Horrible Recruiting Tactic by Charlie Weis

[Eaglesfan27]

Maybe this is inaccurate since I read it on a USC board, but they said that Beano Cook was on ESPN and he said that Weis's new policy is that if a kid commits to Notre Dame and then visits another school that his scholarship will be revoked. Seems like a horrible policy if true that will only hurt ND's recruiting efforts.

[Neuqua]

USC fan calling out ND for bad recruiting tactics?

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

USC fan calling out ND for bad recruiting tactics?

I'm not saying it is dirty or illegal. I'm saying it is a stupid decision that will hurt ND, and therefore, I actually applaud the move

[EagleFan]

I believe the appropriate phrase here is "Screw Notre Dame!"

[BishopMVP]

Maybe this is inaccurate since I read it on an ND board, but I heard Pete Carroll took over a Patriots team coming off a Super Bowl and ran them into the ground, with their record getting worse and worse every year.

[miami_fan]

I heard an interview with Weis in which he said that one of the biggest problem he had with recruiting was the lack of understanding of the word "commitment". He did not just single out the kids though. His gripe was with both the kids and the other coaches.

[MrBug708]

This isn't the first time a coach has used this. Toledo had the same policy. Basically don't make me slow my efforts on other kids by committing to me and then changing your mind.

I agree with Charlie Weiss. If your ready to commit, then do it.

[BishopMVP]

On topic, I'm not sure it's that bad an idea. Weis already does the 2-3 offers out to players, whoever commits first gets it tactic, and stayed accountable to that (Mustain.) As long as the recruits know ahead of time, it just means they shouldn't commit to ND before they take all their visits.

[Logan]

We need an early signing period.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Maybe this is inaccurate since I read it on a USC board, but they said that Beano Cook was on ESPN and he said that Weis's new policy is that if a kid commits to Notre Dame and then visits another school that his scholarship will be revoked. Seems like a horrible policy if true that will only hurt ND's recruiting efforts.

Quite honestly (yes I am a ND fan, but this is something I have always felt), I say good for him if it works. The schools only have so many scholarships to hand out, and if a kid commits he gets a scholarship. In this case, there is something given up by either side. But, if the kid decides later to go to another school, the school that the kid originally committed to is screwed because there is not enough time typically to get another kid on board.

The opposite is true as well, I think that once a kid commits to a school, there should be an agreement in place immediately, and they should not have to wait until signing day to sign a letter of intent. The school should not be able to rescind their scholarship offer unless something defined in that contract is breached.

Heck, make each one a contract for all I care. If a top flight QB prospect doesn't want competition and he says he will only go to school if the school does not recruit another QB in his class, good for him if he can get it in there. If it is in the contract and the school breaks the contract, the kid can opt out of the commitment.

I think if Weis is successful in this, I think this is actually good for college football in the long haul. Then again, I'm naive and actually think atheletic scholarships in college should be for people who want an education, not those who are one and done, two and done, or three and done (unless they finish their degree early).

[Rich1033]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I'm not saying it is dirty or illegal. I'm saying it is a stupid decision that will hurt ND, and therefore, I actually applaud the move

Not a bad idea. Just tell the kids not to commit unless they are sure they want ND. Very understandable since they lost both Little kids on signing day.

Many times a school will have an agreement with a kid saying they wont take any more visits. Marquis Maze pretty much lost his ship from Michigan because he said he wouldnt take any more visits when he commited, then later went to Tennessee without informing Michigan. It didnt help he got in legal trouble on the UT visit. Im sure this happens all the time, decommits can really kill a recruiting class.

[digamma]

I don't think this is all that out of the ordinary. Mack Brown has been very public about this stance. Texas has lost a couple of recruits because of it, but they seem to be racking up their usual list of highly ranked early commitments.

[waltwal]

I wonder if when a QB for example commits does that then mean ND is restricted from recruiting another QB. I think there can be and should be changes made in College recruiting but i think ND is making an unwise decision given the current rules.

[Easy Mac]

I've been wanting coaches to do this for years. If only more coaches were this classy

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by waltwal

I wonder if when a QB for example commits does that then mean ND is restricted from recruiting another QB.

