TennBlue

October 10th, 2014 at 10:28 PM ^

A player making a few bucks off of autographs on the weekend is indeed no big deal.  How do you keep it limited to a few bucks, though?  How do you keep boosters from funneling thousands of dollars to players through autographs?

 

Keeping track of how much they sign and how much they earn through it would be an accounting nightmare, with no way to ensure accuracy.  There simply isn't any practical way to keep it at a low, reasonable level. Any cap imposed will be ignored and be even less enforceable than now.

 

You have to assume it will be abused for all its worth, because it will be.  Allowing player endorsements inevitably means corporations hiring players as token spokesmen for possibly millions of dollars per year.  College football then becomes a de facto professional sport, with athletes paid by corporations, and the school with the corporate backer with the deepest pockets wins. 

 

That may seem alarmist, but I genuinely see no way to prevent that once the genie is out of the bottle.  Maybe that scenario sounds great to you, in which case there's no problem.  As far as I'm concerned, once players are professionals they are no longer students, and if they're not students then what they're playing isn't college football any more. The alternative is the current rule, which bans it completely.  I don't see how any middle ground is possible.

Joined: 10/12/2010

MGoPoints: 6445

GBOD79

October 10th, 2014 at 10:32 PM ^

You can allow players to charge for autographs and still ban booster payments, corporate payments, and agent activity. Signing autographs for 20 bucks is supply and demand.

I do understand your argument and my retort would be that the only way to make this a non-issue would be to allow schools to give scholarships that cover the cost of living, plus a few grand in discretionary income. Then ban any other means of earning money.


Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 07/14/2009

MGoPoints: 3719

HANCOCK

October 11th, 2014 at 1:28 AM ^

or we could just let boosters pay players. its not like it will effect the competitiveness of the teams. teams that get 2-3 stars recruits usually will still get 2-3 star recruits and build with them. teams like michigan have proven that high star ranking dont really seem to matter anyway. if you wanna pay a bunch of high school kids, go for it

Joined: 10/16/2012

MGoPoints: 1665

njv5352

October 11th, 2014 at 7:45 AM ^

Or...the fact that these students really don't pay a dime to attend these schools as D1 athletes, maybe their families could pony up some of that spending money since they don't have tuition payments. I grew up dirt poor and my parents couldn't afford to pay for college. I worked my butt off each summer, each christmas break and every spring break. That money earned was used to pay for my "fun" and extra living expenses while I attended school. In the end I came out $140k in debt from school and still managed to have a good time. These kids have ways to make legitimate money and most of them won't. Let's start focusing on what they are allowed to do by fhr NCAA and less on what they want to do to earn money.

Joined: 06/28/2010

MGoPoints: 472

GBOD79

October 11th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^

Were you a division 1 athlete who was expected to practice year round and maintain grades while traveling across the country? 

 

I suspect that earning money is a little harder for athletes than it is for normal college students. Lord knows it was for me when I was school and I only played division 3 football. Its easier said then done to earn money when you practice 3-6 every day, have class before that, gameday on Saturday, and homework on Sunday. Then in the offseason you have voluntary workouts (which are not really voluntary), spring practice, etc. 

Joined: 07/14/2009

MGoPoints: 3719

njv5352

October 11th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^

Since you want to go down that road, I was an academic scholarship kid who had to maintain a 3.6 GPA. I also walked onto a D1 basketball program my freshman year. After 6 weeks of practice I was encouraged to change my Pre-Med major to a sports science major or a communications major. When I refused I was encouraged to leave the team. I was able to maintain my academics and still do all the necessary work the other guys on the team were doing. The difference was that I was taking a larger class load than they were. Maybe I am the exception, but from my experience there was plenty of time to work a few hours on campus and make a little spending money. Might just mean you not able to party it up every weekend during the off season.

Joined: 06/28/2010

MGoPoints: 472

TennBlue

October 11th, 2014 at 2:21 PM ^

You're making a shallow appeal to emotion, like "I think it's ridiculous that people don't like puppies and kittens."

 

It's not selling autographs for a few bucks that's the issue.  The problem is that there's no way to do that without opening the floodgates to a whole lot of other stuff.

 

The reality is that the ban is not at all ridiculous, because the alternative is hundreds of times worse.  Zeroing in on one small advantage while ignoring all the problems that come with it is dishonest.

Joined: 10/12/2010

MGoPoints: 6445

njv5352

October 11th, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^

GBOD79....please don't think that I am attacking you. I do agree that there needs to be some form of opportunity for these students to make some spending money. I agree 100% with TennBlue that unfortunately the autograph sessions would lead to boosters paying for hundreds or thousands of autographs they may or may not ever receive. A more realistic approach is to give these athletes on campus job opportunities where the school can manage their schedules, standardize their pay and keep it as clean as possible. Not every athlete is going to need to work and not every athlete is going to want to work. They can also keep it confined to the offseason so the player won't be "overwhelmed" while in school.

Joined: 06/28/2010

MGoPoints: 472

GBOD79

October 10th, 2014 at 10:15 PM ^

I understand it is against the rules. He is obviously being punished for his actions. I disagree with the rule and the implementation of it. We all know scholarships do not cover the full cost of attendance, let's give them the opportunity to take advantage of their fame.


Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 07/14/2009

MGoPoints: 3719

Bluesnu

October 11th, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^

"Considering that many players come from families and areas that impoverished"

 

I have a problem with this argument, and I think it goes towards the "college athletes should be paid" argument as well.  I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to profit from their likeness, autographs, etc.  That said, I don't think "where you come from" should determine whether or not you should be paid whatsoever.  It's a terrible point that is brought up time and again and yet doesn't apply in any other business/emloyment circumstance.   

Joined: 01/06/2011

MGoPoints: 381

njv5352

October 10th, 2014 at 10:21 PM ^

So instead of doing the right thing and being more selective with their Heisman pick, they just remove the criteria for which one should be selected to pick the popular guy....lol....this doesn't save them any embarrassment, it just proves what a joke the award has become. If I am a former trophy winner I would be upset at what a joke it has become and now to see them water it down even more. How about they grow some balls and do their due diligence when selecting a candidate. It never was about being just the best athlete.

Joined: 06/28/2010

MGoPoints: 472

XM - Mt 1822

October 10th, 2014 at 11:43 PM ^

from the downtown athletic club, the club that hosted the heisman and ceremonies before it was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks.  the pictures were all hung in this beautiful banquet hall on the 4th floor.  rich, dark wood paneling, carpet, etc. 

when we played new york back in the late 90's they put us up at the club.  we had a special dinner on the thursday night before the game in the heisman room which had all the pictures of the heisman winners....except OJ's.  

Joined: 12/21/2011

MGoPoints: 103414

LSAClassOf2000

October 11th, 2014 at 12:52 AM ^

The obvious question is why, but my second point might hit on that: Debate surrounding the “integrity” of recent Heisman winners has largely defined the award’s current climate.

If that's the reason they did it, then very sadly, I would have to say that I understand why they did it. I can see how they would want to slightly redefine the award's purpose to avoid the inadvertant parody. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130636

UMgradMSUdad

October 11th, 2014 at 1:36 AM ^

I guess the hypocrisy was just too great and obvious.  But as others have noted, there are still quite a few issues.  Why not just be real about the criteria and say it's for the best QB on a nationally contending team?

Joined: 07/02/2011

MGoPoints: 13185

Don

October 11th, 2014 at 3:05 AM ^

helps build the character and integrity of the young men and women who participate. That'll be a relief.

It's a nice lesson for life in general. If people aren't living up to your standards, just get rid of the standards. As long as they're making money, it's all good.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148371