GP1

Bump

No. DiG posted a link earlier in this thread.

One has nothing to do with the other. It isn't an either/or situation, but an "and" situation. Those of us who complain want KD to stay AND do some things differently that will provide the Zips with more than just winning a lousy conference and first round destruction in post season play.

In all seriousness, is this enough along with all the mediocrity to hire him for an ACC job? Wake Forest is offering Danny Manning a job. He played at Kansas and coached at Tulsa. Great guy to attract better talent to a program that once had much better talent playing for it. Calipari seems to be doing well at Kentucky. Lots of guys do well at places without being from those places. I'm not sure why that weighs so heavy in the minds of ADs. Maybe I'm just easily confused by the decisions of ADs.

Nothing. It's been a long time since JC has been "the hot guy". Hiring the "right guy" is a lot more difficult than hiring the hot guy. I'm not sure if JC is the right guy or the hot guy...or, neither. I lean towards neither. Very strange hire for BC if you ask me. Complete lack of imagination if you ask me. Well, who ever said what happens in college athletics is supposed to make sense...

I understand. I just thought it might be a nice discussion about when to hire a coach and when not to hire a coach and the aversion to risk a lot of athletic directors have.

I agree and this presents an interesting case. At this point, is Jim Christian or Jeff Boals a better candidate for a school like BC. My guess is BC is looking for someone with head coaching experience. Experience aside, would Boals be the better coach? Christian presents less of a risk for an AD but Boals has more recent, relevant experience to me.

I do know the words to the Alma Mater and the school fight song. Being a Catholic though, I tend to hum along with songs in lieu of singing the words.

I'm pretty indifferent to trend in new uniforms, but if we are going to do something, I like this selection. The University recently surveyed a list of supporters. I received a poll. The "Z" logo was my favorite followed by the "A" with the kangaroo head. I've seen enough of the "Fear The Roo" merchandise (not sure what I'm supposed to be afraid of).

I'm a huge Civil War buff and I like reading about it.Not just the war, but the thinking that preceded the war from the north and the south. The arguments surrounding the CW can be applied to a lot of things even though the moral issues may not be the same. Some argued there were economic reasons to end slavery and some argued there were economic reasons to keep slavery. To me, the issue of slavery was a moral issue that could only be resolved and the country made better with EVERYONE being free. Please read Edmund Ruffin's piece cited below and think about the arguments being made in favor and against paying athletes. Had the ncaa, years ago, stopped restricting income on the part of the players or even allowed them to share in the income generated by merchandising, it would have been easier to make the argument that the scholarship is not income and sufficient for services rendered. Tough argument to make when you are restricting income with one hand and with the other saying the issues aren't about income all the while you are selling TV rights, paying coaches millions, building one stadium after another, etc. At some point, even a bunch of stupid jocks were going to figure it out. So, the question is....Is there anything more profitable than a free labor force? Ruffin knew the benefits of a free labor force (so do Athletic Directors). He presents the loss of the free labor force as potential disaster (cough, cough, like those who think paying employee-students is a pending disaster), but Henry Ford proved paying people well for their services allowed them to buy the very goods they were making. The one thing the ncaa could never get right, and it was so simple, was how to avoid this ever happening while keeping the free labor force. Their solution was always to restrict potential income for students more and more over time (in the 1970s, players could hold jobs). This strategy was so misguided it's amazing people defended it for so long. It doesn't cost a school a penny for a player to have a job. Player gets job, someone else pays and it costs school nothing. The labor for football is still free for the school and the player is offered some freedom as well to earn some money. If it costs the school 20% of the merchandise gross sales with a players likeness or name, then raise prices 20%....or, raise it 10% while losing 10%,but sell 20% more product. I've never been in favor of paying players. I've always been in favor of them having the freedom to get a job or capitalize on their fame. If a person on a academic scholarship is free to have a job, so should someone with an athletic scholarship. See, the issue really isn't about paying people, it's about adults being free to make their own decisions. The ncaa has really stepped in it's own crap on this one. Freedom didn't ruin the south when slavery ended. Freedom won't ruin college athletics if players are allowed to make some money. It's too bad the ncaa put itself in a position where the members are going to have to shell out cash. Could have been handled a lot better and all of this could have been avoided. Freedom solves a lot of problems. Excerpts from Edmund Ruffin's "Slavery and Free Labor Described and Compared" (1860) Web Version: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/rbaapc:@field(DOCID+@lit(rbaapc25000div0)) Section VIII.--How the substitution of free labor for slave labor would finally operate on agricultural interests--High price of land, of itself, not a benefit to agriculture, and may be the reverse--Still greater evil in fluctuating prices.

