Archie Miller press conference at B1G media day

ARCHIE MILLER: Excited to be here at Big Ten media day. It’s always great to get started here. It’s such a phenomenal league, and the conference race is always such an exciting thing, not only for the players and the coaches but the universities, the fan bases. It’s just a phenomenal thing to be a part of. So to be here today as it gets kicked off, it’s always good to be here, and excited to get back to our team later here in the week as we continue to keep preparing to build this group and approach the season with a lot of optimism.

Q. Having been a player yourself and now coaching one of the biggest brands of college basketball, what’s your thoughts on the new California bill?

ARCHIE MILLER: Well, I mean, there’s a lot of different opinions out there, from obviously university leaders, administrators, long-tenured coaches, to the college student-athletes themselves. I think there’s a lot that’s going to go into it, and there’s a lot of unanswered questions. I think the big thing is that in today’s day and age, if you’re not evolving, if you’re not forward thinking, you’re standing in cement, so to speak. The days of what was once always the way to do things and good, in 2020 maybe isn’t the way to do it. And I think that there’s a lot of bright people in a lot of rooms that are going to get together and make the best decisions possible hopefully. And number one is to take care of the student-athletes the best way possible, protect the game, protect the universities, and to continue on with an unbelievable product. I think that’s step one. You know, if you can make a young kid, student-athlete’s life a lot better, if they have the ability to take advantage of it, then we should be able to do that at some point. But there also has to be consideration for the overall good of the game, the overall good of collegiate sports and the universities in general. There’s a lot that goes into it. Me, in particular, I was a student-athlete. I know what it’s like to play. I know what it’s like to play on TV and get all the perks that go along with having your face out there and all that stuff. And I think in my time, I never probably realized who actually made money on those names, on those faces, on those games, jerseys, newspapers. I never really thought of it that way. Now it’s a different age. It’s a different time. So there’s a lot more to think about when it goes into it. But you know, I think there’s a lot of smart people in a lot of rooms, and hopefully at the front end it’s about the players, it’s about the student-athletes, doing what’s best for them. And then we’ll move forward, and let’s keep the game going in a positive direction.

Q. As far as your front line goes, the options you have with a number of guys 6’7″ and taller, how do you approach that? How do you want to maximize what you have up front?

ARCHIE MILLER: It’s a good question. I think the strength of our team and some of the experience level of our team and talents, it really starts on paper with the size and the ability to hopefully play an inside game. We have a lot of different guys that I think can play together. That’s exciting. And I do think we have a lot of different guys that are able to contribute, whether that be a freshman or whether that be a fifth-year senior, fourth-year senior, whatever it may be. We have a lot of guys that expect to play. Our staff expects them to play. So I think one, competition. Earn everything is always the best way to do it. That’s always how we’ve done it, and I think there’s great competition level to get on the floor and to play minutes. I think the second thing is to play a lot of guys. For us to be able to maximize our talent, for us to be able to maximize our production, we have to get a lot of different type of contributions. And like I said, when you have a stable of guys, you have to have the ability to use them. You can’t play just one or two and say this is how we’re going to do it. You have to have versatility in your lineups. You have to have competition and give guys the rope to get out there and play. And I think with what we’ve got going on right now, I like it. I think that there’s a group that should take some pride in us having one of the best front lines in college basketball, and that adds in even the Damezi Andersons and the Jerome Hunters of the world who are 6’7″ plus. Jerome, quite frankly, is every bit as big as Justin Smith. So we have a big, strong, long group that in my opinion has some versatility, and we’ve got to get the most out of it by having them challenge each other every day. But without question, I think that’s definitely something we have to find a make that a strength.

Q. Trayce Jackson-Davis has been mentioned on a few preseason freshman player of the year type lists. Can you talk about incorporating freshmen into your team and what you may have learned about that in the past few years here at Indiana?

