OT: UCF Kicker Ruled Ineligible by NCAA due to YouTube Channel

Submitted by umjgheitma on August 1st, 2017 at 4:51 PM

NCAA I guess just feels like making more enemies. Kid is just having fun and earning money for himself and family. I can understand if it was objectionable content but seems harmless enough (didn't see a lot of videos). I really don't think people were flocking to his page solely because he was a UCF kicker but that's his life and I can see why the content would revolve around it. 

 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/31/college-football-player-loses-schol…

Comments

Mercury Hayes

August 1st, 2017 at 4:53 PM ^

How dare he make money off his likeness! 

 

Remember when Johnny Manziel made a ton of money signing autographs even though it was illegal in the eyes of the NCAA? People thought it wouldn't matter because he could make money in the pros! Welp....

Athletes should be able to make money doing whatever the fuck they want as long as it is legal in our country. Fuck the NCAA.

The Maizer

August 1st, 2017 at 5:02 PM ^

Based on twitter comments (I know, very reliable source), it sounds like he was told he could keep making money and keep his scholarship if he just stopped referencing the fact that he was a student athlete. He didn't comply so he accepted the consequences he knew were going to happen.

Mr. Yost

August 1st, 2017 at 6:53 PM ^

The NCAA was A-OK with him making money off his channel but that's not the main story.

They just told him he can't refer to the fact he's a student-athlete/football player. To me that seems pretty damn fair.

In fact, if I were a high profile player I'd go ahead and start my YouTube channel TODAY. People would recognize me and fans would still come to my page. I don't need Rashan Gary to say he's a football player at Michigan for me to know he's Rashan Gary. 

Someone like Peppers? Same thing. This kid is a KICKER at UCF.

IMO, he's just trying to prove a point, which is fine...his right and one I don't completely disagree with. For me, I just think there are 100 other battles with the NCAA worth fighting for that I would put over not stating the fact you're a college athlete on your YouTube page.

Keep your page, keep giving your takes or getting clicks and views...find another way to show your coach how you out-tough people. But whatever, if this is the "stance" he wants to take of all the injustices...I'm not going to be the one to hate on him. But I will laugh and point.

reshp1

August 1st, 2017 at 6:58 PM ^

Most of his videos are sports parodies. The way the NCAA defined what was forbidden (videos based on his athletic reputation, prestige, or ability) would mean he'd have to remove or heavily edit most of his stuff.

Could he have bent over backwards and found a way to make videos that didn't violate the rules? Sure. But I don't blame him for telling the NCAA to eat a dick either.

cbs650

August 1st, 2017 at 7:43 PM ^

The problem with that argument is once the Rashan Gary's and the like stated doing that, the NCAA would have then changed the ruling again because folks would claim "X players money is tied to the school he goes to and it's creates an unfair recruiting advantage". Also your point is why it doesn't matter he cited he was a student athlete because someone would have googled his name to see find who he was anyway.

FauxMo

August 1st, 2017 at 4:54 PM ^

Scott Frost's mom ratted him out to the NCAA. Plus, I am pretty sure his YouTube videos were stupid and he should get disqualified for that reason alone...

Everyone Murders

August 1st, 2017 at 6:35 PM ^

Looking at this as an adult, I realize that Lucy is an asshole and a sociopath.  Of course, Charlie is an idiot for falling for the same cheap trick, time and again.  But still - Lucy lies to her "friend" without blinking, seriously injures him, and shows no remorse whatsoever.  She's a budding Hannibal Lecter.

That really was a dark, dark cartoon.  Peppermint Patty constantly sexually harrassing Charlie Brown.  Pigpen was just a mess (totally filthy, with clouds of dirt-and-vermin flying about him), and Linus was clearly having some developmental issues. 

Didn't they have any social workers in Peanutsville?

Winger2

August 1st, 2017 at 5:03 PM ^

To be fair, I read in a other article it wasn't the NCAA ruling him ineligible. UCF pulled his scholarship because they were upset he didn't comply with previous warnings

jblaze

August 1st, 2017 at 5:11 PM ^

NCAA is correct here.

1) They asked him to demonetize his account a few months ago and he didn't.

2) If they allowed it, what's to prevent a bunch of fans from "watching" videos made by 5* players that enroll in school so they can get the ad money?

bacon1431

August 1st, 2017 at 5:16 PM ^

They're correct in the sense that their ruling is in accordance with the rules. 

They're wrong in the sense that they have stupid archaic rules.

NCAA is going to have to make a choice: give players more of the pie OR let players make money off their talents and skills in the open market. 

grumbler

August 1st, 2017 at 7:40 PM ^

Or, players could choose to go off and make all that money without even entering college.  Signing up to be held to account under the rules of the unverities (individually and collectively) is a voluntary thing.  No one is forced to do it.  Football players can go play in the CFL or Europe (or semi-pro) without ever going to college, and they can collect their millions for their skills and talents in the open market.

RoseInBlue

August 1st, 2017 at 6:18 PM ^

"1. It's an egregious rule that takes advantage those at a relative disadvantage. "

Maybe so but can you imagine a world where people are just allowed to break the rules they don't like?  Because I can and I don't want to live there.  Yeah, it's a stupid rule but it is one and he knew that.

Inertia Policeman

August 1st, 2017 at 5:25 PM ^

What's to prevent boosters from giving $500 handshakes?

