Terrelle Pryor, four teammates suspended first five games of 2011

Except NCAA rules prohibit him from giving the Oregon quarterback a million bucks.

 

Of course they do, now. They're still clinging to this amateurism ideal that went out in the 1920s. I don't know if everyone at the NCAA truly believes the BS. I figure most of them know that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Loosen the rules too much, or tighten them too much, and the schools will balk, and maybe bolt.

I use the Phil Knight example as a way for the NCAA to get around the Title IX demand that everyone gets treated equally. The schools can treat the athletes the same. But if boosters are allowed to pay the athletes themselves, there's no law that says that the booster also has to pay a women's swimmer as well.

 

Where did I say the lawyers wouldn't try? Oh, that's right. I didn't. Next time try understanding what other people are posting before you go on the attack.

Title IX guarantees equal opportunity. I'm not suggesting that the NCAA only allow male athletes to pursue endorsements. Female athletes would have the exact same right to attempt to profit from their endeavors as the men. It isn't the NCAA's responsibility to guarantee them the same success.

Anybody who can't grasp that is the real fool.

If you are still having trouble keeping up, see Baron's post. He gets it.

 

Baron, you really want to open the can of worms of open season on 18-year-olds for boosters? You want society's priorities to be more fucked than they already are? And for what? About 3-4 dozen players, none of whom are 100 percent certain of amounting to anything on the field. Again, they are compensated materially to the tune of six figures and the gold standard of connections and networking.

 

Wise words for a guy with only 17 posts

 

Which is one among many reasons colleges never will, nor should they, pay their athletes. But someday, I'm guessing they will allow others to pay them.

 

The day the schools either pay direct stipends or allow boosters to pay players directly, the tax exemption that holds this house of cards together melts away.

 

So it seems to me that the real reason why these kids will never get paid is it's too complicated with all the potential legal and tax problems.

When I tried to come up with the simplest solution, I knew it would get cut down. Nothing wrong with that because I like the scholarship idea the best.

 

Why not?

I can see the concern over having a player accept money from, say, a gambler, and then being force to shave points or throw a game.

In that case, then make the boosters get registered with the NCAA for any gifts over, let's say, $100. That way, the NCAA won't be wasting their time going after kids who are accepting a free hamburger, and the kids can still profit.

The tax exemption should already have melted away. Like it or not, college sports is a business. Time to treat it that way.

If it means that schools can't afford to pay their coaches $3 million a year, oh well.

 

I remember when Rick Majerus was coaching Utah basketball and he got in trouble by the NCAA. Keith Van Horn's dad had just passed away unexpectedly and Van Horn was trying to catch a flight home. Majerus drove him to the airport and they then went out to eat at a diner near the airport while Van Horn waited for his flight and Majerus paid for the meal. NCAA somehow found out and came down on Majerus for it. Ridiculous. As much as I favor the NCAA's side about not paying athletes, sometimes I wonder if they have a soul.

 

If Van Horn had to play on a bowl game, he would have been suspended for next season's games against St.Leos and Florida Southern

 

Or, just regulate it as Baron suggested so everything is above the table (cut down on the risk of fixing games). Sure, that would take time and resources. So does what the NCAA does now.