ARCHIE MILLER: Well, whether you’re at Indiana or anywhere, young people take different paths to the floor. We’ve always played freshmen, our staff has. We’ve played freshmen here in our first two years, whether that be Al Durham or Justin Smith as a true freshman played. Last year’s crew had a number of guys step in with Robert obviously coming back as a sophomore, playing a lot of minutes. This year’s team will be no different. Our two true freshmen, Trayce and his counterpart there, Armaan Franklin, both have been fantastic since they’ve stepped foot on campus in terms of their ability to do what we’ve asked them to do, fit in, and be productive. And I think through our first couple workouts here, looking at things, I think both guys have a chance to really impact our team. Obviously Trayce coming in, being a McDonald’s AllAmerican, there’s a lot around him in terms of accolades and hype. But right now he’s been very, very humble in the way that he’s worked, in the way that he’s fit in. Very, very proud of him and Armaan both in the way they’ve approached things. They’ve been as good as any player on our team in terms of our fall camp and what we’re doing. Now, there’s a lot of learning. There’s going to be a lot of strength and weaknesses about the grind of college basketball, playing in games for the first time, playing against older players, scouting, all that stuff goes in. But both those guys not only have to contribute, but they can impact our team. And I think that’s the exciting thing for us is to keep recruiting young players that obviously we’re bringing in to play right away.

Q. Getting back to the California law, is it fair to say that you think it’s an issue that needs to be settled on a national level and not on a state by state basis?

ARCHIE MILLER: That could be a little bit bigger than me. I’m not as well-versed, to be honest with you, in exactly what the pros and cons, the ramifications of each state to state, each university to university. But I would say this: When you’re dealing with collegiate sports — or specifically us, men’s basketball — what you’d like is for everyone to have an equal say and obviously have their opportunity. But definitely probably — however it’s going to work out, for the good of the game, it needs to be governed, needs to be looked at as a wholesale thing, not as an individual thing. But, again, I’m probably not as well-versed, that educated right now on the grand specifics of how each state handles it and what the NCAA is able to do. We’ve got a while to figure it out, and I know the fact that it’s on the forefront right now means there’s going to be some really, really important people to the college game in terms of administrators, presidents, commissioners, they’re going to have their say. They’re going to do the best they can to help everyone.

Q. You brought up Damezi. We covered Damezi in high school. He didn’t get a lot of playing time as a freshman. He was a superstar in high school. What’s it like for him now to know that it’s his time to get on the court and really shine?

ARCHIE MILLER: Well, Damezi is like a lot of young guys that come from certain situations and they walk into uncharted territory and you’ve got to learn the ropes. I think the great thing about Damezi is he’s a fantastic kid. He wants to learn. He’s very coachable, and just in his communication in this off-season and what we try to do with him, he’ll be the first to tell you that he had a lot to learn, and there’s some things he needs to do better. But I’ll tell you what, he went to work on them. Right now he’s as big and strong and as well-conditioned as he’s been. He’s a 6’6″, 220-plus pound guy, can shoot the ball for us. He’s going to have to bring that to the table for our team. But for him more importantly and watching him as a sophomore, it’s just a much different feeling for him. It’s not the first time he’s went through it. He now has the advantage of going through a year under his belt, and he knows what we expect of him. He kind of knows right now what he’s going to need to do to help our team. And I think everyone from players to coaches feel that he’s going to do that, and we’re excited for him. But he has an opportunity right now to really grab a hold of a role, and he’s got to do some things better than he did in year one. But I think he’s much more equipped mentally to do that more than anything, which is what you want from your young players, to grow and to keep playing better. Damezi has done a great job as we’ve finished last year and as we’ve entered into this October of having a good way about him. And just in watching him practice even yesterday, he’s a much different player, he’s a much different guy out there than he was as a young player as a true freshman.

