What level of "infractions" would you be okay with?

[Hammerhead]

As much as we talk negatively about the SEC and those "hundred dollar handshakes" here, I'm surprised that anybody on this board would be okay with that sort of thing.

[teachercd]

What about the roids back in the 80s...Seemed like NU got some press about that.

[teachercd]

So, some are now ok with cheating? The lure of winning is so strong that the thing we prided ourselves on for years is now deemed acceptable.

 

 

SAD!

What do you consider cheating? Cause, NU got "in trouble" for "cheating" with those textbooks a few years back...I mean, to me, that is not a big deal...no issue at all...

[huskerfan2000]

 

So, some are now ok with cheating? The lure of winning is so strong that the thing we prided ourselves on for years is now deemed acceptable.

 

 

SAD!

What do you consider cheating? Cause, NU got "in trouble" for "cheating" with those textbooks a few years back...I mean, to me, that is not a big deal...no issue at all...

 

 

Ok, that is technically considered cheating by the NCAA. My thoughts are that it does nothing to help on field performance, does nothing to entice recruits, so I don't really consider it "cheating". Textbooks should be included in the schollie!

 

The roids deal is cheating and I sure as hell don't condone it, I am sure neither did TO. I am not ok with it happening.

 

In my opinion, if drugs like roids (nothing considered dangerous) were allowed, so that everyone could use them, the playing field would level a bit performance wise.

 

Paying players would not level the field, it would only increase the amount given under the table.

[cm husker]

What about the roids back in the 80s...Seemed like NU got some press about that.

 

(A) Guys definitely used (and probably still use) steroids. You'd be crazy not to today, with the dollars on the table, if you can get away with it. However, that's the case everywhere, even at the military academies.

 

(B) NU was one of hte first programs to institute wide net testing. http://journalstar.com/sports/football/college/steroid-tests-nothing-new-at-nu/article_6d2be569-b662-5055-aea3-8a32943c0601.html (partly because they were one of the few programs who could afford it).

 

But regardless, there's an important element that's missing in the comparison. It's one thing for coaches to not do enough to weed out cheating (whether it be booster handshakes or steroid use). It's quite another to condone, encourage or facilitate it.

 

I simply don't believe Tom Osborne ever condoned, encouraged or even facilitated the use of steroids. That's quite different than, say, a Barry Switzer or people at SMU actively endorsing cheating behavior.

 

Another article on steroid use in the 80s at NU. Highly recommend people read this article because of what he says at the end about why NU was consistently good year in and year out:

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-09-08/sports/sp-2456_1_bill-lewis

[cm husker]

 

 

So, some are now ok with cheating? The lure of winning is so strong that the thing we prided ourselves on for years is now deemed acceptable.

 

 

SAD!

What do you consider cheating? Cause, NU got "in trouble" for "cheating" with those textbooks a few years back...I mean, to me, that is not a big deal...no issue at all...

 

 

Ok, that is technically considered cheating by the NCAA. My thoughts are that it does nothing to help on field performance, does nothing to entice recruits, so I don't really consider it "cheating". Textbooks should be included in the schollie!

 

The roids deal is cheating and I sure as hell don't condone it, I am sure neither did TO. I am not ok with it happening.

 

In my opinion, if drugs like roids (nothing considered dangerous) were allowed, so that everyone could use them, the playing field would level a bit performance wise.

 

Paying players would not level the field, it would only increase the amount given under the table.

 

 

The "optional textbook" issue could actually be a little dicey, because it is theoretically a way to pass money to players. Many players get their free books and then turn around and sell them back to the bookstore (or other students) for cash. Giving the optional books is just more cash. I don't think there was malintent there, but I do see how it could be exploited as a loophole.

 

I agree with you on the roids thing... strict prohibition is doing two things right now: (1) driving kids to "designer" synthetics that can beat the test but may also be quite dangerous to them (kind of like what I saw in the military with synthetic drugs replacing weed and coke), and (2) given an advantage to the people who are willing to cheat. I'm a little conflicted on the "prisoner's dilemma" that would arise if roids were legalized, but I think it's a closer call than people admit.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree that paying players wouldn't be an overall gain. It would reduce the incentives of players to take money and it would give more moral authority to the establishment that would enforce the rules against improper benefits.

[Stumpy1]

I want SMU levels...Go big or go home!!!

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

So, some are now ok with cheating? The lure of winning is so strong that the thing we prided ourselves on for years is now deemed acceptable.

 

 

SAD!

What do you consider cheating? Cause, NU got "in trouble" for "cheating" with those textbooks a few years back...I mean, to me, that is not a big deal...no issue at all...