It's up to ND. Scholarships and class slots are both limited resources, so any team that takes four QBs every year is going to have a shortage somewhere else. The NCAA does not tell schools how many players they can recruit at a given position, and rightfully so.

If you're worrying about a school overrecruiting in areas, ND isn't the one to get after. Look at some of the big state schools that offer more scholarships than they have with the expectation that some of the players won't qualify academically; if too many do, they wind up with a mess on their hands (I think this is where "greyshirting" comes into play).

[Mr. Wednesday]

Dola, and note that in a similar "you can't quit, you're fired!" move to what EF is discussing, in this recruiting season, Ferentz pulled Brian Smith's offer when he decided to look at ND again.

[Toddzilla]

I would imagine that a program that gets way more interest than available scholarships, this is a pretty smart plan. You don't want to promise a top 10 recruit a scholarship, then tell a dozen or so top-50 kids they can't come since you're out of schollys - so they commit somewhere else - only then to have your top-10 recruit visit another school and change his mind leaving you with kids out of the top 100. If ND can get away with it, more power to them.

[molson]

I have no problem with this at all. It's a bigger dick move for a kid to take a scholarship, then still shop around for something better, in the hopes of dumping the first school. That's not fair to anyone.

[Swaggs]

I think the big problem with this is that coaches/schools and scouting services, trying to get the inside track on tips, are making kids commit earlier and earlier. I know this year, WVU has already received three verbals (and I'll be shocked if they all stick by signing day) for the 2008 class.

Our coach pulled an offer to a kid that had given a verbal commitment because the kid wanted to make a visit within 2 weeks of signing day. I don't have a problem with that, because if you are still shopping yourself around that late in the process while the coaches are trying to finalize their classes, you are putting the coach in a tough spot.

[CU Tiger]

The only real thing I can add, is from a recuits point of view (right or wrong) a recruiting trip may be little more than a vacation. A guy who went to college with me took an official vist to a west coast school (SDSU or fresno I believe) simply because he grew up very poor and wanted to see Cali.

He told the coaches what he was doing and they replied that he was worth the risk just to get a chance to pitch him.

BTW I pull for ND immediately after the people's republic of china, but I applaud the stance by Weis.

[bhlloy]

Weis put a lot of effort into recruiting other schools commits this season before he got burned on national signing day. Until I see him not actively doing it this season, I won't comment on his character. Even if he doesn't actively recruit other teams committed players, what will he say if a commmited player wants to visit ND?

As somebody mentioned earlier in the thread, Mack Brown has had this policy for years. I think it will work better for Mack Brown than it will for Charlie, because Texas has a ton more local talent willing who grew up Longhorn fans and won't even look at another school.

The other, more nasty side of recruiting is when a kid who is fully committed to a school gets his scholarship pulled late in the process to accomodate a higher ranked prospect. If an early signing period would eliminate this, I'm all for it. Although what I think would probably happen is that the 2 and 3 star kids wouldn't get any big time offers until all the other options had been exhausted, and it wouldn't make things any easier for them at all.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

BTW I pull for ND immediately after the people's republic of china

Which conference is the PRC in?

[Ksyrup]

Apparently Charlie Weis is attempting to continue to foster the idea that ND is some special place that kids should be honored to attend/play for, since the on the field evidence of that just ain't doin' it anymore.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Apparently Charlie Weis is attempting to continue to foster the idea that ND is some special place that kids should be honored to attend/play for, since the on the field evidence of that just ain't doin' it anymore.

Exactly. I know that Mack Brown does this too, but Texas can get away with it because they have more clout with more recent national championships as well as more local Texas recruits that grow up idolizing their school. I still think this is going to hurt ND's football team.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Which conference is the PRC in?

FSEC

[MrBigglesworth]

The whole college system needs to be revamped. Look at everyone in this thread, they all are arguing from the point of view of what is best for the college programs instead of what is best for the student-athletes. A 17 year old kid has to make this decision, and it's a really tough one. Sometimes they change their minds. Regular students change their minds of what colleges they attend too, right up until the last minute. They'll be used as virtual slave labor for 5 years, they may as well be given as much time as possible to decide who to provide the labor to.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

They'll be used as virtual slave labor for 5 years, they may as well be given as much time as possible to decide who to provide the labor to.

