Johnny Manziel Having More Brutal Offseason Than PJ Hairston

[Atlanta Duke]

Last week ESPN had a pretty grim takedown of Johnny Football

The trouble with Johnny
Johnny Manziel can't escape the pull of his celebrity, and it could derail his career

Both his parents believe he won't return for another season in College Station, and until he leaves, they can give love and support and pray that Johnny Football doesn't completely devour Johnathan Manziel.

"Yeah," [his father] says one evening, driving in his car, "it could come unraveled. And when it does, it's gonna be bad. Real bad."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9521439/heisman-winner-johnny-manziel-celebrity-derail-texas-aggies-season-espn-magazine

A story from ESPN last night indicates it has come unraveled

The NCAA is investigating whether Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel was paid for signing hundreds of autographs on photos and sports memorabilia in January, "Outside the Lines" has learned. Two sources tell "Outside the Lines" that the Texas A&M quarterback agreed to sign memorabilia in exchange for a five-figure flat fee during his trip to Miami for the Discover BCS National Championship. Both sources said they witnessed the signing, though neither saw the actual exchange of money.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9521439/heisman-winner-johnny-manziel-celebrity-derail-texas-aggies-season-espn-magazine

What a train wreck

[subzero02]

Jet setting around the country costs money...

[NashvilleDevil]

Jet setting around the country costs money...

Which his family has plenty of.

[matt1]

I think that, if he is ineligible, it is a bigger blow for Texas A&M than it is for Johnny Football himself. He will eventually make it into the NFL one way or another. However, it takes A&M from a title contender to a middle-of-the-pack (if that) SEC team.

[subzero02]

Which his family has plenty of.

Obviously they didn't have nearly enough for Johnny's liking if these accusations turnout to be true and Mr. Football has blown his eligiblity... Was he really dumb enough to kill the goose?

[nmduke2001]

This has become a really interesting/sad story. The family has a ton of money. Originally from oil and gas and more recently from real estate. In fact, the family owns an 8,000 event arena in Tyler, TX. By all accounts, the family has more than enough money to keep Johnny happy.

The interesting part of the story is what Johnny is doing to himself. I read an article recently in which several scouts were asked about Johnny as a pro. Most agreed that his size would bring huge red flags for any NFL team, but one scout (from an unnamed team) was very honest when he said that Johnny had more red flags than Vince Young and that he has already advised his GM to take him off of their board completely. If I can find the article, I'll post it.

[arnie]

Obviously they didn't have nearly enough for Johnny's liking if these accusations turnout to be true and Mr. Football has blown his eligiblity... Was he really dumb enough to kill the goose?

Yes, dumb and obstinate. Kind of destroys "Wheat's" theory that only the underprivileged struggle with our values.

[NashvilleDevil]

Obviously they didn't have nearly enough for Johnny's liking if these accusations turnout to be true and Mr. Football has blown his eligiblity... Was he really dumb enough to kill the goose?

From what I've read it was his friend/handler that told the eBay seller that Manziel wasn't signing anything for free anymore. I am sure manziel knew about it or maybe even told his buddy to do this. We shall see what comes about from an investigation.

[Kfanarmy]

From what I've read it was his friend/handler that told the eBay seller that Manziel wasn't signing anything for free anymore. I am sure manziel knew about it or maybe even told his buddy to do this. We shall see what comes about from an investigation. Where did this come from: "I am sure manziel knew about it or maybe even told his buddy to do this."

[Atlanta Duke]

From what I've read it was his friend/handler that told the eBay seller that Manziel wasn't signing anything for free anymore. I am sure manziel knew about it or maybe even told his buddy to do this. We shall see what comes about from an investigation.

There apparently are two separate autograph brokers, one of whom allegedly spoke with an Official Friend Of Johnny Football© and another broker who allegedly paid up for autographs. According to SI.com

As Manziel and Aggies receiver Ryan Swope settled into their room at a Hilton in Birmingham, Ala., the day before Texas A&M faced Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Manziel said, an autograph broker with a stack of items wedged his way into the room as Manziel entered....

the broker claimed to ESPN that after Manziel signed for free, Manziel's friend and personal assistant Nathan Fitch later told the broker that another session would require a fee. Monday, ESPN posted a photo provided by the broker from the Birmingham encounter. ESPN's Joe Schad also reported Monday that the broker declined six phone calls from the NCAA. Sunday, ESPN reported that the NCAA is investigating an accusation that Manziel was paid to sign autographs for a different broker in January in south Florida.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130805/johnny-manziel-ncaa-autograph-probe/?sct=hp_t2_a5&eref=sihp

[NashvilleDevil]

Where did this come from: "I am sure manziel knew about it or maybe even told his buddy to do this."

I am saying that. No way his buddy says that without some input from Manziel. Most people crushed Cam Newton about how his Dad handled his recruitment when he was coming out of Junior College and he said he did not know about it.

[Atlanta Duke]

Jay Bilas on the investigtion of Johnny Football by the NCAA

Well the truth is the college athlete is the only person in a multi-billion business, the only student on campus, who is restricted in any way. No other person is told, 'You get expenses only, and they are just expenses that are incidental to this multi-billion business.' If the money keeps going up and it gets into the billions and goes higher, the tension between amateurism and the commercial-professional enterprise of college sports is going to continue to grow and we’re going to continue to have these kinds of issues."

http://www.businessinsider.com/jay-bilas-destroys-ncaa-johnny-manziel-scandal-2013-8

If the NCAA had any interest in reforming rather than perishing it would give serious thought to asking Mr. Bilas what it would cost to buy him out of his ESPN contract and replace Mark Emmert. But like so many dysfunctional organizations that have refused to adapt, I know which way I would bet on something along those lines happending.

[ncexnyc]

Next time a wuffie says that there's an ESPN conspiracy to protect UNC, I'll think twice before I label them paranoid. The press is all over this story, especially the folks at ESPN. Odd that we had actual confirmation about PJ and at least two vehicles provided by Fats, as well as the custom mouthguards and ESPN hardly touched the story.

Now I realize Manziel is a bigger name than Hairston, but come on this current story is getting major coverage.

[ricks68]

Next time a wuffie says that there's an ESPN conspiracy to protect UNC, I'll think twice before I label them paranoid. The press is all over this story, especially the folks at ESPN. Odd that we had actual confirmation about PJ and at least two vehicles provided by Fats, as well as the custom mouthguards and ESPN hardly touched the story.

Now I realize Manziel is a bigger name than Hairston, but come on this current story is getting major coverage.

I think that you just answered your own question.

ricks

[TKG]

At Carolina the problems are systemic and would require the NCAA take on an entire university. Better to flex your muscle and beat up on one person. That is much easier and, in my opinion, fits the MO of Emmert's organization on matters of enforcement.

[Lord Ash]

SI's Andy Glockner...


Andy Glockner‏@AndyGlockner

QB profiting off his likeness and drinking a bit: National crisis. University caught in widespread academic fraud: Shrugs.

Andy Glockner‏@AndyGlockner

(And that's not a shot directly at unc, altho the scandal there is shocking. It speaks to what "sells" and what's "easy" to talk about.)

Christopher Newbury‏@cjnewbury

@AndyGlockner Sure looked like a direct shot to me.

Andy Glockner‏@AndyGlockner

@cjnewbury Only as much as they're the school with the scandal. This is media/reader commentary

Christopher Newbury‏@cjnewbury

@AndyGlockner Everyone is "sure" unc bent rules just to keep athletes eligible. Evidence is not so convincing.

Andy Glockner‏@AndyGlockner

@cjnewbury Everyone is "sure" unc had phantom classes.

Christopher Newbury‏@cjnewbury

@AndyGlockner But were they created just to keep athletes eligible? Not clear.

Wilson-Blake-Stick‏@thefantasybible

@cjnewbury @andyglockner did you not read @dankanenando article with emails bw Nyangoro & athletic-academic support? How could it be clearer

Andy Glockner‏@AndyGlockner

@thefantasybible sadly, nothing is clear until there's a determination with consequences. I agree with you, tho

[lotusland]

Jay Bilas on the investigtion of Johnny Football by the NCAA

Well the truth is the college athlete is the only person in a multi-billion business, the only student on campus, who is restricted in any way. No other person is told, 'You get expenses only, and they are just expenses that are incidental to this multi-billion business.' If the money keeps going up and it gets into the billions and goes higher, the tension between amateurism and the commercial-professional enterprise of college sports is going to continue to grow and we’re going to continue to have these kinds of issues."

http://www.businessinsider.com/jay-bilas-destroys-ncaa-johnny-manziel-scandal-2013-8

If the NCAA had any interest in reforming rather than perishing it would give serious thought to asking Mr. Bilas what it would cost to buy him out of his ESPN contract and replace Mark Emmert. But like so many dysfunctional organizations that have refused to adapt, I know which way I would bet on something along those lines happending.

I think Bilas illustrated the problem pretty well but I didn't see where he offered a solution. I'm afraid the cure may be worse than the disease though. There is no perfect solution for maintaining amateurism in big revenue sports. They're not going to give up the big revenue so is the solution to abandon amateurism? I'd be interested to hear how that would work but at this point I think the best solution is to manage the tension as well as possible even if the result is imperfect.

[Wander]

Jay Bilas on the investigtion of Johnny Football by the NCAA

Well the truth is the college athlete is the only person in a multi-billion business, the only student on campus, who is restricted in any way. No other person is told, 'You get expenses only, and they are just expenses that are incidental to this multi-billion business.' If the money keeps going up and it gets into the billions and goes higher, the tension between amateurism and the commercial-professional enterprise of college sports is going to continue to grow and we’re going to continue to have these kinds of issues."

http://www.businessinsider.com/jay-bilas-destroys-ncaa-johnny-manziel-scandal-2013-8

If the NCAA had any interest in reforming rather than perishing it would give serious thought to asking Mr. Bilas what it would cost to buy him out of his ESPN contract and replace Mark Emmert. But like so many dysfunctional organizations that have refused to adapt, I know which way I would bet on something along those lines happending.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this when these kinds of issues come up, but the idea that athletes are the only students on campus who do unpaid work is laughable.



