Derrick Henry...New Car.....Bama shenanigans?

[VolSteve]

Whether or not the present business model would be a money maker going forward is really immaterial, businesses go out of business all the time.... just because a business might got bankrupt does not give them free reign to setup a illegal, immoral, and unethical mob type system. The ends do not justify the means.

:ermm:
Must be pushing for burger flippers to make $15 bucks an hour too.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Funny stuff

Mark Schlabach
Now we're going to Seminoles.com to see if we can buy a Jameis Winston jersey
11:54 AM
Mark Schlabach
We found a Winston rookie playing card
11:54 AM
Mark Schlabach
Now we're going to Oregon athletics Web site to find Marcus Mariota jersey
11:56 AM
Mark Schlabach
Just entered into evidence->@GaTechMarketing : We've got new @GTAthletics schedule cards! Who needs 'em? http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bqg_JKOCUAAecn5.jpg"

Mark Schlabach
Isaacson establishing Renfro's credibility after yesterday's email in which he called athletes being students a "great hypocrisy"

:lolabove:
No kidding.

Andy_Staples
From one-pager: "… big-time athletics is in conflict with the principle of amateurism. There is some critical mass of making and spending $"
11:48 AM
Mark Schlabach
Isaacson asking about commercial exploitation again. Emmert: "(Member schools) are the ones who establish the rules-not me."
11:49 AM
sganim
Emmert: "What I find to be an objetionable use of commercialization is in large part irrelevant…that's up to the membership."

NCAA throws the schools under the school bus, just like I said would happen after the NE labor board decision.

Mark Schlabach
Judge just asked if u have to be in NCAA to be in Big Ten. Oh boy

Judge seems to be not only interested in the NCAA but the actual conferences. Haha. Oh Boy is right.

Andy_Staples
Delany says if any Big Ten schools chose to pay for NILs, they probably wouldn't be members of the Big Ten.

Mark Schlabach
Plaintiffs showing Big Ten "Student Athlete Name and Likeness" release. Delany doesn't know how or when they're given to athletes

Haha.

Mark Schlabach
Delany again say too much time spent on sports: "Yes, too much athletics for too many young people produces strained young bodies. "
3:17 PM
Mark Schlabach
Yep. "@Andy_Staples : Delany is being honest about his views. And it's not helping the NCAA."
3:25 PM
BradyMcCollough
At this point, Jim Delany is now basically functioning as a plaintiffs' witness. Saying athletes need more time to pursue education.

Defendants witness back fires.

Andrew Brandt ‏@adbrandt Jun 19
Translation of Emmert testimony seems to be: "We do what our members (the schools) want. Blame them!!" #NCAAtrial

The schools are eventually going to be on the hook for billions and billion, the sooner they see the legal and financial obstacles that are about to appear the better.

Tom Farrey: For NCAA trial at halftime, it's game over - ESPN

On the stand to her lower left was Neal Pilson, witness for the NCAA, a former CBS television executive who was there to say that without amateurism, many fans would turn away from college sports.

You read that right. The court transcript did not get it wrong. Pilson called Bama a pro team.

 

[TNnative]

Not worried about it.

Nice ride, though.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Not worried about it.

Nice ride, though.

Yeah fun to watch the sinking ship.

This one bakes the cake.
Tom Farrey: For NCAA trial at halftime, it's game over - ESPN

Even the NCAA's hired-gun outside economist, Daniel Rubinfeld, has called the NCAA a cartel. Plaintiffs' lawyers showed Wilken a textbook where he wrote as much. Rubinfeld will try to dance out of that when he takes the stand next week, but arguing otherwise would place him in contrast with just about every other economist who has analyzed the NCAA, an association of member universities that acts in a collective manner to regulate competition. Further, there's no dispute -- even on the NCAA side -- that the cartel fixes prices, another test under antitrust law. Its rules set the maximum allowed payment to athletes, above the value of any scholarships they receive, at $0.

Except ... when the NCAA wants to carve out an exception, usually to serve its needs. The latest deviation came on the opening day of the trial, when the NCAA announced that it agreed to pay $20 million to settle a separate-but-related lawsuit tied specifically to use of player names, images and likenesses in an EA Sports video game that has since been cancelled. Current players who are due a cut from the settlement will not be in violation of the NCAA's amateurism rules, NCAA chief lawyer Donald Remy told reporters later that day. Amateurism, whose definition has constantly evolved throughout NCAA history and has no basis in the law, is a very squishy concept -- rooted in idealism, perhaps, but now little more than a tool to control player costs.

