OT: Gurley Suspended Indefinitely
Official release from Georgia Atheletic Dept:
Oct. 9, 2014
ATHENS ----- University of Georgia tailback Todd Gurley has been indefinitely suspended from competition by the UGA Athletic Association during an ongoing investigation into an alleged violation of NCAA rules.
"I'm obviously very disappointed," said UGA head football coach Mark Richt. "The important thing for our team is to turn all our attention toward preparation for Missouri."
Link is here
Gurley 8.2 ypc and 8 TD's this season. Averaging 154 yards per game. Ouch.
October 9th, 2014 at 8:28 PM ^
does anybody actually care about this stuff anymore? pay the players. i could care less...
maybe we would be half-way decent if we paid our players...not that we have been bad with recruiting, but maybe it would motivate them
October 9th, 2014 at 7:05 PM ^
Oh come on.
Of course there is competition any time you produce something that is then distributed within a free market economy. Whether it's intelligence, athleticism, or the physical synthesis of those two skills i.e. a sports competition attended and solicited by millions or a book that consumers purchase. Even our "free market" economy creates rules that "level the playing field", yet there is no argument that producers of a commodity should not tangibly profit from it. That practice has ended in nearly every business but one.
We can all produce reductionist arguments, it doesn't mean they make logical sense.
October 9th, 2014 at 6:01 PM ^
I don't ever recall a Heisman frontrunner being suddenly done for the season for an apparent violation of rules (i.e. not an injury). Wow
October 9th, 2014 at 6:03 PM ^
Jeez. Does anyone think Mark Richt has lost control of the Georgia football program?
October 9th, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^
Nope.
October 9th, 2014 at 6:06 PM ^
Man, all those authographs probably give him extra human strength and speed.
These NCAA rules are fucking dumb as shit.
October 9th, 2014 at 6:12 PM ^
Out of curiosity - do you think it should be OK for an Ole Miss bagman to give Laquan Treadwell thousands of dollars to pick that school? I'm curious as to where you draw the line between "good rule" and "fucking dumb as shit."
October 9th, 2014 at 6:34 PM ^
How is this relevant to the situation at hand?
Here's one that is. Gurley is barred from selling his signature, yet UGA profits off of "anonymous" *wink, wink* #3 jerseys without Gurley receiving anything. Is this ok? Would it even still be legal if it wasn't such a well-established tradition?
October 9th, 2014 at 6:46 PM ^
Stuff like this is why I love Jay Bilas
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/23…
October 9th, 2014 at 6:48 PM ^
It just sounds like people are against boosters giving players money, but are OK with boosters giving players money if the player writes his name in cursive on some memorabilia. I don't see those two things being all that different.
October 9th, 2014 at 6:54 PM ^
What if instead of boosters giving the player money, the player, through an agent, were able to set up an autograph event, at say a mall or something?
October 9th, 2014 at 7:00 PM ^
That would be a start, but it doesn't stop a booster from saying "I'll take 50,000, please" or a booster promising a certain recruit that he'll set him up with a different autograph event every weekend.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:03 PM ^
Even then, I think the NCAA wants to discourage rules that would have players picking a school based on who can promise them the most money.
It's one thing to say, "Come to Alabama where we'll make you the best at your sport so you have the best chance to make a bunch of money" and "Come to Alabama because our boosters will buy as many t-shirts as you can sign and for the highest price."
October 9th, 2014 at 10:34 PM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 7:19 AM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 7:17 PM ^
The NCAA could easily make rules that allow players to profit through the school's officially and still bar random boosters from throwing out bags of money.
For one, the recruit is not officially affiliated with the university until he signs his LOI. There are rules to coroporate recruitment that could easily govern what happens before that point.
Why not let Todd Gurley auction off his autograph at an official UGA event? Would this not be better for everyone? The school profits, donors help the school through an event that is legal, Gurley is allowed to navigate a larger and more competitive market of buyers.
But no, we've been doing this forever so it should stay like this.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:20 PM ^
But in your scenario, you could still have random boosters (or groups of them) bidding like crazy on the auction, and the problem isn't really any different. You would just have to make a ton of rules on this to limit any faul play and there just isn't enough enforcement to enforce those rules.
It's hard to enforce a rule when it's "do this but not this or this or this or this." It's easy to enforce a rule that it "don't do this is any way at all."
October 9th, 2014 at 7:29 PM ^
Why would boosters bidding at the auction be a "problem"?
If you're committed to having college athletes remain entirely amateur then it's a problem.
Teams already compete financially, paying players is not going to destroy the entire culture of collegiate athletics. People have made that argument in the past for all kinds of anachronistic institutions and the warnings have almost never come true.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:55 PM ^
And this is where we disagree. I think boosters paying players would be a major problem. I don't want players to weigh "how much I'll get paid in college" in to where they decide to play college football, for a lot of reasons.
October 9th, 2014 at 6:35 PM ^
No, I think there's a way you can allow players like Manziel, Tebow, Gurley, etc. to profit off their likeness without breaking the law (i.e. doubt LaQuan reported that alleged income). It's not a zero sum game of shady bagman or nothing.
