N.C.A.A.’s Double Standard

New York Times ^ | April 8, 2011 | Joe Nocera

[thefactor]

My point was that I received benefits as compared to other non-athlete students at my school. But what I got was nothing close to what the bigtime school athletes get. There should be a disparity.

My benefits were relatively small when compared to the sacrifices I had to make, but it was worth it. We got meal money, good gym facilities, physical therapy as needed, register for classes first, and (again) we got to party with the girls sports teams.

[GSWarrior]

I have no issue with Calhoun. Money-making sports programs at major universities bring in large amounts of revenue that are used to float other less lucrative sports and programs.

Do you think a business should treat the franchise that makes the most money the same as the franchise that makes the least money?

Then why hand out any sanctions at all? If the only reason the NCAA is harder on non-BCS schools is just to look tough, then it is time to re-think the whole process.

[thefactor]

Well, but here's the thing. When this punishment came down, UConn was 8-7 in conference. The NCAA actually thought they would do nothing this season so suspending Calhoun for the first 5 games of next year actually seemed like a worse punishment than doing it this season!

But, of course, UConn went on the best run in history and won it all. Oops! My comment was intended to say that big schools get more benefits, not that they necessarily get punished less. Look at Bruce Pearl and now Tressel. I think the NCAA is going to crush Tressel.

[shoedog]

Read the article, he did not, his mother did. The coach was AAU coach and she paid back money everytime!

[shoedog]

Read the article, he did not, his mother did. The coach was AAU coach and she paid back money everytime!

[thefactor]

Oh, I know that. But the NCAA ain’t that dumb. If he wasn’t who he was, would she have gotten the money? The coach influenced the recruiting. Those AAU coaches are the worst of the lot of them.