In February at a pre-trial hearing, Wilken warned the NCAA, "I don't think 'amateurism' is going to be a useful word here."

The NCAA has already agreed to pay players, then they assess the value of a scholarship at $0, then say the players are being "compensated", then they are going to start paying them from the other suit. lol:lol:lol:lol:

 

[bamawriter]

Fixed your post

You're not stupid. But you are morally and ethically lacking when it comes to this topic.

 

[LSU-SIU]

:ermm:
Must be pushing for burger flippers to make $15 bucks an hour too.

Actually, my solution is simpler, remove corporation charters completely from the State. Things would be much simpler than, until then entities that do not exist yet we pretend they do exist.... live and breathe under the watchful eye and at the privilege of the State. What the State creates, the State can further destroy.

A topic for another day perhaps.

What do you call a bank without a corporate charter and a banking license? The mob.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Fixed your post
Originally Posted by bamacheats View Post
Thread Cliff's notes: Bama cheats and according to bamawriter and LSU-SIU it should be legal to cheat and anyone opposed to boosters buying cars for recruits and giving them cash is just stupid.

First part is a strawman argument.

The second part is just common sense, its already legal, I assure you I can send Henry some cash and I will not be prosecuted.

 

[LouderVol]

So I suppose you think there should never be legal proceedings to litigate employment or intellectual property? After all, that's taking from one to give to another. Nevermind that in this case, one is taking not only the labors and intellectual property of the other, but prohibiting the other from benefiting from his own labors and property.

You sound like the ultimate free market advocate. No, wait. You sound like someone championing legalized theft.

We have different definitions of benefit apparently. Their benefit isn't a check, but they are getting what they would otherwise be using that check on for free. I believe they are getting benefits. Is it enough? No. The NCAA recognizes this, the SEC has been pushing for full cost of attendance or stipends for years and lately the other big 5 are getting behind it. Unfortunately for the NCAA it represents almost 1000 schools over 3 Divisions, even here in Div 1, the power/big 5 are only 64 schools. The NCAA admin wants to make changes, the large schools want to make changes it just that the vast majority of the schools can't afford to pay more (not D3 obviously-they don't do scholarships) so therefore every time it has gone to vote it has never passed. Therefore the vast majority are keeping the NCAA from making needed changes, the NCAA is a victim of its own system which is why we are hearing talk of the power 5 branching off so they can pass regulations to get these issues addressed.

I don't believe these court cases are honestly about making the system better, otherwise this could have stayed in house. Once the lawyers get involved its all about getting theirs.

 

[LouderVol]

I didn't say "ignore tens of thousands..." Just about every single person involved is saying the current "scholarships" being offered are not enough. That's where the new catch phrase "cost of attendance" comes into play, even Emmert is in favor of THAT, as well as most of the big Conference commissioners.

It is not mandatory for all schools to take care of the numerous medical procedures that go on. Some do, some don't and to varying degrees. It's not an issue in this particular trial, but it was in the Unionization case.

To use your "pay check" / job analogy...you signed a contract thinking it was good for four years, come to find out they can get rid of you after one, for just about any reason...you think you've got health care coverage, only it's not enough or the premiums are too high...don't forget, you can put cream cheese on your bagel and call it a snack...or can you?

As for EA, of course they want the conference logos, they want everything including the names likeness and images of the main participants...IT MAKES THE GAME MORE REALISTIC...EA said so, under oath. You didn't hear the players say anything about it because they weren't asked. When Bill Russell (maybe not him but someone like him) signed over his likeness do you think he would/could have imagined he'd pop up in a video game decades after his career was over? More so, do you think it would have been polite of the NCAA to at least ask former players if they could license their likenesses? The NCAA didn't think they had to because in their mind, THEY OWNED these NILs FOREVER. THEN they have the gonads to try to say they aren't worth anything...Which is it?

Frankly, I don't know which was more arrogant, actually doing it or thinking that they'd get away with it.

As for your statement on television, it really boils down to sports programming. Doug Flutie signed away his rights to any monies that he might have made on the replays of his famous game. Some think that's not a big deal I guess. That's just one angle of what's at stake here.

I didn't bring up anything about Adidas/Nike but I'll say this...Emmert and others from the NCAA use the line about protecting the players from exploitation or some thing like that...They are walking billboards for the shoe companies, bowls, conferences, schools, etc...The schools and conferences are having the players act as endorsers...they must wear the logos, but the coaches and schools get the money. My kid couldn't tell you what Butch Jones or I wear, but he knows AJ Johnson is wearing an Adidas jersey...he's 6...

towards your first point, the NCAA is a victim of its own structure, the matter of increased scholarships or a stipend has been voted on multiple times I believe, but the problem is the smaller schools not in the big 5 are keeping the legislation from passing because they outnumber the big 5. That is why the talk of this new Division for the Big 5 is coming up.

