New Rule
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:58 am
- x 5
- x 49
- Contact:
New Rule
I think this should be grandfathered for people that were recruited before this new policy is in place.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... d/35264496
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... d/35264496
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:56 pm
- x 9
- x 35
- Contact:
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:41 am
- x 9
- x 4
- Contact:
Re: New Rule
I think it should be taken out of the bill altogether. The sole reason it is in there is to reverse a Trump policy. Someone included it into a defense spending bill because they knew the bill would pass without people reading it. Which it did, and which is why people are only now realizing what's about to get passed.
0 x
- PrideandDream
- Warrior
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:36 am
- x 2
- x 112
- Contact:
Re: New Rule
It's all politics and optics. Would love to know who actually put this in the bill. Who exactly does this help?
My personal feeling is that the back and forth at some point is going to trigger some kind of litigation and just like NIL it's gonna be bad for SA football. It will be hard to justify limiting players of any sport from going pro when the academies are making millions on the efforts of these kids. Don't get me wrong USMA or our sister academies are a great education and a tremendous opportunity but we can't pretend that the value of a football player at any academy isn't worth more than the average Cadet or Midshipmen. Purely due to the money that is raised through football and all the things it ultimately supports at the academies. It is the path of most resistance but it is also the path that generates significant value to all academies. And the longer we go back and forth with policies like this with the politicians the worse for us. At least that's what I think. Be interested to hear other points on this.
PD
My personal feeling is that the back and forth at some point is going to trigger some kind of litigation and just like NIL it's gonna be bad for SA football. It will be hard to justify limiting players of any sport from going pro when the academies are making millions on the efforts of these kids. Don't get me wrong USMA or our sister academies are a great education and a tremendous opportunity but we can't pretend that the value of a football player at any academy isn't worth more than the average Cadet or Midshipmen. Purely due to the money that is raised through football and all the things it ultimately supports at the academies. It is the path of most resistance but it is also the path that generates significant value to all academies. And the longer we go back and forth with policies like this with the politicians the worse for us. At least that's what I think. Be interested to hear other points on this.
PD
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 7:25 pm
- x 16
- Contact:
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:08 am
- x 8
- x 1
- Contact:
Re: New Rule
Mike Gallagher, Republican rep from Wisconsin. Apparently they are looking at a provision to grandfather current players.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... -carter-ii
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... -carter-ii
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:20 pm
- x 10
- Contact:
Re: New Rule
And there may be more help on the way to over turn this with the upcoming Congress. While I get the philosophy, we make exceptions for world class athletes and scholars (Rhodes, Marshall, etc.). You could make the teams that draft them have to reimburse the government for the education? And frankly the argument that they’re taking another slot doesn’t hold water as the slot is already gone if they attend and eventually quit.
https://twitter.com/WesleyHuntTX/status ... LE_MEsAAAA
On a side note, Rep. Hunt will be joining 2 classmates in the next session of Congress.
https://twitter.com/WesleyHuntTX/status ... LE_MEsAAAA
On a side note, Rep. Hunt will be joining 2 classmates in the next session of Congress.
0 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:13 pm
- x 4
- x 27
- Contact:
Re: New Rule
Not sure why this was included. Maybe Gallagher is a never trumper. Or he couldn’t get into an academy. This impacts 1 or 2 people a year across all academies.
2 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:47 pm
- x 10
- x 17
- Contact:
Re: New Rule
This subject has really caused quite the back and forth on the bird app. Some of the opposition appears to be legit principled opposition to cadets doing anything other than serve after graduation, but quite frankly a lot of it seems to be general dislike and opposition towards the service academies broadly and service academy football in particular. Seems they are OK with the WCAP, or folks going off to Oxford for a couple of years, but God forbid some young man once in a decade gets a chance to play football at the highest level. Lot's of "hate us because they ain't us" out there as well. Hope he gets his chance.
2 x
-
- Warrior
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:38 pm
- x 430
- x 37
- Contact:
Re: New Rule
I personally think everyone should serve their required years before they go to Oxford or play professional sports but I am in the minority.
0 x
21-17!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], neumanna1, stash76, wp1994 and 359 guests