OT - NCAA Investigating Johnny Manziel for (Allegedly) Profiting from Autographs
I know, I know, I'm sick of hearing about this kid too, but this wouldn't surprise me if it were true, given his eventful offseason.
When did he enroll at Ohio State?
August 4th, 2013 at 11:26 PM ^
Thread over.
August 5th, 2013 at 12:09 AM ^
I had to do this - enjoy
I hate the NCAA and many believe that rule (forbidding him from profiting from his status as an NCAA athlete) is rediculous, however its a rule and while he is part of the NCAA umbrella, he needs to obey the rules, especially now when he is under one of the hottest burning spotlights that i can remember.
So if a rule is stupid, its null and void?
but also, his point reads (to me at least) more like: the ncaa should go away, and this rule is stupid and should go away. it's not null and void, but it should be...
Let me clarify, the NCAA needs to blown up and built from the ground up to govern in todays sports world. You asked why I think that and then went on to write that many people, including yourself, think that the NCAA is enforcing ridiculous rules thus answering your own question.
I see...sorry about misconstruing your point. My point was not to blame the NCAA, since the NCAA didn't cause Manziel to break the rule that every athlete knows exist. Now...blaming the NCAA for lack of enforcement (or uneven administration of those rules) or the rules themselves is fair game.
August 4th, 2013 at 11:10 PM ^
Interestingly, I was chatting with a guy last night who used to be an assistant bball coach at a D-III school who attended several camps in Michigan (at UM and MSU) in the late 90s/early 00's. Anyway, he said it's shocking how much crazy stuff goes on at the D-I level in terms of recruiting and keeping current players happy, even at the cleaner programs. He's a bit out of the loop since he stopped coaching (now officiates at the D-III level), but still has a lot of connections. I won't repeat the stories, but he did mention a few names and stories from a couple of the Big Ten schools, as well as local Chicago athletes who went elsewhere (especially the SEC).
On topic, he hates that the NCAA rulebook is ridiculously long and arcane, but believes it's almost necessary because people are always finding creative ways around the rules. For instance, he suggests that burner phones and calling cards are still used fairly extensively by recruiters to get around some of the calling restrictions, although less so now that they've amended the texting rules.
Part of the problem, though, is that the rules are very specific and almost always reactionary. Not unexpected in an organization like that, but really hinders the mission.
So I agree that the way they go about business isn't the best way, but they are necessary in concept as an institution to level the playing field.
I know some former college athletes at a D II and a D III school here in state that have claimed impermissible benefits were going on there. Makes you think it must happen at the D I schools too.
This is why it would be better if the NCAA simply sanctioned or performed clearinghouse duties on a lot of the small stuff.
Let schools hold their own camps (1-3 a year) rather than letting these AAU style 7v7 tourneys go on unchecked (read: team principles paying for items, runners etc.). Let a player hold autograph signings and the money is held in trust. Let a musician have sell their songs on iTunes.
There is a difference between a $1000 handshake and the washing the car on campus but to the NCAA they are of equal status.
August 5th, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^
If you let a player sell autographs (or his jersey or anything else), then he can sell one to a booster for $1,000. It is the same as a $1,000 handshake - except it would be legal if you let it happen. Also, a school could tell a recurit that a booster or two wants to buy his autograph for $10,000 once he is a player at the school. To the booster, the thing purchased is secondary - it is getting money to the player/recruit that is the point.
I gues you could cap the price at $5.00 an autograph right? Fine, then Mr. Booster will take 200 (or 2000) of them.
Ok, only two per customer, right? Then please meet Mr. Booster's 100 (or 1000) friends who all happen to be employees at his company. They all want two autographs and each have ten bucks that they may, or may not, have gotten from Mr. Booster.
The only way to stop all of the possible abuses is to just say no selling autographs, jerseys, socks, etc. The alternative would mean that the better players in college would make a ton of money off of memorabilia, while their teammates do not. It would also open up all kinds of stuff on the recruiting trail.
if we're ignoring the fact that "transgressions" are against NCAA rules, then I say honey badger's issues aren't a big deal at all either, because smoking weed is no more morally reprehensible than drinking (or especially underrage drinking).
Not really sure what you mean when you say, " Something tells me the Honey Badger was up to a little more." But for now, I'll assume that whatever you mean, it has to do with "pretty ignorant" assumptions.
So, point of my post? If we're ignoring the fact that the two broke NCAA rules repeadly and squandered (and are squandering) an unreal opportunity, then there's really nothing wrong that either are doing. But to ignore that fact is to ignore that some people just suck at making decisions more than regular humans...it is what it is.
