Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   NCAA: "Amateurism drives (public) demand". US District Judge: "LOL"   (deadspin.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, NCAA, Ed O'Bannon, amateurism, sports channel, family medicines, factual basis, price-fixings  
•       •       •

1515 clicks; posted to Sports » on 11 Aug 2014 at 3:50 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-08-11 02:12:03 PM  
ROLL TIDE!

Wait, the players are paid?

STOP TIDE!

/Riiiiight
 
2014-08-11 02:19:30 PM  
Which is why the NFL makes zero dollars.
 
2014-08-11 03:16:54 PM  
Pay them already.
 
2014-08-11 03:52:18 PM  
This ruling is a step in the right direction.
 
2014-08-11 04:01:52 PM  
The NCAA is kinda hosed here. Granted they could've avoided this mess, but oh well, this is gonna be fun.
 
2014-08-11 04:04:11 PM  
Twist NCAA slowly, slowly in the wind...
 
2014-08-11 04:07:52 PM  
ESPN just signed a 20 year contract with the SEC. I wonder which load of assholes are going to get stuck paying the players.

SEC? ESPN? Or both?

I hope ESPN gets screwed. Like a conference wide players strike. LOL.
 
2014-08-11 04:09:46 PM  
When the guy that served as the NCAA's first executive director (and went on to hold the position for 35 years) is more than happy to talk about how the term "student-athlete" was specifically crafted as a means firstly to insulate universities from being on the hook for long-term disability payments and had f*ck all to do with any angelic, misty-eyed notion of "amateurism", then you really have a fantastic organization.
 
2014-08-11 04:14:14 PM  

Killer Cars: When the guy that served as the NCAA's first executive director (and went on to hold the position for 35 years) is more than happy to talk about how the term "student-athlete" was specifically crafted as a means firstly to insulate universities from being on the hook for long-term disability payments and had f*ck all to do with any angelic, misty-eyed notion of "amateurism", then you really have a fantastic organization.


Schooled is a fantastic documentary on pay for athletes. The athletic director who said paying players would result in "the animals running the zoo" summed it all up. He was old, white, rich and male. The animals were young, non-white, poor and male.
 
2014-08-11 04:14:53 PM  
Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.
 
2014-08-11 04:18:08 PM  
I'm enjoying the NCAA getting some slapdown. First the 'Big 5' basically get autonomy and now this. America's version of the IOC/FIFA is losing the gravy train and it is hilarious.
 
2014-08-11 04:26:41 PM  

IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.


Maybe everywhere but the SEC. I assure you they will be around long after you are dead.
 
2014-08-11 04:26:47 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: I'm enjoying the NCAA getting some slapdown. First the 'Big 5' basically get autonomy and now this. America's version of the IOC/FIFA is losing the gravy train and it is hilarious.


Yeah I thought you could only enjoy schadenfreude on a personal level, not a nationwide governing body.
 
2014-08-11 04:26:49 PM  

IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.


Then maybe, just maybe, the NFL can stop dicking around and get an actual minor league started.
 
2014-08-11 04:26:52 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Killer Cars: When the guy that served as the NCAA's first executive director (and went on to hold the position for 35 years) is more than happy to talk about how the term "student-athlete" was specifically crafted as a means firstly to insulate universities from being on the hook for long-term disability payments and had f*ck all to do with any angelic, misty-eyed notion of "amateurism", then you really have a fantastic organization.

Schooled is a fantastic documentary on pay for athletes. The athletic director who said paying players would result in "the animals running the zoo" summed it all up. He was old, white, rich and male. The animals were young, non-white, poor and male.


Yet we had a situation like SMU because the alums, boosters, etc. didn't care about how much a player's getting paid, it was all about getting one over on someone from a rival school.

The SEC's no different, neither's the B1G, the Pac-12, etc.  They're all about being frontrunners.
 
2014-08-11 04:27:48 PM  

SDRR: IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.

Maybe everywhere but the SEC. I assure you they will be around long after you are dead.


Right until the moment when one of them gets killed on the field....then you'll see the shiat hit the fan about how football's too violent.
 
2014-08-11 04:30:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Which is why the NFL makes zero dollars.


