Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: Bob S [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 13:40:44 01/22/25 Wed In reply to: Richard 's message, "Ivy Response To House Case" on 22:43:30 01/21/25 Tue Is the case that the former Brown athletes brought against the league per athletic scholarships being appealed? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: Richard (Kent) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:57:55 01/22/25 Wed No. That is Choh. This is a case in which the Ivies will have to pay for the retro payments, but not get the benefits in the future. It will be the on only league outn of 33 not participating. It will be the only league not sharing revenue. It is actually funny at this point. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: Richard (Kent) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:02:49 01/24/25 Fri I find it a bit odd that no one seems intererested in a decision by the league which shall reverberate for years and years. You can read the DP on this, or the Harvard Crimson or me in Ivy Hoops Online. To be one out of 33 conferences or leagues opting out is a tinge of arrogance. Especially when there are no compunctions about accepting buy game money of $90,000 per game. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: sparman [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:07:30 01/24/25 Fri I don't see how it is arrogant to believe in and reiterate an education model, especially in this situation where the alternative is to jump into what everyone acknowledges is a cesspool that will only get worse. Nobody I know calls D3 schools arrogant for choosing not to give athletic scholarships. Hiring professional football and basketball players might suit Rutgers' purposes, but that doesn't mean everyone else must follow. And reading some of the Penn athlete comments in the DP, I think Penn shouldn't miss getting more of them. For example: “Ivy League schools are under the impression that they can take, use, and reuse their athletes and give them nothing in return.” - No, IL schools are under the impression that they offer a great lifetime opportunity, and that if you don't like the terms they ask, then you need not accept the opportunity. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: Quaker62 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:04:51 01/24/25 Fri To quote Pete Carril: “Once you join the rat race, you are by definition, a rat.” [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: Richard (Kent) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:44:59 01/24/25 Fri Man, oh man are you missing the issue here, through Ivy generated lenses. This is REVENUE share, not unfettered pay for pay. One more time, Brown got $90,000 for going to Kansas and Kentucky in December. That is what rev share is for. Yale-Princeton will be on lofty ESPN2 on Jan. 31. That is rev share.Is that a cesspool? I think not. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: Richard (Kent) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:49:59 01/24/25 Fri Query: If Sotomayor and Thomas can agree on a singular issue, might it have prima facie validity? [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If the public isn't interested, then it isn't. Author: Valmas (Stoic) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:31:29 01/24/25 Fri Don't understand why threads drawing little to zero interest are not sooner expunged - as some others are which attract a measured level of discussion. I mean, clearly, when an individual initiates a thread and then puts himself in the position of reposting five or more times to make it appear somebody's taking them sort of seriously - q.e.d., time to go. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: sparman [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 19:46:18 01/24/25 Fri I am a confirmed capitalist, but that doesn't mean I want every institution I support, like my church, to become revenue driven. Why would ivies be more interested in revenue sharing than foundational educational objectives? You are looking at college sports through the lens of maximizing revenue. Understandable for Rutgers and other so-called power conference schools that are merely sponsoring pro sport franchises. Not so much for schools committed to other goals. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: Holtsledge [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:50:19 01/27/25 Mon If youvare a confirmed capitalist then you need to listen to 5 finger death punch's "American Capitalist" unless you're not a fan of that genre. It pops up on my Pandora station when I walk in the morning [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:47:55 01/27/25 Mon You be you, holtsie. Hope you're well. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: Tiger69 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:51:25 01/29/25 Wed Thanks Sparman. You express my views on this issue better than I can. I am happy with the path taken by the Ivies through this depressing invasion of Big $ into college sports. For Ivy students athletics will still be extracurricular and not revenue drivers for the Athletic Department. Even with the above cited appearance fees the role of Ivy athletic departments is to serve the students rather than the other way around. Predictably they operate at a considerable expense to each League member [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: Bob S [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 18:15:12 01/24/25 Fri The question may be asked: Why does the Ivy League compete in Division I and play schools like Kansas and Kentucky that are in the so-called "crsspool". [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Response To House Case Author: observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:11:20 01/25/25 Sat And why is it always so proud to win Division I championships in select sports like Ice Hockey and Lacrosse and Fencing? When you compete with cesspool schools, doesn't the stink rub off on you? [ Post a Reply to This Message ]