Adrian Peterson has no problem with Johnny Manziel getting paid for autographs

[agoo758]

Nor should anyone with half a brain in their head.........


http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp13/story/_/id/9571956/adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings-thinks-johnny-manziel-other-players-able-profit-name

Should the NCAA allow college football players such as Johnny Manziel to get paid? Minnesota Vikings star running back Adrian Peterson thinks so.

“
Peterson The universities are making a lot of money off of student-athletes in general. So, yeah, he should be able to make money. I think so.
”
-- Adrian Peterson onJohnny Manziel

Peterson told FOXSports.com on Thursday that Manziel and other players should be allowed to make money off their own name.

"I think so," Peterson told FOXSports.com. "The universities are making a lot of money off of student-athletes in general. So, yeah, he should be able to make money. I think so. They make millions off of these college athletes and they made millions off of the guys I played with as well. Yeah, he should be getting paid."

Texas A&M University System chancellor John Sharp also said he believes college athletes should be allowed to earn money.

"I also think that there's something, you know this is just me talking not as chancellor of the system, something is wrong with the system when we can make money off of our football players, the NCAA make money off of our football players and they can't be treated like Olympic athletes," Sharp said in an interview with NBC 5's Chris Van Horne on Thursday.

Manziel, who became the first freshman to win the Heisman last year, is being investigated by the NCAA. ESPN has reported it is for possibly receiving payment from memorabilia brokers for signing autographs in Florida, Connecticut and Texas this year. If he is found to have been paid for signing, it could compromise his amateur status and put his eligibility at risk.

Peterson, a three-year standout at Oklahoma from 2004-06, said he doesn't see any issue with Manziel profiting off his own name.

"I think if you are in a position to where people want to pay you for your autographs or signatures, then you should be able to do that," Peterson told FOXSports.com. "He's a young man and he should be able to sign his name on a helmet or wherever without it being an issue."

[ouflak]

I have no problem with it either. It's only fair. But the rules are the rules. Frankly, I wouldn't be sad if it turns into a big legal battle and Manziel wins, opening the rightful opportunity for all athletes to profit from their own efforts.

[Widescreen]

Except that from then on, we'd have to hear about the Johnny Football Rules. I'd rather it be someone else.

[jkjsooner]

Nor should anyone with half a brain in their head.........

I beg to differ. Only the mental midgets don't see the issues with allowing players to profit off of their identities while competing in intercollegiate athletics.

One of the primary purposes of the NCAA is to promote fair athletic competitions.

Allowing a player to sell autographs opens up a huge loophole for corruption. If allowed to do so without consequences, boosters would absolutely be willing to pay obscene amounts for autographs in an attempt to secure a player's services. This would have a corrosive effect on college sports.

To counter this NCAA would have to take steps. One would be to require a "fair market value" for an autograph - something the NCAA couldn't possible determine or enforce. This also brings up the issue that the "fair market value" for a player at UT is always going to be higher than it would be for the same player at TCU - creating a greater incentive for players to go to name brand schools.

Alternatively the NCAA could set a maximum value for each autograph but again booster clubs would simply set up autograph parties and the larger universities with more boosters would be at a tremendous advantage.

In either of the two rules scenarios listed above (fair market value or maximum per autograph), the NCAA would have to limit the number of autographs a single individual (read booster) could sign or these rules would be powerless.

The only possible way to do it that wouldn't create an unfair advantage would be to set a maximum amount per autograph and a maximum total amount per year a player could obtain. These values would have to be low enough so that it didn't create a competitive advantage. Everything would have to be reported to the NCAA for tracking purposes. I could go for this although it wouldn't be without problems:

1. Boosters at school like OU could still send a message to recruits by making sure every scholarship football player (and maybe walk-ons) reached the maximum autograph income threshold. Smaller schools with fewer boosters could not make this promise.

2. This would not at all satisfy the Manziel's of the world who feel that they are entitled to make as much money as they can. (And for those who would agree with Manziel, go back the re-read the beginning of this post.)


One last point, many of you are the same people who complain about the size of the NCAA rules book. Well, guess what, it just got a hell of a lot bigger.