The NFL & MLB can't even afford to pay taxes!
 
2014-08-11 04:32:03 PM  

IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.


That was going to happen already with the safety issue, but this is going to speed things up.
Next, this super rich Texas high school teams players will start wanting a cut
 
2014-08-11 04:33:25 PM  

IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.


What would paying athletes have to do with that?
 
2014-08-11 04:43:10 PM  

IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.


Not yet from my understanding. My understanding is that student-athlete are to get a part of the PROFIT made from there name/likeness. So the NCAA is going to cook the books and say that anything sold with the name/likeness of a student-athlete is sold at a "loss" to the NCAA.
 
2014-08-11 04:43:43 PM  

WhyteRaven74: IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.

What would paying athletes have to do with that?


The vast majority of athletic departments, even at the D1 level, are already money-losers.  Paying athletes would just be another cost they couldn't afford---eventually, I think most universities are going to step away from sports, since it's just a money hole for them.  There ARE exceptions---Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Penn State---those programs (and others) are HIGHLY profitable, but they're really the exception.  The NCAA has about 1200 schools, and only the biggest and richest 30 or so actually make meaningful money from sports.

I suspect that those "money-makers" will form a sort of semi-pro league of their own eventually, while the smaller schools will just give up on sports entirely.
 
2014-08-11 04:50:40 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: The vast majority of athletic departments, even at the D1 level, are already money-losers.  Paying athletes would just be another cost they couldn't afford---eventually, I think most universities are going to step away from sports, since it's just a money hole for them.  There ARE exceptions---Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Penn State---those programs (and others) are HIGHLY profitable, but they're really the exception.  The NCAA has about 1200 schools, and only the biggest and richest 30 or so actually make meaningful money from sports.

I suspect that those "money-makers" will form a sort of semi-pro league of their own eventually, while the smaller schools will just give up on sports entirely.


The schools aren't money-makers, but at Division I the coaches and athletic directors are all doing very well for themselves.
 
2014-08-11 04:50:51 PM  

Allen262: IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.

Not yet from my understanding. My understanding is that student-athlete are to get a part of the PROFIT made from there name/likeness. So the NCAA is going to cook the books and say that anything sold with the name/likeness of a student-athlete is sold at a "loss" to the NCAA.


The NCAA won't be the ones paying the players.  That'll be on the university, and they DO make profits from selling jerseys with players' names on them.
 
2014-08-11 04:53:34 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.

Then maybe, just maybe, the NFL can stop dicking around and get an actual minor league started.


If the NFL actually needed a minor league, they would already have one.  Truth is, the NFL cares very little about your performance in college.  They care about raw metrics...thus the combine and the importance placed upon it.
 
2014-08-11 04:58:07 PM  

bubbaprog: HMS_Blinkin: The vast majority of athletic departments, even at the D1 level, are already money-losers.  Paying athletes would just be another cost they couldn't afford---eventually, I think most universities are going to step away from sports, since it's just a money hole for them.  There ARE exceptions---Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Penn State---those programs (and others) are HIGHLY profitable, but they're really the exception.  The NCAA has about 1200 schools, and only the biggest and richest 30 or so actually make meaningful money from sports.

I suspect that those "money-makers" will form a sort of semi-pro league of their own eventually, while the smaller schools will just give up on sports entirely.

The schools aren't money-makers, but at Division I the coaches and athletic directors are all doing very well for themselves.


They are, but that's part of the problem for the money-losing universities.  Why are you paying ADs and Coaches high-six-figure salaries, when the thing that they do is a constant money hole?  Presidents and boards of trustees/regents/whatever are going to start questioning this.  The monetization of college sports means that while it can be increasingly lucrative (if you're one of the lucky schools), it's also increasingly expensive to take part in the market.  Essentially, you have to spend money (on the best coaches/facilities/recruiting/etc.) to make money (from ticket sales/TV revenue/merchandise/etc.).

