***Official B1G In-Season Thread***
- Thread starter dragonhawk1855
- Start date
Northwestern getting beat by Merrimack. RollLaugh
Iowa and Northwestern, amirite?
Congrats to Merrimack on their first win as a D1 program. RollLaughRollLaughRollLaugh
It really is. I mean sure, kids aren't that mature. I get that. BUT---Mature or not--he(Wiseman) is aware of NCAA rules, i.e. impermissible benefits. He knew when Penny paid for his family to move, that it was against NCAA rules, and could impact his eligibility.
Sometimes we give kids the benefit of the doubt----waaaaay to often. A lot of times, its why they grown into irresponsible adults.
Not the point. Hold schools, coaches and boosters responsible. Kids, not so much. Not fair to waive money in front of poor kids and blame kids. The kids are 1% responsible. At most.
You don't think fining the school $500k or having Penny sit ten games is more equitable than suspending Wiseman, for what I assume was indefinitely?
I don’t care if the kid plays for another school. I care about him playing for the school that cheated.
You are giving these kids, waaay to much credit. Remember----these are the same "kids" wanting to get paid. Same "kids" looking for the quickest route to the NBA...THese "kids", are quite aware of NCAA rules. Yet you think they are to naive to understand that a coach paying for their family to move, is wrong?
Yeah, ok.
I added to my post. Fine the school $500k. Suspend Penny for 10 games. Suspending Wiseman, what I assume was indefinitely, is a joke.
If you think the problem is the kid accepting versus Penny or the school or a booster offering and paying him then we can agree to disagree.
It’s not. It’s a good rule. He should have committed elsewhere if eligibility was a main concern.
I don't think the problem IS JUST the kid. I just think he's more a part of the problem, than you think. These "kids" know the type of $$$ thats out there. They aren't as naive, and innocent as you think. Wiseman knew that Penny paying for his family to move, was an NCAA violation. But you wanna excuse this, because......he's a "kid"? Nope.
No way. Poor kids are going to take money? I'm stunned. Want to stop it? Hammer the people who offer and pay the kids. Hammering the kids is a huge deterrent? After this I cant imagine any other school, coach or booster taking such a risk. Puh-leese.
I want to excuse it because in a free market he'd get a s--t ton more than $11,500. I'm a capitalist. Want to stop it? Hammer the schools, coach, and boosters. The rest is window dressing. And unfair.
Want to suspend Penny 10 games, fine the school $500k and make Wiseman sit 8 games? I'm good. Only Wiseman? F-U
You really think he only got the moving expenses? I would bet a sht ton that he got his $100-200k on top to stick with Memphis.
Only Wiseman, I agree. That's wrong. But he BROKE the rules. Its that simple. Again, you are wanting to excuse a kid for knowingly breaking the rules, because-----he's poor? That's irresponsible. Would you want to excuse a kid for robbing a liquor store---because he's poor?
Northwestern
LaughingLaughingLaughingjumpingsmile
LaughingLaughingLaughingjumpingsmile
Letting boosters pay players in a free market would utterly destroy the college game as we know it. No thanks. Some rules need to be in place and yes, even for players.
This is one of the all time bad losses that I can remember
Please don’t make comments that make Purdue fans look bad. Thanks
Those two things are not equivalent. One is a law made to protect people, and the other is a rule to protect the interests of an organization.
It's subjective based upon your opinion, and guess what? I don't respect your opinion.
If you feel a guy is innocent because he's poor. Then why would you not excuse the such I mentioned above. YOur answer----and look, I like you---is a bit patronizing. I know the difference. Though the circumstances are not equivalent, the thought process is. Kids today are well aware of what they "can get". If they choose so---that is on them.
I think the rule is bad not that they didn't break the rule. You're making arguments about things that aren't morally equivalent
The glaring weakness with argument that it’s the kids fault is the idea that a child makes the decision in the household. I’m thinking there are several people breaking the rules in this case and they are all adults - Hardaway and the kids parent(s). All circumstances are different but I wasn’t making decision one on where we lived as a kid. I think there is evidence that the brain isn’t fully developed until the mid twenties. Adults are at fault here and the players are being taken advantage of in these cases.
Similar threads
