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 1:19 AM ^
Zero.
So we shouldn't allow players to keep their earned trinkets because maybe they will break a rule later by selling them? Better yet, let's let the players buy all their equipment in the first place: giving them a helmet violates improper benefit rules.
This guy is an idiot.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:22 AM ^
And seriously, what's to stop a player from "borrowing" a jersey from a regular game at some point. Game worn stuff is just as big. Hell, what's to stop a player from bring a vial in and bottling his sweat....game sweat. Sheesh.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
You have to remember that there are many out there (including me) that would pay VERY good money for a vial of Denard's game sweat. The temptation is too great - vials should not be allowed in the stadium on game day!
September 15th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
What's stopping them? Big Jon Falk, for one.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:23 AM ^
No merit. This is stupid. While everyone's initial reaction was probably to cringe and worry, it shouldn't be a big deal. This is like saying, "a couple college kids got DUIs. We should not serve alcohol to college kids or we should take away their driver's licenses." Just because a couple idiots were tempted doesn't mean other kids can't be responsible. If OSU gives the tat5 their Pro Combat jerseys, then yea, they're pretty stupid. But to punish innocent kids for mistakes by other people would be ridiculous.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:23 AM ^
September 15th, 2011 at 1:30 AM ^
So your idea is to never give anything to college student athletes that they could possibly sell? Why?
September 15th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
Stalin agrees with your line of thought.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:35 AM ^
They keep them for a sentimental value. To be honest this was a once in a lifetime opportunity for those players and I would hope none of them would trade it for a little bit of money.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:54 AM ^
If you put yourself in the players' shoes though, how would you respond if it wasn't just "a little bit of money." What if it was a substantial amount of money?
September 15th, 2011 at 1:39 AM ^
Such an asinine argument. This guy is assuming that getting to keep the jerseys is like some sort of "gateway drug" so-to-speak. Because after several players lobbied to keep the jerseys after the game, the next logical decision is for them to sell said jerseys?
<br>
<br>I actually read the article (who knows why). He continued saying that if Michigan wanted to do something special they should have auctioned off the jerseys.
<br>
<br>That'd be a good way to show the players they're appreciated after they asked if they could keep them!
September 15th, 2011 at 1:40 AM ^
What if these jerseys and all other gear that they want to or are allowed to keep was stored by the school until they graduate or move on. I have to think that these student athletes would be just as happy with that. Just a thought.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:15 AM ^
The hockey team (and prob other teams) allows seniors to keep a jersey after the season is up, so why not just wait on giving the football Srs the UTL jerseys when their eligibility is up.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:36 PM ^
THIS <see above> is a good idea. please forward to DB.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:18 AM ^
I really hope we don't win the B1G. We'd have to give out Championship rings, just think of the potential violations!
/sarcasm
September 15th, 2011 at 2:56 AM ^
We're Michigan, not OSU. Our QB is Denard Robinson, not Terrell Pryor. I think that pretty much sums it up.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:58 AM ^
Eff that guy.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:02 AM ^
As many other people have pointed out - this is stupid because by that logic, you shouldn't give them championship rings, athletic gear, or anything, really, since anything could be bartered or sold.
But this is also stupid because it assumes our players are completely unaware of the scandal that rocked our biggest rival and lead to them firing their incredibly successful coach. I know Denard doesn't have cable, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't live in a vacuum.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^
were unaware ...
September 15th, 2011 at 4:24 AM ^
Are they going to frown upon the Gold Pants every year now? Guess we might as well not give them B1G Championship Rings either now, right?
September 15th, 2011 at 9:17 AM ^
I know how we can help them out with the gold pants problem, don't let them win another game against us.
It would be the right thing to do I think.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:15 AM ^
He showed his ignorance to what other schools are doing, i.e. OSU still gives out gold pants He also completely overlooked that unlike the trinkets from OSU these jerseys are completely traceable. He must think our players are as dumb as he is and can't see their own names on the back,
September 15th, 2011 at 7:18 AM ^
September 15th, 2011 at 8:01 AM ^
Right, I didn't use the best word, but we still don't know who sold some of those gold pants. There wouldn't be any uncertainty with the jerseys.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:18 AM ^
Actually there would be since these didn't have names on them and multiple players where the same number.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:20 AM ^
sorry
September 15th, 2011 at 7:12 AM ^
`He has to be a columnist from Columbus. Who else would lay the problem at the feet (or on the backs) of the players? The issue wasn't that they sold items, the issue was what the school didn't do about it. As usual, they just can't wrap their tiny minds around the fact that the problem lies within.
September 15th, 2011 at 7:56 AM ^
September 15th, 2011 at 7:16 AM ^
This is Michigan Fergodsakes. OSU comparisons are a pretty big reach. We actually were smart enough to clear the idea with the NCAA first as opposed to doing what ever the hell we want.
September 15th, 2011 at 7:22 AM ^
Because if Michigan gives away the jerseys, and then some of the players sell them or exchange them for other goods, and then Hoke learns about it and emails someone else about it, and then he covers it up so that no one loses their eligibility, and then he lies to the NCAA about the whole thing ... we might end up in some moderately hot water.