53 comments

  1. Interesting the California law is the first thing out the box. I’ve been saying for a while this will radically transform college sports. Problem is, you never know what you will get when you open Pandora’s box. I suspect this will take on a life of it’s own and go places no one ever thought about. The real problem, as always, is the law of unintended consequences, and I can see a multitude of them out there. Everything from Title IX considerations to income tax considerations to not for profit status, could get dragged into this scrum.

  2. think, I agree with the general premise that there will always be unintended consequences. This is a major system.

    But not for profit status is nothing to worry about. The commissioner for the ACC made $2.9 million last year. The conference, nor the schools, paid federal taxes on it. BUT, that commissioner sure did. Just like everyone else. Athletes should be under the same consideration. They’ll file and pay Federal & State income taxes on what they earn.

    I think that, while there are major changes with unintended consequences, we’ll finally bring billions of dollars in the black market into the light. This black market is killing college basketball and football. It’s super simple: if people want a thing and are willing to pay for it, someone will offer it to them. Right now, those people offering money are shady folks trading these “illegal” goods. Bring it to the light, create rules around it and you now have everyone playing above board.

    Hell, in 1979, the Big East sold the rights to broadcast their games for $305k. Last year, their broadcast contract paid them $100 million. Apparel companies get to blast their logos on jerseys, shoes, shorts, helmets, gloves, coaches getups and everything else that has a label to a massive and attentive audience. That has value. And the person wearing that apparel should be able to get paid by the commercial company who is benefiting from that exposure.

    The stickiest issue will be how this will change recruiting rules. There’s a lot to consider here. That’s why it is important for the schools to get together and decide what they’re going to do soon. But academic bureaucracies and the cowards that run them will only act when they’re forced to, so I won’t get my hopes up.

  3. I might be in the minority on this. Maybe by a lot. But, I think this team is going to really surprise some people this year. They were really good defensively last year, but this year, I think they have the ability to be even better. Leadership seems to be there.

    My eyes are on Devonte Green. Last year, he seemed to be an individual hot head, who found himself on suspension and everyone thought he would transfer. He has the skills, no question, but the concern has always been between the ears. Now he’s reinvented himself and become a team captain, who is talking about the team making the extra pass. I hope that his major attitude transformation translates to more consistency.

    There’s a lot more to be excited about. No one and dones on this team. But there is definitely a lot to be excited about.

  4. The solution to the problem of dirty money in college sports is not to begin paying the players, it’s punishing the cheaters. The NCAA is feckless and the worst offenders in college sports rarely get punished for cheating. UNC’s Academic fraud that went on for years? Yawn, nothing to see here, move on. The FBI needs to create a division that works hand in glove with the NCAA so that real investigations can be performed and real punishments handed out when cheaters are found guilty. If the penalties are severe enough, only morons would try to cheat. Coaches involved in cheating should be banned from coaching in college for life. Universities whose employees cheat should be fined heavily and lose that sport for a minimum of five years. Players who are caught taking dirty money should be banned from participating in college sports, as athletes or coaches, for life.

    But on the other side of the equation, scholarships should cover the full cost of attending college, with additional limited benefits going to the immediate family members of the players (tickets, limited travel expenses for attending games, etc.).

    Lastly, eliminate the one-and-done rule and a lot of the problem disappears. How can our society allow a system that prohibits an adult from pursuing his/her chosen career while living in this country?

    It will never be a perfect system, but the people in power need to be careful not to create a situation where “perfect becomes the enemy of good.” Paying players as if they’re employees will be a nightmare for everyone involved and destroy college athletics as we know it today.

    1. Just like the drug war, the response of trying to stop a black market with more and harsher enforcement, didn’t do anything to stop the flow of drugs. Black markets will exist anyway. But it does create an open market for murder, oppression and institutionalized imprisonment.

      US government spent billions trying to kill Pablo Escobar. They finally got him. In the next ten years, cocaine trafficking to the US quadrupled. It doesn’t work. People want the stuff, they’re willing to pay for it, they’ll get it. And the more money that’s in it, the more the folks who are providing what people want illegally, will go to do anything to ensure they provide it. Millions are dying in Mexico over it.