Now I realize Manziel is a bigger name than Hairston, but come on this current story is getting major coverage.


That's putting it lightly. Manziel made history last year when he won what many people consider to be the most coveted individual award in all of American sports. Hairston was a part time starter on an 8 seed. I wouldn't read too much into the difference in coverage here.

[Atlanta Duke]

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this when these kinds of issues come up, but the idea that athletes are the only students on campus who do unpaid work is laughable. .

I interpreted what Jay Bilas to be saying is that the compensation received by the athletes is capped at what is set under the NCAA monopoly pursuant to the scholarship. Maintaining those limits at the same time the revenues for productions that cannot go forward without the players have increased exponentially is a system that appears to be unsustainable. Manziel's conduct is petty - the O'Bannen case is the real deal for efforts to modify that system.

With regard to other students doing unpaid work, I am unaware of other university operations in which the compensation of the students is so artificially limited or non-existent compared to the revenues of the enterprise while the contribution of those students to the finished product is so important. I of course am referring to football and men's basketball, not the soccer team

[Newton_14]

SI's Andy Glockner...


Andy Glockner‏@AndyGlockner

QB profiting off his likeness and drinking a bit: National crisis. University caught in widespread academic fraud: Shrugs.

Andy Glockner‏@AndyGlockner

(And that's not a shot directly at unc, altho the scandal there is shocking. It speaks to what "sells" and what's "easy" to talk about.)

Christopher Newbury‏@cjnewbury

@AndyGlockner Sure looked like a direct shot to me.

Andy Glockner‏@AndyGlockner

@cjnewbury Only as much as they're the school with the scandal. This is media/reader commentary

Christopher Newbury‏@cjnewbury

@AndyGlockner Everyone is "sure" unc bent rules just to keep athletes eligible. Evidence is not so convincing.

Andy Glockner‏@AndyGlockner

@cjnewbury Everyone is "sure" unc had phantom classes.

Christopher Newbury‏@cjnewbury

@AndyGlockner But were they created just to keep athletes eligible? Not clear.

Wilson-Blake-Stick‏@thefantasybible

@cjnewbury @andyglockner did you not read @dankanenando article with emails bw Nyangoro & athletic-academic support? How could it be clearer

Andy Glockner‏@AndyGlockner

@thefantasybible sadly, nothing is clear until there's a determination with consequences. I agree with you, tho

Oh my God! Thanks for sharing LA. This is why UNC the institution and their "athletic supporters" turn my stomach. They refuse to accept fact if that fact is a bad result for anything UNC. Not clear? No evidence? Only those that are delusional or are "athletic supporters" of UNC really believe that.

As a further example, somewhere there are UNC athletic supporters who will argue all day that Austin Rivers did not get his shot off in time and Jamison Crowder dropped that pass. No way Duke actually won either game fair, square, and legal. Not possible.

And yes I agree that the systemic and controlled cheating at UNC should cause a level of National outrage and outcry far greater and far louder than some rich kid named Johnny Football charging a fee to low life crooks out to make money off of him by getting him to sign memorabilia. Oh the horror.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Oh my God! Thanks for sharing LA. This is why UNC the institution and their "athletic supporters" turn my stomach. They refuse to accept fact if that fact is a bad result for anything UNC. Not clear? No evidence? Only those that are delusional or are "athletic supporters" of UNC really believe that.

As a further example, somewhere there are UNC athletic supporters who will argue all day that Austin Rivers did not get his shot off in time and Jamison Crowder dropped that pass. No way Duke actually won either game fair, square, and legal. Not possible.

And yes I agree that the systemic and controlled cheating at UNC should cause a level of National outrage and outcry far greater and far louder than some rich kid named Johnny Football charging a fee to low life crooks out to make money off of him by getting him to sign memorabilia. Oh the horror.

To play devil's advocate, there are many on this forum who give Lance Thomas the benefit of the doubt. All of my non-Duke friends 100% believe there was some sort of violation going on there, even though a bunch of us feel differently.

I understand fanbases - it hurts to get scrutinized in the media (given, there are different variations of scrutiny and the Lance case vs. UNC cheating scandal is like an Enron employee expensing alcohol vs Enron accounting fraud) and fanbases will support their teams to the end.

[77devil]

To play devil's advocate, there are many on this forum who give Lance Thomas the benefit of the doubt. All of my non-Duke friends 100% believe there was some sort of violation going on there, even though a bunch of us feel differently.

I understand fanbases - it hurts to get scrutinized in the media (given, there are different variations of scrutiny and the Lance case vs. UNC cheating scandal is like an Enron employee expensing alcohol vs Enron accounting fraud) and fanbases will support their teams to the end.

I believe conflating the LT incident and the UNC academic fraud is a mix up. We don't know the facts, and likely never will, about LT because silence by all parties was part of the settlement. It's perfectly fair for opposing fans to presume the worst in the absence of facts.

On the other hand, the UNC academic fraud is well documented. The UNC fans who continue to deny the link to athletics are in denial in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[TKG]

On the other hand, the UNC academic fraud is well documented. The UNC fans who continue to deny the link to athletics are in denial in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They have much in common with the NCAA.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I believe conflating the LT incident and the UNC academic fraud is a mix up. We don't know the facts, and likely never will, about LT because silence by all parties was part of the settlement. It's perfectly fair for opposing fans to presume the worst in the absence of facts.

On the other hand, the UNC academic fraud is well documented. The UNC fans who continue to deny the link to athletics are in denial in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You're absolutely right that there is more information about the UNC case. But looking at the Lance case (sorry, there is only one LT, and I ain't a fan), and with the facts that we know, it didn't look good from any perspective. And our fans still gave him the benefit of the doubt. Just saying. Fans will always support their own. It's human nature.

[lotusland]

I interpreted what Jay Bilas to be saying is that the compensation received by the athletes is capped at what is set under the NCAA monopoly pursuant to the scholarship. Maintaining those limits at the same time the revenues for productions that cannot go forward without the players have increased exponentially is a system that appears to be unsustainable. Manziel's conduct is petty - the O'Bannen case is the real deal for efforts to modify that system.

With regard to other students doing unpaid work, I am unaware of other university operations in which the compensation of the students is so artificially limited or non-existent compared to the revenues of the enterprise while the contribution of those students to the finished product is so important. I of course am referring to football and men's basketball, not the soccer team

it's easy to point out the problems but what is the solution? I can't think of a good one.

[JasonEvans]

it's easy to point out the problems but what is the solution? I can't think of a good one.

Bingo. I have read numerous comments from folks who think it is outrageous that Manziel can't even get money for his own signature. Folks, they slippery slope here is obvious. If players could charge for their signature, big schools would set up autograph lines where boosters could just go down the line handing $20s, $100s and so on to stars who sign stuff.

-Jason "really tough to come up with solutions that work" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

Bingo. I have read numerous comments from folks who think it is outrageous that Manziel can't even get money for his own signature. Folks, they slippery slope here is obvious. If players could charge for their signature, big schools would set up autograph lines where boosters could just go down the line handing $20s, $100s and so on to stars who sign stuff.

-Jason "really tough to come up with solutions that work" Evans

I think the only way to make it work is to get rid of the barriers to kids going straight from high school to the pro's. If you want to play for money, go do it. If you want to play for a university (i.e. develop your skills) you are doing so in an income-free environment. If a kid signs a pro baseball contract (like Trajan) and wants to play college baseball, let him do it -- there is no advantage to any particular university.

But the players' unions in the NBA and NFL don't want that.

[Duvall]

I think the only way to make it work is to get rid of the barriers to kids going straight from high school to the pro's. If you want to play for money, go do it. If you want to play for a university (i.e. develop your skills) you are doing so in an income-free environment. If a kid signs a pro baseball contract (like Trajan) and wants to play college baseball, let him do it -- there is no advantage to any particular university.

But the players' unions in the NBA and NFL don't want that.

Is the players' unions or the owners? Certainly in the NBA the age limit push came from the Commissioner, who works for the owners. And it makes sense - the one-and-done rule helps prevent owners from being tempted to waste draft picks on players that haven't proven that they can at least succeed against college competition.

[rsvman]

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this when these kinds of issues come up, but the idea that athletes are the only students on campus who do unpaid work is laughable.


I don't think that's what Bilas is saying.

What if, for example, you're Emma Watson. You are a student at Yale (or wherever she went to school). If you wanted to sell your autograph to somebody, or sell an autographed piece of clothing like a hat or something, the university wouldn't care at all. Emma wouldn't be told she couldn't do that.

Oh, and I suppose that if somebody wanted to rent a car for her, for whatever reason, the university wouldn't give a rat's I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this..


That's what I interpreted Bilas's comment to mean.

[lotusland]

Bingo. I have read numerous comments from folks who think it is outrageous that Manziel can't even get money for his own signature. Folks, they slippery slope here is obvious. If players could charge for their signature, big schools would set up autograph lines where boosters could just go down the line handing $20s, $100s and so on to stars who sign stuff.

-Jason "really tough to come up with solutions that work" Evans

Yeah I was thinking of boosters letting Okafor and Jones know how much their autographed UK hat would be worth after they put it on at their signing ceremony.

[lotusland]

I don't think that's what Bilas is saying.

What if, for example, you're Emma Watson. You are a student at Yale (or wherever she went to school). If you wanted to sell your autograph to somebody, or sell an autographed piece of clothing like a hat or something, the university wouldn't care at all. Emma wouldn't be told she couldn't do that.

Oh, and I suppose that if somebody wanted to rent a car for her, for whatever reason, the university wouldn't give a rat's I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this..


That's what I interpreted Bilas's comment to mean.

Emma Watson isn't a star because she is a member of the Yale Thespian Club.

