Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    Pylons's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2005
    Posts
    7,003
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    It is a professional team though because it is considered a "franchise."

    "BYU was the first University sponsored soccer program to ever purchase a franchise and that will compete at a level considered higher than NCAA soccer in the pyramid of US soccer development."

    Also, it does appear that some of the players do receive some form of "payment."
    yes, from some perspectives you could call BYU's team "professional," but their players are not paid or even given scholarships from what I can tell. I'm sure some of the other teams' players do get paid...would be pretty weird to call the whole league "professional" if no one got paid for playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    If it receives support from the school, then I would think it would need to be factored to ensure the school is compliant with Title IX. Right or am I missing something?
    Yes, I think you're right that they're subject to Title IX, but the big sticking point with athletics from a Title IX perspective is with scholarships...so if BYU isn't giving out men's soccer scholarships, they don't have to worry (much) about any Title IX implications. (they may still have to ensure that there are, proportional to the student body, as many "women's" club opportunities as "men's," but that doesn't really cost them much.

  2. #22
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by NCHokie83 View Post
    Not really. The teams that are making noise in the playoffs are either teams that have gone on a bit of a spending spree or who have sucked for long enough to have their high draft picks accrue to the point where they have enough talented low dollar salary guys that they can't help but to be competitive. Look at Tampa, they were loaded with these kinds of guys, and now that they're all growing up to break out of their entry level deals, they're not able to afford them anymore, and the team takes steps back. As soon as David Price and Matt Moore are gone, their talent pool begins to dry up. As for the others, you have teams like St. Louis, Atlanta, Boston, New York, Philly, Detroit, LA (Dodgers and Angels), San Fran, etc all making the most noise during this time, and they are all the ones who spend out of their minds in terms of salaries. The Red Sox, Cardinals, and Giants have combined for 7 of the last 10 World Series titles (Bos - 2004, 2007, 2013, SF - 2010, 2012, StL - 2006, 2011) , and they have some of the higher payrolls in the game. And the ones that won in the years in between, such as Philly in 2008 and the Yankees in 2009, they also broke the bank to get the teams they had. And the core of the teams that faced these guys in the World Series also came from this group. Baseball has proven that in order to compete, you have to spend. There are just enough teams spending right now that it has the appearance of parity, when there really is a very distinct competitive line between the haves and the have nots.

    And the problem with college is that you won't have a draft where the worst teams continually get the best players like you do in professional sports. If you go to paying the players, you're going to enter an era like we saw in baseball where the Yankees could just outpay everyone and win title after title like they did from basically the 20's through the 60's, or like you saw in hockey with the Canadiens from the 50s through 70s. I don't want that, but right now, it just seems like we're on an unavoidable collision course with it.

    just curious, how do you view this as any different than what we have today? while the BCS has had 10 different champs in 13 years, the names are all the same:

    Miami, tOSU, USC-w, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, FSU...

    it's not like today's setup is allowing new schools to break into the championship ranks.

    just playing devil's advocate, i don't necessarily agree or disagree with your point, i just find it interesting.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  3. #23
    Senior Member NCHokie83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 02, 2012
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,857
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    just curious, how do you view this as any different than what we have today? while the BCS has had 10 different champs in 13 years, the names are all the same:

    Miami, tOSU, USC-w, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, FSU...

    it's not like today's setup is allowing new schools to break into the championship ranks.

    just playing devil's advocate, i don't necessarily agree or disagree with your point, i just find it interesting.
    There isn't THAT much of a difference, which is really concerning. The schools with the money have the recruiting budgets to expand their searches, completely wow the incoming recruits, and have some money left over for the shady under the table dealings that inevitably goes on at this level. But that gap that is currently there will only grow wider and wider if we start allowing these schools to, on top of everything they're already doing, to suddenly go out and essentially bid on the top players, then there is absolutely no hope for anyone else to eventually break in without some way to force talent to the less fortunate. Baseball does that with the draft. College sports won't have any of that ability, and it'll soon devolve into a sport where really, only a handful of select few teams potentially topping out at 10-15 true annual contenders in the field of over 100 schools.

