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: Personally, I think its inconsistent... Author: Go Green [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 17:22:58 04/15/24 Mon In reply to: An Observer 's message, "Re: I mean..." on 16:10:04 04/15/24 Mon For Ivy fans to oppose unionization efforts because playing for an Ivy team is an honor and a privilege.... ... but still want the Ivy to step up to form collectives to pay players big NIL money. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Personally, I think its inconsistent... Author: Bengal [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:41:11 04/15/24 Mon You can think that if you want to, but this is apples and oranges. On the one hand, you have college athletes claiming an employer-employee relationship that does not exist. On the other, a voluntary effort to pay college athletes ostensibly for their NIL. I am not in favor of the Ivies going the big bucks route just yet, but it requires constant review and some steps in that direction may be necessary. I find it a bad situation and don’t really have answers.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Personally, I think its inconsistent... Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 20:10:35 04/15/24 Mon I oppose unionization efforts for the exact opposite of the reasons you cited. To wit, As Bengal said, college athletes are not employees of their universities. Period. As a lawyer, you should appreciate that more than most. I hope that all eight of the Ivies will not initiate or assist any efforts by their alumni or local businesses to pay their athletes. NIL deals might be legal, but I want as few of them as possible in my conference. If Yale beating Auburn is to be the last ever victory of an Ivy League team in the NCAA men's basketball tournament, so be it. It was a great, dramatic win -- I still get jitters thinking about it. Like hitting a half-court shot at the end of practice, Yale-Auburn was "one to end on." I think we'll be fine. As a conference, we won from time to time when we didn't have a single player who could start for the opposing team in March Madness. It may not be quite as fun, but sometimes you don't get everything you want in life, a lesson I hope those Dartmouth players learn the hard way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Personally, I think its inconsistent... Author: Son of Eli [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:17:38 04/16/24 Tue If one believes in meritocracy what is wrong with student athletes being treated differently than the rest of the student body? They represent the best of the student body, now more than ever. While many other students are denigrating the reputations of their institutions through radical political positions and protests based on marxism and antisemitism, athletes bolster their school reputations through their diligence and dedication to their craft. It is right and proper for them to have the opportunity to earn athletic scholarships and NIL money.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Personally, I think its inconsistent... Author: Tiger69 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:09:10 04/16/24 Tue Gee, Son of Eli, I think you’re onto something 🤔. Since football players represent the peak of meritocracy and “the best of the student body” as well as “bolster their school reputations”, we should be throwing money and extra perks at them — perhaps a degreed Dept. of Sports., so they wouldn’t have to mix with those other less worthy radicals, protesters, history and physics majors and the like.. We must learn from the Alabamas, Georgias and L.S.U. whose players clearly represent the leaders of tomorrow 😁.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Personally, I think its inconsistent... Author: remember it well [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:20:38 04/16/24 Tue I think you could have made a more constructive set of opinions without the sarcasm. I share SOE's admiration of our Ivy student athletes. With all due respect to Alabama, Georgia and LSU why not learn from Stanford, Duke and Northwestern.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I understand your point but... Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:54:45 04/17/24 Wed But to me, it's a very open question whether Stanford and Duke are in a Power Conference in five years.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I understand your point but... Author: Ghost [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:16:15 04/17/24 Wed Neither will be left behind as they represent the best of the best, especially Stanford, which is annually in the Top 5 for the Director's Cup, which symbolizes across-the-board excellence.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The Big 10 didn't seem to care Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:25:45 04/17/24 Wed If the Big 10 didn't want Stanford, why would the Big 12? And would Stanford even be able to stomach being part of the Big 12? As for Duke, UConn has won back-to-back titles and is a good bet to win a third. And... no (football) Power league wants them. (Of course, all this is predicated on the ACC imploding in the next few years...)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: The Big 10 didn't seem to care Author: joiseyfan [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:39:22 04/17/24 Wed I’m really excited to replicate Duke basketball and its five members of the transfer portal.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I understand your point but... Author: Ghost [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:42:33 04/17/24 Wed The Big 10 didn't want Stanford? Can you provide some proof of that? I wasn't aware of those discussions. Perhaps Stanford and Cal together looked at the ACC as a better option (weather, new rivalries with Duke/UVA/UNC). Certainly better academic institutions than the Big XII. UConn is geographically undesirable.