Reilly Rightfully Raps NCAA

[Gopherguy0723]

This article is right on the nose. Thank you Rick Reilly.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9567169/rick-reilly-ncaa-autographs

I cannot wait for Ed O'Bannon to win.

 

[dpodoll68]

Whether the rules are "fair" or not is up for discussion and is a valid question.

Whether any of the athletes "deserve" some sort of retroactive payment is not a valid question. They don't. They knew what the rules were and knew they wouldn't be getting paid cash, at least not within the rules. If they didn't like it, they were free to find a different way to make it to the professional leagues. No one has ever forced anyone to play in the NCAA. Brandon Jennings didn't want to, so he went overseas. Anyone else could've done the same, or started their own competing professional league for 18-year-olds here. The fact that they haven't shows what the market would be for it. If there's a dollar to be made, someone would've done it long ago by now.

I'll say it again - no one has the right to tell the NCAA how to run its business. If no one else is willing or able to set up a competitor, why is that an anti-trust violation? It's not the NCAA's fault that no one is willing or able to set up a competitor. Anyone in the world is free to do so, and no one has. And that's the NCAA's fault? I'm sick of hearing about the "poor athletes". If there were a better option out there, they would take it. Again, no one is forcing them to play for an NCAA member institution. If they don't like it, they are all free to leave, today. Good luck finding a better option.

 

[dpodoll68]

Reilly quote:

"Unlike Manziel, they were allowed to participate in the free-market system."

Complete and utter BS. Who's stopping Johnny Manziel from competing in the free-market system?

 

[GophersInIowa]

I'm thinking about demanding that my employer pay me more for the past six years of work.

 

[Iceland12]

Whether the rules are "fair" or not is up for discussion and is a valid question.

Whether any of the athletes "deserve" some sort of retroactive payment is not a valid question. They don't. They knew what the rules were and knew they wouldn't be getting paid cash, at least not within the rules. If they didn't like it, they were free to find a different way to make it to the professional leagues. No one has ever forced anyone to play in the NCAA. Brandon Jennings didn't want to, so he went overseas. Anyone else could've done the same, or started their own competing professional league for 18-year-olds here. The fact that they haven't shows what the market would be for it. If there's a dollar to be made, someone would've done it long ago by now.

I'll say it again - no one has the right to tell the NCAA how to run its business. If no one else is willing or able to set up a competitor, why is that an anti-trust violation? It's not the NCAA's fault that no one is willing or able to set up a competitor. Anyone in the world is free to do so, and no one has. And that's the NCAA's fault? I'm sick of hearing about the "poor athletes". If there were a better option out there, they would take it. Again, no one is forcing them to play for an NCAA member institution. If they don't like it, they are all free to leave, today. Good luck finding a better option.

That's a very unpopular position but it certainly rings true. The real villain here is the NFL. They get a free minor league and millions and millions of dollars of free publicity every year. Look the NCAA deserves a whole bunch of criticism, a Rules Book 4 inches high? Though it certainly seems that the many of the people who complain the most, seem to really just want their own NFL or NBA team at the college level, and that damn NCAA with their rules, their Olympic sports and their damn women just keep getting in the way.

All that said, splitting the big programs from the little ones does seem like a good idea. Maybe that's where the "anti-trust" problems come in.

 

[gopherguy05]

From one pompous airbag to an organization of pompous airbags...

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Whether the rules are "fair" or not is up for discussion and is a valid question.

Whether any of the athletes "deserve" some sort of retroactive payment is not a valid question. They don't. They knew what the rules were and knew they wouldn't be getting paid cash, at least not within the rules. If they didn't like it, they were free to find a different way to make it to the professional leagues. No one has ever forced anyone to play in the NCAA. Brandon Jennings didn't want to, so he went overseas. Anyone else could've done the same, or started their own competing professional league for 18-year-olds here. The fact that they haven't shows what the market would be for it. If there's a dollar to be made, someone would've done it long ago by now.

