The Fake Lonnie Finch

...nothing in the news report says that he was mixed up with marijuana, assaulting females, or both. Just says Tulsa kicked him off: http://newsok.com/former-ou-commit-dalton-rodriguez-transferring-to-sooners-from-tulsa/article/5256269 Liked this quote: “It was cool getting to play as a freshman and TU was all right but I had my doubts about it from when I first got there.” My translation of that is as follows: "TU is a private school that isn't an academic pushover, so I was expected to keep up in class as well as on the field. OU has many more dopey degree plans, and they wanted me a couple of years ago. So, I'm there, dude."

They are also having things paid for - very expensive things: room, board, tuition, and books. Those are the things many, if not most of us were working for. They already have those expenses given to them. The players' point about not having what their fellow non-athlete students have is a joke. After I paid for my rent, my groceries, my tuition, my book...as well as auto insurance, gas, utilities, clothing, etc. - I sometimes didn't have money for going out on dates, hanging out, etc. either. Their argument that they are "being used" is silly. They are not required to play. And, in trade for their play, they got some major college expenses taken care of. I worked two jobs to get through - they practiced their sport. What's the difference? Everybody is making sacrifices, athlete and nonathlete. Also, as much of a struggle financially and timewise as it was for me from 1990-95, I can't imagine what it would be like today with the cost of college now being what it is.

This isn't true. There are semi-pro football leagues. There is the NAIA. There is Division III of the NCAA. They could easily go to any of those three. Also - and, again - it is not an NCAA rule that players cannot compete for a place on an NFL roster for three years, it the NFL Players' Association Collection Bargaining Agreement rule. It is NFL players - former college football players - who wanted, and got, this rule.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, I worked two jobs through school at almost all times. Some semesters, I couldn't afford to go full time. So, I went part-time. It's insulting for the athletes to make this overarching assumption about what "the rest of the non-athlete students" are getting. I think most people I know were like me. And, now, as much as college costs now, I can't imagine many students living as extravagantly as these athletes say they do.

Exactly. And, whether we keep winning or not, whatever we are doing doesn't exist in a vacuum. Kansas State and Texas Tech are getting tens of millions of dollars each season, whether or not they win, due to conference bowl money and television money. No one is standing still waiting for us to catch up. And, again, I say the Criminal 5 conferences will push further until they have no limit in scholarships or money spent. They are now legalizing what they punished SMU for in the 80s. And, who really believes this will stop at food? Once the food is upped to what the athletes think is equal to "the rest of the non-athlete student body" (which is absurd, because it's already better), then what's to stop the complaint train to moving on to subsidizing certain types of apartments, leasing of automobiles, etc. It's not catching up, it's keeping up, and realizing that it's no longer about long term gratitude for getting an education paid for. It's about what can I get now. The Criminal 5 are simply tired of hiding their dirt. Turns out, the shrimpy Miami booster busted a few years ago was ahead of his time, a pioneer in the new Football Welfare State.

Your hypothetical is fine...but, would require us to pony up OU/Texas-type booster money in the future. And, for the school to be receiving television and bowl money equal to Big 12/SEC/Big Ten-type television and bowl contracts. Of those three things, zero are happening now or have happened in the past. And, it is highly unlikely that it will happen in the future...unless one of us wins the lottery each year and decides to give most of what is left after taxes on the prize to UNT.

“Derek’s a solid guy who puts the interest of others before himself,” Gudmundson said. “He wants to help the school and the sports he loves. Derek is not in this to get a couple of bucks.” Duh. Yes, counsel Gudmundson. We all know that the plaintiffs in these things get chicken scratch compared to what the attorneys get if the lawsuit is successful. What is disappointing to me is that, yes, open competition is coming - whether or not this lawsuit advances - but, that North Texas is not set financially to compete. Oklahoma is already setting up food trucks, and their AD says they will begin with a million dollar budget for that. Derek, sadly, doesn't understand that the lawsuit of his "counsel," if successful, will create an even larger chasm between the haves and have nots. The real problem will come when the 85 scholarship limit is eliminated again. You'll have what OU, Texas, and everyone else had in the 1970s - open season for any and all you can get on campus. So, the decision for the poor kid becomes this: I can go to North Texas and start and get X amount in benefits. Or, I have an offer from OU to get XYZ amount of benefits, although my chances of starting there are no as good. Back then, you had guys like Jimmy Rogers and Jim Culbreath going to OU, although never starting, but with enough talent to end up in the NFL. The sway of going to bowls and playing for national titles...and, whatever money OU's boosters were handing out...won out over starting. In the future, the schools like OU will simply be the middle men for the boosters of old. Three decades ago, the NCAA busted SMU for it. Now, they are on the brink of endorsing it as long as the schools hand out the cash and prizes instead of the boosters. It's coming soon, and it isn't good for UNT unless we decide to "feed the monster" the way the traditional schools have. That's what we get for playing by the rules all these years: left behind in the dust...and, one of our former players helping widen the competitive canyon between us and OU/Texas/Bama, etc.

