danjsport wrote:

GWRising wrote:

danjsport wrote:

GWrising- just because your notion matches up with the "fundamental compact" of a scholarship, does not mean it is not your notion. Nor does it mean it has to be the only notion. The notion is outdated. I agree that there is "consideration." It is just not negotiated consideration, and the players have no choice but to join the system, if they would like to play (whether it be for the education, the opportunity to play pro ball, or some combination). The system is rigged to force them to make money for others, while they get "compensated," these are NOT negotiated contracts. Take it or leave it is all they get.

What happens to the other sports when college sports implodes. I'm not sure. But I'm sure that a bunch of folks making money off the backs of two sports isn't the way it should happen. It's amazing how college sports is the time when you believe socialism should happen (so long as the admins can make money).

I agree- there will be lost scholarships. That's how the world works. If a university has to actually pay its labor force for the money it is bringing in, it will have to make decisions about who it can pay and who it can't. Maybe they could just offer Caputo a law degree instead of money. After all, it's great compensation! They could even give him a tutor!

Lastly, the fact that college education has been bloated and pushed out middle class people is a completely separate conversation. I agree (it's also why it's not really fair to say these kids are getting an 80k a year education). 


 

You seem to put very little value on receiving a college education. The idea that someone is "forced" to play for a free college education is mind-boggling given the differences in future earnings for those with degrees versus those without. 99% of these college athletes even in the marquee sports will never make enough money in their sport to not have to rely on their degree for a job. Yes, we are "forcing" people to get an education that will benefit them far beyond the context of that particular institution lol.

What also is a constant theme in your posts is that you love to count everyone else's money. This isn't socialism. Sorry wrong place. The idea that because some people make a lot of money when they are fortunate enough to get one of a very few head coaching positions or perhaps an AD position that college student-athletes are being exploited is nonsense. First of all, do you have any idea what most of these same people earned for a good portion of their work life while toiling as assistants etc.? Not much. For example, the vast majority of D1 assistant basketball coaches make less than six figures. Second, where do you think all this money earned by athletics goes at the big time schools? There aren't shareholders who pocket the money - it goes back into the University for buildings, scholarships and other things (faculty positions) that enhance the educational experience for students including non-student athletes. Finally, you completely discount the value of sports in providing a great student life experience for non-student athletes. Many students who are not athletes will choose a school precisely because athletics is a big part of the social scene. It costs money to create that environment.

Further, what you fail to realize is most institutions do not make any money on sports. Outside of the P5 plus a few ... net revenues are negative. Your solution would be to effectively eliminate scholarship sports for most schools. In essence, just like socialism, there will be the few rich and everyone else will be worse off. Sounds like a lose-lose for almost everyone except the 1% who will become pros. You have the socialism argument backwards.

How many student athletes at GW get free education?

I'm not sure of the answer but men's and women's basketball have 13 and 15 full scholarships so that is 28. The other sports have scholarships but they are not fully funded meaning not everyone or maybe most everyone on the team has a full scholarship. For example for soccer, there might be 12 full scholarships and the coach can allocate those across some players or all players. Someone might get a full scholarship and someone might get a half scholarship or a certain amount. You would have to ask Athletics as to the total number of full scholarship equivalents.

GWRising wrote:

danjsport wrote:

GWRising wrote:

You seem to put very little value on receiving a college education. The idea that someone is "forced" to play for a free college education is mind-boggling given the differences in future earnings for those with degrees versus those without. 99% of these college athletes even in the marquee sports will never make enough money in their sport to not have to rely on their degree for a job. Yes, we are "forcing" people to get an education that will benefit them far beyond the context of that particular institution lol.

What also is a constant theme in your posts is that you love to count everyone else's money. This isn't socialism. Sorry wrong place. The idea that because some people make a lot of money when they are fortunate enough to get one of a very few head coaching positions or perhaps an AD position that college student-athletes are being exploited is nonsense. First of all, do you have any idea what most of these same people earned for a good portion of their work life while toiling as assistants etc.? Not much. For example, the vast majority of D1 assistant basketball coaches make less than six figures. Second, where do you think all this money earned by athletics goes at the big time schools? There aren't shareholders who pocket the money - it goes back into the University for buildings, scholarships and other things (faculty positions) that enhance the educational experience for students including non-student athletes. Finally, you completely discount the value of sports in providing a great student life experience for non-student athletes. Many students who are not athletes will choose a school precisely because athletics is a big part of the social scene. It costs money to create that environment.