[OldPhiKap]

Is the players' unions or the owners? Certainly in the NBA the age limit push came from the Commissioner, who works for the owners. And it makes sense - the one-and-done rule helps prevent owners from being tempted to waste draft picks on players that haven't proven that they can at least succeed against college competition.

I think it is from the unions that want to keep job slots for oldier players who are already in the union. Not sure why the owners need protection from themselves for wasting picks. But I could be wrong.


Emma Watson isn't a star because she is a member of the Yale Thespian Club.

What does her sexuality have to do with this?

[Atlanta Duke]

it's easy to point out the problems but what is the solution? I can't think of a good one.

Do not want to repost at length what is in another thread, but giving players in the revenue sports a cut of the TV revenue for use of their likenesses for broadcast of the games, as proposed in the declaration of plaintiff's expert Roger Noll in the O'Bannon litigation, is one proposed solution. Tying the payment to revenue generated by use of the likeness also is a potential way to pay only athletes in revenue sports without perhaps triggering Title IX requirements of equal financial assistance being provided to male and female athletes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2012/10/22/obannon-case-ncaa-documents-roger-noll/1650677/
http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201303/130318.03.pdf
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/10/31/a-deeper-look-into-the-potential-damages-in-the-obannon-case/

Bottom line is the big schools are not necessarily in control of how this issue is resolved, as Joe Nocera discussed in the New York Times today

[A] new superdivision might cause others to take a closer look at the current cartel arrangement enjoyed by college sports. There are currently federal lawsuits brought by former and current athletes revolving around licensing of player images — and judges might start wondering why players shouldn’t be paid for their images. Congress might start to wonder why college sports enjoys “educational” tax deductions not available to other businesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/opinion/nocera-the-plot-to-rule-college-sports.html?ref=opinion

Although the solution is unclear, that does not mean the status quo therefore will continue. To quote Richard Nixon's economic adviser Herbert Stein, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

[Wander]

Tying the payment to revenue generated by use of the likeness also is a potential way to pay only athletes in revenue sports without perhaps triggering Title IX requirements of equal financial assistance being provided to male and female athletes.


I have no idea why this is desirable.



Bottom line is the big schools are not necessarily in control of how this issue is resolved, as Joe Nocera discussed in the New York Times today


Yes, he also references the college-athlete-as-slave nonsense. I'd be interested to see a poll of people who support college athletes making money (I'm talking something beyond a small stipend) based on if they were a non-athlete at a BCS school. My purely anecdotal evidence suggests that there's a pretty big divide there - I'm just not sure the average person who went to, say, BU journalism school, has any idea how massive the benefits are for men's football and basketball players. At the very least, anyone who makes a football player-slavery reference should be instantly not taken seriously.

Back to the context here, if the allegations are true, Manziel consciously broke what he knew was a big rule out of greed. There's no reason to come to his defense here.

[lotusland]

Do not want to repost at length what is in another thread, but giving players in the revenue sports a cut of the TV revenue for use of their likenesses for broadcast of the games, as proposed in the declaration of plaintiff's expert Roger Noll in the O'Bannon litigation, is one proposed solution. Tying the payment to revenue generated by use of the likeness also is a potential way to pay only athletes in revenue sports without perhaps triggering Title IX requirements of equal financial assistance being provided to male and female athletes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2012/10/22/obannon-case-ncaa-documents-roger-noll/1650677/
http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201303/130318.03.pdf
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/10/31/a-deeper-look-into-the-potential-damages-in-the-obannon-case/

Bottom line is the big schools are not necessarily in control of how this issue is resolved, as Joe Nocera discussed in the New York Times today

[A] new superdivision might cause others to take a closer look at the current cartel arrangement enjoyed by college sports. There are currently federal lawsuits brought by former and current athletes revolving around licensing of player images — and judges might start wondering why players shouldn’t be paid for their images. Congress might start to wonder why college sports enjoys “educational” tax deductions not available to other businesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/opinion/nocera-the-plot-to-rule-college-sports.html?ref=opinion

Although the solution is unclear, that does not mean the status quo therefore will continue. To quote Richard Nixon's economic adviser Herbert Stein, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

If there is any discretion in how and when athletes are paid it will ruin football and basketball because boosters will find ways to pay athletes for their "likeness" and recruits will essentially be able to sign with the highest bidder. I'm not a lawyer but IMO you do not have to go to college and if you want to get paid for your likeness you can choose to play elsewhere. Furthermore your likeness is not worth very much unless you are wearing a school uniform and/or playing in an NCAA game. Go play in Europe and see how much your likeness is worth. You may accept the rules and play or decline but either way it's your choice. I don't see how the NCAA is responsible for NBA and NFL rules that prevent athletes from playing professionally.

I would not have as much of a problem with paying players a stipend in which all players are paid the same although even this might cause smaller schools to eliminate sports programs. I don't think players are being exploited because they are not getting paid but rather because schools are not making a good faith effort to insure that they receive the education that should come with the scholarship.

[TKG]

Is the Duke Athletic Department profitable? If it it were a stand alone business would it be going concern?

[vick]

If there is any discretion in how and when athletes are paid it will ruin football and basketball because boosters will find ways to pay athletes for their "likeness" and recruits will essentially be able to sign with the highest bidder.

But boosters already pay athletes--it's just in Ferrari leather chairs (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130731/oregon-ducks-football-performance-center/) laundered through the university.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

But boosters already pay athletes--it's just in Ferrari leather chairs (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130731/oregon-ducks-football-performance-center/) laundered through the university.
If we're going to talk about athletic palaces, don't leave out the Wild Cat Coal Mine Lodge. Different sport, same idea.
http://www.coachcal.com/16170/2012/09/no-place-like-home-uks-new-gold-standard-in-housing/

[lotusland]

But boosters already pay athletes--it's just in Ferrari leather chairs (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130731/oregon-ducks-football-performance-center/) laundered through the university.

I get the joke but that is not supposed to be permitted. Sure it is difficult to enforce and has been enforced unevenly at best but it is still better than the alternative IMO.

[lotusland]

But boosters already pay athletes--it's just in Ferrari leather chairs (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130731/oregon-ducks-football-performance-center/) laundered through the university.

OK I didn't click on the link before my last reply and mistakenly assumed it was a reference to UNC rental cars. I don't see offering top notch facilities as comparable to cash payments to the student athletes for their likeness nor is comparable IMO to providing rental cars and cell phones.

[Duvall]

Is the Duke Athletic Department profitable? If it it were a stand alone business would it be going concern?

I suppose it could be, if it were allowed to get rid of some of the 23 unprofitable "business units."

Is that what we want?

[cato]

I'm not a lawyer but IMO you do not have to go to college and if you want to get paid for your likeness you can choose to play elsewhere.

I find this argument about as persuasive as the football-player-as-slave argument someone scoffed at above. Maybe less so. There is no way to the NFL other than through college. As for basketball, which is really just a side show in the larger discussion, the D league and Europe are not comparable options for your typical American high school basketball player.


Furthermore your likeness is not worth very much unless you are wearing a school uniform and/or playing in an NCAA game. Go play in Europe and see how much your likeness is worth.

Once again, I don't buy it. You suggest the athletes benefit from the reflected glory of their university, but ignore the flip side: a university's sports brand is only as good as its athletes. Stop recruiting the best basketball players in the county, and the value of Duke's brand would be more like Cornell's or Northwestern's.

I can't see how anyone is okay with a system that allows everyone to make big, big $$$$, except the athletes who are actually doing the work. The athletes are being exploited, plain and simple. For money.

The best solution may be to shut the whole enterprise down and develop true amateur leagues for money sports. If we are going to insist on keeping big time sports within the university system, then cut the players in on the money. Who cares if the best athletes follow the money? That's where we are headed anyway.

[Des Esseintes]

I think it is from the unions that want to keep job slots for oldier players who are already in the union. Not sure why the owners need protection from themselves for wasting picks. But I could be wrong.


The previous poster was correct. The effort to keep high school students out of the NBA was pushed by the owners. Two major reasons. 1. As Duvall said, one year of college offers a lot more information as to player development. In theory, drafting should be more accurate as a result. 2. That year of college can offer a trove of hype for the kid that wouldn't otherwise have happened had he jumped straight from high school. Someone like John Wall had a much higher profile coming out of his season at UK than he would have after a rookie season that had directly followed playing for Word of God.

For its part, the union has opposed the one-and-done rule, on the grounds that guys should have a right to look after their families as soon as they're capable. It chose not to die on that particular hill, probably for the reason you cite, as well as the fact that the NBA as a whole benefits from higher-profile players. Still, the initiative came from ownership.

[TKG]

I suppose it could be, if it were allowed to get rid of some of the 23 unprofitable "business units."

Is that what we want?


Not at all. If athletes are granted a stipend, would that apply to all athletes; those in revenue sports and those in olympic sports? What is the source of revenues to meet the increased cost(s) of the stipend? If the department is not proftable now, wouldn't the financial postion of the department only worsen with the increased costs associated with paying athletes? Would the stipend apply only to football and men's basketball? How would that affect compliance with Title IX? Does the endowment of scholarships through the Iron Dukes alleviate some on the cost burden of scholarships freeing department funds to pay the stipend?

I do not know the answers to these questions and am genuinely interested in the answers. I just wonder if the scale and cost of D-1 athletics have reached a point where Duke should reevaluate the role of athletics in the mission of the University ( and believe me, I never thought I would write that!).

[Wander]

I can't see how anyone is okay with a system that allows everyone to make big, big $$$$, except the athletes who are actually doing the work. The athletes are being exploited, plain and simple. For money.

The dissonance is this: I don't understand how anyone with reasonable knowledge of the lifestyles of big time college football or basketball players can possibly complain about the kids being exploited, especially in comparison to the average college student. I mean, Duke has reported spending $400,000 per basketball player in a year.

[snowdenscold]

The dissonance is this: I don't understand how anyone with reasonable knowledge of the lifestyles of big time college football or basketball players can possibly complain about the kids being exploited, especially in comparison to the average college student. I mean, Duke has reported spending $400,000 per basketball player in a year.

