ESPN Update on Patterson Appeal
This article suggests that Michigan was allowed to submit supplementary material after Ole Miss filed their response which contested the eligibility of the six transfers. That's very good for Michigan. Mars seems to think that NCAA is acting efficiently and will have a decision soon.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23019676/attorney-encou…
Perhaps some in the box thinkers are focused on players getting paid a salary by the university for playing their sport (which I am ok with players in revnue sports getting an extra stipend). But I am ok with universities only offering a scholarship - just give the players the ability to legally make money outside of school.
Some people will tell you that players give up their image rights in exchange for their scholarship - but that is not correct. If that were true, then walk-ons would be able to work without restrictions and sign endorsements. In other words, Rashan Gary and Chase Winovich could refuse their scholarship offer and walk on to the football team - they still would not be able to receive compensation for endorsements.
The exchange is your eligibility for your economic rights. That is unfair because no other students nor employees on campus are forced to give up these rights.
Either, there needs to be a viable minor league system for football and basketball players (similar to baseball and hockey), or these guys should be able to earn money (whether that is paid by the university or by the private sector through jobs and image rights). It is not right to "force" anybody who wants to play in the NFL to go to college and then deny them basic economic rights.
not a school paid salary. O'Bannon won the case but lost the war as the NCAA went scorched earth rather than allow players to profit from their likeness.
I can understand your stance because greed has become so prevalent its not even considered greed any longer, by those with the money, of course. However, with the public disclosure of sports revenue, at all levels really, it is impossible to hide the amount of money these universities have made on the back of the players, and football paid the way for almost all programs for a number of years. There is no debate on that.
I think you are mistaken as to there being insufficient funds now to pay the players. I believe the problem might exist at some of your smaller schools and this would have to be addressed. Yes, the football player from Eastern would have to receive as much as the one from MSU and UM, and players from the SEC might have to take a pay cut, but only on paper. However, in FY 2017, the SEC paid out over 40 million to each member, which is not a record and the BIG is on course to pass it this season. The money is in the house
I didn't say there is a shortage of money. I said those making the money won't want to let go of it.
do you think they would say, "OK, we'll shut down the sports program." They won't go broke. Do you think MLB wanted to part with their money when Andy Mesmersmith had them open up their books? I doubt they did. But should it be ordered, I cannot see where they would have a choice.
Remember, we're talking about revenue producing sports. There is simply no way they could pay for all the non-revenue producing sports, be it men's baseball or women's softball. If so ordered by a circuit court, I see no way around it.
Even if that does happen I still think the end user will pay for it.
It will be subject to a simple majority vote from the NCAA Legislative Relief Committee. I doubt the schools would try to take an adverse decision to federal court.
he enrolled early (January), prior to national signing day and prior to when Ole Miss was offically charged with the violations. The official Notice of Allegations is dated 01/22/16. If that is the case, Shea could be caught up in a technicality given he wasn't lied to prior to his early enrollment given Ole Miss had not been offically charged. The lies to recruits came on/after 1/22/16 and prior to NSD, so those players may have a sound case. However, Shea may not because he had already enrolled prior to when Ole Miss was offically charged. His alternative after the 1/22/16 notice date would have been to drop out of Ole Miss and sit out a year of eligibilty at that time. He couldn't drop out of Ole Miss and then sign with another school in that recruiting cycle.
Hard to say how the NCAA will treat Shea. Will they do the "morally right" thing or get caught up on the technicallity and deny his waiver request. That would stink because Ole Miss certainly new the charges were coming well before the official Notice of Allegations (dated 01/22/16) and never disclosed that to Shea or any of the recruits. Only the NCAA knows what Ole Miss new and when prior to the offical charges were made public in the document dated 1/22/16. I think the NCAA published the allegations prior to NSD in order to give recruits a chance to sign with another school. If the school lied to the recruits as alleged, then I think the NCAA has grounds to grant those players the waiver. Just not sure Shea falls into the same category given he had already enrolled. That may be why Ole Miss responded negatively and U-M and Shea are being asked for additional information.