clenz wrote:So what you are saying is I was right when I said...
"Sounds like butt hurt"
Must have also missed the part where I said this:
It's not about whether rules are broken. You could go into any school and find infractions...just like you could go into any business and find OSHA non-compliance. Or... You could look at the financial crisis and think 'well... No laws were broken... So it must be an accident...'
Hint...it's about how rules/regulations and laws are written and how they're CHOSEN to be enforced.
No walking and chewing gum training in Iowawesome?
clenz wrote:So what you are saying is I was right when I said...
"Sounds like butt hurt"
Must have also missed the part where I said this:
It's not about whether rules are broken. You could go into any school and find infractions...just like you could go into any business and find OSHA non-compliance. Or... You could look at the financial crisis and think 'well... No laws were broken... So it must be an accident...'
Hint...it's about how rules/regulations and laws are written and how they're CHOSEN to be enforced.
No walking and chewing gum training in Iowawesome?
If not all EWU students are allowed to use all parts of the football facility then you're the one missing the pointof how stupid the bitching is.
I didn't see you fucks bitching about the Alabama facility that was recently profiled
Sounds like butt hurt from fans who likely also cheer for UW or WSU
quando omni flunkus moritati
There's no butt hurt at all. I don't care about Oregon, UW, WSU, or any other University not named EWU. My point was that the NCAA subjectively enforces their rules regarding special benefits to athletes by coming down hard on FCS schools for the most negligible offenses (a player's parents feeding other players), yet sees no problem with a booster paying to have players treated like kings.
If not all EWU students are allowed to use all parts of the football facility then you're the one missing the pointof how stupid the bitching is.
I didn't see you **** bitching about the Alabama facility that was recently profiled
Sounds like butt hurt from fans who likely also cheer for UW or WSU
quando omni flunkus moritati
There's no butt hurt at all. I don't care about Oregon, UW, WSU, or any other University not named EWU. My point was that the NCAA subjectively enforces their rules regarding special benefits to athletes by coming down hard on FCS schools for the most negligible offenses (a player's parents feeding other players), yet sees no problem with a booster paying to have players treated like kings.
Finally, at least some clarity about what the thread was even started for.
Again, though, I don't see the hypocrisy. You're complaining that some schools spend more, and in some cases, vastly more on facilities and the like than other schools. So in essence, you're really upset about the inequality of college athletics. It doesn't matter that the money comes from donors or boosters - where do you think most of the money comes from to build anything on a college campus? Almost all of it is from a private donor, and you can call them boosters if you want, but they are essentially donors. I don't see the problem with the NCAA here, and that's coming from a guy who really thinks the NCAA messes up a lot. An athlete, under current rules, can't be individually paid or compensated other than tuition and room and board. But there's never been a rule, nor the intent to make a rule, that all facilities (training facilities or stadiums, or whatever) need to be equal or close to equal. Your complaint is like saying Michigan gets an unfair advantage over a school like Albany because Michgan gets to play in a stadium that holds more than 100k and Albany doesn't
Wow, you're much more Comedic than I previously gave you credit for. Good on ya mate...
“We didn’t have a man or woman in the drone,” Trump explained to a confused America. “We had nobody in the drone. It would have made a big difference, let me tell you. It would have made a big, big difference.” Mexico will pay for the wall THE MOON IS PART OF MARS
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
There's no butt hurt at all. I don't care about Oregon, UW, WSU, or any other University not named EWU. My point was that the NCAA subjectively enforces their rules regarding special benefits to athletes by coming down hard on FCS schools for the most negligible offenses (a player's parents feeding other players), yet sees no problem with a booster paying to have players treated like kings.
Finally, at least some clarity about what the thread was even started for.
Again, though, I don't see the hypocrisy. You're complaining that some schools spend more, and in some cases, vastly more on facilities and the like than other schools. So in essence, you're really upset about the inequality of college athletics. It doesn't matter that the money comes from donors or boosters - where do you think most of the money comes from to build anything on a college campus? Almost all of it is from a private donor, and you can call them boosters if you want, but they are essentially donors. I don't see the problem with the NCAA here, and that's coming from a guy who really thinks the NCAA messes up a lot. An athlete, under current rules, can't be individually paid or compensated other than tuition and room and board. But there's never been a rule, nor the intent to make a rule, that all facilities (training facilities or stadiums, or whatever) need to be equal or close to equal. Your complaint is like saying Michigan gets an unfair advantage over a school like Albany because Michgan gets to play in a stadium that holds more than 100k and Albany doesn't
That's not what I'm saying at all. Has nothing to do with how much Oregon spends on facilities vs other schools. My beef is with the NCAA considering a parent of a player feeding other players a problem, but have no issue with a private donor paying to have players get personalized gaming systems in their lockers or what have you.
GannonFan wrote:
Finally, at least some clarity about what the thread was even started for.
Again, though, I don't see the hypocrisy. You're complaining that some schools spend more, and in some cases, vastly more on facilities and the like than other schools. So in essence, you're really upset about the inequality of college athletics. It doesn't matter that the money comes from donors or boosters - where do you think most of the money comes from to build anything on a college campus? Almost all of it is from a private donor, and you can call them boosters if you want, but they are essentially donors. I don't see the problem with the NCAA here, and that's coming from a guy who really thinks the NCAA messes up a lot. An athlete, under current rules, can't be individually paid or compensated other than tuition and room and board. But there's never been a rule, nor the intent to make a rule, that all facilities (training facilities or stadiums, or whatever) need to be equal or close to equal. Your complaint is like saying Michigan gets an unfair advantage over a school like Albany because Michgan gets to play in a stadium that holds more than 100k and Albany doesn't
That's not what I'm saying at all. Has nothing to do with how much Oregon spends on facilities vs other schools. My beef is with the NCAA considering a parent of a player feeding other players a problem, but have no issue with a private donor paying to have players get personalized gaming systems in their lockers or what have you.
Direct gift versus an indirect gift. The donor giving money to the school to build a palace is different - it doesn't go to one kid, and it's something that lasts for many years. I agree that rules about a parent of a player feeding other players is silly, but I have no problem with rules preventing parents or boosters or donors from giving gifts directly to a player or even a group of players.
AZGrizFan wrote:Another question: Montana was penalized for many things, including boosters giving free hot dogs to players. were those hot dogs not free to other folks as well?
not to be a dick but you know the hot dogs were pretty far down on the list of infractions right?
That's not true. You may want to look at the report. The ncaa put investigators outside the door of the locker room after the first game last year, to follow players after they showered. One of the 3 booster food/extra benefit issues related to tailgating, apparently "free" hot dogs and water.
