Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: G League stepping up
Page: 2 of 3
mail
person
Donuts
10/24/2018 3:32 PM
Brian Smith wrote:expand_more
It is a good deal for the athlete or so many of them wouldn't do it. You seem to be confusing the fact that just because a number of players don't see the value of the scholarship means that there isn't any value to it. If I give you a Matisse and you throw it away doesn't mean you receive no value.
Ohio State recruited Henri Matisse, kept all his paintings, prohibited him from selling his paintings for four years, made money advertising while people viewed his paintings, made money with t-shirts of those paintings on them and sold those paintings to ESPN for $2.64 billion and then gave all the money to Urban Meyer, Gene Smith and Greg Schiano. Matisse got to sit in a fancy plane to get to his exhibitions and go to Psych 101 class with 500 other suburbanites in exchange. And then when Matisse doesn't get his degree because he's flying around the country showing his paintings for Ohio State to make money, Henri Matisse is cast as a man who wasted the opportunity of a lifetime. And so another young Matisse is found who doesn't know the value of his work yet.
All the top, top high school basketball players know the value of their work. It's impossible to not know how good you are. If they pick college for a year they know the trade off. You could drop out of high school and start selling merchandise from your YouTube mixtapes if you want in 2018. You could go overseas. You could train. You could get an agent to try to market you. You could focus your anger towards the NBA, David Stern, the owners, etc. who felt like properly scouting 17 and 18 years old for professional basketball was tough so they wanted a 20-year old age limit and settled on 19.

College is there for people who want it. No one is forcing a player to go. As soon as someone is ready to be an employee, go ahead and be an employee. It's not difficult if a person is set on doing it and they are confident in themselves to succeed. What will happen though is a lot of people will have second thoughts that maybe, just maybe, playing with peers in a pretty cushy environment while working towards two career paths isn't pure evil.
mail
person
catfan28
10/24/2018 3:37 PM
Donuts wrote:expand_more
All the top, top high school basketball players know the value of their work. It's impossible to not know how good you are. If they pick college for a year they know the trade off. You could drop out of high school and start selling merchandise from your YouTube mixtapes if you want in 2018. You could go overseas. You could train. You could get an agent to try to market you. You could focus your anger towards the NBA, David Stern, the owners, etc. who felt like properly scouting 17 and 18 years old for professional basketball was tough so they wanted a 20-year old age limit and settled on 19.

College is there for people who want it. No one is forcing a player to go. As soon as someone is ready to be an employee, go ahead and be an employee. It's not difficult if a person is set on doing it and they are confident in themselves to succeed. What will happen though is a lot of people will have second thoughts that maybe, just maybe, playing with peers in a pretty cushy environment while working towards two career paths isn't pure evil.
Totally agree. Also, we're talking about like 20 kids here that are realistically "NBA ready". History says at least half will probably be busts.

To turn the entire concept of college athletics upside down for 20 kids seems, well, crazy. Apply that to any other aspect of society and people would think it's a joke.

The only reason this gets any attention is that the media talking heads stick to the "NCAA is evil big business" line. It's an overly-simplified argument that ignores 99% of what college athletics actually is about.
mail
person
giacomo
10/24/2018 6:03 PM
The president of OSU makes about 1M a year. A coach should be underneath that amount if we were truly talking about an amateur endeavor. We are not. Sing no sad songs for a kid that gets a scholarship. It's not about that. If said kid gets a career ending injury his freshman year he gets nothing. He is not an employee of the university, even though the coach and everyone else is making money off of him.

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-a-NCAA-D1-scholarsh...
mail
person
BillyTheCat
10/24/2018 6:09 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
The president of OSU makes about 1M a year. A coach should be underneath that amount if we were truly talking about an amateur endeavor. We are not. Sing no sad songs for a kid that gets a scholarship. It's not about that. If said kid gets a career ending injury his freshman year he gets nothing. He is not an employee of the university, even though the coach and everyone else is making money off of him.

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-a-NCAA-D1-scholarsh...
Not true, kid still keeps his scholarship and educational opportunities. What kids do with those opportunities is up to them.
mail
person
catfan28
10/25/2018 12:06 AM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
The president of OSU makes about 1M a year. A coach should be underneath that amount if we were truly talking about an amateur endeavor. We are not. Sing no sad songs for a kid that gets a scholarship. It's not about that. If said kid gets a career ending injury his freshman year he gets nothing. He is not an employee of the university, even though the coach and everyone else is making money off of him.

