More NCAA logic I love....

[royalfan5]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5546259

AJ Green of Georgia suspended for selling his jersey. Georgia continues to sell AJ Green jerseys without having to compensate him.

[sooner518]

they dont sell jerseys with his name on them. probably just his number.

[soonerborn30]

I will never understand how the NCAA has the say-so to tell a kid he can't go make his own money. Ridiculous.

[KantoSooner]

It's a combination of two primary strands of thought:

1. They still feel that THEY should control and dole out the money created by college sports.
and
2. They are still quite miffed that college sports actually makes money. I mean it should all be more or less a Chariots of Fire type affair, with slightly less in the way of homosexual overtones.

[sooner_born_1960]

So, a player should be able to sell game-worn jerseys? Don't be ridiculous.

[Mississippi Sooner]

I'm no lawyer, but I just can't see how the NCAA can legally prevent someone from selling their own property, be it a game jersey or championship ring or other memorabilia. I don't care if it has a school's logo or whatever on it, if it is your property, you should be able to dispose of it in any way you see fit.

The NCAA is hellbent on keeping their thumb on all aspects of college football and college football players. In some aspects, such as agents (Reggie Bush), that is a good thing. In others, though, sometimes a court challenge might be in order.

After all, we can all thank OU and Georgia for taking the NCAA to court over the television rights issue.

Most likely, I'm just rambling, but my inner-capitalist always yells a bit when I read about limiting a person's rights concerning property they own.

[delhalew]

I don't care if a player puts his jock on ebay.

[Mississippi Sooner]

I don't care if a player puts his jock on ebay.

If Tebow had put his jock on ebay, they'd still be bidding on it.

[yermom]

i still think it's BS that EA Sports can get around using their likeness

just put their names on the jerseys, dammit!

[Sooner-N-KS]

I'm no lawyer, but I just can't see how the NCAA can legally prevent someone from selling their own property, be it a game jersey or championship ring or other memorabilia. I don't care if it has a school's logo or whatever on it, if it is your property, you should be able to dispose of it in any way you see fit.

The NCAA is hellbent on keeping their thumb on all aspects of college football and college football players. In some aspects, such as agents (Reggie Bush), that is a good thing. In others, though, sometimes a court challenge might be in order.

After all, we can all thank OU and Georgia for taking the NCAA to court over the television rights issue.

Most likely, I'm just rambling, but my inner-capitalist always yells a bit when I read about limiting a person's rights concerning property they own.

T-Boone: Son, if you'll just come play for my pokes you can sell me some stuff. I've got a lot of money, and I want to buy a lot of your stuff. After each game I'll buy your jersey for $10,000. If you beat OU I'd like to buy your jersey for $50,000. You like money, don't you boy? You won't get a deal like that if you commit to OU!

[Mississippi Sooner]

Well, then he'd have a lot of money....but he'd still be at OSU. :P

[Leroy Lizard]

First of all, I don't think jerseys are the property of the player.

Second of all, players are free to sell that which they own. And the NCAA is free to deny eligibility to the player if they wish.

Naturally, there are limits, but the NCAA writes the rules. And the reason for the rules is pretty clear.

[soonerborn30]

So, a player should be able to sell game-worn jerseys? Don't be ridiculous.

I don't know about game-worn jerseys, simply because I'm not real clear on who that jersey belongs to. I'm speaking in broader terms. If a kid can work out some kind of way to make some money on the side -legally, of course- I say he should be able to do so. The NCAA...not so much.

[agoo758]

Isn't the NCAA a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust? It sure seems like it in the way they operate.

[royalfan5]

First of all, I don't think jerseys are the property of the player.

Second of all, players are free to sell that which they own. And the NCAA is free to deny eligibility to the player if they wish.

Naturally, there are limits, but the NCAA writes the rules. And the reason for the rules is pretty clear.

The players get lots of free clothing. Why wouldn't they be able to keep their jersey's. It's not like they use the same ones year after year.

[soonerborn30]

Agoo: Some people certainly think so.

[soonerborn30]

First of all, I don't think jerseys are the property of the player.

Second of all, players are free to sell that which they own. And the NCAA is free to deny eligibility to the player if they wish.

Naturally, there are limits, but the NCAA writes the rules. And the reason for the rules is pretty clear.

Actually, I don't think it is all that clear. When you have compliance offices, players, and coaches that aren't even sure if they've broken some arcane NCAA bylaw, it's pretty safe to say that transparency isn't exactly a core value in Indy.

Since you seem to know the reason, what is it? What reason could they have for keeping a college kid from going out and earning extra money. Provided that means of earning money is legit?

[sooner_born_1960]

"but the NCAA writes the rules..." , which really means the colleges and universities write the rules.

[delhalew]

Actually, I don't think it is all that clear. When you have compliance offices, players, and coaches that aren't even sure if they've broken some arcane NCAA bylaw, it's pretty safe to say that transparency isn't exactly a core value in Indy.

Since you seem to know the reason, what is it? What reason could they have for keeping a college kid from going out and earning extra money. Provided that means of earning money is legit?

Oh snap...you stepped in it now. Prepare yourself for 5 pages of Lizard brand self-righteousness.

[richsooner]

Why don't we just fire the NCAA, declare collegiate football semi-pro or pro football, turn it over to the private sector and be done with the controversy?????????????????????

[Leroy Lizard]

Why don't we just fire the NCAA, declare collegiate football semi-pro or pro football, turn it over to the private sector and be done with the controversy?????????????????????

We already have an NFL.

[Leroy Lizard]

Actually, I don't think it is all that clear. When you have compliance offices, players, and coaches that aren't even sure if they've broken some arcane NCAA bylaw, it's pretty safe to say that transparency isn't exactly a core value in Indy.

There is nothing arcane about it. A player is receiving compensation beyond what is spelled out in his scholarship agreement. Ergo, it is probably against the rules.


Since you seem to know the reason, what is it? What reason could they have for keeping a college kid from going out and earning extra money. Provided that means of earning money is legit?

Sooner-N-KS nailed it. Read his post.

[soonerborn30]

If you're afraid of an arms race you're missing the point. These kids can't even get an effing JOB. They're only allowed to make so much money. At no other time in their lives will they be punished so severly for going out and taking advantage of our capitalist(ish) system.

[BoulderSooner79]

This one seems pretty simple to me - just look at the possible abuse. "Here AJ, come pick up your 1,000 game jerseys for the season at the equipment office."

[PMKMDJ]

I don't think anyone is typically against players making $, the problem lies in that people are always wanting to circumvent rules. Scenario: You are allowed to sell your personal property, i.e. a jersey. Booster buys said jersey for $100,000. Is that fair, obviously not, but if you are allowed to do so would it be against the rules? Therefore rules are in place that are overly stringent.

