OU #1 RB Kenndy Brooks opts out for season

[Thiefery]

Hell, we haven't even started yet.

don't be a downer man

 

[8085sooner]

This will most likely be the shortest season in history. With campuses opening back up. Kids testing positive, will skyrocket.

To much liability to go forward at some point.

 

[Wild Turkey]

This will most likely be the shortest season in history. With campuses opening back up. Kids testing positive, will skyrocket.

To much liability to go forward at some point.

Yeah I wouldn't be excited about the season either if I had just lost my starting RB and had an unproven QB under center.

 

[Thiefery]

This will most likely be the shortest season in history. With campuses opening back up. Kids testing positive, will skyrocket.

To much liability to go forward at some point.

Welcome to the board Lincoln..

 

[Wishbone]

yes

Texass has never won a natty without a coach from Oklahoma. Hell their stadium is even named after an OU All American.

 

[LawDawg]

no

We presume that to be true, but we really don't know. Let's say they don't count this year. You have 25 new players coming in. Now you are going to have to raise the scholarships to 110. That's if the entire teams doesn't play. What it a team has 5 sit? Does that mean they can only take 20 this year? What if the Alpha 3 play and the Cuck 2 don't? Do the Cuck 2 get 110 scholarships and the Alpha 3 only 85? The point being, this is a complicated issue. Someone sitting out will for sure get another year, but it's going to be a tricky issue to deal with.

 

[rfjeff9]

This will most likely be the shortest season in history. With campuses opening back up. Kids testing positive, will skyrocket.

To much liability to go forward at some point.

There is no more liability now than there was 365 days ago.

I would be surprised if the season DOESN'T last to completion. There is absolutely no reason cut it short.

 

[thunderc]

We presume that to be true, but we really don't know. Let's say they don't count this year. You have 25 new players coming in. Now you are going to have to raise the scholarships to 110. That's if the entire teams doesn't play. What it a team has 5 sit? Does that mean they can only take 20 this year? What if the Alpha 3 play and the Cuck 2 don't? Do the Cuck 2 get 110 scholarships and the Alpha 3 only 85? The point being, this is a complicated issue. Someone sitting out will for sure get another year, but it's going to be a tricky issue to deal with.

i know but they already addressed it for the spring sports so they can’t change it for the others.

 

[Thiefery]

Texass has never won a natty without a coach from Oklahoma. Hell their stadium is even named after an OU All American.

Glad that Riley can return the favor.. oh wait..

 

[LawDawg]

i know but they already addressed it for the spring sports so they can’t change it for the others.

Football wasn't involved. Adding 25 scholarships means you have to add 25 female scholarships per Title IX. We agree ... they will do it, but it won't be easy.

 

[tnapucco]

Yeah I wouldn't be excited about the season either if I had just lost my starting RB and had an unproven QB under center.

I could see how an Auburn fan would lose any excitement with those issues...good thing we aren't Auburn.

 

[Wishbone]

Glad that Riley can return the favor.. oh wait..

Let me know when you're back.

 

[Thiefery]

Let me know when you're back.

we're back...

 

[Goldbug]

Football wasn't involved. Adding 25 scholarships means you have to add 25 female scholarships per Title IX. We agree ... they will do it, but it won't be easy.

Title IX always made about as much sense to me as trying to breed a couple of mules.

 

[LawDawg]

Title IX always made about as much sense to me as trying to breed a couple of mules.

I mean the concept is not difficult, even if you don't agree with the overall policy.

Women were discriminated against when it came to college athletics. More funding went to men's sports. Title IX basically said if you receive federal funds, you can't discriminate between sexes when it comes to athletics. Now you don't have to spend as much on women's bowling as you do men's football, but you have to have equal scholarships. With football having 85, basketball 15, baseball 12 (I think), and some others here and there, that meant you had to have that many for women's sports. To do this the had to add a ton of women's sports and get rid of men's rowing, fencing, that type of thing. To get to the 112 that are reserved for the top 3 mens sports, you had to add a lot of women's sports.

I know you were just kidding, probably, but there you go.

 

[Goldbug]

I mean the concept is not difficult, even if you don't agree with the overall policy.