[jkjsooner]

But, anyway, I don't expect those "profit off their names" guys to counter any of the points I made. Whether it be on message boards or new articles, those who push for this never have any comeback when presented with the unintended consequences of their ideas. It's all hit and run with you guys.

Meanwhile, those on my side of the argument always willing to counter the simplistic and short-sighted arguments made by those on your side.

I guess that kind of tells the story about who is right and who is wrong...

[badger]

It seems that this would all be solved if teens were given a league they could make money in until the NFL and other pro leagues let them be eligible... or, the NFL could just lower their age/grad class requirement.

Why is the burden on the college game to change for football just because college football's popular. Why isn't the burden on pro football leagues to open themselves up for younger talent that wants to get paid and give up amateur status earlier than three-years-removed-from-high-school (or whatever the requirement is now for Neffel).

[Widescreen]

But, anyway, I don't expect those "profit off their names" guys to counter any of the points I made. Whether it be on message boards or new articles, those who push for this never have any comeback when presented with the unintended consequences of their ideas. It's all hit and run with you guys.

Meanwhile, those on my side of the argument always willing to counter the simplistic and short-sighted arguments made by those on your side.

I guess that kind of tells the story about who is right and who is wrong...
I was pretty much with you on your previous post. Your arguments are valid. And then you ruined it with this condescending and arrogant post.

[jkjsooner]

It seems that this would all be solved if teens were given a league they could make money in until the NFL and other pro leagues let them be eligible... or, the NFL could just lower their age/grad class requirement.

Why is the burden on the college game to change for football just because college football's popular. Why isn't the burden on pro football leagues to open themselves up for younger talent that wants to get paid and give up amateur status earlier than three-years-removed-from-high-school (or whatever the requirement is now for Neffel).

Agree.

However, you said "given a league they could make money in." If such a thing was possible the NFL or someone else would have already created it.

Any professional or semi-professional league would be viewed the same as all similar leagues we've had in the past. The public would view it as an inferior product just like the USFL, NBADL, CBA, minor league baseball, etc. It wouldn't matter that those teams might be superior to college teams.

The teams would not be profitable. The players would not be anywhere as marketable.

It's just the way we view sports in the U.S. We forgive the fact that college football teams are inferior in every single way to NFL teams because they're our universities. We went to school there. Our grandpa's rooted for them.

And that gets back to the fact that most college players are not marketable without the association with the schools...



There's one more issue with a minor league of football. It's really hard to tell out of high school which players will ultimately be NFL caliber. The same is true for baseball but baseball has a huge minor league system. Any minor league would be much smaller than D1 football. How would you decide which high school guys are good enough to play in this minor league? It would be difficult to say the least.

[jkjsooner]

I was pretty much with you on your previous post. Your arguments are valid. And then you ruined it with this condescending and arrogant post.

Well, I'm not the one who started this thread with the "half a brain" comment.

Maybe I've become too obsessed with this but go to any comment thread in any related ESPN article and you'll see what I'm talking about. You have 100 guys with their own condescending attitudes saying the NCAA is criminal and players should be able to make money on their names. When presented with well reasoned arguments to the contrary, they just disappear.

It is what it is. I call it as I see it. It's clear to me that most of those who favor either paying players or allowing them to profit off their names are the ones who haven't really given the issue much thought. If they had they would stay around to defend their stance.

And, yes, I know comments on articles are often hit and run by nature but I've seen one side stay and make their case a lot more than the other...

[jkjsooner]

On more thing, I'm not at all happy that AD said this. I respect his opinion (although it is not well thought out) but saying this only draws attention to OU. Plenty of 'Horns are already using this as evidence that Peterson was paid to play at OU.

I also read on Shaggy Bevo that Peterson was also involved with the Big Red Sports scandal. Are they just making that up?

[badger]

I also read on Shaggy Bevo that Peterson was also involved with the Big Red Sports scandal. Are they just making that up?

