Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Basketball Topic:  OT: Adidas Federal Trial Topic:  OT: Adidas Federal Trial Author Message GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 7,070 Status: Offline     OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/5/2018 8:36:34 AM  Brian Bowen's dad testifies: https://deadspin.com/brian-bowens-dad-describes-black-mar... Back to Top Buckeye to Bobcat General User Member Since: 9/10/2013 Post Count: 1,797 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/6/2018 12:04:31 AM  You know this thing is gonna get ugly. Only 4 programs to me are clean: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, and Maybe Michigan. I have always been curious on some kids but Beilein has appeared to be clean and not gotten tangled up in the game. We’ll see, but eben Ohio $tate with Jaquan Lyle will get flagged. Back to Top longtiimelurker General User Member Since: 2/2/2017 Post Count: 587 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/6/2018 10:27:13 PM  Buckeye to Bobcat wrote: You know this thing is gonna get ugly. Only 4 programs to me are clean: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, and Maybe Michigan. I have always been curious on some kids but Beilein has appeared to be clean and not gotten tangled up in the game. We’ll see, but eben Ohio $tate with Jaquan Lyle will get flagged. 350 or so programs and only 4 are clean? That's amazing. What egregious and nefarious things do you have knowledge that Saul and Company are doing that would make them dirty? I'll not doubt that Matta played some games to get Lyle and get him eligible but I don't see that continuing under Holtmann. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,491 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/8/2018 12:41:27 PM  Seems like this case answers the question "how do schools afford to pay players?" They don't have to. The shoe companies seem more than willing to do it for them. It's high time they figure out how to systematize this and get these kids compensated. The folks at Adidas seem to feel it's a worthwhile investment to make sure kids are wearing their shoes before they turn pro, so the money is there. Seems pretty harmless to me to let them pay the kids directly for the right. Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,343 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/8/2018 3:15:43 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Seems like this case answers the question "how do schools afford to pay players?" They don't have to. The shoe companies seem more than willing to do it for them. It's high time they figure out how to systematize this and get these kids compensated. The folks at Adidas seem to feel it's a worthwhile investment to make sure kids are wearing their shoes before they turn pro, so the money is there. Seems pretty harmless to me to let them pay the kids directly for the right. So would you propose they pay the women's hoops team, volleyball, baseball, and softball as well? Because every time the proposition of paying players because they're not compensated comes up, we should remember that pesky issue involving Title nine won't allow for just the highest revenue sports to get paid. Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,343 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/8/2018 3:17:01 PM  longtiimelurker wrote: Buckeye to Bobcat wrote: You know this thing is gonna get ugly. Only 4 programs to me are clean: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, and Maybe Michigan. I have always been curious on some kids but Beilein has appeared to be clean and not gotten tangled up in the game. We’ll see, but eben Ohio $tate with Jaquan Lyle will get flagged. 350 or so programs and only 4 are clean? That's amazing. What egregious and nefarious things do you have knowledge that Saul and Company are doing that would make them dirty? I'll not doubt that Matta played some games to get Lyle and get him eligible but I don't see that continuing under Holtmann. If I were guessing, he meant those schools because they're Adidas schools (or were) in the P6 of hoops. Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/8/2018 6:09:27 PM  OU_Country wrote: So would you propose they pay the women's hoops team, volleyball, baseball, and softball as well? Because every time the proposition of paying players because they're not compensated comes up, we should remember that pesky issue involving Title nine won't allow for just the highest revenue sports to get paid. Bingo. That's what the "bloviators" of television fail to recognize (or just dumb down their argument for a mass audience). To John Q. Fan who watches a few Alabama or O$U football games a year, they think "Gee wiz, college sports is big business. These kids have to be paid!" What most don't realize is that athletics is a money LOSER for 99% of schools nationwide. If left to its own devices (without institutional support or student fees), college sports would not exist in a true "market economy". And if it did, there would only be football and men's basketball. No women's sports at all. No baseball. No soccer. As much as talking heads may try to tell you, college athletics really isn't a business. Because a business would simply discontinue all of the programs required by Title IX. A business also wouldn't operate in the red, effectively ending all but a handful of P5 programs. Glad that someone else understands that. Back to Top rpbobcat General User Member Since: 4/28/2006 Location: Rochelle Park, NJ Post Count: 3,547 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/9/2018 6:29:21 AM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Seems like this case answers the question "how do schools afford to pay players?" They don't have to. The shoe companies seem more than willing to do it for them. It's high time they figure out how to systematize this and get these kids compensated. The folks at Adidas seem to feel it's a worthwhile investment to make sure kids are wearing their shoes before they turn pro, so the money is there. Seems pretty harmless to me to let them pay the kids directly for the right. The HBO documentary "Student Athlete" really shows just how involved shoe companies in grooming/"guiding" players from grammar school on. Back to Top Buckeye to Bobcat General User Member Since: 9/10/2013 Post Count: 1,797 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/9/2018 10:45:00 AM  longtiimelurker wrote: Buckeye to Bobcat wrote: You know this thing is gonna get ugly. Only 4 programs to me are clean: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, and Maybe Michigan. I have always been curious on some kids but Beilein has appeared to be clean and not gotten tangled up in the game. We’ll see, but eben Ohio $tate with Jaquan Lyle will get flagged. 