Though I'm sure most of that 400,000 is on expenses they incur as part of their playing duties that they otherwise wouldn't need to spend money on at all. For example, charted plane costs. Sure, the University is technically spending lots of money on them, but that's not really the same as a stipend. The average college student has no need to travel twice a week across states for competition.

[cato]

The dissonance is this: I don't understand how anyone with reasonable knowledge of the lifestyles of big time college football or basketball players can possibly complain about the kids being exploited, especially in comparison to the average college student. I mean, Duke has reported spending $400,000 per basketball player in a year.

What is average about a Heisman trophy winner?

At any rate, use "exploit" in it's neutral meaning, and players clearly are exploited (as are other students, e.g., grad students). The question is whether they are adequately compensated. I don't think so, given the really, really large piles of money sloshing around in the system. I understand that people feel differently, but IMO students who are marketed by the university should have some say in the matter.

[Duvall]

What is average about a Heisman trophy winner?

At any rate, use "exploit" in it's neutral meaning, and players clearly are exploited (as are other students, e.g., grad students). The question is whether they are adequately compensated. I don't think so, given the really, really large piles of money sloshing around in the system. I understand that people feel differently, but IMO students who are marketed by the university should have some say in the matter.

Okay, but what would it mean to give student-athletes some say in the matter?

Also, let's not pretend that college athletics is like a corporation making profits and handing those profits over the shareholders in dividends. Those really, really large piles of money get spent. Some of it gets spent on coaches, some more on facilities, but much of it goes to pay for the sports that don't generate revenue, and the scholarships of the players that play them. What are we cutting out to end the exploitation of the dozen or so athletes on campus that people might actually pay to see outside of college sports?

[Atlanta Duke]

Not at all. If athletes are granted a stipend, would that apply to all athletes; those in revenue sports and those in olympic sports? What is the source of revenues to meet the increased cost(s) of the stipend? If the department is not proftable now, wouldn't the financial postion of the department only worsen with the increased costs associated with paying athletes? Would the stipend apply only to football and men's basketball? How would that affect compliance with Title IX? Does the endowment of scholarships through the Iron Dukes alleviate some on the cost burden of scholarships freeing department funds to pay the stipend?

I do not know the answers to these questions and am genuinely interested in the answers. I just wonder if the scale and cost of D-1 athletics have reached a point where Duke should reevaluate the role of athletics in the mission of the University ( and believe me, I never thought I would write that!).

The linked article walks through issues regarding payments to athletes in revenue sports only, including Title IX issues and the impact of having to use a portion of TV revenues to fund payments to revenue sport athletes

How institutions choose to comply with Title IX varies from institution to institution. On the NCAA level, the Supreme Court, in NCAA v. Smith, held that Title IX does not apply to the NCAA despite the fact that the NCAA receives dues from federally funded intercollegiate athletic programs that fall under the scope of Title IX. As a result, if the NCAA established a trust fund, or other such licensing program, to disperse compensation to former college athletes, it probably would not violate Title IX because the NCAA would be the entity distributing the funds, not the member institutions....

Regardless of the amount of damages, an NCAA-established compensation program would decrease funds provided to its member institutions, which could ripple into funding levels for salaries, facilities, and so forth.

http://winthropintelligence.com/2012/05/06/student-athlete-licensing-program-how-could-it-happen-and-what-are-the-elements/

The issue of why a university's athletic department is related to the university's mission and entitled to tax exempt status is another messy issue as the nature of big time college sports has evolved.

[lotusland]

I find this argument about as persuasive as the football-player-as-slave argument someone scoffed at above. Maybe less so. There is no way to the NFL other than through college. As for basketball, which is really just a side show in the larger discussion, the D league and Europe are not comparable options for your typical American high school basketball player.



Once again, I don't buy it. You suggest the athletes benefit from the reflected glory of their university, but ignore the flip side: a university's sports brand is only as good as its athletes. Stop recruiting the best basketball players in the county, and the value of Duke's brand would be more like Cornell's or Northwestern's.

I can't see how anyone is okay with a system that allows everyone to make big, big $$$$, except the athletes who are actually doing the work. The athletes are being exploited, plain and simple. For money.

The best solution may be to shut the whole enterprise down and develop true amateur leagues for money sports. If we are going to insist on keeping big time sports within the university system, then cut the players in on the money. Who cares if the best athletes follow the money? That's where we are headed anyway.

Most college football and basketball players aren't good enough to play professionally. It is only the freshman who can't play in the NBA anyway and they can play in Europe if they are good enough. Was Mason exploited last year? He could have gone out yet he decided to stay. He must have seen some benefit to staying in college so how can you argue that he was exploited? Is Thornton being exploited? He could have gone pro 2-years ago. Parker could play in Europe this years if he wanted to get paid yet he is coming to Duke by choice. In other words every player at Duke who is good enough had the option to play professionally if they want to yet they chose accept a college scholarship instead.

I think football is a little different because players have to stay 3-years and there are fewer viable options outside of the NFL. Meanwhile they risking a career ending injury. Marcus Lattimore could have been drafted after his freshman year if not out HS and now he may never play (although he was drafted). Clowney would be entirely justified in sitting out this year IMO. He's the #1 draft pick right now and can only go down due to an injury or a disappointing season. Even so I don't see how the NCAA should be forced to change their rules because of the NFL's age restriction. It is the NFL who should be forced to change.

I disagree that duke would be Cornell without NBA level players. As long as the playing field is somewhat level, college ball can survive a loss of future NBA players. As long as Duke can compete with UNC, the rivalry will remain. I don't think there would be a huge drop-off if we were stuck with players like Nate James, Chris Collins, Wojo, Carrawell and Capel (and that's just from our coaching staff). There would be a slight drop in the National following but not huge. If, on the other hand, NCAA institutions decided that revenue sports no longer fit within their mission, a lot of kids would suffer who would never have played a minute of pro ball anyway. Minor league basketball will never exist on the scale of college in terms of money because most NCAA players just aren't good enough to play professionally and fans would not pay to see them without their college uniform.

[vick]

Bilas apparently shamed the NCAA into shutting down (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/jay-bilas-exposes-ncaa-website) its merchandise search function today.

[ChillinDuke]

I find this argument about as persuasive as the football-player-as-slave argument someone scoffed at above. Maybe less so. There is no way to the NFL other than through college. As for basketball, which is really just a side show in the larger discussion, the D league and Europe are not comparable options...

But why is that the NCAA's (or colleges') problem?

- Chillin

[Dev11]

Bilas apparently shamed the NCAA into shutting down (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/jay-bilas-exposes-ncaa-website) its merchandise search function today.

Sometimes, I think Bilas takes some of his NCAA thoughts a touch too far, but his display today was excellent. A lot of other media members picked it up and rolled with it. I was especially intrigued that searching "Johnny Football" brings up all of the Manziel material.

[Duvall]

Bilas apparently shamed the NCAA into shutting down (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/jay-bilas-exposes-ncaa-website) its merchandise search function today.

It really is a great game ESPN is running. Dig up enough evidence against a player to force the NCAA to investigate his eligibility, then have your talking heads yap incessently about how unfair the NCAA is being.

[lotusland]

Bilas apparently shamed the NCAA into shutting down (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/jay-bilas-exposes-ncaa-website) its merchandise search function today.

I'm waiting for Bilas to offer a solution. I think it is probably best that the NCAA not sell merchandise with current player names OR numbers much less use player names in the search engine but that's not really what is being suggested. If he is suggesting that players should be paid in any method that incorporates the phrase "market value" then that will be when I free up another 6-8hours in my schedule each week during basketball season. The amateur aspect of college ball is what I like about it. I don't watch the pros.

[Atlanta Duke]

It really is a great game ESPN is running. Dig up enough evidence against a player to force the NCAA to investigate his eligibility, then have your talking heads yap incessently about how unfair the NCAA is being.

"Digging up" evidence on Johnny Football is about as difficult as investigating Anthony Weiner - folks are lining up to dime out Manziel

Latest update from The Worldwide Leader

An East Coast autograph broker told ESPN on Tuesday that Johnny Manziel was paid $7,500 for signing approximately 300 mini- and full-sized helmets on Jan. 11-12 while he was attending the Walter Camp Football Foundation event.

The broker played two cell phone videos for ESPN showing Manziel signing white Texas A&M helmets and footballs laid out on a bed in a hotel room. The video does not show Manziel accepting any money....

On the videos, which the broker said were recorded without Manziel's knowledge, ESPN heard Manziel say "you never did a signing with me" and that if the broker were to tell anyone, he would refuse to deal with him again in the future.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9544137/broker-says-johnny-manziel-took-7500-autographing-helmets

[lotusland]

"Digging up" evidence on Johnny Football is about as difficult as investigating Anthony Weiner - folks are lining up to dime out Manziel

Latest update from The Worldwide Leader

An East Coast autograph broker told ESPN on Tuesday that Johnny Manziel was paid $7,500 for signing approximately 300 mini- and full-sized helmets on Jan. 11-12 while he was attending the Walter Camp Football Foundation event.

The broker played two cell phone videos for ESPN showing Manziel signing white Texas A&M helmets and footballs laid out on a bed in a hotel room. The video does not show Manziel accepting any money....

On the videos, which the broker said were recorded without Manziel's knowledge, ESPN heard Manziel say "you never did a signing with me" and that if the broker were to tell anyone, he would refuse to deal with him again in the future.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9544137/broker-says-johnny-manziel-took-7500-autographing-helmets

Manziel should be allowed to play in the NFL. The controversy should be about how a Heisman trophy winner can't be drafted and is supposed to complete 2 more years taking hits in the SEC before he can turn pro.

[Wander]

Also, let's not pretend that college athletics is like a corporation making profits and handing those profits over the shareholders in dividends. Those really, really large piles of money get spent. Some of it gets spent on coaches, some more on facilities, but much of it goes to pay for the sports that don't generate revenue, and the scholarships of the players that play them. What are we cutting out to end the exploitation of the dozen or so athletes on campus that people might actually pay to see outside of college sports?