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-a-NCAA-D1-scholarsh...
I agree that the O$Us of the world (and others) vastly overpay their coaches. The disparity there between them and most others is cavernous. I'd be all for an NCAA cap on head coach salaries - but that would never happen.

The trite argument of the media talking heads is that the system must be changed to benefit the "taken advantage of" student-athletes. Conversely, I'd argue that the system must instead be changed to create competitive balance and slim the division between haves and have-nots. Paying players, endorsements, etc. run completely counter to that.

Perhaps someday there will be someone to take this torch and run with it. That would benefit a heck of a lot more student-athletes than getting Nick Bosa a Nike contract.

As I've argued before, those pushing for student-athlete compensation are carrying water for "the 1%". Let's instead make things better for the 99% of student-athletes that aren't going pro.
Last Edited: 10/25/2018 12:07:09 AM by catfan28
mail
UpSan Bobcat
10/25/2018 10:52 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I think many are confusing the idea that a scholarship is a good deal for the athlete versus are the so called "student athletes" really employees of the university and should be afforded the same rights as employees. Walter Byers coined the phrase to avoid having workers compensation and other issues of employment. There is also the sentiment for most people that "sure, give me a scholarship and let me play ball and I would be happy". Athletes will be students when professors start making 5M a year.
It is a good deal for the athlete or so many of them wouldn't do it. You seem to be confusing the fact that just because a number of players don't see the value of the scholarship means that there isn't any value to it. If I give you a Matisse and you throw it away doesn't mean you receive no value.
Sure, but to extend the metaphor if you give me a Matisse when you have ten Matisses because of me, I still got ripped off.
In most instances, though, schools only have a few Matisses as a result of all of their players combined. Most schools, like Ohio, lose money with their athletic programs.
mail
person
giacomo
10/25/2018 2:11 PM
Are the players employees or students? Are they amateurs or professionals? Look at the money and the hours and you tell me.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/25/2018 2:35 PM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
All the top, top high school basketball players know the value of their work. It's impossible to not know how good you are. If they pick college for a year they know the trade off. You could drop out of high school and start selling merchandise from your YouTube mixtapes if you want in 2018. You could go overseas. You could train. You could get an agent to try to market you. You could focus your anger towards the NBA, David Stern, the owners, etc. who felt like properly scouting 17 and 18 years old for professional basketball was tough so they wanted a 20-year old age limit and settled on 19.

College is there for people who want it. No one is forcing a player to go. As soon as someone is ready to be an employee, go ahead and be an employee. It's not difficult if a person is set on doing it and they are confident in themselves to succeed. What will happen though is a lot of people will have second thoughts that maybe, just maybe, playing with peers in a pretty cushy environment while working towards two career paths isn't pure evil.
Totally agree. Also, we're talking about like 20 kids here that are realistically "NBA ready". History says at least half will probably be busts.

To turn the entire concept of college athletics upside down for 20 kids seems, well, crazy. Apply that to any other aspect of society and people would think it's a joke.

The only reason this gets any attention is that the media talking heads stick to the "NCAA is evil big business" line. It's an overly-simplified argument that ignores 99% of what college athletics actually is about.
Respectfully, you're oversimplifying, as well. First by insisting that changes will "turn the entire concept of college athletics upside down" and second by assuming that only people who think the NCAA is "evil big business" would support letting players get paid.

