Magnus

December 23rd, 2010 at 8:16 AM ^

Because a tattoo isn't just a tattoo.  It starts a slippery slope.  You don't want a tattoo, how about a jacket?  You don't want a jacket, how about a suit?  You don't want a suit, how about a laptop?  You don't want a laptop, how about a plane ride home?  Etc.

The idea that these kids don't get anything out of college is ridiculous.  They get free room and board, free tuition, free meals, and all kinds of clothes.  There was just a bit on ESPN the other day about kids who go to BCS bowls and get $500 in electronics.

As a college student, you really don't need that much (beyond what's mentioned above) to exist and have a good time. 

Waters Demos

December 23rd, 2010 at 8:45 AM ^

. . .

I am captured by the prospect of "small is beautiful."  Have tryouts after everyone goes through the ordinary admissions process.  If that means smaller stadiums, fewer (or no) TV deals, etc... then so be it.  Is that a rainbow unicorn over there?

So, to the extent this isn't possible, your prophylactic view with respect to the slippery slope is the best the NCAA could do. 

MGoCards

December 23rd, 2010 at 9:41 AM ^

 


As a college student, you really don't need that much (beyond what's mentioned above) to exist and have a good time. 

This is absurd. There are a few awful justifications for this system — in which these kids' bodies and talents are capitalized on, to the tune of billions of dollars, while they are forbidden most access to the rewards of their labor —  and a few half-decent justifications, but all of those are better than the absurd, thoughtless one you've offered here. Really? These system has some semblance of fairness because their needs for subsistence are being met? Actually, what you've done here is lend some credence to the, usually hyperbolic, analogy that this system is like slavery: what does it matter if their bodies are being wrecked and their labor is paid far below its value, while others make millions if they're receiving three squares and some sweatpants? 

Kvothe

December 23rd, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^

been discussed numerous times on this board but I also think the players get the raw end of the deal.  They are men who are not allowed to make a living doing what they have worked so hard for.  They are forced to go to college or just sit out for 3 years until they can make a living in the NFL.  Kids with superior talent have their eyes set on the pros from day one.  This is worse in basketball but still applies to football.  They are not there for the "free" education and are only seeing future dollar signs.  This is where the system breaks down, IMO.  I don't necessarily think we should pay players because then we may possibly get on a more dangerous slope.  I don't think they should have to wait before jumping to the pros, though.  They should have every right to make a living as any other American does.  Of course this leads to many kids who don't make it or flameout.  It is their choice, we can't stop a kid from making a poor a choice we can only warn them.   Like I said, this is worse with the one and done college basketball players.  It is just a money grab for the colleges who get their services for one year.  I would rather see the kids go play over seas for a year like Brandon Jennings did. 

Waters Demos

December 23rd, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^

. . .

Maybe I'm not able to read properly today, but I have only a remote idea about what you're trying to say here.  

Case in point:

These system has some semblance of fairness because their needs for subsistence are being met? 

I cannot make sense of this.  Is it an interrogative sentence?  A declarative one?  Number agreement?  Who is "their" referring to?  "These system"?  I need a decipherable antecedent dammit!

Also, I think you're sarcastic at points, but it's veiled (deliberately?) so much that it's difficult to discern what you're actually saying.

Are you saying that players should be paid?

I'm confused.

MGoCards

December 23rd, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^

Yes it's an interrogative sentence. It should say "this system." It was early but, still, re-reading it seems clear enough.

But I was just saying that the argument that "their needs are being met" is a ridiculous argument for perpetuating a system in which players are putting their bodies on the line and contributing many hours of labor but can't capitalize on their own labor. It's a disgusting argument, really, that becomes ever more disgusting as we come to understand more fully the specific costs of playing football.

Like I said, there are some halfway reasonable arguments for keeping this supposed "amateurism" system as it is. I don't buy those arguments (for instance, that the athletes are receiving a world-class education) because they don't really hold up for the vast majority of athletes in money-generating sports. But, say what you will about these arguments, dude, at least they constitute an ethos. But this "let them eat cake (and wear free sweatpants)" is incredible. 

Waters Demos

December 23rd, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^

To the extent that you think that amateurism is a sham, I agree with you.  

But I don't think you answered my question, which was about whether college athletes should be paid.

If your answer is yes, then I disagree.  While amateurism is a sham IMHE, there should be greater protections in place to preserve it (also IMHE).  

