Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Basketball Topic:  RE: Campbell on the Sook Center Topic:  RE: Campbell on the Sook Center Author Message bobcatsquared General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Post Count: 5,032 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/15/2016 2:52:05 PM  Alan Swank wrote: bobcatsquared wrote: There's a BA poster who rarely attended class and/or study, would show up on test days, and rarely end up with anything less than an A. I, however, would have to work my butt off going to class, taking notes, and studying to get anything close to what this guy achieved. I tried his way one quarter and almost flunked out. My dad told me either things would change for the better or I would have to live at home and commute to o$u. That must have been a very hard major that you had one for which I bet you get a great deal of ribbing. I know what you're getting at Alan. However, my degree from Ohio University was in journalism. It wasn't until about 10 years later that I returned to college to get my education degree. Back to Top Alan Swank General User Member Since: 12/11/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 7,022 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/15/2016 3:32:23 PM  bobcatsquared wrote: Alan Swank wrote: bobcatsquared wrote: There's a BA poster who rarely attended class and/or study, would show up on test days, and rarely end up with anything less than an A. I, however, would have to work my butt off going to class, taking notes, and studying to get anything close to what this guy achieved. I tried his way one quarter and almost flunked out. My dad told me either things would change for the better or I would have to live at home and commute to o$u. That must have been a very hard major that you had one for which I bet you get a great deal of ribbing. I know what you're getting at Alan. However, my degree from Ohio University was in journalism. It wasn't until about 10 years later that I returned to college to get my education degree. Was pulling your leg, as you well know. When I went to Muskingum, there wasn't an education major. I had 69 semester hours in social studies (anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science, religion, and sociology) and took some education courses. Their approach at the time was to emphasize a mastery of the subject matter. In fact, one of my education professors shared with me that he felt there were identifiable characteristics in incoming freshmen that could predict with a certain degree of reliability whether a student could/would become a successful teacher or not. I still think that would be a great PhD topic. Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 9:22:48 AM  Alan Swank wrote: bobcatsquared wrote: Alan Swank wrote: bobcatsquared wrote: There's a BA poster who rarely attended class and/or study, would show up on test days, and rarely end up with anything less than an A. I, however, would have to work my butt off going to class, taking notes, and studying to get anything close to what this guy achieved. I tried his way one quarter and almost flunked out. My dad told me either things would change for the better or I would have to live at home and commute to o$u. That must have been a very hard major that you had one for which I bet you get a great deal of ribbing. I know what you're getting at Alan. However, my degree from Ohio University was in journalism. It wasn't until about 10 years later that I returned to college to get my education degree. Was pulling your leg, as you well know. When I went to Muskingum, there wasn't an education major. I had 69 semester hours in social studies (anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science, religion, and sociology) and took some education courses. Their approach at the time was to emphasize a mastery of the subject matter. In fact, one of my education professors shared with me that he felt there were identifiable characteristics in incoming freshmen that could predict with a certain degree of reliability whether a student could/would become a successful teacher or not. I still think that would be a great PhD topic. This sounds like a predictably arrogant professor. At 17 or 18 years of age you are still a kid. There are the minority that have the maturity of a 40 year old adult and are ready for the next level in the classroom. With picking up material in class there are a few individuals who already have strong active listening skills at the college age when most do not pay attention in class. Those professors sitting in their bubbles would be surprised at what people can do. I have a friend of mine who I brought to OU for a football game years back who didn't graduate college until he was 30 and now has his own venture capital firm. Its sad to see professors pass judgement when their job is to open up students minds. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top Fake Jeff McKinney General User Member Since: 11/29/2013 Post Count: 61 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 10:59:21 AM  the123kid wrote: This a pretty strong post right here. We can't lump all the athletes into one pool. Most Athletes are getting compensated very well with a scholarship, which is much more than their "worth". This would include just about every sport outside of Men's Basketball and Football. Not so fast... once you leave the revenue generating sports, the "athletes get compensated with scholarships" argument unravels. NCAA Baseball limits teams to 11.7 scholarships. Softball gets 12. There's a lot of D-I athletes getting partial rides that have to go through the same pain and suffering as the general population. All athletes are equal, but some athletes are more equal than others. I won't deny that several sports get pampered and understand anyone's frustration over perceived non-monetary compensation, but those sports do not make up the majority of beneficiaries when it comes to a study center or open food tables. They're just the ones we see on TV. Back to Top LuckySparrow General User Member Since: 10/15/2012 Location: Illinois Post Count: 1,722 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 12:32:33 PM  Personally, I find