Re: College Football - Bowl Games

[Jon]

No.

 

But it isn't necessarily a good rule just because it's written down somewhere.

Of course it's a good rule. If there was no rule, then schools would keep feeding the guys things they can sell without any limit. It would be the same as paying players.

[Butterscup1679666578]

So...why aren't they suspended for the bowl game?

[Jon]

And that necessarily means there was a righteous intent behind it?

 

Does it necessarily mean there was not?

If they want to play the pity card and try and convince the public that it was to help their families, then the burden of proof for that is on them. It's used every time.

 

And "help their families" is entirely relative. Any amount given to their parents regardless of how well off they are is helping their families.

[Jon]

So...why aren't they suspended for the bowl game?

Because Ohio State convinced them that the players weren't properly educated about the rules. According to NCAA rules, if the players were found to have been knowingly committing the infractions, then they would have missed the bowl game.

[SpongeWorthy]

No.

 

But it isn't necessarily a good rule just because it's written down somewhere.

Of course it's a good rule. If there was no rule, then schools would keep feeding the guys things they can sell without any limit. It would be the same as paying players.

 

Like what?

 

Would players start selling cigarettes out of the back of trucks or something? Game merchandise is valuable because there is a very finite supply of it.

[Flames24Rulz]

I knew working with a guy from Columbus would pay off eventually. Seeing his reaction after realizing what happened was priceless.

 

He brought up a good point, though. Why did AJ Green only get suspended for a game for something very similar to what all five of these guys did? Better yet, why did Cam Newton go unpunished when his dad wanted teams to bid for the services of his son?

 

The NCAA really needs to find out what the word 'consistency' means.

[SpongeWorthy]

Wasn't Green suspended for four games?

[jersey cubs fan]

And that necessarily means there was a righteous intent behind it?

 

Does it necessarily mean there was not?

If they want to play the pity card and try and convince the public that it was to help their families, then the burden of proof for that is on them. It's used every time.

 

And "help their families" is entirely relative. Any amount given to their parents regardless of how well off they are is helping their families.

 

How is the burden of proof on them? They broke a rule and received punishment. But all they did was sell their own property. You can go ahead and keep acting like a lunatic who thinks this is a travesty, but that reflects more on your own problems than theirs.

[Jon]

And that necessarily means there was a righteous intent behind it?

 

Does it necessarily mean there was not?

If they want to play the pity card and try and convince the public that it was to help their families, then the burden of proof for that is on them. It's used every time.

 

And "help their families" is entirely relative. Any amount given to their parents regardless of how well off they are is helping their families.

 

How is the burden of proof on them? They broke a rule and received punishment. But all they did was sell their own property. You can go ahead and keep acting like a lunatic who thinks this is a travesty, but that reflects more on your own problems than theirs.

Wow. I call [expletive] on them playing the same pity card for all 5 guys that everyone caught uses and somehow it devolves into some strange debate about something that has nothing to do with anything I actually posted about. I'm shocked!

[Flames24Rulz]

Wasn't Green suspended for four games?

 

Yep. That kind of kills his argument, although the extra game for the Ohio State guys could be costly seeing how they miss the game against Michigan State.

[Jon]

No.

 

But it isn't necessarily a good rule just because it's written down somewhere.

Of course it's a good rule. If there was no rule, then schools would keep feeding the guys things they can sell without any limit. It would be the same as paying players.

 

Like what?

 

Would players start selling cigarettes out of the back of trucks or something? Game merchandise is valuable because there is a very finite supply of it.

All schools would have to do is line up people unaffiliated with the program to buy jerseys for hundreds of thousands of dollars and make that promise to kids during the recruiting process. There's no reason they couldn't sell their memorabilia for far more than its actually worth. Regulation, even if it was theoretically possible, would be quite impractical.

[SpongeWorthy]

No.

 

But it isn't necessarily a good rule just because it's written down somewhere.

Of course it's a good rule. If there was no rule, then schools would keep feeding the guys things they can sell without any limit. It would be the same as paying players.

 

Like what?

 

Would players start selling cigarettes out of the back of trucks or something? Game merchandise is valuable because there is a very finite supply of it.

All schools would have to do is line up people unaffiliated with the program to buy jerseys for hundreds of thousands of dollars and make that promise to kids during the recruiting process. There's no reason they couldn't sell their memorabilia for far more than its actually worth. Regulation, even if it was theoretically possible, would be quite impractical.

 

I don't really consider that selling merchandise. That's more like bribing someone with $100,000 and saying 'Oh, this isn't a bribe, I was just paying 100k for this briefcase that's worth more like $300." What you're talking about is really no different than straight up paying players.

 

I don't think selling a conference championship ring for 1 grand or whatever is remotely the same.

 

Edit: I also don't think that would be any easier or harder to police than just straight pay for play scenarios.

[Jon]

No.

 

But it isn't necessarily a good rule just because it's written down somewhere.

Of course it's a good rule. If there was no rule, then schools would keep feeding the guys things they can sell without any limit. It would be the same as paying players.