Whorn could have also been referring to that car incident, where AD suddenly showed up at football practice with a new car one day (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.espn.go.com%2Fncf%2Fnews%2 Fstory%3Fid%3D2413962&ei=mUMOUuTgFfGK2QWFzoGICw&usg=AFQjCNGhML3FvkK2DxIVP1QOzJyYt074ww&sig2=AJLf1mKBYoZ_L71MzrMKGg&bvm=bv.50768961,d.b2I), and the media was like WTF. As the linked article states, the NCAA found nothing wrong, and AD did end up returning the car.

I don't have any links, but I do recall that when Maurice Clarett was battling the NFL for early entrance, AD was one of the athletes speaking out in favor of Clarett's take. However, unlike others, he and other college-eligible standouts were not dumb enough to hire agents and try to enter the draft (unlike that USC receiver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Williams_%28wide_receiver,_born_1984%29)) after the lower court's initial ruling in Clarett's favor.

So, AD's take on Johnny doesn't surprise me, but don't take it the wrong way --- AD is on the side of the athletes, but that doesn't mean he ever acted on his anti-NCAA feelings.

PS: I'm deleting the open records part, because AD's name never should have been on the Open Records, nor should have anyone else's. I'm fairly sure they're referring to AD's mystery car

[jkjsooner]

Whorn could have also been referring to that car incident, where AD suddenly showed up at football practice with a new car one day (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.espn.go.com%2Fncf%2Fnews%2 Fstory%3Fid%3D2413962&ei=mUMOUuTgFfGK2QWFzoGICw&usg=AFQjCNGhML3FvkK2DxIVP1QOzJyYt074ww&sig2=AJLf1mKBYoZ_L71MzrMKGg&bvm=bv.50768961,d.b2I), and the media was like WTF. As the linked article states, the NCAA found nothing wrong, and AD did end up returning the car.

A couple of guys said AD was paid for work he didn't perform just like Bomar. They said Bomar got the boot because he sucked and AD was protected. They did mention the car thing but it was separate.

BTW, Bomar didn't suck except maybe for all the fumbled snaps in the UCLA game. The guy played behind a very weak offensive line. Any QB we had was going to struggle that year.


So, AD's take on Johnny doesn't surprise me, but don't take it the wrong way --- AD is on the side of the athletes, but that doesn't mean he ever acted on his anti-NCAA feelings.

I agree but the more you make these arguments the worse it looks. I'm probably being too sensitive on this particular issue though.

That being said, it looks horrible for the A&M chancellor to come out and say players should be able to be paid for autographs. Not a good PR move...

[badger]

A couple of guys said AD was paid for work he didn't perform just like Bomar. They said Bomar got the boot because he sucked and AD was protected. They did mention the car thing but it was separate.

I have reason to think that AD was employed outside the university during at least part of his football career at OU, but that is not to say that he accepted money without working. But, I don't expect anything to be done or any big unveiling, at least for another 10 years or so --- statute of limitation is 15 years, if I recall my Switzer/Sims talks :)

[stoopified]

College football IS NOT A JOB,YOU WANNA GET PAID? Quit school and get a job.

[agoo758]

I beg to differ. Only the mental midgets don't see the issues with allowing players to profit off of their identities while competing in intercollegiate athletics.

One of the primary purposes of the NCAA is to promote fair athletic competitions.

Allowing a player to sell autographs opens up a huge loophole for corruption. If allowed to do so without consequences, boosters would absolutely be willing to pay obscene amounts for autographs in an attempt to secure a player's services. This would have a corrosive effect on college sports.

As is, NCAA has the ability to wreck athletic programs and student athletes lives if they make one dime off of ANYTHING with their name on it while at the same time rake in millions by doing the same thing. How does that not have a "corrosive effect on college sports"?

Who would this create enough of an unfair advantage that players should be thrown out of schools for it? You are arguing that lives should be destroyed because athletes at Wyoming Tech State can't do what athletes at Texas A&M can.



To counter this NCAA would have to take steps. One would be to require a "fair market value" for an autograph - something the NCAA couldn't possible determine or enforce. This also brings up the issue that the "fair market value" for a player at UT is always going to be higher than it would be for the same player at TCU - creating a greater incentive for players to go to name brand schools.