Further, what you fail to realize is most institutions do not make any money on sports. Outside of the P5 plus a few ... net revenues are negative. Your solution would be to effectively eliminate scholarship sports for most schools. In essence, just like socialism, there will be the few rich and everyone else will be worse off. Sounds like a lose-lose for almost everyone except the 1% who will become pros. You have the socialism argument backwards.

How many student athletes at GW get free education?

I'm not sure of the answer but men's and women's basketball have 13 and 15 full scholarships so that is 28. The other sports have scholarships but they are not fully funded meaning not everyone or maybe most everyone on the team has a full scholarship. For example for soccer, there might be 12 full scholarships and the coach can allocate those across some players or all players. Someone might get a full scholarship and someone might get a half scholarship or a certain amount. You would have to ask Athletics as to the total number of full scholarship equivalents.

So what you’re saying is, for our non-revenue sports, these student athletes don’t get a free education, but some portion of a free education, and that is more than enough to agree to a restriction on when they can transfer?

GW0509 wrote:

danjsport wrote:

So what you’re saying is, for our non-revenue sports, these student athletes don’t get a free education, but some portion of a free education, and that is more than enough to agree to a restriction on when they can transfer?

I am by no means an NCAA compliance expert but if you are not receiving any athletics-related aid, you are free to transfer without sitting out and it doesn't count as your one "free" transfer. (FourYearGuide.pdf (ncaa.org) pgs 13-14).  Once you get partial or full aid, then you only have your one "free" undergraduate transfer and must sit out a year for transferring a second time.  That is, unless your school drops your sport (like Men's Rowing), at which point you can also transfer w/o using your "free" undergraduate transfer.  

 

 I believe this is correct.

The funny thing about this, I Don't recall a single objection here that we hired Jamion Christian who jumped from Siena to GW just 1 year after bolting Mt St Marys for Siena. 

Except from me franky, and when Caputo first emerged as a candidate that he stayed with JL for nearly 20 years was a big selling point in my view. 

Again, last year an assistant bolted almost immediately after coming here and got a wide round of well wishes

If the Coaches can leave year to year why should the players not be able to?

I'm a fan of loyalty and continuity and seeing things through. Yet, seems if the Coaches can bolt year to year the players should too

The Dude wrote:

The funny thing about this, I Don't recall a single objection here that we hired Jamion Christian who jumped from Siena to GW just 1 year after bolting Mt St Marys for Siena.

Except from me franky, and when Caputo first emerged as a candidate that he stayed with JL for nearly 20 years was a big selling point in my view.

Again, last year an assistant bolted almost immediately after coming here and got a wide round of well wishes

If the Coaches can leave year to year why should the players not be able to?

I'm a fan of loyalty and continuity and seeing things through. Yet, seems if the Coaches can bolt year to year the players should too

Stop it. You said nothing of the sort when JC was hired. 

Gwmayhem wrote:

Here is what The Dude wrote at the time...a thread he entitled Thoughts on a new GW era:

GW hired one of the hottest young Coaches in the country.

We all know building a program back up takes several years, your recruits have to come and develop and that takes minimum of a few  years. I'd hope we afford this Coach the minimum few years that will take, I'm not worried about "lack of buzz" or even the W-L, but progress and upward tilt level recruiting.   
JC is going to get it done. 

Long term the bigger concern is losing him, but we'll cross that road when we get there. Onward and upward GW  What say you all???

I guess I missed the part where he objected to bringing in a coach who had only spent one season at his previous school.