That barrier to entry on the college sports market is going to be increasingly difficult for smaller, unprofitable teams to justify going forward.  For example, pretend you're the president of a smaller (non-flagship) state school.  You can save millions by cutting athletics entirely and then dumping that money into tuition breaks for students (who are very cost-sensitive right now).  You'll get more applications, which will allow you to be more selective in admitting students, which in turn will lead to higher academic rankings, which will in itself lead to more student applications --- a virtuous cycle.  Why are you wasting all that money on a football team whose only real contribution is to be the week 1 sacrificial lamb for the flagship power conference school down the road?
 
2014-08-11 05:00:06 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Allen262: IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.

Not yet from my understanding. My understanding is that student-athlete are to get a part of the PROFIT made from there name/likeness. So the NCAA is going to cook the books and say that anything sold with the name/likeness of a student-athlete is sold at a "loss" to the NCAA.

The NCAA won't be the ones paying the players.  That'll be on the university, and they DO make profits from selling jerseys with players' names on them.


Not any more. Books will be cooked.
 
2014-08-11 05:03:40 PM  

Cataholic: Truth is, the NFL cares very little about your performance in college.  They care about raw metrics...thus the combine and the importance placed upon it.


You mean the combine that not every eligible athlete is invited to attend? How do they make the determination on who to invite? Oh, right. College performance. "From 1999 to 2007, nearly 190 players who weren't invited to the combine were drafted. Dozens more non-invitees latched on to teams as free agents.
The main reasons players don't make the combine are injuries, having non-NFL-type measurables, a lack of production and playing against lesser competition."

If combine metrics and not college performance mattered, Tim Tebow would have been an analyst from the minute he left UF.
 
2014-08-11 05:06:40 PM  

Allen262: Not any more. Books will be cooked.


The problem with that is with public universities, that information is FOIA'able. Public universities would have a hard time hiding that money.

You can say "well, they'll just cook the books and not claim a profit." However, someone that actually understands these things realize just how hard it would actually be to now show a loss on likeness related merchandise. After all, they are simply the middlemen. They are not producing the merchandise (more often than not) and only a handful run their own team shops without any third party partnership. There is almost no way that I can think at this moment, that the universities could alter their accounting to the point where they could reasonably say that they are not making a profit on the licensing deals.
 
2014-08-11 05:11:40 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Allen262: Not any more. Books will be cooked.

The problem with that is with public universities, that information is FOIA'able. Public universities would have a hard time hiding that money.

You can say "well, they'll just cook the books and not claim a profit." However, someone that actually understands these things realize just how hard it would actually be to now show a loss on likeness related merchandise. After all, they are simply the middlemen. They are not producing the merchandise (more often than not) and only a handful run their own team shops without any third party partnership. There is almost no way that I can think at this moment, that the universities could alter their accounting to the point where they could reasonably say that they are not making a profit on the licensing deals.


Thank you.  And if they tried, they'd be (a) likely to get caught and (b) breaking some SERIOUS laws.
 
2014-08-11 05:14:36 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: The vast majority of athletic departments, even at the D1 level, are already money-losers.


That actually depends on just how creative the school's accounting department wants to be. If they want to show that the poor athletics department was barely squeaking by, then that's what the numbers will show. If, on the other hand, the school wants to look good, it will show it.

If you look at various reports, you can see some interesting accounting. For instance, South Carolina apparently makes almost no profit with an income of over $87,000,000.

On the other hand, the most valuable NCAA basketball team is not North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, or Duke. It's Louisville. Because Louisville has a nice shiny new arena, and they want to be able to tell the people that, yes, their tax money is having a positive effect locally, so the accountants make sure to reflect that.

The other issue, and the one that's harder to quantify, is the value of an athletics department to a University's overall brand. Athletic success has been shown to have an effect on the number of applications a school receives, which in turn should allow the school to have an improved academic profile.
 
2014-08-11 05:16:43 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Allen262: Not any more. Books will be cooked.

The problem with that is with public universities, that information is FOIA'able. Public universities would have a hard time hiding that money.

You can say "well, they'll just cook the books and not claim a profit." However, someone that actually understands these things realize just how hard it would actually be to now show a loss on likeness related merchandise. After all, they are simply the middlemen. They are not producing the merchandise (more often than not) and only a handful run their own team shops without any third party partnership. There is almost no way that I can think at this moment, that the universities could alter their accounting to the point where they could reasonably say that they are not making a profit on the licensing deals.