      If people want it, they’ll get it. The result is just more people in trouble. And this isn’t something as morally problematic as drugs. I’m tired of seeing universities and programs get destroyed over something that is easily solvable. I can’t believe that there’s any argument at all for letting multiBillion dollar corporations compensate athletes for sales. The universities don’t have to pay a frickin’ dime.

      1. Universities and their schools of research are frequently “selling” their image on the backs of very bright students. Hard to identify the tangible dollars such top students bring to a university…Hard to also identify the sorts of cash and benefits to a Bloomington economy a once storied basketball program and three banners in eleven years could provide.

        So somebody makes some bucks off a college t-shirt with a jocks name and number…or puts the college jock’s name in some video game? Yes, tangible profits identified. For every tangible profit identified there are hundreds provided by those who get very little return for their efforts, goodwill and brilliance. All we are is a top-down society never appreciating those behind the scenes who really make a university work and retain its integrity and reputation(be it academics, research, sports…or the volunteer).

        If you want money from sports, then earn it by playing at the highest level…Otherwise, join the club with all the others in society, corporations, faith organizations turned mega businesses, and those in education systems who sweat their honorable grit to the bone to get very little acknowledgement or slice of the pie.

    2. Here is the biggest ncaa enforcement problem. The Keystone cops of the ncaa have been hammered so many times in court when they do try to enforce, that they’ve all but given up except in cases where they don’t think there will be any resistance. If previously settled federal court cases are not enough to take the involved programs down, what will? Yet we see the schools involved lining up to fight it out in court if necessary. With the ncaa track record in court, they probably think they have a chance. Judging by the way the ncaa caved with Louisville last week rather than fight, what else can you expect?

  5. Assuming we avoid the numerous injuries that plagued us last season, IU should have a better record this season. But how much better? Will IU win 23 games this season? Will we improve free throw and 3-point shooting? Will we get into the NCAA?

    We have some impressive new players, but we lost our two most productive players. It should be interesting to see how this new roster meshes and plays as a team. That’s going to be essential, because we certainly are not going to win many Big Ten games on the basis of superior talent.

    1. Po,
      As much as you hate to lose players like Juwan and Romeo, you may have gained by subtraction. Neither were particularly reliable 3 point shooters, and somewhat suspect at the FT line. The real question is what was lost due to injury last year? If the injuries took more off the floor than many realize, IUBB may surprise everyone. Also, don’t sell the talent short. If the whispers were true, and JH is able to return to that form, our biggest worry this year may be, how long will we be able to keep him before the nba comes calling?

  6. Let’s create agencies and have FBI involved (that I don’t trust them either) so they can get a part of the corruption action as players and others that would be involved have issues of money embezzlement, money laundering, tax fraud, gambling, new and other black markets. Yes, follow the state politics of crazy California. Sounds like a plan to me. Just move from one set of problems to another set of problems. (Bigger problems).
    I am on board with PO of expanding scholarships to include things he mentioned. (except I really don’t trust FBI as I see them as a corrupt agency like other agencies fairness guilty vs not guilty).
    If athletes don’t like it (meaning college) then they can go straight to professional sports professions, avoid college altogether and see how that works out for them. Just like other college students; fairness.

  7. The human being is a strange species…And yes it becomes a corrupt species…The more it tries to make things more perfect…The more imperfect those things become.

  8. t, if our society is so corrupt we can’t even trust the rank and file of the FBI to avoid taking bribes, than none of this matters and we can just sit back and enjoy the spectacle as our Republic crumbles. I believe the vast majority of FBI agents are honorable people with great integrity, and if given the resources they’d clean up corruption in college sports quickly. But to advocate for college players being paid is like advocating for performance enhancing drugs becoming legal for pro sports like baseball. Either police it and punish the offenders, or we watch our favorite sports devolve into a bowl of fecal matter.

    think, if this year’s returning IU BB players had demonstrated better shooting skills last year, I’d be a bit more optimistic about the coming season. However, the best shooter on the team is probably the guy who has yet to play in a college game, was totally inactive for about 7 months and whose medical condition may limit his playing time. Our freshman may be good shooters, but they’re freshman. I’m not pessimistic about this roster, but as I look at the schedule, I think IU winning more than 23 games is unlikely. If they exceed that, it will be a major accomplishment.

