zeWilbur

I agree that the Women's Soccer CBA is terrible. However, they do have guaranteed money contracts where I'm pretty sure the men do not. That part keeps getting overlooked when numbers get discussed and it is a pretty big deal.

"Revolutionary" is a great word to describe this as it would burn everything down. Using the merit model you describe would mean that non-revenue producing sports would have unpaid athletes.That would be a title IX nightmare. Egalitarian and elitist systems do not play well together. That is why some of us are reticent to entertain this "revolution".

Maybe. How much of that is Frost turning over the roster?

California has lost more taxpayers than it has gained from other states every year in this decade. Worst rate in the country but still less than 1% of California's population. The 'exodus' term is overblown. Also, the 6.5% you reference includes birth and immigration so a bit of apples and oranges going on.

I generally agree with the sentiment but the data has been skewed higher and is being treated as gospel. Some of your numbers are a gross exaggeration. I don't blame you at all as these have been told so many times people just stopped questioning them. Maybe this is better suited in a different forum but I think it is relevant here. tl;dr The numbers are bad enough already so why do people inflate them? It just distracts from the discussion. This is not a statement on whether the two players are right or wrong, just a missive pointing out a few issues with some generally accepted "truths" from the greater debate. Questioning the validity of numbers is not an argument that no issue exists, only to question the voracity of the claims from the data in question. That way we can have the same conversation and make progress without disagreeing on the facts. The internet can not be trusted. Do your own research people. Please. Here is a link to the 2019 survey the numbers are pulled from: https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/FULL_2019_Campus_Climate_Survey.pdf "80% of rapes or assaults are not reported because of you and your ilk. That's a fact. " That comes from this BJS report and is an extrapolated opinion. Unfortunately, proving a negative is notoriously difficult. At best it is an educated guess but it is certainly not a fact. "1 in 5 women is raped in college. That's a fact." - That is not a fact. That is a conflation of any unwanted touching and penetration, at best, from the 2015 version of this survey. The numbers are up a bit in the 2019 iteration over 2015. 15.3% reported unwanted touching, 10% reported unwanted penetration or an attempt at such (this is interesting only because it is the only time an 'unsuccessful attempt' is mentioned in the data set that I could find. 2.5% of female respondents were in both categories. The numbers from the BJS across all sexual assault categories for that age range is actually 6.1/1000 per year from 1995-2013, including men and women. Even if that is only 20% of actual (given the claim of 80% unreported) then you are at 30.5/1000. You would still need another 656% increase to make it to 200/1000. This is simply an absurd claim. "Nearly 1 in 10 women has been raped by someone she knows. That's a fact. " - That is not a fact. Perhaps this is just poorly worded. The majority (~85% of respondents) are victims of someone they know. So I am left to believe we have abandoned the college scope and entered the US as a whole. The current reported US rape rates are about 2.1(female age 12+) per 1000 in a given year, and has been trending down for decades. This makes things much more difficult as focusing on what has happened in a roughly 4 year window and opens up a whole can of worms. Using 2010 census data there are 117282036 women over 18. We have sexual assault data for 12+ but no census data for 12+. Using the 12+ number would only strengthen the 1 in 10 argument. Also using the assault BJS data from 1990 of 3/1000 ( worst number in the past 30 years I could find that wasn't estimated), and multiplying by 5 to grant the 80% argument, it would still take almost 67 years to hit 10% of the eligible population assuming no duplicates in the data. That does indicate a possibility that 1 in 10 women (over 18) may be raped in their lives. This is where most people just stop looking. But we can't forget that includes rape and unwanted touching numbers. The majority of those numbers are unwanted touching independent of rape. To err high I will assume half of those claims are rape. That changes it to 1 in 20 that a woman might be raped. Then, using the college survey, we can use ~85% having known their attacker, the number supporting that statement change to 1 in 26. That is the most favorable number I can come up with to support the statement "Nearly 1 in 10 women has been raped by someone she knows." and it is very generous. Getting back to the college survey... To me the most interesting part of the survey analysis being ignored was table A4.5 (Apendix 4-18). This table analyzed "Direction of non-response bias according to analysis of incentive groups for 10 outcome measures, by gender and affiliation status". It isn't made tangible in the result set but it is mathematically significant. - Penetration by Physical Force or Inability to Consent. There is one significant difference. The difference for undergraduate females is negative, indicating the survey estimates is too high. - Penetration or Sexual Touching without Ongoing Consent. There is one significant difference. The difference for undergraduate females is negative, indicating the survey estimates is too high. - Intimate Partner Violence. There is two significant difference. The differences for undergraduate males and females are negative, indicating the survey estimates are too high. Hopefully this was appreciated.