Exactly - no one has ever presented a convincing argument for why we should apply the same logic to college sports as we do to corporations. I really don't care what a player's "market value" is. Most scholarship athletes put in a ton of work for their school, and they're compensated with an enormous amount of benefits. If Manziel is a better football player than his backup, that will be additionally rewarded in a big way when he leaves school and gets a better/higher paying job than that guy. But if they both put in the same effort, and both meet the minimum "good enough at football" level to be on scholarship, I don't want one getting paid more than the other while in college. Just like, while we might offer scholarships for good grades, we don't actually charge kids lower tuition for being smarter. The reward comes when they get into a better law school or whatever.

[Atlanta Duke]

Manziel should be allowed to play in the NFL. The controversy should be about how a Heisman trophy winner can't be drafted and is supposed to complete 2 more years taking hits in the SEC before he can turn pro.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disposed of that issue in an opinion written by then Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor (who, as the saying goes, is now playing at the next level)

Because the NFL players have unionized and have selected the NFLPA as its exclusive bargaining representative, labor law prohibits Clarett from negotiating directly the terms and conditions of his employment with any NFL club... and an NFL club would commit an unfair labor practice were it to bargain with Clarett individually without the union's consent.... The terms and conditions of Clarett's employment are instead committed to the collective bargaining table and are reserved to the NFL and the players union's selected representative to negotiate.

Maurice Clarett v. National Football League, 369 F.3d 124 (2nd Cir. 2004)

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/369/369.F3d.124.04-0943.html

Good luck getting a change to the applicable federal statutes upon which the opinion was based

[Turtleboy]

Manziel should be allowed to play in the NFL. The controversy should be about how a Heisman trophy winner can't be drafted and is supposed to complete 2 more years taking hits in the SEC before he can turn pro.He's a redshirt, so it's one more year. And I don't think he has to complete anything. He just can't be drafted until after the junior year of his class.

[FerryFor50]

Jay Bilas weighs in only as Jay Bilas can:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/23040941/did-you-see-what-jay-bilas-did-to-the-shopncaasportscom-search-engine

[Jim3k]

But boosters already pay athletes--it's just in Ferrari leather chairs (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130731/oregon-ducks-football-performance-center/) laundered through the university.

Those marble shower walls are destined to dissolve. Limestone is soluble in water. I've seen the results; those white streaks are ugly.

<snark>Something the matter with Brazilian granite?</snark>

[OldPhiKap]

Jay Bilas weighs in only as Jay Bilas can:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/23040941/did-you-see-what-jay-bilas-did-to-the-shopncaasportscom-search-engine

Bilas is the best reason I know to be on Twitter. I gotta work.

[Jim3k]

The solution is easy. Just require the autograph seller to sell his autographs through the Athletic Dept. Split it, oh say: 50% to the school; 25% to the NCAA and 25% to the player. No backroom deals under penalty of suspension.

[cato]

Exactly - no one has ever presented a convincing argument for why we should apply the same logic to college sports as we do to corporations. I really don't care what a player's "market value" is. Most scholarship athletes put in a ton of work for their school, and they're compensated with an enormous amount of benefits. If Manziel is a better football player than his backup, that will be additionally rewarded in a big way when he leaves school and gets a better/higher paying job than that guy. But if they both put in the same effort, and both meet the minimum "good enough at football" level to be on scholarship, I don't want one getting paid more than the other while in college. Just like, while we might offer scholarships for good grades, we don't actually charge kids lower tuition for being smarter. The reward comes when they get into a better law school or whatever.

I don't see how any of this is relevant. Which other undergrad students produce so much money for the university? Of those other students, which are prevented from capturing any of that revenue?

While we are in the "no one has ever presented a convincing argument" line of thinking, you haven't convinced me that it is fair to take all of the revenue produced by certain athletes, spread that around the rest of the university, and then prevent those athletes from getting a piece of the action.

As far as having the rest of the athletic department exist without capturing 100% of the revenue (or whatever lesser number is really the case) created by revenue sports, the Ivies and other non-revenue-sport-centric universities have figured out a way. Isn't that model better for an institution of higher education?

[lotusland]

I don't see how any of this is relevant. Which other undergrad students produce so much money for the university? Of those other students, which are prevented from capturing any of that revenue?

While we are in the "no one has ever presented a convincing argument" line of thinking, you haven't convinced me that it is fair to take all of the revenue produced by certain athletes, spread that around the rest of the university, and then prevent those athletes from getting a piece of the action.

As far as having the rest of the athletic department exist without capturing 100% of the revenue (or whatever lesser number is really the case) created by revenue sports, the Ivies and other non-revenue-sport-centric universities have figured out a way. Isn't that model better for an institution of higher education?

I don't agree entirely with your premise but what is your solution? Except for a stipend paid evenly to all players I can't think of any solution that doesn't ruin college athletics. Minor league professional sports don't generate big bucks so what good is a solution that kills the golden goose?

The last paragraph in your post indicates that you would prefer the method used by the Ivies. How does not offering athletic scholarships serve the athletes better? The so called Olympic sport athletes are more often students who would get in even if they weren't athletes. Is cutting athletic scholarships for non-revenue sports in order to pay football and basketball players really an improvement?

[lotusland]

The solution is easy. Just require the autograph seller to sell his autographs through the Athletic Dept. Split it, oh say: 50% to the school; 25% to the NCAA and 25% to the player. No backroom deals under penalty of suspension.

How much are the autograph's sold for? Can Big Blue Nation Booster Club have an autograph fund? Maybe season ticket holder get an autograph with their season tickets at $XXXXXX value. Is it OK for Cal or a booster to let potential recruits know how much is in the Autograph fund for next year? Certainly revenue through the athletic department and NCAA would be known especially at public schools. Wouldn't every program want to be known as the school that sells the most autographs for recruiting purposes? How would you like to see players transfer due to poor autograph sales? Or how about players holding out to negotiate better autograph sales? Does the NCAA institute a salary cap to keep the smaller schools competitive? You have to ask yourself if you really want college athletes to be professionals. Professional sports already exist and the NCAA is not preventing anyone from playing professionally.

[FerryFor50]

Man, if college athletes can't trust wanna be agents, hanger ons and shady sports memorabilia sellers, who can they trust?

[Atlanta Duke]

Exactly - no one has ever presented a convincing argument for why we should apply the same logic to college sports as we do to corporations.

You may dispute the logic but both college sports and corporations are subject to the federal antitrust statutes.

Violations of the antitrust statutes were how the big time football schools were able in the 1980s to challenge the NCAA limits upon the number of football games that could be broadcast and why we can watch college football from noon to midnight from September to December

NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/85/case.html

And alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act are the grounds for the allegations in the O'Bannon litigation that has big time college sports scared to death.

Lost in the finger-pointing is the fact that the collective storm of crises confronting the NCAA today was inevitable. It began forming nearly 30 years ago. In 1984, the Supreme Court set the new course for college sports when it ruled on NCAA v. Board of Regents, an antitrust lawsuit brought by member schools who objected to the NCAA's control over television broadcast contracts.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9404803/why-ed-obannon-antitrust-lawsuit-was-inevitable-ncaa-why-face-challenge

[Acymetric]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disposed of that issue in an opinion written by then Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor (who, as the saying goes, is now playing at the next level)

Because the NFL players have unionized and have selected the NFLPA as its exclusive bargaining representative, labor law prohibits Clarett from negotiating directly the terms and conditions of his employment with any NFL club... and an NFL club would commit an unfair labor practice were it to bargain with Clarett individually without the union's consent.... The terms and conditions of Clarett's employment are instead committed to the collective bargaining table and are reserved to the NFL and the players union's selected representative to negotiate.

Maurice Clarett v. National Football League, 369 F.3d 124 (2nd Cir. 2004)

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/369/369.F3d.124.04-0943.html

Good luck getting a change to the applicable federal statutes upon which the opinion was based

Clarett is a real sad story. On the other hand, he has one of the most impressive football highlights I have ever seen where he chases down a defender after a turnover to rip the ball back out of his arms. I am apparently terrible at google because I can't find it, but it was incredible to watch.

[vick]

Clarett is a real sad story. On the other hand, he has one of the most impressive football highlights I have ever seen where he chases down a defender after a turnover to rip the ball back out of his arms. I am apparently terrible at google because I can't find it, but it was incredible to watch.

Here you go (the defender was Sean Taylor, not exactly a slouch himself):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwtjg6qGM1o

[luburch]

Clarett is a real sad story. On the other hand, he has one of the most impressive football highlights I have ever seen where he chases down a defender after a turnover to rip the ball back out of his arms. I am apparently terrible at google because I can't find it, but it was incredible to watch.

Clarett was an absolute animal and is another athlete who suffered from being unable to turn pro after his freshman season. Yes he made a series of horrible decisions, but had he been able to turn pro things may have ended up differently. Instead it's another what if.

[Ichabod Drain]

You have to ask yourself if you really want college athletes to be professionals. Professional sports already exist and the NCAA is not preventing anyone from playing professionally.

But the NCAA is exploiting non-professional athletes for their own benefit.

[Duvall]

But the NCAA is exploiting non-professional athletes for their own benefit.

The NCAA "exploits" non-professional athletes for the benefit of other non-professional athletes. But people would rather fixate on the imaginary NCAA money bin than confront the actual implications of their complaints.

[subzero02]

Clarett was an absolute animal and is another athlete who suffered from being unable to turn pro after his freshman season. Yes he made a series of horrible decisions, but had he been able to turn pro things may have ended up differently. Instead it's another what if.

Clarett was arrested before he could commit a murder... He's a terrible person

[Ichabod Drain]

The NCAA "exploits" non-professional athletes for the benefit of other non-professional athletes. But people would rather fixate on the imaginary NCAA money bin than confront the actual implications of their complaints.

How does the NCAA selling Johnny Football T-shirts benefit other non-professional athletes?