I'll say it again - no one has the right to tell the NCAA how to run its business. If no one else is willing or able to set up a competitor, why is that an anti-trust violation? It's not the NCAA's fault that no one is willing or able to set up a competitor. Anyone in the world is free to do so, and no one has. And that's the NCAA's fault? I'm sick of hearing about the "poor athletes". If there were a better option out there, they would take it. Again, no one is forcing them to play for an NCAA member institution. If they don't like it, they are all free to leave, today. Good luck finding a better option.

Nailed it right on the head. I hate it when people act like "is it a good/fair rule?" and "should he be punished?" are the same question.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Whether the rules are "fair" or not is up for discussion and is a valid question.

Whether any of the athletes "deserve" some sort of retroactive payment is not a valid question. They don't. They knew what the rules were and knew they wouldn't be getting paid cash, at least not within the rules. If they didn't like it, they were free to find a different way to make it to the professional leagues. No one has ever forced anyone to play in the NCAA. Brandon Jennings didn't want to, so he went overseas. Anyone else could've done the same, or started their own competing professional league for 18-year-olds here. The fact that they haven't shows what the market would be for it. If there's a dollar to be made, someone would've done it long ago by now.

I'll say it again - no one has the right to tell the NCAA how to run its business. If no one else is willing or able to set up a competitor, why is that an anti-trust violation? It's not the NCAA's fault that no one is willing or able to set up a competitor. Anyone in the world is free to do so, and no one has. And that's the NCAA's fault? I'm sick of hearing about the "poor athletes". If there were a better option out there, they would take it. Again, no one is forcing them to play for an NCAA member institution. If they don't like it, they are all free to leave, today. Good luck finding a better option.

Actually, you're wrong. People do have the right to tell the NCAA or any entity how to run their business if they're running it illegally. Businesses cannot do whatever they want, have never been able to do whatever they want, and they shouldn't be able to do whatever they want.

No person or entity is allowed to control another person's name, image, or likeness. It's a personal property right and a right of publicity. They're torts grounded in the 1st Amendment. It prevents economic exploitation (you know, like the NCAA is doing right now). Just because people willingly enter the realm of the NCAA doesn't mean what the NCAA does is legal or that the practice is legal. You can't pay me less than minimum wage even if I'm willing to work for less than minimum wage. Two parties consenting does not trump the law, sorry. The NCAA is not allowed to violate such rights. What Jay Bilas reported was icing on the cake.

Sorry to upset the status quo dpodoll, but the NCAA as you know it is coming down, and it's going to crash hard.

 

[Iceland12]

Actually, you're wrong. People do have the right to tell the NCAA or any entity how to run their business if they're running it illegally. Businesses cannot do whatever they want, have never been able to do whatever they want, and they shouldn't be able to do whatever they want.

No person or entity is allowed to control another person's name, image, or likeness. It's a personal property right and a right of publicity. They're torts grounded in the 1st Amendment. It prevents economic exploitation (you know, like the NCAA is doing right now). Just because people willingly enter the realm of the NCAA doesn't mean what the NCAA does is legal or that the practice is legal. You can't pay me less than minimum wage even if I'm willing to work for less than minimum wage. Two parties consenting does not trump the law, sorry. The NCAA is not allowed to violate such rights. What Jay Bilas reported was icing on the cake.

Sorry to upset the status quo dpodoll, but the NCAA as you know it is coming down, and it's going to crash hard.

So what do you want to replace it?

 

[station19]

Whether the rules are "fair" or not is up for discussion and is a valid question.

Whether any of the athletes "deserve" some sort of retroactive payment is not a valid question. They don't. They knew what the rules were and knew they wouldn't be getting paid cash, at least not within the rules. If they didn't like it, they were free to find a different way to make it to the professional leagues. No one has ever forced anyone to play in the NCAA. Brandon Jennings didn't want to, so he went overseas. Anyone else could've done the same, or started their own competing professional league for 18-year-olds here. The fact that they haven't shows what the market would be for it. If there's a dollar to be made, someone would've done it long ago by now.