Alternatively the NCAA could set a maximum value for each autograph but again booster clubs would simply set up autograph parties and the larger universities with more boosters would be at a tremendous advantage.

Or the NCAA can just mind their own damn business and let people do what they want with their own money because neither you or the NCAA have convinced us that athletes selling anything with their name on it would be harmful to anyone except the NCAA and their profits................


In either of the two rules scenarios listed above (fair market value or maximum per autograph), the NCAA would have to limit the number of autographs a single individual (read booster) could sign or these rules would be powerless.

The only possible way to do it that wouldn't create an unfair advantage would be to set a maximum amount per autograph and a maximum total amount per year a player could obtain. These values would have to be low enough so that it didn't create a competitive advantage. Everything would have to be reported to the NCAA for tracking purposes. I could go for this although it wouldn't be without problems:

1. Boosters at school like OU could still send a message to recruits by making sure every scholarship football player (and maybe walk-ons) reached the maximum autograph income threshold. Smaller schools with fewer boosters could not make this promise.

2. This would not at all satisfy the Manziel's of the world who feel that they are entitled to make as much money as they can. (And for those who would agree with Manziel, go back the re-read the beginning of this post.

And what is your obsession with limits? You can argue that all these limitations as far as scholarships have hurt athletes more than helped, such as creating a culture of Greyshirting and oversigning in the SEC, which has been FAR more damaging to athletes than Johnny Manziel selling some autohraphs.

[agoo758]

But, anyway, I don't expect those "profit off their names" guys to counter any of the points I made. Whether it be on message boards or new articles, those who push for this never have any comeback when presented with the unintended consequences of their ideas. It's all hit and run with you guys.

Meanwhile, those on my side of the argument always willing to counter the simplistic and short-sighted arguments made by those on your side.

I guess that kind of tells the story about who is right and who is wrong...


Is this a good example of a "simplistic and short sighted" article you've read?

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21582280-student-athletes-seek-cut-their-sports-profits-basket-cases



As for you.... all your doing is copying and pasting NCAA's talking points.

[agoo758]

College football IS NOT A JOB,YOU WANNA GET PAID? Quit school and get a job.

You obviously have never trained a day in your life......

[EatLeadCommie]

I beg to differ. Only the mental midgets don't see the issues with allowing players to profit off of their identities while competing in intercollegiate athletics.

One of the primary purposes of the NCAA is to promote fair athletic competitions.

Allowing a player to sell autographs opens up a huge loophole for corruption. If allowed to do so without consequences, boosters would absolutely be willing to pay obscene amounts for autographs in an attempt to secure a player's services. This would have a corrosive effect on college sports.

To counter this NCAA would have to take steps. One would be to require a "fair market value" for an autograph - something the NCAA couldn't possible determine or enforce. This also brings up the issue that the "fair market value" for a player at UT is always going to be higher than it would be for the same player at TCU - creating a greater incentive for players to go to name brand schools.

Alternatively the NCAA could set a maximum value for each autograph but again booster clubs would simply set up autograph parties and the larger universities with more boosters would be at a tremendous advantage.

In either of the two rules scenarios listed above (fair market value or maximum per autograph), the NCAA would have to limit the number of autographs a single individual (read booster) could sign or these rules would be powerless.

The only possible way to do it that wouldn't create an unfair advantage would be to set a maximum amount per autograph and a maximum total amount per year a player could obtain. These values would have to be low enough so that it didn't create a competitive advantage. Everything would have to be reported to the NCAA for tracking purposes. I could go for this although it wouldn't be without problems:

1. Boosters at school like OU could still send a message to recruits by making sure every scholarship football player (and maybe walk-ons) reached the maximum autograph income threshold. Smaller schools with fewer boosters could not make this promise.

2. This would not at all satisfy the Manziel's of the world who feel that they are entitled to make as much money as they can. (And for those who would agree with Manziel, go back the re-read the beginning of this post.)


One last point, many of you are the same people who complain about the size of the NCAA rules book. Well, guess what, it just got a hell of a lot bigger.

100% spot on. I'm surprised more people don't see this obvious problem.