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I understand your point but... This Is How It Worked for Millennia Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:56:18 04/17/24 Wed Of course the Big Ten didn't want Stanford. Two years ago, the Big Ten was like Genghis Khan or a Mormon husband in a polygamous household. The Big Ten looked at all the pretty girls and the not-so-pretty girls of the Pac 12 and decided that he wanted to sleep with USC and UCLA. Then all the other girls said, "Hey, look at my beautiful hair and perky breasts." The Big Ten took another look and said, "Yes, I can see that. The one in Seattle and the one in Eugene do have attractive figures. I like the special dresses you put on for me. Okay, you two can come, too." Everybody else was left behind. Including without a doubt the really smart but not so pretty girl in Palo Alto.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I wouldn't have used those terms, but... Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:21:46 04/17/24 Wed What AO said. Stanford is actually PAYING the ACC to let them play in the conference. Usually it's the other way around. There's no shortage of discussion on the topic. Feel free to google "Why the Big 10 didn't want Stanford" or something comparable to catch up if you wish...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I wouldn't have used those terms, but... Author: Ghost [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:27:04 04/17/24 Wed I believe you, but don't you find that hard to believe? Maybe they didn't want the prettiest girl coming to the dance, which is what Stanford would've been. And how could they not invite Duquesne (only kidding, of course)?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I wouldn't have used those terms, but... Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:35:53 04/17/24 Wed Stanford is the smartest girl at the dance -- by far. But she ain't pretty. And the market has once again, as it has for the last 200,000 years of human existence, voted on whether it wants the smart girl or the pretty girl.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I wouldn't have used those terms, but... Author: Ghost [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:04:02 04/17/24 Wed I did Google it, on your suggestion, and it came down to media market size, that the Bay Area was not large enough. Was Portland (Oregon/Oregon State) or Omaha (Nebraska) large enough? Have a feeling they didn't want two outstanding academic places, including the premier academic/athletic place, infringing on enrollment.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I wouldn't have used those terms, but... Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:38:59 04/17/24 Wed I think that the Big Ten had two considerations: local media market size AND attractiveness of football brand name. You are correct that, from the perspective of all sports, Stanford is the most successful athletic department in the country. One thing that I've never understood is why Ivy athletic departments and Harvard in particular are so proud of sponsoring so many sports. Literally, nobody cares about women's rugby. Why would any school sponsor women's rugby, other than to get more female athletes on campus to offset football for Title IX purposes? What was shocking (at some level) is when Stanford announced that it was dropping about a dozen sports for financial reasons. So even if you're winning national championships in a sport like water polo or sailing or rugby, it's difficult to justify the financial cost, not to mention of course the REAL cost, the slots at the admission office. So the market has once again spoken. Nobody -- as in the Big Ten or any other conference -- finds your hair to be beautiful or your breasts to be perky because you have a national championship water polo team. Football talks. Everything else walks. That's why USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon were deemed attractive while Stanford was not.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I wouldn't have used those terms, but... Author: Ghost [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:55:03 04/17/24 Wed Excellent points, for sure. To try and answer your question about sponsoring so many sports, from my experience in the league and talking with admissions people, is that diversity in the undergraduate pool is a prime motivator. I remember discussing this with our admissions guy and he said, "we could fill this place with nerds who score 2300-2400 but what kind of a place would we have?" It's the extra curricular stuff that gets one applicant the edge- being on the debate team, doing community service work, playing in the band, being on a team- those things lift one over another. Maybe playing a non-glamorous, non-revenue sport shows a level of commitment to other students and to the school that the nerdy, 2380 SAT student who's spending his/her free time in the library, doesn't. And they're all paying customers, right?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Incoming ... Author: sparman [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:59:02 04/17/24 Wed "Literally, nobody cares about women's rugby."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Incoming ... Author: Ghost [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:10:38 04/17/24 Wed Except those 25 paying customers who may be leaders in student government or 4.0 students lifting the entire department's GPA. Remember saying the same thing about women's basketball 20 years ago? Or about fencing three weeks ago?