FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[bashbrother]

Of the videos of new Little Giant's coming into camp this year,  this one stood out to me.

Richie Estrada - RB from AZ.  Fast.

http://www.hudl.com/athlete/630126/highlights/103330379

Running Back talent over flowing in Crawfordsville.  (We needed that depth last year)

[sigma one]

The 1999 game for Wabash v. ONU featured Knott's first collegiate TD pass, with 115 more to follow.  The final score was a 38-6 win for the Polar Bears, and the Little Giants had to play well to keep it that close.  My first thought when ONU came out for pre-game was that they looked like the Chicago Bears

[wally_wabash]

I would really like to make the trip to HS next year. I was admitted to both schools. Would make for a fun time.

Unless something goes completely sideways, I'll be a Northern Virginia resident by next fall.  So yeah, I'll probably make that trip. 

[formerd3db]

I would really like to make the trip to HS next year. I was admitted to both schools. Would make for a fun time.

Unless something goes completely sideways, I'll be a Northern Virginia resident by next fall.  So yeah, I'll probably make that trip.

So are you going to James Madison or William & Mary?!!!   You can take in some great games in the Northern Virginia area at the various levels, including DI (FBS and FCS) and DIII.  I forgot, where are you residing at present?

[tigerfanalso]

The Great State of Northern Virginia, you better leave on Thursday to make sure you make it out of the City in time for the game on Saturday !!!!

[Dr. Acula]

The 1999 game for Wabash v. ONU featured Knott's first collegiate TD pass, with 115 more to follow.  The final score was a 38-6 win for the Polar Bears, and the Little Giants had to play well to keep it that close.  My first thought when ONU came out for pre-game was that they looked like the Chicago Bears

Those ONU teams back then were full of grown a** men.  Some of their defensive guys looked like they were 30 years old.  Maybe they were?  Good news for you guys is that today they wish they had your program. 

[wally_wabash]

Good preview for the 2014 Wabash season with a particular emphasis on The Gentlemen's Classic.

We're getting closer and closer!

[sigma one]

I urge all who have an interest in what is happening in the wake of a judge's decision in the O'Bannon et al lawsuit to read the editorial piece in the Sports Section of today's NY Times by William Rhoden.  Though I am uncertain if I agree with all he writes in his "Sports of the Time" article, his opinion is worth thinking about.  In his comments about the possible impact of the recent ruling, Rhoden includes these thoughts:  "This raises a complex issue of exploitation at all levels of N.C.A.A. competition, from Division I to Division III.  Hundreds on institutions around the country use young, willing athletes to provide on-campus entertainment to an eager student body and college community.  At the large sports factory universities, the institutions at least acknowledge the entertainment value of student-athletes by offering scholarships; some even find a way to get "extra benefits" to star players.  At the Division III level, the student-athletes--the performers--are not compensated with scholarships but can reap the rewards of playing "for the love of the game."  These athletes expend just as much energy, sustain the same injuries and often spend as much time practicing as their counterparts at the higher divisions.  So who's being exploited."  Wow, what, um!?  Thoughts . . . 

[Li'l Giant]

I read the Rhoden piece. And while I agree with him partially I don't agree with his casting the exploitation net wide enough to include Division III.

The exploiter must benefit at the expense of the exploited. Speaking only of Wabash (since I did not attend any other school), one can argue successfully that having high quality athletic teams benefits the College. However, I do not believe the College benefits more than the athletes themselves. Rhoden makes it seem like D-III athletes were drafted from the student body and forced unwillingly to give their time and efforts. I think D-III supporters know this to be untrue.

I do not agree that the benefits Wabash receives from the play of student athletes is comparable to what the three "Power 5" schools in Indiana benefit from their student athletes.

I think Rhoden went a bit too far.