myself rooting for all Ohio students and athletes - I want each department to go above and beyond in any way possible. I hope student athletes take full advantage of the Sook Center, I think it will be an important tool for the athletic program. What a day at the Convo.....Wow! Back to Top rpbobcat General User Member Since: 4/28/2006 Location: Rochelle Park, NJ Post Count: 3,502 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 1:03:49 PM  Fake Jeff McKinney wrote: the123kid wrote: This a pretty strong post right here. We can't lump all the athletes into one pool. Most Athletes are getting compensated very well with a scholarship, which is much more than their "worth". This would include just about every sport outside of Men's Basketball and Football. Not so fast... once you leave the revenue generating sports, the "athletes get compensated with scholarships" argument unravels. NCAA Baseball limits teams to 11.7 scholarships. Softball gets 12. There's a lot of D-I athletes getting partial rides that have to go through the same pain and suffering as the general population. All athletes are equal, but some athletes are more equal than others. I won't deny that several sports get pampered and understand anyone's frustration over perceived non-monetary compensation, but those sports do not make up the majority of beneficiaries when it comes to a study center or open food tables. They're just the ones we see on TV. During the 73/74 Soccer season we had 1 scholarship that was spilt 3 ways. The coach donated his time, because the athletic department eliminated his salary. We had to buy our own cleats. When we played on Cleveland State's Astro Turf, we had to wear our regular sneakers. When I wrestled at FDU we had 2 full (tuition/room and board) scholarships and a few scholarships that covered partial tuition. At least we didn't have to buy our own shoes. We competed because we loved the sports we participated in. It takes a lot of time,effort and dedication to compete at the D1 level in any sport. To me, something like the Sook Center which will assist athletes in their academic pursuits, especially when it is being built using donated funds ,offers nothing but positives. I also think O.U. is being smart, in setting it up to also function as a visitors/reception center. Back to Top giacomo General User Member Since: 11/20/2007 Post Count: 2,623 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 3:21:46 PM  It is smart- for Ohio University and all NCAA member schools. They beef up facilities, which amount to non monetary compensation, and avoid paying players directly, which then lets them off the hook for paying worker's compensation, unemployment, etc. etc. It was what Walter Byers had in mind when he coined the phrase "student athlete". Everybody sees the green but the players. Most of you won't agree with this assessment, but it's true. Back to Top Lande71 General User Member Since: 9/19/2010 Post Count: 271 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 3:34:34 PM  The Optimist wrote: Lande71 wrote: weekends Weekends being defined as Wednesday through Sunday? Sorry, I didn't explain it well. Uptown Friday and Saturday nights only! Back to Top bornacatfan General User Member Since: 8/3/2006 Post Count: 5,706 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 4:32:06 PM  rpbobcat wrote: . It takes a lot of time,effort and dedication to compete at the D1 level in any sport. To me, something like the Sook Center which will assist athletes in their academic pursuits, especially when it is being built using donated funds ,offers nothing but positives. I also think O.U. is being smart, in setting it up to also function as a visitors/reception center. I think this is nice to see. Folks commenting with an open mind and a big picture perspective. There are all sorts of shots being thrown around here on both sides. Some with excellent perspective. SOme from so far away that they can't see the forest in the distance let alone the trees up close. One of the things that recruiting visits let parents and athletes see is how they will be balancing the student athlete equation. Whether you are at Eastern KY seeing their athletic tutorial services and listening to how the athletes are going to balance getting off a bus at 3 -4 am and making a test or class Friday at 8 am after being away since Tuesday or Wednesday or if you are at other facilities like CATS http://catsacademics.com / or the Younkin Success Center http://younkinsuccess.osu.edu/about-us/departments/studen... / that serve all athletes on 37 teams as a parent or athlete you benefit from the folks who work there and take success of ALL athletes very personally. It is not just Hoops and FB that benefit. All boats rise and we are not anywhere near where CMU is with the Enberg Center or Eastern KY is with their center that minor and major sport athletes benefit from... It is a recruiting tool and if we do it right will benefit us hugely. Having it located on the end of campus where all the athletes can get to it between classes, practice, weights and such is pretty smart. One of the subjects that many of the athletes in revenue sports fail to see IMHO and in their self important and narrow view is the Collegiate model is bigger than the individual. The revenue sports have always supported the minor sports. The rising boat floats all of them and that should be the discussion of who is benefitting and why the individual who is getting an education in a revenue sport is any more important than the volley, base, women's basket ball or wrestling, track etc. IMHO I still think the athlete is well rewarded by the education and the privilege of playing a sport at the collegiate level. At some point the few will make a living at it and using the collegiate experience to groom themselves for that is part of the process. Just my opinion that does not count for much. There are a myriad of issues at play. This is just one or 2 of them. There are a whole reft of things that need are being kicked around and there are plenty of opinions regarding each. Athletics are here to stay. Making the best of what we have is important. Making sure self importance and greed do not make the revenue sports self indulgent