    1. Plenty of folks in government I don’t trust but the FBI is not among them. Despite the attacks on their leadership they are one of the few agencies to remain above the fray.

      Every day I am more impressed with their leadership…past and present.

  9. Oddly enough, I agree with most of what Podunker said above…(especially the first paragraph). I am 100% opposed to paying players beyond their scholarships and a fair expenses. It’s nauseating enough to walk around campuses with some of the prima donnas knowing they’re the next NBA gamble to get gazillions. Amateur athletics ….isn’t ‘pay big to play half ass.’

  10. Brunk is the surprise addition…and, maybe, the biggest positive.

    Shooting remains the question mark.

    Green must prove he can not be the prototypical Crean recruit (low b-ball IQ…and maddening turnovers at most inopportune time).

    Smith must show he can bring game to go along with athleticism.

    No real superstar …on the floor. One more season of Romeo would have made a world of difference.

  11. With a slight tailwind I would like to think they can win 23 in the regular season.

    After last season…who knows?

  12. Yes, as usual for some…after 15 years of investigating and while some are victims and others are benefactors
    (positive vs negative impacts on peoples lives). Some are still living and others are dead, determination is there was an offense/s committed.
    Agree, about expand scholarships to cover whatever FAIR EXPENSES are. Any money that is in excess of that should be used to lower the cost of going to college (even it lowers the cost by just a penny).

  13. Oh ya just like the greedy governments initiating this nightmare will lower tax burdens on their citizens in equal amounts to what they receive in tax revenue from collegiate FB and BB. Popularity will be impacted every bit as much as Hoosier HS class BB. Attendance is already being worried about like a small fire. Pour gasoline on it so it will burn out. Sssh!

  14. The problem with the whole system is that the athletes are NOT amateurs. They are full time professionals. The demands put on them by the programs leave them little to no time to do anything else but go to school and work at their sport. I have a friend of a friend who was the head athletic trainer for the Lady Vols under Pat Summit. Those “student athletes” she trained hardly had enough time to be students (and most had to take easy course loads), given the demands put on them by their sport. It doesn’t matter that the NCAA limits practice time to 20 hours a week, the athletes have to put in much more than that. Look at basketball: they are training year round, and their practice starts early October and ends in late March/early-mid April. I knew students who had to work 20 hours a week to put themselves through college, and they had a hard time balancing the work/student demands. Imagine what an athlete who’s putting in 40+ hours a week between practice, training, film time, etc., and then has travel time on top of it goes through. It is a full time job and then some. Thus I say in reality, they ARE professional athletes.

    Times have changed considerably. I say pay players a fair, minimal amount consistent with what most students spend a month outside of rent, tuition, etc. They do not have the option of working and earning spending money. Yes, they get paid with tuition, etc. But why not more? Heck, as a graduate student in molecular biology at IU, I was paid over $10,000/year to go to school and work as a graduate student teaching assistant in the late 80s-early 90s. Why is it that a university can pay graduate students off of professor-obtained grant money, but the athletic department can’t pay undergraduate students off of sports revenues? To me, it’s blatant hypocrisy on the part of the university and the NCAA as a whole. If graduate students can be paid to go to school (with tuition included), why can’t undergraduate athletes?

    People say the athletes are privileged prima donnas, which is to a large extent true. But there are still many athletes across the athletic department who are humble, hard working student athletes. Be it football, basketball, women’s volleyball, women’s crew, golf, track and field, etc., the athletes work full time at their respective sports, outside of their classes and associated classwork. Why not pay them a minimal stipend from the athletic department budget, provided the department has the funds?

