Legislation in the House of Rep. to reform NCAA

• Fly4Fun

  

  They are generally terrible at getting anything done themselves, so I'm not sure why they are worried about the ineptitude of the NCAA, but anyways:
  
  http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9530187/legislation-introduced-house-reform-ncaa
  
  1) Guaranteed four year scholarships for people who play collision sports sounds good, but I would have some questions. I do agree that someone shouldn't lose a scholarship for getting hurt (not that I think there is a problem with this). But a coach or school should be able to take away a scholarship if a student-athlete isn't fulfilling their side of the bargain such as missing practices or not taking care of the academic side.
  
  2)

  due process for schools accused of breaking rules.[/quote]
  
  This one sounds like a tad petty since the representatives who introduced it were from Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think more importantly there should be due process for athletes accused of breaking the rules. They generally don't have much in the way of defending themselves.

• WebFire

  Why should scholarships be guaranteed? I've never understood this. If I get an academic scholarship and gets C and Ds, my scholarship is yanked. Why are athletes protected?
• vball10set

  WebFire;1481751 wrote:Why should scholarships be guaranteed? I've never understood this. If I get an academic scholarship and gets C and Ds, my scholarship is yanked. Why are athletes protected?

  I agree with you here, Webbie...imo, the only way they should be protected is in the event of an injury. Period.
• Fly4Fun

  

  vball10set;1481752 wrote:I agree with you here, Webbie...imo, the only way they should be protected is in the event of an injury. Period.

  So we're all in agreement so far!
• vball10set

  Fly4Fun;1481753 wrote:So we're all in agreement so far!

  :thumbup:
• WebFire

  vball10set;1481752 wrote:I agree with you here, Webbie...imo, the only way they should be protected is in the event of an injury. Period.

  Honestly, I'm not sure why that is even protected. You are getting something in return for a skill you have. If that skill is gone, why do you get to keep going to school for free? A school may feel a moral obligation to do that, and I am in favor of that. But I don't think it should be protected by law or rule.
• vball10set

  WebFire;1481775 wrote:Honestly, I'm not sure why that is even protected. You are getting something in return for a skill you have. If that skill is gone, why do you get to keep going to school for free? A school may feel a moral obligation to do that, and I am in favor of that. But I don't think it should be protected by law or rule.

  With the amount of money that these athletes are helping to make for their schools, and for the simple fact that I'm not one of those in favor of paying these athletes (other than the scholly money and food stipends they receive), I think this is the least they could do.
• WebFire

  vball10set;1481782 wrote:With the amount of money that these athletes are helping to make for their schools, and for the simple fact that I'm not one of those in favor of paying these athletes (other than the scholly money and food stipends they receive), I think this is the least they could do.

  They don't make them any money sitting on the sideline.
• vball10set

  WebFire;1481783 wrote:They don't make them any money sitting on the sideline.

  No, but when they are playing, they're risking their health to do so, and they should be compensated for this risk should they get hurt.
• WebFire

  vball10set;1481784 wrote:No, but when they are playing, they're risking their health to do so, and they should be compensated for this risk should they get hurt.

  I guess I am of the mindset of payment for services rendered. You play 2 years, you get free schooling for 2 years.
• WebFire

  Also, my biggest issue is that the federal government feels the need to be involved with this stuff.
• Fly4Fun

  

  I'm with vball on this one. If you're hurt playing, it would be extremely callous and exploitative for coaches to pull a scholarship for an injury (assuming it was from practice, training or a game, but not breaking your leg while drunk). Injuries are a part of sports and to take away a scholarship because of a sport related injury could be a disincentive for players to push themselves as hard as they could or to stay in bounds for 2-3 more needed yards instead of just scampering out.
  
  To essentially punish (taking away a scholarship) a player for doing what they are supposed to be doing would be a bit backwards.
• vball10set

  WebFire;1481790 wrote:Also, my biggest issue is that the federal government feels the need to be involved with this stuff.

  Amen.
• WebFire

  Fly4Fun;1481794 wrote:I'm with vball on this one. If you're hurt playing, it would be extremely callous and exploitative for coaches to pull a scholarship for an injury (assuming it was from practice, training or a game, but not breaking your leg while drunk). Injuries are a part of sports and to take away a scholarship because of a sport related injury could be a disincentive for players to push themselves as hard as they could or to stay in bounds for 2-3 more needed yards instead of just scampering out.
  
  To essentially punish (taking away a scholarship) a player for doing what they are supposed to be doing would be a bit backwards.

  I just don't think it should be a law from the feds. Let the school decide that.
• believer

  

  WebFire;1481790 wrote:Also, my biggest issue is that the federal government feels the need to be involved with this stuff.

  What are you talking about? The Feds are experts at fixing all our problems.