[jknezek]

I read it and I responded on the online version. Lumping DIII in with DI as far as exploitation of athletes shows a shocking lack of knowledge about college athletics. It's not surprising in an editorial that someone got carried away, but it bordered on absurd. On the other hand, it wasn't really the focus of his editorial. Much of what he wrote is relevant, though he is making the same mistake as many other people. The case wasn't about paying players for playing, it was about paying for image rights. Those are completely separate issues and while the judge was clear about image rights, the larger issue that people are panicking about was not addressed or decided upon. While I think eventually the NCAA will back itself into a corner, and voting for increased autonomy put them further into an indefensible position as far as I'm concerned, paying for play can only be peripherally tied to this decision, despite how much the talking heads and editorials want you to believe they are the same thing...

[smedindy]

Working at a D2 school many of the players are playing for the love of the game mostly, because scholarship dollars aren't going to cover their full boat. In fact, I think many D1 players are playing it for the love AND free school. It always bothered me a bit to lump in the stud RB or DE at a football factory school to a third string OL from Toledo or UTEP as who are being exploited.

[ExTartanPlayer]

In fact, I think many D1 players are playing it for the love AND free school. It always bothered me a bit to lump in the stud RB or DE at a football factory school to a third string OL from Toledo or UTEP as who are being exploited.

I strongly agree with the first statement.

I also agree with the second statement. Expanding on this, one of the oft-cited counter arguments to paying athletes was a spin on "If we start paying players, we have to pay ALL of them! Is it really fair to pay the starting quarterback more than the backup offensive tackle? Both guys work just as hard!"

I always thought this was the dumbest argument I'd ever heard. Construction workers probably work just as hard as brain surgeons. Compensation is not only tied to how "hard" someone is working. In fact, there's a neat little way for us to figure out how much more a starting quarterback is worth than a backup offensive tackle: the NFL! No doubt most backup offensive tackles in the NFL work nearly as hard as starting quarterbacks at their craft, and yet the average backup tackle is paid a salary about 1/10th that of the average starting QB. Why, then, does compensation HAVE to be the same for all collegiate athletes? And why are other sports' athletes being dragged into this debate? Why is it fair to pay a football player and not a gymnast or swimmer? Uh, because gymnasts and swimmers don't draw 100,000 paying fans for 7 home games a year.

One final point on this that I think people are missing (or deliberately choosing to ignore): just because the NCAA may eventually ALLOW athletes to be paid does not mean schools will HAVE to pay them. It merely means there will now be a free (ish) market for college athletics labor; the wages will (in the case of a free market) be determined by the market. All available evidence suggests that some athletes would be worth SUBSTANTIALLY more than a scholarship; Manziel being the most recent example to resonate so thoroughly.

[jknezek]

I'm constantly puzzled by the argument that if you have to pay some you have to pay all and it might have to be done equally. It makes no sense as ExTP pointed out, but the better example already exists in college athletics. If you are a scholarship athlete in football or men's basketball, you get a full ride. If you are a scholarship athlete in almost any other men's sport you get a partial scholarship. We already differentiate between the revenue sports and the non-revenue sports and adjust the "pay" scale appropriately. Why would that not carry forward if you actually paid the athletes?

You can look up the limits on wikipedia if you want, but an example is soccer. D1 soccer gets 9.9 scholarships per team. With 22-30 athletes per squad it's less than a 50% scholarship if it is divided up equally and doesn't even cover 11 starters. Baseball is 11.7 per team, with approximately 25-40 athletes per squad. Now both those numbers contain walk-ons for most teams, but it's pretty clear there aren't enough scholarships for the number of athletes expected to play in one game, let alone an entire season.

It's just a terrible argument that all will have to be paid equally. Title IX might require that an equal amount of pay be made available to men and women, regardless of revenue generated, but within individual men's sports we already "pay" different amounts for different sports and there is no reason to ignore that history.

[formerd3db]

ExTartan and jknezek:

I assume from your posts you are talking about the "pay for play" issue and not the stipend for some daily expenses (such as food, late night pizza snacks, laundry, some other personal expenses for ADLs,  etc., etc., that the players want).  Those are two separate issues as you know.  The argument for inequality for pay among the various sports i.e. the revenue producing and the non-revenue producing is legit and putting it further into the context that you do with regard to the "system" of professional sports is legit.  At the same time, however, with regard to the other issue i.e. the stipend for "extra living" expenses (the anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 that they want -as has been suggest/reported in the media), IMO, should be the same for all the sports, whether non-revenue or not.  That is the only fair way to do it in regards to that particular aspect and it doesn't compare in anyway to the other aspect as to who is more valuable on a team or not concerning the skilled, non-skilled positions, etc. in the context that has been discussed. 