    It kills me how many folks can get on this and other sites and poo-poo paying athletes, saying they are prima donnas, etc., without having been student athletes themselves. If only people truly understood the HUGE demands put on student athletes and what their lives are really like, I don’t think the majority would have any qualms with some sort of minimal pay for athletes. In this day of big bucks television revenues, etc., why not share the wealth with the student athletes who make it all possible? Any of us who are fans directly or indirectly support the system. Even by passively watching an IU basketball or football game on television, we are feeding the system. We who condemn paying athletes yet are entertained by their athletic pursuits are just as hypocritical as are the phony administrators in the NCAA, conferences, and universities who are against paying them. I’m not saying pay them to be junior NFL or NBA players, but minimal stipends are both reasonable and very do-able.

    1. Quite a tirade but I ain’t buying it. They got a choice, be a student/athlete or just be a student. If they want paid instead of an education go pro here or abroad. I’m quite certain faced with that challenge many will reconsider their plight and will recognize what a sweat equity education is worth. Rocks thrown in the road that don’t have to be there. But in the end the politicians will make it happen so they can control more $ for more power and the ‘special interests’ get a raise. The merry go round gains momentum.

      1. The vast majority of college athletes get little to no athletic financial aid. They get a shot at the same, ever dwindling, pool of money every other student applies for.

        They just have a lot more work.

    2. Pac, I agree.

      I don’t know how it should be implemented but most people do not understand the demands on college athletes. They may think they do but their arguments all too of show they do not. Obviously, you have exceptions like UNC and their ghost university but it is very difficult to be a serious student and a college athlete.

  15. I am very aware of the daily demands on the student athlete. I also realize that a great number of them come families with very modest incomes. With the demands on the college athlete’s time, there is no time to earn outside income. A lot of them do not have the funds to purchase many of the things we take for granted. I am personally aware of the horror stories of athlete’s not having enough money to buy a pizza or certain school supplies. Not sure if this is still true today, but several years ago this was the case.

    Here is the bigger problem. When the amount of revenue being generated by college sports was relatively small, this was not a major issue. However, now that we see the mega buck television contracts pouring in millions of dollars into school coffers, the athletes are seeing something wrong with the picture. When you compare the value of the education being received to the amount of revenue being generated, it is very disproportionate. Yes, the schools have a lot of costs, but so do the professional leagues. Yet somehow the professional leagues have the ability to pay their athletes a significant share of the revenue.

    The real issue in all of this is what are we opening up for ourselves. Obviously, something has to be done for the athletes, but how do we go about doing this? Remember, these things always take on a life of their own and go places we could have never imagined. We also have to remember we are dealing with a much different generation of athlete. The things tolerated by preceding generations, this current generation may well reject. If they do, the upheaval in collegiate athletics may be seismic.

    1. I would give the UNC athletes “ghost” profit sharing payments…

      “I could have sworn we put it into your official ‘ghost’ interest bearing account over at Casper Union Federal…?”

  16. The student loan debt crisis….is a far bigger problem than any of this.
    Sorry, but there are families and recent grads buried in student loans…Thousand upon thousands of these loans are not being paid or are in forbearance…or are in extended payment plans loading the debt far far into the future.
    Cry in the beer bong for the jock not getting a shoe deal atop a scholarship while student loans is in crisis mode breaking the backs of so many who simply made the mistake in thinking a really “valuable” higher education would be worth the burdensome(more like highway robbery) interest rates and costs?
    Let’s cut coaching salaries and AD salaries in half and use the extra to subsidize the athlete….Can’t a head coach get by with two million as opposed to three million? Let me do the math ….12 or so guys on the roster…Maybe 6 would be from very low income sectors. 1million/6= $166,666/year for each disadvantaged basketball jock on scholarship. If shoe company agents can secretly pay athletes, why not a coach making 3 to 4 million per year? Poor Joey isn’t getting a Nike check…or a CBS check…? No worries, Coach Miller can write you a 10 grand check to cover the burden of a free education in ghost classes. This is all so damn silly.

