NCAA looking into Manziel profiting from autographs

[YankeeFan]

And, look, I'm not in favor of any of this b.s. The NCAA is a cartel.

Ive worked directly with the folks at the NCAA. It's a terrible, hypocritical organization.

But, what rules should they be able to enforce. Is a maximum four years of eligibility OK? A "regular" student can participate in intramural sports, even if he's been there six years? Why can't he play NCAA sports for six or seven years -- especially if he can make money doing it?

If a player goes to the NBA, with eligibility remaining, and doesn't make it, should he be able to come back and play college ball?

Because, what you are arguing against is the NCAA's ability to set eligibility requirements. If they can't enforce this rule, what rule can they enforce?

This line of argumentation reminds me a little bit of your lines of argumentation regarding the Constitution.

Look, nobody is saying that the NCAA can't set any eligibility requirements.

We just happen to think that this particular eligibility requirement stinks and, all things considered, isn't justified.

Sure. Slippery slope. You hate that argument.

Doesn't mean it's not without merit.

Why shouldn't A-Rod be able to enroll at The U, play college baseball, and earn a ton of money?

Except for arbitrary age rules, and the fact that he's played pro ball, he still has eligibility remaining?

What about the kid who got bad advice and signed with an agent?

You don't like this rule. Others will find fault with other rules.

If the argument against this rule is, "what harm would it do," or, "who would it hurt," then shouldn't that be the standard for all the rules.

Baron doesn't understand why these rules treat athletes different than the "average student". So, if A-Rod enrolls at The U, and takes classes, why shouldn't he be able to try out for the baseball team?

 

[da man]

And, look, I'm not in favor of any of this b.s. The NCAA is a cartel.

Ive worked directly with the folks at the NCAA. It's a terrible, hypocritical organization.

But, what rules should they be able to enforce. Is a maximum four years of eligibility OK? A "regular" student can participate in intramural sports, even if he's been there six years? Why can't he play NCAA sports for six or seven years -- especially if he can make money doing it?

If a player goes to the NBA, with eligibility remaining, and doesn't make it, should he be able to come back and play college ball?

Because, what you are arguing against is the NCAA's ability to set eligibility requirements. If they can't enforce this rule, what rule can they enforce?

This line of argumentation reminds me a little bit of your lines of argumentation regarding the Constitution.

Look, nobody is saying that the NCAA can't set any eligibility requirements.

We just happen to think that this particular eligibility requirement stinks and, all things considered, isn't justified.

Sure. Slippery slope. You hate that argument.

Doesn't mean it's not without merit.

Why shouldn't A-Rod be able to enroll at The U, play college baseball, and earn a ton of money?

Except for arbitrary age rules, and the fact that he's played pro ball, he still has eligibility remaining?

What about the kid who got bad advice and signed with an agent?

You don't like this rule. Others will find fault with other rules.

If the argument against this rule is, "what harm would it do," or, "who would it hurt," then shouldn't that be the standard for all the rules.

Baron doesn't understand why these rules treat athletes different than the "average student". So, if A-Rod enrolls at The U, and takes classes, why shouldn't he be able to try out for the baseball team?

'Cause he's on steroids and that's against NCAA rules.





Oh..... wait.

 

[LongTimeListener]

So if the NCAA is all good on this, why did they shut down their search engine after Bilas started tweeting about how to buy Manziel jerseys? What's the problem, why be cowards about it?

Anyone who can look at a Texas A&M #2 jersey with the name FOOTBALL on the back and think the NCAA isn't violating rules of amateurism, copyright law and basic decency is someone who enjoys pretzel logic and does not enjoy reality.

 

[YankeeFan]

The NCAA is a bunch of hypocritical cowards. I think we can all agree on that point.

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

Is this what you find when you search Lennay Kekua?

 

[silent_h]

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!

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.

No, I don't know that. Nor do I agree. When you say "technically," I have no idea what you are referring to. If you'd like to explain how there is not, in fact, a marketplace for men's college basketball and football talent, please do. I'll listen.

 

[silent_h]

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.

That's true for a huge number of people in society and they are not subject to amateurism.

 

[NDJournalist]

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.

That's true for a huge number of people in society and they are not subject to amateurism.

Pat Forde wouldn't be read without the platform Yahoo, and before that ESPN, provided him. Therefore, he shouldn't be paid. Logic.

 

[da man]

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.

That's true for a huge number of people in society and they are not subject to amateurism.

Pat Forde wouldn't be read without the platform Yahoo, and before that ESPN, provided him. Therefore, he shouldn't be paid. Logic.

Bill Simmons begs to differ with this logic. Mel Kiper, too.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Is this what you find when you search Lennay Kekua?

A Hawaiian pearl necklace?

 

[Armchair_QB]

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.

According to deck anything that limits an athlete's ability to make money is equal to slavery.

An athlete receiving $20,000 to $40,000 for education is just like a slave on a southern plantation because he can't sell his autograph.

The stupid is strong on this thread.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.

According to deck anything that limits an athlete's ability to make money is equal to slavery.

You must be reading the imaginary Internet today.

What I noted were the arguments against predominantly black and predominantly Southern college football players being able to make money, which were that they were happy with their current status, and that, besides, the status quo of the institution was important to protect because it served the greater good.

And I noted that these arguments were reminiscent of arguments I have read before from history.