Per Dennis Jansky. Football Alumni Spring Game Reunion Friday, April 18 - Saturday, April 19 The University of Akron Football Team and Coach Terry Bowden will host the Annual Football Alumni Spring Game Reunion the third week in April. This is a great time for all former University of Akron football players to come back, reconnect and interact with the staff. All University of Akron Football alumni are invited to return. Football Alumni Spring Game Reunion Schedule of Events: Friday, April 18th 6:00-9:00 p.m. Alumni Welcome Reception – Beau's on the River (Lounge Area) Beau's on the River Address: 1989 Front Street; Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221 Saturday, April 19th 8:30 a.m. Alumni Registration - House of LaRose Lobby in InfoCision Stadium 9:00 a.m. Pre-game meal with current Team - 7th Floor InfoCision Stadium* 10:30 a.m. Alumni Reception - 5th Floor InfoCision Stadium 1:00 p.m. Spring Game 3:30 p.m. Private post-game tailgate with Football Staff - Louis and Freda Stile Fieldhouse *Pre-game meal will be for Alumni only; families are welcome in the reception area on the 5th Floor of InfoCision Stadium during this time **** Parking will be reserved for Alumni in Lot 10 adjacent to the Louis and Freda Stile Athletics Fieldhouse**** Cost: (Prior to April 11, 2014) $25.00 – Per Person $10.00 – Children 12 & Under Cost: (After April 11, 2014) $50.00 – Per Person The RSVP deadline for the weekend is Friday, April 11, 2014. For more information or to RSVP, contact Micklos Blake, Graduate Assistant for Athletic Development, at 330.972.7142 or mb125@zips.uakron.edu

This is an easy one. 2012-2013 had a top 3 all time Zip, good depth and better overall talent. Had everything not fallen apart at the end, who knows?

It is important to think before you leap, unless staying where you are represents certain and ongoing failure. This issue has been debated for decades now. Have the players thought through every possibility?...Probably not, but if you sit around thinking about every possibility, then nothing ever gets done. I believe that's what the NCAA wants and what they want isn't in the interest of the players most of the time. One can go as far back as the development of the term "student-athlete" as an elaborate Workers Compensation avoidance scheme as evidence of how people in universities see the players. The players made the situation fluid by disrupting the status quo. They needed to do that in order to get any form of change. College athletics isn't on the verge of collapse now that there is a players union. Players unions have made every sport in which they are affiliated better and more entertaining. There is no reason this couldn't happen in college...Actually, there is one big one. See paragraph below. Here is my biggest concern about the unionization of college athletes and I think this is a massive problem for fans and universities in MAClike conferences. The ncaa is a massive organization and for all intensive purposes, the only institution representing universities in athletics on a national level. The ncaa is horrible at what it does. It could become the body that negotiates with a national college athletes union. In my opinion, that will spell trouble for all of the reasons us UofA/MAC have traditionally mistrusted the ncaa...the representatives are either from BCSlike schools or people who want to be at a BCSlike school and not a MAClike school. They will act in the interest of their careers. They will put their careers before the schools they are working for. I've said it once, I'll say it a 1,000 times, MAClike schools should do everything they can to distance themselves from the ncaa. The ncaa never acts in our interests. Those who worry about players getting paid or whatever shouldn't look at the players as the bad guys in this situation. The blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of the ncaa for allowing it to get to this point. In the 1970s, a player could have a summer job. Today he can't and today we see players unionizing. It isn't hard to see the result of poor decision making on the part of the ncaa as a major cause of this issue. Their name is literally all over the finding report. While they haven't been completely inflexible as they did allow schools to have salmon with bagels, on the important issues facing college athletics, they almost always fail miserably.