[LRoss]

This is a thorny and complicated issue with many potential consequences, intended and otherwise, that are sure to result from any policy or course of action. Of course there are extremely intelligent and well informed people on both "sides" of the issue.

And this may be the one post that everybody agrees to hate.

[jkjsooner]

And what is your obsession with limits? You can argue that all these limitations as far as scholarships have hurt athletes more than helped, such as creating a culture of Greyshirting and oversigning in the SEC, which has been FAR more damaging to athletes than Johnny Manziel selling some autohraphs.

For starters, I don't want T Boone Pickens buying all the good players. As far as I know we don't have boosters who can and are willing to match what Pickens can do. Even if we did, that would hardly be a fair way to conduct collegiate athletics.

As for scholarship limits (which I'm assuming you're referencing), there was a day when schools like OU and Bama would give a kid who may never play a scholarship just so the competition couldn't have him. That's not good for anyone.

BTW, I've been extremely critical of the NCAA and schools on the greyshirting and oversigning matters. I think all scholarships should be at least four years short of some disciplinary problem. I'd love to see schools be allowed to provide addition years of scholarships for ex-players. As for greyshirting and oversigning, they tried to address it but the schools voted against it. Ironically, some of the little liberal arts schools with no recognizable athletic identities were the most against more regulation in these areas. I didn't understand that either. Anyway, you're preaching to the choir on that issue...

[jkjsooner]

As for you.... all your doing is copying and pasting NCAA's talking points.

I have never copied and pasted any talking point. Every thought I've had has been entirely my own and these things came to my mind the first time I ever heard someone arguing about players making money off of tickets, autographs, whatever was the issue back then.

Maybe it seems far fetched to you but some of use can connect the dots on our own. When I see a rule the first thing I do is try to determine the reasoning behind the rule. It's really not that hard to do if you've followed college sports for decades and have seen how boosters can and will corrupt anything they possibly can.

As for NCAA's talking points, if it wasn't for competitive balance and fairness, why the hell would the NCAA care if a kid sold his autographs? Universities aren't for the most part competing in that area.

If it really was just about protecting profits, the NCAA wouldn't care a bit about this nor would they care if a booster gave a kid $100k. Trying to control this is simply an expense for the NCAA. They care about it because they care about keeping a fair and level playing field.

As I said before, I have often been critical of things the NCAA has done. This isn't one of them.

[jkjsooner]

Is this a good example of a "simplistic and short sighted" article you've read?

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21582280-student-athletes-seek-cut-their-sports-profits-basket-cases



As for you.... all your doing is copying and pasting NCAA's talking points.

There was nothing new or surprising in that article. I will point out the following:


but most institutions do not earn enough to cover the costs of their sports programmes.

In fact, I believe it's only 17 institutions that did turn a profit last year and many of those get subsidies from their state governments.

If you really have a beef then you need to take it up with congress and have them amend Title IX. I'd actually be on your side on that one. While I love having equal access, the colleges need the revenue from the major sports (mostly men's sports). Congress needs to recognize that the health of these revenue generating sports is vital to supporting the other sports and give athletic departments a little leeway for everyone's good. If they allowed that you could possible give a decent stipend to athletes of revenue producing sports.

[jkjsooner]

You obviously have never trained a day in your life......

What the heck does this mean. Many of us played high school sports. We ran our share of wind sprints, lifted our share of weights, puked our share of times. None of us got paid for it.

I know the time commitment is nowhere near the collegiate level but nobody is forcing a kid to play college sports. If it's not enjoyable to him, if he doesn't value the education, if the girls aren't enough then quit.

Frankly, if it seems too much like a job, the kid probably shouldn't be playing the sport. Most guys don't make it to the top of their sport unless they get a rush from playing and training for their sport. (not saying everything is fun or a walk in the park)

[ouflak]

To counter this NCAA would have to take steps. One would be to require a "fair market value" for an autograph - something the NCAA couldn't possible determine or enforce. This also brings up the issue that the "fair market value" for a player at UT is always going to be higher than it would be for the same player at TCU - creating a greater incentive for players to go to name brand schools.

