The Unofficial Furman Football Page
https://gopaladins.com/
See there. The lack of respect you got at Furman is all FUBeAR’s fault. Glad it’s all out in the open now.sluggo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2024 10:24 amI can only confirm that FuBear was a dickhead at keg parties as he held one at our apartment even after I voted no; because the next day was my first day serving in the army reserve. I actually nodded off during my duty.
My wood cabinet Jenson speakers were played so loud that they vibrated off the shelf, crash and broke.
Affirm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 8:42 pmArticle appearing Monday, June 10. 2024, by Rick Seltzer in The Chronicle talks about the plan to save small Division I athletics.
"As the biggest athletic programs lean into a burgeoning pay-for-play era, smaller athletic departments are dipping back into the amateurism well for ideas that might save them from this brave new world….
"Division I colleges without major football programs have the most to lose in a brewing legal storm. They’ll pay into a proposed $2.75-billion antitrust settlement if it’s approved, and they might soon have to negotiate with unionized athletes, but they lack the revenue potential enjoyed by the powerhouses that play on autumn Saturdays during national television windows.
"[The] ... new pitch is amateurism, revisited. Athletic directors and athletes in the two less-lucrative Division I subdivisions have assembled a proposal…
"The new plan is in a feedback phase. It was due to go before the annual convention of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics on Sunday, but no vote was scheduled."
Yes, I understand what you say, EXCEPT, I have to ask - IS what YOU say actually applicable certainly mostly to the FBS schools, but NOT applicable necessarily to the Division 1 - AA (such as Furman, Mercer, ETSU, Citadel, Abilene. Christian, etc.) and the Division 1 - AAA (such as UNC-G, Winthrop, CofC, Belmont, Radford, etc.) schools?sluggo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 10:06 pmAffirm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 8:42 pmArticle appearing Monday, June 10. 2024, by Rick Seltzer in The Chronicle talks about the plan to save small Division I athletics.
"As the biggest athletic programs lean into a burgeoning pay-for-play era, smaller athletic departments are dipping back into the amateurism well for ideas that might save them from this brave new world….
"Division I colleges without major football programs have the most to lose in a brewing legal storm. They’ll pay into a proposed $2.75-billion antitrust settlement if it’s approved, and they might soon have to negotiate with unionized athletes, but they lack the revenue potential enjoyed by the powerhouses that play on autumn Saturdays during national television windows.
"[The] ... new pitch is amateurism, revisited. Athletic directors and athletes in the two less-lucrative Division I subdivisions have assembled a proposal…
"The new plan is in a feedback phase. It was due to go before the annual convention of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics on Sunday, but no vote was scheduled."
I hear that; but it's like trying to "unring the bell".
Once schools started selling tickets and getting TV money, while paying coaches millions, the bell was rung.
The only way to have amateur sports again is to cap staff pay, cap ticket sales, and no TV.
Basically, like high school.
Players can't demand money that is not there.
When I played, I was against players being paid; but things changed a lot since then.
Coaches are being paid much more and players seem to be exploited in a muti-billion dollar industry.
I started to feel like the schools were pimps and the players were street hoes.
Affirm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 10:59 pmYes, I understand what you say, EXCEPT, I have to ask - IS what YOU say actually applicable certainly mostly to the FBS schools, but NOT applicable necessarily to the Division 1 - AA (such as Furman, Mercer, ETSU, Citadel, Abilene. Christian, etc.) and the Division 1 - AAA (such as UNC-G, Winthrop, CofC, Belmont, Radford, etc.) schools?sluggo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 10:06 pmAffirm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 8:42 pmArticle appearing Monday, June 10. 2024, by Rick Seltzer in The Chronicle talks about the plan to save small Division I athletics.
"As the biggest athletic programs lean into a burgeoning pay-for-play era, smaller athletic departments are dipping back into the amateurism well for ideas that might save them from this brave new world….
"Division I colleges without major football programs have the most to lose in a brewing legal storm. They’ll pay into a proposed $2.75-billion antitrust settlement if it’s approved, and they might soon have to negotiate with unionized athletes, but they lack the revenue potential enjoyed by the powerhouses that play on autumn Saturdays during national television windows.
"[The] ... new pitch is amateurism, revisited. Athletic directors and athletes in the two less-lucrative Division I subdivisions have assembled a proposal…
"The new plan is in a feedback phase. It was due to go before the annual convention of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics on Sunday, but no vote was scheduled."
I hear that; but it's like trying to "unring the bell".
Once schools started selling tickets and getting TV money, while paying coaches millions, the bell was rung.
The only way to have amateur sports again is to cap staff pay, cap ticket sales, and no TV.
Basically, like high school.
Players can't demand money that is not there.
When I played, I was against players being paid; but things changed a lot since then.
Coaches are being paid much more and players seem to be exploited in a muti-billion dollar industry.
I started to feel like the schools were pimps and the players were street hoes.
The article refers to a proposed plan applicable to I-AA and I-AAA.
Inclusive not!Davemeister wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 11:41 amCan't speak for the rest of you but I prefer chicks without dicks.