It is also interesting, as a tangential part of the discussion, regarding the scholarship limits of the various sports, although you were talking about that with regards to DI.  But concerning football scholarships, I have always not understood why the limit is less for DII and FCS.  Of course, in part, that has been to try and keep costs down.  However, if a university or college that sponsors DII football wants to spend the $ regarding providing all team members a full-ride, then why not have that option.  Of course, parents will all agree, any and every little bit helps.

Anyway, as this current crisis in college football (and athletics) continues, I will look forward to the further discussions and opinions that will be expressed here and on the other boards.  A lot of change on the horizon, another era, which will be different from what we've know for the past decades, although other major changes have occurred in past decades as we all know (freshman eligible, additional regular season games, allowed, the playoffs, etc., etc.).         

[jknezek]

I assume from your posts you are talking about the "pay for play" issue and not the stipend for some daily expenses (such as food, late night pizza snacks, laundry, some other personal expenses for ADLs,  etc., etc., that the players want).  Those are two separate issues as you know.  The argument for inequality for pay among the various sports i.e. the revenue producing and the non-revenue producing is legit and putting it further into the context that you do with regard to the "system" of professional sports is legit.  At the same time, however, with regard to the other issue i.e. the stipend for "extra living" expenses (the anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 that they want -as has been suggest/reported in the media), IMO, should be the same for all the sports, whether non-revenue or not.  That is the only fair way to do it in regards to that particular aspect and it doesn't compare in anyway to the other aspect as to who is more valuable on a team or not concerning the skilled, non-skilled positions, etc. in the context that has been discussed. 

The concept of a stipend doesn't make any sense to me if you aren't on a full ride. You are already paying for school using a different means, whether it is other scholarships, student loans, or mom and dad. But if you are on a partial ride the school hasn't promised you a "free education" like it has for full-ride. So if you weren't promised a full-ride, you aren't in a revenue generating sport, why would you get a stipend? Wouldn't it make sense to simply increase the scholarship amount? I have a friend who's son was offered a 1/8th baseball scholarship for his athletic talent. His father is plenty wealthy that he doesn't need the scholarship to go to school, but he earned it. Why would you give him a stipend? It's a very odd notion. Now for a kid who is poverty stricken on a full ride, promised that he would get a "free degree" if he helped the school generate revenue by playing outstanding basketball, and can't afford to go home for Thanksgiving, I could easily see a school paying for that. Or a laundry service and textbooks. Pizza and entertainment money? Not sure why that is the school's responsibility. Unless of course we kill off the idea of amateurism and move to a pay for play system. I regard D1 football and basketball as essentially minor leagues, so that is my preference anyway.

It is also interesting, as a tangential part of the discussion, regarding the scholarship limits of the various sports, although you were talking about that with regards to DI.  But concerning football scholarships, I have always not understood why the limit is less for DII and FCS.  Of course, in part, that has been to try and keep costs down.  However, if a university or college that sponsors DII football wants to spend the $ regarding providing all team members a full-ride, then why not have that option.  Of course, parents will all agree, any and every little bit helps.

The scholarship limits exist to try and keep a level playing field. If one school can offer 100 scholarships for football and another 50, those teams aren't competing at the same level. The point of D1, DII and DIII is to lump together schools on a similar playing field as far as providing athletic assistance to athletes. FCS exists so that the universe of D1 basketball schools could remain large since it involves on a few scholarships while football teams could also remain within a competitive peer group. This became more important once the NCAA did away with the "split" level system. A school like Georgetown in D.C. was quite happy playing D1 basketball and D3 football. After the NCAA ended the split Georgetown and others like Davidson in N.C. had to move football teams to FCS or fold them. Since they were popular sports for attracting incoming students and, in some schools keeping up campus numbers, FCS was a palatable option without having to compete with the big boys.