at the expense of all others is important. I think reform is no doubt needed but there are many issues that need lots of communication and a lot of bigger picture views. I am not smart enough to figure it out enough to offer much up. I am smart enough to see an athlete who demands the right to sell shoes and clothes he never paid for on top of his free meals, education, high profile preparation for his pro career has some priorities out of order. Reading a twitter timeline is inflammatory to me https://twitter.com/CJ12_/status/719569962134847488?ref_s... and puts the ME in front of everything else. It is, I think, what Alan and others, find to be unacceptable about the place of athletics in the the collegiate landscape. It's a lot to consider and way above my pay grade. never argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Winter comes and asks how you spent your summer..... The game loves and rewards those who love and reward the game Back to Top Alan Swank General User Member Since: 12/11/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 7,022 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 4:34:32 PM  Uncle Wes wrote: Alan Swank wrote: bobcatsquared wrote: Alan Swank wrote: bobcatsquared wrote: There's a BA poster who rarely attended class and/or study, would show up on test days, and rarely end up with anything less than an A. I, however, would have to work my butt off going to class, taking notes, and studying to get anything close to what this guy achieved. I tried his way one quarter and almost flunked out. My dad told me either things would change for the better or I would have to live at home and commute to o$u. That must have been a very hard major that you had one for which I bet you get a great deal of ribbing. I know what you're getting at Alan. However, my degree from Ohio University was in journalism. It wasn't until about 10 years later that I returned to college to get my education degree. Was pulling your leg, as you well know. When I went to Muskingum, there wasn't an education major. I had 69 semester hours in social studies (anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science, religion, and sociology) and took some education courses. Their approach at the time was to emphasize a mastery of the subject matter. In fact, one of my education professors shared with me that he felt there were identifiable characteristics in incoming freshmen that could predict with a certain degree of reliability whether a student could/would become a successful teacher or not. I still think that would be a great PhD topic. This sounds like a predictably arrogant professor. At 17 or 18 years of age you are still a kid. There are the minority that have the maturity of a 40 year old adult and are ready for the next level in the classroom. With picking up material in class there are a few individuals who already have strong active listening skills at the college age when most do not pay attention in class. Those professors sitting in their bubbles would be surprised at what people can do. I have a friend of mine who I brought to OU for a football game years back who didn't graduate college until he was 30 and now has his own venture capital firm. Its sad to see professors pass judgement when their job is to open up students minds. Wes, in this case I don't think you have all the facts to make such a statement. This professor was far from being an "ivory tower" educator. He had been a classroom teacher, building principal, and superintendent before becoming an education professor. In other words he was in the field as opposed of going from BA to MA to PhD. His lessons were all about what we'd truly experience in the classroom as opposed to some pie in the sky philosophy of what should or might work. I agree with you that most incoming freshmen are not prepared to benefit from what college has to offer. That's why I favor two years of public service after high school before starting college. Grow up a bit before simply following the crowd for four more years of school. However, I do believe and to a certain extent I have anecdotally observed incoming college students who do have certain skills that lend themselves to success in the teaching profession. There are others who are very talented at what just do but would not make very good teachers. Patience would be one such characteristic and charisma would be another. As a 32 year veteran of the sales field, I would say that the same could be said for predicted success as a sales person, something many college grads will find themselves doing shortly after graduation especially when you consider that just 14 percent of this year’s college seniors have steady, career-type jobs lined up for their lives after graduation. Some folks have it and some will never have it. Last Edited: 4/16/2016 4:42:30 PM by Alan Swank Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,454 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 6:48:25 PM  rpbobcat wrote: Fake Jeff McKinney wrote: the123kid wrote: This a pretty strong post right here. We can't lump all the athletes into one pool. Most Athletes are getting compensated very well with a scholarship, which is much more than their "worth". This would include just about every sport outside of Men's Basketball and Football. Not so fast... once you leave the revenue generating sports, the "athletes get compensated with scholarships" argument unravels. NCAA Baseball limits teams to 11.7 scholarships. Softball gets 12. There's a lot of D-I athletes getting partial rides that have to go through the same pain and suffering as the general population. All athletes are equal, but some athletes are more equal than others. I won't deny that several sports get pampered and understand anyone's frustration over perceived non-monetary compensation, but those sports do not make up the majority of beneficiaries when it comes to a study center or open food tables. They're just the ones we see on TV. It takes a lot of time and dedication at any level of NCAA play, FBS/FCS DI, DII, DIII and even the best NAIA programs. During the 73/74 Soccer season we had 1 scholarship that was spilt 3 ways. The coach donated his time, because the athletic department