    Let’s get working on the student loan/debt crisis…..How effed up is in when students attempting to get a top education are broke for life …but somehow we find millions upon millions for coaches…..and give extra found “profits” to athletes already on scholarship? The students in the seats will soon be drowning in debt but all we care about is more profits for athletes and coaches?

    1. No sympathy from me about voluntary debt. That kind of self inflicted financial stress you agree ahead of time to personally discharge not search for somebody to forgive it. The amount borrowed was all hunky dory when the checks (pay to the order of) line had a familiar name written on it.

    2. H4H,
      I actually don’t disagree in substance to what you or the others are posting, but this topic reminded me of something. Some of the posters are old enough to remember Eisenhower warning of the Military Industrial Complex and how the amounts of money could control a lot of things. However, what I have been wondering about for several years now regarding the student loan issues if we are looking at the wrong side of the problem. What about the actual costs to go to college and the seemingly endless demands for a degree to qualify for the vocation equivalent of flipping a hamburger.

      What I really wonder about is have we unwittingly been pulled into the net of what might be called an Educational Industrial Complex. I know it may sound conspiratorial, but when you see the dollars at stake, one begins to wonder. It all sounds good when it is supposedly being done in the name of education, but if we were to really pull back the curtain, what would be found?

  17. My daughter was a college athlete (soccer) on scholarship at a PAC-12 School. I know how hard she worked and how much time she put in, and it was every bit as much time as college football and basketball players put in. She graduated in four years with a GPA that was well-above average and got a good degree. She knew their was not going to be any pot of money or professional contracts waiting for her after college, but she dedicated herself to being the best she could be, regardless. She treasures that experience. And the self-discipline and time management skills she had to develop, plus all the contacts she made at college, gave her great self confidence and were invaluable. To this day her best friends are the women from her college soccer team, and all of them are successful women.

    No one’s holding a gun to these kids’ heads when they sign their LOIs, and no one is forcing them to play sports in college. The vast majority of college athletes are never going to have an opportunity to make big money from their athletic ability, and they play sports that don’t generate revenue for their schools. So what we’re really talking about, with a few exceptions, is paying male football and basketball players. A few female college sports generate revenue (i.e., U-Conn BB, etc.) but the vast majority do not. Given Title IX, how’s that going to work? I’ll tell you what it will do, it will force Universities to reduce the number of varsity sports teams, meaning fewer athletic scholarships will be granted to kids who do not play revenue-generating sports.

    Nope. Eliminate the one-and-done rule, make scholarships cover the full cost of going to college, and allow the immediate family members of athletes some additional benefits like tickets to games and assistance with travel expenses. If that ain’t good enough, the kids can choose to turn pro, drop out and get a job or stay with the program and graduate with a degree. There will be no shortage of athletes waiting in line to take their place on the college team.

    1. Semantics.

      You say say scholarships ‘should cover the full cost of going to college’.

      The proposed stipend is intended to help ‘cover the full cost of going to college’.

      It is the same thing. You are just rephrasing it.

  18. H4h. I agree 100% and have written several times about lower college costs are needed. One of several corrupted areas is government student loans and grant money supposedly to assist college students. However, over many years now, colleges and universities have licked their chops. Instead of the money assisting students colleges and universities have just increased their costs at accelerated rates according to available money that is supposed to assist students.
    As far as college athletes expand scholarships to include immediate family members to attend a game/s (criteria could be worked out). Other than that if athletes don’t like it then it’s next man up. Give those opportunities to others, yes even to lesser talented athletes. Athletes needed who appreciate, thankful, and represent his or her university. That means that money made from sports or any other entity should be distributed to benefit all its student body. WITHOUT THE STUDENT BODY (and parents and those who pay the bills) THERE WOULD BE NO COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY. No college teams and or athletes would be needed.