What color is the sky in your world?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

What color is the sky in your world?

What's your point of contention, that they really are allowed to be paid market wages or that they really shouldn't be given adequate time to make the decision?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Which conference is the PRC in?

Du'uh the AoE

Along with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and the mat company...

[waltwal]

Mr Wednesday you misunderstood my point about recruiting additional players at the same position. If a player (QB for example) commits early to a school it would seem to me he would say "I will commit and stand by my committment unless you go out and recruit additional players at my position." The real bottom line is that you have a set of rules that govern college football recruiting it is unrealistic to expect that players will not do things that ,however unpopular, are within the rules.

I am sure that if enough coaches felt that recruits should stand by their word on committing the rules would be changed to reflect the coaches desire but i don't think most coaches feel that way. I think most college coaches feel that they want to go down to the wire on recruits because coaches feel that they can win the competition. I think it is more likely, at least in the short run, that players will be restricted from making verbal committments. I think you have to go thru the recruiting process to understand why a player will change his mind after committing. The same things that occur in college recruiting occur in business recruiting. A player hears great things from someone and decides to commit- then he hears better things from someone else (not necessarily illegal things) and changes his mind. If adults change their minds why does it surprise anyone that a kid would do it.

One last point to consider. Lets say that Dec1 of a given year is the official start of recruiting. how about a rule that says no college coach who starts recruiting on Dec. 1 can resign his job to take a better one. After all if Weis wants kids to stand by their committments shouldn't Coaches and all their staff follow the same rules.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The whole college system needs to be revamped. Look at everyone in this thread, they all are arguing from the point of view of what is best for the college programs instead of what is best for the student-athletes. A 17 year old kid has to make this decision, and it's a really tough one. Sometimes they change their minds. Regular students change their minds of what colleges they attend too, right up until the last minute. They'll be used as virtual slave labor for 5 years, they may as well be given as much time as possible to decide who to provide the labor to.

They are given all the time they want, up until when registration closes at the school of their choice. There's no requirement that they sign on National Signing Day. There's also no requirement that they have to provide a verbal commitment before they're ready. As such, there's no requirement for a school to hold a scholarship open for a player who is still making their decision, especially when that player could decide to go elsewhere, and the school can miss out on another player if they wait too long. That's all most in this thread are arguing about.

Personally, I feel an early signing period will help with fixing many of these problems.

[rkmsuf]

Go play intramurals if you don't like it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Logan

They are given all the time they want, up until when registration closes at the school of their choice. There's no requirement that they sign on National Signing Day. There's also no requirement that they have to provide a verbal commitment before they're ready. As such, there's no requirement for a school to hold a scholarship open for a player who is still making their decision, especially when that player could decide to go elsewhere, and the school can miss out on another player if they wait too long. That's all most in this thread are arguing about.

Personally, I feel an early signing period will help with fixing many of these problems.

My point was just that most of the people in the thread are arguing over what would be best for the program, rather than what would be best for the student-athlete. I don't think an early signing period would fix anything, because kids would just be pressured to sign in early Sept or whenever instead of early February, and kids would just end up giving their verbals earlier. Furthermore, you'd be asking 17 year old kids to decide where they want to go to school before they have even had a day of their senior year of high school.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What's your point of contention, that they really are allowed to be paid market wages or that they really shouldn't be given adequate time to make the decision?

My point of contention is that every time you post you seem to have some sort of need to be a self-righteous "Hero of the little guy" and make statements like your slavery statement about the players. Your act is beyond tiresome at this point. Why don't you just move to a communist country and get it over with. You always spin anything that happens in this country into some sort of negative light, even now with a stupid little topic such as player recruitment. If things are always so bad, just freaking leave and don't let the door hit you in the ass. Sadly this is probably some sort of need for attention and I have taken the bait.


We may now return to our Notre Dame bashing (or defending, if that is your viewpoint), which is what this thread should be about anyway....

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

My point of contention is that every time you post you seem to have some sort of need to be a self-righteous "Hero of the little guy" and make statements like your slavery statement about the players. Your act is beyond tiresome at this point. Why don't you just move to a communist country and get it over with. You always spin anything that happens in this country into some sort of negative light, even now with a stupid little topic such as player recruitment. If things are always so bad, just freaking leave and don't let the door hit you in the ass. Sadly this is probably some sort of need for attention and I have taken the bait.

