Brimley

January 6th, 2015 at 10:13 PM ^

EJ's dad is a policeman in N.C. which led EJ to pursue a degree in criminology. BUT...his dad said that Jimbo and Brady were alike in that "if you act the fool, they'll put you on a bus back home" and that he was trusting the coach to take care of his son.  I suspect that EJ's dad is VERY disappointed in Jimbo at this point and he put his foot down about finding a new school.

Tater

January 6th, 2015 at 9:45 PM ^

As long as the NCAA insists on enforcing sham-ateurism, a guy in Winston's position is pretty much forced to leave.  At the #2 overall pick, he will make more money in three years than most of those getting undergrad degrees will make in their entire lives.  

Imagine how much a guy in his position could make from endorsements if his opportunity wasn't being stolen by the NCAA.  He would be worth more at FSU than he would as a rookie in the NFL.  

Maybe the NCAA will finally realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot by thinking that keeping athletes from earning money will put more in their pockets.  The NCAA has to eventually realize that there is more than enough money to go around and that they will profit from athletes staying around for two more years.   When athletes develop their personal brands through endorsements and commercials, they are developing those of their teams and that of the NCAA, too.  

grumbler

January 7th, 2015 at 7:48 AM ^

I always love the nuts who come out of the woodwork to moan about "sham amateurism" or "shamaturism" or whatever, when ever any mention of successful players is raised.  Universities are far better off playing amateur football than trying to go pro.  Allowing athletes to accept "endorsements" is simply allowing them to become pros; they will get "endorsed" by boosters of the school they pick, and the highest "endorsement" will gain the services of that athlete.

College football is harmed not at all by Jameis Winston going pro and thus becoming eligible for actual endorsements.  People go to the college games to see their teams, not their players.

Albatross

January 7th, 2015 at 9:07 AM ^

A professional product with amateur labor. Who wouldn't want that? Not such a great system for the star athletes. They are required to do as they are told, when they are told, and for how much they are told, regardless of any market opportunities they may have. Any system that encroaches on an individual's right to financial gain, planning for their future (i.e., not being allowed to meet with or sign with an agent) and overall self determination is inherently exploitive.

Look, l love college football more than anyone, and i am not naive to how changes might negatively impact MY enjoyment of the game. But my selfish reasons in no way changes the fact that  the system usurps too much control of a person's life, control that we would call ridiculous and crimial in any other theater.

The system is so blatantly one-sided, that I have a hard time believing anyone that has considered the argument with reasonable and logcial  thought, and looked at it with an agenda-free vision can come to the conclusion that it is a fair system for the star athlete.

canzior

January 7th, 2015 at 4:01 PM ^

your points are all valid, but logistically it couldn't work.  As the previous poster said, people watch the teams, not the players.  So in all fairness, if the player can make money on their own, without using their affiliation to the university, than so be it.  Meaning autographs are fine, as long as there is no school/conference/NCAA logo on it.  Sounds ridiculous, but it shows, that the individual without the school is not marketable.  The school has all the leverage, and that's ok. As someone still paying student loans off, I would love an opportunity to go to school free, regardless of the infringement upon my time.  Not only going to school free, but also having an opportunity to showcase my talents to my future employers, as well as have several programs in place in case I decide or am forced to change careers.  Not taking advantage or appreciating of that isn't the fault of the university.  It almost sounds like you want things to be "fair."   And if it's fairness you seek, is it fair that the qb would be able to generate more income than the kicker? Or center? or the right tackle? Is it fair that in paying football players, the lacrosse program is cancelled?

Keep in mind, you'll be a Michigan fan, regardless of who wears the helmet.  The players aren't capitalizing on themselves, they would be capitalizing on their affiliation with the university.

Ultimately it's a choice.  You want this opportunity to be not only be afforded to particular individuals, but you want it to be afforded to them in a way you think is "fair" as in a college education isn't valued as "compensation."  Maybe the fact that only 28% of the US (over age 25) has a college degree contributes to the lack of importance placed on a college degree in our society.

ramuk8891

January 6th, 2015 at 8:50 PM ^

If I remember correctly, the main reason for him going to FSU was due to them having criminal justice major or something. It'd be nice to see him in a winged helmet though

m1817

January 6th, 2015 at 9:54 PM ^

Levenberry is comparable to a JUCO transfer - course credits that may not transfer and only two years of eligibility left.  In addition, he would not be eligible until 2016.

Unless the coaches believe he is signicantly better than the players we have now, we would be better off investing the time in a HS senior who will have four years of eligibility.