The NCAA sucks, but they are also trying to limit the lawlessness that would exists and exists eventhough they have rules in place.

[royalfan5]

Who's to say college football shouldn't be lawless. If people want give money to players for performance, why the **** not? The players earned it. If a schools booster's don't care enough about football to open their wallet, why should the NCAA subsidize their football by restricting the other who wish too. Amateur athletics are a sham anyway, why bother prentending otherwise.

[Leroy Lizard]

If you want to play on Saturday, don't sell your stuff.

Sounds simple enough.

After you have left the program, you can sell it to your heart's content.

[Leroy Lizard]

Who's to say college football shouldn't be lawless. If people want give money to players for performance, why the **** not? The players earned it. If a schools booster's don't care enough about football to open their wallet, why should the NCAA subsidize their football by restricting the other who wish too. Amateur athletics are a sham anyway, why bother prentending otherwise.

Okay, if you don't mind seeing OSU vault into the No. 1 recruiting position every year and start kicking our *** with essentially pro players. T. Boone has a lot of money. So the NCAA will simply become a matter of "which school has the richest boosters?" (And USC and UT both have tons of those.)

Harvard could win a national title if it wanted under your plan. OU wouldn't sniff a national title ever again. (Well, there is the Gaylord family.)

[soonerborn30]

Okay, if you don't mind seeing OSU vault into the No. 1 recruiting position every year and start kicking our *** with essentially pro players. T. Boone has a lot of money. So the NCAA will simply become a matter of "which school has the richest boosters?" (And USC and UT both have tons of those.)

Harvard could win a national title if it wanted under your plan. OU wouldn't sniff a national title ever again. (Well, there is the Gaylord family.)

If you think that isn't happening already at T BOONE PICKENS STADIUM you're out of your gourd. And look where it's gotten them so far.

[soonerborn30]

I don't think anyone is typically against players making $, the problem lies in that people are always wanting to circumvent rules. Scenario: You are allowed to sell your personal property, i.e. a jersey. Booster buys said jersey for $100,000. Is that fair, obviously not, but if you are allowed to do so would it be against the rules? Therefore rules are in place that are overly stringent.

The NCAA sucks, but they are also trying to limit the lawlessness that would exists and exists eventhough they have rules in place.

Why the hell not? If someone is stupid/willing enough to pay it, so be it. It happens every single day in our country. People pay ridiculous prices for things, and the merchant gladly obliges. I don't see why the college football player has to be excluded from that transaction simply because the NCAA wants to have a dirty little paw on every cent that comes down the pike.

[delhalew]

Who's to say college football shouldn't be lawless. If people want give money to players for performance, why the **** not? The players earned it. If a schools booster's don't care enough about football to open their wallet, why should the NCAA subsidize their football by restricting the other who wish too. Amateur athletics are a sham anyway, why bother prentending otherwise.

Thank you. Once college football became a big money game, it intellectually dishonest to cry for the needs of the student athlete while you exploit them for every penny they ate worth. There is already an arms race when it comes to the hiring and firing of coaches, as well as facilities and the like.
Let's be honest about the hipocracy of the NCAA.

[royalfan5]

Okay, if you don't mind seeing OSU vault into the No. 1 recruiting position every year and start kicking our *** with essentially pro players. T. Boone has a lot of money. So the NCAA will simply become a matter of "which school has the richest boosters?" (And USC and UT both have tons of those.)

Harvard could win a national title if it wanted under your plan. OU wouldn't sniff a national title ever again. (Well, there is the Gaylord family.)
Not my problem if OU boosters aren't willing to pony up the cash to compete.

[Leroy Lizard]

If you think that isn't happening already at T BOONE PICKENS STADIUM you're out of your gourd. And look where it's gotten them so far.

Players at all schools receive illegal benefits. We know that. I don't think OSU's players have been receiving anything out of the ordinary.


Not my problem if OU boosters aren't willing to pony up the cash to compete.

Sure, if you're a bandwagon fan that can skip allegiances to whichever team happens to be the most flush with cash. Otherwise you will cry like a girl when OU goes 30 years without a title and UT ends up with 12 trophies.

Michigan probably has three times as many potential donors as OU. We cannot compete, no matter how much our alumni care.

And this is all silly anyway. Turning college football into pro football is bad and everyone knows it. So why are we even entertaining this idea?

[Leroy Lizard]

Thank you. Once college football became a big money game, it intellectually dishonest to cry for the needs of the student athlete while you exploit them for every penny they ate worth.

No one forced them to accept a scholarship and they are well compensated in terms of a free education. Look at the world around you: A free college education is a pretty good thing. (Too bad more don't take advantage of the opportunity.)

[Leroy Lizard]

Why the hell not? If someone is stupid/willing enough to pay it, so be it. It happens every single day in our country. People pay ridiculous prices for things, and the merchant gladly obliges. I don't see why the college football player has to be excluded from that transaction ....

We already explained why. About five times now. Read the posts.

[MojoRisen]

Sounds as if it wasn't bid for and less than a 1000.00 makes a difference from the article.

I remember Greg Anthony UNLV getting in trouble for selling T-Shirts he had made up I believe with his own money.

[royalfan5]

Players at all schools receive illegal benefits. We know that. I don't think OSU's players have been receiving anything out of the ordinary.



Sure, if you're a bandwagon fan that can skip allegiances to whichever team happens to be the most flush with cash. Otherwise you will cry like a girl when OU goes 30 years without a title and UT ends up with 12 trophies.

Michigan probably has three times as many potential donors as OU. We cannot compete, no matter how much our alumni care.

And this is all silly anyway. Turning college football into pro football is bad and everyone knows it. So why are we even entertaining this idea?

There are lots of things in life you can't get because other people are smarter, more talented, richer, and better looking than you. Why should the success in college football for the team you root for be any different. Good training for life, if you ask me.

[Soonerfan88]

I understand that college athletics take a lot of time and effort but they are still amateur student-athletes and a free education is adequate compensation. Too many others have given examples of how selling items can be abused and the NCAA is correct in this instance.

And it's amazing, even after Bomargate, that some still believe the players can't have a job. His crime was getting paid for hours he wasn't actually working, not having the job to begin with. Also, athletes are eligible for Pell Grants and student loans if they qualify through FAFSA just like any other student on campus.

[Leroy Lizard]

There are lots of things in life you can't get because other people are smarter, more talented, richer, and better looking than you. Why should the success in college football for the team you root for be any different.

Because the AA in NCAA stands for "AMATEUR ATHLETICS."

Go to a race track. There are rules for the size of the carburetors you can use on your engines. (Even high-dollar NASCAR has rules that limit what you can do to compete.) They're trying to create a competitive environment where you use mechanical skill and driving skill to win, not just $$$$.