Alternatively the NCAA could set a maximum value for each autograph but again booster clubs would simply set up autograph parties and the larger universities with more boosters would be at a tremendous advantage.


It is interesting that you bring up this particular point. One of the lawsuits has pointed out that in fact the NCAA has violated anti-trust laws by purposely setting the value of the athlete's likenesses to zero (via NCAA restrictions and regulations), and then themselves selling those likenesses for profit. This case is the reason you are starting to see the NCAA, EA sports and several conferences run for cover and get out of all these long-running business deals. The game is about up and they know it.

If this does become a legal battle, it will be interesting to see if there isn't a ruling that the NCAA is not likewise violating those same anti-trust laws by setting the value of an athletes profitability (via autographs and memorabilia and ability to hold a job) to zero whilst the schools, conferences and networks make loads of money off of the same results of athletes' efforts.

[jkjsooner]

It is interesting that you bring up this particular point. One of the lawsuits has pointed out that in fact the NCAA has violated anti-trust laws by purposely setting the value of the athlete's likenesses to zero (via NCAA restrictions and regulations), and then themselves selling those likenesses for profit. This case is the reason you are starting to see the NCAA, EA sports and several conferences run for cover and get out of all these long-running business deals. The game is about up and they know it.

If this does become a legal battle, it will be interesting to see if there isn't a ruling that the NCAA is not likewise violating those same anti-trust laws by setting the value of an athletes profitability (via autographs and memorabilia and ability to hold a job) to zero whilst the schools, conferences and networks make loads of money off of the same results of athletes' efforts.

The game may be up but the result is that you'll stop seeing numbered jerseys and licensing deals with video game makers. The schools don't make much off of either anyway.

I'd be fine with EA Sports paying a percent to every player that is represented in their games - even retroactively. Since all teams are there it would be fair and wouldn't cause any competitive advantage.


I'm not a lawyer but it appears to me that the combination of anti-trust and sports is a tricky business. Sports leagues, whether professional or amateur, have a vested interest in creating parity. All sports leagues in the U.S. do it. They all have drafts and most have revenue sharing and salary caps.

As I understand it, if the courts took the most widespread approach to anti-trust it could make it very hard for sports leagues to operate. It could definitely end the parity that we see in our professional sports (less so with baseball since they have no salary cap).

[ashley]

I have never copied and pasted any talking point. Every thought I've had has been entirely my own and these things came to my mind the first time I ever heard someone arguing about players making money off of tickets, autographs, whatever was the issue back then.

Maybe it seems far fetched to you but some of use can connect the dots on our own. When I see a rule the first thing I do is try to determine the reasoning behind the rule. It's really not that hard to do if you've followed college sports for decades and have seen how boosters can and will corrupt anything they possibly can.

As for NCAA's talking points, if it wasn't for competitive balance and fairness, why the hell would the NCAA care if a kid sold his autographs? Universities aren't for the most part competing in that area.

If it really was just about protecting profits, the NCAA wouldn't care a bit about this nor would they care if a booster gave a kid $100k. Trying to control this is simply an expense for the NCAA. They care about it because they care about keeping a fair and level playing field.

As I said before, I have often been critical of things the NCAA has done. This isn't one of them.

I agree.

[EatLeadCommie]

I'm not cool with the NCAA making money off them because they're simply in place to enforce and oversee. I'm fine with the school making money. They provide an education and the program from which to improve and showcase the skills to get the players to the next level. And then there are the fringe benefits of all the girls these guys get to bag and the freebies that the NCAA can't/won't police like food/beer. The schools provide them with the opportunity to improve and make a living at the professional level, where they do eventually make millions.

The other thing that bothers me about allowing athletes some leeway is that it seems to be very football and basketball-centric. Those are the big money sports, for sure, but who's to say that the guy on a baseball scholarship deserves less than a guy playing cornerback?

The rules are in place for good reason, even if they are sometimes clumsily enforced. The NCAA, much like the BCS, is imperfect, but it is better than nothing, which is what you'll have when you start making exceptions for this and that.

