Uh-oh Mario

[nogerO]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/wi ... ec5a&ei=52

Maybe some day he'll figure it out.

[Phalanx]

Doesn't seem like a Mario issue. The player signed a multi-year contract and now he wants out of it. This situation seemed inevitable to me: it feels like kids are wanting their cake and eat it too. If you sign a contract to get paid, and you are over 18, you are bound legally to fulfill the terms of it. The team is certainly counting on that with committed resources and roster spots. We have fixed one inequitable situation where coaches got paid millions and kids only got tuition/ per diem stipends, but now they want all the benefits of paid athletes with none of the obligations. So the pendulum needs to swing back a bit.

[Duck07]

Doesn't seem like a Mario issue. The player signed a multi-year contract and now he wants out of it. This situation seemed inevitable to me: it feels like kids are wanting their cake and eat it too. If you sign a contract to get paid, and you are over 18, you are bound legally to fulfill the terms of it. The team is certainly counting on that with committed resources and roster spots. We have fixed one inequitable situation where coaches got paid millions and kids only got tuition/ per diem stipends, but now they want all the benefits of paid athletes with none of the obligations. So the pendulum needs to swing back a bit.

I read something recently how the proposed rules are going to violate rules on anti-trust laws by essentially having: A - variable payments to student-athletes at each institution (ie QB gets X, LB gets Y, Women's Golf gets Z) and B - variable payments to institutions to distribute to student-athletes (SEC, B1G vs Pac 12, MWC etc).