How hard is this to understand?

[sooner_born_1960]

Athletic Association.

[Crucifax Autumn]

lmao

[Leroy Lizard]

Good catch. My point still stands.

[royalfan5]

Because the AA in NCAA stands for "AMATEUR ATHLETICS."

Go to a race track. There are rules for the size of the carburetors you can use on your engines. (Even high-dollar NASCAR has rules that limit what you can do to compete.) They're trying to create a competitive environment where you use mechanical skill and driving skill to win, not just $$$$.

How hard is this to understand?

I understand it, I just think it's a crock of ****.

[SoonerPr8r]

The reasoning behind it is that it is an advantage that an athlete has over other college students (with full rides or otherwise). AJ Green will get more for his jersey on ebay than I ever would from one of my old econ books.

They got their scholly on talent and hard work, much like a national merit scholar. But they don't get a stipend or people saying "just let them go pro". And if you say "but they have more time to work at a part time job than athletes." I knew some of these students with full rides that were trying for a 4.0 and they studied almost 24/7 to keep their standing and most of them bordered on having social disorders. They don't get to sell their shirt they wore when they aced their physics midterm for hundreds of dollars.

I am also not so naive to think that the NCAA is doing this to keep everything fair. I am just playing devils advocate and pointing out their reasoning.

[sooner_born_1960]

Hey, colleges are free to leave the NCAA and form another association. When they do, they'll have rules.

[Leroy Lizard]

Okay, so we open up the rules and now only five cars make it out to the races. The following week no fans show up because of the poor competition.

And that's a good thing?

Will this happen to college football? Yes. At some point, most programs will drop football because of the expenses. Now you're down to 20 teams and only able to play a handful of games each year.

The NFL has "crock of ****" rules too, like the draft.

[OU_Sooners75]

Isn't the NCAA a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust? It sure seems like it in the way they operate.

Ever hear of the NAIA? NJCAA? No, the NCAA is not violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

On the other hand though, they are making a lot of money without having to really do much. I think it is time the presidents of the schools to come together and revise the NCAA!

I am also in favor of the student athlete to be paid a share of the money they help generate... (you would figure slavery laws would be violated since they are only getting a free education out of the deal...hell some slave owners gave free education and housing too, but profited all the money the slaves brought in from their hard work)

I know the athletes already get a free ride to school (or at least some do), but what about spending money...why not give the kids a little spending money each semester since they are the ones out there performing bringing in the majority of the revenue for the college? $1500/semester seems fair...that is roughly $500/month.

[Leroy Lizard]

I am also not so naive to think that the NCAA is doing this to keep everything fair.

Then why are they doing it?

[royalfan5]

The reasoning behind it is that it is an advantage that an athlete has over other college students (with full rides or otherwise). AJ Green will get more for his jersey on ebay than I ever would from one of my old econ books.

They got their scholly on talent and hard work, much like a national merit scholar. But they don't get a stipend or people saying "just let them go pro". And if you say "but they have more time to work at a part time job than athletes." I knew some of these students with full rides that were trying for a 4.0 and they studied almost 24/7 to keep their standing and most of them bordered on having social disorders. They don't get to sell their shirt they wore when they aced their physics midterm for hundreds of dollars.

I am also not so naive to think that the NCAA is doing this to keep everything fair. I am just playing devils advocate and pointing out their reasoning.

Nobody is paying large amounts of money to watch a national merit scholar take a test. And if a National Merit Scholar is so advanced in his field that somebody wants to pay him a bunch of money to start working early, there aren't any restrictions on that. Why should the schools get to keep a much larger share of the money created by the athletes hard word?

[royalfan5]

Okay, so we open up the rules and now only five cars make it out to the races. The following week no fans show up because of the poor competition.

And that's a good thing?

Will this happen to college football? Yes. At some point, most programs will drop football because of the expenses. Now you're down to 20 teams and only able to play a handful of games each year.

The NFL has "crock of ****" rules too, like the draft.

Seems like the owners of the Nascar teams problem to me. So ****ing what if a bunch of schools can't afford a football program. Maybe those resources will be allocated to other things their student bodies find more useful.

[Leroy Lizard]

On the other hand though, they are making a lot of money without having to really do much. I think it is time the presidents of the schools to come together and revise the NCAA!

The NCAA is a non-profit. While it can accumulate revenue, the members cannot access the revenue for thieir own personal gain. So the point that the NCAA makes tons of money is moot.

And the NCAA is composed of the member institutions. So any money they send it is money they can't use on themselves. So the idea that the NCAA is greedy is ridiculous.


I am also in favor of the student athlete to be paid a share of the money they help generate... (you would figure slavery laws would be violated since they are only getting a free education out of the deal...hell some slave owners gave free education and housing too, but profited all the money the slaves brought in from their hard work)

Slavery was involuntary.

Paying players a stipend opens a big can of worms. Once players are paid, the NCAA's status as a non-profit becomes that much more questionable. The NCAA doesn't want to go there.


I know the athletes already get a free ride to school (or at least some do), but what about spending money...why not give the kids a little spending money each semester since they are the ones out there performing bringing in the majority of the revenue for the college? $1500/semester seems fair...that is roughly $500/month.

If they weren't getting a free scholarship, who would pay for their spending money?

They can get their spending money from their parents, like all the other kids who were not fortunate enough to earn a free scholarship.

[OU_Sooners75]

The NCAA is a non-profit. While it can accumulate revenue, the members cannot access the revenue for thieir own personal gain. So the point that the NCAA makes tons of money is moot.

And the NCAA is composed of the member institutions. So any money they send it is money they can't use on themselves. So the idea that the NCAA is greedy is ridiculous.

Slavery was involuntary.

Paying players a stipend opens a big can of worms. Once players are paid, the NCAA's status as a non-profit becomes that much more questionable. The NCAA doesn't want to go there.

If they weren't getting a free scholarship, who would pay for their spending money?

They can get their spending money from their parents, like all the other kids who were not fortunate enough to earn a free scholarship.

Slavery: is actually forced labor. it can be by way of ownership or by simply blackmailing a person to work for you without sufficient pay, but most slaves today are in dept so they work their way out of that debt.

The way I see it, the colleges and NCAA are making money from student athletes. yes, most of those athletes get a form of a scholarship to help pay for school...but that monie fails in comparison that the sports generate for each school (talking about D-1A schools).

Lets see here, a football player helps generate something to the order of 50 million from ticket sales, apparal sales, concession sales. Among other ways to generate money for the school. yet all they get is a 4-5 year pledge to pay for books and school that total maybe $40,000 in actual cost?