I don't understand why letting the 20 NBA ready players make endorsement money ruins things for the 99% of players who don't have a professional future ahead of them.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/25/2018 2:41 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
I think many are confusing the idea that a scholarship is a good deal for the athlete versus are the so called "student athletes" really employees of the university and should be afforded the same rights as employees. Walter Byers coined the phrase to avoid having workers compensation and other issues of employment. There is also the sentiment for most people that "sure, give me a scholarship and let me play ball and I would be happy". Athletes will be students when professors start making 5M a year.
It is a good deal for the athlete or so many of them wouldn't do it. You seem to be confusing the fact that just because a number of players don't see the value of the scholarship means that there isn't any value to it. If I give you a Matisse and you throw it away doesn't mean you receive no value.
Sure, but to extend the metaphor if you give me a Matisse when you have ten Matisses because of me, I still got ripped off.
In most instances, though, schools only have a few Matisses as a result of all of their players combined. Most schools, like Ohio, lose money with their athletic programs.
Yes, I know. I'm not sure why that's relevant. I'm not insisting all NCAA athletes be paid or even suggesting that the school's play any role in paying them. I'm just suggesting that the NCAA loosen Draconian eligibility rules that limit a player's ability to earn beyond their scholarship. For instance, that New Balance wants to guarantee that Syracuse commit $1 million dollars doesn't seem like a valid reason for the NCAA to rule him ineligible.
mail
person
giacomo
10/25/2018 4:19 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nba-players-dont-need-colleg...

From today's Wall Street Journal

The reason the NCAA won't let anyone get endorsement money is than the cat is out of the bag. They can't say the players are amateur students. They would have to say they were employees and subject to the same rights. They have been avoiding that for years.
mail
person
Ohio69
10/25/2018 4:36 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Yes, I know. I'm not sure why that's relevant. I'm not insisting all NCAA athletes be paid or even suggesting that the school's play any role in paying them. I'm just suggesting that the NCAA loosen Draconian eligibility rules that limit a player's ability to earn beyond their scholarship. For instance, that New Balance wants to guarantee that Syracuse commit $1 million dollars doesn't seem like a valid reason for the NCAA to rule him ineligible.
When when Phil Night decides that Nike will give...errr..sponsor every single Oregon basketball player at $2 million per year? And, nobody else in the PAC12 has some alum controlled business doing that? Where are we?

If/when this happens, I'll vote for OHIO to drop to division 3 and walk away from this madness.
Last Edited: 10/25/2018 4:37:25 PM by Ohio69
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/26/2018 6:05 AM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
Yes, I know. I'm not sure why that's relevant. I'm not insisting all NCAA athletes be paid or even suggesting that the school's play any role in paying them. I'm just suggesting that the NCAA loosen Draconian eligibility rules that limit a player's ability to earn beyond their scholarship. For instance, that New Balance wants to guarantee that Syracuse commit $1 million dollars doesn't seem like a valid reason for the NCAA to rule him ineligible.
When when Phil Night decides that Nike will give...errr..sponsor every single Oregon basketball player at $2 million per year? And, nobody else in the PAC12 has some alum controlled business doing that? Where are we?

If/when this happens, I'll vote for OHIO to drop to division 3 and walk away from this madness.
We'd basically be in the in the same place we are now. This year, Duke signed the top 3 recruits in the nation. Kentucky's done the same previously. The only difference I see is tha in your scenario, Oregon's getting those kids. And if one of those kids suffers a career ending knee injury, they've got 2 million dollars.
Last Edited: 10/26/2018 9:45:56 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/26/2018 6:07 AM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nba-players-dont-need-colleg...

From today's Wall Street Journal

The reason the NCAA won't let anyone get endorsement money is than the cat is out of the bag. They can't say the players are amateur students. They would have to say they were employees and subject to the same rights. They have been avoiding that for years.
Olympic athletes are amateurs and are allowed to receive endorsement money. What's the difference?
mail
person
catfan28
10/26/2018 9:55 AM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
When when Phil Night decides that Nike will give...errr..sponsor every single Oregon basketball player at $2 million per year? And, nobody else in the PAC12 has some alum controlled business doing that? Where are we?

If/when this happens, I'll vote for OHIO to drop to division 3 and walk away from this madness.
This. It pretty much makes it open season on big money donors/sponsors drawing in kids with endorsement deals. Something tells me Don Wood Toyota and OMG Chicken aren't going to help us keep up with the Joneses.

Again, we should be striving to make the gap between "haves and have nots" smaller, not larger.

What's ironic is that individuals who would traditionally rail against the "top 1%" (i.e. the political left), in this case are trying to help the "1%" and screw the little guy. It's a very weird dynamic at play.
mail
OhioCatFan
10/26/2018 10:57 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nba-players-dont-need-colleg...

From today's Wall Street Journal

The reason the NCAA won't let anyone get endorsement money is than the cat is out of the bag. They can't say the players are amateur students. They would have to say they were employees and subject to the same rights. They have been avoiding that for years.
Olympic athletes are amateurs and are allowed to receive endorsement money. What's the difference?
Used to be, but not anymore. I lament the allowing of pro athletes in the olympics. I much more enjoyed it when the USA basketball team was basically a college all-star team.
mail
person
Brian Smith (No, not that one)
10/26/2018 10:59 AM
Donuts wrote:expand_more
It is a good deal for the athlete or so many of them wouldn't do it. You seem to be confusing the fact that just because a number of players don't see the value of the scholarship means that there isn't any value to it. If I give you a Matisse and you throw it away doesn't mean you receive no value.
Ohio State recruited Henri Matisse, kept all his paintings, prohibited him from selling his paintings for four years, made money advertising while people viewed his paintings, made money with t-shirts of those paintings on them and sold those paintings to ESPN for $2.64 billion and then gave all the money to Urban Meyer, Gene Smith and Greg Schiano. Matisse got to sit in a fancy plane to get to his exhibitions and go to Psych 101 class with 500 other suburbanites in exchange. And then when Matisse doesn't get his degree because he's flying around the country showing his paintings for Ohio State to make money, Henri Matisse is cast as a man who wasted the opportunity of a lifetime. And so another young Matisse is found who doesn't know the value of his work yet.
All the top, top high school basketball players know the value of their work. It's impossible to not know how good you are. If they pick college for a year they know the trade off. You could drop out of high school and start selling merchandise from your YouTube mixtapes if you want in 2018. You could go overseas. You could train. You could get an agent to try to market you. You could focus your anger towards the NBA, David Stern, the owners, etc. who felt like properly scouting 17 and 18 years old for professional basketball was tough so they wanted a 20-year old age limit and settled on 19.

College is there for people who want it. No one is forcing a player to go. As soon as someone is ready to be an employee, go ahead and be an employee. It's not difficult if a person is set on doing it and they are confident in themselves to succeed. What will happen though is a lot of people will have second thoughts that maybe, just maybe, playing with peers in a pretty cushy environment while working towards two career paths isn't pure evil.
Evil? No. Paternalistic and gross? Yes.

You've twisted your logic so much that you've convinced yourself you're in favor of choice by taking away the choice.

Instead of allowing an 18-year-old man to decide whether he's good enough and let an NBA team decide if he's good enough, you've suggested he could go make YouTube videos for a year. Think about how far you've had to go to justify your paternalism.

You've set up a false choice so that he has no choice at all but to go to college basketball, a system you happen to enjoy, I bet.

I love college basketball, too. I wish nobody went straight to the NBA. I'd never take away the choice of fellow adults to make that happen, though.

Let's let them rise or fall based on their own decisions, their own merit, like everybody else in this world.

A system that would've had LeBron James wasting a year of his body, a year of his longevity, a year of development playing for Ohio State is a flawed one.
Last Edited: 10/26/2018 11:02:51 AM by Brian Smith (No, not that one)
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/26/2018 11:41 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nba-players-dont-need-colleg...

From today's Wall Street Journal

The reason the NCAA won't let anyone get endorsement money is than the cat is out of the bag. They can't say the players are amateur students. They would have to say they were employees and subject to the same rights. They have been avoiding that for years.
Olympic athletes are amateurs and are allowed to receive endorsement money. What's the difference?
Used to be, but not anymore. I lament the allowing of pro athletes in the olympics. I much more enjoyed it when the USA basketball team was basically a college all-star team.
That's true across certain sports (basketball, soccer, etc.) but if I recall there are also sports where the amateur status is maintained despite endorsements (swimming, gymnastics, etc.).
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/26/2018 11:47 AM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
When when Phil Night decides that Nike will give...errr..sponsor every single Oregon basketball player at $2 million per year? And, nobody else in the PAC12 has some alum controlled business doing that? Where are we?

If/when this happens, I'll vote for OHIO to drop to division 3 and walk away from this madness.
This. It pretty much makes it open season on big money donors/sponsors drawing in kids with endorsement deals. Something tells me Don Wood Toyota and OMG Chicken aren't going to help us keep up with the Joneses.

Again, we should be striving to make the gap between "haves and have nots" smaller, not larger.

What's ironic is that individuals who would traditionally rail against the "top 1%" (i.e. the political left), in this case are trying to help the "1%" and screw the little guy. It's a very weird dynamic at play.
Tax policy around the top 1% of earners and whether or not people providing free, valuable labor should be able to earn money are not super closely related things. Basically all they have in common is that both apply to a small percentage of people.

But I agree that there's an odd dynamic at play. When it comes to college athletics, it does seem that the right tends to be completely opposed to the free market. I understand why; I just fundamentally disagree on principle. I don't think individuals in the United States should have their earning power restricted.
Last Edited: 10/26/2018 11:50:49 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Maddog13
10/26/2018 11:52 AM
Ridiculous, Matisse would have been found ineligible to play due to his deep friendship with his controversial rival, Pablo Picaso, and the fact that his wife attempted suicide after suspecting him of cheating on her. (She was not successful by the way and would later return to his side.) Should the two have both ended up playing for Ohio State, their contrasting styles would have been detrimental and would have cost Ohio State the Big-10 Championship. Matisse would have also come into question due to Hitler's leniency toward him during the Nazi Occupation of France during WWII, and Matisse's willingness to take an "Aryan" oath in order to continue to display his works in France. That and Picaso's close relationship with Stalin would have been even more difficult to overcome than Urban Meyer's current issues. Besides, I don't believe that Matisse was known for his jump shot.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/26/2018 11:58 AM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nba-players-dont-need-colleg...

From today's Wall Street Journal

The reason the NCAA won't let anyone get endorsement money is than the cat is out of the bag. They can't say the players are amateur students. They would have to say they were employees and subject to the same rights. They have been avoiding that for years.
This is the real crux of the issue.

What strikes me most is how many simple solutions there seem to be to this issue that become impossible because of the NCAAs strict rules around amateurism -- rules in place to skirt labor law.

I mean, how simple would it be for the NBA to expand roster sizes to 18, create a third tier of contracts, and then add another round to the draft. Players drafted in that round would maintain their college eligibility, but their professional rights would be owned by an NBA team. The NBA team could pay them a nice salary -- something in line with the 100k the G League is offering -- but they'd be able to stay in school until the team that drafted them felt they were ready to contribute. They could attend summer mini-camps, play in the NBA Summer League, etc. and then enroll in classes and still play for Kentucky or whoever.

Simple solution, right? And not something that seems like it would destroy college basketball forever. It would, in fact, probably help. More players would stay longer.

But because of crazy amateurism rules, it's a no-go.
mail
person
Donuts
10/26/2018 12:52 PM
Brian Smith wrote:expand_more
Evil? No. Paternalistic and gross? Yes.

You've twisted your logic so much that you've convinced yourself you're in favor of choice by taking away the choice.

Instead of allowing an 18-year-old man to decide whether he's good enough and let an NBA team decide if he's good enough, you've suggested he could go make YouTube videos for a year. Think about how far you've had to go to justify your paternalism.

You've set up a false choice so that he has no choice at all but to go to college basketball, a system you happen to enjoy, I bet.

I love college basketball, too. I wish nobody went straight to the NBA. I'd never take away the choice of fellow adults to make that happen, though.

Let's let them rise or fall based on their own decisions, their own merit, like everybody else in this world.

A system that would've had LeBron James wasting a year of his body, a year of his longevity, a year of development playing for Ohio State is a flawed one.
So you just got mad at the NBA (the league responsible for the current age limit) and say I'm the one with the twisted logic? Do you or do you not realize that the NBA used to offer millions of guaranteed dollars to 18-year olds, took it away for over a decade, and now offer $125K and are being billed as heroes during a crusade to kill the NCAA forever?
Last Edited: 10/26/2018 1:00:14 PM by Donuts
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/26/2018 1:19 PM
Donuts wrote:expand_more
Evil? No. Paternalistic and gross? Yes.

You've twisted your logic so much that you've convinced yourself you're in favor of choice by taking away the choice.

Instead of allowing an 18-year-old man to decide whether he's good enough and let an NBA team decide if he's good enough, you've suggested he could go make YouTube videos for a year. Think about how far you've had to go to justify your paternalism.

You've set up a false choice so that he has no choice at all but to go to college basketball, a system you happen to enjoy, I bet.

I love college basketball, too. I wish nobody went straight to the NBA. I'd never take away the choice of fellow adults to make that happen, though.