I'll say it again - no one has the right to tell the NCAA how to run its business. If no one else is willing or able to set up a competitor, why is that an anti-trust violation? It's not the NCAA's fault that no one is willing or able to set up a competitor. Anyone in the world is free to do so, and no one has. And that's the NCAA's fault? I'm sick of hearing about the "poor athletes". If there were a better option out there, they would take it. Again, no one is forcing them to play for an NCAA member institution. If they don't like it, they are all free to leave, today. Good luck finding a better option.

Reilly quote:

"Unlike Manziel, they were allowed to participate in the free-market system."

Complete and utter BS. Who's stopping Johnny Manziel from competing in the free-market system?

Pretty much agree dpo.

Who's stopping XXXX XXXXX from competing in the free-market system? The NFL and the NBA. I've never understood how a CBA can take precedence over age discrimination in employment.

Does it seem right that an athlete can not profit from selling his/her autograph? No but that's what you signed up for. It's not too hard to envision School A from telling a recruit we have X number of boosters just waiting to pay you $$$ for signing autographs.

We always hear how all the schools are making tons of money off of these athletes. Are they? The vast majority of schools lose money on their athletic departments. The profits from BB and FB go to offset costs of the teams/sports that lose money. Sure many of the coaches(and some AD's) make big money but that is what you have to pay to hire someone to maximize those revenues. If the profits from the two sports went into the school's coffers we could have a different discussion.

Many students work part time or even full time during college. How many of them make enough to completely offset their expenses for four years of college?

As far as schools profiting from 'selling a players likeness', I see that becoming a cease and desist.

Are college sports flirting a fine line between amateur and professional? Yes. Personally I would rather see it return more to amateur than slide towards pro.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

So what do you want to replace it?

I want current US law to replace it. You know, treat athletes like every other US citizen.

Among other things, they should be able to sell any personal property, they should be able to make any amount of money in any legal way they can off their name, and they should be compensated when their likeness is used (like NCAA video games).

For instance, players must be allowed to make money off signing autographs, speaking at events, endorsing products, etc. The NCAA has no right to interfere. It's classic exploitation when the NCAA uses Manziel's name to sell jerseys, but he cannot sign his own name to a jersey to make money, especially when his and many other players' peak earnings could easily be when they're in the NCAA.

Other changes need to occur as well, but that's first. I can go into more later when I have more free time if you'd like.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Pretty much agree dpo.

Who's stopping XXXX XXXXX from competing in the free-market system? The NFL and the NBA. I've never understood how a CBA can take precedence over age discrimination in employment.

Does it seem right that an athlete can not profit from selling his/her autograph? No but that's what you signed up for. It's not too hard to envision School A from telling a recruit we have X number of boosters just waiting to pay you $$$ for signing autographs.

We always hear how all the schools are making tons of money off of these athletes. Are they? The vast majority of schools lose money on their athletic departments. The profits from BB and FB go to offset costs of the teams/sports that lose money. Sure many of the coaches(and some AD's) make big money but that is what you have to pay to hire someone to maximize those revenues. If the profits from the two sports went into the school's coffers we could have a different discussion.

Many students work part time or even full time during college. How many of them make enough to completely offset their expenses for four years of college?

As far as schools profiting from 'selling a players likeness', I see that becoming a cease and desist.

Are college sports flirting a fine line between amateur and professional? Yes. Personally I would rather see it return more to amateur than slide towards pro.

Read this. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

The NCAA and amateurism has been nothing but a rouse from the beginning as a way to make money from free labor.

The best line of the article falls on page one from infamous shoe guy Sonny Vaccaro.

“Why,” asked Bryce Jordan, the president emeritus of Penn State, “should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?”

Vaccaro did not blink. “They shouldn’t, sir,” he replied. “You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir,” Vaccaro added with irrepressible good cheer, “but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to turn down any of our money. You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.”

 

[Iceland12]

I want current US law to replace it. You know, treat athletes like every other US citizen.

Among other things, they should be able to sell any personal property, they should be able to make any amount of money in any legal way they can off their name, and they should be compensated when their likeness is used (like NCAA video games).