  19. And yes major coaching, administrative, director and some college staff salaries involved in status type positions need to be sliced and redistributed to lower costs to go to college.
    For years it has not become but is and has been legalized corruption.

  20. Here is an example of legalized corruption. Then, governor Mitch Daniels appoints some of the Purdue trustees. Governor Daniels decides to not be governor anymore, thus retiring. So what does he do? He wants to be of service to his fellow man. What a great guy?? So he applies the fair process to those who which some he appointed and becomes President of Purdue. Yes he’s done this and that. His starting salary amounted to 400,000 to 500,000 a year (less than previous president) to almost a 1,000,000 today. Plus perks that we have no idea. THIS IS A RETIRED POLITICIAN.

    1. Seems to me MD is 1 of very, very few college presidents to resist for many years while at W. LAffy the standard practice around the country of raising tuition every year. Seems like controlling college students costs is the topic of your bitch, not Daniels.

  21. Yes, my focus is not only control of college costs, but lower college costs (since control was by-passed years ago). Yes, MD is just another member of the much layered net working elites. Yes, MD has controlled some college cost increases. However, college costs is long passed due to be lowered significantly. SINCE IT HAS BECOME SUCH A HIGH PRAISE (PAT EACH OTHER ON THE BACK AND PRAISE ONE ANOTHER LIKE THE OSCARS OR ACADEMY AWARDS) SLEAZY GREEDY BUSINESS MD LIKE OTHERS HAVE A VERY LOW BAR SET TO CONTROL OR LOWER COLLEGE COSTS. MD and others in the gang are high class networking elites that live in their own high class world. In Reality it is and always will be a dog eat dog world regardless of the generous high class smiles seen from the elites.

  22. As none other than Fox News pointed out, as Budget Direct, Mitch Daniels was the architect of the Bush Recession.

    On “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace pressed Daniels on this point. “When you came in, following the Clinton administration, this country had an annual surplus for the first time in 30 years of $236 billion. When you left, two and a half years later, the deficit was $400 billion.”

    He doesn’t need to handle any budget.

    1. There’s a huge difference between a budget deficit and the causes of the Great Recession, and you’ve shown you’re unable to distinguish between the two. This is a sports forum . . . how about sticking to that instead of wading into subjects that are beyond your understanding? We’ll all be better for it.

    2. Clinton had a Republican congress, W had a Democratic congress. Congress determines the budget. Presidents can only sign or veto. Not really apples to apples comparison. Trump’s tax cuts/reforms spurred growth but also did nothing to lower deficits. Dem’s taking over the house means spending has/will continue unchecked. US has more debt than the rest of the world combined. Spending cuts have to occur but politic suicide to whichever party tries IMO.

      1. 123, while that is accurate, there have been periods when one party controlled both Congress and the White House. Since 1976, the periods of the lowest relative deficits have been under Dems. The periods with the highest relative deficits have been during Republican control.

    1. You’re partly correct Chet that was stated by Chris Wallace on FNC not by Fox News.
      Daniels has refused to raise tuition at PUke for many of the years of his tenure there. Can’t refute it.

          1. I was quite certain I stated that correctly.
            You get 100% for the confirmation. Chris Wallace is a liberal Democrat on FNC and his Daniel’s opinion reflects that. No refute though for Daniel’s work at PUke.

  23. Chet, most people, regardless of their politics, understood that 9/11 and fighting two wars had a lot to do with the deficit you referenced. Of course, we could have increased taxes to pay for those wars, but we would have made the recession a lot worse. And then there was the mortgage debt crisis that crashed the financial markets, which had roots dating back well before W was in office.

    According to the press I’ve read, Daniels is doing a heck of a job leading Purdue.

    1. Increased taxes?

      You seem to have forgotten that there was a massive tax CUT, focused towards special interests, during the time of massive increased spending.

Comments are closed.