NCAA looking into Manziel profiting from autographs

[Alma]

Regulating the system would be fairly easy.

Health care -- the great, unholy mash-up of government policies and the free market -- indisputably proves this.

The regulatory nightmare would create a governing body even bigger than the one they have. If it isn't, I can tell you this: The kids will get shafted on their rights. The music industry has laughably scant regulation. You oughta see how those contracts can eviscerate artists.

What this discussion and ongoing posts on Twitter prove is that many sports journalists are blissfully unaware of how contract capitalism works. There will be kids who don't even get <i>paid</i> for their autographs. The dealers will welch.

However arcane the rules may be, they do protect players from a certain kind of exploitation.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

If we want to make the lazy analogy of comparing them to other students,

Lazy analogy?

It's by comparing them to other students, who pay thousands of dollars to go to school; who do not receive preferential treatment in admissions; who generally leave with thousands of dollars in debt; who do not receive 1-on-1 tutoring in palaces like Oregon's Jock Box; who do not get preferred registration time for classes; and who often must work part-time jobs while carrying a full academic load, that we can see that being "exploited" might not be such a bad deal after all.

We will just disagree on this point. So it goes.

But other students don't provide anything, much less millions of dollars, to the school.

There are tons of scientists, not to mention academics of various other stripes, that bring a lot more prestige -- like Nobel Prizes, cures for diseases, famous pieces of art or music, etc. -- than some string of interchangeable Oregon quarterbacks or Alabama linemen. Running backs don't go to Alabama because Trent Richardson and Mark Ingram went there; they go there because it's Alabama.

And po, po Johnny Manziel. Free academic ride without being saddled by years of debt, with tutoring services and other amenities, not to mention adulation and networking, not available to other students. And he can't freely sign his autograph. Cry me a forking river.

And Mr. h: there is no basic right to be able to play college football without following college football's rules.

That's nonsensical. When and where has anyone argued for a basic right to play college football?

Amateurism is college sports is collusion. As a society, we generally hold that marketplace competitors do not have a right to collude, and that individuals have a right to not be subjected to said collusion unless it takes place within the consensual framework of collective bargaining.

That's what I'm referring to.

College athletics is technically not a marketplace. And you know that. You wish it were.

It is a marketplace because there's a market for these athletes. They're just not allowed to participate in the marketplace.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Nobody told Jennifer Capriati when she was 13 that she wasn't allowed to make money playing tennis.

Nobody suggested that she should wait and play tennis for a college team so she could have her education paid for. Nobody seemed to think it was all that important for Jennifer Capriati to have the "college experience," whatever that means. Nobody suggested that a college education would be worthy recompense for her tennis skills. They just let her play tennis, and make money.

Be careful with the "Nobody said . . . " because I'm sure somebody said all of those things at some time.

And given what I've heard about Jen's intelligence ("dumb as a rock"), maybe a college education would have done her some good. Maybe if she had learned to speak without saying "You know" every other sentence she'd have a future in broadcasting instead of being washed-up TMZ fodder at age 36.

And FWIW, if Jennifer Capriati came along today, the WTA would tell her, "You can't make money playing tennis. Not on our tour. Not until you are 15. And even then, only a few tournaments. You cannot play a full schedule until you are 18."

The WTA got tired of seeing its stars burn out in their early 20s.

Wait, you mean a professional sports organization puts limits on an athlete's ability to make money?

That's slavery!

Salary caps are slavery?

As far as the Capriati example goes, it seems more relevant if the WTA told Capriati that she could play tennis, but she couldn't endorse any products or sign autographs for money.

 

[Dick Whitman]

However arcane the rules may be, they do protect players from a certain kind of exploitation.

Let me get this straight: The NCAA is protecting its student-athletes from exploitation?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

However arcane the rules may be, they do protect players from a certain kind of exploitation.

Let me get this straight: The NCAA is protecting its student-athletes from exploitation?

Yeah, explotiation from whom?

 

[da man]

If we want to make the lazy analogy of comparing them to other students,

Lazy analogy?

It's by comparing them to other students, who pay thousands of dollars to go to school; who do not receive preferential treatment in admissions; who generally leave with thousands of dollars in debt; who do not receive 1-on-1 tutoring in palaces like Oregon's Jock Box; who do not get preferred registration time for classes; and who often must work part-time jobs while carrying a full academic load, that we can see that being "exploited" might not be such a bad deal after all.