Moving right along, I do not equate neither the decision-making abilities nor the life circumstances of many 18-22 year olds (players) with that of adults (coaches).  Coaches are professionals who are older, many with families to help support, bills to pay, etc.  In a perfect world, we would never see any coach move on until he or she fulfills the terms of their contract.  However, in sports, we know this ship has sailed.  A coach who leaves for a greater opportunity, greater responsibility and/or more money, is and should be applauded.  It's called moving up in your profession and it's done in all professions.

This just couldn't be any more different than players who skip from one school to the next because they are not playing as much as they would like or because they are unhappy with the coaching staff.  And again, I do feel that these players should be allowed to transfer once, no reasons needed, and without sitting out a year.  And, am fine with a second transfer if the player has graduated or the coaching staff has moved on.  Again, no questions asked.  But to allow this an unlimited amount of times?  That would just be bad for the player in the long run.
 

 This where danjsport and others have entered into false equivalencies. That the players are somehow to be treated the same as the coach. In what profession is this the case? People with enhanced experiences (executives) have more options and more lucrative options. 

The problem that those pushing for freedom fail to acknowledge is that the player often chose the coach not the school. That's on the player not the school. That's why college athletics is becoming a sham. The notion of "student-athlete" is diminishing by the day mostly at the P5 schools. It's all about NIL, pro opportunities, exposure, etc. Colleges weren't designed for that and they are not part of core mission of the institution.. Again, if you want the pros, go straight to the pros.

The old rule worked fine by me. Sit out a year if you want to transfer that bad. If we had the sit out a year rule with no exceptions except for a grad transfer, I wouldn't care if you transferred 10 times. No immediate gratification because you chose a school for the wrong reasons, your playing time wasn't what you expected or you think the grass is greener (or more NIL money) elsewhere. If you are serious about transferring then sit your ass out for a year. Tyler Cavanaugh among many, many others did that - it worked out fine (maybe better) for him.

Finally I'm glad these coaches are getting paid. They deserve combat pay dealing with entitled players and out of control parents, navigating the NIL sharks and dealing with an increasingly gotcha media with stories designed for clicks. I'll also never feel bad for anyone who got a free ride to an institution like GW. They are and will always be ahead of the financial game of education played by millions of other non student-athletes across the country. Notice none of these proponents of socialism give a rat's ass about the exceptional artists, musicians, engineers, etc. at the same institution. Should they receive compensation the same as the professors? Of course not because they don't entertain them to same degree as the football or basketball players. 

I recognize we aren't going back to the old days as we let the genie out of the bottle. But I also recognize college athletics is going to have a great reset soon and most people aren't going to like it much when many opportunities will be lost in the interest of a very few. I will be shocked if there are more than 80 true D1 programs left in 10-15 years. 

The players are the commodity in sports, they drive all of the winning.  The College Coach's main task is to attract the players to the program.   Read any top 25 preview or A10 preview, its always of course about what players you have on your roster, not the name of your Coach, That's what sports is.  Same is true of any sport.

Seems a little off that in College sports, there are Coaches making 10 Million+ a year while the players are still sleeping in dorms and working part time jobs, on top of their dual full time jobs of Student and Athlete, even if NIL is a step in the right direction for some.

MLB NFL and NBA stars are making 40, 50 MM a year, 10 to 20x what the Coaches makes for a reason, because  the players are the real commodity.   Its only in college sports where the Coaches are Millionaires and the players living as they do.  

That the players are restricted in their movement, while the Coaches bounce whenever they see fit is just a part of the inequity.   

But of course, the system was designed long ago by Athletic Directors, Coaches, and a governing board that has their own interests in mind, there's really no one to speak for the players interest, but that seems destined to further change in the upcoming years.






 

Last edited by The Dude (9/20/2023 1:32 am)

GWRising wrote:

Gwmayhem wrote:

Here is what The Dude wrote at the time...a thread he entitled Thoughts on a new GW era:

GW hired one of the hottest young Coaches in the country.

We all know building a program back up takes several years, your recruits have to come and develop and that takes minimum of a few  years. I'd hope we afford this Coach the minimum few years that will take, I'm not worried about "lack of buzz" or even the W-L, but progress and upward tilt level recruiting.   
JC is going to get it done. 

Long term the bigger concern is losing him, but we'll cross that road when we get there. Onward and upward GW  What say you all???