tl;dr - Testosterone is throwing gasoline on a fire and we can't know when anybody's kicks in. Think of it like a growth spurt but for filling out instead of getting taller. The "seasoned lifter" argument is great but I feel it is more applicable to an upperclassmen. I think we are missing a crucial factor in this. He is a 18/19 year old kid and the hormones are raging. Every kid is different so you never know how/when it will hit. Anecdotally I think back to the summer before my senior year in high school. Doing T&F summer was my time off. I sat around my friends pool and played video games all day. I miss those days... Regardless, when school started up I had put on 15 pounds (205 to 220) and all my lifts increased about 10%. I have no idea what happened with muscle vs. fat so I won't make any claims but I would bet bone density was in there too. I had been lifting about 3 years at that point and was in shock that I had improved that much just sitting around. Even crazier, It happened again the next year. I thought it would just go like that forever. I was an idiot. Probably still am. But I would think a kid with better genes than mine would have something kick in similarly at some point. Combine that with actually lifting and eating well over a year and it wouldn't surprise me if they could put on 30 pounds of good weight in a year, but certainly not not every year.

If a kid needs two years to develop then he isn't a day one starter. A day one starter is simply better than what you currently have, not what every school currently has. Some kid that needs two years to develop into a starter at Alabama might be physically ready to start as a freshman at Nebraska based on their current rosters.

I disagree because it is a subjective statement. A day one starter at Nebraska might not be at Alabama. The statement is about recruiting yourself forward no matter where your team is at right now. We all want the 5 star kids but 3's and 4's can still meet the need.

I would disagree about how a NG should be in a 3-4. The stalemate is great but he only takes one block. Both of the ends eat two. That is more useful even if they give ground (within reason). Unfortunately Honas blitzes (or reads run ridiculously quickly) on the weak side A gap. This play already had a numbers advantage to the strong side and that made it worse. Barry wasn't able to flow to the hole and Bootle can't make up the difference. If TR is able to eat two blocks this is a very different play.

They can't, in the B1G at least. Every player could quit the team tomorrow and their scholarships are honored through at least 4 years if they are still getting the grades. It goes into a non-athletic distinction so it doesn't count against the 85 limit. The training camps are usually paid for by the agents who recoup when the checks start rolling in. They won't pay for the camps unless they are pretty darned sure they are getting their money back. Lower tier kids usually work out at their usual facilities with the coaches blessing.

Sure. I would be on board with the FU-NCAA. The NCAA's spineless inconsistency neutered my faith in them years ago. Even if you removed the concerns of smaller schools I am not sure how you keep the same issues (corruption, lack of consistency, etc.) from happening. And if you were willing to go that far why not just separate from the schools completely and have a legitimate minor league? I don't want to strawman you but I haven't been able to think of a way to allow for any 'pay the players' type action without creating a best team money can buy scenario. How happy would you be losing indefinitely to Iowa because a T. Boone Pickens type figure emerged and bankrolled them because he "decided" that every player's autograph was worth at least $100k/year? No one in the B1G West (and likely the East) would be able to compete and every year would be a race for second at best. I just don't see that as a field all but 2-3 schools can compete on and would rather not ruin everything in pursuit of it. I am also not sure of which schools it would be but history tells me a few would likely be in Texas. And to head off the silliness Warren Buffet has already said he will never be that guy for us.

Every major sports manages by having a single centralized power and players with collective bargaining. To accomplish that you would need every P5 and G5 school to give up whatever their specific benefits are so the NCAA can redistribute it in a 'fair' manner a la NFL, MLB, NHL. It would very likely take care of your concerns. However, you already feel that the NCAA is "unbelievably corrupt and greedy". I am not disagreeing at all. So the answer is giving them more power?