Nothing, and it's a lot more money for the athlete, and a lot less work than "watching" a bunch of YouTube videos that give the maker a very small % of add revenue. Paying athletes outright gets complicated, but they should absolutely be able to profit from their likeness.

Jmer

August 1st, 2017 at 5:28 PM ^

So when a scouting service like let's say Rivals makes a bunch of videos of a 5 star player and gets a buch of ad money because fans of teams in pursuit of the 5 star player watch the video, you are ok with it.

But when that same 5 star athlete wants to make money off of his own name by making videos, you are against it? 

bronxblue

August 1st, 2017 at 7:45 PM ^

This isn't a new problem for the NCAA, stopping players getting paid by boosters and fans. History is full of no-show jobs, $500 handshakes, cell phone bills paid, etc. At least with YouTube, you have a public company with an accounting office and a means of tracking this stuff. I guess I get the NCAA being annoyed he mentions he's a kicker, but the idea this is some round-about way to pay players stretches reality. It's a college kid trying to make some money. It seems silly that the NCAA would try to stop it.

lilpenny1316

August 1st, 2017 at 5:29 PM ^

They told the kid he could still monetize the channel but take his football stuff off the page.  Gave the kid a waiver so he could continue to play football and make some cash to send home to his family in Costa Rica.  I wonder how much he made, because that feels like a silly move on his part.

mi93

August 1st, 2017 at 5:40 PM ^

Warnings to the kid aside, this isn't right.  If the kid is kicking FGs on YouTube and making dollars, maybe it puts to question the connection, but frankly, the two appear unrelated.  

So, how is it that Trajan Langdon gets paid to play minor league baseball while being a basketball player at Duke (Kenny Lofton - Arizona, Amir Garrett - St. John's), but Jeremy Bloom can't be an Olympic skiier and football player?  And this kid can't be YouTube phenom?

NCFF.

 

EDIT: I admit to never checking his site to see what content he really has (cuz, don't care), but still don't view this as monetizing his athletics.  Kids gonna have passions and follow them.  He could end up the video editor for Star Wars 15.

lilpenny1316

August 1st, 2017 at 5:45 PM ^

At least they granted him a waiver to monetize his YT account.  Maybe they will become more flexible as a result, but I wouldn't hold my breath.  Jeremy Bloom was pretty good in college and played for a good Power 5 program.

cletus318

August 1st, 2017 at 5:51 PM ^

There was also the case of Tim Dwight running track at Iowa while being in the NFL. The "monetizing your athletics" reasoning also fails when the NCAA permits athletes to rake in six figures in Olympic money while retaining their eligibility. Everything about the association is completely arbitrary.

RoseInBlue

August 1st, 2017 at 6:15 PM ^

Nah, this is on him.  The NCAA was going to let him keep making money off his videos.  He just had to stop referencing the fact that he was a UCF kicker.  He didn't comply.  That's just stupid on his part.

bronxblue

August 1st, 2017 at 7:36 PM ^

To me, it's part of his identity. He's not profiting from, say selling autographs or apparel. He's just saying "I'm a kicker and here are some funny bits.". Is it demonstrably different than what Mark Titus did while riding the bench at OSU, except it was on a blog he didn't formally monetize the way YouTube does? It just seems like a weird distinction.

BayWolves

August 1st, 2017 at 8:23 PM ^

Have to say the rule is a dumb rule. He should be able to refer to himself as a student and an athlete because that is what he is and that should not stop him from posting athletic videos. He went against the rules, true, but the rule should be changed so he doesn't have to hide the innocuous fact that he is a football player at a university.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Cranky Dave

August 1st, 2017 at 7:50 PM ^

No different that most other large organizations in that common sense is often lacking. I was dealing with an issue at work today where everyone agreed a certain policy didn't make sense but you know it's the rule. By the letter of the rules as they stand the NCAA was right but their rules defy common sense and Steve only to protect the interests and money of those at the top of the food chain.

UM Griff

August 1st, 2017 at 8:04 PM ^

For a kid who was asked to make a choice. If football meant so much to him, he should have discontinued posting on YouTube.

You may not like the rules, but they are there.

fksljj

August 1st, 2017 at 8:39 PM ^

I would have taken the free education. Depending on how much money he's making that may not be an issue. I don't follow him on youtube (or anybody for that matter) but things can get weird in terms of sustainabiity online wih your subscribers. Hopefully he made the right choice.

bacon

August 1st, 2017 at 9:55 PM ^

USF should have demanded their cut. Him being on their team is the only reason anyone watched this kids videos. Outside a handful of elite players in the whole sport, pretty much everyone has a relationship with the school/team where their name benefits more from being a player on the team than the school benefits from having the kid. It's college football and the players are a bit more interchangeable than people would like to admit. See Alabama and their qb situation over the past several years. Doesn't matter the qb, they win. There's a line to fill that position.

Therefore, the arguments that a kid should be able to make money off his name just because he's the qb at bama or the kicker at USF must account for the fact that 99% of college players would only make money because of their association with the school. Because the qb position at bama is worth more than the kicker at USF, it stands to reason that the qb at bama would get paid more than the kicker at USF. Even if he's never played, he'd make more. Now that's a huge advantage for a school like bama. Come to my school because being the qb at bama will pay you more today than being at USF or elsewhere. There maybe some truth to this in reality, but the school doesn't have let the player monetize that association if they don't want it.