Not hard for me to see. School call ups Nike, UA or Adidas. Has the contract redone so that it run though 5 or 6 companines that on paper take all of the profits but happen to give money to the to the board and AD of the school.
 
2014-08-11 05:22:04 PM  

IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.


Yes but what about the sky? Is there anyway it won't fall in your lifetime?
 
2014-08-11 05:24:34 PM  

Gonz: HMS_Blinkin: The vast majority of athletic departments, even at the D1 level, are already money-losers.

That actually depends on just how creative the school's accounting department wants to be. If they want to show that the poor athletics department was barely squeaking by, then that's what the numbers will show. If, on the other hand, the school wants to look good, it will show it.

If you look at various reports, you can see some interesting accounting. For instance, South Carolina apparently makes almost no profit with an income of over $87,000,000.

On the other hand, the most valuable NCAA basketball team is not North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, or Duke. It's Louisville. Because Louisville has a nice shiny new arena, and they want to be able to tell the people that, yes, their tax money is having a positive effect locally, so the accountants make sure to reflect that.

The other issue, and the one that's harder to quantify, is the value of an athletics department to a University's overall brand. Athletic success has been shown to have an effect on the number of applications a school receives, which in turn should allow the school to have an improved academic profile.


That's true enough, but you all the schools you mentioned are still money-makers---just to different degrees.  All the teams you mentioned were in "power conferences."  I'm talking about "Directional State University."  Those schools make up the majority of D1 in terms of raw numbers.  They lose money hand over fist on sports---and don't think that DSU is wildly profitable and just choosing to pretend like they're broke.  And because they suck at sports/have a low sports profile, running an athletic dept. is not likely to have any impact at all on the number of applications they get.

I agree with you that more applications lead to better academic profiles (see my above post in this thread), but I think for Directional State, they'd be better off getting more applications by cutting sports and dumping the savings into lower tuition rates or more academic scholarships.  After all, students today are more cost-conscious than they have been recently.
 
2014-08-11 05:27:09 PM  
It's funny how the NCAA just granted the five power conferences the ability to operate under a different set of rules while simultaneously arguing that it would be unfair for student-athletes from power sports to operate under a different set of rules.
 
2014-08-11 05:28:39 PM  

Allen262: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Allen262: Not any more. Books will be cooked.

The problem with that is with public universities, that information is FOIA'able. Public universities would have a hard time hiding that money.

You can say "well, they'll just cook the books and not claim a profit." However, someone that actually understands these things realize just how hard it would actually be to now show a loss on likeness related merchandise. After all, they are simply the middlemen. They are not producing the merchandise (more often than not) and only a handful run their own team shops without any third party partnership. There is almost no way that I can think at this moment, that the universities could alter their accounting to the point where they could reasonably say that they are not making a profit on the licensing deals.

Not hard for me to see. School call ups Nike, UA or Adidas. Has the contract redone so that it run though 5 or 6 companines that on paper take all of the profits but happen to give money to the to the board and AD of the school.


Still illegal
 
2014-08-11 05:45:14 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Allen262: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Allen262: Not any more. Books will be cooked.

The problem with that is with public universities, that information is FOIA'able. Public universities would have a hard time hiding that money.

You can say "well, they'll just cook the books and not claim a profit." However, someone that actually understands these things realize just how hard it would actually be to now show a loss on likeness related merchandise. After all, they are simply the middlemen. They are not producing the merchandise (more often than not) and only a handful run their own team shops without any third party partnership. There is almost no way that I can think at this moment, that the universities could alter their accounting to the point where they could reasonably say that they are not making a profit on the licensing deals.

Not hard for me to see. School call ups Nike, UA or Adidas. Has the contract redone so that it run though 5 or 6 companines that on paper take all of the profits but happen to give money to the to the board and AD of the school.

Still illegal


(Darth Vader voice on)

I find your faith in the legal system cute.

(Darth Vader voice off)

Also (oh_wait_youre_serious_let_me_laugh_harder.png)
 
2014-08-11 05:49:44 PM  

WhyteRaven74: What would paying athletes have to do with that?