Towards the second, this is up to the kids to determine if they really want to play for a school that doesn't. Its just like getting a job the benefits I get at one place could easily be better than what I would get at another so it is up to me (or the player) to choose. The player has options, how is the NCAAs fault they choose to go somewhere where they aren't covered, yes this is pertaining to the unions not the courts.

third paragraph, buyer beware, the kids (or their legal guardians which have to sign the NLI/LOIs) need to do their homework on schools. It is readily accessible information on what all they can get. look up the NCAA bi-laws. How does it fall on the NCAA that the kids don't understand what they are getting into when they have access to the information?

Towards the NLIs having value and owning them, I own plenty of stuff that has no value what so ever, doesn't mean i can't own it. These kids no they are getting paid, in the recruiting tweets on here (VN) i have seen kids brag about getting on the front of the EA NCAA video game covers, they want to be there, knowing they are getting paid (how the system works when the wanted to get on it) easy to think that if they want to get on the cover they are ok with being in the game. While every player may not feel the same way I am willing to bet the vast majority do want to be in the game knowing they are getting paid for it. I see the usage of the names/stats/grades/whatever for the games as a citation, the game is giving credit to the source. This happens all the time in papers/books/movies/any thing published. and not all the time (especially in written but in other areas too) is the source getting paid or even have knowledge they are being quoted/used. as long as credit is given (using the players name/number and even likeness) I dont see the problem.

From what I have been following the NLI has never been established, there are some outliers which have sold rights but I am pretty sure I have heard that 50% it isn't even part of the conversation when working this stuff out for other non college athletics ( i could be completely wrong I dont work in the field). so why can the players set the value on something that doesn't have a set price/ or even completely accepted that is has a 'value' again this is playing with word definitions that in legalesee can be completely spun any which way, and both sides are spinning it to their benefit.

towards the last part, because of what people outside the situation (fans) do that affects how it should be run inside. If i saw AJ wearing a purple/red/whatever non-orange color UT gear because it got screwed up in the wash or it was used for one particular instance, and decide that I would wear that color of UT gear does that mean UT has to recognize that color as official because I (a fan) knew AJ was wearing it? Again this whole problem of endorsing is a non problem for me (maybe in legalesee land somewhere it is) but the company makes money when the outsider makes a decision. What if I a TN fan wanted to buy addidas gear just because its better than Nike/russell/who(m) ever. Just because I buy something doesn't mean the advertising worked and that it was the ONLY reason I got it. That might be the case for some people that the only reason they bought it was the team wears Addidas but that is again a choice by the fan. Again the players know what they are getting into they know they will be wearing addidas or Nike which has been something the recruits are eating up. Yet they know they aren't getting paid by Nike to wear the uniform (unless they go to Oregon ) And I believe the company just manufactures a blank jersey and the school adds the names to the back, the company isn't responsible for who wears #45 or #2 or #77, a lot of the time the school isn't either the players choose the number for whatever reason. Its not like the company (Addidas) sends out more #45s to the team to wear, the school orders the number based on need. The school and the company have agreements, the schools order the jerseys and the names are added later (at least at TN & ND). There is no crowd manipulation going on. The school doesn't force a player to wear #16 at UT even though that is the largest seller to push sales. and the schools don't change numbers around in a "oh we aren't selling enough #3 jerseys, AJ you are now #3 so we can sell the jersey" situation.

 

[LouderVol]

Sorry didn't read anything but the last statement. It is completely wrong socialism is never good. It may sound like a fair way to spread the wealth. I that society there is still an elite class, all it does is completely eliminate the middle class.

most things are not inherently good or bad. It is what we (humans) do with it that make it bad. I can use a gun to protect my family making it awesome, or I could use a gun to rob banks. The human decides what is good and bad by their actions.

 

[LouderVol]

Because the schools CHOOSE to allow the conference to negotiate those rights. There is no mandate that they do so. The schools choose to give their media rights to the SEC, but being in the SEC is by no means required. If Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, or whoever wanted to leave the conference in the next couple of years in order to sell their own media rights, they could do so. The SEC doesn't even have any exit fees.

Until this year, the schools all maintained their own third tier media rights, which included the one football game per year that each school broadcast on PPV. The schools have chosen to forego maintaining those rights in order to form the SEC Network. Again, a choice the schools made, but were not required to do.

Please stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.

I believe the SEC is the only conference (at least of the major conferences) that doesn't have an exit fee. If florida state wants to break off and do their own thing the ACC would slap them with a huge fee. The exception (the SEC) does not make the rule. But in this case you are correct in the SEC schools are free to leave whenever. And once the schools have signed over the right of broadcasting or whatever to the SEC if 13 of the schools want to do it one way well by gosh that 14th is drug along with the rest. sometimes democracy sucks if you don't share the views of the majority.

 

[LouderVol]

Exactly you are admitting to the racket and the corruption, the "system", the schools have colluded to setup a "system" where by they players can't get their value. Install the same "system" on the coaches, staff, school personnel other than the players and you would get an immediate temporary injunction followed by a permanent one.

The mob has a "system" to, so?

I do not think every school needs to pay their players, some might will have to be in the future as their players will be classified as "employees", but that has to do with federal and state labor laws.



No. The NCAA has said they are being "compensated", which would then make them "employees" or "contractors".

The NCAA has no business being in the discussion of "compensation", they shouldn't even be in the process. The mere fact that the NCAA is involved in the setting of "compensation" goes to the heart of the corruption.

Of course, the school can decide (if at all, within the limits of existing state and federal law) what they are going to pay the players, but, if they are classified as "employees" they must conform to federal and state labor laws.

Under no circumstance should the schools be interfering with a players right to earn money from a third party. Of course, I see nothing wrong with very basic conduct standards.



I fail to see the point of this, immaterial.



Not material, I don't even know what you are trying to say.

The big problem is the schools with the use of their association (NCAA) have setup a "system" to collude to stop the free flow of employment, money, and association, which we normally call "corruption". The NCAA has admitted to most of what I have said... they just don't call it corruption.

The mob has a "system", but that "system", is illegal, immoral and unethical as well. The NCAA's defense, is not that they are wrong, but that nobody is going to stop them. I am hoping State prosecutors start going after the schools and the NCAA, apparently they are not going to learn their lesson until someone goes to jail.

Whether or not the present business model would be a money maker going forward is really immaterial, businesses go out of business all the time.... just because a business might got bankrupt does not give them free reign to setup a illegal, immoral, and unethical mob type system. The ends do not justify the means.

For setting the value issue, the 'system' is supported by us the consumer, every day we consume this we are part of it, unless following these cases around is your only involvement/interest in college football you are part of the problem too. What is the player value???????? at this level the value is a scholarship. because that is what they are getting paid, I see the scholarship as equivalent to a big fricking check (yes this analogy runs into problems you bring up late with employment) At the professional level their value is anywhere from millions to hundreds of thousands, yet the players have to attain that level to get the check vs the scholarship. Again I have graduated from Architecture school (collegiate level) yet I can't call myself an Architect (NFL) and make what Architect makes, because I haven't reached that level yet. I believe the players are being fairly 'compensated' (I am using this term because it is one you are stuck on.) and yes the NCAA has said the players are 'compensated' but is that in the bi-laws, is that in the language of the scholarship - I honestly don't know- if this was something that was verbally said does that over ride the established principles of NCAA- where was it said they are compensated? (who or what contract/bi-law said this- the only places I have seen are people after being driven to the point by questions similar to how I am having to use the word that I don't think applies) Also was compensated first used under oath or earlier, because if they, the NCAA, is being asked questions about a comment one person said when they used the word compensation, wrongly, they, the NCAA, has to respond to the usage of compensation. I feel compensation was used once then is being back filled everywhere by other entities to cover up the scholarship language. Which I have said before scholarship does not equal employment otherwise I would have been an employee of the state (maybe depending on TN laws) and my dad a damn good CPA did not make me pay taxes on employment from that, there were other taxes on that but not employment.

and if I am understanding you correctly why would it matter what the NCAA said about the players being employees, you have said multiple times the definition of employee lies with the state, if the state says scholarship does not equal employee and the NCAA says it does the NCAA would not override state law and the player would remain a non-employee, so why does what the NCAA say about compensation matter if it is up to the state to determine?? And most colleges are state run, so I think this would have come up in the states if it was an issue; not something for a court in CA to determine if a player in TN is a player or an employee. I don't even think (and could easily be wrong here) this is the right type of court that gets to determine this type thing (is the player an employee or not?) So if under the state laws the player is an employee the school has to drop the term scholarship, then hands the player a check for the exact value of the scholarship, the school pays some taxes and the player pays some taxes (I would actually love to see this) then this is not an issue, again not something the NCAA or a court case against the NCAA gets to determine so what the NCAA says is therefore a non factor. If in the state the player would be considered an employee because of a scholarship and the state/IRS has not gone after the school and players for not paying taxes and following the laws, that means the state does not see it as breaking the law and therefore legal. so if it is legal there is no 'mob' system. If there was a problem with this definition of compensation and employment I would think the states and IRS would have been busting up the NCAA long ago which after that happened it would open it up for this type of case where rites were infringed upon/denied and then the players could go after the NCAA after it was found to be wrong.

I have never said anything about the players receiving money from third parties. that i cant argue and don't want to, except to say the players made themselves a part of a system that says they can't take money from outside parties. (and here I can see the corruption in the system) but again if they end up being employees of the state a lot of states have laws about government employees receiving money from outside sources to protect against corruption from the outside, and that is what the NCAA is saying too, and the state would over ride that as it was their employee. So here I am agreeing with you to a point and not. (this goes toward several of your points)

and when taken out of context I don't see how my statements were relative either, maybe that is why I had context to explain why I thought it was relevant. (the context would be varying lengths of the text of incredibly long posts that you left out of your quotes)

yeah your last points are legally correct. :hi: whether the business fails or not does matter. but as most universities are state institutions the players would be state employees and then it would be the state determining their pay/ who they take money from etc etc. so NCAA wrong but state has final say so its irrelevant what the NCAA says and it should be states going after the NCAA if there was a problem not the students. So if we saw the states rip down the NCAA then I wouldn't defend any of these points, however the states aren't so the players are standing on a hollow platform. If there is no smoke from the states there is no fire for the players to warm themselves

 

[LouderVol]

:ermm:
Must be pushing for burger flippers to make $15 bucks an hour too.

I knew I signed up for the wrong profession

 

[LouderVol]

Funny stuff




:lolabove:
No kidding.



NCAA throws the schools under the school bus, just like I said would happen after the NE labor board decision.



Judge seems to be not only interested in the NCAA but the actual conferences. Haha. Oh Boy is right.



Haha.



Defendants witness back fires.



The schools are eventually going to be on the hook for billions and billion, the sooner they see the legal and financial obstacles that are about to appear the better.

Tom Farrey: For NCAA trial at halftime, it's game over - ESPN

only part I have a problem with here is the players being students the great hypocrisy part..... yeah cause no player ever got an education while at college.....smh....because some players weren't focused enough on academics all players weren't focused on academics .....see Josh Dobbs here and any number of players on any numbers of teams.

 

[LouderVol]

Yeah fun to watch the sinking ship.

This one bakes the cake.
Tom Farrey: For NCAA trial at halftime, it's game over - ESPN



The NCAA has already agreed to pay players, then they assess the value of a scholarship at $0, then say the players are being "compensated", then they are going to start paying them from the other suit. lol:lol:lol:lol:

yeah this has not been going well for the NCAA/collegiate model, oh well I guess I better enjoy this last season of college football, thanks players hope you excel at something other than sports because otherwise you are hosed, and you are the ones controlling the hosing.

 

[LouderVol]

First part is a strawman argument.

The second part is just common sense, its already legal, I assure you I can send Henry some cash and I will not be prosecuted.

legal yes, fair no, which is what the NCAA is supposed to determine.

 

[bamawriter]

We have different definitions of benefit apparently. Their benefit isn't a check, but they are getting what they would otherwise be using that check on for free. I believe they are getting benefits. Is it enough? No. The NCAA recognizes this, the SEC has been pushing for full cost of attendance or stipends for years and lately the other big 5 are getting behind it. Unfortunately for the NCAA it represents almost 1000 schools over 3 Divisions, even here in Div 1, the power/big 5 are only 64 schools. The NCAA admin wants to make changes, the large schools want to make changes it just that the vast majority of the schools can't afford to pay more (not D3 obviously-they don't do scholarships) so therefore every time it has gone to vote it has never passed. Therefore the vast majority are keeping the NCAA from making needed changes, the NCAA is a victim of its own system which is why we are hearing talk of the power 5 branching off so they can pass regulations to get these issues addressed.

I don't believe these court cases are honestly about making the system better, otherwise this could have stayed in house. Once the lawyers get involved its all about getting theirs.

The players are getting compensated, but they are not allowed to negotiate for their compensation. And the real value of that compensation is very much debatable. You say that they would "use that check" on education were it not free, but there is a healthy percentage of players who would not go to school were it not required.

 

[bamawriter]

yeah this has not been going well for the NCAA/collegiate model, oh well I guess I better enjoy this last season of college football, thanks players hope you excel at something other than sports because otherwise you are hosed, and you are the ones controlling the hosing.

