Excited about the opener against Miami of Ohio

ChosenChildren

Well-Known Member
No reason to be posting, but I'm doing it anyway. This should be an exciting game:

1. Night game!
2. National TV coverage on Fox.
3. Should win, but Miami of Ohio has some talent and plays in a good league.
4. Interested to see how our Offense and Defense play with several new players.
5. How will our Tight Ends look?
6. will Amani Jones get some snaps?


Really looking forward to August 31! I hope Kinnick is packed!!
 
No reason to be posting, but I'm doing it anyway. This should be an exciting game:

1. Night game!
2. National TV coverage on Fox.
3. Should win, but Miami of Ohio has some talent and plays in a good league.
4. Interested to see how our Offense and Defense play with several new players.
5. How will our Tight Ends look?
6. will Amani Jones get some snaps?


Really looking forward to August 31! I hope Kinnick is packed!!


Wouldn't matter who we are playing. It's the season opener. Can't get here fast enough.
 
I would suspect this would be a great opportunity to establish the running game for the season.

Would also like to get a lead and see some younger players get a chance to get their feet wet.
 
Allowing players 4 games without burning their shirts is one of the best rules the NCAA has ever offered up.

And I think some stipend payment to players would also be good. Heck even $500 a month which is not much considering the time they all put in to bring in the big bucks.
 
That is going to be a long long day waiting for that evening kickoff.

At least the weather will be more comfortable for players and spectators if it is a hot humid day.
 
Of course we are excited. We have questions to answer and a lot of unknowns. Can the hawks roll to start a season which doesnt always happen. And most definitely want to see a test for the running game but also a success for the offense.
 
Allowing players 4 games without burning their shirts is one of the best rules the NCAA has ever offered up.

They should have retro'd players in if still in college when rule was put in place. Stanley would have one more year left after this if that were the case. Not saying he would stay if he has a big year though.
 
They should have retro'd players in if still in college when rule was put in place. Stanley would have one more year left after this if that were the case. Not saying he would stay if he has a big year though.

I wonder if Max Cooper uses that rule this year? He played as a true frosh, and then last year as a sophomore before tearing his ACL after the Indiana game (6th game). Not sure how his rehab is going, but if Martin gets immediate eligibility, the Hawks will actually have decent depth at WR (ISM, B. Smith, Ragaini, Tracey, Martin, Lockett). Cooper could plan a return for the back half of the B1G season, giving him a full 12 months rehab following the injury.

Of course if he is healthy and they need him (e.g. as a punt returner), it is all hands on deck.
 
I wonder if Max Cooper uses that rule this year? He played as a true frosh, and then last year as a sophomore before tearing his ACL after the Indiana game (6th game). Not sure how his rehab is going, but if Martin gets immediate eligibility, the Hawks will actually have decent depth at WR (ISM, B. Smith, Ragaini, Tracey, Martin, Lockett). Cooper could plan a return for the back half of the B1G season, giving him a full 12 months rehab following the injury.

Of course if he is healthy and they need him (e.g. as a punt returner), it is all hands on deck.

As an aside, Cooper played 7 games as a Fr, 6 games as a Soph. Maybe instead of the arbitrary, "anything over 4 is a season" rule, you just get 48 games to play in your career over 5 years (excluding post-season)?

Not sure what a team would do with a 4th year guy who still has 2 games in the tank? Bring him back for a couple games, then send him on his way? Say, "Goodbye" and get that scholarship back? There would be some tricky aspects.
 
And I think some stipend payment to players would also be good. Heck even $500 a month which is not much considering the time they all put in to bring in the big bucks.

Will never happen under Title IX. They may allow players to make money "outside" their school environment, but schools paying players will never be able to happen under Title IX. It just won't.
 
Will never happen under Title IX. They may allow players to make money "outside" their school environment, but schools paying players will never be able to happen under Title IX. It just won't.
It could if you have every student athlete the same stipend. Just giving that to football players? Obviously not.
 
Revenue generating athletes deserve more money. Just my opinion as a business owner. College football is a business, like it or not.
 
Revenue generating athletes deserve more money. Just my opinion as a business owner. College football is a business, like it or not.

And they are getting some. Room, board, tuition, athletic training, etc. Value maybe $20k to $30k annual? You may say that is not enough. If they are paid then does a "star" player get paid more than a guy that never sees the field? Cause you know the star is the one drawing more money in than the one unknown.
 
I know you have to draw the line somewhere, but this same reward for everybody rule just doesn't sit well. Should the professors give every athlete the same grades too as that is only fair to everyone?
 
I still don't know where I sit on the argument about paying college athletes. I still think the really good ones are always going to get the "benefits" that come with superstardom and don't think a stipend will change anything. I'm not sure it should/needs to be about fairness across the board either so I'm not sure how to come up with dollar amount or put any amount into an equation for that matter.

That said, I would have no issues with them being paid for endorsements, appearances, or likeness. Regardless of paid or not the ones that "deserve it" are still going reap the benefits stipend or not.
 
It could if you have every student athlete the same stipend. Just giving that to football players? Obviously not.
Will never happen under Title IX. They may allow players to make money "outside" their school environment, but schools paying players will never be able to happen under Title IX. It just won't.

I think most of these athletes are putting in a lot of extra hours even out of season and almost year around.

Give me a friggin break about them already getting paid tuition and board because the football players and basketball players by playing on the field are the product and the workers who bring in the $100 million a year to the AD budget.

Many other sports only give out partial schollies.

I think of a stipend for all athletes as compensation for many times not being able to work a part time job.

I carried food trays and washed dishes at UI hospitals, built grain bins, worked construction etc during summers while going to UI to make money but I wasnt tied up practicing a college sport but many of these athletes are expected to work on their sport.
 
It could if you have every student athlete the same stipend. Just giving that to football players? Obviously not.

Which is why I personally feel the "let-them-make-money-off-their-likeness" talk has gathered steam. Like many have pointed out, players are already getting paid, just not "according to the rules". Let XYZ Car Sales pay a guy to show up and sign autographs. Let them send a W-2 or 1098. NCAA is out of the loop then, and various state and federal entities can worry about it on their end.
 
Top