Basically all but the BCS schools don't make money. Even FCS teams tend to lose money the further they go into the playoffs. So take more money away from teams that aren't making money as it is...

HMS_Blinkin: Why are you paying ADs and Coaches high-six-figure salaries, when the thing that they do is a constant money hole?


Same reason people pay the ridiculous amounts they pay for college - "the hope of a better future."
 
2014-08-11 05:51:22 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Then maybe, just maybe, the NFL can stop dicking around and get an actual minor league started.


Why? College football is their only current competitor.
 
2014-08-11 05:55:12 PM  
maybe they should have just switched to the olympic model years ago?

or at least the full cost of attendance...

but the ncaa is a bunch of corrupt greedy farktards.  fark them.
 
2014-08-11 05:58:14 PM  

IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.


football will go the way of boxing because of head traumas, not because of a few dollars for the athletes that generate billions.  and the ncaa could have avoided this, but they were too stupid, arrogant, stubborn, or whatever to even give an additional penny to the players while their revenues tripled in 5 years.
 
2014-08-11 06:04:08 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: WhyteRaven74: IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.

What would paying athletes have to do with that?

The vast majority of athletic departments, even at the D1 level, are already money-losers.  Paying athletes would just be another cost they couldn't afford---eventually, I think most universities are going to step away from sports, since it's just a money hole for them.  There ARE exceptions---Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Penn State---those programs (and others) are HIGHLY profitable, but they're really the exception.  The NCAA has about 1200 schools, and only the biggest and richest 30 or so actually make meaningful money from sports.

I suspect that those "money-makers" will form a sort of semi-pro league of their own eventually, while the smaller schools will just give up on sports entirely.


1) athletics aren't supposed to be about money.  it's "part of the well round college experience."  2) athletic departments may barely make a profit, but power conference football and basketball teams are making so much money they don't even know how to spend it all.  new facilities, coaches salaries increase by 20% a year, etc.  3) the ruling didn't say division 3 water polo players should receieve money.  so the vast majority of those 1200 schools will not be impacted.
 
2014-08-11 07:43:57 PM  

A Fark Handle: 1) athletics aren't supposed to be about money.  it's "part of the well round college experience."


Agreed. Too bad money got involved, but then, money always gets involved and is a good way to separate everyone and destroy things.

A Fark Handle: football will go the way of boxing because of head traumas, not because of a few dollars for the athletes that generate billions


The athletes generate billions like McDonald's grillmasters generate billions. It doesn't matter who the f*ck is in the uniforms (as evidenced by the turnover rate). But yes, there can be more than one reason something becomes extinct. In fact, there almost always is.
 
2014-08-11 07:53:33 PM  

IAmRight: Welp, between colleges now facing elimination of football (at all but the richest schools) and parents not wanting to send their kids to play the game, it's bye-bye football, probably even within my lifetime.


Yes because paying at most 100 players a maximum of $5,000 will be the end of everything.  Why teams in the SEC will only be ably to pay their defensive coordinators $1 million dollars per year.  The reason none of these schools make any money is pure rent seeking behavior on the part of AD's and coaches.  They know if the program makes a profit, the school will take away money from their budget so they pay it to themselves rather than the school.  That happens everywhere from Alabama to UNLV.
 
2014-08-11 07:55:08 PM  

scandalrag: Yes because paying at most 100 players a maximum of $5,000 will be the end of everything.


Every argument that can be made for paying them can be made for paying them more than $5,000. That's just an arbitrary number that exists for now.
 
2014-08-11 07:57:51 PM  

A Fark Handle: but the ncaa is a bunch of corrupt greedy farktards.  fark them.


So very much.
 
2014-08-11 08:14:16 PM  

IAmRight: scandalrag: Yes because paying at most 100 players a maximum of $5,000 will be the end of everything.

Every argument that can be made for paying them can be made for paying them more than $5,000. That's just an arbitrary number that exists for now.


But that's also only a limit.  No school will be forced to pay any players.  It's completely optional.
 