Wait, the schools being prohibited from using the players' likenesses without compensation will doom the sport? That's what this case is about. Way to be dramatic.

 

[LouderVol]

Wait, the schools being prohibited from using the players' likenesses without compensation will doom the sport? That's what this case is about. Way to be dramatic.

uhm no, bankruptcy will shut it down. Not this year, probably not next either but the long term future is screwed after paying off the players/lawyers and any fines that come from this. again I hope you don't enjoy college athletics it won't be here too much longer. I just hope whatever they make to replace it has some respectability.

 

[LouderVol]

The players are getting compensated, but they are not allowed to negotiate for their compensation. And the real value of that compensation is very much debatable. You say that they would "use that check" on education were it not free, but there is a healthy percentage of players who would not go to school were it not required.

Yeah the GI Bill is not worth much either. better start telling the soldiers they have been risking their lives for nothing...smh. and I believe that is the whole point of college to go to school/classes. If they did not want to go to college they probably shouldn't be playing collegiate athletics. again I guess you are saying the NCAA/schools forced them to go through the whole process, it has been part of it from the very beginning, or I guess these current players didn't know playing for a college involved attending that college and meeting the colleges rules. gosh I wish the schools had told them about this, or the coaches had talked to them about academics and what classes they would take. yeah everybody has been lying to these students about what playing has meant.

 

[vol66]

towards your first point, the NCAA is a victim of its own structure, the matter of increased scholarships or a stipend has been voted on multiple times I believe, but the problem is the smaller schools not in the big 5 are keeping the legislation from passing because they outnumber the big 5. That is why the talk of this new Division for the Big 5 is coming up.

Towards the second, this is up to the kids to determine if they really want to play for a school that doesn't. Its just like getting a job the benefits I get at one place could easily be better than what I would get at another so it is up to me (or the player) to choose. The player has options, how is the NCAAs fault they choose to go somewhere where they aren't covered, yes this is pertaining to the unions not the courts.

third paragraph, buyer beware, the kids (or their legal guardians which have to sign the NLI/LOIs) need to do their homework on schools. It is readily accessible information on what all they can get. look up the NCAA bi-laws. How does it fall on the NCAA that the kids don't understand what they are getting into when they have access to the information?

Towards the NLIs having value and owning them, I own plenty of stuff that has no value what so ever, doesn't mean i can't own it. These kids no they are getting paid, in the recruiting tweets on here (VN) i have seen kids brag about getting on the front of the EA NCAA video game covers, they want to be there, knowing they are getting paid (how the system works when the wanted to get on it) easy to think that if they want to get on the cover they are ok with being in the game. While every player may not feel the same way I am willing to bet the vast majority do want to be in the game knowing they are getting paid for it. I see the usage of the names/stats/grades/whatever for the games as a citation, the game is giving credit to the source. This happens all the time in papers/books/movies/any thing published. and not all the time (especially in written but in other areas too) is the source getting paid or even have knowledge they are being quoted/used. as long as credit is given (using the players name/number and even likeness) I dont see the problem.

From what I have been following the NLI has never been established, there are some outliers which have sold rights but I am pretty sure I have heard that 50% it isn't even part of the conversation when working this stuff out for other non college athletics ( i could be completely wrong I dont work in the field). so why can the players set the value on something that doesn't have a set price/ or even completely accepted that is has a 'value' again this is playing with word definitions that in legalesee can be completely spun any which way, and both sides are spinning it to their benefit.

towards the last part, because of what people outside the situation (fans) do that affects how it should be run inside. If i saw AJ wearing a purple/red/whatever non-orange color UT gear because it got screwed up in the wash or it was used for one particular instance, and decide that I would wear that color of UT gear does that mean UT has to recognize that color as official because I (a fan) knew AJ was wearing it? Again this whole problem of endorsing is a non problem for me (maybe in legalesee land somewhere it is) but the company makes money when the outsider makes a decision. What if I a TN fan wanted to buy addidas gear just because its better than Nike/russell/who(m) ever. Just because I buy something doesn't mean the advertising worked and that it was the ONLY reason I got it. That might be the case for some people that the only reason they bought it was the team wears Addidas but that is again a choice by the fan. Again the players know what they are getting into they know they will be wearing addidas or Nike which has been something the recruits are eating up. Yet they know they aren't getting paid by Nike to wear the uniform (unless they go to Oregon ) And I believe the company just manufactures a blank jersey and the school adds the names to the back, the company isn't responsible for who wears #45 or #2 or #77, a lot of the time the school isn't either the players choose the number for whatever reason. Its not like the company (Addidas) sends out more #45s to the team to wear, the school orders the number based on need. The school and the company have agreements, the schools order the jerseys and the names are added later (at least at TN & ND). There is no crowd manipulation going on. The school doesn't force a player to wear #16 at UT even though that is the largest seller to push sales. and the schools don't change numbers around in a "oh we aren't selling enough #3 jerseys, AJ you are now #3 so we can sell the jersey" situation.