Then the said athlete must be approved to work to make money for he/she to spend. They cannot just go out and work for any company they want too. The jobs must be apporved by the compliance office. Lets not forget that a cousin can get the student athlete in trouble for giving them money. Distant family members giving the student athlete money is the same as a booster giving them money...even if they bleed the same blood.

If they do not have a job, then they have no spending money. Yet, if they sale a piece of their property, then they can get into trouble?

Doesn't really seem fair does it?

[Leroy Lizard]

Nobody is paying large amounts of money to watch a national merit scholar take a test. And if a National Merit Scholar is so advanced in his field that somebody wants to pay him a bunch of money to start working early, there aren't any restrictions on that.

Because national merit scholarship is not a competition.

Competition thrives when there are a large number of evenly matched participants. It dies when the numbers dwindle as expenses rise.

I remember a time when we used to field 60 cars a night at the supermodified races in California. Then came the desire to open the rules up and the Keith Black Hemis and Rodec big blocks started showing up. Expenses skyrocketed. What happened? Well, at one point, we had only 8 supermodifieds showing up for a main event.

Anyone that has had any involvement in sporting competitions understands the need for a level playing field.

[Leroy Lizard]

Slavery: is actually forced labor. it can be by way of ownership or by simply blackmailing a person to work for you without sufficient pay, but most slaves today are in dept so they work their way out of that debt.

The way I see it, the colleges and NCAA are making money from student athletes. yes, most of those athletes get a form of a scholarship to help pay for school...but that monie fails in comparison that the sports generate for each school (talking about D-1A schools).

Lets see here, a football player helps generate something to the order of 50 million from ticket sales, apparal sales, concession sales. Among other ways to generate money for the school. yet all they get is a 4-5 year pledge to pay for books and school that total maybe $40,000 in actual cost?


There are people who work for Apple who only make $40,000 a year, yet the company makes billions. Sounds like slavery.

[Leroy Lizard]

If they do not have a job, then they have no spending money. Yet, if they sale a piece of their property, then they can get into trouble?

Doesn't really seem fair does it?

I'll give you an example of unfair: The kid that was born with one leg shorter than the other can't get a scholarship to play basketball. So he doesn't get the rings to sell. Is that any more fair than the scenario you described?

These athletes are given free college educations simply because they can throw a ball or run fast. Others are denied. That is inherently unfair from the outset. So sorry if I can't shed a tear for their horrendous predicament.

[OU_Sooners75]

They can get their spending money from their parents, like all the other kids who were not fortunate enough to earn a free scholarship.


Lets not forget about the grey shirt student athletes or the walk-ons. They have to pay their own way to school. They work just as hard, if not harder than the full ride athletes, yet get no assistance from the school whatsoever. They are a member of the team are they not? They are bound by the same rules and regulations as those that get a free ride to school.

I know of non-athletic students that get free rides, and they can get money from anyone. They can go to work at any job while attending school. The only thing they have to do is maintain a certain GPA, while on that scholarship.

Doesnt really seem fair that a student that does not help generate money to the school gets it a lot easier than the student that helps generate millions.

[OU_Sooners75]

I'll give you an example of unfair: The kid that was born with one leg shorter than the other can't get a scholarship to play basketball. So he doesn't get the rings to sell. Is that any more fair than the scenario you described?

These athletes are given free college educations simply because they can throw a ball or run fast. Others are denied. That is inherently unfair from the outset. So sorry if I can't shed a tear for their horrendous predicament.

Again, liztard, there are students that get free rides thanks to academics that do not have to follow the same rules as the student athletes. They can go work for any company. They can sell anything of their property they wish. They can do all this while not having to be approved to work somewhere. They can do this with very little restrictions.

So if the short legged kid wants a free ride, then do so for academics. And all the while, let him/her know that a good portion of their schooling is being paid by the student athlete that gets that ring or hardware!

[Leroy Lizard]

Doesnt really seem fair that a student that does not help generate money to the school gets it a lot easier than the student that helps generate millions.

Are these academic scholarships? If so, then they are on campus for the right reasons.

If a student-athlete wants all those goodies, then they can work hard in school to get good grades and get an academic scholarship. The fact that they chose to concentrate on athletics was their decision, and they have to live with the consequences. (If earning a free education can really be considered a consequence.)

[Leroy Lizard]

So if the short legged kid wants a free ride, then do so for academics. And all the while, let him/her know that a good portion of their schooling is being paid by the student athlete that gets that ring or hardware!

Actually, that's not true on the vast majority of campuses. If anything, it's just the opposite.

[royalfan5]

Because national merit scholarship is not a competition.

Competition thrives when there are a large number of evenly matched participants. It dies when the numbers dwindle as expenses rise.

I remember a time when we used to field 60 cars a night at the supermodified races in California. Then came the desire to open the rules up and the Keith Black Hemis and Rodec big blocks started showing up. Expenses skyrocketed. What happened? Well, at one point, we had only 8 supermodifieds showing up for a main event.

Anyone that has had any involvement in sporting competitions understands the need for a level playing field.

The playing field isn't level now. The monetary benefits just flow into the pockets of people other than the competitors. Maybe the other 52 Supermodified racers should have got better, or the track should have paid better to keep racers coming if they really wanted 60 cars.

[OU_Sooners75]

Are these academic scholarships? If so, then they are on campus for the right reasons.

If a student-athlete wants all those goodies, then they can work hard in school to get good grades and get an academic scholarship. The fact that they chose to concentrate on athletics was their decision, and they have to live with the consequences. (If earning a free education can really be considered a consequence.)


So I am going to assume you think a lot of these student athletes actually think they are going to go pro...right?

Give me the percentage of football players on scholarship that go pro...then do the same for baseball, basketball, womens bb, wrestling, track, soccer, etc.

The percentage is very slim!

Lets see here...all student athletes have to have an acceptable GPA to attend school. they all must have an acceptable ACT/SAT score. They all must maintain a decent GPA while in school. They must follow the college rules for admission just as those that are not attending on an athletic scholarship....yet they have a lot more restrictions placed on them by the NCAA.

Seriously liztard what restrictions does an academic scholarship apply to the student? Maintain a certain GPA while receiving the scholarship? I am sure there may be a few more, but that is all I can think of right now.

I am not saying a student athlete should have an easier ride. What I am saying is that the student athlete should be given the same restrictions and freedoms as the academic scholar. If that is not possible then the NCAA should allow the school to give the student athlete some spending money at a set amount for each student athelete regardless of sport.

[OU_Sooners75]

Actually, that's not true on the vast majority of campuses. If anything, it's just the opposite.


Prove it.

A lot of the money generated by sports does in fact ease tensions for the schools.
Sure the smaller schools, the NAIA schools, the smaller endowment schools are not getting much help. But then again a lot of the smaller schools do not give free ride scholarships for sports.