350 or so programs and only 4 are clean? That's amazing. What egregious and nefarious things do you have knowledge that Saul and Company are doing that would make them dirty? I'll not doubt that Matta played some games to get Lyle and get him eligible but I don't see that continuing under Holtmann. I was talking Power 5/Big East. Apologies for not saying that clearly and should have stated that. Firm believer Saul and the boys in Athens are clean. Do a lot of things right, just need to win some more head to heads. Just got to Europe after traveling for 4 days so haven't had time to respond to statement. But yes, at Power level, wait for Duke and UNC to get whacked like they're a tall piece of grass. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,491 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/9/2018 5:30:32 PM  OU_Country wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Seems like this case answers the question "how do schools afford to pay players?" They don't have to. The shoe companies seem more than willing to do it for them. It's high time they figure out how to systematize this and get these kids compensated. The folks at Adidas seem to feel it's a worthwhile investment to make sure kids are wearing their shoes before they turn pro, so the money is there. Seems pretty harmless to me to let them pay the kids directly for the right. So would you propose they pay the women's hoops team, volleyball, baseball, and softball as well? Because every time the proposition of paying players because they're not compensated comes up, we should remember that pesky issue involving Title nine won't allow for just the highest revenue sports to get paid. No, I'm not proposing that. Title IX has to do with programs that receive federal financial assistance. I don't understand why it's relevant here. Whether or not Adidas and Nike -- two private companies -- choose to pay famous athletes money to wear their shoes is completely unrelated to scholarship money. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,817 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/9/2018 7:39:03 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: OU_Country wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Seems like this case answers the question "how do schools afford to pay players?" They don't have to. The shoe companies seem more than willing to do it for them. It's high time they figure out how to systematize this and get these kids compensated. The folks at Adidas seem to feel it's a worthwhile investment to make sure kids are wearing their shoes before they turn pro, so the money is there. Seems pretty harmless to me to let them pay the kids directly for the right. So would you propose they pay the women's hoops team, volleyball, baseball, and softball as well? Because every time the proposition of paying players because they're not compensated comes up, we should remember that pesky issue involving Title nine won't allow for just the highest revenue sports to get paid. No, I'm not proposing that. Title IX has to do with programs that receive federal financial assistance. I don't understand why it's relevant here. Whether or not Adidas and Nike -- two private companies -- choose to pay famous athletes money to wear their shoes is completely unrelated to scholarship money. Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️ Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,343 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/10/2018 11:20:38 AM  catfan28 wrote: OU_Country wrote: So would you propose they pay the women's hoops team, volleyball, baseball, and softball as well? Because every time the proposition of paying players because they're not compensated comes up, we should remember that pesky issue involving Title nine won't allow for just the highest revenue sports to get paid. Bingo. That's what the "bloviators" of television fail to recognize (or just dumb down their argument for a mass audience). To John Q. Fan who watches a few Alabama or O$U football games a year, they think "Gee wiz, college sports is big business. These kids have to be paid!" What most don't realize is that athletics is a money LOSER for 99% of schools nationwide. If left to its own devices (without institutional support or student fees), college sports would not exist in a true "market economy". And if it did, there would only be football and men's basketball. No women's sports at all. No baseball. No soccer. As much as talking heads may try to tell you, college athletics really isn't a business. Because a business would simply discontinue all of the programs required by Title IX. A business also wouldn't operate in the red, effectively ending all but a handful of P5 programs. Glad that someone else understands that. That's one part of the argument that isn't going away, which is why arguing they deserve to be paid isn't likely to change anytime soon. Now, if there was a miraculous way that all D-1 schools suddenly shared the TV equally down to the nickel, I could see that changing, and I could agree with the argument for paying the players. Because then every school could possibly be close to not requiring student fees to fund them. But in the real world, there are so many things to overcome to pay the players. The players deserving it is the smallest hurdle of all of them. Back to Top rpbobcat General User Member Since: 4/28/2006 Location: Rochelle Park, NJ Post Count: 3,547 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/10/2018 11:37:11 AM  BillyTheCat wrote: Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️ This. If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies. Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics. In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX. Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,491 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/10/2018 8:58:38 PM  rpbobcat wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️ This. If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies. Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics. In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX. Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse. But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money? Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/10/2018 9:45:48 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money? That would likely result in a drawn-out legal battle. Honestly, I'm not sure how it would turn out. I will say this, though. IF it got to the point where student-athletes can accept endorsement money, it would be terrible for the vast majority of programs. The gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" would grow to be cavernous. Make no mistake - it would be a very bad day for Ohio and the MAC. Back to Top rpbobcat General User Member Since: 4/28/2006 Location: Rochelle Park, NJ Post Count: 3,547 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/11/2018 6:30:59 AM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: rpbobcat wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️ This. If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies. Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics. In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX. Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse. But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money? The NCAA would probably have to amend their bylaws beyond just endorsement money. The HBO "Student Athlete" documentary has a segment on a football player from Baylor. He was a walk on who made the team and became a regular player. I don't remember if he was ever a starter. Anyway,as a walk on he got nothing. He was living on people's couches. A family friend,with no ties to Baylor athletics,put him up in an apartment,and gave him money for food. The NCAA considered that an "improper benefit" and banned him. If the NCAA is going to allow athletes to be paid for endorsements,they have to address issues like this. Last Edited: 10/11/2018 6:37:40 AM by rpbobcat Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,343 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/11/2018 9:58:04 AM  catfan28 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money? That would likely result in a drawn-out legal battle. Honestly, I'm not sure how it would turn out. I will say this, though. IF it got to the point where student-athletes can accept endorsement money, it would be terrible for the vast majority of programs. The gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" would grow to be cavernous. Make no mistake - it would be a very bad day for Ohio and the MAC. Agreed. It would be bad for nearly every team that isn't in a P5/P6 conference. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,817 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/11/2018 10:34:29 AM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: rpbobcat wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️ This. If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies. Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics. In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX. Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse. But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money? If they are spending the money on a program or part of a school that receives federal funding, then the school would be responsible for providing an equal benefit to those not receiving the private funds. Back to Top Maddog13 General User Member Since: 12/21/2004 Location: Albuquerque, NM Post Count: 725 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/11/2018 11:14:16 AM  The trial is also bringing up issues of double dipping, fraud, and tax implications. It makes one wonder about the differences between private schools and public education sponsored schools. Those being charged here are being brought to justice due to existing Federal laws, but one wonders how schools are going to legally deal with some of these issues in the future -- not to mention the whole issue of legalized gambling in college sports. There must be loopholes here that someone is going to exploit in the name of winning. After all, it seems that the NCAA,itself,is willing to play along in the interest of the almighty dollar!! Long live, Capitalism; long live, the NCAA. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,491 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/11/2018 11:43:01 AM  catfan28 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money? That would likely result in a drawn-out legal battle. Honestly, I'm not sure how it would turn out. I will say this, though. IF it got to the point where student-athletes can accept endorsement money, it would be terrible for the vast majority of programs. The gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" would grow to be cavernous. Make no mistake - it would be a very bad day for Ohio and the MAC. Agreed, it certainly wouldn't be good for Ohio and the MAC. But at this point, for me at least, ensuring people are fairly compensated and no longer restricting their earning potential outweighs that. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,491 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/11/2018 11:45:52 AM  BillyTheCat wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: rpbobcat wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️ This. If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies. Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics. In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX. Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse. But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money? If they are spending the money on a program or part of a school that receives federal funding, then the school would be responsible for providing an equal benefit to those not receiving the private funds. And if they're sponsoring an individual in addition to spending money on the program? As is, if Adidas signs a deal with Ohio they provide uniforms and equipment across sports. Couldn't that status quo remain while still removing endorsement restrictions put on athletes? If, in addition to the equipment deal, Nike wanted Zion Williamson to appear in print ads and paid him separately to do so how does that violate Title IX? Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,817 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/11/2018 11:47:03 AM  One thing to keep in mind here is that many of the NCAA regulations which catch up so many student athletes and people who are just trying to do good, exist because someone at some point used the lack of a rule to cheat and win. It is not like the NCAA and the member schools (remember the member schools vote on the regulations) just arbitrarily make up rules. And yes there are a ton of tax implications in college athletics, benefits that many would never think of, and pretty much no where are these benefits usually properly reported. Back to Top GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 7,070 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/11/2018 11:58:03 AM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: rpbobcat wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️ This. If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies. Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics. In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX. Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse. But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money? If they are spending the money on a program or part of a school that receives federal funding, then the school would be responsible for providing an equal benefit to those not receiving the private funds. And if they're sponsoring an individual in addition to spending money on the program? As is, if Adidas signs a deal with Ohio they provide uniforms and equipment across sports. Couldn't that status quo remain while still removing endorsement restrictions put on athletes? If, in addition to the equipment deal, Nike wanted Zion Williamson to appear in print ads and paid him separately to do so how does that violate Title IX? Isn't that what they're already doing, but behind the shadows and closed doors so the NCAA doesn't know about it? As soon as Zion Williamson joins an AAU team, he is a moving billboard for Nike or Adidas. He's not getting paid directly, but someone is (usually his AAU coach) and he's receiving free gear and trips for doing so. I'd say he's already receiving endorsements without actually ever signing anything. Back to Top Flomo-genized General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Post Count: 574 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/11/2018 12:45:21 PM  It's not at all clear that Title IX would be implicated by paying some student-athletes but not others. There are legal precedents holding that schools are legally allowed to pay coaches for their men's basketball teams more than their women's basketball teams, for instance, because the former typically generate greater revenue than the latter. It's not certain that this same logic would apply to paying men's basketball players more than female players, of course. But to say that paying certain athletes, but not others, would definitely violate Title IX is legally incorrect. It's an open question, with the most applicable precedent favoring the argument that there is no legal issue. Meanwhile, if the NCAA merely allowed shoe companies to endorse student-athletes, that would not have any Title IX implications, because the resources provided by the school to the students wouldn't differ in any way. It may very well open up other cans of worms, but Title IX wouldn't be one of them. Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/11/2018 2:53:46 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Agreed, it certainly wouldn't be good for Ohio and the MAC. But at this point, for me at least, ensuring people are fairly compensated and no longer restricting their earning potential outweighs that. So, you're essentially siding with the "top 1%" (i.e. the big boys of college athletics and the most elite athletes). I will proudly carry the flag for everyone else (G5, FCS, D2, D3, NAIA) doing things the right way. There are thousands of great student-athletes, students, fans and alumni of those schools that don't deserve to have their experience/opportunities diminished. Those student-athletes with pro potential will go on to make more than what almost anyone on this planet can dream of. College athletics needs to remain a level playing field (or as much of one as is possible, given the current corruption of money at the P5 level). College athletics is NOT (and shouldn't turn into) a for-profit business. The unintended consequences of such would be tremendous. Back to Top Showing Replies:   1 - 25  of 78 Posts Jump to Page:   1 | 2 | 3 | 4    Next > View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 691 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 690 Guests 1 Registered User:   Steve Ragan There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties