[71Bear]

Shaw is a fine coach but he really stepped in it with his comments re: college athletics. 

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/866...roblematic

[71Bear]

Shaw is a fine coach but he really stepped in it with his comments re: college athletics. 

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/866...roblematic

[Rally]

Shaw is a fine coach but he really stepped in it with his comments re: college athletics. 

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/866...roblematic

This is the biggest bunch of hogwash I have read in awhile.  Had to wash my hands, eyes and mouth afterwards.  Shaw gave his opinion.  Hruby doesn't support his opinions just tries to belittle Shaw.  There are legitimate differences of opinion on this subject, but this article doesn't belong in that debate.  Just bad.

[Rally]

Shaw is a fine coach but he really stepped in it with his comments re: college athletics. 

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/866...roblematic

This is the biggest bunch of hogwash I have read in awhile.  Had to wash my hands, eyes and mouth afterwards.  Shaw gave his opinion.  Hruby doesn't support his opinions just tries to belittle Shaw.  There are legitimate differences of opinion on this subject, but this article doesn't belong in that debate.  Just bad.

[Hulk01]

Tried to read it.  Gave up.  Posturing disguised as thinking.

[Hulk01]

Tried to read it.  Gave up.  Posturing disguised as thinking.

[71Bear]

Ah, but would you have felt the same had another coach made the same comments?  Are your thoughts colored by the name of his employer? 

Just curious.....

[71Bear]

Ah, but would you have felt the same had another coach made the same comments?  Are your thoughts colored by the name of his employer? 

Just curious.....

[Redrum]

If Shaw and Stanford set him off,  the author would probably vaporize once he starts looking at the end of the Tedford/Barbour Age.    But we know that won't happen because he's looking for a parade and he's found one.  Now he's racing to get to the front.  Gotta drive those click counts.

Personally, I can see where Shaw's view is on the wrong side of history.  Not because he's wrong in the Stanford context,  but because this is bigger than reasoned arguments about the positives of the current college system.  This is about money and power.  Some got it and some don't and the have-nots will burn down the landscape for either, or both.

P.S.  Yes 71Bear,  there are coaches who might make the same arguments and they'd be right, and also on the wrong side of history.  But I'd rather read the comments of a football coach who has skin in the game than a blogger who knows the road to oblivion in sports awaits for those with moderate, reasoned opinions. (The superb baseball writer Roger Angell would never have been able to make it in today's blogosphere.  I wish  baseball in real life were as good and entertaining as Angell's work.  I'm glad he published when he did. ) 

And you, 71Bear.  Why not 'out" yourself and be specific on the parts of the amateur college athletics model you support or think should be changed?

[Redrum]

If Shaw and Stanford set him off,  the author would probably vaporize once he starts looking at the end of the Tedford/Barbour Age.    But we know that won't happen because he's looking for a parade and he's found one.  Now he's racing to get to the front.  Gotta drive those click counts.

Personally, I can see where Shaw's view is on the wrong side of history.  Not because he's wrong in the Stanford context,  but because this is bigger than reasoned arguments about the positives of the current college system.  This is about money and power.  Some got it and some don't and the have-nots will burn down the landscape for either, or both.

P.S.  Yes 71Bear,  there are coaches who might make the same arguments and they'd be right, and also on the wrong side of history.  But I'd rather read the comments of a football coach who has skin in the game than a blogger who knows the road to oblivion in sports awaits for those with moderate, reasoned opinions. (The superb baseball writer Roger Angell would never have been able to make it in today's blogosphere.  I wish  baseball in real life were as good and entertaining as Angell's work.  I'm glad he published when he did. ) 

And you, 71Bear.  Why not 'out" yourself and be specific on the parts of the amateur college athletics model you support or think should be changed?

[CTcard]

One thing I find odd is the high level of righteous indignation among those who favour a full-professional model for college sports. That tends to turn me off, but I try to remember it doesn't actually have anything to do with the correctness of the particular position.

In the linked article, Shaw is not very eloquent. I suspect because he has a gut-feeling that a full free market for players would be a bad thing, but hasn't quite thought through hows and whys of the situation. He isn't all that clear on what he thinks should be allowed or not and he seems a little confused on the legal situation - which shouldn't be surprising since most every article written on the matter seems confused on the legal situation. I guess I would appreciate it if he were a clear and concise advocate for a healthy position on the matter, but it's not exactly his job.  Mostly I want him steering the Stanford program to both winning and providing academic opportunity for its own kids.

There are a lot of interesting questions about the whole debate, both philosophically and practically toward the welfare of the players involved. I guess I'll keep tilting at windmills looking for calm, reasoned examination of those issues in print.

[CTcard]

One thing I find odd is the high level of righteous indignation among those who favour a full-professional model for college sports. That tends to turn me off, but I try to remember it doesn't actually have anything to do with the correctness of the particular position.

In the linked article, Shaw is not very eloquent. I suspect because he has a gut-feeling that a full free market for players would be a bad thing, but hasn't quite thought through hows and whys of the situation. He isn't all that clear on what he thinks should be allowed or not and he seems a little confused on the legal situation - which shouldn't be surprising since most every article written on the matter seems confused on the legal situation. I guess I would appreciate it if he were a clear and concise advocate for a healthy position on the matter, but it's not exactly his job.  Mostly I want him steering the Stanford program to both winning and providing academic opportunity for its own kids.

There are a lot of interesting questions about the whole debate, both philosophically and practically toward the welfare of the players involved. I guess I'll keep tilting at windmills looking for calm, reasoned examination of those issues in print.

[Hulk01]

Took forever to say next to nothing, and everything about his writing--and the man it revealed behind it--mzde we want to flee.  Didn't have a strong argument, resorted to posturing and windbaggery.  No time for that s---/

[Hulk01]

Took forever to say next to nothing, and everything about his writing--and the man it revealed behind it--mzde we want to flee.  Didn't have a strong argument, resorted to posturing and windbaggery.  No time for that s---/

[71Bear]

Redrum...

First of all, did you know that Roger Angell was just voted into the writer's wing of the Baseball Hall of Fame - the first non-newspaper sportswriter to receive the honor.  Congrats to him.....

Next , to your question...

I am on record here and elsewhere that players should be compensated for the use of their image and they should receive a slice of broadcast revenue (payments due upon expiration of eligibility).  I am 100% in favor of competing for players on the basis of what kind of financial incentive you can offer.  If that changes the dynamic of college sports (and it would), so be it.  If you don't want to participate, close up shop or play a schedule loaded with the likes of Cornell, Harvard and Columbia.

I don't believe in the quaint notion of dear ol' Alma Mater.  I believe in the concept of receiving appropriate payment for services rendered.  A kid like Manziel made Texas A & M a lot of money, why shouldn't he receive his just due. 

The Northwestern situation exposed college football (how many hours a week are kids expected to devote to football each week?  20? yeah, right)  and the O'Bannon case took it a step further (the anecdote about the kid from Alabama who had pay the school if he wanted to use his own image in a commercial venture was a real wake-up call). 

College footballers are being exploited  and people like Shaw (and God knows that he isn't the only voice out there) are focused on one thing and one thing only - how to perserve their multi-million dollar salaries.  Count me in one the side of the workers....

[71Bear]

Redrum...

First of all, did you know that Roger Angell was just voted into the writer's wing of the Baseball Hall of Fame - the first non-newspaper sportswriter to receive the honor.  Congrats to him.....

Next , to your question...

I am on record here and elsewhere that players should be compensated for the use of their image and they should receive a slice of broadcast revenue (payments due upon expiration of eligibility).  I am 100% in favor of competing for players on the basis of what kind of financial incentive you can offer.  If that changes the dynamic of college sports (and it would), so be it.  If you don't want to participate, close up shop or play a schedule loaded with the likes of Cornell, Harvard and Columbia.

I don't believe in the quaint notion of dear ol' Alma Mater.  I believe in the concept of receiving appropriate payment for services rendered.  A kid like Manziel made Texas A & M a lot of money, why shouldn't he receive his just due. 

The Northwestern situation exposed college football (how many hours a week are kids expected to devote to football each week?  20? yeah, right)  and the O'Bannon case took it a step further (the anecdote about the kid from Alabama who had pay the school if he wanted to use his own image in a commercial venture was a real wake-up call). 

College footballers are being exploited  and people like Shaw (and God knows that he isn't the only voice out there) are focused on one thing and one thing only - how to perserve their multi-million dollar salaries.  Count me in one the side of the workers....

[Mick]

I am on record here and elsewhere that players should be compensated for the use of their image and they should receive a slice of broadcast revenue (payments due upon expiration of eligibility).

Would you allow players to borrow against that receivable?

[Mick]

I am on record here and elsewhere that players should be compensated for the use of their image and they should receive a slice of broadcast revenue (payments due upon expiration of eligibility).

Would you allow players to borrow against that receivable?

[Redrum]

I don't believe in the quaint notion of dear ol' Alma Mater. 

Well, considering what your dear old Alma Mater is,  who could blame you?  RARE LAUGHING EMOTICON

Could universities charge tuition, room and board against this compensation?  I mean, if they are going to pose as private contractors who get paid upon completion of the "job",  why not have them pay the business expenses just like other contractors?  But they're smarter than that.  The leaders of the union movement want them to be "employees".  I wonder how they'll like that when they get fired for failing to break into the 2-deep.  I mean,  sub-par machinists or coders get cut loose every day, right?

[Redrum]

I don't believe in the quaint notion of dear ol' Alma Mater. 

Well, considering what your dear old Alma Mater is,  who could blame you?  RARE LAUGHING EMOTICON

Could universities charge tuition, room and board against this compensation?  I mean, if they are going to pose as private contractors who get paid upon completion of the "job",  why not have them pay the business expenses just like other contractors?  But they're smarter than that.  The leaders of the union movement want them to be "employees".  I wonder how they'll like that when they get fired for failing to break into the 2-deep.  I mean,  sub-par machinists or coders get cut loose every day, right?

[Farm93]

sportsonearth.com

That's all you need to know really.  We are not exactly chatting about a big time sportswriter, and honestly I did not even know sportsonearth.com existed prior to the link in this thread.

I would tend to agree that Shaw's perspective is clouded by his Stanford experiences as a student and coach.  I suspect that most D-1 programs are not really as concerned about getting STUDENT-athletes on campus, and are even less motivated to help prepare those students for success after college.  I did wish that Shaw was more clear about how his views and opinions were based upon his Stanford experiences, but perhaps those disclaimers were edited out of the final Fox post.

71Bear's perspective on the sad dirty reality of D-1 sports is probably more aligned with the world outside of 94305 & 94309.  In someways

Coach Shaw's graduation rate sits at 100% at the moment, so my guess is that whether it is part of his job description or not Shaw does in fact see himself as an educator at Stanford University.

[Farm93]

sportsonearth.com

That's all you need to know really.  We are not exactly chatting about a big time sportswriter, and honestly I did not even know sportsonearth.com existed prior to the link in this thread.

I would tend to agree that Shaw's perspective is clouded by his Stanford experiences as a student and coach.  I suspect that most D-1 programs are not really as concerned about getting STUDENT-athletes on campus, and are even less motivated to help prepare those students for success after college.  I did wish that Shaw was more clear about how his views and opinions were based upon his Stanford experiences, but perhaps those disclaimers were edited out of the final Fox post.

71Bear's perspective on the sad dirty reality of D-1 sports is probably more aligned with the world outside of 94305 & 94309.  In someways

Coach Shaw's graduation rate sits at 100% at the moment, so my guess is that whether it is part of his job description or not Shaw does in fact see himself as an educator at Stanford University.

[VFRing98]

For those bashing the writer, he's actually been writing intelligently on this subject for a few years. I don't know him, but to say he doesn't know of what he writes, or that he's just writing click-bait, is naive. Yes, he's not "big-time". But since when did the quality of a man's pedigree override the quality of that man's argument? Oh yeah, forgot - this is a Stanford fan board, so pedigree matters. For that matter, there actually are a couple of "big-time" writers that appear on Sportsonearth.

I'm in the camp that Shaw did "step in it" on this one. Of course he supports the current model. It gives him his livelihood, and it's a one-percenter livelihood. He's got his (rather large, cardinal-colored) blinders on.

The current model needs to be taken out back and shot. 

[VFRing98]

For those bashing the writer, he's actually been writing intelligently on this subject for a few years. I don't know him, but to say he doesn't know of what he writes, or that he's just writing click-bait, is naive. Yes, he's not "big-time". But since when did the quality of a man's pedigree override the quality of that man's argument? Oh yeah, forgot - this is a Stanford fan board, so pedigree matters. For that matter, there actually are a couple of "big-time" writers that appear on Sportsonearth.

I'm in the camp that Shaw did "step in it" on this one. Of course he supports the current model. It gives him his livelihood, and it's a one-percenter livelihood. He's got his (rather large, cardinal-colored) blinders on.

The current model needs to be taken out back and shot. 

[81alum]

Paying athletes makes sense in the context of a market system, but the underlying mission of a University (at least publics and non-profits like Stanford) is not market oriented at all.  For a non-profit educational institution to run a professional sports enterprise is, to me, a repulsive idea. 

Instead, I have long thought that the baseball model is more or less the ideal solution.  Young ball players should have a choice of entering directly into professional minor league teams or to play for a few years as amateurs at a university.  This puts the choice into their hands, and at the same time it preserves the underlying mission of a University and protects it somewhat from the corrupting influence of the professional sports world.

I do think that the present system deserves to be changed.  Let the NFL create its minor league teams and let Universities be Universities.  I wonder how many young men (who are college age) would opt not to go to college but instead enter minor leagues where they could be paid?  I suspect this would undermine a lot of football factories and leave Stanford virtually unscathed. 

[81alum]

Paying athletes makes sense in the context of a market system, but the underlying mission of a University (at least publics and non-profits like Stanford) is not market oriented at all.  For a non-profit educational institution to run a professional sports enterprise is, to me, a repulsive idea. 

Instead, I have long thought that the baseball model is more or less the ideal solution.  Young ball players should have a choice of entering directly into professional minor league teams or to play for a few years as amateurs at a university.  This puts the choice into their hands, and at the same time it preserves the underlying mission of a University and protects it somewhat from the corrupting influence of the professional sports world.

I do think that the present system deserves to be changed.  Let the NFL create its minor league teams and let Universities be Universities.  I wonder how many young men (who are college age) would opt not to go to college but instead enter minor leagues where they could be paid?  I suspect this would undermine a lot of football factories and leave Stanford virtually unscathed. 

[pefloresjr]

Paying athletes makes sense in the context of a market system, but the underlying mission of a University (at least publics and non-profits like Stanford) is not market oriented at all.  For a non-profit educational institution to run a professional sports enterprise is, to me, a repulsive idea. 

Instead, I have long thought that the baseball model is more or less the ideal solution.  Young ball players should have a choice of entering directly into professional minor league teams or to play for a few years as amateurs at a university.  This puts the choice into their hands, and at the same time it preserves the underlying mission of a University and protects it somewhat from the corrupting influence of the professional sports world.

I do think that the present system deserves to be changed.  Let the NFL create its minor league teams and let Universities be Universities.

I completely agree.  Those who want to go with a pure market based answer to issue of the corruption of the student-athlete model are really just giving in and pushing for the full and complete corruption of that model.  Instead, we should try to return the system to a true college competition.  Why should those who believe we should maintain a non-professional model quit and go play with those Ivy League type schools if they don't like it.  Wouldn't it be better if those who corrupt the system and exploit their student athletes be the ones who are told to go play their professional league?  I realize that the NCAA is not pushing for the true student-athlete model found at Stanford, but pushing for full abandonment of the model seems like a silly answer.  There is nothing preventing colleges or other private interests from forming their own professional league where they can compete by offering more money to the players they want. 

I also think that Shaw is being very realistic and thoughtful when he acknowledges that use of a student-athlete's image needs to be addressed within the student-athlete model.  Trust funds held until the expiration of eligibility makes some sense here but there are probably other solutions as well. 

The bottom line is that true student athletes do not need to be compensated because they participate voluntarily in athletics just as they do with any other extracurricular activity.  If the activity takes too much time, they can stop participating and participate in the other opportunities that are offered to every other admitted student.  I realize that in many colleges, many student-athletes are not really interested in or qualified to take advantage of those opportunities.  I just don't believe that the solution to that problem is to give up and simply hire those athletes to compete with other actual students in collegiate sports. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Paying athletes makes sense in the context of a market system, but the underlying mission of a University (at least publics and non-profits like Stanford) is not market oriented at all.  For a non-profit educational institution to run a professional sports enterprise is, to me, a repulsive idea. 

Instead, I have long thought that the baseball model is more or less the ideal solution.  Young ball players should have a choice of entering directly into professional minor league teams or to play for a few years as amateurs at a university.  This puts the choice into their hands, and at the same time it preserves the underlying mission of a University and protects it somewhat from the corrupting influence of the professional sports world.

I do think that the present system deserves to be changed.  Let the NFL create its minor league teams and let Universities be Universities.

I completely agree.  Those who want to go with a pure market based answer to issue of the corruption of the student-athlete model are really just giving in and pushing for the full and complete corruption of that model.  Instead, we should try to return the system to a true college competition.  Why should those who believe we should maintain a non-professional model quit and go play with those Ivy League type schools if they don't like it.  Wouldn't it be better if those who corrupt the system and exploit their student athletes be the ones who are told to go play their professional league?  I realize that the NCAA is not pushing for the true student-athlete model found at Stanford, but pushing for full abandonment of the model seems like a silly answer.  There is nothing preventing colleges or other private interests from forming their own professional league where they can compete by offering more money to the players they want. 

I also think that Shaw is being very realistic and thoughtful when he acknowledges that use of a student-athlete's image needs to be addressed within the student-athlete model.  Trust funds held until the expiration of eligibility makes some sense here but there are probably other solutions as well. 

The bottom line is that true student athletes do not need to be compensated because they participate voluntarily in athletics just as they do with any other extracurricular activity.  If the activity takes too much time, they can stop participating and participate in the other opportunities that are offered to every other admitted student.  I realize that in many colleges, many student-athletes are not really interested in or qualified to take advantage of those opportunities.  I just don't believe that the solution to that problem is to give up and simply hire those athletes to compete with other actual students in collegiate sports. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[CowboyIndian]

I do think that the present system deserves to be changed.  Let the NFL create its minor league teams and let Universities be Universities.  I wonder how many young men (who are college age) would opt not to go to college but instead enter minor leagues where they could be paid?  I suspect this would undermine a lot of football factories and leave Stanford virtually unscathed.

This is exactly why it won't happen. ESPN, FOX, etc have too much invested in the factory model.

[CowboyIndian]

I do think that the present system deserves to be changed.  Let the NFL create its minor league teams and let Universities be Universities.  I wonder how many young men (who are college age) would opt not to go to college but instead enter minor leagues where they could be paid?  I suspect this would undermine a lot of football factories and leave Stanford virtually unscathed.

This is exactly why it won't happen. ESPN, FOX, etc have too much invested in the factory model.

[Redrum]

For those bashing the writer, he's actually been writing intelligently on this subject for a few years. I don't know him, but to say he doesn't know of what he writes, or that he's just writing click-bait, is naive. Yes, he's not "big-time". But since when did the quality of a man's pedigree override the quality of that man's argument? Oh yeah, forgot - this is a Stanford fan board, so pedigree matters. 

Gosh,  rather than title his article "Eight Reasons Why I Think College Football Can and Must Change" , he starts out with a double insult to a person.  A prominent person.  If that first move isn't "click bait",  what would you call it?  We could dress it up as latin-- argumentum ad hominem-- and maybe that would make it seem what it isn't.

If the author has been " writing intelligently on this subject for years"  why get down in the gutter now?  Of course, bringing up Jim Harbaugh's bathroom/shower sure makes a point relevant to paying players. 

or:  "Shaw is right to use the word "believe" -- a word also frequently used when discussing Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny."  Talk about destroying bunk by the sheer power of logic.

Or: "Shaw is right. You could make that argument, same as you could argue that Yetis are real. Of course, there's no supporting evidence for either. "  Well, that moves the debate upward to a logical plane.  Sort of like saying  "Oh yeah, forgot - this is a Stanford fan board, so pedigree matters."

Or: "Sounds like Shaw is ready to follow my above suggestions, and also ask that most of his salary instead be spent on professors. Perhaps he'll even resign, apply for a classroom teaching position and volunteer to coach on the side, just for the love of the game. "  Still trying to find the logical connection of that to his thesis.

Or:  Using a Schwarzenegger quote from a 32-yr. old movie:  " Unless the wrong involves denying basic economic rights, in which case replace "come to their aid" with "crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women." to address an assertion by Shaw that schools and coaches want to help players through a difficult, maturing time.  Even punched it up with a video clip from the movie.  Wow.  The logic was undeniable once we saw that clip.

So it isn't like we just decided his argument sucked.  He chose the format and he chose to use a coach -- in place of an idea-- as his punching bag.  His argument could have been half as long and twice as effective to make his point,  but he was having too much fun.  Tell you what, VFRing.  Go back and find those tight, focused arguments you say he made and bring them back here.  In the meantime,  I'll stick with the he-was-just-jonesing-for-clicks theory.

[Redrum]

For those bashing the writer, he's actually been writing intelligently on this subject for a few years. I don't know him, but to say he doesn't know of what he writes, or that he's just writing click-bait, is naive. Yes, he's not "big-time". But since when did the quality of a man's pedigree override the quality of that man's argument? Oh yeah, forgot - this is a Stanford fan board, so pedigree matters. 

Gosh,  rather than title his article "Eight Reasons Why I Think College Football Can and Must Change" , he starts out with a double insult to a person.  A prominent person.  If that first move isn't "click bait",  what would you call it?  We could dress it up as latin-- argumentum ad hominem-- and maybe that would make it seem what it isn't.

If the author has been " writing intelligently on this subject for years"  why get down in the gutter now?  Of course, bringing up Jim Harbaugh's bathroom/shower sure makes a point relevant to paying players. 

or:  "Shaw is right to use the word "believe" -- a word also frequently used when discussing Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny."  Talk about destroying bunk by the sheer power of logic.

Or: "Shaw is right. You could make that argument, same as you could argue that Yetis are real. Of course, there's no supporting evidence for either. "  Well, that moves the debate upward to a logical plane.  Sort of like saying  "Oh yeah, forgot - this is a Stanford fan board, so pedigree matters."

Or: "Sounds like Shaw is ready to follow my above suggestions, and also ask that most of his salary instead be spent on professors. Perhaps he'll even resign, apply for a classroom teaching position and volunteer to coach on the side, just for the love of the game. "  Still trying to find the logical connection of that to his thesis.

Or:  Using a Schwarzenegger quote from a 32-yr. old movie:  " Unless the wrong involves denying basic economic rights, in which case replace "come to their aid" with "crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women." to address an assertion by Shaw that schools and coaches want to help players through a difficult, maturing time.  Even punched it up with a video clip from the movie.  Wow.  The logic was undeniable once we saw that clip.

So it isn't like we just decided his argument sucked.  He chose the format and he chose to use a coach -- in place of an idea-- as his punching bag.  His argument could have been half as long and twice as effective to make his point,  but he was having too much fun.  Tell you what, VFRing.  Go back and find those tight, focused arguments you say he made and bring them back here.  In the meantime,  I'll stick with the he-was-just-jonesing-for-clicks theory.

[OutsiderFan]

Universities that play big time sports are making their own market decisions not to pay athletes as employees.  When the lives of athletes getting free educations and professional training becomes so terrible that they refuse to sign LOIs and grants in aid, the market will provide an opportunity for a minor league system to develop. 

All David Shaw is saying is he believes steadfastly that the university mission is developing young people for lives after undergrad, be that through education, lessons from being on a team, or relationships made at school.  Minor leagues aren't going to do or care about any of that. 

It's fair to point out the salaries of coaches and how they don't want to give money up to pay their athletes.  It's totally unfair amd a bit presumptious to assert a coach really doesn't care about the lifelong development of his charges and is just paying lip service to preserve his own compensation.

[OutsiderFan]

Universities that play big time sports are making their own market decisions not to pay athletes as employees.  When the lives of athletes getting free educations and professional training becomes so terrible that they refuse to sign LOIs and grants in aid, the market will provide an opportunity for a minor league system to develop. 

All David Shaw is saying is he believes steadfastly that the university mission is developing young people for lives after undergrad, be that through education, lessons from being on a team, or relationships made at school.  Minor leagues aren't going to do or care about any of that. 

It's fair to point out the salaries of coaches and how they don't want to give money up to pay their athletes.  It's totally unfair amd a bit presumptious to assert a coach really doesn't care about the lifelong development of his charges and is just paying lip service to preserve his own compensation.

[Hank 91]

I read through this thread first, then read the article. What strikes me the most from the article is that the author doesn't seem to realize that his condescending tone completely undermines his stance. It's certainly okay to disagree with Shaw's point of view, but you'd think that an intelligent person would at least be able to acknowledge that it's understandable that a person might think differently. Of course, he did get what he wanted. I clicked the link.

[Hank 91]

I read through this thread first, then read the article. What strikes me the most from the article is that the author doesn't seem to realize that his condescending tone completely undermines his stance. It's certainly okay to disagree with Shaw's point of view, but you'd think that an intelligent person would at least be able to acknowledge that it's understandable that a person might think differently. Of course, he did get what he wanted. I clicked the link.

[VFRing98]

Redrum, go to the site and read more of the author's work. He's a serious writer who knows more about this than you or I. Disagree with the form all you want, but there's substance behind it.

He "picked on" poor Shaw because Shaw gave the interview to Feldman, and said some pretty misinformed stuff. If Saban or Alford say the same things, does your BS detector go off, maybe just a little bit? It should.

Shaw extrapolates from his own experience as a player, as a coach's son, at one of the richest and most academically-oriented schools in the country, to cast doubt on the starving athlete story. Sorry, that's a pretty myopic argument that doesn't wash when you look at the rest of college football.

The bathroom will always be worthy of ridicule.

Get us back to the Rose Bowl, enjoy your $2 million/year, but please stop with the "coaches helping kids" sanctimony.

[VFRing98]

Redrum, go to the site and read more of the author's work. He's a serious writer who knows more about this than you or I. Disagree with the form all you want, but there's substance behind it.

He "picked on" poor Shaw because Shaw gave the interview to Feldman, and said some pretty misinformed stuff. If Saban or Alford say the same things, does your BS detector go off, maybe just a little bit? It should.

Shaw extrapolates from his own experience as a player, as a coach's son, at one of the richest and most academically-oriented schools in the country, to cast doubt on the starving athlete story. Sorry, that's a pretty myopic argument that doesn't wash when you look at the rest of college football.

The bathroom will always be worthy of ridicule.

Get us back to the Rose Bowl, enjoy your $2 million/year, but please stop with the "coaches helping kids" sanctimony.

[71Bear]

re: the website, sportsonearth.com....

I enjoy reading the material published there because of the wide variety of opinion that is offered.  I believe the way you learn is through engaging those who have a different perspective on issues.  Heck, that is one reason why I like this website.  I don't agree with many of the comments here but, generally, they are thoughtfully written. 

Pertaining to the Shaw article, I see that some here are overly sensitive and, surprisingly, defensive.  Others take a thoughtful middle of the road approach, and, of course, there is always a lone wolf.

Regardless, thanks for all the feedback. 

Lastly, the  author of the Shaw article has been a leading voice in criticizing the NFL for how little they have done re: player safety and health.  He is a strong voice for the players, both professionals and collegians. 

[71Bear]

re: the website, sportsonearth.com....

I enjoy reading the material published there because of the wide variety of opinion that is offered.  I believe the way you learn is through engaging those who have a different perspective on issues.  Heck, that is one reason why I like this website.  I don't agree with many of the comments here but, generally, they are thoughtfully written. 

Pertaining to the Shaw article, I see that some here are overly sensitive and, surprisingly, defensive.  Others take a thoughtful middle of the road approach, and, of course, there is always a lone wolf.

Regardless, thanks for all the feedback. 

Lastly, the  author of the Shaw article has been a leading voice in criticizing the NFL for how little they have done re: player safety and health.  He is a strong voice for the players, both professionals and collegians.