give them anything that could be considered compensation you might fall under labor law requiring at least minimum wage which at 20hrs a week for 20 mandatory weeks a year means $2900.00 per player times 80 means $232,000 per year. But it wouldn't end with football. If you pay football you at a minimum have to pay basketball (another revenue sport) to the tune of an additional $37,700 per school per year totaling $259,700 per year. Then the title IX issue kicks in and you have to pay an equal number of female athletes meaning that you now are looking at each school putting out at a minimum $519,400 per year.
For most of the schools in the major conferences like the SEC, Big X, PAC 12, etc. half a million isn't anything close to a deal breaker. At the same time for schools in the non-AQ conferences that amount of money may be half or more of their TV revenue for the year. In a Texas athletic budget of 140 million it is a drop in the bucket, for a MAC school with an athletic budget of 14 million it may mean a re-evaluation of the value of having a football team.
Realistically in a time of tight budgets and increasing cost this could cause enough schools to drop football or move to a lower level that a decrease in available schollies of in excess of 1000 is not unreasonable (this would only mean 12.5 schools dropping football or 50 dropping to FCS with an average of 60 schollies, or a combination of the two.)
What this would mean in the end is that in the interest of paying the stars, most of whom are going to get paid huge amounts in the NFL based on the training they get in college, we eliminate opportunity for 1000 kids a year on the back end.
We all know that most college athletic departments are not making money as it is. A few make big bucks, a lot break even, and a number of them lose money but are subsidised in the interest of the publicity they generate for the school and what they add to campus life and their college communities. There is no magic money tree. Pay players and for those who recieve the money life is good but the overall impact will be felt and somebody will have to pay, much of that payment will be in opportunity for players who are not the probable superstars coming out of HS.
here we go!!
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/08/ohio-state-vacates-2010-wins-puts-self-on-probation/?hpt=hp_t2
this is gonna be bad...they self-imposed this ****... means the ncaa is coming with there womping stick
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/08/ohio-state-vacates-2010-wins-puts-self-on-probation/?hpt=hp_t2
this is gonna be bad...they self-imposed this ****... means the ncaa is coming with there womping stick
The Guest
Guest
Indeed, it sounds like some new **** has come to light.
NCAA is fixin' to pull the ol' number six on them!
Just probation!? No schollie losses? Puleaze. weak.