    If we go down this path, the participating schools in the NCAA will have dug their own graves.
    "I love it when you guys try to write off a Frank Beamer team -- no one is going to win this conference without Virginia Tech having some sort of say in it." - David Cutcliffe

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Pylons View Post
    yes, from some perspectives you could call BYU's team "professional," but their players are not paid or even given scholarships from what I can tell. I'm sure some of the other teams' players do get paid...would be pretty weird to call the whole league "professional" if no one got paid for playing.


    Yes, I think you're right that they're subject to Title IX, but the big sticking point with athletics from a Title IX perspective is with scholarships...so if BYU isn't giving out men's soccer scholarships, they don't have to worry (much) about any Title IX implications. (they may still have to ensure that there are, proportional to the student body, as many "women's" club opportunities as "men's," but that doesn't really cost them much.
    I found this article that explains the PDL a little better and how it impacts BYU and the NCAA.

    http://www.byusportsguy.com/sports/c...eam-on-may-19/

  5. #25
    Go VT's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    Athletics is probably the best advertising tool available to a university. Now it will not talk about all the degrees offered at the school, but it will at least grab a prospective student's attention. The hope is that the student will then do a little research (after the game) to find out more about the school (on the academic side) and see whether he/she may want to attend there.
    I guess I wanted a good academic school that had other stuff to it...didn't look for a school that had good athletics that might have what i want.

    One question...is it money well spent? With how many colleges losing money on athletics and what not or at least deep in debt, is it worth it? I realize that some of that money wouldn't be given to them if there was no athletics but how much 'worse' off would schools be if they concentrated on academics?

    I've seen studies both ways that it helps a school and that it doesn't so...the studies seem to be inconclusive.

    My question though is when did the mission of a University become to have or sponsor sports programs? As I read about kids who have no business being at a university (or even have a HS diploma) I have to wonder if the love/lust for money and fame is overshadowing what the true meaning of a higher education is about? Have I become Charlie Brown searching for the true meaning of Christmas? I don't know.

    I've lived all over the world and the only place I have seen people think about how important a sports team is to a university is the US. My european friends are completely baffled. They don't see the connection between the two and don't really care about it. Then again, they have sports academies as minor leagues for their sports.
    Cast off the shoes and follow the gourd!

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Go VT View Post
    I guess I wanted a good academic school that had other stuff to it...didn't look for a school that had good athletics that might have what i want.

    One question...is it money well spent? With how many colleges losing money on athletics and what not or at least deep in debt, is it worth it? I realize that some of that money wouldn't be given to them if there was no athletics but how much 'worse' off would schools be if they concentrated on academics?

    I've seen studies both ways that it helps a school and that it doesn't so...the studies seem to be inconclusive.

    My question though is when did the mission of a University become to have or sponsor sports programs? As I read about kids who have no business being at a university (or even have a HS diploma) I have to wonder if the love/lust for money and fame is overshadowing what the true meaning of a higher education is about? Have I become Charlie Brown searching for the true meaning of Christmas? I don't know.

    I've lived all over the world and the only place I have seen people think about how important a sports team is to a university is the US. My european friends are completely baffled. They don't see the connection between the two and don't really care about it. Then again, they have sports academies as minor leagues for their sports.
    Well I am not sure there is a "right" or "wrong" answer to determine if it is money well spent or not which is why you are seeing conflicting data. You have to keep in mind that every school is different, so there will probably never be a cookie cutter model that every school has to follow if it wants to do thing the "right" way. However, I can think of only 1 DI school that made the decision to disband its athletic program, so that might be a good point of reference. NE Illinois (who? you say) used to participate in the Mid-Continent Conference (I think). Then sometime in the 1990s the decision was made to disband the athletic program (for financial reasons), so it might be a good comparison (before the decision vs. after the decision) to look at. Now keep in mind that NE Illinois is a commuter school located in a Chicago suburb, so that will limit the application of the data.