As for this -

Like I said, there are some halfway reasonable arguments for keeping this supposed "amateurism" system as it is. I don't buy those arguments (for instance, that the athletes are receiving a world-class education) because they don't really hold up for the vast majority of athletes in money-generating sports.

why doesn't a world class education hold up for the majority of athletes in revenue sports?

I'll upvote you for being an interlocutor on this issue.

MGoCards

December 23rd, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^

Well, I'm not sure which greater protections could preserve amateurism in this environment. You can't get the shit back in the horse, ya know? Ideally, there would be robust professional developmental leagues that require neither indentured servitude nor making a mockery of higher education. That would be the ideal. But, like I said, you can't put the shit back in the horse: college athletics developed, for better or for worse, rather organically over the past 140 (or so) years. 

There was a time when the coach's salaries weren't so high, when people weren't going to school specifically to become pro athletes, and when the class considerations of having revenue generating sports fund non-revenue generating sports weren't so glaring. But they're damned glaring now, wouldn't you say? This is no insult to those who play non-revenue generating sports, but very few of, say, the golf team members see golf or the prospects of a free education as a meal ticket for their entire families.  It would be nice if we could simply start with acknowledging this issue, that it's questionable, at best, for college basketball and football players to underwrite the water polo, golf, and tennis teams, especially when that very fact (that pools, golf courses, and tennis teams are expensive to maintain) is mobilized to make the claim that revenue-generating athletes shouldn't get paid (i.e. "so few athletic departments even make a profit!"). 

So, yes. They should probably get paid. Maybe at a COLA base rate, as a function of the NCAA's own contracts and the school's profits. I'm sure some smart person has put a lot of time into coming up with a number that is more fair than the present (i.e. $0.00 + food + tuition + sweatpants, yo) but I have no idea what that number would be. 

Waters Demos

December 23rd, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^

I may not agree with everything, but you've certainly given thought to it.  Your horse metaphor is useful, and I like the bit about the mockery that the "shit" makes of higher education.

But one key question remains unanswered:

[W]hy doesn't a world class education hold up for the majority of athletes in revenue sports?

FWIW, I think that getting rid of mandatory periods of participation in college athletics would be one significant protection that could help to preserve amateurism.

MGoCards

December 23rd, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^

 


But one key question remains unanswered:

[W]hy doesn't a world class education hold up for the majority of athletes in revenue sports?

Oh, sorry. I don't know if it was clear but i simply don't think the vast majority of revenue sports college stars are getting a very quality education. When you consider that studies show that college football players spend, on average, 45 hours/week on football, it's hard to imagine that these players are, generally, also devoting enough time and energy to their studies so as to call the education received truly world class. I know that there are some exceptional student athletes — I've known them and taught them — who could never be accused of taking either their studies or their sport seriously, but I've also known and taught student athletes who were, frankly, in far over their heads. And this is what happens at institutions that actually try to educate their student athletes. I've heard horror stories from family members who played for less scrupulous institutions and coaches. Too bad I have to be so vague here!

 


FWIW, I think that getting rid of mandatory periods of participation in college athletics would be one significant protection that could help to preserve amateurism.

Well, it's the professional leagues that force this issue. And the pro leagues don't have to pretend to care about the integrity of higher learning or about amateurism as such; they make these rules because it's best for their bottom line if their teams receive free player development and free advertising for said players (when they join the pro leagues) while receiving more time to evaluate players. It's win-win for them. In the NBA's case, they'd prefer elite players go to  one or two years of college rather than joining the NBADL or, worst of all, overseas. A player that goes overseas attracts less attention stateside and, who knows, they might actually like it there and not want to come back. If a critical mass of players went to the Euro leagues rather than to college, the NBA would have to compete even further with the Euro leagues for players and for European viewership. Still, they'd probably find that preferable to allowing 18 year-olds to play again.  

goblue20111

December 23rd, 2010 at 8:20 PM ^

Why not? Who does it hurt?  Who are you to decide  what an individual college student needs and doesn't need? I don't know if I believe that these OSU players were doing it to help their families but that might be something they "need" to "exist".  They can't work during the year and even if they could it's impossible.  If you want a shot at the NFL, you're working out alone in the summer and training.  We apply a capitalist ideology to everything else, why not college sports? It's pretty simple really.  Do you make money?

Yes---> your players get paid. 

No--->football and basketball are already underwriting your existence, sorry. 

It's not about being a college students.  It's about partaking in an economic activity that hundreds of people make billions off of and not getting your fair cut.  No, room, board and tuition are not enough considering how much these schools make off the players' talents.  I won't go so far as to call it slavery because I think that get's thrown around too much but calling it indentured servatude wouldn't be a stretch in my opinion. 

AMazinBlue

December 23rd, 2010 at 12:32 AM ^

will blow over and be nothing.  OSU might as well be in the SEC.  They have more secondary recruiting violations in a given year than any other school outside of the ESS EEE SEE.

Not a Blue Fan

December 23rd, 2010 at 7:27 AM ^

I guess it depends on your point of view. OSU has an atmosphere that promotes reporting every single potential violation. Most schools just hope the NCAA never finds out. So "more secondary violations" means "self reports more secondary violations". Of course, that means whatever you want it to mean, but there is an issue with your interpretation RE: carts and horses, so to speak.

Not a Blue Fan

December 23rd, 2010 at 7:47 AM ^

I think that you're correct in saying

To self report as many as OSU does, they have to commit them first.

However, to say that this is an "awful lot" is a relative statement. Compared to who? If we agree that OSU overreports to minimize damage and that other schools simply STOP SNITCHIN', how on Earth can we determine if OSU commits secondaries more or less than anybody else? Doesn't "awful lot" require something to compare to? That is to say, if OSU reports 30 secondary violations each year and everybody else reports 2, does that mean that OSU commits more? Of course not. It means that they self report more - which we already knew prima facia.

Now, that also doesn't mean that they don't commit more. So you're free to interpret it as you will based on whatever heuristic you find most pleasing.

justthinking

December 23rd, 2010 at 12:33 AM ^

sit the kids for the free tats, based upon the dollar value of the tats --- then lay the death penalty down for the oversigning of players, in the SEC especially.

If we get lit up for #$%^&#$%^&* overstretching - then scorched earth, baby.

BlueNote

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:04 AM ^

If Pryor is out, I'm assuming the starter at QB is junior Joe Bauserman.  This is a man (25 years old, played in baseball's minor leagues before joining OSU) who lives at a place called "the sac" and was being threatened at the backup spot by freshmen.

That does not sound promising.

EZMIKEP

December 23rd, 2010 at 1:08 AM ^

Has any insight on the cost of tattoo art but some of these pieces aren't nickel and dime. Some of these sleeves you see are a couple grand +. When you see a kid come to campus bare and a year later they have 2 arms full of quality art something is getting done for those favors. Not that I care. I think its silly that this is even an issue with everything else that goes on but it doesn't surprise me that someone brought it to light considering the price of tattoo art.

Blue in Yarmouth

December 23rd, 2010 at 8:00 AM ^

As a guy who has a few tattoo's I can say that some of these are big bucks. I only have about 8 in various locations, but my brother-in-law has sleeves on both arms and the total for each when it was all said and done was a little over two thousand per arm.

I understand that this seems like a pretty petty thing when comapred to Cam Newton, but the idea that tattoos are nickle and dime stuff isn't really the case. I never even got any big tattoos and the least expensive one was $200. That was about the size of the palm of my hand.

TheOldQB

December 23rd, 2010 at 9:34 AM ^

But did he pay full value? Having paid $50 for a $500 tattoo is just as much of a violation as paying zero.

Will be interesting on how this plays out. But I suspect that the NCAA/OSU will not have enough information to take action before the Bowl game. The players involved end up being suspended for the first game of 2011.

El Jefe

December 23rd, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^

I am sleeved out on both arms and I have to say I didn't spend that much because three of my closest friends are tattoo artist and gave me really good deals.  If I didn't have that luxury, it would've costed well over 2 to 3 thousand per arm for the stuff that I had done. 

I'm sure they paid for the tattoos and the guys that did them didn't charge that much, plus they probably got an autograph and pictures out of the deal. 

Bluerock

December 23rd, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^

After the Cam Newton fiasco Really?

The pay to play is find with the NCAA, but someone traded ink for ink, now that's something we can sink our teeth in.

I'm still not over the practice time BS, Michigan is treated like a criminal and Auburn gets awards.

AMazinBlue

December 23rd, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^

reporting of violations.  In an article from May 2009 it states

"Since 2000, Ohio State has reported to the NCAA more than 375 violations -- the most of any of the 69 Football Bowl Subdivision schools that provided documents to The Dispatch through public-records requests."

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content//local_news/stories/2009/05/31/FERPA_OSU.ART_ART_05-31-09_A14_D4E14K6.html?sid=101

You'd think the NCAA has heard the phrase, "where there's smoke, there's fire."  I wouldn't be shocked to find that OSU has similar problems that USC has.