82gradDLSdad said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

I don't understand the complete unwillingness on the part of some people to accept that there are plenty of players that want to leverage the opportunity to get a free masters, especially those that aren't likely to play professionally. That doesn't describe everyone but the numbers aren't small or nonexistent, as some seem to insist.

If you can get a masters you're interested in and find yourself in a better competitive situation, too, it's a double bonus.

Think about it if it were you or your kid. Maybe you'd stay put or advise your kid to do so, no matter what the circumstances. But many of you would transfer, too, or advise it for your kid, if you're really being honest.

---

We all think it's great that kids leverage the system to get a free masters. We just wish Cal had half a chance to have some of those kids get the masters at Cal and play the 5th year here.

---

Exactly, considering how many won't end up making big pro $$$, there is no reason they shouldn't get some extra letters next to their name for playing ball.

SRBear said:

---

Wouldn't you think it's actually the govt, in the form of Title IX exploiting these student athletes? After all, the school is forced to subsidize revenue negative sports with the dollars football, and to a lesser extent, basketball generate. Sure, I guess they could find a way to get someone to coach on the cheap....but then I would expect any revenue to approach zero.

---

How much did college athletes make in the 100 years before Title IX?

did Cal always support 30 different sports and have significant tv income prior to Title IX?

SRBear said:

---

did Cal always support 30 different sports and have significant tv income prior to Title IX?

---

Are you saying Cal would pay the football players if not for the Title IX requirements to field women's teams? If not, then Title IX and "the Government" is not the source of their exploitation.

Nope, just saying the only currency Cal has available to pay the players is Room, board, tuition, training, tutoring and any other items required for their sport. Otherwise, no real green left over to share with the players, since football is essentially required to cover the costs, as much as possible, of many non-revenue sports.

SRBear said:

---

Nope, just saying the only currency Cal has available to pay the players is Room, board, tuition, training, tutoring and any other items required for their sport. Otherwise, no real green left over to share with the players, since football is essentially required to cover the costs, as much as possible, of many non-revenue sports.

---

But Cal doesn't keep players from making money off their name. Nor does the government. The ncaa does.

That's true...maybe just need to go way Olympics went. If someone wants to pay them for their likeness, guess no holds barred. Of course, just becomes a fancy way for boosters to pay for the top athletes.

SRBear said:

---

Nope, just saying the only currency Cal has available to pay the players is Room, board, tuition, training, tutoring and any other items required for their sport. Otherwise, no real green left over to share with the players, since football is essentially required to cover the costs, as much as possible, of many non-revenue sports.

---

The reason Cal does not "share that green" with the players is because it is against NCAA rules, not because we have to spend it on women's sports.

So, if it was OK with the NCAA, we'd have plenty left over to pay players? I know the NCAA rules...but I'm also aware we seem to be operating our AD at a deficit every year. So, if it was ok, where would the money come from?

calumnus said:

---

SRBear said:

---

Nope, just saying the only currency Cal has available to pay the players is Room, board, tuition, training, tutoring and any other items required for their sport. Otherwise, no real green left over to share with the players, since football is essentially required to cover the costs, as much as possible, of many non-revenue sports.

---

The reason Cal does not "share that green" with the players is because it is against NCAA rules, not because we have to spend it on women's sports.

---

While true, the money still does go towards non revenue sports.

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

I am not saying I agree with Uthaithani, but I would not agree with you that the students are being exploited. Those that are good enough are being given a forum for showing their talents before they become professional football players. More importantly, the students are receiving an education from one of the top schools in the country, and most (if not all) of them would not otherwise be able to get into Cal. The vast majority of them will never have the chance to play professional football, and they will be able to get an education and a degree that will give them the ability to be very successful. Furthermore, no one is forcing anyone to play football. (On a side note, the school also covers meals and books and gives the students athletic clothing and gear.) Please do not misunderstand me to be saying that the current system is perfect. I am sure it can be improved in several ways, however, saying students are being exploited seems to be a bit extreme in my opinion.