    In term of intercollegiate competition, you have to keep in mind that competition between schools is a part of the American culture. Look at high school competition. Is that really any different than competition between colleges? What about competition between middle schools? Heck even the community rec leagues will assign participants to certain teams based on where they live or what elementary school they attend. How is that any different than 2 colleges agreeing to compete against each other? If intercollegiate athletic competition should go away because the mission of the school is to educate its students, then shouldn't that apply to high school and middle school competition too? It would surprise you how some people take high school and middle school athletic competition as "seriously" as some people take intercollegiate athletic competition. Granted the amount of money flowing is not the same, but some (maybe most) high schools depend on the revenue from football and basketball to help pay for the other sports they sponsor. I do not believe middle schools are as depended on earning revenue from sports, although I had to pay $10 in order to attend a middle school basketball game.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    October 21, 2005
    Posts
    22,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Pride_and_Joy View Post
    I don't think that is entirely true. I seem to recall Logan Thomas talking about driving an old Camry or something. I also recall him saying something about not having any money to spend on anything because it was the end of the semester. The notion that all players have disposable income is, IMHO, not accurate. Now, do some players get some extras from boosters, agents, or by leveraging future NFL earnings (by getting a loan, for example)? Sure. But I don't think the typical FBS football player is legally paid so much cash by their university that they can buy a new car and drop $ all over the place.





    nah....I'm talking about "legit" money from their grant-in-aid...not illegal stuff. Meal money when all meals are taken care of. Book money well above the cost of books, if they buy any books to begin with (guessing lots of books are avail. through academic support channels). Housing monies well above the cost of housing. Per diems when traveling to road games, per diems for bowls. These dudes get fairly substantial (at least by average college student standards) cash in hand on a very regular basis.








    Sent from my RM-860_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk

  8. #28
    Pylons's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2005
    Posts
    7,003
    Quote Originally Posted by JoesterVT View Post
    nah....I'm talking about "legit" money from their grant-in-aid...not illegal stuff. Meal money when all meals are taken care of. Book money well above the cost of books, if they buy any books to begin with (guessing lots of books are avail. through academic support channels). Housing monies well above the cost of housing. Per diems when traveling to road games, per diems for bowls. These dudes get fairly substantial (at least by average college student standards) cash in hand on a very regular basis.
    if you have to put quotes on "legit," my guess is it's illegal

    "fairly substantial on a very regular basis" is too vague to comment on...kids can get money legitimately or otherwise...and in varying quantities

  9. #29
    reestuart's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Location
    roanoke, va
    Posts
    59,456
    Quote Originally Posted by NCHokie83 View Post
    If we go down this path, you will only see a very select few schools ever compete for any title. If you think what baseball has is bad, you'll be depressed when you realize what college sports will turn into. If you're going to start paying kids free market prices, just allow them to go to the NFL.
    And that's different how?


    Knowledge is good.

    -Emil Faber
    "Knowledge is good"

    --Emil Faber, 1904

  10. #30

    Join Date
    October 21, 2005
    Posts
    22,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Pylons View Post
    if you have to put quotes on "legit," my guess is it's illegal

    "fairly substantial on a very regular basis" is too vague to comment on...kids can get money legitimately or otherwise...and in varying quantities
    no it's all legal, it just seems a little sketchy. There was an episode of "between the lines" or some similar show a while back that *I think* even featured some of our guys. The show focused on one particular loophole which may (or may not) have been closed since. You get a bunch of guys living together, banking their ample individual housing allowance. Several guys living together can easily cover the rent, and each pockets their extra money. This alone provides each player with a decent chunk of pocket money. The amount of extra money gets even bigger when the group of players all qualify for subsidized housing based on their families financial situation. So it goes like this. Lets say each guy gets an $800 housing allowance. 4 of them live together in a subsidized apartment that costs $400 a month. Each player nets 700 bucks of pocket money for the month. This last angle is the loophole that may have been closed. I haven't seen anything about that in several years.

    The per deims they get when they travel and even play at home also add up.

    Here's a CT article from a couple years ago written by a VT football player:

    http://www.collegiatetimes.com/sport...454a2ef68.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •