bluebyyou

November 9th, 2015 at 2:50 PM ^

The jersey's value is a tiny fraction of what it sold for....someone with deep pockets (who probably only will end up paying roughly half of the 101,000 after taxes and the charitiable deduction) did something good in exchange for a piece of sports memoribilia.  To make an argument beyond that seems a bit over the top as no one knows how Fournette's career will play out.  A couple of running backs, McGahee and Lattimore, come to mind.

Joined: 09/07/2009

MGoPoints: 18599

Mr. Yost

November 9th, 2015 at 4:12 PM ^

If I wanted to pay $10,000 for the dirty laundry or autograph of a regular student? You're saying they shouldn't be able to sell it me?

I get what you're saying...in that someone could pay Cam Newton $100,000 for a dirty sock just because they want him to come to Auburn and we can't have that happening...but everything isn't so black and white.

Sorry, I know you were joking and many are in this thread...but people are so passionate about this subject, but like I said, it's not as easy as people make it out to be.

I don't have the answer, I see both sides...but to say just because football you shouldn't be able to sell something with your name on it is fucking stupid. If a famous rapper or singer or entertainer was in college, and they charged for an autograph --- no one would bat an eye.

We should be trying to figure out how to avoid boosters abusing it rather than fighting over whether it's right or wrong. Unfortunately, I just don't have that answer.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

bluebyyou

November 9th, 2015 at 4:23 PM ^

Look, from my perspective, you either keep it amateur or you don't.  I can give you a host of reasons, all of which you have already heard, as to why paying athletes can be problematic, but my biggest concern is the law of unintended consequences, which rarely works out for the better.

What concerns me the most, and we saw a touch of it recently until a court decision changed the process, was how schools started amending their "expense list" so their :"athletic stipend" could be made higher and be used as a recruiting tool. And that was the tip of the iceberg.

Joined: 09/07/2009

MGoPoints: 18599

Mr. Yost

November 9th, 2015 at 8:45 PM ^

And agreed.

But who defines amatuerism is the problem.

Last week Oliver Luck (YTOL) and I had a really good discussion over this and he agrees 100%. The problem is that you can't define amatuerism like you used to...

Back in the day, according to his exact words..."we at the NCAA used the Olympics as the north star...whenever something was in question, we'd refer to the Olympic model." Well, that can't be done anymore...there are pros in the olympics, sponsors rule the Olympics.

The NCAA is the only model of it's kind in the WORLD. Who are we to say that it's definition can't evolve?

It's not like there's a model in Europe or Asia that we can mirror for consistancy sake. We can't. In most other places you go to school to go to school and if you play sports it's club or pro and that's it.

We even went back into the discussion of how Teddy Roosevelt was the one who brought about this idea that college athletics is tied to being a well rounded person and tied to being educated because of all of life lessons you learn as an athlete.

In the end, we both agree...right now there is no "right answer." Those unwilling to acknowledge that it's not a black or white/"to pay" or "not to pay" issue aren't understanding the full issue.

One nugget...Oliver would like to see college basketball go to the baseball model and get rid of the one and done's...but that's unlikely because it's an NBA rule that has nothing to do with the NCAA.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

Mr. Yost

November 9th, 2015 at 4:15 PM ^

It was just that people pay more for charity.

And I GUARANTEE if that 2nd string OL would go sell something he'd make LESS than he would if he did it for charity in one of the biggest storms/disasters in recent memory and it got public news attention.

Would it be Fournette numbers? No. But it definitely would be more than it would if it wasn't for charity. No question.

Say he gets $40 for a regular jersey on a regular day...even if he gets $1,000 for the charity for the floods in SC...that doesn't come CLOSE to Fournette, but it's a shit ton more that he would've gotten otherwise.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

ijohnb

November 9th, 2015 at 1:53 PM ^

sure this is going to result in a first-of-its-kind discussion that never comes up on the Board and that will be completely settled with all parties in agreement by the end of the day.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

JHendo

November 9th, 2015 at 2:55 PM ^

Judging by how the guy's arms immediately shoot straight out and then how his teammate cradles his head, that looks to be a pretty bad injury.  Are you posting that for jokes or something, because some how serious head/neck injuries are humorous and relevant in this situation?

You have got to be the worst gif poster on here.  As a frequent gif poster myself who considers posting gifs for meaningless upvotes an art form on here, you are an embarrasment to this art medium.  My advice to you when it comes to posting gifs:

Joined: 10/25/2008

MGoPoints: 13993

PB-J Time

November 9th, 2015 at 1:59 PM ^

This is the example of why they need to just let the exceptional players (the Fournette, Woodson, & yes the Webber's of the world) make money off their likeness. Paying every athlete the same (which you'd have to do) would solve nothing. Fournette's jersey would still be $$$ but you're paying the swimmers the same at LF (no offense swimmers)

Joined: 09/06/2012

MGoPoints: 3469

TennBlue

November 9th, 2015 at 2:05 PM ^

it's so damn important to let a few highly exceptional players become multi-millionaires a few years earlier than they would otherwise.