 

Like what?

 

Would players start selling cigarettes out of the back of trucks or something? Game merchandise is valuable because there is a very finite supply of it.

All schools would have to do is line up people unaffiliated with the program to buy jerseys for hundreds of thousands of dollars and make that promise to kids during the recruiting process. There's no reason they couldn't sell their memorabilia for far more than its actually worth. Regulation, even if it was theoretically possible, would be quite impractical.

 

I don't really consider that selling merchandise. That's more like bribing someone with $100,000 and saying 'Oh, this isn't a bribe, I was just paying 100k for this briefcase that's worth more like $300." What you're talking about is really no different than straight up paying players.

 

I don't think selling a conference championship ring for 1 grand or whatever is remotely the same.

And how could that possibly be regulated? Telling players they can do something that's within the rules couldn't be construed as bribery. What if they sold the ring for 2 grand? Or 5 grand? Or 10 grand? Or 50 grand? And add to that a situation in which every recruit knows that going to that school means you can sell your stuff for large amounts of money.

 

There's no in between in the rule. It's either you strictly forbid it or it's uncontrollable.

[SpongeWorthy]

There's plenty of ways you could do it. The NCAA could run a market in merchandise and give the proceeds back to the player and take a slice for itself. If you're worried about some booster just coming in and dumping a truckload of money in the market just make the payout to the player a fixed amount or a max percentage up to a certain threshold with the rest going to the NCAA and hopefully, it's affiliated charities. It certainly wouldn't be impossible. You step outside of the regulated market and you lose your eligibility.

[abuck1220]

quite the coincidence that they still get to play in the bowl, seeing as how them not playing would obviously hurt tv ratings.

[imb]

if only they had gone undefeated and were in the MNC game, they'd probably just get a verbal reprimand

[erik316wttn]

Does anyone else find it funny that those guys will be carrying their NCAA violations around with them forever?

 

Just me? Ok then.

[Jon]

There's plenty of ways you could do it. The NCAA could run a market in merchandise and give the proceeds back to the player and take a slice for itself. If you're worried about some booster just coming in and dumping a truckload of money in the market just make the payout to the player a fixed amount or a max percentage up to a certain threshold with the rest going to the NCAA and hopefully, it's affiliated charities. It certainly wouldn't be impossible. You step outside of the regulated market and you lose your eligibility.

Then you'd still be in a situation where some schools have a huge recruiting advantage because even 4th string offensive linemen are getting a maximum amount for their memorabilia while very few if any kids could sell their things at most schools.

 

There is no way to do it without making recruiting a straight cash grab.

 

 

Tip of my hat to Antonio Pittman for coming out on Twitter and saying that they've been receiving free tattoos for years. What an idiot.

[Jon]

quite the coincidence that they still get to play in the bowl, seeing as how them not playing would obviously hurt tv ratings.

It's an existing rule, unfortunately. But it's not like the NCAA cares about the Sugar Bowl. They get a lousy $12,000 from it, attendance/ratings wouldn't really be affected either way, and there's no permanent damage. Even if ratings did take a bit of a dip, I don't think it affects how the Sugar Bowl and ESPN can negotiate sponsorships and ad time in any significant way.

 

By the way, this happened 13 months ago. The reason for the 5th game on the suspension is believe the players never reported it even after the "learned" the rules. Honestly, I'd probably rather they miss 5 games next year instead of the bowl game this year and then 4 next year. It's probably more damaging to their careers.

[TruffleShuffle]

or most of them just go to the nfl after this season and the suspensions don't matter.

[Wilson A2000]

or most of them just go to the nfl after this season and the suspensions don't matter.

 

As usual, the suspensions will hurt the team and the university more than the individuals involved.

[EhDubya]

This is Pryor's second instance of repaying improper benefits in 3 years yet he was "uninformed of rules" against profiting from his fb player status? What a crock.

[Flames24Rulz]

or most of them just go to the nfl after this season and the suspensions don't matter.

 

As usual, the suspensions will hurt the team and the university more than the individuals involved.

 

It's Ohio State. What exactly are they going to do? I don't see them leveling out a USC-type penalty for these infractions.

[Jon]

But in this case, depending on what happens with the NFL lockout situation, the players may be hurt far more than the school. If guys are "forced" to come out early who otherwise wouldn't have because of these suspensions, they could very likely be looking at worse draft positions than another year under their belts.

 

One of several key differences between this and the Reggie Bush situation is that the sales didn't involve an agent.

[Wilson A2000]

or most of them just go to the nfl after this season and the suspensions don't matter.

 

As usual, the suspensions will hurt the team and the university more than the individuals involved.

 

It's Ohio State. What exactly are they going to do? I don't see them leveling out a USC-type penalty for these infractions.

 

If Ohio State loses one of the 5 games (if they do it will be because Pryor is out), their national championship hopes are destroyed. Pryor will just go tot he NFL most likely. I really don't think there is going to be a lockout and I bet Pryor makes up his mind fairly early on that he is NFL eligible.