2014-08-11 08:27:43 PM  

IAmRight: The athletes generate billions like McDonald's grillmasters generate billions. It doesn't matter who the f*ck is in the uniforms (as evidenced by the turnover rate). But yes, there can be more than one reason something becomes extinct. In fact, there almost always is.


bullshiat.  no one was buying a johnny burgerflipper jersey.  no one is paying god knows what for season tickets after making a mandatory donation to watch jameis frymaster.  and no television network paid tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to watch rg3 prep a waffle cone.  nevermind that it takes only 97 (12+85) scholarship players on the basketball and football teams to make tens of millions for school, compared to the average revenue generated by a grilljockey (not hundreds of thousands per that's for sure).  sure there's some truth to the fact that alumni just wanted to cheer for anyone representing their school, but the players were the ones doing the work and taking the risk (yeah head traumas again). might as well let them have a piece of the action.  no other scholarship students have such draconian restrictions on how they can make money from their talents.  music students can accept gigs in local bars.  comp sci can code on the side.  yet these guys aren't allowed to accept an appearance fee to sign autographs at the local dealership.  though the school will be happy to sell you footballs they did sign...the model was farking stupid, outdated, and broken.  it should have died long ago.  the ncaa brought this upon themselves.  stupid arrogant farktards.  they deserve this...
 
2014-08-11 08:40:22 PM  

A Fark Handle: no other scholarship students have such draconian restrictions on how they can make money from their talents.  music students can accept gigs in local bars.  comp sci can code on the side.  yet these guys aren't allowed to accept an appearance fee to sign autographs at the local dealership


Music students can practice their art on the side, sometimes even getting paid for it (most bars aren't paying them).
Comp Sci students can practice their art/science on the side.
Football players can't get money for signing their name.

And you think those situations are equal.

/would be nice if universities decided to actually only offer scholarships to kids who wanted the education
//you want money? Cool. Have fun sitting out three years while you're waiting to be eligible for the NFL, then getting passed on because you haven't played for three years.
///the NFL is the lame group for selfishly crushing every other league that might have been a minor league
 
2014-08-11 08:52:16 PM  

IAmRight: Music students can practice their art on the side, sometimes even getting paid for it (most bars aren't paying them).
Comp Sci students can practice their art/science on the side.
Football players can't get money for signing their name.

And you think those situations are equal.


yes uniquely talented scholarship student with different rules for external income.  they aren't the same because the football/basketball players earn much much much more for their schools.  who cares why some wants to give a college student money?  if someone wants to buy my autograph (god knows why they would) why should i be restricted from selling it?  it's my autograph.

and you're right they should educate the athletes they recruit.  perhaps the schools could also offer a sports performance major (strategy/theory, history of the game, coaching, contract law, money management if you earn all your money before 35, etc).  there are music performance majors, no?  why not sport performance?  and just like music majors many will end up teaching when they can't find a profession gig.  nothing wrong with that.
 
2014-08-11 09:16:32 PM  

IAmRight: A Fark Handle: no other scholarship students have such draconian restrictions on how they can make money from their talents.  music students can accept gigs in local bars.  comp sci can code on the side.  yet these guys aren't allowed to accept an appearance fee to sign autographs at the local dealership

Music students can practice their art on the side, sometimes even getting paid for it (most bars aren't paying them).
Comp Sci students can practice their art/science on the side.
Football players can't get money for signing their name.

And you think those situations are equal.

/would be nice if universities decided to actually only offer scholarships to kids who wanted the education
//you want money? Cool. Have fun sitting out three years while you're waiting to be eligible for the NFL, then getting passed on because you haven't played for three years.
///the NFL is the lame group for selfishly crushing every other league that might have been a minor league


I have known plenty of full academic scholarship students that were able to make money using their talents while they went to school. Why do you have such a problem with athletes making money off of their name and likeness while they are under the schools control? It should be everybody's right to be able to control the use of their name and likeness. That is what I don't understand about all of the opposition to this decision. I'm pretty sure if your job decided to use your name and likeness to make money, and barred you from doing the same saying your paycheck was compensation enough, you would be up in arms. But because these guys are college athletes they are supposed to lay down, spread their cheeks and take it.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report