---

I'll stipulate to your point that a college education has value. I'll be honest enough to admit two things: 1) I'm not sure what anyone in-state is actually paying for tuition (I think there's a middle class break, so its something like 8K-14K per semester)and 2) at my pay grade, it was cheaper to send my kid to an Ivy (broke my heart, but I'm a realist). But for what that football brings in in tickets, merchandise, and broadcast revenue, it's not a great deal for the players -- especially given the restrictions placed on them about making money. I surely don't think a kid leaving because he can get a year elsewhere as a grad student is in any way, shape, or form "entitlement." They lived up to their part of the bargain and are moving on. If I had my druthers, players would get a no-penalty out when the head coach is canned. If I were given a 4 year academic scholarship, and my Nobel-winning physics professor that I wanted to study with goes to Texas, off to Austin I'd go. JMHO. YMMV.

Who knew Dylan Klumph could carry an 81 post thread!?

SoFlaBear said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

We should allow these types of transfers to only non Pac-12 teams. I don't get why we don't do that.

---

Can we please just acknowledge that we don't care that these are students who should have academic control over their future?

---

Sure, I'll acknowledge that. Since we paid for his degree. So, no, you don't get "freedom to do whatever you please" when someone else is paying the tab!

This entitlement attitude - and acceptance of the entitlement attitude - sucks. You people making excuses for this entitlement will see this bite you in the arse. And I'm going to be laughing from some other country whose society doesn't share your lame belief system that'll be eating your lunch in 20 years.

---

Entitlement??? A school provides education, room, and board. In exchange, a student engages in a risky activity with lifetime debilitating effects. The school pays the student nothing beyond what was previously mentioned, and reaps the benefits of ticket sales, merchandise sales, radio broadcast revenues, and television broadcast revenues.

"Exploitative" is the word I think you meant to write.

---

You have to be extremely educated (and probably a millenial SJW) to say something this stupid.

Less than 1% of D1 athletes earn money professionally. The monetary value of scholarships can exceed $100,000 annually -- tuition, housing, food, travel, resources -- even more so at some schools. This investment, at no cost to the individual, provides him/her with a college education that can set them up for a lifetime of financial and professional success that they may not have experienced had they not gotten a scholarship and possibly not gone to college at all. It is incredibly stupid and moronic -- and most importantly, demonstrably FALSE -- to say NCAA athletes are "exploited". The investment may often turn into a monetary value that is exponentially higher than the actual cost of the investment (that of course is free to them)

A small percentage who are unable to earn money off their likeness is the travesty of the NCAA -- not the fact that they're not paying them a stipend or salary.

iwantwinners said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

We should allow these types of transfers to only non Pac-12 teams. I don't get why we don't do that.

---

Can we please just acknowledge that we don't care that these are students who should have academic control over their future?

---

Sure, I'll acknowledge that. Since we paid for his degree. So, no, you don't get "freedom to do whatever you please" when someone else is paying the tab!

This entitlement attitude - and acceptance of the entitlement attitude - sucks. You people making excuses for this entitlement will see this bite you in the arse. And I'm going to be laughing from some other country whose society doesn't share your lame belief system that'll be eating your lunch in 20 years.

---

Entitlement??? A school provides education, room, and board. In exchange, a student engages in a risky activity with lifetime debilitating effects. The school pays the student nothing beyond what was previously mentioned, and reaps the benefits of ticket sales, merchandise sales, radio broadcast revenues, and television broadcast revenues.

"Exploitative" is the word I think you meant to write.

---

You have to be extremely educated (and probably a millenial SJW) to say something this stupid.