And, so, people here are complaining about McCarney's/Canales' approach. Why again? A 9-4 season wasn't good enough after eight years of losing? I'm waiting on the We're-Missing-The-Boat-By-Not-Just-Playing-Who-The-Fans-Believe-Is-The-"Most Athletic/Running"-QB faction to tell us how Brock would have led us to a 13-0 record. Or, in the alternative, that throwing in Dajon as a true freshman would have produced a better record. It's not enough, you see, for many here to be happy that McCarney (and Canales) pulled this thing out of the ditch and had us on the brink of 10 wins within three seasons. We're not doing it in the style they prefer. And, so, therefore, you get the endless - and, pointless - QB threads all the time. And, it's the people who love UNT's all-time leading receiver, Johnny Quinn, who played in Darrell Dickey's "boring offense," who seem to yowl the loudest about wanting a more athletic QB. All of the complaining about Dickey and McCarney, and their judgements regarding QBs and offense, when one produced the school's top wide receiver and the other produced the school's top quarterback...crazy. Two of the school's three bowl win from Dickey and McCarney...the two coaches we bash regarding offense. I'll have to stop by the UNT football trophy case to see how many championships and bowl games were amassed by the more exciting offenses that coaches not named Dickey or McCarney blessed us with.

Hmm. UT didn't have any opening in the Finance Department?

So...two of the five teams you list won a championship with a mobile QB? I didn't realize that the Redskins and Browns were piling up championships with mobile quarterbacks.

Really? Nick Foles runs around with the ball the way some here think Brock Berglund could...or Dajon Williams can/should? Looks to me like he's more of a passer: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FoleNi00.htm And, you are correct about Chip Kelly - no national title. And, no Super Bowl or playoff win in the NFL. Gee, I can't figure out why these teams who take care of the ball and play tough defense win the championships, can you? Trent Dilfer with a Super Bowl ring, but not Michael Vick? I just don't understand it.

http://www.joshcousins.com/

Who cares whether one runs better than the other? They don't decide winners and losers by how many rushing yards are gained in a game. Winning is what matters. Be thankful we once again have a coach who understands this and doesn't waste everyone's time by trying to reinvent the wheel. Those of you who liked the "exciting" offense of The Wheel Re-Inventor can catch his act back in the high school scene...where it belongs.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm saying it is what it is - players are told a college degree has value, then steered into worthless degree programs. The value of college degrees these days is being debated: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-a-college-degree-still-worth-it In the long run, though, what does it matter? Pumping out hundreds and thousands of kids with degrees that can't get them real jobs or prepare them for lucrative careers is what to you and me? So, the university pays for some more of their meals. What is the real harm? Oklahoma can buy more meals for their kids than North Texas. Yes, but athletes from both schools are more likely than not earning equally uncompetitive degrees. So, what's the difference? Let them have their meals. Let them have their short-term endorsements. Very few will have the wherewithal to save the money anyway. Look at the number of pro athletes who get into financial straits. Throwing them a few extra bucks in the ways of meals and things...meaningless in the long haul to the vast majority of them.

And, therein lies part of the hypocrisy. Most of these players are told a college education will better their lives. However, once they arrive on campus, they are steered into worthless degree programs, and work is done for them anyway. Look at the case of Dexter Manley, the kid who couldn't read, but was given a degree by Oklahoma State. There are thousands out there like him. Beyond that, what type of competition is a former athlete with a degree in African American Studies against a student who earns a degree in Finance or Accounting? Not much. So, you can at least see the former athletes' argument. Although, it is a bit hypocritical seeing as so few challenged themselves or were challenged academically while having their athletic skills used by the school.