Got it, there was no contention, you just wanted to waste everyone's time.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

My point was just that most of the people in the thread are arguing over what would be best for the program, rather than what would be best for the student-athlete. I don't think an early signing period would fix anything, because kids would just be pressured to sign in early Sept or whenever instead of early February, and kids would just end up giving their verbals earlier. Furthermore, you'd be asking 17 year old kids to decide where they want to go to school before they have even had a day of their senior year of high school.

Well of course we're talking about what's best for the program. It's the program that made the decision! If a high school kid said he wasn't going to go to Notre Dame, because they started recruiting another guy at his position, we'd be talking about what's best for that kid.

[bryce]

I have no problem with a kid changing his mind up until signing day. (And I'm a UT grad - my alma mater has been victimized by this by several high profile recruits in the last few years.)

The way I see it is a kid can commit to a school, attend that school, but then the coach can up and leave any old time he wants, and even though a kid may have gone to that school BECAUSE of that coach, he's left SOL if the coach leaves. Can the kid transfer? Sure, but he'll have to sit out a year, which obviously isn't the most ideal situation...

[DougWyatt]

Horrible recruiting tactic ?

Originally Posted by molson

I have no problem with this at all. It's a bigger dick move for a kid to take a scholarship, then still shop around for something better, in the hopes of dumping the first school. That's not fair to anyone.

I agree

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The whole college system needs to be revamped. Look at everyone in this thread, they all are arguing from the point of view of what is best for the college programs instead of what is best for the student-athletes. A 17 year old kid has to make this decision, and it's a really tough one. Sometimes they change their minds. Regular students change their minds of what colleges they attend too, right up until the last minute. They'll be used as virtual slave labor for 5 years, they may as well be given as much time as possible to decide who to provide the labor to.

Bullshit. You are taking commitment to lightly. Why should they have the right to hang a whole program in wait AFTER they've already made a promise ? By backing out, they aren't just effecting themselves - they are effecting other students that may have missed out on that slot and a school that didn't pursue filling that slot due to the fact that they had it filled. Everyone else shouldn't be punished because some kid is wishy-washy, and doesn't understand what commitment means.

Yes, the kids should take his time to make this "really tough" decision. But shouldn't they also know what commitment means ? If he isn't 100% ready to commit - don't. Simple.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by bryce

The way I see it is a kid can commit to a school, attend that school, but then the coach can up and leave any old time he wants, and even though a kid may have gone to that school BECAUSE of that coach, he's left SOL if the coach leaves. Can the kid transfer? Sure, but he'll have to sit out a year, which obviously isn't the most ideal situation...

I feel that the kid should commit to the school instead of the coach,but since that is not the reality, I agree with you.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

My point of contention is that every time you post you seem to have some sort of need to be a self-righteous "Hero of the little guy" and make statements like your slavery statement about the players. Your act is beyond tiresome at this point. Why don't you just move to a communist country and get it over with. You always spin anything that happens in this country into some sort of negative light, even now with a stupid little topic such as player recruitment. If things are always so bad, just freaking leave and don't let the door hit you in the ass. Sadly this is probably some sort of need for attention and I have taken the bait.


We may now return to our Notre Dame bashing (or defending, if that is your viewpoint), which is what this thread should be about anyway....

Tell you what - let me employ you for 4 years, not pay you, make a couple of billion dollars of you, and then you can be the self-righteous prick. College football is basically serfdom, and when people say they prefer it for the "innocence" or the "love of the game", what they mean is that they prefer cheaper rates and less athelete rights.

[Klinglerware]

How is the relationship between ND's athletic and admissions department these days? I vaguely remember back in the 90s, admissions would routinely reject high-profile ND commits. I don't remember it ever happening (since I would presume that you had to be admitted to be officially offered a grant in aid), but if admissions ever denied admission after a recruit signed an LOI, that would really be screwing the kid.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Yes, the kids should take his time to make this "really tough" decision. But shouldn't they also know what commitment means ? If he isn't 100% ready to commit - don't. Simple.