Women were discriminated against when it came to college athletics. More funding went to men's sports. Title IX basically said if you receive federal funds, you can't discriminate between sexes when it comes to athletics. Now you don't have to spend as much on women's bowling as you do men's football, but you have to have equal scholarships. With football having 85, basketball 15, baseball 12 (I think), and some others here and there, that meant you had to have that many for women's sports. To do this the had to add a ton of women's sports and get rid of men's rowing, fencing, that type of thing. To get to the 112 that are reserved for the top 3 mens sports, you had to add a lot of women's sports.

I know you were just kidding, probably, but there you go.

I'm just not a fan of subsidizing most sports that are never going to support themselves just because it makes someone feel good. OK, I can see supporting a few women's teams that will never carry themselves just like a men's wrestling problem doesn't cover its expense at most schools. But creating an entire spectrum of women's sports just to meet some social justice goal is what's adding dramatically to the financial hemorrhaging in college sports. Some sports (men and women) are basically even such as golf and tennis in their cost to an athletic program so I see the fairness of having both teams. But adding women's stick ball or women's foosball or women's three-legged sack racing teams "to make everything fair" is a joke and most people know it but they're reluctant to say it out loud for fear of being called a misogynist or some other BS label.

 

[LawDawg]

I'm just not a fan of subsidizing most sports that are never going to support themselves just because it makes someone feel good. OK, I can see supporting a few women's teams that will never carry themselves just like a men's wrestling problem doesn't cover its expense at most schools. But creating an entire spectrum of women's sports just to meet some social justice goal is what's adding dramatically to the financial hemorrhaging in college sports. Some sports (men and women) are basically even such as golf and tennis in their cost to an athletic program so I see the fairness of having both teams. But adding women's stick ball or women's foosball or women's three-legged sack racing teams "to make everything fair" is a joke and most people know it but they're reluctant to say it out loud for fear of being called a misogynist or some other BS label.

I am not a fan of Title IX, but for reasons other than sports. If you look at college sports as an activity that is integral to a schools educational mission, you might see it differently. Football and basketball have become so economically successful that we tend to forget that there is an educational mission to college sports - physical and mental health, teamwork, competitiveness, camaraderie, learning, etc. It's actually the primary mission. And you get that on a field hockey team as much as you get it on a football team. A university doesn't make money off the debate team, or the chess club, or a greek system, the glee club, the DanceAThon, intramurals, or any of the hundreds of activities, athletic and non-athletic, that they have to help their students grow, learn and mature. They are part of the total educational mission of the university. If that is true, and I believe it is, then you can't discriminate against women in favor of men in any of it.

 

[Goldbug]

I am not a fan of Title IX, but for reasons other than sports. If you look at college sports as an activity that is integral to a schools educational mission, you might see it differently. Football and basketball have become so economically successful that we tend to forget that there is an educational mission to college sports - physical and mental health, teamwork, competitiveness, camaraderie, learning, etc. It's actually the primary mission. And you get that on a field hockey team as much as you get it on a football team. A university doesn't make money off the debate team, or the chess club, or a greek system, the glee club, the DanceAThon, intramurals, or any of the hundreds of activities, athletic and non-athletic, that they have to help their students grow, learn and mature. They are part of the total educational mission of the university. If that is true, and I believe it is, then you can't discriminate against women in favor of men in any of it.

I'm not in favor of discrimination at all. But when a sport is a stone loser I don't see the point in having it. Example: OU built a helluva nice swimming facility and then turned around and dropped the sport because it was never going to come close to paying for itself. So they opened up the facility to everyone and went on with life. Saying all the different activities you mentioned are the equivalent of major college sports is a stretch but I do very much agree with you that a sport should teach you something besides how to run a route or make a fade away jumper. With what's coming in the Financial Armageddon of college sports, I'm willing to forgo the warm fuzzy feeling of absolute equality if its strengthens the surviving sports, both men's and women's sports. Tough times are coming; tough choices will have to be made.

 

[Thiefery]

Hey.. from a Texas board, they are saying that Brooks has a lingering shoulder issue and is probably why he's opting out.

Guess the Bennie Wylie era is in full effect

 

[Goldbug]

Hey.. from a Texas board, they are saying that Brooks has a lingering shoulder issue and is probably why he's opting out.

Guess the Bennie Wylie era is in full effect

Is my memory correct when I remember Texas fans were not high on Bennie and were glad to see him go?