NCAA Violation

[CoachTalk]

I, for one, am proud of whoever the walk-on is that turned it in.
It's not always popular or easy to do the right thing.

Agree

 

[originalsooner55]

Come on man!!

What part do you disagree with? the comments I made are from experiences I have had myself, and not from what someone else has mentioned. Anyone who has had either themselves, or family members, participated in college athletics, know what I mentioned is pretty much fact. People may have a different definition of what a "vacation" is and that is understandable. The money and the "free Dr.'s" are a fact. Now if a athlete is hurt during a contest, or practice, sure they are taken care of, but so are my employees if they are hurt on the job. If an athlete has an ailment not related to sports, my families insurance carrier paid the bill. This is my take on this from experience and if you have different info., please share, as I know things change and I would definetely like to stay updated with current policies and procedures with the NCAA.

 

[Jimmon]

I agree that a free college education is payment enough for the student/athlete and they shouldn't receive a "stipend". I do think restrictions should be relaxed to allow them to work. Restrictions could be put on the number of hours per week and pay to keep deep pocket boosters from paying $5,000 a week to mow grass. This would give the student/athlete the ability to "earn" spending money without making it a free-for-all. I know you will say that boosters will pay more than the restriction but if they are going to cheat in this scenario they will cheat in the current situation. JMO

 

[StatGeek]

To use a phrase like "intellectually honest" in one post and then state that "virtually no one in the U.S. is dirt poor" is laughable. As a sociologist (PhD), I can attest that there are several points throughout the US with groups of people who are "dirt poor." What little government assistance they get doesn't even come close to getting them out of extreme poverty. The US is among the worst of industrialized countries (and close to some "third world" countries) in income and wealth inequality, so just as you see millionaires thriving, you are apt to see people desperately poor. Yes, there is such a thing as relative poverty, but there's also absolute poverty.

This is a bad post in so many ways.

First, I'm pretty sure that I used the term intellectually honest, not DenverSooner. Second, those who take advantage of the assistance available in the U.S. Are not anywhere close to what I would consider dirt poor. I grew up with a single mother and four kids, my mother never worked. We were certainly poor, but we had TVs, nintendos, VCRs, cable TV, etc. We had a house to live in (section 8), we had all the utilities (most of the time). We had food to eat at all times (maybe not always the best meal, but we had things like beefaroni, hotdogs with bread as buns, Bologna sandwiches, etc.). We almost always had a running vehicle. In my experience what separates families like mine growing up and those who are worse off is the presence (or lack thereof) of drugs. I had drugs all around me as a child and teenager. Some families were worse off than mine because their parent or parents were addicted to hard drugs and they traded the assistance received for cash at a discounted rate, for example $100 of food stamps for $75 of cash, to help fund the habit. Other families were better off because their parent (s) sold drugs. Those in this country that are dirt poor, are so primarily due to drugs or because they want to be. Most of the college athletes this discussion seems to be centered around; come from very similar situations as me. Those kids know and understand they are way better off at college on scholarship than they are at home and they know their living situation has been improved dramatically. Third, wealth and income "inequality" has nothing to do with the discussion, IMO.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

The players don't drive the revenue, the brand does. For instance, you people were here watching OU games when Nick Thompson was starting games because of the OU on the front of the jersey, not the Thompson on the back. The difference in revenue between the really good OU teams and the really bad OU teams is nominal. Very few OU players actually add revenue. If an athletic scholarship to attend The University of Oklahoma is exploitation, please exploit both of my boys, I beg you. Or better yet, Stanford please call me.

How many highly recruited players have turned down scholarship offers? The answer to that question should tell you just how exploited these players really are. I simply cannot understand how an intellectually honest person can even remotely believe the players are being exploited.

True

 

[opsooner]

They fired YoYo which is appropriate. Now they need to fire the donor but first break his kneecaps.

 

[snydrosooner]

I think most fans would be ok with adding a stipend to the scholarship, but it still needs to be the same allowed for all schools to keep it level.

Most people in America playing by the rules and taking advantage of the aid available (government, churches, other groups) would never be considered dirt poor. Some people choose not to participate (for own reasons) or get denied due to cheating the system (my church has had issues with this). Again I say most as there are unfortunately always the exception.

 

[coolm]

1. I would rather root for a mediocre team playing by the rules than a winner who cheats

2. the walk-on who told should be given a medal. those who would wish to call him names and the like should be shown the door

3. of course players should receive a stipend. But they dont. So you DONT cheat until they do so. you follow the rules and support change.

