COLUMNIST: Michigan's jersey giveaway sets dangerous precedent
Stumbled across this while perusing the interwebs this morning. Any merit to what this guy is saying?
Say it isn't so.
Please say that after what happened at Ohio State, the University of Michigan isn't letting its football players keep the throwback jerseys worn in the Wolverines' last-second victory over Notre Dame.
No athletic director who pays attention to the world, and conference, around him would say "yes" to such a request.
And yet, Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon, after checking with his NCAA compliance officer, acceded to the players' wishes. They get to keep the jerseys.
While this is not a violation of NCAA rules, it is a violation of common sense.
Don't people learn?
The mess at Ohio State, which cost football coach Jim Tressel his job and seems likely to put the Buckeyes on probation, began with players trading memorabilia for tattoos.
Several Michigan players say nothing untoward is going to happen, that they will keep the jerseys forever in order to preserve the memory of their victory.
OK. That's a nice thought. But why put temptation in front of players?
Does anyone think well-heeled Wolverines boosters will resist the urge to line players' pockets with cash while getting a "legacy" jersey to frame and hang on their den walls?
Even if you believe players have the right to sell whatever they are given, the NCAA disagrees. If you want players to avoid violating rules by selling jerseys, don't give them jerseys to sell.
Click HERE to read the rest of the column.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:01 AM ^
being Worn by girls named Rachel from Long Island to do the walk of shame.
If you lived in S. Quad, you'll get this.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:01 AM ^
being Worn by girls named Rachel from Long Island to do the walk of shame.
If you lived in S. Quad, you'll get this.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:05 AM ^
I don't agree with the guy's arguments, mostly for the same reasons that have already been stated; however, I think it's an important topic to think about. With everything that has happened recently, I don't think it's stupid to bring up the point or to discuss it.
But let's just assume that some player is offered $100K for his legacy jersey from a greedy booster, and the player agrees to the deal. Even if that story got uncovered, wouldn't our AD be in the clear, since (I assume) they explained the rules to the players and did everything in their power to maintain compliance? So if this were to happen, the hammer would come down on the player, rather than our AD, right?
These student athletes are adults. They should be expected to conduct themselves with integrity and honesty (that's how adults are supposed to behave, Braylon), and as long as the AD fulfills their responsibility to make the rules clear to the athletes, the onus falls on the players to act appropriately and within the boundaries of the rules.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:12 AM ^
September 15th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
I'm not familiar with what happened with A.J. Green; what did he do?
And as long as compliance and the coaches do their part to make the rules clear, can they be held responsible for the actions of a player who willingly and knowingly breaks the rules?
September 15th, 2011 at 9:40 AM ^
September 15th, 2011 at 10:06 AM ^
Ok, and that makes sense. He acted irresponsibly and faced the consequences for it. It didn't fall back on the program as a whole (correct me if I'm wrong) because the coaches and compliance department fulfilled their responsibilities to educate the players.
So the damage was limited to the person who broke the rules and did not escalate further. If any of our guys sell their jerseys, they should be disciplined for willingly breaking the rules. Sure, it reflects poorly on the college and we could potentially lose a key player for a few games, but the punishment doesn't extend beyond the individual players (i.e. we avoid what's going on with OSU), and, to bring everything full circle, that's why the columnist's worry is unfounded.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^
September 15th, 2011 at 3:49 PM ^
Who would want a jersey with an Independence Bowl patch on it? That'd lower the value of the jersey in my view.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:11 AM ^
This is a great point. On a related note, because students have been known to cheat on exams, Michigan is going to stop giving them entirely.
September 15th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^
Thanks for the advice. No more exams. One of my students copied another student's homework. What should I do?
September 15th, 2011 at 9:18 AM ^
It would be a goddamn shame if we punished a kid like Denard Robinson for something that a kid like Terelle Pryor did. Period.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
Why are we sending page views to the Virginia Dispatch? Who cares what this guy says?
September 15th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
The precedent has already been set. Ohio claimed they educated the players and the NCAA bought it with not so much as a second thought. If a jersey gets sold, the AD says the players knew the rules, the player is suspended for a few games at the beginning of the next season(remember precedent), plays in the bowl game and as long as there is no paper trail 10 miles long, the player is reinstated for league play or before.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
You can never have enough rules or enough follow-up or enough people following athletes around to stop them from cheating and selling things or whatever if they want to do it.
Instead, anyone see the Desmond Howard interview where he talked about people on the team being certain that if they did anything at all that was even questionable that would reflect badly on the team or the university that Bo would find out and kill them?
September 15th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^
Visit any former player's home, from Michigan players to those that played at Mt. San Antonio College (Mount Sac), and you'll find one of their jerseys, if not more, hanging around their house. It's a common piece of memarobilia for players to keep, along with an abundance of turf shoes, shorts, t-shirts, gloves, and maybe even a helmet.
It's not like there was a charity auction and these were covertly handed out in boxes with brown wrapping paper and hand delivered by Denard
September 15th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
Denard could make tons of money selling his signature. Let's cut off his hand. (But please wait until after 2012 to do it.)
September 15th, 2011 at 11:11 AM ^
that guy Is dumb
September 15th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
I've subscribed to the Times-Dispatch (the RICHMOND times-dispatch, not Virginia or Columbus as some people keep calling it) and this guy is actually a pretty good writer. I understand his concern, but don't come to the same conclusion as him. But he's usually a pretty thoughtful read, and not some guy who tries to be inflamatory. That said, he would never write this about Va Tech or UVA. He made his point about general lack of oversight in college sports and picked a target 600 miles away to use as an example.