You bring up many points in your post and the truth is I could spend the day writing the longest post in VN history trying to cover it all. I'll just deal with a bit of it.

towards your first point, the NCAA is a victim of its own structure.

I agree with this in part. You have Emmert on the stand blaming the schools and the major conferences blaming him and to a degree the schools in the other conferences. So yes, while I certainly wouldn't characterize the NCAA (Emmert and university Presidents and Chancellors)as victims, your point about the structure being flawed has some merit. If I could change your quote to say "the NCAA is a victim of it's own hypocrisy" I'd be closer to agreeing in totality.

When Emmert was shown pictures of players standing in front of/wearing corporate logos he said he was uncomfortable with it. The way I translate is that while not expressly against the rules, he feels that the schools are going too far.

Emmert was shown internal NCAA documents/e-mails that show there were folks inside the NCAA extremely worried about the over commercialization of college sports.

Obviously, the greatest hypocrisy is the whole "they are students first" mantra. Nobody is buying that. Bear Bryant gave up on that a long time ago, internal NCAA documents show that some folks in the NCAA didn't buy it either. As a fan, I certainly don't.

Jim Delany gets on the stand and admits the athletes spend too much time on sports. His fix to the problem: Lock the gym as soon as basketball season is over and bring back freshman ineligibility. This is laughable on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.

As you may be aware, the NCAA just passed new rules that gives coaches MORE access to the athletes in the off season. BUT if Delaney wants more stringent rules for the Big 10 he could certainly put them in place. Of course, the coaches in the Big 10 would raise "holy hell" over it and complain that they are at a disadvantage.

Still, if he feels strongly enough about those issues to get on the stand, under oath, in a trial where losing could bring the whole system to it's knees, and offers up freshman ineligibility as a "silver bullet", it makes me wonder why he hasn't practiced what he preaches. It's simple. He wants to win. Everyone wants to win. They want the money that comes from winning. If that means sacrificing their beliefs to achieve it, so be it.

I wonder what John Calipari thinks of mandatory freshman ineligibility, lol. I think it was also Delany that said he'd like to see these student athletes "study abroad" in their off seasons...give me a break.

As for the rest in your posts, you seem to take issue with the players. The players have certainly learned how to work the system, but they didn't create it, the adults, administrators, AD's did.

You also seemed to suggest that while the logic for change may be good, the result might be some how worse. Most folks seem to argue for or against paying the players and folks like Emmert and Delany desperately want us to think of D1 like it's DIII, where the players are going to school to get a degree and participation in sports is an "avocation". Delany even suggests that the B10 schools might consider moving to DIII if paying players beyond cost of attendance comes to fruition. That would not be bad and I think that's the worst possible outcome.

 

[bamawriter]

uhm no, bankruptcy will shut it down. Not this year, probably not next either but the long term future is screwed after paying off the players/lawyers and any fines that come from this. again I hope you don't enjoy college athletics it won't be here too much longer. I just hope whatever they make to replace it has some respectability.

If the schools can't afford to repay what they've stolen for the past 30+ years, then good riddance. I love college football, but I'm not going to defend the BS the schools have been pulling. If you can't run a sport without forcing poor kids to stay broke while you make millions, then you shouldn't be running one, period.

 

[bamawriter]

Yeah the GI Bill is not worth much either. better start telling the soldiers they have been risking their lives for nothing...smh. and I believe that is the whole point of college to go to school/classes. If they did not want to go to college they probably shouldn't be playing collegiate athletics. again I guess you are saying the NCAA/schools forced them to go through the whole process, it has been part of it from the very beginning, or I guess these current players didn't know playing for a college involved attending that college and meeting the colleges rules. gosh I wish the schools had told them about this, or the coaches had talked to them about academics and what classes they would take. yeah everybody has been lying to these students about what playing has meant.

The NCAA and the NFL have a wonderful working agreement. Kids have to play college ball for three years, so the schools get their cheap labor. And the NFL gets to run a developmental league without paying for it. A large percentage of players at major college programs do not care about their higher education. They are there to show off for NFL scouts. There is no degree or board certification that they will ever need, but the NFL forces the issue.