4. I can't believe the attitudes condoning cheating of some here. No wonder this school gets in trouble. Grow up.

 

[AdaSooner]

I wish I could take back the term, "dirt poor." Definition: Suffering extreme poverty.

As I said before, there are various levels of poverty. A homeless person who is legitimately without a place to live and who has no means of support would likely fit that description. I doubt if most scholarship athletes come from a family background that could be described as extreme poverty.

Nevertheless, some of these kids have very little if any support from home, which doesn't make them feel too good about themselves when their teammates go shopping at a local mall or travel home for a long weekend, leaving them on campus. That's not the end of the world, of course, but it can be a big deal for the kids who don't have much.

That's the main reason I'm for a change in the rules that would give college athletes an acceptable allowance that would meet their basic needs. The problem is, a plan like that would have to include kids who don't really need it. Any attempt to identify legitimate financial needs would almost certainly lead to more abuse of the system. It could also put kids in a group that could be embarrassing for them.

 

[Escape Goat]

1. I would rather root for a mediocre team playing by the rules than a winner who cheats

2. the walk-on who told should be given a medal. those who would wish to call him names and the like should be shown the door

3. of course players should receive a stipend. But they dont. So you DONT cheat until they do so. you follow the rules and support change.

4. I can't believe the attitudes condoning cheating of some here. No wonder this school gets in trouble. Grow up.

Completely agree, best post in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jerry]

1. I would rather root for a mediocre team playing by the rules than a winner who cheats

2. the walk-on who told should be given a medal. those who would wish to call him names and the like should be shown the door

3. of course players should receive a stipend. But they dont. So you DONT cheat until they do so. you follow the rules and support change.

4. I can't believe the attitudes condoning cheating of some here. No wonder this school gets in trouble. Grow up.

Good post!

 

[SoonerinNC]

When I was at OU I didn't have the money to go home, didn't have a car until my senior year and couldn't go home anyway because I was working in the cafeteria, on the switchboard at the old Residential Hall or a counselor at the old Whitehand Hall (depending on the year).

I don't recall feeling deprived and would have loved to have worked on my hoops if I had been good enough to make the basketball team.

Besides I had a lot of fun during shutdown. Several others in my shoes.

Didn't feel ashamed that others had more money. Still don't. Just thankful that I lived in a country that allowed to get a good education and move on to a better life.

It is easy to feel that your are a victim of the system but it doesn't solve anything and probably prevents you from making a better life.

 

[Chiefdaddy]

1. I would rather root for a mediocre team playing by the rules than a winner who cheats

2. the walk-on who told should be given a medal. those who would wish to call him names and the like should be shown the door

3. of course players should receive a stipend. But they dont. So you DONT cheat until they do so. you follow the rules and support change.

4. I can't believe the attitudes condoning cheating of some here. No wonder this school gets in trouble. Grow up.

Come on guys. Don't be naive. If you have rooted for OU all your life, you are rooting for a team that bends the rules just like every other college in the nation. A medal for the walk on? Wow. If it is the walk on that you guys mention and he wants to be a coach, he will find out that these type of things happen all the time and you can't control it. I've known many players on OU teams over the years and this type of thing happens all the time.

 

[AdaSooner]

When I was at OU I didn't have the money to go home, didn't have a car until my senior year and couldn't go home anyway because I was working in the cafeteria, on the switchboard at the old Residential Hall or a counselor at the old Whitehand Hall (depending on the year).

I don't recall feeling deprived and would have loved to have worked on my hoops if I had been good enough to make the basketball team.

Besides I had a lot of fun during shutdown. Several others in my shoes.

Didn't feel ashamed that others had more money. Still don't. Just thankful that I lived in a country that allowed to get a good education and move on to a better life.

It is easy to feel that your are a victim of the system but it doesn't solve anything and probably prevents you from making a better life.

Solid post, SoonerinNC! Makes me think I could be wrong in suggesting, or even assuming, that students from similar backgrounds expect more than a quality education they couldn't have received without the help of a scholarship. I have little doubt there are those who feel that way, so it may be totally unfair of me to suggest otherwise.

 

[euphguy]

This is a bad post in so many ways.