[Duvall]

How does the NCAA selling Johnny Football T-shirts benefit other non-professional athletes?

Where do you think the NCAA revenue goes? Some of it goes to overhead, and some of it to the cost of operating championships in various sports. But most of it goes to schools to support their athletic programs.

[Ichabod Drain]

Where do you think the NCAA revenue goes? Some of it goes to overhead, and some of it to the cost of operating championships in various sports. But most of it goes to schools to support their athletic programs.

Revenue from sales like that make up less than 1% of the NCAA's total revenue. And why can't they just sell a shirt without using his name?

I mean seriously... http://www.shopncaasports.com/search/anthony_davis

[FerryFor50]

Revenue from sales like that make up less than 1% of the NCAA's total revenue. And why can't they just sell a shirt without using his name?

I mean seriously... http://www.shopncaasports.com/search/anthony_davis

Because no one would buy them. :)

[Duvall]

Revenue from sales like that make up less than 1% of the NCAA's total revenue.

Why does that matter? Did you see something that said that revenue is treated differently?

[Ichabod Drain]

Why does that matter? Did you see something that said that revenue is treated differently?

My point is why are they doing it? Or allowed to do it when the players can't. It's not a major source of revenue so it's honestly like they're mocking the players.

[Dev11]

The solution is to let players market themselves. That's it. I don't see why this is so complicated.

[Ichabod Drain]

The solution is to let players market themselves. That's it. I don't see why this is so complicated.

Bilas has said this on numerous occasion.. some people just aren't so good at listening.

[Duvall]

Bilas has said this on numerous occasion.. some people just aren't so good at listening.

What he hasn't said is how to deal with what comes after that.

I guess that would take more than 140 characters, though.

[Dev11]

What he hasn't said is how to deal with what comes after that.

I guess that would take more than 140 characters, though.

I don't think much comes after that, actually. Prominent players sign endorsement deals with Nike or Gatorade or Lou's Garage or whomever wants to pay them extra money. All the school and the program care about is that the kids remain academically eligible and go to practice and games. They have agents that help them with these contracts. Heck, maybe the school provides agents so they're less shady, and in return the school gets a few bucks off the whole exchange, which would feed back to the athletic department.

Johnny Manziel might be making 'mistakes' in some people's eyes, but if he is actually making money signing autographs, he's certainly not giving himself or Texas A&M an unfair advantage.

Is Phil Knight just going to give $10M to every prominent high school player to play at Oregon? There are only 22 starting positions, so not everybody is going to stick around. There are enough good players to fill out a lot of programs. If an individual player lets his fame get his head and can't cut it academically, he's out.

What else is going to happen?

[Ichabod Drain]

What he hasn't said is how to deal with what comes after that.

I guess that would take more than 140 characters, though.

What do you mean what comes after? What comes after they partake in actions they should legally be allowed to? The NCAA has no reason to keep these players out of a market that everyone else is allowed to operate in. Every other student, scholarship or not, can do this.

[lotusland]

What do you mean what comes after? What comes after they partake in actions they should legally be allowed to? The NCAA has no reason to keep these players out of a market that everyone else is allowed to operate in. Every other student, scholarship or not, can do this.

99.9% of these athletes have zero market value outside of being on an NCAA team. What they have to market is generated for them by their school and the NCAA. It is completely wrong headed IMO to assume that the NCAA and it's member institutions are prohibiting them from profiting off their image or their market value. For the most part they only have an image or market value because they are an NCAA ball player.

I think NCAA ball players are well compensated and are privileged to have the opportunity to go to school on scholarship and play ball. I also think allowing them to market themselves will ruin college sports. Others like Bilas believe players in the so called the revenue sports are exploited and that allowing them to be paid or to market themselves won't hurt the game at all. I hope we don't ever find out who is right and I don't think anybody's mind is going to be changed on a message board so I'll just wait to see how it plays out.

[lotusland]

What do you mean what comes after? What comes after they partake in actions they should legally be allowed to? The NCAA has no reason to keep these players out of a market that everyone else is allowed to operate in. Every other student, scholarship or not, can do this. They can do what they want with their image but if they accept benefits that are not permissible the are ineligible. It's their league so their rules apply. The NCAA rules only apply if you choose to accept them.

[Wander]

What else is going to happen?

Imagine the NBA if there was no draft AND no salary cap.

I feel like Nugget did in the other thread... why would I even care about college sports if all this happens? I'd still follow Duke, but overall we'd just have a worse version of the NBA (or NFL) with far worse players. I think you and Bilas are vastly underestimating the degree to which players would simply be bought.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Imagine the NBA if there was no draft AND no salary cap.

I feel like Nugget did in the other thread... why would I even care about college sports if all this happens? I'd still follow Duke, but overall we'd just have a worse version of the NBA (or NFL) with far worse players. I think you and Bilas are vastly underestimating the degree to which players would simply be bought.

I'm pretty sure that Bilas wouldn't endorse an "open market" system for college players - that would clearly cause some serious chaos and auctioning off of rosters. As I understand it, what has been proposed is more of a living stipend provided to the athletes from the schools to acknowledge the fact that they provide revenue to the institution and don't have any other legitimate means of making an income. Numbers I have heard range from the $2K to $7K range. The NCAA would still restrict benefits and improper payments above and beyond this amount.

As I mentioned before, I'm not sure that I would choose this path, but I do understand the reasoning behind it.

[lotusland]

I'm pretty sure that Bilas wouldn't endorse an "open market" system for college players - that would clearly cause some serious chaos and auctioning off of rosters. As I understand it, what has been proposed is more of a living stipend provided to the athletes from the schools to acknowledge the fact that they provide revenue to the institution and don't have any other legitimate means of making an income. Numbers I have heard range from the $2K to $7K range. The NCAA would still restrict benefits and improper payments above and beyond this amount.

As I mentioned before, I'm not sure that I would choose this path, but I do understand the reasoning behind it.

I don't mind that kind of compensation. If schools were allowed to pay players but not required to it would give an advantage to the bigger schools but probably not much more than already exists. If it were a requirement I think a lot of smaller schools would drop football. How many scholarship football players are there on a team? Most division I schools could probably afford that range for basketball but a few might get pinched. I'm not sure how that would settle the O'Bannon lawsuit though. My solution would be to stop marketing existing player names. If they want to sell jerseys including the names of former players then compensate them. I'm not sure what else they want to be compensated for other than merchandise but I don't think Laettner should be compensated every time they show a replay of "the shot" even though I'm tempted to give him a few bucks every time I see it:)

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I don't mind that kind of compensation. If schools were allowed to pay players but not required to it would give an advantage to the bigger schools but probably not much more than already exists. If it were a requirement I think a lot of smaller schools would drop football. How many scholarship football players are there on a team? Most division I schools could probably afford that range for basketball but a few might get pinched. I'm not sure how that would settle the O'Bannon lawsuit though. My solution would be to stop marketing existing player names. If they want to sell jerseys including the names of former players then compensate them. I'm not sure what else they want to be compensated for other than merchandise but I don't think Laettner should be compensated every time they show a replay of "the shot" even though I'm tempted to give him a few bucks every time I see it:)

Interesting consideration. I would assume that it would have to be equal for all schools, or, a "cost of living" allowance that was based on that particulars of the town the college was in. For argument's sake, let's say that it equals roughly $5K. For a 13 player basketball roster, that equals $65,000. For am 85 player football team, that jumps to $425,000. While neither of these amounts are chump change, it's definitely a drop in the bucket for a top division athletic program. ESPN lists Duke's 2008 college sports revenue at $67 million, with 24 other schools coming in with bigger numbers (the only numbers I found in a quick search (http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue)).

Point being, I think that the schools can definitely foot the bill without missing a beat.

Again, for fear of being misunderstood, I'm not sold on this plan. I'm just pointing out that it does seem to be feasible.

[Wander]

I'm pretty sure that Bilas wouldn't endorse an "open market" system for college players - that would clearly cause some serious chaos and auctioning off of rosters. As I understand it, what has been proposed is more of a living stipend provided to the athletes from the schools to acknowledge the fact that they provide revenue to the institution and don't have any other legitimate means of making an income. Numbers I have heard range from the $2K to $7K range. The NCAA would still restrict benefits and improper payments above and beyond this amount.


I don't agree with it - ideally I think all students, scholarship athlete or not, should be eligible for such a stipend if they're from poorer backgrounds and are accepted to the school - but I don't find this idea unreasonable and, like you, I can see why one would find it appealing. However, you're mistaken in what Bilas' opinion is. Bilas does, in fact, endorse an "open market" system: essentially, the universities don't pay the students, but anyone else is allowed to, by any amount.

[cato]

I don't agree with it - ideally I think all students, scholarship athlete or not, should be eligible for such a stipend if they're from poorer backgrounds and are accepted to the school - but I don't find this idea unreasonable and, like you, I can see why one would find it appealing. However, you're mistaken in what Bilas' opinion is. Bilas does, in fact, endorse an "open market" system: essentially, the universities don't pay the students, but anyone else is allowed to, by any amount.

In other words, the system as it exists today, and has always existed, but with the benefit of payments being in the open, rather than on the DL.

[Wander]

In other words, the system as it exists today, and has always existed, but with the benefit of payments being in the open, rather than on the DL.

Who's paying Jabari Parker millions to come to Duke?

[subzero02]

Who's paying Jabari Parker millions to come to Duke?

Don't ask a question you don't want an answer to ;-)

[Des Esseintes]

I don't agree with it - ideally I think all students, scholarship athlete or not, should be eligible for such a stipend if they're from poorer backgrounds and are accepted to the school - but I don't find this idea unreasonable and, like you, I can see why one would find it appealing. However, you're mistaken in what Bilas' opinion is. Bilas does, in fact, endorse an "open market" system: essentially, the universities don't pay the students, but anyone else is allowed to, by any amount.