But at schools like OU or Texas, even OSU, the money generated by sports does indeed help with academics.

[PMKMDJ]

The playing field isn't level now. The monetary benefits just flow into the pockets of people other than the competitors. Maybe the other 52 Supermodified racers should have got better, or the track should have paid better to keep racers coming if they really wanted 60 cars.

It's at least an attempt at being level. The NCAA is trying to be a commisioner of sorts. What some posters are suggesting is to run college athletics like Major League Baseball, whoever has the most $ gets the prize.

[Caboose]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5546259

AJ Green of Georgia suspended for selling his jersey. Georgia continues to sell AJ Green jerseys without having to compensate him.

I have no problem with this ruling.

[Leroy Lizard]

The playing field isn't level now. The monetary benefits just flow into the pockets of people other than the competitors.

That's true in just about every endeavor. Welcome to the real world.

But why make it worse? That's what I want to know.


Maybe the other 52 Supermodified racers should have got better, or the track should have paid better to keep racers coming if they really wanted 60 cars.

At this point, you're logic has completely broken down.

It is not a matter of getting better. It's money! Racing is super expensive. Even if you won every race you would barely make expenses. And tracks are hard-pressed to pay them more because as expenses rise, the track has to raise ticket prices, which lowers attendance.

I asked a race promoter one day how much they had to clear each year to remain in operation: He said $40,000. If the total revenue dropped below that, then the fairgrounds that allowed the track to operate would consider shutting it down. And every year the $40,000 limit was an issue.

So, just pay them more?

[OU_Sooners75]

There are people who work for Apple who only make $40,000 a year, yet the company makes billions. Sounds like slavery.

You apparently have no idea. But that is okay, we are talking about you liztard.

Apple also has a ton of money going to research and development, Employees, product costs, and any other costs they may have.

A State funded university like OU, they pay their employees through state money. They pay for almost all their products and costs through state funds.

But for OU to be competitive, the money they receive from Football, basketball, baseball, and other sports, goes to student athlete scholarships and general scholarships. It goes to the coaches and other faculty. And it goes to facility upgrades...yet they are still deep in the black when it comes to profits.

[Leroy Lizard]

Prove it.

You want proof?

http://www.jconline.com/article/20100825/SPORTS0201/8250322/Purdue-among-few-profitable-NCAA-athletic-programs


An NCAA report released Monday shows that just 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year.

Now can we put this to rest?





A lot of the money generated by sports does in fact ease tensions for the schools.
Sure the smaller schools, the NAIA schools, the smaller endowment schools are not getting much help. But then again a lot of the smaller schools do not give free ride scholarships for sports.

But at schools like OU or Texas, even OSU, the money generated by sports does indeed help with academics.

No, the money made by FOOTBALL makes a tidy profit, but once you pay for the expenses of the entire athletic department then things change rapidly.

[Leroy Lizard]

You apparently have no idea. But that is okay, we are talking about you liztard.

Apple also has a ton of money going to research and development, Employees, product costs, and any other costs they may have.

And college athletics doesn't have expenses?


An NCAA report released Monday shows that just 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year.

Too bad for your argument.

[royalfan5]

That's true in just about every endeavor. Welcome to the real world.

But why make it worse? That's what I want to know.



At this point, you're logic has completely broken down.

It is not a matter of getting better. It's money! Racing is super expensive. Even if you won every race you would barely make expenses. And tracks are hard-pressed to pay them more because as expenses rise, the track has to raise ticket prices, which lowers attendance.

I asked a race promoter one day how much they had to clear each year to remain in operation: He said $40,000. If the total revenue dropped below that, then the fairgrounds that allowed the track to operate would consider shutting it down. And every year the $40,000 limit was an issue.

So, just pay them more?

If you want to **** money away on an expensive hobby don't come crying to me if you are broke. If only a few people can afford to play that is the way it goes.

[Leroy Lizard]

If you want to **** money away on an expensive hobby don't come crying to me if you are broke.

The same applies to college athletics. If the players want to spend four years participating in their little hobby, they shouldn't go crying about living expenses. So why are you bitching about the NCAA?

[SoonerPr8r]

It's at least an attempt at being level. The NCAA is trying to be a commisioner of sorts. What some posters are suggesting is to run college athletics like Major League Baseball, whoever has the most $ gets the prize.
^ This

Had the new rules (or relaxing of some rules) resulted in the loss of only 4-7 lost racers then it wouldn't have mattered as much. There could still be decent competition and fans would still come and buy tickets and hot dogs.

Right now there are 120 FBS schools and arguably about 25 teams every year have a chance to make a BCS bowl or MNC (not participate but have a legit chance to play in one). How many different teams are actually on TV every year? Maybe 40% of the FBS schools? If the NCAA lost 20-30 schools off the bottom end because they couldn't compete monetarily there would still be enough competition that many programs would still fill their stadiums and the same 14 programs would make money off of college athletics (perhaps more).

However, if the NCAA opens the floodgates on the money issue with players the numbers would fall dramatically and you have an MLB situation in which the program with the deeper pockets get the crystal ball. Very few programs would have the donor support to compete with places like Michigan, ND, Texas and maybe even Oregon with their Nike ties.

[royalfan5]

The same applies to college athletics. If the players want to spend four years participating in their little hobby, they shouldn't go crying about living expenses. So why are you bitching about the NCAA?

Because they prevent the players from being able to fully exploit their earning abilities. Why should the NCAA and Schools get the cash, instead of the actual competitors?

[CobraKai]

First of all, I don't think jerseys are the property of the player.

Second of all, players are free to sell that which they own. And the NCAA is free to deny eligibility to the player if they wish.

Naturally, there are limits, but the NCAA writes the rules. And the reason for the rules is pretty clear.

Exactly. They are free to sell jerseys or do whatever they want. They just can't play NCAA sports any more. I have the right to freedom of speech, but if I call my boss an @#$% I may lose the privilege to work for my company. It does not change the fact that I can say whatever I want. I just have to restrain my right to free speech if I want the privilege of working for my company.

Another good point is the TBP angle. What if Tom Hicks or TBP offered an open order of $5,000 per autograph for 5 star recruits that attend OSU? How does TU compete? The problem is the spirit of the rule is easily broken if they do not establish draconian mandates.

That said, I hate the NCAA and think they are mostly commies.

[Crucifax Autumn]

That said, I hate the NCAA and think they are mostly commies.

Nope, commies distribute the wealth. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Because they prevent the players from being able to fully exploit their earning abilities. Why should the NCAA and Schools get the cash, instead of the actual competitors?

Nonsense. They players are free to band together and create their own league. The NCAA schools have sunk costs in goodwill, brand creation, facilities, and miscellaneous other goods. The fact that they extract rents because they created capital is generally more efficient than the alternative.