Funny some of you are arguing they aren't employees. That ship has sailed. This could be the best thing ever for college athletics. Change sparks fear. Fear is one of the worst reasons to not do something. NCAA members should embrace the ruling and make it work.

Maybe this amount is true, but I suspect it is overstated. Tuition is easily absorbed and isn't a real payout like normal tuition is. It is an inter departmental transfer of money and for the university it adds up to zero. Living expenses don't cover what it costs to live, that's why they players want to get jobs. "Everything"?...not sure what that means. Travel?...This is a funny one and I'm sure bumps up the number. You're saying when I worked in corporate American and spent over 100 nights a year in Marriotts alone, that was part of my compensation from the company? Missed that on my W-2. Not to give Athletic Directors any ideas, but are the player supposed to pay their own travel to and from games?

For those of you who don't think Employee-Students are employees, please read the NLRB finding on this case. It's painfully boring, but is a finding based upon case law, not the whims of an employee at the NLRB. The Employee-Students at NWestern are employees in every way, shape and form of the law. Someone mentioned this case has nothing to do with the NCAA. If you believe that, please read the finding and count the number of times the term "NCAA" is used in the finding. (Hint: It's a lot.) The NCAA makes rules that the schools have to follow that impact the Employee-Students. The NCAA is not a direct party to this case, but they are involved and some of the smell is on them. Lastly, this case can be easily applied to every school if you just change school names and coaches names.

You don't know this. What we do know is the atmosphere was created that caused this.

Unless I missed something, the Northwestern decision only applies to Northwestern players on scholarship with playing eligibility remaining and does not include other schools, private or public. Makes no statement that differentiates between private and public. Not sure if it applies to a senior on scholarship who is in his final semester after football season.

The NCAA (member institutions) created the atmosphere in which this could take place.

umass has not been a meaningful team since the 1990s. They had a good year this year and that probably would not have happened in the MAC. For the most part, they are a solid NIT team. If umass gives credibility, I guess my question is, With whom?

I would agree that this is not a good ruling that is going to be better for the NCAA and the member institutions. With that said, they have done this to themselves. The NCAA had the world by the balls in that they were raking in TV money hand over fist while the ADs and coaches lined their pockets and built one stadium after another. They didn't even have to share any of the money with the players to keep this issue quiet. All they needed to do was allow players to make some money with a job, capitalize on their fame and share in some of the royalties of merchandise. Two of the three wouldn't have cost them a dime. The third might have, but a jersey with a players actual name on the back is probably more valuable than the ones they sell now without the names so they could have made up the difference. I have zero sympathy for the NCAA in this issue. They did it to themselves.

There are a lot of ways someone could read this statement.....

Chicago Tribune Good article. My only criticism would be he shouldn't give Presidents and Athletic Directors any ideas about outsourcing college football to third world countries. Given the ethical standards of at least Athletic Directors, they might just do it.

With basketball they would have been useless. The MAC needs fewer schools, not more.

Northwestern Employee-Students win NLRB filing. Long way to go, but a win for the Employee-Students. Why Employee-Students? Someone said after this ruling that the term Student-Athlete can finally go away and be turned into Student-Employee. I always believed the schools made them athletes first and students second. Because of that, I'm sure they will want that importance to remain somehow and the term should be Employee-Students. If this all crumbles for the NCAA, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Years ago, they could have allowed players to hold a jobs or capitalize off of their fame. Instead, they dug their heels in and made more rules. The NCAA is an institutional failure.