Yeah. Bilas is basically a down-the-line libertarian in his sympathies. As many others have said, I think he's a great basketball commentator, but on this subject I can't help feeling he's showing the chauvinism of the former major sport athlete. There's just no way going to a market-based (read: pay for play) model doesn't at least partially impoverish Olympic sports, and amid all his talk of "hypocrisy" this ignorance of or refusal to acknowledge such a consequence is frustrating.

[Duvall]

I don't think much comes after that, actually. Prominent players sign endorsement deals with Nike or Gatorade or Lou's Garage or whomever wants to pay them extra money. All the school and the program care about is that the kids remain academically eligible and go to practice and games. They have agents that help them with these contracts. Heck, maybe the school provides agents so they're less shady, and in return the school gets a few bucks off the whole exchange, which would feed back to the athletic department.

Johnny Manziel might be making 'mistakes' in some people's eyes, but if he is actually making money signing autographs, he's certainly not giving himself or Texas A&M an unfair advantage.

Is Phil Knight just going to give $10M to every prominent high school player to play at Oregon? There are only 22 starting positions, so not everybody is going to stick around. There are enough good players to fill out a lot of programs. If an individual player lets his fame get his head and can't cut it academically, he's out.

What else is going to happen?

It's just hard to see how an "endorsement" model doesn't become a program management nightmare. It wouldn't be too much of a problem if we were talking about a few top players getting shoe contracts, but it seems unlikely that the practice would stop there. Seems much more likely that we would see boosters signing players to de facto payrolls, dictating the rosters of the revenue programs and delivering those rosters to the schools. And that would mean that the most prominent operations on the university campus would be controlled by people that don't work for the university, and can't be fired by the university. That strikes me as a deeply undesirable state of affairs.

I would much rather see universities pay players directly than go to an endorsement model, as long as we can figure out where the money is going to come from and limit the impact on student-athletes in the non-revenue sports. If that means paying a good coach a fraction of what it costs to keep a great coach, so be it.

[lotusland]

It's just hard to see how an "endorsement" model doesn't become a program management nightmare. It wouldn't be too much of a problem if we were talking about a few top players getting shoe contracts, but it seems unlikely that the practice would stop there. Seems much more likely that we would see boosters signing players to de facto payrolls, dictating the rosters of the revenue programs and delivering those rosters to the schools. And that would mean that the most prominent operations on the university campus would be controlled by people that don't work for the university, and can't be fired by the university. That strikes me as a deeply undesirable state of affairs.

I would much rather see universities pay players directly than go to an endorsement model, as long as we can figure out where the money is going to come from and limit the impact on student-athletes in the non-revenue sports. If that means paying a good coach a fraction of what it costs to keep a great coach, so be it.

It would be a problem even if a few kids had shoe contracts IMO. Imagine Jabari has a Nike endorsement contract for a modest $100K/year meanwhile Duke is paying him zilch - who does he really work for? For instance maybe at the Final Four Jabari lets K know that he will have to miss a team meal for Nike appearance. Maybe K puts his foot down and Nike "gives in" but next year's one and done wonder with a Nike contract goes to another Nike school that is more cooperative with the sponsor. I just threw up in my mouth a little while typing that...

[Atlanta Duke]

I would much rather see universities pay players directly than go to an endorsement model, as long as we can figure out where the money is going to come from and limit the impact on student-athletes in the non-revenue sports.

The O'Bannon plaintiffs are proposing that model through revenue sport players getting a cut of the TV revenue

To the extent non-revenue sports get hit, stuff happens - exploiting the surplus value of labor provided by revenue sports athletes to subsidize non-revenue sports may not justify violations of the antitrust statutes

[cato]

It would be a problem even if a few kids had shoe contracts IMO. Imagine Jabari has a Nike endorsement contract for a modest $100K/year meanwhile Duke is paying him zilch - who does he really work for?

So you concede that, under the current system, the "student-athletes" work exclusively for the university. At least, the ones who aren't getting paid.

[Duvall]

To the extent non-revenue sports get hit, stuff happens...

Oh.

.

[Atlanta Duke]

Oh.

Seriously, it's a cruel world and nothing about major modifications to the current big time sports business model is going to be easy. But to the extent the O'Bannon plaintiffs prevail on their argument they are entitled to a cut of the TV revenue because revenue sports athletes being required to sign away the rights to use their likenesses violates the antitrust statutes, figuring out how to address the loss of that revenue that will go to the athletes is going to have to be answered somehow. Just because the current business model is based upon revenue sports funding non-revenue sports does not necessarily make that business model legal, let alone immortal.

To the extent Title IX would require equal payments to all athletes if the O'Bannon plaintiffs prevail (that argument might not be quite the slam dunk Jim Delany and sportswriters such as Bob Kravitz contend) you still are looking at a reduction of cash flow if funds going to the athletic departments now would have to go to the athletes. Since the NCAA and its member institutions do not have the same power as the federal government when it comes to running deficits indefinitely, that involves cuts from somewhere.

Or the NCAA and its member institutions can just hope that the O'Bannon plaintiffs lose. Athletic directors such as Pat Haden at USC do not regard that as a prudent strategy.

USC athletic director Pat Haden says he's concerned the NCAA may lose the pending Ed O'Bannon antitrust suit regarding the commercialization of college athletes. He is encouraging conference and national colleagues to start discussing contingency plans....

"The context of the lawsuit has changed. What do we do if we lost?" Haden said of the NCAA's side. "All of a sudden your television revenue -- let's say it's $20 million a year [for a school]. Now if they win, it's $10 million a year. How do you make your 21 sports work on half the revenue?"...

"What I'm reading is that we have a real chance of losing," Haden said.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130401/pat-haden-ed-obannon-ncaa/

Assuming the O'Bannon plaintiffs prevail, what do you regard to be a viable solution?

[lotusland]

So you concede that, under the current system, the "student-athletes" work exclusively for the university. At least, the ones who aren't getting paid.

I'm not particular about what you call it but if it were me I would not consider it work at all. If playing hoops is work I would sign up for overtime. I'm for amateur college sports and I'm in favor of anyone going pro who wants to go. I don't think anyone should hold a kid back from his dreams and I'm glad the NCAA and their member institutions are not doing so.

[subzero02]

Seriously, it's a cruel world and nothing about major modifications to the current big time sports business model is going to be easy. But to the extent the O'Bannon plaintiffs prevail on their argument they are entitled to a cut of the TV revenue because revenue sports athletes being required to sign away the rights to use their likenesses violates the antitrust statutes, figuring out how to address the loss of that revenue that will go to the athletes is going to have to be answered somehow. Just because the current business model is based upon revenue sports funding non-revenue sports does not necessarily make that business model legal, let alone immortal.
?

I am pretty sure the current system as we know it is knocking on death's door. ;-)

[Wheat/"/"/"]

My friends at the SportingNews (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-08-08/ncaa-exit-business-of-selling-athlete-team-items-reggie-bush-cam-newton) have something to say...

[Atlanta Duke]

I am pretty sure the current system as we know it is knocking on death's door. ;-)

Based on some of what I have read here and elsewhere, not everyone shares our view the current system is circling the drain.

That is why I posted the crack about immortality;)

[RoyalBlue08]

Seriously, it's a cruel world and nothing about major modifications to the current big time sports business model is going to be easy. But to the extent the O'Bannon plaintiffs prevail on their argument they are entitled to a cut of the TV revenue because revenue sports athletes being required to sign away the rights to use their likenesses violates the antitrust statutes, figuring out how to address the loss of that revenue that will go to the athletes is going to have to be answered somehow. Just because the current business model is based upon revenue sports funding non-revenue sports does not necessarily make that business model legal, let alone immortal.

To the extent Title IX would require equal payments to all athletes if the O'Bannon plaintiffs prevail (that argument might not be quite the slam dunk Jim Delany and sportswriters such as Bob Kravitz contend) you still are looking at a reduction of cash flow if funds going to the athletic departments now would have to go to the athletes. Since the NCAA and its member institutions do not have the same power as the federal government when it comes to running deficits indefinitely, that involves cuts from somewhere.

Or the NCAA and its member institutions can just hope that the O'Bannon plaintiffs lose. Athletic directors such as Pat Haden at USC do not regard that as a prudent strategy.

USC athletic director Pat Haden says he's concerned the NCAA may lose the pending Ed O'Bannon antitrust suit regarding the commercialization of college athletes. He is encouraging conference and national colleagues to start discussing contingency plans....

"The context of the lawsuit has changed. What do we do if we lost?" Haden said of the NCAA's side. "All of a sudden your television revenue -- let's say it's $20 million a year [for a school]. Now if they win, it's $10 million a year. How do you make your 21 sports work on half the revenue?"...

"What I'm reading is that we have a real chance of losing," Haden said.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130401/pat-haden-ed-obannon-ncaa/

Assuming the O'Bannon plaintiffs prevail, what do you regard to be a viable solution?

I think one thing that is not often mentioned is that the large piles of cash that come from TV have not always been there in college sports. In fact, they are quite a new phenomenon, and the growth really could continue for awhile as more and more channels become available and advertisers flock to sports as fewer and fewer people watch non sports on live TV. Somehow, these athletic departments must have found a way to operate on smaller budgets. But people always argue that the non revenue sports will be the first to be cut. Why does that have to be true? What if ADs and coaches had to have salaries in line with other top members of the university, and not with pro coaches/GMs. Sure, talented coaches would go to the pros, but is that really the end of the world. I find this quote from Haden particularly interesting given the PAC12's new 3 BILLION dollar TV contract. I would think that is a ton of road trips for the volleyball teams if that is how the schools chose to spend the money.

Personally I hope that O'Bannon lawsuit fails, I don't think the players necessarily need to have a share of TV revenues. I think a full scholarship, perhaps with a cost of living supplement is fair for college athletics. But the NCAA stance on their players not being able to market themselves or earn outside money seems to me to be far too immoral and hypocritical to survive.