Less than 1% of D1 athletes earn money professionally. The monetary value of scholarships can exceed $100,000 annually -- tuition, housing, food, travel, resources -- even more so at some schools. This investment, at no cost to the individual, provides him/her with a college education that can set them up for a lifetime of financial and professional success that they may not have experienced had they not gotten a scholarship and possibly not gone to college at all. It is incredibly stupid and moronic -- and most importantly, demonstrably FALSE -- to say NCAA athletes are "exploited". The investment may often turn into a monetary value that is exponentially higher than the actual cost of the investment (that of course is free to them)

A small percentage who are unable to earn money off their likeness is the travesty of the NCAA -- not the fact that they're not paying them a stipend or salary.

---

You make a couple of fatal assumptions here:

- All college degrees have equal worth in the job market, which is demonstrably false
- You're equating potential benefit to real benefit. Universities make money off students now. A degree provides for the possibility of financial security later.
- I'm willing to acknowledge that a Berkeley degree is probably worth more in a job market than say, a degree from the University of Alabama-Birmingham. But these rules apply to all athletes from Cal to UAB, and in schools where the degree probably doesn't have as much value in the job market, equating the return on investment to be equivalent to the amount the school gets is faulty logic.

packawana said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

We should allow these types of transfers to only non Pac-12 teams. I don't get why we don't do that.

---

Can we please just acknowledge that we don't care that these are students who should have academic control over their future?

---

Sure, I'll acknowledge that. Since we paid for his degree. So, no, you don't get "freedom to do whatever you please" when someone else is paying the tab!

This entitlement attitude - and acceptance of the entitlement attitude - sucks. You people making excuses for this entitlement will see this bite you in the arse. And I'm going to be laughing from some other country whose society doesn't share your lame belief system that'll be eating your lunch in 20 years.

---

Entitlement??? A school provides education, room, and board. In exchange, a student engages in a risky activity with lifetime debilitating effects. The school pays the student nothing beyond what was previously mentioned, and reaps the benefits of ticket sales, merchandise sales, radio broadcast revenues, and television broadcast revenues.

"Exploitative" is the word I think you meant to write.

---

You have to be extremely educated (and probably a millenial SJW) to say something this stupid.

Less than 1% of D1 athletes earn money professionally. The monetary value of scholarships can exceed $100,000 annually -- tuition, housing, food, travel, resources -- even more so at some schools. This investment, at no cost to the individual, provides him/her with a college education that can set them up for a lifetime of financial and professional success that they may not have experienced had they not gotten a scholarship and possibly not gone to college at all. It is incredibly stupid and moronic -- and most importantly, demonstrably FALSE -- to say NCAA athletes are "exploited". The investment may often turn into a monetary value that is exponentially higher than the actual cost of the investment (that of course is free to them)

A small percentage who are unable to earn money off their likeness is the travesty of the NCAA -- not the fact that they're not paying them a stipend or salary.

---

You make a couple of fatal assumptions here:

- All college degrees have equal worth in the job market, which is demonstrably false
- You're equating potential benefit to real benefit. Universities make money off students now. A degree provides for the possibility of financial security later.
- I'm willing to acknowledge that a Berkeley degree is probably worth more in a job market than say, a degree from the University of Alabama-Birmingham. But these rules apply to all athletes from Cal to UAB, and in schools where the degree probably doesn't have as much value in the job market, equating the return on investment to be equivalent to the amount the school gets is faulty logic.

---

Everything is a choice. Yes, some degrees have more value. During recruitment it's the athletes that can make that choice of where they want to receive their degree from.

The NCAA is making money now, that's why I'm for not giving scholarships and paying athletes like it were their job. Make the athletes responsible for paying the tuition like every other student. They don't pay, they get dropped from class. If the tuition is 100k, pay them 100k.

ayetee11 said:

---

packawana said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

packawana said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

We should allow these types of transfers to only non Pac-12 teams. I don't get why we don't do that.

---

Can we please just acknowledge that we don't care that these are students who should have academic control over their future?

---

Sure, I'll acknowledge that. Since we paid for his degree. So, no, you don't get "freedom to do whatever you please" when someone else is paying the tab!

