Our faculty needs to get it

Water Pony · Post by **Water Pony** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:25 am

SMU could sue itself

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:28 am

That would be one helluva conflicts analysis.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:03 am

actually some SMU alumni did sue the NCAA in the 1980s and the Court ruled that the University but not alumni had standing.

ponyboy · Post by **ponyboy** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:17 am

jtstang wrote:Trust me, they don't.

So you're telling me that Mr. P as a fan would have a better chance than the non-BCS-cartel institutions?

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:39 am

No, I'm telling you he'd have the same chance for success suing the NCAA for prohibiting player payments as any NCAA institution, which is none.

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:04 pm

Now if some enterprising player, say a former Oklahoma Quarterback who lost his scholarship were to sue the NCAA for interference with a contract relationship and anti-trust considerations (similar to the Kurt Flood suit against Major League baseball), that suit might have legs.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:22 pm

What was the contractual relationship interfered with? The scholarship from OU or the "job" with the car dealership? The penalties from the NCAA were handed down against OU, not him. The decision regarding the scholarship, as I understand it, was OU's decision, not the NCAA's. The "job" was a sham and would not for the basis of a tortious interference claim. I don't know what anti-trust action you are referring to so I'll defer.

Folks, this is not a difficult concept. The NCAA has an amatuerism requirement which all member schools agree to abide by. There is no valid claim that can be brought by a school which agrees to abide by this requirement for the NCAA enforcing it.

Dark Horse · Post by **Dark Horse** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:56 pm

mr. pony wrote:And the day is coming when players are paid. We were just ahead of our time.....

I disagree. Thanks to folks like Rhett Bomar and J.D. Quinn (not to single out those two -- there are legions more), I would bet we're closer to the day that the NCAA goes back to its archaic rule that student-athletes can not have jobs at all.

Eddie P · Post by **Eddie P** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:51 am

Water Pony wrote:This is why college athletics gets a bad name. Accusing the faculty of the being the problem is wrong headed and a waste of time. I hate playing the victim and we should stop now.

It is correct that college sports is entertainment and big business. More so for the BCS schools, since the budget$, alumni base and students are so large. That is not the same as changing the mission of the university from academics to entertainment. It is simply a fact of life.

Administratioin runs the school and they hire the faculty to delivery education and help the students graduate. To dismiss their objectives as interfering with sports is backwards.

Having said that, I am among the strongest supporters of the role of athletics in the development of men and women while serving the needs of student-athletes in both reveneue and non-revenue sports.

Let's not create enemies where there aren't many. If there are, so what. The faculty's mission is primary, but our is complimentary, if not essential to the development of the university's students.

Let's worry about getting the FB on the right foot with the right leadership. That will keep us busy enough without wasting time looking for the enemy within.

Sadly, there are enough "enemies within" that will never, ever...ever change their views on the SMU football football team specifically and the SMU athletics program in general.

Water Pony, you would be correct in your assumption with any other school BUT SMU...things are very, very different here. Sherrington was not referring to us in any way, shape or form with his commments. Nobody gives a damn about us. You think our athletic policies get railroaded over faculty? (Laugh hystercially) Quite the opposite. Email sherrington and ask him about his thoughts on this trainwreck. he's a very sensible guy. Or as Leonard Cohen says: "...and everybody knows...."

Water Pony · Post by **Water Pony** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:02 am

Eddie P wrote:
Water Pony wrote:This is why college athletics gets a bad name. Accusing the faculty of the being the problem is wrong headed and a waste of time. I hate playing the victim and we should stop now.

It is correct that college sports is entertainment and big business. More so for the BCS schools, since the budget$, alumni base and students are so large. That is not the same as changing the mission of the university from academics to entertainment. It is simply a fact of life.

Administratioin runs the school and they hire the faculty to delivery education and help the students graduate. To dismiss their objectives as interfering with sports is backwards.