For instance, players must be allowed to make money off signing autographs, speaking at events, endorsing products, etc. The NCAA has no right to interfere. It's classic exploitation when the NCAA uses Manziel's name to sell jerseys, but he cannot sign his own name to a jersey to make money, especially when his and many other players' peak earnings could easily be when they're in the NCAA.

Other changes need to occur as well, but that's first. I can go into more later when I have more free time if you'd like.

Sure, make it a "Pros and Cons" if you would.

 

[50PoundHead]

I'm of the opinion is that the NCAA has simply become antiquated. I basically agree with Iceland12. I wouldn't call the NFL villains, but they certainly benefit from the status quo. Pro football is so much different and I don't think it could ever have a professional minor league system similar to baseball, but the market pressures that have increasingly infused sports at all levels are causing so many problems that I think something major will happen in the next decade.

I'm not against players having more power in all of this, but power is finite and any power that the institution surrenders is going to weaken the status quo.

 

[dpodoll68]

No person or entity is allowed to control another person's name, image, or likeness. It's a personal property right and a right of publicity.

Hahahaha what? 100% wrong. If one party signs away their rights, the other party is free to do whatever they want (legally, as I thought that was implied and understood) with that person's name, image, or likeness. There are some things you can't sign away, but your "image" rights are certainly not one of them.

 

[dpodoll68]

The NCAA has no right to interfere.

Sure they do. It's called a grant-in-aid.

The NCAA and amateurism has been nothing but a rouse from the beginning as a way to make money from free labor.

It ain't free labor. It's not the NCAA's fault if the athlete doesn't appreciate the value he or she is receiving, like most of the rest of the world would.

 

[Coolew01]

I want current US law to replace it. You know, treat athletes like every other US citizen.

Among other things, they should be able to sell any personal property, they should be able to make any amount of money in any legal way they can off their name, and they should be compensated when their likeness is used (like NCAA video games).

For instance, players must be allowed to make money off signing autographs, speaking at events, endorsing products, etc. The NCAA has no right to interfere. It's classic exploitation when the NCAA uses Manziel's name to sell jerseys, but he cannot sign his own name to a jersey to make money, especially when his and many other players' peak earnings could easily be when they're in the NCAA.

Other changes need to occur as well, but that's first. I can go into more later when I have more free time if you'd like.

Who would determine the reasonableness of the compensation for signing said autographs? What would stop a booster from paying Johnny football 50,000 for four hours of signing on a Saturday. I don't have a problem with the players getting some money. Once you open that box up you would have a tough time policing it and a tough time determining reasonable compensation.

 

[atsgopher]

No person or entity is allowed to control another person's name, image, or likeness. It's a personal property right and a right of publicity. They're torts grounded in the 1st Amendment. It prevents economic exploitation (you know, like the NCAA is doing right now). Just because people willingly enter the realm of the NCAA doesn't mean what the NCAA does is legal or that the practice is legal. You can't pay me less than minimum wage even if I'm willing to work for less than minimum wage. Two parties consenting does not trump the law, sorry. The NCAA is not allowed to violate such rights. What Jay Bilas reported was icing on the cake.

Sorry to upset the status quo dpodoll, but the NCAA as you know it is coming down, and it's going to crash hard.

You could be right, but I think your vitriol is at the very least misplaced. The NCAA doesn't have a sales arm that sells jerseys (of course they license their own logo). That's the domain of the University/college of the individual athlete. Moreover, they are selling the University's image; of which a individual may/or may not contribute, but individual athletes are not the sole reason for said University.

The University/College is then part of the NCAA; they could choose not to be. Part of that choice is subjecting to NCAA jurisdiction. NCAA jurisdiction requires participants to maintain amateur status. They set rules governing that status and if one violates said rules they are not allowed to participate. There is no jail time nor economic sanctions handed down from the NCAA to athletes.

Seems pretty grounded in law to me. Then again I have no legal training.