This entitlement attitude - and acceptance of the entitlement attitude - sucks. You people making excuses for this entitlement will see this bite you in the arse. And I'm going to be laughing from some other country whose society doesn't share your lame belief system that'll be eating your lunch in 20 years.

---

Entitlement??? A school provides education, room, and board. In exchange, a student engages in a risky activity with lifetime debilitating effects. The school pays the student nothing beyond what was previously mentioned, and reaps the benefits of ticket sales, merchandise sales, radio broadcast revenues, and television broadcast revenues.

"Exploitative" is the word I think you meant to write.

---

You have to be extremely educated (and probably a millenial SJW) to say something this stupid.

Less than 1% of D1 athletes earn money professionally. The monetary value of scholarships can exceed $100,000 annually -- tuition, housing, food, travel, resources -- even more so at some schools. This investment, at no cost to the individual, provides him/her with a college education that can set them up for a lifetime of financial and professional success that they may not have experienced had they not gotten a scholarship and possibly not gone to college at all. It is incredibly stupid and moronic -- and most importantly, demonstrably FALSE -- to say NCAA athletes are "exploited". The investment may often turn into a monetary value that is exponentially higher than the actual cost of the investment (that of course is free to them)

A small percentage who are unable to earn money off their likeness is the travesty of the NCAA -- not the fact that they're not paying them a stipend or salary.

---

You make a couple of fatal assumptions here:

- All college degrees have equal worth in the job market, which is demonstrably false
- You're equating potential benefit to real benefit. Universities make money off students now. A degree provides for the possibility of financial security later.
- I'm willing to acknowledge that a Berkeley degree is probably worth more in a job market than say, a degree from the University of Alabama-Birmingham. But these rules apply to all athletes from Cal to UAB, and in schools where the degree probably doesn't have as much value in the job market, equating the return on investment to be equivalent to the amount the school gets is faulty logic.

---

Everything is a choice. Yes, some degrees have more value. During recruitment it's the athletes that can make that choice of where they want to receive their degree from.

The NCAA is making money now, that's why I'm for not giving scholarships and paying athletes like it were their job. Make the athletes responsible for paying the tuition like every other student. They don't pay, they get dropped from class. If the tuition is 100k, pay them 100k.

---

If you think coaching staffs let athletes major in the degrees they want to major in at all times, you need to update that line of thought.

Glad that we have other punters and that Klumph has found a way to continue his education and his football career.

ayetee11 said:

---

Of all the players who left, how many would actually change the outcome of a game.

---

And to make the point the other way, Cal has been the beneficiary of grad transfers that did change the outcome of the game (e.g, Webb, Mullins in basketball, etc.).

IMO, a college asks players to play and graduate, and the rest is up to them. They have fulfilled their obligation.

Bear19 said:

---

packawana said:

---

Can we please just acknowledge that we don't care that these are students who should have academic control over their future?

---

The players are not transferring because of academics imo - one year grad programs are virtually worthless in the job market. They are transferring to get more playing time, pure & simple. Cal needs to come up with a way to offer an additional year of study to keep our fair share of these players.

---

So you think that our starting punter transferred because he wasn't getting enough playing time?

What the hell sense does that make?

Is there an offense more perfectly designed to get a punter playing time then CAL's?

Bear19 said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

What I don't like is it puts cal at another competitive disadvantage as it's tough to get into our grad schools, and we don't have one year grad programs, and we certainly don't have a one year masters of sports management degree

---

One year grad programs are worthless the job market. Agree that Cal needs to come up with a way (a Cal one year program) to offer players 5th year playing time to offer our fair share of transfers we actually want to keep. Let's not kid ourselves - this is only about a 5th year of playing time, not academics.

---

I am not sure why that assumption is made. How about a 2 year grad program but playing FB with a schollie for one year and paying for the second year. Using FB just to get into the program.
G'town does that in women's soccer, and the players benefit by being assisted getting into a very good program by the coach. Obviously the player must be qualified, but you must guess there is help that comes to bear.