- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jay Bilas calls out the NCAA's hypocrisy.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 11:35 am to moneyg
Posted on 8/7/13 at 11:35 am to moneyg
quote:You can say incorrect things all you want, that's cool
I'm saying that your opinion is based on your feelings...rather than a logical interpretation of what is going on.
quote:the part I quoted, that's exactly what you did
But, using a subjective opinion as proof to draw a conclusion is a flawed approach.
1
Posted on 8/7/13 at 11:36 am to moneyg
quote:
I'm saying that your opinion is based on your feelings...rather than a logical interpretation of what is going on.
Much like your opinion on gay marriage.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 11:36 am to moneyg
quote:
I'm questioning whether you can. You say you have...I haven't seen it.
Awesome
Posted on 8/7/13 at 11:40 am to shel311
quote:
the part I quoted, that's exactly what you did
My opinion on why the NCAA is failing (which is admittedly subjective) has no bearing on my argument that the NCAA is correct/right/justified to enforce a rule that prevents players from getting paid on their fame.
Is this really lost on you?
Posted on 8/7/13 at 11:42 am to moneyg
quote:Isn't part of this lawsuit, and the significance of the name Ed O'Bannon in the language of the case, that the NCAA is using the likenesses of former players like O'Bannon over a decade after they lost eligibility without paying him? The way I understand it--correct me if I'm wrong--is that O'Bannon and O'Company are arguing that there is a monstrous difference between signing over the rights to your likeness as long as you are eligible and signing over the rights to your likeness for life.
Not at all. Why are you conflating the rights to using one's likeness with the right to enforce eligibility during an agreement between two parties?
"As long as you're in the NCAA, we have the right to sell your likeness."
"Ok, what about when I'm not in the NCAA anymore?"
Isn't this what we're dealing with here in this case?
Posted on 8/7/13 at 11:45 am to moneyg
quote:the part you keep missing is I've never argued the enforcement of the rule, despite your claims. Hell, I believe I even said I have no issue with the penalties forthcoming, which alone proves you wrong.
My opinion on why the NCAA is failing (which is admittedly subjective) has no bearing on my argument that the NCAA is correct/right/justified to enforce a rule that prevents players from getting paid on their fame.
I was never arguing enforcement of rules. I've told you this multiple times, and I was very clear about it. How can I be more clear than saying "no"?
So the question, how was that lost on you?
Posted on 8/7/13 at 11:55 am to shel311
quote:
the part you keep missing is I've never argued the enforcement of the rule, despite your claims. Hell, I believe I even said I have no issue with the penalties forthcoming, which alone proves you wrong.
I was never arguing enforcement of rules. I've told you this multiple times, and I was very clear about it. How can I be more clear than saying "no"?
So the question, how was that lost on you?
So, you agree that the NCAA is right to implement and enforce a rule that prevents student athletes from selling autographs or capitalizing on their fame while in college? We agree.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 11:58 am to ballscaster
quote:
Isn't part of this lawsuit, and the significance of the name Ed O'Bannon in the language of the case, that the NCAA is using the likenesses of former players like O'Bannon over a decade after they lost eligibility without paying him? The way I understand it--correct me if I'm wrong--is that O'Bannon and O'Company are arguing that there is a monstrous difference between signing over the rights to your likeness as long as you are eligible and signing over the rights to your likeness for life.
Do you think the quoted text above is relevant to whether or not Manziel should be able to sell his autograph for money without losing eligibility?
I'm saying they are two different issues.
I haven't heard anyone say that Manziel shouldn't be able to do after his eligibility is completed (either via his decision or expiration).
Posted on 8/7/13 at 12:00 pm to moneyg
My issue is the rules itself, not the enforcement of these rules.
The ncaa is a not for profit program so they aren't there to maximize profits. Their rules benefit the players less than everyone else, which seems to run counter intuitive to what they're supposed to be there for in regards to the athletes.
The rules are outdated. Times are not the same as they were 50 years ago, but the NCAA hasn't changed.
The ncaa is a not for profit program so they aren't there to maximize profits. Their rules benefit the players less than everyone else, which seems to run counter intuitive to what they're supposed to be there for in regards to the athletes.
The rules are outdated. Times are not the same as they were 50 years ago, but the NCAA hasn't changed.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 12:16 pm to shel311
quote:
The ncaa is a not for profit program so they aren't there to maximize profits. Their rules benefit the star players less than everyone else
fixed
Posted on 8/7/13 at 12:26 pm to moneyg
quote:Of course not--I'm agreeing with you by illustrating that the case isn't about whether or not the NCAA has the right to not pay Manziel while he plays NCAA games but rather about whether or not the NCAA has the right to not pay Manziel while selling his likeness 15 years from now.
Do you think the quoted text above is relevant to whether or not Manziel should be able to sell his autograph for money without losing eligibility?
Posted on 8/7/13 at 1:00 pm to shel311
quote:
My issue is the rules itself, not the enforcement of these rules.
