Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

3/22: the thread
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=111564
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Curious Hair [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:21 am ]
Post subject:  3/22: the thread

The conversation on paying NCAA players through HBCUs was actually very thoughtful and interesting, which I don't think it would have been with Jason there because of the numerous opportunities to call out racists on Twitter and the text line and insist that he is not mad, not mad at all, it is the others who are, in fact, mad. But it was mostly Dan bringing the content and McDoink just sorta not fucking up.

Author:  Tad Queasy [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Curious Hair wrote:
The conversation on paying NCAA players through HBCUs was actually very thoughtful and interesting, which I don't think it would have been with Jason there because of the numerous opportunities to call out racists on Twitter and the text line and insist that he is not mad, not mad at all, it is the others who are, in fact, mad. But it was mostly Dan bringing the content and McDoink just sorta not fucking up.


Agree that it was good and also agree on why Goff would have probably ruined it.

Author:  Caller Bob [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Goff insisted on bringing an emotional workout everyday. He had to go. The show is still not that good

Author:  DAC [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Did Bernstein really question McKnight not knowing about Munchos? This is the same guy who didn't know who Ric Flair was.

Author:  Dewskie [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

DAC wrote:
Did Bernstein really question McKnight not knowing about Munchos? This is the same guy who didn't know who Ric Flair was.


Professional wrestling is for the heathen, stinking proletariat. Bernstein, sipping wine from an ivory cup filled with bits of crossword puzzle, can't be associated with such frippery.

Author:  Ron Wolfley [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

I’m warming up to the show.

Author:  SuperMario [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Though, how a nerd like McKnight does not know Munchos is pretty absurd. Downing an entire $2 full size bag of Munchos is one of the best things on a roadtrip.

Author:  Northside_Dan [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Ron Wolfley wrote:
I’m warming up to the show.


It's better than B & G already.

I still think Bernstein with Spiegel would have been solid.

Author:  denisdman [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Two thinks that came to mind during the college pay duiscussion:

1) McDoink was emphatic that Title IX concerns will not impact paying college athletes. I am not so sure.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

I could see the underlined piece becoming problematic in a legal sense.

2) Ok once we pay college athletes, the sports are professional. Why do the kids even go to class? Why couldn't you hire a 25 year old player that doesn't qualify to get into Northwestern, but is good enough to play at the current college level? How about retired NBA guys? What kind of restrictions can you legally put around what colleges do or who they hire? While paying college athletes seems like the right thing to do, I am certain there will be lots of negative side effects.

Author:  Curious Hair [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

denisdman wrote:
Two thinks that came to mind during the college pay duiscussion:

1) McDoink was emphatic that Title IX concerns will not impact paying college athletes. I am not so sure.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

I could see the underlined piece becoming problematic in a legal sense.

2) Ok once we pay college athletes, the sports are professional. Why do the kids even go to class? Why couldn't you hire a 25 year old player that doesn't qualify to get into Northwestern, but is good enough to play at the current college level? How about retired NBA guys? What kind of restrictions can you legally put around what colleges do or who they hire? While paying college athletes seems like the right thing to do, I am certain there will be lots of negative side effects.


Is this what Dan meant by "free-market guys getting the vapors"?

Author:  Brick [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

denisdman wrote:
1) McDoink was emphatic that Title IX concerns will not impact paying college athletes. I am not so sure.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
It would be decided in the courts but it's probably not going to be a problem given the amount of money that goes towards the revenue sports already. If it was some sort of revenue sharing agreement then the women's volleyball team can split the $500 of profit they have.

denisdman wrote:
2) Ok once we pay college athletes, the sports are professional. Why do the kids even go to class? Why couldn't you hire a 25 year old player that doesn't qualify to get into Northwestern, but is good enough to play at the current college level? How about retired NBA guys? What kind of restrictions can you legally put around what colleges do or who they hire? While paying college athletes seems like the right thing to do, I am certain there will be lots of negative side effects.
Why would they do that? The eligibility rules would stay roughly the same.

Author:  Ron Wolfley [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Northside_Dan wrote:
Ron Wolfley wrote:
I’m warming up to the show.


It's better than B & G already.

I still think Bernstein with Spiegel would have been solid.


Agree on both points. I’m rooting for Connor though. He went to school knowing he wanted to be in this field and then later had to win that short-lasting Score Search contest to get the occasional 10 pm to 12 am shift. Had balls to go to The Game and now he’s back on 670 with a full time gig. They have to change the “Midday Midway” name. So lame. I cringe every time I hear it.

Author:  City of Fools [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

this is a decent show. I still miss Terry, there's no one to fill that role...but this is better than B&G.

As far as Spiegs, sure he would have been good with Dan but it would have been a passive aggressive train wreck after a few weeks, if that.

Author:  denisdman [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Why would they do that? The eligibility rules would stay roughly the same.


The question is why wouldn't they do it? These are aren't amateurs going to college and playing sports for fun anymore. Once you pay them, they are professionals, and it is a job. And I suspect when this is all over, the NCAA is neutered and has no control. And since they are not amateurs, being a former NBA player wouldn't preclude one from joining a college team. It turns into the Olympics.

Edit: On the legal point- So you're paying men and not women.....yeah I don't see how that wouldn't be a problem. And you're right, from an economic point. But look at the social issues going on in the workplace of men and women. They're working just as hard and playing just as much.

Author:  Jaw Breaker [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

DAC wrote:
Did Bernstein really question McKnight not knowing about Munchos? This is the same guy who didn't know who Ric Flair was.