Let's let them rise or fall based on their own decisions, their own merit, like everybody else in this world.

A system that would've had LeBron James wasting a year of his body, a year of his longevity, a year of development playing for Ohio State is a flawed one.
So you just got mad at the NBA (the league responsible for the current age limit) and say I'm the one with the twisted logic? Do you or do you not realize that the NBA used to offer millions of guaranteed dollars to 18-year olds, took it away for over a decade, and now offer $125K and are being billed as heroes during a crusade to kill the NCAA forever?
Unless I'm misunderstanding, the NBA isn't only offering $125k. They're offering $125k or the ability to be drafted directly and get a rookie scale contract.

And there's a reason that the NBA is getting good press here: it's because what they're doing is good. You presumably agree, because you seem to feel that the age limit was bad. Not sure what's so outrageous about that.
mail
person
longtiimelurker
11/3/2018 10:18 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
Are the players employees or students? Are they amateurs or professionals? Look at the money and the hours and you tell me.
You were an athlete. How many hours a week did you practice? How much time was spent on the road and game days? Do you think your scholarship and what you got out of it, in restrospect, was inordinately inequitable with what you should have made to compete for Ohio University? You are very outspoken on the subject but have never given your personal feelings on how you felt about your compensation relative to what you gained and gave. I am not familiar with your career so I am assuming you were in the 95% of athletes that we are NOT talking about getting paid.
mail
OU_Country
11/4/2018 9:49 AM
longtiimelurker wrote:expand_more
Are the players employees or students? Are they amateurs or professionals? Look at the money and the hours and you tell me.
You were an athlete. How many hours a week did you practice? How much time was spent on the road and game days? Do you think your scholarship and what you got out of it, in restrospect, was inordinately inequitable with what you should have made to compete for Ohio University? You are very outspoken on the subject but have never given your personal feelings on how you felt about your compensation relative to what you gained and gave. I am not familiar with your career so I am assuming you were in the 95% of athletes that we are NOT talking about getting paid.
Good questions. I'd be interested to hear thoughts as well. For that matter, from other former players as well.
mail
person
rpbobcat
11/4/2018 6:51 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
Are the players employees or students? Are they amateurs or professionals? Look at the money and the hours and you tell me.
You were an athlete. How many hours a week did you practice? How much time was spent on the road and game days? Do you think your scholarship and what you got out of it, in restrospect, was inordinately inequitable with what you should have made to compete for Ohio University? You are very outspoken on the subject but have never given your personal feelings on how you felt about your compensation relative to what you gained and gave. I am not familiar with your career so I am assuming you were in the 95% of athletes that we are NOT talking about getting paid.
Good questions. I'd be interested to hear thoughts as well. For that matter, from other former players as well.
I played D1 men's soccer for O.U.
I also wrestled D1 for F.D.U.

I was a walk-on at O.U.
We had something like 2 scholarships,so we were pretty much all walk-ons.

At F.D.U. we had I think 3 scholarships,so again,we were pretty much all
walk-ons.

So,at both universities ,I got the privilege of paying to compete.
At O.U., we even had to pay for our own housing and food for summer preseason camp.

Practice for both sports was about 3 hours a day,every day,except Sunday.

In addition to "formal" practice,wrestling had early morning weight training,3 days a week.
We also had to do a pre-practice run of a few miles.

Home games/matches were like another practice,as far as time.

Weekday away games/matches were out and back the same day.
That meant missing some classes and trying to study on bus.

Overnight trips were always on weekends.
Leave Friday after class,come back Saturday night.

You needed pretty good time management skills to keep up with your class work.
I was a double major (engineering /pre-vet) so the course load was pretty intense.

I loved both sports,which is the reason I competed.
Thought it was an honor to wear the green and white for Ohio and the red and blue for F.D.U.

I finished my B.S.in engineering after the first semester of my senior year.
That let me start my masters second semester.
I finished that up at night,after I graduated.

I also came out with one knee that's held together with prayer, and second knee that's not quite as bad.

Thanks to a teammate separating my right shoulder at the end of my senior season,actually,that's what ended my senior season,I can now predict the weather.

Would I do it all over again? In a heartbeat.
Last Edited: 11/5/2018 6:38:15 AM by rpbobcat
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 53
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)