Did you say David Klingler and Dave Shula?
Sort of surprised nobody has mentioned Daytona or Indy yet. Neither would be #1, but I look forward to both quite a bit.
Understandably, the previous rule was a problem. BUT, I still have problems the review of penalties in any sense. Either have a strict targeting penalty or don't. Any review undermines the integrity of the penalty.
These numbers are why I'm in favor of college athletes being able to profit off their own image and also getting their slice of the billions of dollars in TV money being rained down on the sport. (For example, a 2010 Alabama player would have made $47,330 from live TV alone.)
4 years of that plus that 4 years in the NFL is still not enough to live on for the rest of your life. Except then, everyone is paying even less attention in school because they're already getting money. I don't see how those numbers support paying student-athletes. If anything, they support imposing more stringent standards.
It is, you're right. But I think it also goes a lot deeper than that. They have the money to build a stadium and there's room in Ohio City, but then it brings up issues of parking and the homeowners in the area. My feelings have always been that if they wanted to play on Friday nights, they could make it happen.
As others have said, Friday is for HS.
The converse also bugs me... that is, HS that play on Saturdays. I think this is big in Texas, and with some Catholic schools in Ohio. Ignatius does it in Cleveland and it drives me nuts.
I think it was a joke about the Halloween parties in Athens.
I was in that corner of the endzone just a few rows up and saw the whole thing. It was one of those "did that, was, no...." moments. I wasn't convinced until I got home after the game and looked it up.
Because that gives him better insight on the legal issues?
It's whether those young adults are being treated fairly in a multibillion-dollar industry essentially controlled by the NCAA, athletic directors, commissioners and TV executives.
This isn't the question either. The issue is of law, not economics and finance. I have no idea why Dodd chose to interview a finance professor other to make it appear that someone credible was backing his position.
Apparently, it's not that simple. In the NFL, the championship is typically won by the best team, whether that team is better at offense or defense or neither (like Baltimore, who was 16th in total offense). All elements of your team need to be operating at a high level when you hit the playoffs or you will go home early.
I think his point is that you need both, not one or the other.
Anyone else can't stand half-pipe and slope style?
According to the USC website, he's down to 300lb.
So what? And the student athletes in question generate revenues through their performance while in school. The average student does not.
The average student athlete does not either.
The average student also has the option to get paid for their work. An English major, for instance, can have an essay or book published outside of school and get paid for it. A student athlete cannot, merely because they are a student athlete.
If we're really going to take this comparison to the limit, then the liberal arts are like the nonrevenue sports. The departments that truly bring in the money are engineering and hard sciences. And quite frankly, while the English student can publish a book, a random novel isn't part of their English study. The engineering student, on the other hand, generally can't go out on his own. For example, if I work in a lab and come up with an idea, the tech transfer office has the decision on whether or not to pursue it. They could form a startup, but the university will have some rights in it. The point being, because I used the school's money and facilities, the school takes some right in whatever comes out of it. This really isn't any different from the student-athlete using the school's athletic facilities and the school benefiting from it.
And most student-athletes do not generate tons of revenue themseves. Even in football, it's a small percentage of the actual players. When all sports are involved (especially the non revenue-generating) ones, the percentage is even smaller.
Undergraduates, like almost every student-athelete, do not receive stipends, though.
The problem is, (most) universities are nonprofit institutions. If you set up this side venture where academics are optional, and really, theres no tie to academics, you put that status in jeopardy.
Non-profits are determined, in part, by a primary purpose test. Surprisingly (or not so surprisingly?), the NCAA doesn't consider itself a nonprofit under the amateur sports 501(c)(3) class, but rather, the education one.
Tunnels to everything.
While everyone complained that the Big 10 was going south in football and couldn't stand what Delaney was up to, I always considered him to be the best of the big 6 commissioners. After all it is business and wins/losses on the field don't necessarily equal wins/losses in a board room. At the end of the day, Mike Slive and other commissioners are just pawns and, as pawns, will be thrown away when their use is up. Delaney, on the other hand, is setting the Big 10 up to take everything for itself.
They are good friends and Fickell brought him to OSU as a coach.
Nussmeier, however, appears to be in for quite the pay raise, as CBS' Bruce Feldman reports Michigan will give him a top five assistant coach salary.
If the better team is more likely to win than lose, and we have two teams: 1 that won all of their games and beat one of the most talented cfb teams of all time; and 1 that didn't win all of it's games and got blown out in the one loss, I'm inclined to believe the former is the better team. I don't think that's a stretch.