(10-13-2019 02:53 AM)chester Wrote:  Anyone here here believe this sort of thinking is confined to UNC only?

PS, if anyone here has a subscription to The Athletic, would appreciate a summation of the ADHD/concussion story. Thanks

Link

This link should take you directly to the story.

Ironically, in that article, Tatos implies that UNC falsely diagnosed athletes with learning disabilities so they could give them what the NCAA considers PEDs (i.e. the drugs used to treat ADHD, etc.). It would seem the ADA is working in their favor there.

(10-12-2019 05:20 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 12:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Todd Gurley offered his opinion on this topic yesterday...

Where is the video.

NCAA= Not Concerned About Athletes
I have to admit, I agree. The UNC case says volumes.

The NCAA is 113 years old. Every word in the book(s) needs to be updated.

(10-13-2019 04:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Pittsburgh is gonna pay for what UNC did.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using CSNbbs mobile app

I thought the University of Northern Colorado was going to pay for what UNC did.

Wedge, Wolfman, thank you both. I'd heard before that The Athletic is pay site and so wrongly assumed that there wasn't general access to this story.

So, very worst case scenario:

At least some UNC players were purposely misdiagnosed with LD/ADHD in order that they receive prescribed stimulants that are otherwise banned by the NCAA -- drugs that can be detrimental to the health of active people, no less.

Knowing better, Guskiewicz doesn't account for LD/ADHD in his research because it would draw light to the unusually high number of "LD/ADHD" at UNC and likely put a stop to further funding. His tainted research then reaches the mainstream, influencing protocol here and there and conceivably leading to the premature return to action of concussed athletes all over the place.

Best case:

UNC just happens to recruit an unusually high number of athletes with legitimate LD/ADHD, who are only properly diagnosed as young adults (unusual in itself, apparently.)

Guskiewicz, in turn, is either an incompetent who didn't know that controlling for LD/ADHD in concussion research had been standard practice years, or was wise enough to realize that accounting for LD/ADHD was as unnecessary as ... accounting for a subject's love of Mozart or Steinbeck?

This story needs wide attention. Maybe some of those former players who were diagnosed would be willing to disclose whether they were prescribed medication. Could help lead to the truth.

(10-13-2019 07:47 PM)Mav Wrote:  Most schools lose money on bowl games. The big winner is ESPN, who, guess what, want the players paid, likely so they can find ways to screw them like they screw the schools every December.

Mav, I don't understand. Why would a school participate in a bowl if it doesn't ultimately gain from it?

In what way(s) might ESPN screw players that are paid?

A little levity... (Check out the comments, they're hilarious.)

Accompanying vid. Poor Tom. What's an NCAA AD lobbyist to do?

(10-12-2019 05:20 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 12:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Todd Gurley offered his opinion on this topic yesterday...

Where is the video.

Read the shirt

(10-13-2019 09:15 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 05:20 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 12:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Todd Gurley offered his opinion on this topic yesterday...

Where is the video.

NCAA= Not Concerned About Athletes
I have to admit, I agree. The UNC case says volumes.

I just can't seem to want to go to those AA meetings. Was not paying attention.

Actually to be a little more correct:

Not
Concerned
About
Academics

Then refer to UNC

(09-27-2019 01:36 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  So, with California doing what California does politically, we have our first genuine impetus for something that could shatter and dissolve the NCAA as we know it. So the question is simple ... since the axe is being wielded by a political entity ... and political entities respond to the vox populi .... let's take the temperature of the public on the NCAA.

(See poll)

You can blow the NCAA up and it won't change a thing. The people who adopted the rules and policies that make the NCAA what it is are going to be with you no matter what.

The NCAA is what it is because the university presidents want it to be what it is and if they replace it you get the same thing under different branding.

(10-15-2019 02:22 AM)chester Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 07:47 PM)Mav Wrote:  Most schools lose money on bowl games. The big winner is ESPN, who, guess what, want the players paid, likely so they can find ways to screw them like they screw the schools every December.

Mav, I don't understand. Why would a school participate in a bowl if it doesn't ultimately gain from it?

In what way(s) might ESPN screw players that are paid?

I didn't run the numbers the last two years but before that, for all but a tiny number of schools, their bowl appearance is the most watched game they play all year.

Losing money is sort of a relative thing. A lot (not all) of the "losing money" happens because the school chooses to lose money. The school will comp tickets and sometimes rooms for certain donors along with transportation. Then there will be the pep rally, the cocktail reception for donors above the median level and the upper crust of donors hit the steakhouse with the president.

Take the full band for a couple nights and that costs more than taking just part of the band and so on. Most teams will travel the entire squad including players redshirting and the players too injured to play who would not be travel squad normally.

(10-17-2019 09:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 01:36 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  So, with California doing what California does politically, we have our first genuine impetus for something that could shatter and dissolve the NCAA as we know it. So the question is simple ... since the axe is being wielded by a political entity ... and political entities respond to the vox populi .... let's take the temperature of the public on the NCAA.

(See poll)

You can blow the NCAA up and it won't change a thing. The people who adopted the rules and policies that make the NCAA what it is are going to be with you no matter what.

The NCAA is what it is because the university presidents want it to be what it is and if they replace it you get the same thing under different branding.

That underestimates inertia.

There must be hundreds of rules, or more, that would not be adopted if starting from a clean slate today, but continue to exist because no one wants to go to the trouble to change them. Especially university presidents and non-athletic administrators who have a lot of priorities other than athletics.