We will just disagree on this point. So it goes.

But other students don't provide anything, much less millions of dollars, to the school.

There are tons of scientists, not to mention academics of various other stripes, that bring a lot more prestige -- like Nobel Prizes, cures for diseases, famous pieces of art or music, etc. -- than some string of interchangeable Oregon quarterbacks or Alabama linemen. Running backs don't go to Alabama because Trent Richardson and Mark Ingram went there; they go there because it's Alabama.

And po, po Johnny Manziel. Free academic ride without being saddled by years of debt, with tutoring services and other amenities, not to mention adulation and networking, not available to other students. And he can't freely sign his autograph. Cry me a forking river.

And Mr. h: there is no basic right to be able to play college football without following college football's rules.

That's nonsensical. When and where has anyone argued for a basic right to play college football?

Amateurism is college sports is collusion. As a society, we generally hold that marketplace competitors do not have a right to collude, and that individuals have a right to not be subjected to said collusion unless it takes place within the consensual framework of collective bargaining.

That's what I'm referring to.

College athletics is technically not a marketplace. And you know that. You wish it were.

It is a marketplace because there's a market for these athletes. They're just not allowed to participate in the marketplace.

Then they need to sue the NFL. As has been mentioned again and again, it isn't the NCAA that's stopping players from receiving a pro paycheck.

And anyone who thinks he can make money off it is free to start up a pro football league that wouldn't make players wait to join. I don't think the NFL has an antitrust exemption.

 

[NDJournalist]

Moving beyond all the philosophical disagreements in play here, I am curious about the likelihood of two (competing) scenarios in this story:

1) Manziel, whose family is wealthy, nevertheless chafed at restrictions imposed on him by his family and saw this money as an end-around

2) This friend/assistant was actually soliciting the money, ostensibly on Manziel's orders, but actually to line his (the friend's) own pocket.

According to this story (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/broker-claims-paid-johnny-manziel-7-500-sign-202358867.html), one of the brokers who paid him says Johnny was going to use the money to buy new rims.

So, you know, it was for a good cause.

I fail to see how this matters.

 

[da man]

Nobody told Jennifer Capriati when she was 13 that she wasn't allowed to make money playing tennis.

Nobody suggested that she should wait and play tennis for a college team so she could have her education paid for. Nobody seemed to think it was all that important for Jennifer Capriati to have the "college experience," whatever that means. Nobody suggested that a college education would be worthy recompense for her tennis skills. They just let her play tennis, and make money.

Be careful with the "Nobody said . . . " because I'm sure somebody said all of those things at some time.

And given what I've heard about Jen's intelligence ("dumb as a rock"), maybe a college education would have done her some good. Maybe if she had learned to speak without saying "You know" every other sentence she'd have a future in broadcasting instead of being washed-up TMZ fodder at age 36.

And FWIW, if Jennifer Capriati came along today, the WTA would tell her, "You can't make money playing tennis. Not on our tour. Not until you are 15. And even then, only a few tournaments. You cannot play a full schedule until you are 18."

The WTA got tired of seeing its stars burn out in their early 20s.

Wait, you mean a professional sports organization puts limits on an athlete's ability to make money?

That's slavery!

Salary caps are slavery?

As far as the Capriati example goes, it seems more relevant if the WTA told Capriati that she could play tennis, but she couldn't endorse any products or sign autographs for money.

No, because the WTA is the alternative to the colleges here. She could have played in college, gotten a scholarship and been subject to those restrictions. Instead, she chose an alternative -- turning pro.

 

[BTExpress]

Remember. Manziel's "skills" are not so valuable and marketable in a vacuum. He's not like an inventor that can develop an app in his basement and sell it to Google or Apple for thousands of dollars. He NEEDS what the NCAA and Texas A&M provide.

He cannot draw thousands of paying fans to watch him play sandlot football. The skills are worthless without the stage that the NCAA and Texas A&M provide. Without CBS showing his skills in a packed stadium against No. 1 Alabama in an NCAA sanctioned game . . . he never becomes the star he became. Yes, CBS and the NCAA profited from him. And he WILL profit from them . . . eventually. He already has. He's a Heisman winner, so that will always have value. He just doesn't get 100 percent of his potential value TODAY TODAY TODAY. So what. He WILL, for crying out loud. He just has to wait a couple of years.