On the other hand, you have Johnny Manziel (we'll assume guilt for the thought experiment). He played football in an established system and now is trying to exploit that system for financial gain. Does he have the right? He didn't create the system, infrastructure, nor market. He used the University's image, one which has been cultivated over a century for his own gain. Heck, when stacked against everyone else (history of his school), Manziel's contribution is rather minute.

Doesn't his University have the right to recuperate their investment in him (selling apparel); or does Johnny Manziel have the right to capitalize on everyone else's contributions that came before him? Seems to me the University gave good and fair consideration to Johnny and every other athlete that played for them. This being akin to a corporation recuperating monies for a Widget patent that I developed for them. Where I would have no right to go out and market my image/likeness as the Widget man. The corporation would own that right (similar to the University owning a ball players right).

On another note, I'm not sure 1st amendment is accurate; I'd probably look into 13th. The 1st amendment doesn't say anything about property, but I suppose that's just my two cents too.

 

[Indi1006]

If Manziel went to play out of HS for the independent league Texas Muddogs football team for $800 per week and did what he did playing for Texas A&M nobody would care. Folks care because he plays for a college that people are fans of and because the college belongs to a conference and an organization that enable kids to come out of HS and play for something that people care about. The money is then derived for the college and the NCAA because of the system they have set up that enables these kids to get a free education and to live the good life while in school and enables them to compete in 100,000 seat stadiums vs. a scrub grass field like the Texas Muddogs play at. They're invited to come play at a school, they accept the invitation and know the rules coming in. The whole argument of who owns the likeness, etc. is moot when they sign on the bottom line because the know what they're signing up for; period.

 

[station19]

Actually, you're wrong. People do have the right to tell the NCAA or any entity how to run their business if they're running it illegally. Businesses cannot do whatever they want, have never been able to do whatever they want, and they shouldn't be able to do whatever they want.

No person or entity is allowed to control another person's name, image, or likeness. It's a personal property right and a right of publicity. They're torts grounded in the 1st Amendment. It prevents economic exploitation (you know, like the NCAA is doing right now). Just because people willingly enter the realm of the NCAA doesn't mean what the NCAA does is legal or that the practice is legal. You can't pay me less than minimum wage even if I'm willing to work for less than minimum wage. Two parties consenting does not trump the law, sorry. The NCAA is not allowed to violate such rights. What Jay Bilas reported was icing on the cake.

Sorry to upset the status quo dpodoll, but the NCAA as you know it is coming down, and it's going to crash hard.

Do student athletes fall under the umbrella of labor laws?

 

[mplsbadger]

The NCAA doesn't own the player's likeness and shouldn't be allowed to prosper from it. They will probably lose on O'Bannon because of this.

However, the NCAA does not prevent Johnny Manziel from selling his autograph. The NCAA stipulates that if he does sell it he is ineligible to compete in sanctioned NCAA events. They are well within their rights to do this. The reason they do this is clear. It is to prevent their league from becoming a professional league and to maintain competitive balance.

Anyone who advocates that players should be eligible while profiting from their participation in their sponsored sport should also be an advocate of unlimited grants in aid. Let's go back to the days when OSU and Alabama had 140 kids on scholarship and the Gophers and Wisconsin had 75. Why not, let the free market rule.

I haven't watched a Twins game in person unless it was free for about eight years. Not interested in participating in a rigged game. My appetite for college football would dwindle if it ever became the free market some are advocating. I think the people who want this are the kind of people that go to see Miami play the 'Wolves because they are L. James or D. Wade fans. Sorry, that's not me, I'm a fan of the alma mater and the hometown team. For the L. James type fans an opem market will be great. But you will lose the fans who like rooting for the home team if the deck is ever (more) stacked against them than it is now. It will destry college foorball in my opinion.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

Sure they do. It's called a grant-in-aid.



It ain't free labor. It's not the NCAA's fault if the athlete doesn't appreciate the value he or she is receiving, like most of the rest of the world would.

+1000000

 

[AO54]

D-1 athletes are not amateurs. They are professionals earning the equivalent of well over $100K during their four years. Many players would be worth much more than that in a free college sports market and many non-revenue sport athletes would be worth far less.

