NCAA looking into Manziel profiting from autographs

[Armchair_QB]

What is the argument against players being able to sell their autographs? Or endorse products?

I keep reading that they already get a scholarship. And that they'll eat what's on their plate and like it. Kids are starving in India.

Other than keeping them in their place, what is the harm?

That has been addressed, actually. The harm is the Alabama booster who pays $5,000 for a high school junior's autograph. Or the LSU booster who pays $10,000. Or the promise that once you sign with Ohio State that booster X will pay you, monthly, $50,000 for 10 autographs.

None of that erases the corruption that already goes on, but it's easy to imagine how bad it would be if the bylaws were eradicated.

It seems to me like you could regulate that with relative ease.

I think you're wrong. I think that is what happens if players are allowed to sell their own stuff to anyone, anytime, for any amount of money. Yes, they have to file taxes, but it would be so easy to get around any bylaws. Colleges really would be buying players. That's why the no jobs thing came into existence in the first place.

I still think it could be regulated. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Here's what I can't justify: No. 2 jerseys being sold in the meantime. For cripe's sake, last year Notre Dame was peddling T-shirts with Hawaiin le'is splashed across them.

If the kids can't capitalize on their names for the reasons you state, then the schools shouldn't be able to, either.

And I think that day is coming, frankly. Bilas's stunt got a lot of attention yesterday. Rovell has written about it pretty extensively in the past, too. When Johnny Manziel is suspended for selling autographs while Texas A&M sells No. 2 jerseys in its bookstore, the public is going to be aghast.

Tell us how you would regulate it.

Why does it need to be regulated? Honest question.

Because deck said it did.

 

[YankeeFan]

Because of the issue in particular, though, not because the media can't drive a cause generally. It just wasn't sticky. Because it wasn't appalling. Men have men's clubs? Stop the presses.

This is appalling.

I think it's wrong, but I'm not sure too many folks are going to be appalled.

The number of people involved is low, and the length of time they are prohibited from profiting off of their name is short.

Elites probably put a greater value on a college education than the average Joe, and many people will decide the system works "for the greater good".

It's also not a new issue. I think most people have made peace with the issue.

Now, attitudes changed on issues like race, and gay marriage. But, is this the kind of issue people will invest enough in to care, and to change their mind?

If a certain momentum is gained, it can move quickly -- no one, let alone an "elite", wants to be the last to jump on board an issue -- but I think they'll have a hard time getting the ball rolling.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Because deck said it did.

No, no, no.

That was simply my compromise offer to the people who are concerned that Alabama will be really good if players can sell their autographs.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Because of the issue in particular, though, not because the media can't drive a cause generally. It just wasn't sticky. Because it wasn't appalling. Men have men's clubs? Stop the presses.

This is appalling.

I think it's wrong, but I'm not sure too many folks are going to be appalled.

The number of people involved is low, and the length of time they are prohibited from profiting off of their name is short.

Elites probably put a greater value on a college education than the average Joe, and many people will decide the system works "for the greater good".

It's also not a new issue. I think most people have made peace with the issue.

It's a new issue because schools have never cashed in on players' names and jersey numbers like they are now. I mean, Hawaiin le'i shirts at Notre Dame last year? That's - yes - appalling.

And the idea that people think a southern system that takes advantage of cheap labor is justified based upon its contribution to the "greater good" ... hmmm ... hmmmm ... I feel like I've heard that justification before ...

 

[Armchair_QB]

Because deck said it did.

No, no, no.

That was simply my compromise offer to the people who are concerned that Alabama will be really good if players can sell their autographs.

You said it could be regulated though. Tell us how you'd do it.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Because of the issue in particular, though, not because the media can't drive a cause generally. It just wasn't sticky. Because it wasn't appalling. Men have men's clubs? Stop the presses.

This is appalling.

I think it's wrong, but I'm not sure too many folks are going to be appalled.

The number of people involved is low, and the length of time they are prohibited from profiting off of their name is short.

Elites probably put a greater value on a college education than the average Joe, and many people will decide the system works "for the greater good".

It's also not a new issue. I think most people have made peace with the issue.

It's a new issue because schools have never cashed in on players' names and jersey numbers like they are now. I mean, Hawaiin le'i shirts at Notre Dame last year? That's - yes - appalling.

And the idea that people think a southern system that takes advantage of cheap labor is justified based upon its contribution to the "greater good" ... hmmm ... hmmmm ... I feel like I've heard that justification before ...

Where have you heard that before? In what context?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Because of the issue in particular, though, not because the media can't drive a cause generally. It just wasn't sticky. Because it wasn't appalling. Men have men's clubs? Stop the presses.

This is appalling.

I think it's wrong, but I'm not sure too many folks are going to be appalled.

The number of people involved is low, and the length of time they are prohibited from profiting off of their name is short.

Elites probably put a greater value on a college education than the average Joe, and many people will decide the system works "for the greater good".

It's also not a new issue. I think most people have made peace with the issue.

It's a new issue because schools have never cashed in on players' names and jersey numbers like they are now. I mean, Hawaiin le'i shirts at Notre Dame last year? That's - yes - appalling.

And the idea that people think a southern system that takes advantage of cheap labor is justified based upon its contribution to the "greater good" ... hmmm ... hmmmm ... I feel like I've heard that justification before ...

Where have you heard that before? In what context?

Something about how the labor system in place in the South, if dismantled, would wreck the South's economy ...

 

[Armchair_QB]

Because of the issue in particular, though, not because the media can't drive a cause generally. It just wasn't sticky. Because it wasn't appalling. Men have men's clubs? Stop the presses.

This is appalling.

I think it's wrong, but I'm not sure too many folks are going to be appalled.

The number of people involved is low, and the length of time they are prohibited from profiting off of their name is short.

Elites probably put a greater value on a college education than the average Joe, and many people will decide the system works "for the greater good".

It's also not a new issue. I think most people have made peace with the issue.

It's a new issue because schools have never cashed in on players' names and jersey numbers like they are now. I mean, Hawaiin le'i shirts at Notre Dame last year? That's - yes - appalling.

And the idea that people think a southern system that takes advantage of cheap labor is justified based upon its contribution to the "greater good" ... hmmm ... hmmmm ... I feel like I've heard that justification before ...

Where have you heard that before? In what context?

Something about how the labor system in place in the South, if dismantled, would wreck the South's economy ...

What labor system are you referring to?

 

[silent_h]

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.

 

[doctorquant]

The NCAA's cartel is "a southern system"?

 

[Armchair_QB]

The NCAA's cartel is "a southern system"?

And, according to deck, student-athletes are slaves.

 

[YankeeFan]

He didn't quite say that.

He equated the argument against dismantling the current system to previous arguments.