Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

wheaton4prez wrote:

Boom wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:

Boom wrote:

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.

So do you think it's OK for your employer to dictate what you can and cannot sell to someone else?

The NCAA isn't the players employer. They just over-see amateur college athletics.

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.

sure...

In other words, you think that the NCAA is the players employer?

The NCAA/Colleges make billions off of the services of college athletes........ Calling them "Amateurs" is just a way to justify the exploitation of young people.

BTW, the only people who care about a players "amateur status" is the NCAA....... coincidence?

I agree that athletes in football and men's basketball should be paid but at the same time they would have to pay woman's sports the same type of money and all the other men's sports athletes also. After they pay all the other athletes who's sports drain money from the University rather than bringing in money they wouldn't have any money left over to make a profit. Oregon is one of the few schools that makes money on baseball while most lose money, no one goes to mens and woman's tennis matches or softball it's just a fact. You can't pay one athlete and not them all. Although I think they all need raises over the little bit they allow now.

The people in here defending these guys are priceless. These guys get a FULL SCHOLARSHIP at a big-time university (in this case tOSU). On top of this, they get an adequate stipend to cover other costs. You guys realize that most people don't get these benefits, right? I don't want to give a "woe is me" type of thing, but I am currently a senior at one of the cheapest universities in PA. I am $50K in debt (loans), and work harder at school and my multiple jobs than any of those guys do for just football and their "education." Now we're supposed to feel bad that Pryor can't sell his rings for more tattoos? Oh NO! Poor Terrelle! Even if it was for spending money, give me a break.

I do feel, however, that those mentioning the hypocrisy of the NCAA have a valid argument. We all know the Cam Newton, Marcel Dareus, USC probation, etc. situations very well. Not having to sit out the Sugar Bowl is an absolute joke. The NCAA knows damn well who their cash cows are, and they also work really hard to maintain a facade of control over their student athletes, which this year has displayed is BS more so than most in recent memory.

paduck wrote: I do feel, however, that those mentioning the hypocrisy of the NCAA have a valid argument. We all know the Cam Newton, Marcel Dareus, USC probation, etc. situations very well.

The difference here though is that everyone(whether you choose to believe it or not) in question knew(or at least should have known) they were violating NCAA rules-Cam did not.

Those examples you just laid out received improper benefits, Cameron did not.

And like I said, you can choose to believe it or not; but the NCAA found no money trail or evidence of money changing hands in their investigations of the Newtons.

As far as the OSU players go, didn't they learn anything from AJ Green?

paduck wrote:The people in here defending these guys are priceless. These guys get a FULL SCHOLARSHIP at a big-time university (in this case tOSU). On top of this, they get an adequate stipend to cover other costs. You guys realize that most people don't get these benefits, right? I don't want to give a "woe is me" type of thing, but I am currently a senior at one of the cheapest universities in PA. I am $50K in debt (loans), and work harder at school and my multiple jobs than any of those guys do for just football and their "education." Now we're supposed to feel bad that Pryor can't sell his rings for more tattoos? Oh NO! Poor Terrelle! Even if it was for spending money, give me a break.

I do feel, however, that those mentioning the hypocrisy of the NCAA have a valid argument. We all know the Cam Newton, Marcel Dareus, USC probation, etc. situations very well. Not having to sit out the Sugar Bowl is an absolute joke. The NCAA knows damn well who their cash cows are, and they also work really hard to maintain a facade of control over their student athletes, which this year has displayed is BS more so than most in recent memory.

I'm guessing you're either lying or didn't work very many hours......

It costs about 20k a year to live on campus and go to UO....... You could work minimal wage and get close to that. (most people make more than minimal wage)

Everyone I know who went to a public school while working finished with minimal debt. I paid for most of mine by only working summers.

Boom wrote:

paduck wrote:The people in here defending these guys are priceless. These guys get a FULL SCHOLARSHIP at a big-time university (in this case tOSU). On top of this, they get an adequate stipend to cover other costs. You guys realize that most people don't get these benefits, right? I don't want to give a "woe is me" type of thing, but I am currently a senior at one of the cheapest universities in PA. I am $50K in debt (loans), and work harder at school and my multiple jobs than any of those guys do for just football and their "education." Now we're supposed to feel bad that Pryor can't sell his rings for more tattoos? Oh NO! Poor Terrelle! Even if it was for spending money, give me a break.

I do feel, however, that those mentioning the hypocrisy of the NCAA have a valid argument. We all know the Cam Newton, Marcel Dareus, USC probation, etc. situations very well. Not having to sit out the Sugar Bowl is an absolute joke. The NCAA knows damn well who their cash cows are, and they also work really hard to maintain a facade of control over their student athletes, which this year has displayed is BS more so than most in recent memory.

I'm guessing you're either lying or didn't work very many hours......

It costs about 20k a year to live on campus and go to UO....... You could work minimal wage and get close to that. (most people make more than minimal wage)

Everyone I know who went to a public school while working finished with minimal debt. I paid for most of mine by only working summers.

That's valid. Getting more than a few hours or even a job better than pizza delivery is tough in my college town. As far as paying by working summers--that's very impressive and I have no idea how you did it. I don't think I made less than $12/hour every summer/winter break, and am still drowning in debt.

I don't want to distract any more from the thread other than saying these guys have it easy compared to some, and the ones saying this should be allowed are blurring the line between student and athlete.

Duck07 wrote:More than anything else, its the fact that these players are eligible for the Sugar Bowl.

That's so lame, the NCAA is weaksauce. Not to mention Newton runs around with no punishment.

The NCAA is as skewed and greedy as any other big company, politician, etc.

Boom wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:In other words, you think that the NCAA is the players employer?

The NCAA/Colleges make billions off of the services of college athletes........ Calling them "Amateurs" is just a way to justify the exploitation of young people.

BTW, the only people who care about a players "amateur status" is the NCAA....... coincidence?

A lot of people care about a players amateur status. There is an article in every sports section in America about this Ohio State incident. Chip Kelly questioned why the players aren't being suspended for the bowl game.

Players join college sports and agree to the NCAA terms by their own free will. They do so because THEY can make millions off of the exposure and first-class preparation for the NFL that college sports provides.

If you want to go with the employer comparison, it's like saying that it isn't fair that McDonald's makes billions while their drive-through workers make minimum wage. If it's not worth what the job pays to that person, they are free to do something else. Football players can attend open tryouts for the NFL, join Arena football, CFL or go back to their day job whenever they like. Nobody forces them into this supposedly horribly unfair situation. Just the opposite, they do everything they possibly can to earn a chance to play under the NCAA because there is something in it for themselves.

The "Pay the Players" argument is short-sighted in so many ways it's funny.

First of all, the "players earn the Universities and NCAA billions," statement is incomplete and lacking. I think we can most all agree that simply putting talented players on the field is not enough to win football games. To do so requires massive investment in infrastructural costs such as those associated with facilities development and upkeep, coaching staff development and salaries, marketing, equipment, etc. In most cases these costs are realized in the way of state funding and generous alumni. What this all means is these players, though certainly a large part of any successful program, are only one part of enormous machines that make millions but require significant monetary investment from both public and private groups to succeed. In exchange they receive a free college education (something that is frequently devalued by proponents of paying players) and the opportunity to prepare themselves for a career playing a game, making millions, largely using the coaching, facilities, and marketing paid for by state/donated money.

Second of all there is a huge disparity in which collegiate sports and players bring in the money. If you're going to pay college football players you're completely abandoning the notion of amateurism and therefore open the door for escalating player salaries. Are you going to pay women's volleyball players the same you'd pay men's basketball? Would you pay Justin Hoffman the same you'd pay LMJ? What about policy for FBS schools? DIII? A better question, how and who is going to pay the salaries for all these athletes?

The reality is that maintaining amateurism in NCAA sports is the only way to protect the nature of college sports that I think most really enjoy. Simply complaining about the poor, poor players who are so obviously subjugated on college campuses today is not enough (sarcasm should be evident).

Elduderino wrote:The "Pay the Players" argument is short-sighted in so many ways it's funny.

First of all, the "players earn the Universities and NCAA billions," statement is incomplete and lacking. I think we can most all agree that simply putting talented players on the field is not enough to win football games. To do so requires massive investment in infrastructural costs such as those associated with facilities development and upkeep, coaching staff development and salaries, marketing, equipment, etc. In most cases these costs are realized in the way of state funding and generous alumni. What this all means is these players, though certainly a large part of any successful program, are only one part of enormous machines that make millions but require significant monetary investment from both public and private groups to succeed. In exchange they receive a free college education (something that is frequently devalued by proponents of paying players) and the opportunity to prepare themselves for a career playing a game, making millions, largely using the coaching, facilities, and marketing paid for by state/donated money.

Second of all there is a huge disparity in which collegiate sports and players bring in the money. If you're going to pay college football players you're completely abandoning the notion of amateurism and therefore open the door for escalating player salaries. Are you going to pay women's volleyball players the same you'd pay men's basketball? Would you pay Justin Hoffman the same you'd pay LMJ? What about policy for FBS schools? DIII? A better question, how and who is going to pay the salaries for all these athletes?

The reality is that maintaining amateurism in NCAA sports is the only way to protect the nature of college sports that I think most really enjoy. Simply complaining about the poor, poor players who are so obviously subjugated on college campuses today is not enough (sarcasm should be evident).

+1

Elduderino wrote:The reality is that maintaining amateurism in NCAA sports is the only way to protect the nature of college sports that I think most really enjoy. Simply complaining about the poor, poor players who are so obviously subjugated on college campuses today is not enough (sarcasm should be evident).

I very much agree. The one caveat I have towards how the NCAA conducts itself though is this: If TP went out and opened "T Pryor's Tat Shack" in Columbus, the ncaa would forbade it because he would be profiting off of his name - and only the ncaa gets to do that until you leave college. It becomes even more frustrating when they do things like this recent ruling, which show that they have no moral fiber and really only care about $. If that's the case and we have a system that is so muddled and faulty, then what's the point?

If you did start paying some of the players too, guess what would happen: The same schools that are traditional powers would still be there, the little guys would still be the little guys and for the most part, nothing would really change.

That's why all these recent findings/rulings are such utter bs. Whether Cam or knew or not is beside the point - the rules state he is ineligible. Same goes for the OSU 5 - if they are being punished, then it should include the Sugar Bowl - not games against Youngstown State.

If they started paying players, everything would change completely. It would no longer be viable for most schools to maintain football teams at all because they couldn't afford top players salaries. We already have multiple examples of failed sub-NFL pro leagues.

It would become a pro-am league. NFL lite.

As far as suspension for the bowl game goes for Ohio State, I think it's definitely questionable. To play devil's advocate, maybe they're considering that suspending those players for that game would punish a lot of people that aren't responsible for the misdeeds. Keeping the sponsors that host these games happy is a valid consideration, imo.

Duck07 wrote:

Elduderino wrote:The reality is that maintaining amateurism in NCAA sports is the only way to protect the nature of college sports that I think most really enjoy. Simply complaining about the poor, poor players who are so obviously subjugated on college campuses today is not enough (sarcasm should be evident).

I very much agree. The one caveat I have towards how the NCAA conducts itself though is this: If TP went out and opened "T Pryor's Tat Shack" in Columbus, the ncaa would forbade it because he would be profiting off of his name - and only the ncaa gets to do that until you leave college. It becomes even more frustrating when they do things like this recent ruling, which show that they have no moral fiber and really only care about $. If that's the case and we have a system that is so muddled and faulty, then what's the point?

If you did start paying some of the players too, guess what would happen: The same schools that are traditional powers would still be there, the little guys would still be the little guys and for the most part, nothing would really change.

That's why all these recent findings/rulings are such utter bs. Whether Cam or knew or not is beside the point - the rules state he is ineligible. Same goes for the OSU 5 - if they are being punished, then it should include the Sugar Bowl - not games against Youngstown State.

Yeah I'm with you there too. I don't think the NCAA is perfect, far from it, but I def also think that those problems are organizational and don't require an abandonment of NCAA amateurism principles.