[ouflak]

As I understand it, if the courts took the most widespread approach to anti-trust it could make it very hard for sports leagues to operate. It could definitely end the parity that we see in our professional sports (less so with baseball since they have no salary cap).
Currently, professional athletes can sell and market their own images as they like. They can sell all and any of their own sports related property. They can do interviews, hold multiple jobs (by playing multiple sports or being part-time announcers). They can quit their jobs and move on to another with the complete freedom that any of us have and expect to have in a free society, naturally with respect to stipulations in their previous employment contract.

You say this kind of freedom would make it hard for sports leagues to operate, yet this kind of freedom has been around since their founding. Tennis, football, hockey, baseball... without exception. There is no doubt that there have been parity issues. Some teams have their dynasties. Certain players win major tournament after major after major. Yet professional sports, despite its ups and downs, still thrives. The anti-trust laws come into play in these cases only when there are blatantly unfair actions by organizations to divert profits or other earnings away from competitors or from those who rightfully earned them. If there were any serious anti-trust issues in professional sports, the respective players' unions would be all over it. College athletes haven't had that kind of powerful representation. The NCAA and university presidents have had very powerful political influence, some of them former politicians themselves. But the money that is coming into college athletics is near obscene in comparison with how it was even just 20-30 years ago. It was just a matter of time before lawyers and other powerful figures saw a chance to get a share via these athletes. It just so happens that current anti-trust laws, as well as firmly established trademark law and, eventually, labor laws are on their side.

[jkjsooner]

You say this kind of freedom would make it hard for sports leagues to operate, yet this kind of freedom has been around since their founding. Tennis, football, hockey, baseball... without exception.

Wow, my point just flew right over your head.

The discussion came up about antitrust and college sports and I pointed to the fact that professional sports do a lot in the name of parity that could be considered to violate antitrust laws. They have a draft. They have salary caps. They have revenue sharing.

You want guys being able to pimp themselves out to boosters, fine, institute a draft for college sports. Good luck with that.

If you think professional sports is some mecca of free market then I suggest you open your eyes.

[ouflak]

Wow, my point just flew right over your head.

Yes it did.


...parity that could be considered to violate antitrust laws.
And it is obvious, with this misunderstanding, why.

Anti trust laws have zero to do with parity. They have to do with competition. Anti-trust doesn't mind that somebody dominates, even if they do so perpetually. The anti-trust concept is implemented to ensure that those who have the ability to compete can, and that those who have accomplished a level of success rightfully get the results of that success without exclusion from those results by unfair competition.

Parity, however, is more of a marketing concept. There are those in certain sports who believe (whether rightfully or not) that 'parity' will increase fan interest by expanding markets or something along those lines. I believe that a potential money-spending fan is supposed to think, "Hey, my team might just have a shot this year". And because of the efforts of leagues to increase parity, especially in team sports, their team just really might have a shot. Thus that fan might be willing to upgrade to season tickets, or buy better season tickets, or drag the family along more often, etc... spending more money. Anti-trust laws have nothing to do with this. Monopolies, sports dynasties, dominating competitors are fine, as long as everybody has a fair shot to compete if they can, and anybody who has success fairly gets the benefits of that success.

And that's where the NCAA, EA sports, all the major conferences, and pretty much all of the major universities have planted themselves firmly across the line for decades, and are now scrambling to get back on the other side of it. The NCAA and all the others have effectively assumed the role of an agent for these athletes, as well as taken control of their likenesses. This would be fine as long as the athletes were compensated directly for this or if there was no money being made by anybody, or the amount of money being made were so small as to not be relevant. But there is no direct compensation as no scholarship states that the scholarship is in direct exchange for their rights to their own likenesses and any all claims to revenues generated by their efforts, and there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of non-scholarship athletes competing who are forced to give up those same rights without any compensation whatsoever, even the implied compensation of scholarship and associated benefits. The AD's, coaches, and NCAA executives are living in mansions. And now the amount of money being thrown around college sports is in the billions and climbing.

The lawyers for the NCAA and the conferences aren't stupid. There are some major anti-trust issues here. This has nothing to do with parity.

[jkjsooner]

Yes it did.


And it is obvious, with this misunderstanding, why.

