We have all heard of the stories in the late 70's and early 80's about SMU and Texas A&M being the best teams that money could buy. 25-30 years later you can't even buy a kid a sandwich. Has the NCAA enforced the rules to the point that it is seen as less fair than it was in the past because so many of the players are now black? When the players were mostly white it was understood that the players would be taken care of as middle class citizens who happened to play football and attend classes. Now that the players are mostly black the NCAA is being run like a prison so even if the players starve it is ok. Does anyone else see this any other way? What is the big deal if schools/boosters bought players? Or bought them cars, or gave them money, or provided them with housing. If your joy comes out of your team winning on Saturdays would it make any difference whether the players were taken care of? I am sure if you can afford 20000+ dollars for the privledge of buying tickets, then buying a kid a nice car wouldn't bother you. Just wondering.
-
-
good questionComment -
They have become tougher because of technology and of course the media.Comment -
How? You don't need technology and the media. Every school has an AD and a compliance director.Originally posted by HoltgetsbackComment -
I need feedback.Comment -
They have become tougher because of the media. If Dan Wetzel and others aren't going on witch hunts trying to get dirt on USC, Kentucky, Uconn, etc. then the NCAA wouldn't punish these top programs because they provide so much revenue. They pretty much have to look in to it when all of these reports come out about a player getting benefits.Comment -
Whose reporting? If you are media with your own school why would you report it? If you are a rival are you really helping by turning in another school when the same thing is probably being done at your respective school? How is it money out of Wetzel's pocket if a kid get paid by the school or boosters? I don't understand where you are coming from with this. To whose benefit is it to report violations.Originally posted by BeeMoreComment -
Yahoo Sports, New York Times, etc. are reporting that players get benefits. Then the schools/NCAA has to look into them.
If Yahoo, NYT, etc. didn't investigate this stuff and report it then the NCAA wouldn't either.Comment -
[quote=BeeMore;5106095]Yahoo Sports, New York Times, etc. are reporting that players get benefits. Then the schools/NCAA has to look into them.
If Yahoo, NYT, etc. didn't investigate this stuff and report it then the NCAA wouldn't either.[/quot
You can't be serious. Yahoo, NYT, etc. What dog do they have in the fight?Comment -
You can't be serious. Yahoo, NYT, etc. What dog do they have in the fight?Originally posted by BeeMoreComment -
more feedback.Comment -
Are you fukking stupid? Do you understand the concept of investigative journalism?
Wetzel is regarded as one of the best because of what he dug up.Comment -
Why is Wetzel digging it up? He should be reporting on the scores. He is not rescuing teenagers from being sex slaves. He is ratting out players who need to be getting paid for making money for their respective schools.Originally posted by BeeMoreComment -
Take a journalism class if you don't understand why they do it. There are things called awards and careers. You get awards, your career improves. To get awards, you have to dig and do some investigative pieces.
CommonComment -
I guess that is why Wetzel is at Yahoo and not the sports mothership ESPN. Not enough of what really matters.Comment -
He probably isn't at ESPN because they do not do investigative journalism due to the fact that it is a conflict of interest because they broadcast all of the games and have contracts with all of the leagues.
He can do his own thing at Yahoo. ESPN isn't really known for their print journalists.Comment -
Pay the players.Comment