I think the media word choice makes this a little hazy.
The only "REAL" commitment is the LOI, and even that has a revocation period.
Think about what a verbal commitment is. Some radio hack in college town, calls a kid at home after his official visit and says "Hey, how did you like our school?" Now if the kid says I love it I plan on signing on signing day. Rivals.com now has a solid verbal commitment.

But in actuallity the kid still has a right to 4 more official visits. If he is wowed by school 2,3,or 4 he can choose them. He is often asked when he doesnt have all the info.

Now if a kid tells his rc,pc or hc that "Coach I am firmly committed to State U" that is another story, but I would wager that statement is rare. It is generally a kid who is being high given pressure sales pitch and he hasnt yet learned to hurt anyone's feelings.

Look at it this way, you walk into Best Buy and look at a Plasma HDTV. The sales guy comes up tells you everything you want to know, is extremely pleseant, and overall you like him.

Now on the way out the door you are stopped.
"Say Joe Shopper, how did you like that TV? When do you plan to purchase that TV? You know our friendly sales man back there just had a baby and he needs some formula and diapers, the quicker you buy that TV the quicker his poor malnourished child gets to eat. By the way he will probably be fired if you choose not to buy it. Now you dont have to give me any money but tell me do you PLAN to buy that TV?"
"Uhhhh. yes I really like everything the TV has to offer, I feel me and the TV are a perfect fit"
"You heard it here first we have a solid verbal that Joe Shopper will buy this TV"

The kids are not faultless but we are talking about 17 year olds that have no life experience, that have never been sales pitched, never negotiated a deal, etc. It is a gut wrenching decision.

In '94 my home town newspaper's sports editor wrote a column that I was not dedicated and that any college that recruited me was foolish.

Why?

Because after visiting a local D-2 school he phoned me and asked if I was planning on going to said school. (which BTW he was an alum of) I replied that I was unsure and still planned to visit Clemson (where I eventually went). Next he inquired if I planned to visit South Carolina ( Clemson and USC are major rivals for anyone not close by) and I replied no, that I had grown up a Tiger fan, did not like South Carolina, they did not offer my planned major, and they had not even contacted me (a few fairly important factors imho).
This writer was known to have a slant towards SC in his stories and really was appalled that I didnt plan to vist the SC campus.

He even offered to "make some calls for me".
Uhhh, no they dont offer my major..

Point of all this I spent months getting hounded and questioned (granted on a relatively small scale, I cant imagine what a 5star recruit would go through)and having my character questioned by a grown man, because I turned down his 2 favorite schools.

There is no commitment until the paper is signed. I do think sometimes kids get pressured and dont know how to say no.

OK my epic is over, I need a nap...

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

My point of contention is that every time you post you seem to have some sort of need to be a self-righteous "Hero of the little guy" and make statements like your slavery statement about the players. Your act is beyond tiresome at this point. Why don't you just move to a communist country and get it over with. You always spin anything that happens in this country into some sort of negative light, even now with a stupid little topic such as player recruitment. If things are always so bad, just freaking leave and don't let the door hit you in the ass. Sadly this is probably some sort of need for attention and I have taken the bait.


We may now return to our Notre Dame bashing (or defending, if that is your viewpoint), which is what this thread should be about anyway....

+1

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

How is the relationship between ND's athletic and admissions department these days? I vaguely remember back in the 90s, admissions would routinely reject high-profile ND commits. I don't remember it ever happening (since I would presume that you had to be admitted to be officially offered a grant in aid), but if admissions ever denied admission after a recruit signed an LOI, that would really be screwing the kid.

Google the JoJo Cox Clemson story...
That is what sucks...

$.50 version
Cox commits as a junior.
Graduates and doesnt qualify.
attends a prep school at the diection of a Clemson coach.
Meets NCAA standards, clears the clearing house, and commits again to Clemson.
Only to have his application rejected by the AAC the day before igning day.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Tell you what - let me employ you for 4 years, not pay you, make a couple of billion dollars of you, and then you can be the self-righteous prick. College football is basically serfdom, and when people say they prefer it for the "innocence" or the "love of the game", what they mean is that they prefer cheaper rates and less athelete rights.