I'll concede that the Honey Badger comment was an "ignorant assumption", as I know nothing more than he failed a bunch of drug tests. However, I can't yet say that Manziel sucks at making decisions more than regular humans. Thus far, his transgressions don't warrant the amount of scrutiny he's receiving. He's a superstar athlete/celebrity, but he's also a 20 year old kid.
August 4th, 2013 at 10:10 PM ^
August 4th, 2013 at 10:22 PM ^
August 4th, 2013 at 11:05 PM ^
of the "he's only 20 years old" argument.
That is bullshit, it's not an excuse to be a punk or breaking the law. A million 20 year olds go through undergrad every year without getting into a brawl in a bar, not showing for work because they're drunk, or failing drug tests for work. And those that do more often than not face an actual consequence for that.
Maybe these kids don't deserve any special scrutiny, but they do deserve an average amount of scrutiny for really bad judgment.
August 4th, 2013 at 11:15 PM ^
You're right, a million 20 year olds do exactly that, and an equal amount do the same type of things that he is doing now. At this point, I think his age and the inordinate amount of scrutiny he receives is more to blame than his character or upbringing.
August 4th, 2013 at 11:45 PM ^
think that an equal amount of 20 year college undergrads get arrested for bar brawls as do not, then I think we're at an impasse.
And those that do get arrested, even if it were a million, I would say they have a character flaw, and no, they don't get to blame it on them only being 20. That's not an excuse. It may be a reason, but it's not an excuse.
And don't get me started on the low character of wearing a Tim Tebow Jets jersey.
August 5th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
The "he's only 20 years old" argument isn't any more tired than the holier than now attitude that many on the internet take when a high-profile college athlete is caught misbehaving. I imagine if any of us were submitted to the same level of public scrutiny that we impose upon college football and basketball players, I'm guessing we probably wouldn't meet the standards that we set for them either.
August 4th, 2013 at 10:17 PM ^
He represented everything I adore about LSU football.
College men, from LSU;
went in dumb, come out dumb too.
Hustlin 'round Atlanta
in their alligator shoes.
Gettin' drunk every weekend at the barbecues.
~ Randy Newman
More like Johnny Cash, AMIRITE?
oh man i bet they bring the hammer down!!!!! the ncaa will not stand for this!!!! that kid is so screwed!!! A&M is going to be in soooooo much trouble!!!!!
s/
Now go get me some coffee.
I see your point, but try asking any intern whether they want a fancier office to work in or a $1,000 check every week.
you could change the system because it seems unfair and quit supporting large institutions that bring in megamillions and instead support the people who don't directly receive any money for their hard work.
the double irony in that we judge the hell out of students for buying fewer tickets to games when prices are constantly rising and regulations in how they can use their tickets are implemented?
Let me guess, you're in favor of bringing back indentured servitude for everyone, right?
August 4th, 2013 at 10:02 PM ^
Let me guess, you're in favor of taxpayer-funded Escalades and diamond grills for every football player, right?
There, now it's a fair fight between our two absurd straw men.
unpaid interns also being compensated?
Would they take just any unpaid internship that came along, or did they specifically want the one at Google?
b/c he said, "look at Oregon's fancy new facilities," and Google is known for their fancypants buildings.
I know what you're getting at, but my point is, Google's fancypants building (and the name you get to put on your resume) makes it a coveted internship. Since there's a reason people actively desire a Google internship over just any internship, there must be compensation involved, even if it's not in the form of a paycheck.
Likewise, athletes that claim the facilities at Oregon (or any other school) as part of the reason they went there can't really also make the claim that they're uncompensated. Non-athletes don't get to hang out in the palace, after all.
but at the same time, would these corporations (NCAA included) be building these facilities unless they if they didn't think that it is cheaper to make nice facilities than it is to directly pay interns (and players).
That's one possible way of looking at it, but I think there's a different reason for each. In Google's case, no amount of money can convince a salaried worker to stay at work for overtime, but a fancypants campus could. And does, in fact. Google's main motivation is to incentivize their workers to stick around.
As for Oregon, actually I think it'd be much more cost-effective to pay the players directly. For the amount of money we've seen that players can be bought for (like, four or five figures, tops) Oregon could've taken the $68 million and paid thousands of players. If they get a $10,000 stipend per season - way above what's being talked about - Phil Knight could've paid Oregon's share of stipends for 800 years.
August 4th, 2013 at 11:45 PM ^