There is no free market for college athletics. I can't start the equivalent of the NCAA and pay football players/basketball players while not paying the volleyball players.

What are you afraid of, that Alabama is going to get all the recruits because their boosters can pay larger salaries? oh wait.

What would be better for the student-athletes like Manziel who the NCAA claims to care about?
What would be better for Gary Tinsley's family who isn't even allowed to receive donations from Gopher fans to pay for his kids future expenses?
What would be better for the thousands of D-1 athletes who didn't achieve their dream of making it to the NFL for any number of reasons?

 

[GraniteCityGopher]

Kate and Ashley made money in college on their names cause they're Kate and Ashley. Johnny Football is nobody until he puts that A&M jersey on, walks out into a stadium that A&M built, to play a game that A&M hires coaches to coach, in a league that A&M pays to belong to, on a campus that is A&M and in front of a fan base that values being associated with A&M. So as long a Johnny wants to make money off of his association with A&M football, shouldn't he expect to live by their rules? So Reilly isn't even making an apples to oranges comparison.

Now if A&M wants to take Johnny's image and name and make some money off of it (licensed jerseys and video games)beyond the game, I think they should live by Johnny's rules.

 

[AO54]

Kate and Ashley made money in college on their names cause they're Kate and Ashley. Johnny Football is nobody until he puts that A&M jersey on, walks out into a stadium that A&M built, to play a game that A&M hires coaches to coach, in a league that A&M pays to belong to, on a campus that is A&M and in front of a fan base that values being associated with A&M. So as long a Johnny wants to make money off of his association with A&M football, shouldn't he expect to live by their rules? So Reilly isn't even making an apples to oranges comparison.

Now if A&M wants to take Johnny's image and name and make some money off of it (licensed jerseys and video games)beyond the game, I think they should live by Johnny's rules.

that doesn't quite work for guys like Manziel or Tyus Jones.

They most definitely are somebody before putting on a college jersey or colleges wouldn't be so desperate to get them to put on the jersey in the first place.

 

[dpodoll68]

I can't start the equivalent of the NCAA and pay football players/basketball players while not paying the volleyball players.

False premise. What's stopping you from starting a professional league only for football players, or only for basketball players, etc., that allows 18-year-olds to play for pay?

 

[AO54]

False premise. What's stopping you from starting a professional league only for football players, or only for basketball players, etc., that allows 18-year-olds to play for pay?

How is it a false premise? Universities switch between the NAIA and the NCAA looking to help their bottom line, but title IX prevents them from joining my new college sports association allowing schools to pay certain players regardless of gender above the room+board+tuition.

 

[dpodoll68]

How is it a false premise? Universities switch between the NAIA and the NCAA looking to help their bottom line, but title IX prevents them from joining my new college sports association allowing schools to pay certain players regardless of gender above the room+board+tuition.

Why does it have to be a college sports association? Title IX doesn't apply to professional sports leagues. You're purposely confusing the issue because you know there's nothing preventing anyone from starting a pro league that would compete with the NCAA for players.

 

[AO54]

Why does it have to be a college sports association? Title IX doesn't apply to professional sports leagues. You're purposely confusing the issue because you know there's nothing preventing anyone from starting a pro league that would compete with the NCAA for players.

You're the one confusing college sports with pro sports. The issue is with college sports. I don't want to compete with college sports, I want to make them better. Let's get guys like Joe Mauer to take some classes while playing baseball and getting paid instead of just going to the minor pro leagues. Better for the U, better for Joe Mauer.

 

[dpodoll68]

You're the one confusing college sports with pro sports. The issue is with college sports. I don't want to compete with college sports, I want to make them better. Let's get Joe Mauer to take some classes while playing baseball and getting paid. Better for the U, better for Joe Mauer.

No, I'm not the one who's confused. It's not college sports anymore if you're paying cash to players. You're trying to turn college sports into pro sports. If you want to pay players, start a pro league. This isn't that complicated.