Let me tell you something, if I had the chance to get paid to go to school and have to play a sport I love, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I had a chance to go to a school I wanted to for free, I'd do it. Heck, I'm still paying for going to the school I wanted to go to. Yet, no one is crying about my plight or that of probably 90% of those on this board.

College sports is not serfdom. You are getting paid. In some instances, you get paid more than the average American makes in a year. Check the numbers for room, board, and tuition at some of these schools, these kids are getting paid plenty. The fact that some people think these kids have to endure hardship to play a sport they enjoy in the hopes that they will be drafted and earn millions of dollars is joke.

While I was in college, I had to get my ass up at 7 in the morning to drag my ass to class by 8. I'd be in class until 2 or 3, then stay up studying a good bit of the night. All for the chance that I would get a leg up on the other guy when I joined the workforce. Not only that, but I paid for the right to do that. I paid for the chance that I would make decent money.

You want to talk about serfs? What about the graduate assistants that are doing research for professors that are getting paid millions of dollars to conduct research. How much of that money do the students see? About $8/hour depending upon the department you're in. That is a fraction of the money that these professors get for their research. Not only that, but woe to the grad student who disproved his professors thesis and could cost the department a million dollar contract.

And here we are sitting back and talking about how terrible these kids have it because they are getting a free education, a chance to be on TV, a chance to make more money than most of us will make in our lifetime, and we moan about how hard of a plight they have because the juggernaut that is college football is using them? Spare me. If this is being used, put me on the list as one of those that wants to be used.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Google the JoJo Cox Clemson story...
That is what sucks...

$.50 version
Cox commits as a junior.
Graduates and doesnt qualify.
attends a prep school at the diection of a Clemson coach.
Meets NCAA standards, clears the clearing house, and commits again to Clemson.
Only to have his application rejected by the AAC the day before igning day.

That's crappy.

It's okay to have tight admissions standards, but admissions and the athletic department have to be on the same page about which kids are considered admissable, and they should be upfront with the recruits about their admissions chances as well.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Let me tell you something, if I had the chance to get paid to go to school and have to play a sport I love, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I had a chance to go to a school I wanted to for free, I'd do it. Heck, I'm still paying for going to the school I wanted to go to. Yet, no one is crying about my plight or that of probably 90% of those on this board.

College sports is not serfdom. You are getting paid. In some instances, you get paid more than the average American makes in a year. Check the numbers for room, board, and tuition at some of these schools, these kids are getting paid plenty. The fact that some people think these kids have to endure hardship to play a sport they enjoy in the hopes that they will be drafted and earn millions of dollars is joke.

While I was in college, I had to get my ass up at 7 in the morning to drag my ass to class by 8. I'd be in class until 2 or 3, then stay up studying a good bit of the night. All for the chance that I would get a leg up on the other guy when I joined the workforce. Not only that, but I paid for the right to do that. I paid for the chance that I would make decent money.

You want to talk about serfs? What about the graduate assistants that are doing research for professors that are getting paid millions of dollars to conduct research. How much of that money do the students see? About $8/hour depending upon the department you're in. That is a fraction of the money that these professors get for their research. Not only that, but woe to the grad student who disproved his professors thesis and could cost the department a million dollar contract.

And here we are sitting back and talking about how terrible these kids have it because they are getting a free education, a chance to be on TV, a chance to make more money than most of us will make in our lifetime, and we moan about how hard of a plight they have because the juggernaut that is college football is using them? Spare me. If this is being used, put me on the list as one of those that wants to be used.

amen, brother

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

You want to talk about serfs? What about the graduate assistants that are doing research for professors that are getting paid millions of dollars to conduct research. How much of that money do the students see? About $8/hour depending upon the department you're in. That is a fraction of the money that these professors get for their research. Not only that, but woe to the grad student who disproved his professors thesis and could cost the department a million dollar contract.

I've posted on this before--I agree that Ph.D. program grad students are typically the largest of the exploited groups on most campuses. But, as you point out, they are usually paid a stipend on top of free tuition. I would propose that scholarship athletes ought to receive some form of stipend too (though it probably shouldn't be as high as a grad student's, since universities usually pull in more from research grants than from athletics).

[Eaglesfan27]

Good post, Warhammer.