September 15th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
It now becomes clear that we didn't go to bowl games for a couple of years because we were afraid the NCAA might find out that players were getting BOWL GIFTS on these trips! I mean, if we give anything like that to the players, obviously we're going down.
And I'm sure Michigan is setting a precedent. - dozens of other schools have done big game jerseys before us, and no doubt we're the first ones to ever let them keep it.
I'm glad Virginia or Virginia Tech have never done anything like this....
September 15th, 2011 at 7:26 AM ^
This guy is a fool. Just because there have been problems at other schools with selling gear, we should never give the players anything they could sell? That's no way to treat the players. You have to keep them educated about NCAA compliance, but you can't act like you assume they're all likely to run out and sell everything they're given. Come on. This guy probably wouldn't want us to give out Big Ten Championship rings, either. There's really no difference. Just a guy trying to find something controversial to write about, but he is COMPLETELY off base.
September 15th, 2011 at 7:38 AM ^
Slow down guys. You cannot "give" away jerseys, this would be a huge violation of rules. I'm betting what DB is doing to selling them to the players either after the year is over or when they graduate. And just for clarification, you can sell them to the players for any price the equipment manager wants: $1 to $1000. This is 100% legal.
September 15th, 2011 at 7:49 AM ^
But that doesn't make this guy any less wrong.
September 15th, 2011 at 7:59 AM ^
Based on Brandon's statements, I believe they are treating the jersey as an award for participating in a special event, which can be given away if the value is below a certain amount.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:05 AM ^
I've never heard of a clause that allows that, but wouldn't be surprised because its an exception that should be there. Just to be in the safe side, I'd give them the jerseys at their graduation. It'd be a nice parting gift and a hell of a experience remembered!
September 15th, 2011 at 8:16 AM ^
Yeah, I didn't realize it until Brandon said this: "They love those jerseys. I walked out of the locker room, checked with compliance and got the go ahead. The reason they're getting the jerseys is they really want them and NCAA rules allow us to do it because it was a special event and the cost was under a threshold."
Then I looked it up:
NCAA Bylaw 16.1.4.1 - Participation Awards. Awards for participation in intercollegiate athletics may be presented each year, limited in value and number as specified in Figure 16-1. Awards for participation in special events may be provided only to student-athletes eligible to participate in the competition.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:24 AM ^
September 15th, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^
Further NCAA Bylaw quotations, this one 16.11.1.6:
"A student-athlete may retain athletics apparel items (not equipment) at the end of the individual’s intercollegiate participation. Used equipment may be purchased by the student-athlete on the same cost basis as by any other individual interested in purchasing such equipment."
A shirt, clearly, is apparel and not equipment. This bylaw makes it clear that members of the team may "retain" them at no cost after their eligibility expires. They would have to buy equipment (like a helmet) at fair market value, but they can keep the apparel.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:24 AM ^
September 15th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
Yes, this is worth discussing. I am amazed that no definition of "apparel" vs "equipment" appears in the manual, even though understanding that distinction is very important in terms of complying with this bylaw.
The reason I was considering a shirt worn during the game "apparel": it is wearable on the street, as evidenced by the fact that tens of thousands of people were wearing exactly that same shirt in the stands on gameday. I am sure thousands of students show up to class wearing a replica football shirt; it would follow that the shirt itself is street-wearable apparel. For this reason, I would consider basketball shoes "apparel" and football cleats or baseball spikes or hockey skates "equipment."
I guess we would need a compliance-type person to weigh in here, because I don't see any attempt by the NCAA to define the distinction between apparel and equipment.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^
Regardless, assuming their jerseys are apparel which they seem to be, the players are still not allowed to sell the jersey until such time as they have left Michigan, as several others have already noted. That is the point that needs to be hammered home a couple of dozen times. The Ohio suspensions provide a great learning opportunity.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^
September 15th, 2011 at 8:02 AM ^
Didn't we already give away Navy Seal Tridents this year? Oh god, searching the ebayz . . .
Your search returned 0 items.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:09 AM ^
I think the OSU happenings are a poor reason to withold them from the players, and as such I am happy the AD is going to let them keep them. I understand what the writer is worried about, too, so maybe if they were kept around but the players weren't physically allowed to keep their jersey until after their career is over?
September 15th, 2011 at 8:10 AM ^
This guy is a freaking idiot. Makes a bunch of assumptions...thats all this article is. He just wants to create controversy.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:44 AM ^
WE ARE NOT OHIO STATE
September 15th, 2011 at 8:44 AM ^
Michigan's players actually want to keep their jerseys. Besides, I would imagine that, after the Ohio State University memorabiia scam, which Ohio fans conveniently call "a couple of free tats," every compliance department at every major school has someone who looks on ebay, CL, and other viable auction sites every day to make sure nothing is going up there from current players.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:48 AM ^
Funny how Sparty fans claim Michigan is "no longer relevant," but some hack from Virginia is writing about Michigan's special uniforms. He sure isn't writing about Saint Dantonio.