 

 

Ok, that is technically considered cheating by the NCAA. My thoughts are that it does nothing to help on field performance, does nothing to entice recruits, so I don't really consider it "cheating". Textbooks should be included in the schollie!

 

The roids deal is cheating and I sure as hell don't condone it, I am sure neither did TO. I am not ok with it happening.

 

In my opinion, if drugs like roids (nothing considered dangerous) were allowed, so that everyone could use them, the playing field would level a bit performance wise.

 

Paying players would not level the field, it would only increase the amount given under the table.

 

 

The "optional textbook" issue could actually be a little dicey, because it is theoretically a way to pass money to players. Many players get their free books and then turn around and sell them back to the bookstore (or other students) for cash. Giving the optional books is just more cash. I don't think there was malintent there, but I do see how it could be exploited as a loophole.

 

I agree with you on the roids thing... strict prohibition is doing two things right now: (1) driving kids to "designer" synthetics that can beat the test but may also be quite dangerous to them (kind of like what I saw in the military with synthetic drugs replacing weed and coke), and (2) given an advantage to the people who are willing to cheat. I'm a little conflicted on the "prisoner's dilemma" that would arise if roids were legalized, but I think it's a closer call than people admit.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree that paying players wouldn't be an overall gain. It would reduce the incentives of players to take money and it would give more moral authority to the establishment that would enforce the rules against improper benefits.

 

 

 

To the Bold.. How would paying players stop money changing hands under the table to get certain players to come to your school? You are assuming the players that take money would all of a sudden gain morals.

[cm husker]

First, let's take the "morality" issue off the table. It's not immoral for a player to take money. That doesn't give him a competitive advantage. Taking money is per se evil. Taking money is malum prohibitum. It's not more immoral than speeding (and much less dangerous).

 

Second, as I said, it would reduce the incentive for kids to take money because it would no longer between taking the risk of accepting benifits or being poor. Would some kids still take money? Yes, of course. But I wouldn't feel like an a-hole cracking down on them like I do under the current scheme where schools and university town economies make a ton off of these kids while they are told they can't take money and can't work during a season (and often don't have a scholarship that covers the real cost of school, despite spending 40 to 60 hours a week with the team).

[teachercd]

As I think about some of this I really think that if I was in that position and was being offered free dinners, drinks and cash just because I was a player...I think that I would probably be taking it. I might not even think much about it if I was out grabbing some pizza and drinks and the waiter came over and was like "Hey, just wanted to let you know that the bill has been taken care of"

 

The textbook thing as a way to pass money...that was pretty interesteing and whoever pointed that out is totally right.

 

ColoradoHusker and myself had a friend that would, at times, "get books for free at the bookstore" and would of course return them for cash.

[huskerfan2000]

First, let's take the "morality" issue off the table. It's not immoral for a player to take money. That doesn't give him a competitive advantage. Taking money is per se evil. Taking money is malum prohibitum. It's not more immoral than speeding (and much less dangerous).

 

Second, as I said, it would reduce the incentive for kids to take money because it would no longer between taking the risk of accepting benifits or being poor. Would some kids still take money? Yes, of course. But I wouldn't feel like an a-hole cracking down on them like I do under the current scheme where schools and university town economies make a ton off of these kids while they are told they can't take money and can't work during a season (and often don't have a scholarship that covers the real cost of school, despite spending 40 to 60 hours a week with the team).

 

In your opinion it isn't. In my opinion it is.

 

You yourself just said you didn't want slimballs like "John Blake" a part of this program, Why, because they cheated? Isn't cheating a lack or morality? Isn't taking money under the table cheating?

 

The definition of morality is:

 

conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

Paying players under the table is a lack of morality, and subsequently accepting money is as well. Paying players above the table is not a morality issue, but it won't change the lack of morals by those seeking to get recruits at all costs.It won't reduce anything, it will increase the amount giving under the table.In the end , though, you agree it wouldn't stop!

You act like the kids are not gaining anything from this, or that they are made to do this. They don't have to play football, which by the way enables them the chance at HUGE money in the NFL, offers them a FREE education, a free Masters degree. Tell me how that hurts you in anyway in the job field? it doesn't, you have a leg up on everyone else!

yeah, poor kids being used!

[huskerfan2000]

As I think about some of this I really think that if I was in that position and was being offered free dinners, drinks and cash just because I was a player...I think that I would probably be taking it. I might not even think much about it if I was out grabbing some pizza and drinks and the waiter came over and was like "Hey, just wanted to let you know that the bill has been taken care of"

 

The textbook thing as a way to pass money...that was pretty interesteing and whoever pointed that out is totally right.

