Jump to content

TreatyOak

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    5657
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

TreatyOak last won the day on December 28 2023

TreatyOak had the most liked content!

Reputation

20882 Surly 1%

Recent Profile Visitors

10141 profile views
  1. College football was always about money and never ever about education. 🏈 Major College Football Money or Eligibility Scandals of the 19th Century 1. The 1893 Harvard–Yale Eligibility Controversy What happened: The “Big Game” between Harvard and Yale in 1893 was canceled over disputes about player eligibility and professionalism. Both schools accused the other of using non-students or players with financial ties to athletics (essentially, “ringers”). Significance: This dispute foreshadowed the larger fight over amateurism and whether athletes were being paid under the table. 2. The 1896 University of Chicago “Stagg’s Proteges” Accusations What happened: Critics accused legendary coach Amos Alonzo Stagg of offering financial incentives—such as scholarships and jobs—to players, which was considered improper under early amateur rules. Significance: Though mild by modern standards, this was one of the first public debates about financial aid for athletes. 3. The “Tramp Athletes” and “Ringer” Scandals (1880s–1890s) What happened: Throughout the 1880s and 1890s, many schools—especially in the Midwest and South—were caught hiring non-students or recent graduates to play under aliases or temporary enrollment. Examples: University of Kentucky (then Kentucky State College) and Centre College were accused of using ringers. Kansas and Missouri were both caught using “tramp athletes” who hopped from school to school for pay. Significance: These scandals led directly to the formation of the Western Conference (now the Big Ten) in 1895 to regulate eligibility and prevent professionalism. 4. The 1898–1899 Yale “Secret Fund” Allegations What happened: Rumors circulated that Yale alumni maintained a “slush fund” to support athletes with jobs and tuition aid. Significance: Though never fully proven, it reflected growing concern that elite programs were circumventing amateur rules with money from wealthy boosters. 6. The 1890s “Southern Pay-for-Play” Incidents What happened: Several early Southern programs (notably Georgia, Auburn, and North Carolina) were rumored to offer cash or “expenses” to attract athletes. Example: In 1892, Georgia Tech allegedly paid a player from another school to compete against Georgia—one of the first recorded pay-for-play instances in the South. Significance: Exposed how competitive pressure quickly corrupted “amateur” ideals in the region.
  2. Agreed. I'd rather have his lower-rated, but really smart and coachable players* to the five-star morons who permeate college football. His QB is a prime example. He doesn't have the biggest arm or real speed, but he plays smart and protects the ball. But the player who truly amazed me was their backup WR, Charlie Becker. He made incredible catch after incredible catch. *Of course, you have to have smart coaches to coach the coachable players, and there aren't too many coaches like Cignetti.
  3. Those are two good ones, for sure, since they were not traditional powers. Bob Stoops is another with a similar impact at OU, winning the NC in his second year, but they were formerly a powerhouse program, so it's not the same.
  4. Of course the coaching is the difference, but still, how is their incredible transformation even possible? It’s not like this was a great program w great players that just needed a coaching change. Can’t think of another program that is parallel to their rise but there may be a few.
  5. How many fanbases (including ours) are asking themselves today how Indiana managed to create such a great program in less than two years? They brought in a bunch of unknown transfer players and when I watch them, I am amazed. They swarm the ball carrier, they protect the passer, they are really fundamentally sound and they win! Yesterday, they had a backup WR making amazing catches throughout the game. A no-name white-guy backup who looked like Randy Moss. So happy for them but the hell.
  6. Do you understand that there is a difference between losers who look for sympathy for being marginalized, gender-shamed, fat-shamed, etc, and people suffering from serious mental health issues due to things they can’t control like their physiological makeup and social conditions like rape, war veterans w PTSD, and more?
  7. I think what @Derka is saying is that there is a huge gulf of understanding between people who suffer from depression/mental illness and those who don't, unless you experience it yourself. For people like me who don't understand, we categorize it as "having the blues," or claim it will go away once you solve the problem, or reaching out should be enough to prevent a suicide. I'm sure many a person has been saved by someone caring, but there seems to be a large group of people who are immune to any effort to save them. My friend's son ultimately was.
  8. That's not funny or appropriate at this time. But yes, you should stop watching for the sake of your kids.
  9. Wow, that's awful about the daughter. Just as studies seem to indicate that the propensity to commit crime may be hereditary, (they tracked families in Philadelphia that were criminals over many generations) perhaps the urge to kill yourself can also be inherited.
  10. The 'wait a while and problems will get better' idea may be irrelevant for people who have serious mental health issues. Problems aren't necessarily the issue. Some people are chemically predisposed to kill themselves and you can only prevent it from happening for so long. My best friend lost her son to suicide. He had a great life. They were totally blindsided.
  11. Since this is a Bye Week, I'm putting this here. We have a custom clothes maker in East Austin who creates suits for a large number of current and former Longhorns and other athletes. The place is sotoandco.com The clothes are nice. While I was there, M.J. McFarland came in. I think he sells real estate in Austin now. Great space in a container building and check out some of the clientele:
  12. Fair point. Aside from his 177.8 rating, his 71.1% completion percentage, 365 passing yards and 3 touchdown passes plus his long touchdown run, he didn't do anything. Glad you cleared that up.
  13. He had pretty good numbers considering we sacked him six times. Also, their defense sucks.
  14. If he's a loser, I'd hate to see what a winner would have done against us.
×
×
  • Create New...