Anti trust laws have zero to do with parity. They have to do with competition.

Again, whoosh, right over your head.

I never said antitrust laws were to create parity. I said the exact opposite. So that there is a reasonable level of parity, sports (including professional sports leagues take steps that could be considered to some as violating antitrust laws.


Anti-trust doesn't mind that somebody dominates, even if they do so perpetually.

Right and that would be very damaging to a sport. While that may be good for a winner take all scenario in a company competing for the PC market, it is not good for sports that thrive on having at least some level of competitiveness between teams.

What if you went to watch some competition between Microsoft and Tandy and Microsoft won 170-7? How interesting would that be? But since these entities aren't competing on a sporting field the public really doesn't have an interest in there being parity between them. Simply put, the competitive (non-economic) side of sports can't be compared to the economic competitions in business. One needs a level of competitiveness to survive. The other thrives on all out winner-takes-all wars.

The NFL would like it if the courts viewed its league as one economic entity. If viewed that way the antitrust issues slide away. However, the courts have ruled that the teams themselves are individual economic actors.

Up to this point professional leagues have skirted the antitrust issue because the courts have decided that players can't sue on antitrust grounds as long as they're part of a player's union. Seems a little odd to me but that's the technicality they've used.


Parity, however, is more of a marketing concept.

No it also creates a good product. The NFL with its salary cap and draft have about as much parity as you can get. Literally any team can rise up and win the Super Bowl if they make the right decisions over a several year period.

The ones that have not been successful recently (like the Raiders) have nothing to blame except the owners and general managers...


The AD's, coaches, and NCAA executives are living in mansions. And now the amount of money being thrown around college sports is in the billions and climbing.

These AD's and coaches pretty much all played college sports and lived by the rules they signed when they played. Want to make AD or coaches money? Become an AD or coach.

And for the billions, how many times do you have to be told that almost 90% of division 1 schools lose money?

They bring in billions because that's what it takes to fund the non-revenue sports. As I said before, don't like it then talk to your senators and representatives. Until that changes the universities will have to bring in billions to cover their costs.


The lawyers for the NCAA and the conferences aren't stupid. There are some major anti-trust issues here. This has nothing to do with parity.

The fact is, both pro and college leagues know that everyone wins if there is some level of fairness and parity and they institute rules to achieve that.


When are you going to admit that all sports have antitrust issues? When are you going to admit that most schools lose money in their athletic departments?

If you're not going to address these two things I'm going to stop responding to your posts as it's clear you'll willfully ignore anything that doesn't further your case.

[jkjsooner]

And this is where I have to digress a little since someone will point out that NCAA sports have less parity than professional sports.

The part that follows is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth....

In some respects the lack of parity in NCAA sports is good. The reason is that there are 120 teams in FBS (much more in Division 1 as a whole). You need some name brand schools and you can't have 120 name brand schools.

If there were only 30 or so schools in the top division, I think true parity would be the name of the game.

All that said, a certain level of parity is good. Having rich boosters at a couple of schools (say OSU and Oregon) buy player's services via autograph or other schemes wouldn't be good for anyone.

[bluedogok]

On more thing, I'm not at all happy that AD said this. I respect his opinion (although it is not well thought out) but saying this only draws attention to OU. Plenty of 'Horns are already using this as evidence that Peterson was paid to play at OU.

I also read on Shaggy Bevo that Peterson was also involved with the Big Red Sports scandal. Are they just making that up?
Who gives a damn what they think...the thing is any Whorn fan/alum with half a brain knows they are no different than any other major program. Only the delusional ******s from there thinks their **** don't stink....to be fair, there are a lot of them down there. Most of the ones that I knew were a bit more realistic but I definitely knew a few who were beyond delusional. There are UT players that can receive extra benefits any time they feel like it, those would still be against NCAA regs no matter how miniscule the infraction. Buying a cup of coffee for a player is an infraction in the eyes of the NCAA, players in Austin receive those type of benefits everyday. It happens everywhere.

No program is completely "clean" just like none of us can go through the day without breaking a law because just like laws there are about 10 million NCAA regulations that any number could be broken every day.