I guess I missed the part where he objected to bringing in a coach who had only spent one season at his previous school.


Moving right along, I do not equate neither the decision-making abilities nor the life circumstances of many 18-22 year olds (players) with that of adults (coaches).  Coaches are professionals who are older, many with families to help support, bills to pay, etc.  In a perfect world, we would never see any coach move on until he or she fulfills the terms of their contract.  However, in sports, we know this ship has sailed.  A coach who leaves for a greater opportunity, greater responsibility and/or more money, is and should be applauded.  It's called moving up in your profession and it's done in all professions.

This just couldn't be any more different than players who skip from one school to the next because they are not playing as much as they would like or because they are unhappy with the coaching staff.  And again, I do feel that these players should be allowed to transfer once, no reasons needed, and without sitting out a year.  And, am fine with a second transfer if the player has graduated or the coaching staff has moved on.  Again, no questions asked.  But to allow this an unlimited amount of times?  That would just be bad for the player in the long run.
 

 This where danjsport and others have entered into false equivalencies. That the players are somehow to be treated the same as the coach. In what profession is this the case? People with enhanced experiences (executives) have more options and more lucrative options. 

The problem that those pushing for freedom fail to acknowledge is that the player often chose the coach not the school. That's on the player not the school. That's why college athletics is becoming a sham. The notion of "student-athlete" is diminishing by the day mostly at the P5 schools. It's all about NIL, pro opportunities, exposure, etc. Colleges weren't designed for that and they are not part of core mission of the institution.. Again, if you want the pros, go straight to the pros.

The old rule worked fine by me. Sit out a year if you want to transfer that bad. If we had the sit out a year rule with no exceptions except for a grad transfer, I wouldn't care if you transferred 10 times. No immediate gratification because you chose a school for the wrong reasons, your playing time wasn't what you expected or you think the grass is greener (or more NIL money) elsewhere. If you are serious about transferring then sit your ass out for a year. Tyler Cavanaugh among many, many others did that - it worked out fine (maybe better) for him.

Finally I'm glad these coaches are getting paid. They deserve combat pay dealing with entitled players and out of control parents, navigating the NIL sharks and dealing with an increasingly gotcha media with stories designed for clicks. I'll also never feel bad for anyone who got a free ride to an institution like GW. They are and will always be ahead of the financial game of education played by millions of other non student-athletes across the country. Notice none of these proponents of socialism give a rat's ass about the exceptional artists, musicians, engineers, etc. at the same institution. Should they receive compensation the same as the professors? Of course not because they don't entertain them to same degree as the football or basketball players. 

I recognize we aren't going back to the old days as we let the genie out of the bottle. But I also recognize college athletics is going to have a great reset soon and most people aren't going to like it much when many opportunities will be lost in the interest of a very few. I will be shocked if there are more than 80 true D1 programs left in 10-15 years. 

I’m glad the coaches get paid too! Nowhere did I argue otherwise. They should be paid.

As to the artists, engineers, musicians—I’d argue that they should be paid also! Engineers and lab students should be paid for their work. Musicians should be paid for their performance. As should theater folks.

GW0509 wrote:

NCAA approves a shorter transfer window for men's and women's basketball, going from 60 days to 45 days.

A step in the right direction, but I honestly hoped they'd have reduced this to 30 days, which was under consideration.  There is an unintended consequence as a result of the portal and that has to do with coach's filling out their rosters.  Think of the high school senior who is told that he's wanted only if players A and B commit elsewhere. Does he move on to his next best choice or does he play the waiting game, running the risk that he may be the ultimate loser in this game of musical chairs by deciding to wait.  Now, multiply this by about 5 thanks to the transfer portal.  Anything that can be done to avoid players having to wait lengthy periods of time to see if their school of choice has room for him or not can only be considered a good thing.
 

@NABC1927
The NCAA has provided updated guidance regarding Division I graduate transfers.

The May 1 notification-of-transfer deadline applies to grad transfers transferring for the first time.

Starting in 2024-25, it will also apply to grad transfers seeking a waiver for eligibility.