eliminated his salary. We had to buy our own cleats. When we played on Cleveland State's Astro Turf, we had to wear our regular sneakers. When I wrestled at FDU we had 2 full (tuition/room and board) scholarships and a few scholarships that covered partial tuition. At least we didn't have to buy our own shoes. We competed because we loved the sports we participated in. It takes a lot of time,effort and dedication to compete at the D1 level in any sport. To me, something like the Sook Center which will assist athletes in their academic pursuits, especially when it is being built using donated funds ,offers nothing but positives. I also think O.U. is being smart, in setting it up to also function as a visitors/reception center. Back to Top Speaker of Truth General User Member Since: 1/26/2011 Post Count: 441 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 7:24:41 PM  Fake Jeff McKinney wrote: the123kid wrote: This a pretty strong post right here. We can't lump all the athletes into one pool. Most Athletes are getting compensated very well with a scholarship, which is much more than their "worth". This would include just about every sport outside of Men's Basketball and Football. Not so fast... once you leave the revenue generating sports, the "athletes get compensated with scholarships" argument unravels. NCAA Baseball limits teams to 11.7 scholarships. Softball gets 12. There's a lot of D-I athletes getting partial rides that have to go through the same pain and suffering as the general population. All athletes are equal, but some athletes are more equal than others. I won't deny that several sports get pampered and understand anyone's frustration over perceived non-monetary compensation, but those sports do not make up the majority of beneficiaries when it comes to a study center or open food tables. They're just the ones we see on TV. Jeff, not sure if we are agreeing or not. What I am saying is that the ones we see on TV are getting a raw deal. This is some, not all. I understand how the part scholarship game works, that is why I used Women's Volleyball as an example since it is full scholarship. My point is that when comparing DJ Cooper to a Volleyball player, it is clear that Cooper brings much more value to the University and both are being compensated easily. This is obviously a title 9, but i'm ignoring that for the sake of discussion. I enjoy good discussions on the NCAA and College Athletics from this perspective. In general, the NCAA wants to have it both ways. They want to say it is all about student athletes, and then collect all the large amounts of money like it is a pro league. Back to Top Alan Swank General User Member Since: 12/11/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 7,022 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 7:27:11 PM  [/QUOTE] Athletics are here to stay. Making the best of what we have is important. Making sure self importance and greed do not make the revenue sports self indulgent at the expense of all others is important. I think reform is no doubt needed but there are many issues that need lots of communication and a lot of bigger picture views. I am not smart enough to figure it out enough to offer much up. I am smart enough to see an athlete who demands the right to sell shoes and clothes he never paid for on top of his free meals, education, high profile preparation for his pro career has some priorities out of order. Reading a twitter timeline is inflammatory to me https://twitter.com/CJ12_/status/719569962134847488?ref_s... and puts the ME in front of everything else. It is, I think, what Alan and others, find to be unacceptable about the place of athletics in the the collegiate landscape. It's a lot to consider and way above my pay grade. [/QUOTE] I could not agree more Tom. Unfortunately, I've often been guilty of banging my head against the wall or championing a cause that seems lost or at least insurmountable. My turntable turns at 78 when it comes to change - the world revolves at 33 1/3. On another point that you made, when my daughter was making college visits in 1999, the number one thing that parents of the volleyball players were asking was security on campus for their daughters. Academic support wasn't an issue because these kids had been juggling 4.0 averages with high school and club ball since they were in 7th grade. That's the perspective that I come at this discussion from which is only half of the story. Back to Top Speaker of Truth General User Member Since: 1/26/2011 Post Count: 441 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 7:30:02 PM  bornacatfan wrote: One of the subjects that many of the athletes in revenue sports fail to see IMHO and in their self important and narrow view is the Collegiate model is bigger than the individual. The revenue sports have always supported the minor sports. The rising boat floats all of them and that should be the discussion of who is benefitting and why the individual who is getting an education in a revenue sport is any more important than the volley, base, women's basket ball or wrestling, track etc. IMHO I still think the athlete is well rewarded by the education and the privilege of playing a sport at the collegiate level. At some point the few will make a living at it and using the collegiate experience to groom themselves for that is part of the process. Just my opinion that does not count for much. [/QUOTE] Borna, always respect your well informed opinions. I guess where we differ is that I don't think the athletes that are driving the boat from a revenue standpoint should have to "suffer" because they are helping the greater good. There can be a socioeconomic debate here as well if you look at revenue sports vs non. Paying athletes is very complicated, but I think it is relatively simple to let athletes make money off their own name(Endorsements, Autographs, etc). The argument about donors paying too much for that falls on deaf ears to me. Don't punish the student athletes because donors are sleazy. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,454 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 7:53:24 PM  the123kid wrote: bornacatfan wrote: One of the subjects that many of the athletes in revenue sports fail to see IMHO and in their self important and narrow view is the Collegiate model is bigger than the individual. The revenue sports have always supported the minor sports. The rising boat floats all of them and that should be the discussion of who is benefitting and why the individual who is getting an education in a revenue sport is any more important than the volley, base, women's basket ball or wrestling, track etc. IMHO I still think the athlete is well rewarded by the education and the privilege of playing a sport at the collegiate level. At some point the few will make a living at it and using the collegiate experience to groom themselves for that is part of the process. Just my opinion that does not count for much. Borna, always respect your well informed opinions. I guess where we differ is that I don't think the athletes that are driving the boat from a revenue standpoint should have to "suffer" because they are helping the greater good. There can be a socioeconomic debate here as well if you look at revenue sports vs non. Paying athletes is very complicated, but I think it is relatively simple to let athletes make money off their own name(Endorsements, Autographs, etc). The argument about donors paying too much for that falls on deaf ears to me. Don't punish the student athletes because donors are sleazy. [/QUOTE] Many revenue sports don't actually turn a profit around the country, what do you do then? Back to Top bornacatfan General User Member Since: 8/3/2006 Post Count: 5,706 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/16/2016 11:10:11 PM  the123kid wrote: Borna, always respect your well informed opinions. I guess where we differ is that I don't think the athletes that are driving the boat from a revenue standpoint should have to "suffer" because they are helping the greater good. There can be a socioeconomic debate here as well if you look at revenue sports vs non. Paying athletes is very complicated, but I think it is relatively simple to let athletes make money off their own name(Endorsements, Autographs, etc). The argument about donors paying too much for that falls on deaf ears to me. Don't punish the student athletes because donors are sleazy. Interesting perspective to be sure. Limited pay to certain athletes who can generate their own income. So, these are amateur athletes....and you want to let them make their own cash like Pete Rose charging per autograph? Donors giving a guy like DJ a sack of money for his likeness and an autograph while a guy like Asown is still in the same boat money wise trying to make ends meet falls on deaf ears.?....or do we respond to the cries of "unfair" and "inequitable" when they inevitably come from those who feel sorry for the guys not making top dollar? It's an interesting rabbit hole we seem to want to go down. IMHO We would have never seen DJ because the Texas schools and others courting him would have had a better offer on the table. Still deaf? How about his team mates that are watching him drive his latest ride rolling on 23s trying to figure out where they stand in the locker room pecking order? (I gots mines fellas yall on ya own} Team dynamics and coaching then heads more toward managing egos that even Calipari who does a great job managing prima donnas would have some challenges. At some stage these athletes are still human and have egos. Locker rooms for the few who are in demand would IMO be a much different place kids on their own the first time away from home would not be prepared for in general and the learning/experience for most collegiate athletes would be vastly different. I am an advocate of kids from HS going straight to the pros and would love to see this path of amateur participation be unencumbered by the few who think they need to be paid....let em go and compete in an open marketplace. Screw college...they do not want to be there anyway. On the subject of DJ....do you think he would have stayed after 2010 if a certain offer was made from a Power conference school along with the promise of an autograph deal? And if we would have seen him walk over to another campus and be immediately eligible....how would that have served him? With a one year transfer rule at least his mama would have been able to see him get his course work in order to stay on track to graduate at his new school. JC dropped that ball with the coaching change and I have oft wondered if Mom would not have let him go if she could have gone back. DJ did not get his degree on time as mama was promised when he committed here. I understand the idea of the NCAA being a non profit being a joke (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/03/20/n... /) _and I understand that the coaches at the highest level are making scads of money and the idea that "this is all done on the backs of the athletes". There are so many levels to be considered. We are not in a club situation like Europe and I think the idea reaching down to HS sports like it does over there is not going to happen here. Amateur sports are still amateur sports in my eyes. The money issue has many sides and may not be as profitable as perceived http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports... to each individual institution In the eyes of folks here .... there are 351 D1 schools with 13 basketball players.... Of those teams there are roughly 90 that have been relevant for the last 30 years. From NC, UK and KU to Wichita back to Sasha Dudovich...those same names have been there with a few new ones (butler, gonazaga) replacing a few old ones as examples(Depaul,St Johns) .... for the 260 other colleges that are not generating autograph paying names are we going to rewrite the rules, locker room demeanor, on campus experience for 351 schools for maybe 270 athletes across the country? Would you want OUr athletes like Treg or Jordan Dartis taking a buck from each 11 year old who wanted a keepsake signature on the program? How do you reconcile the interpersonal relationships when 19 year olds are sitting at a party experiencing college life at Ohio when one hoops star runs into baseball, football, volleyball players who see a guy with all the maturity of Johnny Manziel flaunting his newfound "profit sharing" in a