Was this today? I thought they had the Pork rinds, Munchos and Funyuns conversation on Tuesday. Already out of material.

Author:  Curious Hair [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Once you start paying football players and move them from student-athlete status to employee status (presumably under the auspices of some Department of Student Entertainment or something like that), how would Title IX still apply? It wouldn't really be a college sport anymore. Basketball would be dicier because there's a women's equivalent, of course, but football should be relatively easy to divorce from college athletics as we know them.

Author:  denisdman [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Curious Hair wrote:
Once you start paying football players and move them from student-athlete status to employee status (presumably under the auspices of some Department of Student Entertainment or something like that), how would Title IX still apply? It wouldn't really be a college sport anymore. Basketball would be dicier because there's a women's equivalent, of course, but football should be relatively easy to divorce from college athletics as we know them.


It opens up a lot of interesting questions. Regardless, and in all seriousness, what would prevent LeBron James from playing for Duke when he hangs it up with the NBA? His age? His status as someone who was paid to play ball professionally?

Employment law is pretty clear. Once players are paid, you have to subject yourself to wage and hour laws, minimum wage, discrimination, etc. Then if basketball players are employees, why aren't volleyball players employees?

Author:  Brick [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

denisdman wrote:
The question is why wouldn't they do it? These are aren't amateurs going to college and playing sports for fun anymore. Once you pay them, they are professionals, and it is a job. And I suspect when this is all over, the NCAA is neutered and has no control. And since they are not amateurs, being a former NBA player wouldn't preclude one from joining a college team. It turns into the Olympics.
It's because they wouldn't.

One of the main reasons that college sports are as big as they are is because of the connection to the school. They aren't blowing that up for no reason so a 30 year old NBA player can go play college basketball.



denisdman wrote:
Edit: On the legal point- So you're paying men and not women.....yeah I don't see how that wouldn't be a problem. And you're right, from an economic point. But look at the social issues going on in the workplace of men and women. They're working just as hard and playing just as much.
Title IX is about access. It isn't about being equal. That's why the football team has much better facilities than the badminton team.

Author:  Brick [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

denisdman wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Once you start paying football players and move them from student-athlete status to employee status (presumably under the auspices of some Department of Student Entertainment or something like that), how would Title IX still apply? It wouldn't really be a college sport anymore. Basketball would be dicier because there's a women's equivalent, of course, but football should be relatively easy to divorce from college athletics as we know them.


It opens up a lot of interesting questions. Regardless, and in all seriousness, what would prevent LeBron James from playing for Duke when he hangs it up with the NBA? His age? His status as someone who was paid to play ball professionally?

Employment law is pretty clear. Once players are paid, you have to subject yourself to wage and hour laws, minimum wage, discrimination, etc. Then if basketball players are employees, why aren't volleyball players employees?
There will always be an age limit in college sports.

Author:  denisdman [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Once you start paying football players and move them from student-athlete status to employee status (presumably under the auspices of some Department of Student Entertainment or something like that), how would Title IX still apply? It wouldn't really be a college sport anymore. Basketball would be dicier because there's a women's equivalent, of course, but football should be relatively easy to divorce from college athletics as we know them.


It opens up a lot of interesting questions. Regardless, and in all seriousness, what would prevent LeBron James from playing for Duke when he hangs it up with the NBA? His age? His status as someone who was paid to play ball professionally?

Employment law is pretty clear. Once players are paid, you have to subject yourself to wage and hour laws, minimum wage, discrimination, etc. Then if basketball players are employees, why aren't volleyball players employees?
There will always be an age limit in college sports.


What's the age limit now? Brandon Weeden played NCAA football at 28 years old. LeBron would make a connection to the school real quick.....

And I am not being crass. These things are going to come up.

Author:  DAC [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Jaw Breaker wrote:
DAC wrote:
Did Bernstein really question McKnight not knowing about Munchos? This is the same guy who didn't know who Ric Flair was.


Was this today? I thought they had the Pork rinds, Munchos and Funyuns conversation on Tuesday. Already out of material.


It wasn't today. I always podcast so I am usually behind.

Author:  Brick [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

denisdman wrote:
What's the age limit now? Brandon Weeden played NCAA football at 28 years old. LeBron would make a connection to the school real quick.....

And I am not being crass. These things are going to come up.
The NCAA makes an exception for people who try and play minor league baseball and return to play college football.

I believe 28 is just about as far out as you could stretch it.

There would very clearly be an age limit if they started to pay players.

Author:  denisdman [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Ok that makes sense. Since we cover employment law claims, I have a very strong feeling how this will play out in the courts. I am not against paying players because the hypocrisy is off the charts, but there will be practical issues that show hosts are glossing over.

Author:  Big Gunt [ Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 3/22: the thread

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
denisdman wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Once you start paying football players and move them from student-athlete status to employee status (presumably under the auspices of some Department of Student Entertainment or something like that), how would Title IX still apply? It wouldn't really be a college sport anymore. Basketball would be dicier because there's a women's equivalent, of course, but football should be relatively easy to divorce from college athletics as we know them.


It opens up a lot of interesting questions. Regardless, and in all seriousness, what would prevent LeBron James from playing for Duke when he hangs it up with the NBA? His age? His status as someone who was paid to play ball professionally?

Employment law is pretty clear. Once players are paid, you have to subject yourself to wage and hour laws, minimum wage, discrimination, etc. Then if basketball players are employees, why aren't volleyball players employees?
There will always be an age limit in college sports.



There is NO age limit in college sports. If you have eligibility left you can play regardless of age.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/