I don't see where the benefit to a handful of players outweighs the negative effects on the system as a whole. The only enforceable limit is zero.

Joined: 10/12/2010

MGoPoints: 6445

Brandon_L

November 9th, 2015 at 2:46 PM ^

That's awesome. Though I agree that players deserve to get something outside of a free education, housing, meals, world class training to help the 1% that actually make it to the NFL, I do not think it is wise for them to be profiting on their likeness without sharing the money with the school that provides them a platform.

I played semi professional football where you were lucky to have a locker room to change in before a game. Some teams paid there players and others made you pay to cover the league fees. The university of Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, have built a brand that allows great athletes to come in and earn a free education while playing a game. So if players want to make money go to the semi professional level and change in and out of your uniform between bushes from time to time and do your thing at whatever high school field you could rent out for 500 a week and profit if you like. But there won't be 100,000 plus fans on a beautiful fall Saturday to cheer for you like at Michigan. The atmosphere, the band, you can feel the past glory when you walk into the stadium, or you can change in the bushes.

Joined: 11/23/2009

MGoPoints: 2467

JTrain

November 9th, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^

That's ridiculous. Just the principle of it. Never understood the whole "go get his autograph" / sports paraphernalia thing tho either...



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 12/08/2012

MGoPoints: 8459

Mr. Yost

November 9th, 2015 at 4:20 PM ^

It was for charity...meaning, the winner was probably going to donate anyway. Now he gets some free shit for the donation he/she would've already made.

And maybe this too his/her $75,000 donation up to $101,000? But it's not like someone woke up and just decided they wanted the helmets and the jersey that bad. Clearly they had already planned to give towards the cause.

It makes perfect sense. It just got people who were planning on giving anyway into a bidder war and making them donate a little more than maybe they'd planned to begin with.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

Mr. Yost

November 9th, 2015 at 4:18 PM ^

If you're already going to donate $100,000 to the cause...why not get a jersey and signed helmets?

I don't see why this logic seems to be lost in this thread.

If I have the coin to donate $100,000 for a cause...and someone says all of the proceeds to this Jim Harbaugh autographed hat, football, and khaki set will be donated to the SAME cause I was already planning to give towards...as a Michigan fan, why wouldn't I go get the Harbaugh stuff knowing my money is going to the same place?

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

Esterhaus

November 9th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^

 

Several well-used celebrity guitars signed by each musician years ago when the bands were in prime billboard by donating to charitable causes. The charities got the money, we received the tax deduction less the depreciated instrument, and now some of those intruments are kept in a humidity-controlled vault at monthly charges because their value greatly exceeds what we paid and need for retirement. I've always advocated for a flat tax into which everybody pays the same amount but unless we have that some "interests" will continue to support these sort of tax schemes which philosophically I disagree with yet momma didn't raise no fool. I have attended Sir Elton John HIV benefits where some 25-year-old shipping heiress has dropped, derp "donated," $400+k on a Mick Fleetwood signed drum kit - and in twenty years it will be worth double. Our system of social rewards and valuation is completely mucked up and so there is that, what's new.

Joined: 03/16/2015

MGoPoints: 7733

Mr. Yost

November 9th, 2015 at 8:51 PM ^

Which is another fact many people miss when the debate about players making money off their likeness comes up.

They can't just go sell game worn jerseys or helmets or equipment. Those things all belong to the university.

The argument/fear that a booster could come along and pay Cam Newton $100,000 for his chewing gum is a much better argument/fear of guys selling off all their gear (while they're enrolled in college).

Because of this argument/fear - it's my opinion that college athletes will never be able to make money of their likenes in this way. However, I could see down the road a process in which an athlete (any sport), could sell his/her autograph through a third party vendor that decides it's actual value.

I could especially see this if the Power 5 were to break away from the rest of the NCAA in some way, shape, or form.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

CoachBP6

November 9th, 2015 at 9:07 PM ^

Does all of the $$$ really go to the cause? I ask bc there have been several stories in the past few years where charity and non profit organizations have been busted for skimming or profiting off the donations. I worked for a non profit until I found out that they are only legally obligated to give 17% of money to the actual cause. Does anyone know of any reputable charities where you can track your donation or know that a majority % is going to the cause instead of some rich asshole?

Joined: 12/18/2013

MGoPoints: 7967