No worries. I know some of these are hot button issues and message boards are great for venting sometimes. The funny thing is that I generally agree with you. There is too much money involved and it isn't going anywhere. I just disagree with implementing a third party solution as way to make things equitable. If the argument is that the schools are making too much money then third party money will never solve that 'problem'. As long as even one player gets nothing extra people will cry foul. That is why I think it has to be solved at the school or conference level, at least. The other issue is the general likeness rights. People have rights to their likeness. However, every job I have ever had has required signing away at least my intellectual property and likeness rights in some capacity while I worked there. All occurred voluntarily as a condition of the job. I don't see this as any different. And If your boss decided that your wage would be largely replaced with benefits you would likely find another job. Others might not. This is entirely voluntary. Even offering athletic scholarships is something NU does voluntarily. I have been thinking about potential unintended consequences. Even if we assume no ill will or bagman related shenanigans: Let's say you are a stud high school athlete. Your senior year get a multi-year deal with Nike (because top 50-100 athletes will ALL have Nike/Adidas type deals) and everyone is thrilled. You get your money and Nike gets you as their billboard. Now you start looking at colleges. You can't go to an Adidas school because it would violate your contract and you are happy with your Nike contract. So you go to a Nike school. Fast forward a bit, your contract is still valid but the school switches to Adidas. You could transfer and sit out a year but that would make you less valuable for your next shoe deal. Can you sue the school to keep them from changing affiliations? Technically yes, because you have a financial standing. Can this be taken one step further and be used as to hold up conference realignment and tv deals because your lawyer thinks it could make you less valuable? Absolutely.

Sure, go to your boss and tell them that the free food, housing, cutting edge training facilities, top tier coaches/trainers, full time nutritionist, and 'job training' for the your life goals simply don't count because it isn't cash in hand. Except a living stipend which is cash but still doesn't count because it isn't enough... apparently. My problem isn't that you don't think it's fair, the problem is that your argument is completely dismissive of the other side and it is condescending. If you wanted to make an argument about some arbitrary amount needing to be met and having the school/booster/bagman make up the difference from what they already get we can have a great conversation around it. But it seems some want to take a match to the whole thing to get to something they think is "fair". Some of us disagree.

Not that great? The average degree fron any school will add about $1m in salary over a lifetime compared to just high school. An engineering degree can add another 2-3 million on top of that. All without the cost of acquiring the degree. UNL doesn't have to be that great. Just average is life changing.

This will be exactly as effective as Colorado making marijuana legal. Until the NCAA changes the rules, or the athletes stop participating on a voluntary basis, nothing will change.

Good stuff. You are a little off when looking at the 4* upperclassmen. Of the 8 4* upperclassmen only 3 (Raridon, Lee, Anderson) have been beaten out. The others (4) are Farniok, Darrion Daniels, Dismuke, and Jackson. The extra body is Jahkeem Green and he is new/likely redshirting. 12 of the 20 4* are underclassmen. 8 of those are freshman. Only 5 of the 12 underclassmen 4* are playing significant minutes at this point. (Martinez, Washington, Robinson, Jurgens, Tannor) The biggest short term impact should come from the defense. There is at least one 4* redshirting this year at every level of the defense. If Frost can keep the wheels on then we should see some level of depth and consistency around year 4. All that's left to do is hurry up and wait.

He is still very skinny (but is only a junior) and it shows when he is at camps. 24/7 has him at 250 lb, rivals at 282lb. As he keeps filling out and 24/7 updates their rankings he will probably get a nice bump.

The confusion comes because this is not an explicit rule but derived from other rules. 1. When a player is out of bounds and touches the ball the ball is considered out of bounds. 2. A player cannot voluntarily leave and be the next person to touch the ball. That is illegal touching. But the trick is that the player never came back in. So it isn't illegal touching. 3. The possession never changes so, technically, the kicking team performed a kick-off that was ruled out of bounds before a change of possession and was not a touchback. Hence, the kick was out of bounds.

Amazingly even better than that. 103-8 in the last 8 years(2011-2018) 142-15 back to 2008 (when the Saban dominance began) including the 3 wins this season.

Neither. He was taking about how someone's brain isn't done developing until around 25 years old. Use before then can cause negative effects but are not catastrophic. Similar argument to alcohol.

They aren't doing 1/4 squats, just stopping a little too early on parallel. Here is a reason for doing 1/4 squats: A primary reason is more practical strength focus. Football players spend almost no time engaged with other players in a parallel (or lower) squat position. Using full range movements sound great but the weaker links in the chain will never be strong enough to handle the weights that the stronger portions can. Hence a reason for not being too strict with parallel. The potential trade-off is muscle imbalance. Usually this shows up in injuries across the team in obvious patterns, i.e. the Pelini era and hamstrings. As we do not know everything that Duval is doing, and why, to offset this it is just grumpy speculation. The safe answer is the 'old school' answer. Sacrifice maximal performance to limit injuries. That is a great answer for high school. However, in a cutting edge college training environment you will always be behind.

If you don't see improvement on the field it doesn't really matter how much they are lifting. Probably better to just let it go than embarrass kids that were just doing what they were told.

They are really useful for weightlifting competitions where you need an exact number on the bar taking the collars into account. Here is a rundown of pretty much every type of collar imaginable (even the Husker Power collars made the list!). The good stuff is on the bottom of the list.