[Frozen Sooner]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5546259

AJ Green of Georgia suspended for selling his jersey. Georgia continues to sell AJ Green jerseys without having to compensate him.

Exactly how are these two things logically exclusive of each other?

[TexasLidig8r]

Because they prevent the players from being able to fully exploit their earning abilities. Why should the NCAA and Schools get the cash, instead of the actual competitors?

One of the many reasons is because the universities, at least the public ones, are supported by that state's tax payers.

Hypothetically, let's suppose you authorize football players to be paid a stipend.

Then.. well wait a second, under Title IX, an argument will be made that women athletes should be paid and of course, all athletes competing at that university need to be paid.

So, now you have a situation where the taxpayers of many states are going to be forced to up the ante, (or tuition will be increased that much more) to pay a stipend for all athletes. At the few schools who actually turn a profit, that may not be that bad, but, at the vast majority of schools whose athletic programs do not run in the black, that raises an entirely different issues.

In short, paying a stipend opens Pandora's box.

[rawlingsHOH]

The plight of the scholarship college athlete is extemely overstated. They get taken care of very well.

[Collier11]

I'm no lawyer, but I just can't see how the NCAA can legally prevent someone from selling their own property, be it a game jersey or championship ring or other memorabilia. .

Dont know if anyone else has replied to this since I havent read the entire thread but the answer is that the property is The University of Georgias, not AJ Greens.

I dislike the NCAA as much as the next guy but lets use common sense here

[Leroy Lizard]

Because they prevent the players from being able to fully exploit their earning abilities. Why should the NCAA and Schools get the cash, instead of the actual competitors?

Because it would be irresponsible of the NCAA to promote rule changes that hurt the organization (its member teams) as a whole. It's actually a very capitalist idea.

Suppose a racing team says, "We want to put roller rockers in our engines. We think we can win more races that way." However, the racing sponsoring organization says, "No, you cannot do that. Doing so would force other teams to do likewise, and the increased costs will hurt competition, which will in turn lower overall gate receipts."

The racing team can then decide to jump to another sponsoring organization, and they do so all the time. So players can jump to another organization, such as the NAIA, if they don't like the NCAA's rules. Nothing is stopping them.

[Collier11]

Plus, they are still technically amateurs

[royalfan5]

One of the many reasons is because the universities, at least the public ones, are supported by that state's tax payers.

Hypothetically, let's suppose you authorize football players to be paid a stipend.

Then.. well wait a second, under Title IX, an argument will be made that women athletes should be paid and of course, all athletes competing at that university need to be paid.

So, now you have a situation where the taxpayers of many states are going to be forced to up the ante, (or tuition will be increased that much more) to pay a stipend for all athletes. At the few schools who actually turn a profit, that may not be that bad, but, at the vast majority of schools whose athletic programs do not run in the black, that raises an entirely different issues.

In short, paying a stipend opens Pandora's box.

Maybe it needs to be opened?

[Collier11]

As much as I think Title IX can be counter productive, it is something that no one wants to mess with right now I dont think

[XingTheRubicon]

geez, how many times must we go over this...

You can apply this anywhere if you like:

When you have people lining up and fighting like h*ll to participate in something, you probably don't have a lot of bargaining power.

Also, if you don't agree with the "slavery conditions" with free room, travel, hotels, books, tuition, food, tutors, bowl gifts, etc....you can go flip burgers at Burger King and have a nice glass of stfu.

[Soonerfan88]

Because they prevent the players from being able to fully exploit their earning abilities. Why should the NCAA and Schools get the cash, instead of the actual competitors?

Why does the guy working for Apple or any other corporation not get to profit from his invention? In the corporate world you have intellectual property rules and in college athletics you have licensing and broadcast rules. Such is life and it's not always fair.

[Collier11]

^ This 100%

[Leroy Lizard]

Maybe it needs to be opened?

Oh yeah, that's a great way to get through life.

"Gee, they tell me that meth will ruin my life. Well, there is only one way to find out."

[Crucifax Autumn]

That's how I started doing tranny porn.

[Scott D]

Michigan probably has three times as many potential donors as OU. We cannot compete, no matter how much our alumni care.

And this is all silly anyway. Turning college football into pro football is bad and everyone knows it. So why are we even entertaining this idea?

I'd wager that Michigan has 3x as many big money donors than OU. Don't even need to bother with potential.

[Scott D]

Maybe it needs to be opened?

just because Nebraska's old walk-on program won't be coming back doesn't mean it's time to pay players.

[jkjsooner]

Nobody is paying large amounts of money to watch a national merit scholar take a test. And if a National Merit Scholar is so advanced in his field that somebody wants to pay him a bunch of money to start working early, there aren't any restrictions on that. Why should the schools get to keep a much larger share of the money created by the athletes hard word?

You guys are forgetting Title IX. Many athletic departments are in the red. They have to fund 85 female athletes just to make up for the football team.

I'd love to see a stipend given to players but the NCAA would require it to be uniform. You would have to 1) resolve the financial issues some athletic departments face (mainly due to Title IX requirements) and 2) probably pay all athletes (male and female) the same stipend.

Edit: I post this before reading Lid's post.

[Collier11]

which is why title IX needs to be amended since we all know that female sports hardly ever turn a profit

[bri]

they dont sell jerseys with his name on them. probably just his number.


First of all, I don't think jerseys are the property of the player.

Nope, the jerseys belong to the school. And while the replica and authentic jerseys they sell don't have the name, most schools DO sell off the game-worn jerseys after the season and the nameplates are usually still attached. Just ask the guys who bought a couple of Sam Bradford's game-worn jerseys with the nameplate and everything for $50 each at the spring sale this past year.

[bri]

which is why title IX needs to be amended since we all know that female sports hardly ever turn a profit

That's hardly fair; almost ALL sports hardly ever turn a profit, male or female. Even most schools' football programs operate in the red.

[Collier11]

Im saying in relation to what they could receive in a stipend, anyone with common sense knows that a girls golfer should in no way receive as much as a football player...IF there ever were stipends which I dont think there should be

[bri]

Why? It's a stipend to defray the cost of attending college, not profit sharing.

[Collier11]

I thought the level of a stipend that was being discussed here was due to the outrageous amounts of money the schools were making off of big time athletes when the athletes see none of it

[Leroy Lizard]

Nope, the jerseys belong to the school. And while the replica and authentic jerseys they sell don't have the name, most schools DO sell off the game-worn jerseys after the season and the nameplates are usually still attached. Just ask the guys who bought a couple of Sam Bradford's game-worn jerseys with the nameplate and everything for $50 each at the spring sale this past year.

$50 for a used jersey? Screw that.