sport that requires the same effort as theirs? Not that OUr athletes are not totally mature guys who operate with a huge degree of professionalism at all times and would be totally above doing something stupid with cash money or would ever react to someone who "disrespects" them on COurt Street after a few shots at Pawpurrs or hot nuts amongst friends. I am not sure the answer is not to seriously look at the NCAA and the profit and distribution of the slush funds and endowment funds they keep putting together profits into. If they are truly member schools and the NCAA is run by the presidents then why are the presidents not finding ways to get money back to the member schools? The NCAA basketball tourney is the holy grail and funds many minor sports as well as much of the athletic calendars and championships. No one is going to put their hands on the neck of that Goose and twist it. My take is purely an opinion and a quest for the consensus. I am not sure what the answer is but I do realize that women's golf relies on hoops to exist. Baseball needs revenue sports to exist. Colleges with athletic programs benefit in tangible and non tangible ways in everything from admissions to community pride and involvement/support because of sports compared to those who do not....only 2 institutions that I can verify dropped out were Centenary and Birmingham SOuthern in the same time that we added a few dozen new programs. Places like Butler and even NKU have used their teams to grow the U. Must be something drawing them to the light like a herd of moths. I think looking only at the gross numbers of coaching salaries and NCAA profit and not taking into account the benefits thousands of athletes actually derive is short sighted. I think the very vocal high profile guys in revenue sports distort our reality and stir the pot and do not reflect the 95% of all athletes competing in college who are happy to have a partial ride and the gear/experience/benefit of playing on and being part of something bigger that will benefit them in many ways for a lifetime. never argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Winter comes and asks how you spent your summer..... The game loves and rewards those who love and reward the game Back to Top giacomo General User Member Since: 11/20/2007 Post Count: 2,623 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/17/2016 10:09:43 AM  Someone said that most athletic programs don't make money. That is true. I agree that most athletes benefit from the experience, get a great opportunity in life and are not exploited. However, I posted this earlier regarding coaches salaries: I recall in 1981 when I moved to Ann Arbor for my first job the local rag ran an annual salary article where every UM employee's salary was posted. Bo Schembechler made 100k and the president made 105k. There was an unwritten rule at one point that coaches never made more than the president, which has vanished. In 2016 at 3% inflation, that salary is 282K, at 4% it's 395k. Take your pick. Jim Harbaugh's 2015 total UM compensation was 7M. Of course, both guys got some extra comp from booster groups, car dealer perks, etc., but we're in a different universe today. All of the kicked up locker rooms, food bars, athletic study centers, yada, yada, are non-monetary compensation. The difference between low Div 1 and P5. Since they can't pay the players directly, they do it another way. They know the basic scholarship is not cutting it. I'll bet the players would rather see some green. If you paid the coach in line with a university professor, even one at the top of the scale, then the scholarship model still works. Schools do EVERYTHING, in an arms race way, to pay the players except actually pay them. Their output is worth far more than a scholarship if the coach is making 7M. Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/17/2016 10:56:21 AM  Alan Swank wrote: Uncle Wes wrote: Alan Swank wrote: bobcatsquared wrote: Alan Swank wrote: bobcatsquared wrote: There's a BA poster who rarely attended class and/or study, would show up on test days, and rarely end up with anything less than an A. I, however, would have to work my butt off going to class, taking notes, and studying to get anything close to what this guy achieved. I tried his way one quarter and almost flunked out. My dad told me either things would change for the better or I would have to live at home and commute to o$u. That must have been a very hard major that you had one for which I bet you get a great deal of ribbing. I know what you're getting at Alan. However, my degree from Ohio University was in journalism. It wasn't until about 10 years later that I returned to college to get my education degree. Was pulling your leg, as you well know. When I went to Muskingum, there wasn't an education major. I had 69 semester hours in social studies (anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science, religion, and sociology) and took some education courses. Their approach at the time was to emphasize a mastery of the subject matter. In fact, one of my education professors shared with me that he felt there were identifiable characteristics in incoming freshmen that could predict with a certain degree of reliability whether a student could/would become a successful teacher or not. I still think that would be a great PhD topic. This sounds like a predictably arrogant professor. At 17 or 18 years of age you are still a kid. There are the minority that have the maturity of a 40 year old adult and are ready for the next level in the classroom. With picking up material in class there are a few individuals who already have strong active listening skills at the college age when most do not pay attention in class. Those professors sitting in their bubbles would be surprised at what people can do. I have a friend of mine who I brought to OU for a football game years back who didn't graduate college until he was 30 and now has his own venture capital firm. Its sad to see professors pass judgement when their job is to open up students minds. Wes, in this case I don't think you have all the facts to make such a statement. This professor was far from being an "ivory tower" educator. He had been a classroom