And you think this is a good, justifiable system? Give me a freaking break...

 

[LouderVol]

You bring up many points in your post and the truth is I could spend the day writing the longest post in VN history trying to cover it all. I'll just deal with a bit of it.



I agree with this in part. You have Emmert on the stand blaming the schools and the major conferences blaming him and to a degree the schools in the other conferences. So yes, while I certainly wouldn't characterize the NCAA (Emmert and university Presidents and Chancellors)as victims, your point about the structure being flawed has some merit. If I could change your quote to say "the NCAA is a victim of it's own hypocrisy" I'd be closer to agreeing in totality.

When Emmert was shown pictures of players standing in front of/wearing corporate logos he said he was uncomfortable with it. The way I translate is that while not expressly against the rules, he feels that the schools are going too far.

Emmert was shown internal NCAA documents/e-mails that show there were folks inside the NCAA extremely worried about the over commercialization of college sports.

Obviously, the greatest hypocrisy is the whole "they are students first" mantra. Nobody is buying that. Bear Bryant gave up on that a long time ago, internal NCAA documents show that some folks in the NCAA didn't buy it either. As a fan, I certainly don't.

Jim Delany gets on the stand and admits the athletes spend too much time on sports. His fix to the problem: Lock the gym as soon as basketball season is over and bring back freshman ineligibility. This is laughable on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.

As you may be aware, the NCAA just passed new rules that gives coaches MORE access to the athletes in the off season. BUT if Delaney wants more stringent rules for the Big 10 he could certainly put them in place. Of course, the coaches in the Big 10 would raise "holy hell" over it and complain that they are at a disadvantage.

Still, if he feels strongly enough about those issues to get on the stand, under oath, in a trial where losing could bring the whole system to it's knees, and offers up freshman ineligibility as a "silver bullet", it makes me wonder why he hasn't practiced what he preaches. It's simple. He wants to win. Everyone wants to win. They want the money that comes from winning. If that means sacrificing their beliefs to achieve it, so be it.

I wonder what John Calipari thinks of mandatory freshman ineligibility, lol. I think it was also Delany that said he'd like to see these student athletes "study abroad" in their off seasons...give me a break.

As for the rest in your posts, you seem to take issue with the players. The players have certainly learned how to work the system, but they didn't create it, the adults, administrators, AD's did.

You also seemed to suggest that while the logic for change may be good, the result might be some how worse. Most folks seem to argue for or against paying the players and folks like Emmert and Delany desperately want us to think of D1 like it's DIII, where the players are going to school to get a degree and participation in sports is an "avocation". Delany even suggests that the B10 schools might consider moving to DIII if paying players beyond cost of attendance comes to fruition. That would not be bad and I think that's the worst possible outcome.

the coaches get 2 hours a most a week out of the 8 hours of strength training, the 2 hours were not tacked on making it 10, the NCAA did not increase the amount of time the kids are spending on football. I am all for increasing the value of the scholarship, it is ridiculous that these guys don't have any money on the side but to give free access to money that doesn't go towards an education would not fix anything. If they get rid of the requirement of the players being enrolled and taking classes do you think the players would do themselves any favors with the cash? The arguements are there and right but until there is an acceptable end game I can't stand any of these proceedings. I will not stand for an action that I do not want to see the end result, because if the players aren't looking for an education they aren't looking to better themselves they aren't going to have a future. If we give them money for four years then the player leaves the school and doesn't get drafted and didn't get an education all we did was create a job-less un-educated individual who went from having money to having nothing. Would the school be responsible if these players didn't find a job afterwards, would the 4/5 years of eligibility still apply? Too many questions for me to accept.

 

[LouderVol]

If the schools can't afford to repay what they've stolen for the past 30+ years, then good riddance. I love college football, but I'm not going to defend the BS the schools have been pulling. If you can't run a sport without forcing poor kids to stay broke while you make millions, then you shouldn't be running one, period.

if by making millions you mean spending those millions on giving young people the opportunity to have a future, its not just the future of D1 college football that is at stake it is all D1 sports that are funded. You must really hate Social Security too, the government has been taking our money for years and giving it to others. I am young enough where I will never see that money. also see the GI bill, the government has been giving out scholarships as payment for decades yet that is the very reason people sign up for military service, I almost did. Does the system have problems yup but how would giving the $60,000 a year for 4 years make them any better in the long run?? At least by requiring the player get a degree, or work towards one, even a complete BS one they are making sure the kids have a chance. I know many jobs that require a degree, any degree, to be considered even if it has nothing to do with the field you are working in.