[Collier11]

yea, Leroy is more interested in the used jock...sniff sniff

[Leroy Lizard]

Why? It's a stipend to defray the cost of attending college, not profit sharing.

Cost of attending college:

Books: Check!
Lodging : Check!
Tuition: Check!
Food: Check!
Condoms: Let them pay for their own entertainment.

[Leroy Lizard]

yea, Leroy is more interested in the used jock...sniff sniff

That was a good one. Even I have to admit that.

***-hole.

[bri]

I thought the level of a stipend that was being discussed here was due to the outrageous amounts of money the schools were making off of big time athletes when the athletes see none of it

There's absolutely NO way you could justify that. It'd get shredded in court.

Plus, I look at it like this: These "big time athletes" of which you speak DO see the money - once they leave school and go pro. Everyone wants to bemoan the schools & the NCAA for exploiting these poor doe-eyed kids, but don't think for a second the players aren't getting anything out of it. Most of these players pick the schools they do because they think/know it'll make their chances of getting drafted easier. It's a two-way street.

[Collier11]

Im not arguing against you, just explaining what I thought was being argued

[Leroy Lizard]

That's how I started doing tranny porn.

You do realize that my real name is Laurie, don't you?

[royalfan5]

Seriously folks, isn't this thread better than bitching about Politics? The price of corn was doing **** all today, and I needed the entertainment.

[Leroy Lizard]

The price of corn was doing **** all today, and I needed the entertainment.

Get your own tranny porn.

[royalfan5]

Get your own tranny porn.
Not on the work computers.

[Chuck Bao]

That guy from UGA was a dumbass. He could have very easily gone to a booster-owned pawn shop and sold his game-day jersey or his game-day jock strap with the clear understanding that it would be kept on the down low. No need for IRS or the NCAA or the school to find out about it.

I guess that most athletic departments actually keep an inventory and would or should notice if a lot of jerseys or jockstraps went missing. But I suppose the excuse that my girlfriend wanted to wear my jersey and my jockstrap would work a few times.

I also guess that schools are paying closer attention to scholarship players selling their textbooks. I can't remember which school was busted for that.

[Chuck Bao]

That guy from UGA was a dumbass. He could have very easily gone to a booster-owned pawn shop and sold his game-day jersey or his game-day jock strap with the clear understanding that it would be kept on the down low. No need for IRS or the NCAA or the school to find out about it.

I guess that most athletic departments actually keep an inventory and would or should notice if a lot of jerseys or jockstraps went missing. But I suppose the excuse that my girlfriend wanted to wear my jersey and my jockstrap would work a few times.

I also guess that schools are paying closer attention to scholarship players selling their textbooks. I can't remember which school was busted for that.

[Leroy Lizard]

That guy from UGA was a dumbass. He could have very easily gone to a booster-owned pawn shop and sold his game-day jersey or his game-day jock strap with the clear understanding that it would be kept on the down low. No need for IRS or the NCAA or the school to find out about it.

Exactly how do you find a booster-owned pawn shop? Is there a directory?


I guess that most athletic departments actually keep an inventory and would or should notice if a lot of jerseys or jockstraps went missing. But I suppose the excuse that my girlfriend wanted to wear my jersey and my jockstrap would work a few times.

I also guess that schools are paying closer attention to scholarship players selling their textbooks. I can't remember which school was busted for that.

Bama

[Chuck Bao]

Exactly how do you find a booster-owned pawn shop? Is there a directory?

In Oklahoma? Seriously? You don't need a directory. They'll deal in all things Sooner football related. I personally know several pawn shop owners that are big Sooner fans. The price may not be as good as you could get on eBay, but you'd avoid some of the complications of an open public bidding system.

[Rickety_Syd]

If you're afraid of an arms race you're missing the point. These kids can't even get an effing JOB. They're only allowed to make so much money. At no other time in their lives will they be punished so severly for going out and taking advantage of our capitalist(ish) system.

Yeah, I wish I was "punished" like Mr. Green when I was in college . . . free tuition, free books, free food, endless free merchandise for making a bowl game, an enormous NFL paycheck in the near future . . . :rolleyes:

[prrriiide]

Isn't the NCAA a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust? It sure seems like it in the way they operate.


Agoo: Some people certainly think so.

Namely, the US Supreme Court:



U.S. Supreme Court

NCAA v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF OKLA., 468 U.S. 85 (1984)

468 U.S. 85
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 83-271.

Argued March 20, 1984
Decided June 27, 1984


...Held: The NCAA's television plan violates 1 of the Sherman Act. Pp. 98-120...

...JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia contend that the National Collegiate Athletic Association has unreasonably restrained trade in the televising of college football games. After an extended trial, the District Court found that the NCAA had violated 1 of the Sherman Act 1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=468&invol=85#f1)and granted injunctive relief. 546 F. Supp. 1276 (WD Okla. 1982). The Court of Appeals agreed that the statute had been violated but modified the remedy in some respects. 707 F.2d 1147 (CA10 1983). We granted certiorari, 464 U.S. 913 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=464&invol=913)(1983), and now affirm.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=468&invol=85

This is the best reason I can think of to implement the super-conferences and render the NCAA obsolete.

[ashley]

Like it or not you cannot sell anything bought with State money. What should be the punishment? I don't know. The NCAA may order 100 yrs. of hard labor.

[bri]

Um, the state ain't paying for them uniforms. Nike provides & pays the school to wear 'em. I mean, do you think anyone actually ordered those fug Pro Combat unis?

[Leroy Lizard]

In Oklahoma? Seriously? You don't need a directory. They'll deal in all things Sooner football related. I personally know several pawn shop owners that are big Sooner fans. The price may not be as good as you could get on eBay, but you'd avoid some of the complications of an open public bidding system.

"Big Sooner fan" does not equal "booster." I imagine most pawn shop owners have little interest in floating illegal benefits to players.

[Leroy Lizard]

Um, the state ain't paying for them uniforms. Nike provides & pays the school to wear 'em. I mean, do you think anyone actually ordered those fug Pro Combat unis?

Whether purchased or donated it makes no difference.

[Leroy Lizard]

Namely, the US Supreme Court:



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=468&invol=85

This is the best reason I can think of to implement the super-conferences and render the NCAA obsolete.

The NCAA's tv contracts were a violation of anti-trust laws, not the organization.

And if you want power gone mad, wait until the superconference idea takes hold. We'll be longing for the days of the NCAA.

[Collier11]

I dont see how any fan of CFB can possibly think the Super Conferences is a good idea?

[Mississippi Sooner]

Namely, the US Supreme Court:



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=468&invol=85

This is the best reason I can think of to implement the super-conferences and render the NCAA obsolete.

That's the very case I was alluding to early in this thread. A precedent, of sorts, has already been set. All it takes is someone to bow up and take that first step. However, that would truly be opening the ultimate Pandora's box.