First, I'm pretty sure that I used the term intellectually honest, not DenverSooner. Second, those who take advantage of the assistance available in the U.S. Are not anywhere close to what I would consider dirt poor. I grew up with a single mother and four kids, my mother never worked. We were certainly poor, but we had TVs, nintendos, VCRs, cable TV, etc. We had a house to live in (section 8), we had all the utilities (most of the time). We had food to eat at all times (maybe not always the best meal, but we had things like beefaroni, hotdogs with bread as buns, Bologna sandwiches, etc.). We almost always had a running vehicle. In my experience what separates families like mine growing up and those who are worse off is the presence (or lack thereof) of drugs. I had drugs all around me as a child and teenager. Some families were worse off than mine because their parent or parents were addicted to hard drugs and they traded the assistance received for cash at a discounted rate, for example $100 of food stamps for $75 of cash, to help fund the habit. Other families were better off because their parent (s) sold drugs. Those in this country that are dirt poor, are so primarily due to drugs or because they want to be. Most of the college athletes this discussion seems to be centered around; come from very similar situations as me. Those kids know and understand they are way better off at college on scholarship than they are at home and they know their living situation has been improved dramatically. Third, wealth and income "inequality" has nothing to do with the discussion, IMO.

What do you think qualifies people as poor? Your post is "bad" because you're using an anecdote to support your claims that my post is bad! Poor guy. Try again some other time when you've actually had the education and knowledge to reply, substantively, to my post. That's why, at the end of my post, I said there's a difference between relative and absolute poverty. If you don't know the difference, go look it up!

 

[euphguy]

This is a bad post in so many ways.

First, I'm pretty sure that I used the term intellectually honest, not DenverSooner. Second, those who take advantage of the assistance available in the U.S. Are not anywhere close to what I would consider dirt poor. I grew up with a single mother and four kids, my mother never worked. We were certainly poor, but we had TVs, nintendos, VCRs, cable TV, etc. We had a house to live in (section 8), we had all the utilities (most of the time). We had food to eat at all times (maybe not always the best meal, but we had things like beefaroni, hotdogs with bread as buns, Bologna sandwiches, etc.). We almost always had a running vehicle. In my experience what separates families like mine growing up and those who are worse off is the presence (or lack thereof) of drugs. I had drugs all around me as a child and teenager. Some families were worse off than mine because their parent or parents were addicted to hard drugs and they traded the assistance received for cash at a discounted rate, for example $100 of food stamps for $75 of cash, to help fund the habit. Other families were better off because their parent (s) sold drugs. Those in this country that are dirt poor, are so primarily due to drugs or because they want to be. Most of the college athletes this discussion seems to be centered around; come from very similar situations as me. Those kids know and understand they are way better off at college on scholarship than they are at home and they know their living situation has been improved dramatically. Third, wealth and income "inequality" has nothing to do with the discussion, IMO.

Please tell me you aren't college educated. If you are, go request your money back!

 

[usedtobe1]

It still blows my mind that so many posters are condoning the practice of looking the other way because other people are doing it. That doesn't make it right. The booster and YoYo knew handing out spending money was wrong. The players that took the money (and later returned it) knew it was wrong. Teams have sessions every season telling them what is allowed.

There are people more upset with the walk-on for being a snitch, than they are with the booster or YoYo. Unbelievable.

$100 isn't much but where do you draw the line? Do you start moving the ball in the rough during match play? Do you start padding your expense reports? Do you cheat on your spouse? Is it OK for your kids to cheat on a test? Is it OK for them to use recreational drugs and alcohol in HS? When do you stop rationalizing it's OK even though other people are doing it? There has to be a line somewhere. When you arbitrarily start moving that line, it's tough to stop.

Put me in the camp of doing it the right way. I would rather go 20-12 and go to the NIT with 3 star players than go along with the crowd and pay off players so we go further in the tournament.

 

[IndySooner]

Put me in the camp of doing it the right way. I would rather go 20-12 and go to the NIT with 3 star players than go along with the crowd and pay off players so we go further in the tournament.

How do you go 20-12 without being on a level playing field? You can't have it both ways.

 

[usedtobe1]

It's easy to go 20-12 or 16-14 and go to the NIT without $100 handshakes.

So are you OK with your kid cheating on a test in order to get a higher grade? Other kids cheat..... You can't have it both ways either.

 

[pnkranger]

This thread has made me lose my faith in our fanbase. Geez. Some of you guys ...

Of course it SHOULD be different. But it's not. We have to play within the rules. If others don't, then fine. We'll lose (as you say, which I disagree with) ... I'd rather be a bad basketball team and be proud of my school for doing things the right way than i would win.

Bottom line.

For you that condone breaking the rules to be competitive, that eats away at the very fabric of the game you love. If the rules stink, change them fairly ... don't break them unfairly.