 

ColoradoHusker and myself had a friend that would, at times, "get books for free at the bookstore" and would of course return them for cash.

 

Yeah, I am sure that happens a lot, but it could be stopped very easily (the schools I mean). What drives this? MONEY!!! That would not stop (the desire for more money), even if players are paid!!! They would just want more (this was more pointed to cmhusker)

[cm husker]

 

First, let's take the "morality" issue off the table. It's not immoral for a player to take money. That doesn't give him a competitive advantage. Taking money is per se evil. Taking money is malum prohibitum. It's not more immoral than speeding (and much less dangerous).

 

Second, as I said, it would reduce the incentive for kids to take money because it would no longer between taking the risk of accepting benifits or being poor. Would some kids still take money? Yes, of course. But I wouldn't feel like an a-hole cracking down on them like I do under the current scheme where schools and university town economies make a ton off of these kids while they are told they can't take money and can't work during a season (and often don't have a scholarship that covers the real cost of school, despite spending 40 to 60 hours a week with the team).

 

In your opinion it isn't. In my opinion it is.

 

You yourself just said you didn't want slimballs like "John Blake" a part of this program, Why, because they cheated? Isn't cheating a lack or morality? Isn't taking money under the table cheating?

 

The definition of morality is:

 

conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

Paying players under the table is a lack of morality, and subsequently accepting money is as well. Paying players above the table is not a morality issue, but it won't change the lack of morals by those seeking to get recruits at all costs.It won't reduce anything, it will increase the amount giving under the table.In the end , though, you agree it wouldn't stop!

You act like the kids are not gaining anything from this, or that they are made to do this. They don't have to play football, which by the way enables them the chance at HUGE money in the NFL, offers them a FREE education, a free Masters degree. Tell me how that hurts you in anyway in the job field? it doesn't, you have a leg up on everyone else!

yeah, poor kids being used!

 

 

 

I agree that paying players demonstrates a lack of morality because it is a form of cheating that gives you a competitive advantage. Receiving payments? Not so much.

 

Anyway, you're entire argument seems to be:

Don't give all players some pay, because it won't fix that some players still accept improper benefits.

 

That is not really a logical response.

 

Can you explain why it's bad to pay players without defaulting to "it doesn't fix a separate problem of cheating"?

[The Dude]

I'd be okay with using Devany and Osborne as the benchmark here.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

First, let's take the "morality" issue off the table. It's not immoral for a player to take money. That doesn't give him a competitive advantage. Taking money is per se evil. Taking money is malum prohibitum. It's not more immoral than speeding (and much less dangerous).

 

Second, as I said, it would reduce the incentive for kids to take money because it would no longer between taking the risk of accepting benifits or being poor. Would some kids still take money? Yes, of course. But I wouldn't feel like an a-hole cracking down on them like I do under the current scheme where schools and university town economies make a ton off of these kids while they are told they can't take money and can't work during a season (and often don't have a scholarship that covers the real cost of school, despite spending 40 to 60 hours a week with the team).

 

In your opinion it isn't. In my opinion it is.

 

You yourself just said you didn't want slimballs like "John Blake" a part of this program, Why, because they cheated? Isn't cheating a lack or morality? Isn't taking money under the table cheating?

 

The definition of morality is:

 

conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

Paying players under the table is a lack of morality, and subsequently accepting money is as well. Paying players above the table is not a morality issue, but it won't change the lack of morals by those seeking to get recruits at all costs.It won't reduce anything, it will increase the amount giving under the table.In the end , though, you agree it wouldn't stop!

You act like the kids are not gaining anything from this, or that they are made to do this. They don't have to play football, which by the way enables them the chance at HUGE money in the NFL, offers them a FREE education, a free Masters degree. Tell me how that hurts you in anyway in the job field? it doesn't, you have a leg up on everyone else!

yeah, poor kids being used!

 

 

 

I agree that paying players demonstrates a lack of morality because it is a form of cheating that gives you a competitive advantage. Receiving payments? Not so much.

 

Anyway, you're entire argument seems to be:

Don't give all players some pay, because it won't fix that some players still accept improper benefits.

 

That is not really a logical response.

 

Can you explain why it's bad to pay players without defaulting to "it doesn't fix a separate problem of cheating"?

 

 

Now wait a minute.. it is a lack of morality to offer money, but not if you accept it? What kind of logic is that?

 

No, my stance is they are already getting a quality education for free.