teacher, building principal, and superintendent before becoming an education professor. In other words he was in the field as opposed of going from BA to MA to PhD. His lessons were all about what we'd truly experience in the classroom as opposed to some pie in the sky philosophy of what should or might work. I agree with you that most incoming freshmen are not prepared to benefit from what college has to offer. That's why I favor two years of public service after high school before starting college. Grow up a bit before simply following the crowd for four more years of school. However, I do believe and to a certain extent I have anecdotally observed incoming college students who do have certain skills that lend themselves to success in the teaching profession. There are others who are very talented at what just do but would not make very good teachers. Patience would be one such characteristic and charisma would be another. As a 32 year veteran of the sales field, I would say that the same could be said for predicted success as a sales person, something many college grads will find themselves doing shortly after graduation especially when you consider that just 14 percent of this year’s college seniors have steady, career-type jobs lined up for their lives after graduation. Some folks have it and some will never have it. Alan, the idea of requiring 2 year of public service out of high school is a great idea. The world has changed since 1960 when industry needed college grads that were 22 to hit the workforce immediately. It was realized then that times had changed since 1900 when most 14 year olds were expected to make a financial contribution to the households. Its 2016 and industry doesn't have the capacity to absorb the number of college grads anymore so it makes sense to change the system again. Some say that too many people are going to college that would be better directed toward trades but I disagree with that approach. Trades should be opportunities for non-college age immigrants to gain social mobility with a good paying job. With academia there is a tendency to view their relationship with students as an employee-employer relationship where a student is not delivering and that I think isn't appropriate for the sitting. If alternatively you hired a 32 year old salesman with experience and a track record and after 8 months he's not delivering then its fair to say he doesn't have what it takes to deliver for your organization. That is totally different. The story for a lot of professors is they had the maturity at a young age to move into a PhD program but are ignorant in many ways and that ignorance was never challenged because they could ride the coattails of their research into a career. They don't make great educators and they don't make great mentors either. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/17/2016 12:11:41 PM  giacomo wrote: Someone said that most athletic programs don't make money. That is true. I agree that most athletes benefit from the experience, get a great opportunity in life and are not exploited. However, I posted this earlier regarding coaches salaries: I recall in 1981 when I moved to Ann Arbor for my first job the local rag ran an annual salary article where every UM employee's salary was posted. Bo Schembechler made 100k and the president made 105k. There was an unwritten rule at one point that coaches never made more than the president, which has vanished. In 2016 at 3% inflation, that salary is 282K, at 4% it's 395k. Take your pick. Jim Harbaugh's 2015 total UM compensation was 7M. Of course, both guys got some extra comp from booster groups, car dealer perks, etc., but we're in a different universe today. All of the kicked up locker rooms, food bars, athletic study centers, yada, yada, are non-monetary compensation. The difference between low Div 1 and P5. Since they can't pay the players directly, they do it another way. They know the basic scholarship is not cutting it. I'll bet the players would rather see some green. If you paid the coach in line with a university professor, even one at the top of the scale, then the scholarship model still works. Schools do EVERYTHING, in an arms race way, to pay the players except actually pay them. Their output is worth far more than a scholarship if the coach is making 7M. They pay a coach 7M and they have an football program that overshadows the schools athletic programs. I know there has been studies done on alumni engagement factor in giving with having big athletics but where is the happy medium? Ohio over the last 20 years has increased its national competitiveness for the alumni without transforming into a big athletic school. Big athletics can be a negative for student recruitment for those who don't want it. The G5 level could be the happy medium level where football competes at the top level for the alums without the pressures of the P5 level. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,454 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/17/2016 1:10:11 PM  bornacatfan wrote: the123kid wrote: Borna, always respect your well informed opinions. I guess where we differ is that I don't think the athletes that are driving the boat from a revenue standpoint should have to "suffer" because they are helping the greater good. There can be a socioeconomic debate here as well if you look at revenue sports vs non. Paying athletes is very complicated, but I think it is relatively simple to let athletes make money off their own name(Endorsements, Autographs, etc). The argument about donors paying too much for that falls on deaf ears to me. Don't punish the student athletes because donors are sleazy. Interesting perspective to be sure. Limited pay to certain athletes who can generate their own income. So, these are amateur athletes....and you want to let them make their own cash like Pete Rose charging per autograph? Donors giving a guy like DJ a sack of money for his likeness and an autograph while a guy like Asown is still in the same boat money wise trying to make ends meet falls on deaf ears.?....or do we respond to the cries of "unfair" and "inequitable" when they inevitably come from those who feel sorry for the guys not making top