[Scott D]

You guys are forgetting Title IX. Many athletic departments are in the red. They have to fund 85 female athletes just to make up for the football team.

I'd love to see a stipend given to players but the NCAA would require it to be uniform. You would have to 1) resolve the financial issues some athletic departments face (mainly due to Title IX requirements) and 2) probably pay all athletes (male and female) the same stipend.

Edit: I post this before reading Lid's post.

Title IX is just a convenient excuse for schools to eliminate non money making mens sports.

[Leroy Lizard]

I dont see how any fan of CFB can possibly think the Super Conferences is a good idea?

It's called "short-sighted solutions to a problem with no thought of the consequences." They tend to be pro-playoff nuts too.

[prrriiide]

That's the very case I was alluding to early in this thread. A precedent, of sorts, has already been set. All it takes is someone to bow up and take that first step. However, that would truly be opening the ultimate Pandora's box.

Correct.

The NCAA needs to be replaced by an organization that:
1) adheres to legal standards of discovery and evidence,
2) adheres to legal standards of due process,
3) applies the rules and metes out punishment in a uniform manner and with predetermined criteria,
4) can petition the courts for subpoena power on a case-by-case basis, and 5) can enter into working agreements with the various professional sports leagues to ensure that the rules are upheld by both athletes and agents.


Apple also has a ton of money going to research and development, Employees, product costs, and any other costs they may have.

So does the University of Oklahoma, and it isn't all taxpayer money. You know those National Merit Scholars? How many of them get to keep patents or lay claim to intellectual property created while at OU? If a student in the mechanical engineering department, using university resources, creates something or a process with great value, the University holds the patent, not the student. Even more egregiously, that student can never lay claim to that patent after graduation and reap the financial benefits. That's like the university laying claim to the athlete's future professional earnings because they honed their talent and craft using university resources.

1) The athletes pay NO tuition
2) The athletes do not pay rent
3) The athletes do not pay for books
4) The athletes have access the best healthcare possible (remember why it was called Godless Health Center?)
5)The athletes do not pay for academic tutoring from accomplished students in the respective fields
6) The athletes are techically eligible for work-study if they need a little extra walking around money
7) If they choose to get a straight up job, employers are lined up around the block to hire them regardless of experience or aptitude
8) The athletes have access to a world-class training facility and some of the best trainers and sports medicine people available
9) The athletes aren't denied the fruits of their labors after graduation, which are FAR more substantial than anything they could hope to garner as a student-athlete

Seems to me the athletes are getting a pretty sweet deal.

[ashley]

Um, the state ain't paying for them uniforms. Nike provides & pays the school to wear 'em. I mean, do you think anyone actually ordered those fug Pro Combat unis?

They are still state property. Nitpicking maybe, but true.

[prrriiide]

Originally Posted by Collier11 http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2944496#post2944496)
I dont see how any fan of CFB can possibly think the Super Conferences is a good idea?
It's called "short-sighted solutions to a problem with no thought of the consequences." They tend to be pro-playoff nuts too.

Super-conferences and CFB aren't mutually exclusive. The super-conferences are a good idea if done right. If it's just for the money and not to foster better competition and higher acheivement then it's a bad idea. If you get 6 or 8 conferences of 16 teams, and those 96 or 128 teams pull out of the NCAA in order to establish a governing body that is superior in terms of equity and non-bias to the NCAA, then I say go for it. I'm no fan of the NCAA, but as of right now it's the best we've got. I don't think it's the best that can be done. However, the likelihood of getting 96 or 128 schools to dump the NCAA and agree to the respective super-conference charters and all agree on the rules of the new governing body and agree on revenue issues and agree on championship format are somewhere south of no way in hell.

Playoffs aren't a bad idea if done right. Playoffs and bowls can co-exist very nicely. Playoffs can incorporate the bowls and make them higher revenue earners. Again, like the NCAA, I don't think the BCS is the best that can be done in determining a CFB NC.

[Leroy Lizard]

Correct.

The NCAA needs to be replaced by an organization that:
1) adheres to legal standards of discovery and evidence,
2) adheres to legal standards of due process,
3) applies the rules and metes out punishment in a uniform manner and with predetermined criteria,
4) can petition the courts for subpoena power on a case-by-case basis, and 5) can enter into working agreements with the various professional sports leagues to ensure that the rules are upheld by both athletes and agents.

Impossible. Even if you could somehow wrangle public universities to open their records, you could never do it to private schools like USC. The NCAA has about as much power as a private organization can have over its member institutions.


So does the University of Oklahoma, and it isn't all taxpayer money. You know those National Merit Scholars? How many of them get to keep patents or lay claim to intellectual property created while at OU? If a student in the mechanical engineering department, using university resources, creates something or a process with great value, the University holds the patent, not the student. Even more egregiously, that student can never lay claim to that patent after graduation and reap the financial benefits.

I see nothing egregious about this at all. The university should own the patents and all rights to the inventions.


That's like the university laying claim to the athlete's future professional earnings because they honed their talent and craft using university resources.

No, that isn't anything like that. The university doesn't lay claim to the earnings of its engineering students once they graduate.

[Leroy Lizard]

Playoffs and bowls can co-exist very nicely.


We disagree here, but let's not go into it. We've beaten that horse to death.

[bri]

They are still state property. Nitpicking maybe, but true.

Hey, preaching to the choir. I'm just making sure everyone is operating with the correct facts in this. 'Cause I love wasting time. :D

[Collier11]

It's called "short-sighted solutions to a problem with no thought of the consequences." They tend to be pro-playoff nuts too.

I dont see near as many bad things coming from a playoff as I do super conferences




Super-conferences and CFB aren't mutually exclusive. The super-conferences are a good idea if done right. If it's just for the money and not to foster better competition and higher acheivement then it's a bad idea. If you get 6 or 8 conferences of 16 teams, and those 96 or 128 teams pull out of the NCAA in order to establish a governing body that is superior in terms of equity and non-bias to the NCAA, then I say go for it. I'm no fan of the NCAA, but as of right now it's the best we've got. I don't think it's the best that can be done. However, the likelihood of getting 96 or 128 schools to dump the NCAA and agree to the respective super-conference charters and all agree on the rules of the new governing body and agree on revenue issues and agree on championship format are somewhere south of no way in hell.

Playoffs aren't a bad idea if done right. Playoffs and bowls can co-exist very nicely. Playoffs can incorporate the bowls and make them higher revenue earners. Again, like the NCAA, I don't think the BCS is the best that can be done in determining a CFB NC.

Super conferences would end all of the charm of college football. You would have 3 loss teams winning all the conferences, teams playing for the title with 3 and 4 losses...no way jose