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Incoming ... The Market is Not Interested in Equity or Fairness or Being Nice Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:27:22 04/17/24 Wed I'm not defending the status quo, far from it. But human nature is human nature. And history is history. Here's a fascinating factoid from the Grey Lady herself: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/magazine/dating-after-50.html?searchResultPosition=1 According to a 2018 study by two professors at the University of Michigan who analyzed 186,000 messages between heterosexual subscribers on an unnamed "public and large" online dating website, at what age do you think a man peaks in his attractiveness to women? Need to think about it for a second? This would include I presume the usual desired attributes of physical attractiveness but also professional accomplishment, maturity and economic means. The answer is 50. A man peaks in his attractiveness to women at age 50. After sifting through the same database of heterosexual subscribers on the dating website, the Michigan researchers found that women peak in their attractiveness at. . . . Wanna guess? 18. A female subscriber on Match or Tinder or whatever peaks in her attractiveness to male subscribers at 18, the earliest age at which she is legally allowed to join, and declines uninterrupted from there. Well, the 50-year-old man is the Big Ten and the SEC. The 18-year-old woman is football. The twenty-five players on the women's rugby teams and the fans who follow them are 50-year-old women, which the New York Times in this article calls "invisible." It's not fair. It's not right. But once again, the market has spoken.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Incoming ... The Market is Not Interested in Equity or Fairness or Being Nice Author: Ghost [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:50:11 04/17/24 Wed Who cares if it's not a spectator sport. How many years did we/do we endure empty gymnasiums (WBB) or empty stands at field hockey venues or fencing salles? Are we basing the continuance of these sports on revenue generation, fan attendance or the fact they bring a different, diverse group of students to campus?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Incoming ... The Market is Not Interested in Equity or Fairness or Being Nice Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:16:55 04/17/24 Wed I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I'm saying the market disagrees with you. In this case, the market is the conferences with the money and the leverage, that is, the Big Ten and the SEC. I'm certainly with you in the following way: Over the very very very long run, what determines the prestige of a university? In the short run, it might be bumped up by a winning football or basketball team, but only a little and not for long. In the longer run, a university's prestige is impacted by Nobel Prizes its faculty wins and Rhodes Scholarships its seniors win. And like it or not, fair or not, a university's prestige is impacted by its ranking in the US News Best Colleges list. That's why schools like Columbia and Penn have gamed the system so aggressively. But in the very very very long run, a university's prestige is determined most directly by the achievements and renown of its graduates. I hope that science advances so much that all of us could still be around in a century. Ivy League and other elite universities are doing so much social engineering in their student bodies right now that I am fascinated by how and how much their alumni achieve and accomplish over the next century. There might not be too much difference between them because certainly all of the Ivies are playing out of the exact same playbook. The same desire for diversity, the same political screen and so forth. But I wonder whether the alumni of, say, 2024 Ivies will contribute and achieve the way that the alumni of 1964 Ivies did. What about 2024 HYP and 1964 HYP? There are a lot of other variables in the mix, too, of course, but I want to see what happens in the long run to these whining, hyper-left-leaning students. I don't think it will be pretty.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Incoming ... The Market is Not Interested in Equity or Fairness or Being Nice Author: Ghost [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:38:51 04/17/24 Wed I can't disagree with you and I have a feeling that's mutual. The Ivies have NEVER related anything in Athletics to the market. Never invested (in a big way) in upgraded/new arenas for their most visible sport, basketball, had to twist/break some arms to get a four team tournament, play only 10 football games with a limited number of practices, on and on. But to attract a more diverse student body, YES, that's worth the investment in a coaching staff, uniforms, travel, practice gear, etc. Give me 28 full paying, academically qualified students who might normally go to Wesleyan, Tufts, Skidmore or Catholic U to play (insert sport here) and we'll have them play here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Incoming ... The Market is Not Interested in Equity or Fairness or Being Nice Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:51:20 04/17/24 Wed One thing we agree on is that we're not disagreeing with each other. But I will point out that, unlike when I applied to college, the Ivies these days have no problem attracting and matriculating diverse student bodies along whatever dimension of diversity we want. With ample financial aid and very low admissions rates, the Ivies today truly are "assembling" their student bodies in one of the grandest social engineering experiments ever undertaken, maybe the most ambitious ever. Seriously, what historic social engineering experiment ever is more ambitious and broad in scope than what the Ivies and Ivy Plus universities are doing right now? The only question is whether one of those desired dimensions of diversity is female rugby players. I'm afraid that's the one where you and I don't see the world the same way. That's okay. Different strokes for different folks. I will say that I am confident the administrators at Ivy League universities, right or wrong, spend very little time thinking about how to improve our student bodies relative to Wesleyan or Tufts, as fine as those two universities are.