dollar? It's an interesting rabbit hole we seem to want to go down. IMHO We would have never seen DJ because the Texas schools and others courting him would have had a better offer on the table. Still deaf? How about his team mates that are watching him drive his latest ride rolling on 23s trying to figure out where they stand in the locker room pecking order? (I gots mines fellas yall on ya own} Team dynamics and coaching then heads more toward managing egos that even Calipari who does a great job managing prima donnas would have some challenges. At some stage these athletes are still human and have egos. Locker rooms for the few who are in demand would IMO be a much different place kids on their own the first time away from home would not be prepared for in general and the learning/experience for most collegiate athletes would be vastly different. I am an advocate of kids from HS going straight to the pros and would love to see this path of amateur participation be unencumbered by the few who think they need to be paid....let em go and compete in an open marketplace. Screw college...they do not want to be there anyway. On the subject of DJ....do you think he would have stayed after 2010 if a certain offer was made from a Power conference school along with the promise of an autograph deal? And if we would have seen him walk over to another campus and be immediately eligible....how would that have served him? With a one year transfer rule at least his mama would have been able to see him get his course work in order to stay on track to graduate at his new school. JC dropped that ball with the coaching change and I have oft wondered if Mom would not have let him go if she could have gone back. DJ did not get his degree on time as mama was promised when he committed here. I understand the idea of the NCAA being a non profit being a joke (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/03/20/n... /) _and I understand that the coaches at the highest level are making scads of money and the idea that "this is all done on the backs of the athletes". There are so many levels to be considered. We are not in a club situation like Europe and I think the idea reaching down to HS sports like it does over there is not going to happen here. Amateur sports are still amateur sports in my eyes. The money issue has many sides and may not be as profitable as perceived http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports... to each individual institution In the eyes of folks here .... there are 351 D1 schools with 13 basketball players.... Of those teams there are roughly 90 that have been relevant for the last 30 years. From NC, UK and KU to Wichita back to Sasha Dudovich...those same names have been there with a few new ones (butler, gonazaga) replacing a few old ones as examples(Depaul,St Johns) .... for the 260 other colleges that are not generating autograph paying names are we going to rewrite the rules, locker room demeanor, on campus experience for 351 schools for maybe 270 athletes across the country? Would you want OUr athletes like Treg or Jordan Dartis taking a buck from each 11 year old who wanted a keepsake signature on the program? How do you reconcile the interpersonal relationships when 19 year olds are sitting at a party experiencing college life at Ohio when one hoops star runs into baseball, football, volleyball players who see a guy with all the maturity of Johnny Manziel flaunting his newfound "profit sharing" in a sport that requires the same effort as theirs? Not that OUr athletes are not totally mature guys who operate with a huge degree of professionalism at all times and would be totally above doing something stupid with cash money or would ever react to someone who "disrespects" them on COurt Street after a few shots at Pawpurrs or hot nuts amongst friends. I am not sure the answer is not to seriously look at the NCAA and the profit and distribution of the slush funds and endowment funds they keep putting together profits into. If they are truly member schools and the NCAA is run by the presidents then why are the presidents not finding ways to get money back to the member schools? The NCAA basketball tourney is the holy grail and funds many minor sports as well as much of the athletic calendars and championships. No one is going to put their hands on the neck of that Goose and twist it. My take is purely an opinion and a quest for the consensus. I am not sure what the answer is but I do realize that women's golf relies on hoops to exist. Baseball needs revenue sports to exist. Colleges with athletic programs benefit in tangible and non tangible ways in everything from admissions to community pride and involvement/support because of sports compared to those who do not....only 2 institutions that I can verify dropped out were Centenary and Birmingham SOuthern in the same time that we added a few dozen new programs. Places like Butler and even NKU have used their teams to grow the U. Must be something drawing them to the light like a herd of moths. I think looking only at the gross numbers of coaching salaries and NCAA profit and not taking into account the benefits thousands of athletes actually derive is short sighted. I think the very vocal high profile guys in revenue sports distort our reality and stir the pot and do not reflect the 95% of all athletes competing in college who are happy to have a partial ride and the gear/experience/benefit of playing on and being part of something bigger that will benefit them in many ways for a lifetime. +100 Back to Top giacomo General User Member Since: 11/20/2007 Post Count: 2,623 Status: Offline     RE: Campbell on the Sook Center    Posted: 4/17/2016 8:11:57 PM  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/sports/olympics/katie-l... Article in today's NYTimes makes the point that if you have a music scholarship you can get gigs and make as much money as you can, and still keep your scholarship. Not in athletics. Back to Top Showing Replies:   51 - 71  of 71 Posts Jump to Page:   < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 99 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 99 Guests 0 Registered Users There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties