Oregon Ducks Sports Message Board Forum
https://ducksattack.com/forum/
So do you think it's OK for your employer to dictate what you can and cannot sell to someone else?duckgrad99 wrote:I don't care if this goes on a lot, these players got what they deserve. You know the rules, it shouldn't be difficult to follow them.
Sure. And if you don't like the rules set by your employer, you don't have to work there. Find somewhere else to work.Boom wrote:So do you think it's OK for your employer to dictate what you can and cannot sell to someone else?duckgrad99 wrote:I don't care if this goes on a lot, these players got what they deserve. You know the rules, it shouldn't be difficult to follow them.
The NCAA isn't the players employer. They just over-see amateur college athletics. If a player is getting paid, by definition, they are no longer an amateur athlete.Boom wrote:So do you think it's OK for your employer to dictate what you can and cannot sell to someone else?duckgrad99 wrote:I don't care if this goes on a lot, these players got what they deserve. You know the rules, it shouldn't be difficult to follow them.
Duck07 wrote:More than anything else, its the fact that these players are eligible for the Sugar Bowl.
or you could sue them......bellsduck wrote:Sure. And if you don't like the rules set by your employer, you don't have to work there. Find somewhere else to work.Boom wrote:So do you think it's OK for your employer to dictate what you can and cannot sell to someone else?duckgrad99 wrote:I don't care if this goes on a lot, these players got what they deserve. You know the rules, it shouldn't be difficult to follow them.
But, an easy solution might be to not give these players their rings, jerseys, etc. until after they graduate. Hmmm....why didn't the NCAA else think of that.
That is stupid.bellsduck wrote:Sure. And if you don't like the rules set by your employer, you don't have to work there. Find somewhere else to work.Boom wrote:So do you think it's OK for your employer to dictate what you can and cannot sell to someone else?duckgrad99 wrote:I don't care if this goes on a lot, these players got what they deserve. You know the rules, it shouldn't be difficult to follow them.
But, an easy solution might be to not give these players their rings, jerseys, etc. until after they graduate. Hmmm....why didn't the NCAA else think of that.
sure...wheaton4prez wrote:The NCAA isn't the players employer. They just over-see amateur college athletics.Boom wrote:So do you think it's OK for your employer to dictate what you can and cannot sell to someone else?duckgrad99 wrote:I don't care if this goes on a lot, these players got what they deserve. You know the rules, it shouldn't be difficult to follow them.
In this case, I think they have to see what the players did as a violation of amateur status. Otherwise, players could get huge payments from boosters by claiming that they're just selling a jersey to somebody for $100k.
In other words, you think that the NCAA is the players employer?Boom wrote:sure...wheaton4prez wrote:The NCAA isn't the players employer. They just over-see amateur college athletics.Boom wrote:So do you think it's OK for your employer to dictate what you can and cannot sell to someone else?duckgrad99 wrote:I don't care if this goes on a lot, these players got what they deserve. You know the rules, it shouldn't be difficult to follow them.
In this case, I think they have to see what the players did as a violation of amateur status. Otherwise, players could get huge payments from boosters by claiming that they're just selling a jersey to somebody for $100k.
Insightful comment.Duck07 wrote:That is stupid.bellsduck wrote:Sure. And if you don't like the rules set by your employer, you don't have to work there. Find somewhere else to work.Boom wrote:So do you think it's OK for your employer to dictate what you can and cannot sell to someone else?duckgrad99 wrote:I don't care if this goes on a lot, these players got what they deserve. You know the rules, it shouldn't be difficult to follow them.
But, an easy solution might be to not give these players their rings, jerseys, etc. until after they graduate. Hmmm....why didn't the NCAA else think of that.
Is Newton going pro? Not surprised, but I hadn't heard that.Duck07 wrote:To improve his draft stock, which is why he went to OSU in the first place; play in a pro style offense. I don't see a whole lot of teams jumping on TP with Luck and Newton seemingly both first round locks. Mallett and Locker are both better than TP (Yea, yea, let me hear it)Bigducker wrote:Yep... He's gone. Why would he stick around with nothing to play for.woundedknees wrote:No Heisman campaign?
TP goes pro ASAP!
If he comes out next year its Matt Barkely, Nick Foles and probably Kellen Moore that he's positioning against. With next season looking like rookie contracts will go down significantly, it will be even more important to grade out high and that certainly won't be the case this year.
agreed 100 percent. just continues to show how much the ncaa just cares about money. couldnt possibly suspend them for a bcs game. because why, they needed ratings. the worst excuse i have ever heard, they didnt "receive adequate rules education during the time period the violations occurred" athletes know exactly what they can and cant do. so if they didnt know at all why are they even suspended next year for 5 games?Duck07 wrote:More than anything else, its the fact that these players are eligible for the Sugar Bowl.