Yes. And, so we shouldn't complain, then, when these change make their way into college sports, correct? For instance, as fans and alumni of North Texas, we should applaud the fact that the Criminal 5 conferences will now be able buy players above board, with no penalty. If you think they will not someday push for the "good old days" i.e., unlimited scholarships, you are more than kidding yourselves. The 85 scholarship limit is the last line that would keep a North Texas even marginally competitive with the OUs, Alabamas, Texas', and Notre Dames of the world.

The bottom line is, courts hold the power to determine what is and what is not legal. Precedent can mean nothing; and, these days, it means less and less. When a customer ask me what their insurance policy covers, I tell them, "It covers what it says it covers...or, what a court of law says it covers." It can, and is, either and both at the same time. Such is risk management: finance, economics, law. No element is really within your complete control. And, so...insurance. And, insurance evolves right along with finance, economics, and law. For better or worse, they all evolve. College athletics is evolving. For better or worse? Fags.

I cannot for the life of me see a player versus NCAA antitrust suit based upon grants-in-aid, such as this one. However, I could also not see players - whose books, tuition, living, and board were provided to them at no charge - being given status as employees. However, you have to take into account that the judiciary in America has changed over the past two decades. The courts now have more Clinton/Obama appointees than Bush appointees. Those "more liberal" judges are more apt to sweep aside (or, not understand) the economic issues at play when making their rulings. Therefore, these types of cases - on the heels of the video game and player-employee cases - are as likely to succeed as they are fail. Politics have successfully wormed into professional athletics and are now cracking into amateur athletics. And, as politics destroy whole cities, such as Detroit, by attempting to make every action a political zero-sum game, athletics up and down the line will become the same in our lifetime. It has already been seen over the past three decades with Title IX wiping out whole men's athletics programs such as wrestling and soccer.

I can't find the text of the case online, so I don't know what type of price fixing is being alleged. In general terms, price fixing is an agreement among competitors to price a product or service at a certain level. And, it is not always illegal. It is easier for me to see an antitrust lawsuit where universities are the plaintiffs, but not the players. For instance, as had been argued by the University of Utah, the BCS was alleged to be a illegal because a certain body of schools prevents other schools from competing in certain bowls. In antitrust you have markets, competitors, and consumers. In the old Utah v.BCS, the market was, theoretically, the bowl games and television contracts, the competitors were every FBS university, the consumers were the fans/general public. The question comes down to whether the cartel fixing the price (or contracts or what have you) has done so in such a way that consumers are damaged. In some cases, price fixing can lead to efficiency or lower prices or some other public good, and so they are deemed legal. Because economics are always in play, there also has to be some proof of demand. For instance, throughout the years, various soft drink producers have sought to sue Coca-Cola and on antitrust ground due to the amount of shelf space given them in grocery stores. These suits fail because there is no proof in the market that the demand for, say, Peach Nehi, is such that it should be given equal shelf space with Coca-Cola and Pepsi. In other words, courts recognize that we live in a free market, capitalistic society. And, therefore, if you manufacture a product, you are expected to compete for your place within a market. Imagine what would happen if Nehi v. Coca-Cola/Pepsi suits were allowed to succeed - where is the end? If I manufacture a soda pop in my garage, all I would have to do is go to a grocer with the Nehi v. Coca-Cola/Pepsi result and say, "Give me my shelf space!"

Dalai, Darrell...what's the diff?

Reducing the likelihood of turnovers is the mark of good coaching. Many years ago, the Dalai Lama said it best, and I quote: "There are many young men who can run fast in a straight line for 40 yards, in and out of football pads. But, the one who will see the most action come game time is the one who does not often drop the ball when it is handed to him, cough it up when he takes a strong hit, or have it stripped away in a sea of hands while being pursued or tackled."

I like it. I'm not sure how much it makes me trust this coaching staff. But, I like it nonetheless. Does anyone have pictures of the Swedish Christmas Tree Festival to go along with it? I only have one:

Why can't you tell? Don't you trust us? What is your inner fear that prevents you from telling us?

When will this coaching staff get it right? Manziel's twin is now (for the time being) at Northern Colorado. Will we eventually lose Dajon to a DII just because some other quarterbacks on the roster are breaking school records and leading us to bowl games? So frustrating.

Competition is a bitch, no? Complain all you want about McCarney not handing the starting QB job to Berglund or Dajon, but the man makes people compete for a job. I like that. And, so should you.