[Dev11]

I think one thing that is not often mentioned is that the large piles of cash that come from TV have not always been there in college sports. In fact, they are quite a new phenomenon, and the growth really could continue for awhile as more and more channels become available and advertisers flock to sports as fewer and fewer people watch non sports on live TV. Somehow, these athletic departments must have found a way to operate on smaller budgets. But people always argue that the non revenue sports will be the first to be cut. Why does that have to be true?

Not that our old friends in College Park have to be the end-all example, but they were losing money before the B1G move and swiftly cut a handful of non-revenue sports without blinking an eye. The criticism for that particular decision was fairly muted. The machine runs on high-priced coaches and on-field success in football and basketball, so those things will be saved. Gymnastics will not.

[alteran]

To play devil's advocate, there are many on this forum who give Lance Thomas the benefit of the doubt. All of my non-Duke friends 100% believe there was some sort of violation going on there, even though a bunch of us feel differently.

I understand fanbases - it hurts to get scrutinized in the media (given, there are different variations of scrutiny and the Lance case vs. UNC cheating scandal is like an Enron employee expensing alcohol vs Enron accounting fraud) and fanbases will support their teams to the end.

Actually, you're playing the reverse of devil's advocate. ;-)

Just sayin'.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Actually, you're playing the reverse of devil's advocate. ;-)

Just sayin'.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'd wager pretty big money that many folks on this board would have advocated strongly for Lance to sit out - had this purported transgression been public during his time on the Duke team. Better to err on the side of caution that to suffer the ignominy of vacating wins/nets.

As far as giving Lance the benefit of the doubt... since there's not a single shred of evidence to damn him, the suit was dropped, AND the NCAA cleared the issue, it makes sense to me.

[sagegrouse]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'd wager pretty big money that many folks on this board would have advocated strongly for Lance to sit out - had this purported transgression been public during his time on the Duke team. Better to err on the side of caution that to suffer the ignominy of vacating wins/nets.

As far as giving Lance the benefit of the doubt... since there's not a single shred of evidence to damn him, the suit was dropped, AND the NCAA cleared the issue, it makes sense to me.

You may be right about "many folks," but not about this one. As far as I can tell, and based on other third-hand reports, Lance Thomas bought jewelry with his own money, which came from gifts from family or the maturation of an educational fund or some combination. There was some kind of deferred payment involved, which appears to be a standard practice with this jeweler. Where's the violation?

sagegrouse

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You may be right about "many folks," but not about this one. As far as I can tell, and based on other third-hand reports, Lance Thomas bought jewelry with his own money, which came from gifts from family or the maturation of an educational fund or some combination. There was some kind of deferred payment involved, which appears to be a standard practice with this jeweler. Where's the violation?

sagegrouse

This is clearly all a hypothetical exercise at this point... but are you saying that if the events were unfolding in real time, you would have advocated for Thomas to play while details were learned, regardless of potential outcomes and the fallout? Personally, I would hope that K would err on the side of extreme caution, barring complete and total faith in Thomas's eventual exoneration.

This question is borne from the current situations of Hairston and Manziel, who have potential pending issues - ought they being suspended now? Do you play them and risk losing the entire season?

I would be really surprised if K would wager a season on a pending investigation, judged by the whims of the NCAA. But, it's an interesting question.

[JasonEvans]

My friends at the SportingNews (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-08-08/ncaa-exit-business-of-selling-athlete-team-items-reggie-bush-cam-newton) have something to say...

Thanks Wheat! Everyone needs to read that article.

Among the gems in it, this description of how dysfunctional the NCAA is...


The left hand not only doesn't know what the right is doing, the left doesn't even know there is a right hand.

But, what really matters is the following --


They've been selling jerseys for decades, and now, because it looks bad and because they're in the middle of a mega lawsuit, it's time to cut bait? Understand this, everyone: The NCAA just undercut its entire argument in the O'Bannon case.

If the NCAA truly believed it is right in owning the image/likeness of student-athletes, why in the world would it bow to selling jerseys, of all things? Instead of doubling down and insisting the tradeoff for the privilege of attending a university for free—and all the free perks that come with it—is the NCAA using a player's likeness to make money to support other sports and other university projects, the group just skulked away from the argument because Twitter got all sideways.

Folks, the NCAA is absolutely going to lose the OBannon lawsuit. It is all but a done deal. What they need to figure out now is how to lose it and not have the entire system go bust in the process.

-Jason "I think a negotiated settlement is a lot better for them than a nasty jury verdict -- O'Bannon wants some money, but I think he also wants a system put in place that will take care of revenue sport players going forward" Evans

[UrinalCake]

Looks like Johnny Football has gotten into even more trouble.

link (https://thecasaofelhanlo.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/johnny-manziel-in-trouble-for-eating-dessert-before-finishing-vegetables/)

[77devil]

Thanks Wheat! Everyone needs to read that article.


We did. It was posted on the front page well before Wheat chimed in.

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=48048

[sagegrouse]

This is clearly all a hypothetical exercise at this point... but are you saying that if the events were unfolding in real time, you would have advocated for Thomas to play while details were learned, regardless of potential outcomes and the fallout? Personally, I would hope that K would err on the side of extreme caution, barring complete and total faith in Thomas's eventual exoneration.



Yep. K: "Where did the money come from." LT: "It was mine."

K: "You bought that junk with your own money. It looks like a waste of dough." LT: "Coach!" End of discussion.

sage

[Des Esseintes]

Yep. K: "Where did the money come from." LT: "It was mine."

K: "You bought that junk with your own money. It looks like a waste of dough." LT: "Coach!" End of discussion.

sage

Sage, I'm normally with you on issues such as these, and I feel comfortable that Duke had nothing to worry about in l'Affaire Lance. However. I would very much extremely 100% hope K and Duke would exert more stringence than simply taking a player at his word on a potential season-wrecking violation. PJ Hairston, a player Duke recruited, reportedly lied to Roy Williams's face. Are we going to assert that by matriculating to Duke, our players prove themselves to be or are somehow transformed into being morally superior to those elsewhere?

[sagegrouse]

Sage, I'm normally with you on issues such as these, and I feel comfortable that Duke had nothing to worry about in l'Affaire Lance. However. I would very much extremely 100% hope K and Duke would exert more stringence than simply taking a player at his word on a potential season-wrecking violation. PJ Hairston, a player Duke recruited, reportedly lied to Roy Williams's face. Are we going to assert that by matriculating to Duke, our players prove themselves to be or are somehow transformed into being morally superior to those elsewhere?

Fair enough. But there is a difference in kind between the LT and PJ cases. LT bought some jewelry; PJ was driving a car -- or several cars -- that had been rented by a convicted felon who, at face value, would have been providing an impermissable benefit. We didn't immediately know where LT's money came from; we almost immediately knew where PJ's car came from.

sagegrouse

[sagegrouse]

Fair enough. But there is a difference in kind between the LT and PJ cases. LT bought some jewelry; PJ was driving a car -- or several cars -- that had been rented by a convicted felon who, at face value, would have been providing an impermissable benefit. We didn't immediately know where LT's money came from; we almost immediately knew where PJ's car came from.

sagegrouse

My dumb response deserves at least some commemoration: It was my 5,000th!!! -- sagegrouse

[ricks68]

My dumb response deserves at least some commemoration: It was my 5,000th!!! -- sagegrouse

I'd spork you if I could, but I can't right now. I can't imagine ever having 5,000 posts or even want to be in that position, however. Considering that I have been following DBR almost from the beginning, if I added continuous posting like some of you guys do, I think it would equate to these kids we all see glued to their video games all day and night-------every day and night. I mean, like, do you have a family, still have a job, etc-----and if you do, do you know their names or what your job is?;) Just lurking and occasionally posting has already cost me about a bazillion hours of my time over the years.

Sure have met some really great people over the years, made wonderful new friends, and reconnected with my alma mater, however. Well worth it.:)

All hail DBR and Go Duke! Oh, and congratulations.

ricks

[johnb]

I'd spork you if I could, but I can't right now. I can't imagine ever having 5,000 posts or even want to be in that position, however. Considering that I have been following DBR almost from the beginning, if I added continuous posting like some of you guys do, I think it would equate to these kids we all see glued to their video games all day and night-------every day and night. I mean, like, do you have a family, still have a job, etc-----and if you do, do you know their names or what your job is?;) Just lurking and occasionally posting has already cost me about a bazillion hours of my time over the years.

Sure have met some really great people over the years, made wonderful new friends, and reconnected with my alma mater, however. Well worth it.:)

All hail DBR and Go Duke! Oh, and congratulations.

ricks

ricks, you have 759 posts. if your ratio of time spent lurking : posting is 15 : 1 (since you call it occasional), and you spend 10" per post, then I'd figure you haven't spent a bazillion hours but rather 759 x 10" x 15 = 113,850 minutes or 1897 hours. Working 40 hours per week, that would be 48 weeks. Or 1 year, with 4 weeks of vacation.

Spread over 6 years, that's hardly a dent. You call yourself a fan?

[OldPhiKap]

ricks, you have 759 posts. if your ratio of time spent lurking : posting is 15 : 1 (since you call it occasional), and you spend 10" per post, then I'd figure you haven't spent a bazillion hours but rather 759 x 10" x 15 = 113,850 minutes or 1897 hours. Working 40 hours per week, that would be 48 weeks. Or 1 year, with 4 weeks of vacation.

Spread over 6 years, that's hardly a dent. You call yourself a fan?

ricks is all about quality, not quantity when he posts.

He even lurks with precision and focus.

[JasonEvans]

ricks, you have 759 posts. if your ratio of time spent lurking : posting is 15 : 1 (since you call it occasional), and you spend 10" per post, then I'd figure you haven't spent a bazillion hours but rather 759 x 10" x 15 = 113,850 minutes or 1897 hours. Working 40 hours per week, that would be 48 weeks. Or 1 year, with 4 weeks of vacation.

Spread over 6 years, that's hardly a dent. You call yourself a fan?

As someone with over 10,300 posts, your calculations are terrifying to me!!

-Jason "sad and pathetic, that's me!" Evans