You seem to be making a distinction with no real difference. You are arguing against the "rule itself". That indicates that the NCAA shouldn't prevent players from monetarily capitalizing on their status as a player. I disagree.
quote:
The ncaa is a not for profit program so they aren't there to maximize profits. Their rules benefit the players less than everyone else, which seems to run counter intuitive to what they're supposed to be there for in regards to the athletes.
Collegiate athletics exist to promote the university. Clearly this is done monetarily as well as being a marketing arm for the university. The NCAA is just an extension of that effort. The profits aren't going to individuals...they are going to the institutions themselves.
quote:
The rules are outdated. Times are not the same as they were 50 years ago, but the NCAA hasn't changed.
Change for the sake of change doesn't make much sense. I don't believe that you've put forth a persuasive argument that explains why the NCAA should change.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 1:01 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Of course not--I'm agreeing with you by illustrating that the case isn't about whether or not the NCAA has the right to not pay Manziel while he plays NCAA games but rather about whether or not the NCAA has the right to not pay Manziel while selling his likeness 15 years from now.
So we agree that one has nothing to do with the other. The two issues have been conflated multiple times within this thread.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 6:48 pm to Powerman
quote:
Who is getting the better end of the deal? The student athlete or the university?
I interned for free for a year doing the exact same job a salaried employee did. It's the same thing. You know what you get into and agree to the terms.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 7:14 pm to moneyg
quote:then you may want to email the ncaa to have them update their mission statement because it's nothing like what you just made up.
Collegiate athletics exist to promote the university. Clearly this is done monetarily as well as being a marketing arm for the university. The NCAA is just an extension of that effort.
quote:because you continue to misread very precise answers I'm giving LOL.
Change for the sake of change doesn't make much sense. I don't believe that you've put forth a persuasive argument that explains why the NCAA should change.
Change for the sake of change? I gave a specific reason for change, and you completely ignored it.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 7:46 pm to shel311
This shite is overblown. Apparently there is a huge opportunity for some of you to create a for-profit league that will pay players out of high school. No one is stopping you from creating this lucrative league. 
Sure you could lure some top flight recruits to your pay for play league, but how about the rest of the team? What 3 star offensive lineman wants to play for $25k per year when he could be on scholarship at Duke?
I don't believe the NCAA is perfect by any means, but you are naive if you believe their is a better system out there that falls within Title IX and keeps up the quality of play seen in the NCAA.
Sure you could lure some top flight recruits to your pay for play league, but how about the rest of the team? What 3 star offensive lineman wants to play for $25k per year when he could be on scholarship at Duke?
I don't believe the NCAA is perfect by any means, but you are naive if you believe their is a better system out there that falls within Title IX and keeps up the quality of play seen in the NCAA.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 8:47 pm to slackster
All these people that bitch about the little schools being at a disadvantage to compete would really bitch if colleges could pay players. Only 30 or so schools make a decent profit meaning the Butlers and Boises of the world will once again have no talent because they don't have the means to pay them.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 9:12 pm to JabarkusRussell
Agreed. I'm well aware of the flaws in the NCAA, but I do not see any viable alternatives that are a net positive for the student-athletes or the member institutions.
There may come a day when large conferences break away from the NCAA, but paying players will not be the reason.
There may come a day when large conferences break away from the NCAA, but paying players will not be the reason.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 9:59 pm to shel311
CFB was far more corrupt 50 yrs ago...hence the reason the NCAA has these rules put into place. Academic fraud was rampent along with phony summer jobs,pretty much unlimited scholarships and unlimited restrictions on practice hours.
Yes, I'm well aware of the abuses today but compared to 50 years ago it's almost tame...doesn't even come close to
what it used to be.
Yes, I'm well aware of the abuses today but compared to 50 years ago it's almost tame...doesn't even come close to
what it used to be.
Posted on 8/7/13 at 10:16 pm to RD Dawg
The argument that the student athletes generate revenue for the university at a rate that exceeds fair compensation of a full athletic scholarship is correct. However that is on par with just about any business. I work for Home Depot and my job is specifically to work with contractors and developers. I bring over 1M thru my desk alone but my salary is less than 5% of that.
The issue could be quickly fixed allowing athletes to hold jobs and to be able to profit from any game they created for themselves by playing at a high level. If an individual or business wants to give an athlete money for a "job" or just because then there is no law being broken in a legal sense.
Would some schools be at a disadvantage yes, but then their boosters, fans and alumni should work harder to provide opportunities to entice better athletes.
The issue could be quickly fixed allowing athletes to hold jobs and to be able to profit from any game they created for themselves by playing at a high level. If an individual or business wants to give an athlete money for a "job" or just because then there is no law being broken in a legal sense.
Would some schools be at a disadvantage yes, but then their boosters, fans and alumni should work harder to provide opportunities to entice better athletes.
Page 12 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News