October 9th, 2014 at 6:50 PM ^
Maybe. I think that would be tough to pull off, but either way that doesn't exist right now, and obvisouly that's not what Gurley did.
So often players break rules that are very clear, but somehow it's the NCAA's fault for having the rule, not the player's fault for breaking it.
October 9th, 2014 at 6:57 PM ^
Like them or not, these rules are in place for purposes of competitive balance, not because of concern that an athlete might break the law.
October 9th, 2014 at 8:32 PM ^
i think we shouldve slid treadwell some money under the table.
can you imagine funchess and treadwell right now?!?
October 9th, 2014 at 6:12 PM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 6:16 PM ^
Apparently if he'd just allegedly sexually assaulted a woman, stolen a bunch of crab and offended a cafeteria he'd be suspended for like, a game.
#ACCDiscipline #FreeSeafoodUniversity
October 9th, 2014 at 6:23 PM ^
http://shop.georgiadogs.com/COLLEGE_Georgia_Bulldogs_Mens_Jerseys/partn…
October 9th, 2014 at 6:33 PM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 6:41 PM ^
Because in the thread from Reddit, the OP says to look on Ebay for autographs from a heisman contender and they would know who was getting suspended, but Jameis Winston has more items for same than Gurley does.
October 9th, 2014 at 6:47 PM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 6:47 PM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 6:50 PM ^
Pretty funny how high a Helen Gurley Brown autographed pic comes up on that search
October 9th, 2014 at 6:51 PM ^
It doesn't matter if the rule is stupid. It's the rule. When you agree to take the scholly, you agree to follow the rules. How stupid are these kids? Or is EVERYONE doing it and only rarely does anyone get caught?
October 9th, 2014 at 6:55 PM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 7:05 PM ^
This sounds like a great idea. New rule in society - if you think a rule is stupid, just don't follow it!
October 9th, 2014 at 7:44 PM ^
I don't know that this is a fair criticism. I think this would be the obvious rebuttal for people to turn to. But many rules that I'm referring to, the ones people could characterize as stupid, would be victimless crimes if broken. The Gurley case here is a 100% victimless crime, unless you consider that the outcome victimizes Gurley, which I do. No one else gets hurt.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:49 PM ^
Ok but the rule is still the rule. And if you get caught, you have to pay the price.
After the Manziel fiasco, you'd have to be ridiculously dumb to sign 250 jerseys in a row for the same dealer.
This dude is dumb. He broke a stupid rule. Doesn't mean he shouldn't pay the price.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:54 PM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 7:58 PM ^
Have you ever thought that maybe the NCAA keeps enforcing these idiotic policies because the people they report to (the university presidents and athletic directors) don't think they're idiotic?
Maybe coaches don't want to deal with this stuff. "Sorry I was late for practice coach, my autograph session went late. Gotta make that money, right?"
October 9th, 2014 at 8:09 PM ^
Yeah, you're right. John Doe Booster from an SEC school should be able to pay LaQuandre' Adams, 5* recruit, $100,000 for his "autograph"
October 9th, 2014 at 8:39 PM ^
well that wasnt a racially charged comment at all..
October 9th, 2014 at 7:06 PM ^
Really? So let's say your company drug tests. It's a great job that you've always wanted. You think that rule is stupid, so you keep getting stoned. They test you, you fail, and you get fired. Is your employer the stupid one here, or are you? Full disclosure - I'm a long time pot smoker, so I have no bias against it.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:21 PM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 7:41 PM ^
I can see your point. One difference might be relevant though. Many people who smoke pot do so for purely recreational purposes. Not all, in which case this example doesn't apply, but many. These people don't stand to benefit beyond their own enjoyment. Now taking the case of Gurley, or any athlete in his position, how do you know the money is just going to recreation and enjoyment? Maybe it's going to food. Maybe his family is having a rough time and he's trying to help out. People characterize the situation as a player not following the rules as if he's being greedy by taking these impermissible benefits. Maybe it's actually a necessity. I don't think this is always the case, but I'd be willing to bet it is sometimes.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:52 PM ^
Sometimes it might be, but that doesn't make it OK to break the rules. If I sell drugs to feed my family, it's still against the law, even if my reasons for doing it are noble.
October 9th, 2014 at 7:56 PM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 8:00 PM ^
But I disagree with you on that. The victims are the schools whose players aren't breaking the rules. Just like doing PEDS isn't victimless. If UGA is more desirable to recruits because their players can make money selling autographs, then there is a victim and that's everyone else.
October 9th, 2014 at 8:05 PM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 8:09 PM ^
I'm sure all schools have some rule breakers, but some schools are much better at turning a blind eye to this stuff (or even facilitate it) than others.
And I've never read anything compelling that funneling money to players wouldn't result in a competitive advantage.
October 9th, 2014 at 8:18 PM ^
October 9th, 2014 at 8:40 PM ^
youre comparing drugs to autographs..