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Incoming ... The Market is Not Interested in Equity or Fairness or Being Nice Author: David Perry (Not in a While) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 22:53:34 05/05/24 Sun Sorry, but the historian in me has to point out that the Ivies related a whole lot of things in athletics to the market. . .up until about 1930. :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Incoming ... Author: sparman [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 19:53:04 04/17/24 Wed Anyone who has been around here for a while knows what I am talking about.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Incoming ... Author: Rufus T [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:52:28 04/18/24 Thu Could not agree with you more Sparman. So predictable what will trigger a bloviating response

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Too easy... Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:24:22 04/17/24 Wed https://www.nbcsports.com/olympics/news/usa-womens-rugby-qualifies-paris-2024-olympics USA! USA!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Incoming ... Author: Tiger69 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:33:53 04/24/24 Wed Woman rugby player to An Observer, “Hey, you gotta problem?”.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I wouldn't have used those terms, but... The Return of The Dowry Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:31:30 04/17/24 Wed In what form is Stanford paying for the privilege of flying 3,000 miles across the country on a Tuesday morning to play a mid-week basketball ga Is Stanford not receiving a full-share of the ACC's television revenue distribution? Don't tell me that Stanford is actually paying cash out of pocket for the privilege of flying 3,000 miles. Think about how hard it's going to be to recruit to Stanford now. Still a world class academic institution of course, arguably now the world's "greatest" university. But if you as a student-athlete (remember that term?) actually plan to attend classes to take advantage of those academics, you now know that virtually every away game is a three-day turnaround for you, including six hours of time zone changes. Anybody else here ever find out on a Monday that they needed to be on the West Coast for a Wednesday meeting, knowing that they needed to be back in the office for a Friday meeting? Who wants to deal with that every other week?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I overspoke Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:50:04 04/17/24 Wed My apologies. Stanford is playing in the ACC for free. https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/two-reasons-stanford-joining-the-acc-at-a-discounted-rate-makes-sense-for-both-parties They are not paying out of pocket for the privilege for playing in the ACC (although they probably would have had the ACC demanded it).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I overspoke Author: Ghost [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:06:39 04/17/24 Wed That's more like it.....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Michigan Author: remember it well [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:21:38 04/17/24 Wed Speaking of the Big Ten, Michigan football just got hit with 3 years probation for recruiting infractions

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Personally, I think its inconsistent... Author: joiseyfan [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:35:32 04/16/24 Tue RIW — Tiger69’s sarcasm is mildly understated, apart from Eli’s view being against maybe five or six explicit league policies. If you want Northwestern, go to Evanston.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It’s not the 1950’s anymore. Author: Son of Eli [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 22:01:20 04/16/24 Tue The Anti Defamation League just issued their Campus Antisemitism Report Card. Columbia and Cornell got D’s. Harvard was graded with an F. Me thinks the Ivy League has more pressing issues regarding their academic reputations than whether athletes can receive NIL money.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: It’s not the 1950’s anymore. Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 22:21:55 04/16/24 Tue The ADL, like any observer, will have its own biases. Barnard D Brown D Columbia D Cornell D Dartmouth C Elon A Harvard F Princeton D Penn D Yale D So basically, Elon ++, Dartmouth + and Harvard -.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: It’s not the 1950’s anymore. Author: Son of Eli [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:43:21 04/16/24 Tue Duke B University of Florida B University of Arizona B University of Miami B University of Central Florida B Florida State University B The Ivy League can learn something from these schools.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You say you're a big Beilock fan Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:29:49 04/16/24 Tue The entire point of her WSJ piece was that paying athletes completely undermines the student experience. There is nothing in her op-ed that is remotely consistent with endorsing an NIL collective. So if she's being intellectually honest, we should not expect Dartmouth to be forming NILs anytime soon...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: You say you're a big Beilock fan Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:35:43 04/16/24 Tue Yes, I understand and agree. Do you have me confused with Son of Eli?