Having said that, I am among the strongest supporters of the role of athletics in the development of men and women while serving the needs of student-athletes in both reveneue and non-revenue sports.

Let's not create enemies where there aren't many. If there are, so what. The faculty's mission is primary, but our is complimentary, if not essential to the development of the university's students.

Let's worry about getting the FB on the right foot with the right leadership. That will keep us busy enough without wasting time looking for the enemy within.

Sadly, there are enough "enemies within" that will never, ever...ever change their views on the SMU football football team specifically and the SMU athletics program in general.

Water Pony, you would be correct in your assumption with any other school BUT SMU...things are very, very different here. Sherrington was not referring to us in any way, shape or form with his commments. Nobody gives a damn about us. You think our athletic policies get railroaded over faculty? (Laugh hystercially) Quite the opposite. Email sherrington and ask him about his thoughts on this trainwreck. he's a very sensible guy. Or as Leonard Cohen says: "...and everybody knows...."

Eddie you are a solid poster and your points make sense; however, Turner isn't hostage to the faculty on athletics. I am sure opposition exists, most of which is wrong headed. But you have to grant that most faculties (ours too) rolls hteir eyes on athletic excess, especially BCS schools.

Our case is unique and compounded by the over reaction to the DP. Hard to say we didn't deserve some punishment (that others did it too can't be an excuse).

My point is any criticism and barriers by the faculty is no longer a major factor in our poor performance (I am sure Stallion would disagree). It only takes the right leadership in FB to turn it around. Recruiting brings success. Success cures all ills.

Flatten the Wave!

OC Mustang · Post by **OC Mustang** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:54 am

SMU Football Blog wrote:To wit, the faculty would say, "Fine. As soon as athletics stops being a gigantic hole in SMU's budget, we will shut up."

Given the loosy-goosy nature of non-profit accounting, that hole in the budget doesn't affect them. They are not going to receive more money in absence of that hole. I recall years ago that the Mustang Club helped close the gap anyway. Those monies were targeted to athletics; again, that buttresses my point that the faculty wouldn't have a shot at that cash in any situation.

By and large, they also don't understand the concept of "sunk cost". If you remove football from the expense side of the income statement, you have to remove the corresponding revenue as well. That means donations, capital costs, etc. The deficit stays. Also, there is an argument to be made that, like it or not, a solid NCAA athletic program in revenue sports is the best advertising short of an alum becoming POTUS that a university can have. Does a person in their right mind really want to kill something with that potential?

I also find it funny when they cite the lack of success as evidence of football not working, when it doesn't for precisely the straw man they helped architect and maintain in the first place. Isn't that type of twisted political logic just grand?

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:57 am

OC Mustang wrote: a solid NCAA athletic program in revenue sports is the best advertising short of an alum becoming POTUS that a university can have. Does a person in their right mind really want to kill something with that potential?

Maybe the faculty is right, there is no potential here.

George S. Patton · Post by **George S. Patton** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:00 am

jtstang wrote:
OC Mustang wrote: a solid NCAA athletic program in revenue sports is the best advertising short of an alum becoming POTUS that a university can have. Does a person in their right mind really want to kill something with that potential?

Maybe the faculty is right, there is no potential here.

Maybe all of the faculty should have their tenure stripped from them so they can stop eating donuts and actually teach for a living.

Phil Fan · Post by **Phil Fan** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:14 am

George S. Patton wrote:Maybe all of the faculty should have their tenure stripped from them so they can stop eating donuts and actually teach for a living.

So are you embarrassed of the degree you earned from SMU .... which includes the faculty you seem to enjoy trashing here?

Stripping tenure from proven professors is inane, at best. Teachers are up there with police officers and firefighters and EMTs as the most underpaid people out there. If anything, most teachers who are good enough to get hired at an institution like SMU deserve more compensation, not fewer benefits.

Our faculty needs to get it

Re: Our faculty needs to get it