 

[hondo]

Regulating the system would be fairly easy.

Player gets X amount of items to sign a year. They're sold with proof of signing pic, authenticating the item and the player pockets the money.

On team items, each player gets a cut.

This notion that it isn't okay for Manziel to sell his autograph but the school can and has and made big money off of it; that disconnect is what seems to be driving the argument.

The money can be paid out on a regular basis or can be put into a trust and paid out when eligibility is completed or when they leave school to go pro.

Same goes for merchandise bearing the players name or likeness. Same setup.

It doesn't run afoul of Title IX because the money is all based on sales, not what the school is doing for male or female athletes.

What's hilarious is the argument that if getting money for signing autographs becomes a thing, that it will tilt the balance of power in college football.

Baloney.

The power schools are already in control and they know it. They already have the TV money, the endorsement deals and the established brand names to run the show now. Plus, and worth remembering, they already know how to cheat and get away with it.

Mississippi State couldn't afford Cam Newton, so he signs with Auburn, they win national title and walk.

Calling the national title contenders in football is about as easy as women's college basketball. You have, maybe, seven teams that could play into the two spots. Out of 120 schools, 113 are effectively eliminated.

Autograph money might actually change that.

If you don't think it runs afoul of Title IX, you'd better guess again. There are lawyers waiting for the day football and basketball players get paid so they can sue on behalf of wealthy parents of swimming, soccer and tennis athletes.

 

[da man]

Moving beyond all the philosophical disagreements in play here, I am curious about the likelihood of two (competing) scenarios in this story:

1) Manziel, whose family is wealthy, nevertheless chafed at restrictions imposed on him by his family and saw this money as an end-around

2) This friend/assistant was actually soliciting the money, ostensibly on Manziel's orders, but actually to line his (the friend's) own pocket.

According to this story (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/broker-claims-paid-johnny-manziel-7-500-sign-202358867.html), one of the brokers who paid him says Johnny was going to use the money to buy new rims.

So, you know, it was for a good cause.

I fail to see how this matters.

I was answering Doc's question about what was going to happen to the money. The commentary was just a gratuitous shot at an entitled redneck punk. You know, just for fun.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

If we want to make the lazy analogy of comparing them to other students,

Lazy analogy?

It's by comparing them to other students, who pay thousands of dollars to go to school; who do not receive preferential treatment in admissions; who generally leave with thousands of dollars in debt; who do not receive 1-on-1 tutoring in palaces like Oregon's Jock Box; who do not get preferred registration time for classes; and who often must work part-time jobs while carrying a full academic load, that we can see that being "exploited" might not be such a bad deal after all.

We will just disagree on this point. So it goes.

But other students don't provide anything, much less millions of dollars, to the school.

There are tons of scientists, not to mention academics of various other stripes, that bring a lot more prestige -- like Nobel Prizes, cures for diseases, famous pieces of art or music, etc. -- than some string of interchangeable Oregon quarterbacks or Alabama linemen. Running backs don't go to Alabama because Trent Richardson and Mark Ingram went there; they go there because it's Alabama.

And po, po Johnny Manziel. Free academic ride without being saddled by years of debt, with tutoring services and other amenities, not to mention adulation and networking, not available to other students. And he can't freely sign his autograph. Cry me a forking river.

And Mr. h: there is no basic right to be able to play college football without following college football's rules.

That's nonsensical. When and where has anyone argued for a basic right to play college football?

Amateurism is college sports is collusion. As a society, we generally hold that marketplace competitors do not have a right to collude, and that individuals have a right to not be subjected to said collusion unless it takes place within the consensual framework of collective bargaining.

That's what I'm referring to.

College athletics is technically not a marketplace. And you know that. You wish it were.

It is a marketplace because there's a market for these athletes. They're just not allowed to participate in the marketplace.

Then they need to sue the NFL. As has been mentioned again and again, it isn't the NCAA that's stopping players from receiving a pro paycheck.

And anyone who thinks he can make money off it is free to start up a pro football league that wouldn't make players wait to join. I don't think the NFL has an antitrust exemption.

The NCAA is preventing them from making money while they are college students. This contradicts their own rules, which say that an athlete is supposed to be treated as a regular student. Well, regular students aren't restricted in making money.