RSS
Hypocrisy of NCAA is mind-boggling
Auburn's Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Cam Newton remains eligible and keeps his award because the NCAA determined his father, Cecil Newton, acted alone in shopping his son to a number of schools before ultimately choosing Auburn.
Michigan State basketball coach Tom Izzo is suspended one game for employing someone at a camp who at some point had direct contact with a recruit - but not at the camp.
Now-Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari is free to go from school to school with no consequences even though each school he leaves always ends up facing sanctions.
Five Ohio State football players, including three starters, must sit out the team's first five games next season after it was discovered they sold awards, gifts and university apparel and received improper benefits in 2009. A sixth football student-athlete must sit out the first game in 2011 for receiving discounted services in violation of NCAA rules. If the suspension is upheld, Pryor's first game will be Oct. 8 against Nebraska.
NCAA makes rules as it goes
The NCAA says the players - Mike Adams, Dan Herron, DeVier Posey, Terrelle Pryor, Solomon Thomas and Jordan Whiting can still play Jan. 4 in the Sugar Bowl because of "inadequate rules education." Ohio State's first five games next year are against Akron, Toledo, at Miami (Fl.), Colorado and Michigan State.
The violations fall under the NCAA’s preferential treatment bylaws. They should fall under the NCAA's "We throw the hammer down when we want" bylaws.
The hypocrisy of the NCAA is astounding. How can that group even have a shred of credibility after it basically makes up rules as the situation allows?
The OSU players said the money earned from selling the items - Big Ten championship rings, jerseys, etc. - went to help their families. That's debatable, of course. What isn't debatable, though, is the lack of consistency in the NCAA rules.
In the case of Newton, all he needed to do was play dumb to maintain his eligibility. How stupid must Reggie Bush feel after he "voluntarily" returned his 2005 award? And why don't all these Buckeye players just say "My parents sold those things without my knowledge" so they, too, can maintain their eligibility?
The NCAA is displaying hypocrisy of the highest order.
"You can prostitute out your son to a bunch of schools. We'll let that go. You can be a certified dirtbag. We'll let that go. But don't do what all other celebrities do and use your name to get free stuff. We'll kill you for that."
If Ohio State is smart, it will look into similar occurrences and fight the ruling.
In 2002, a group of Georgia players sold SEC championship rings and was initially disciplined. But the NCAA didn't uphold suspensions because a rule on selling memorabilia wasn't clear.
Athletes are exploited
Money will always be an issue for college athletes. In the two biggest revenue-generating sports (basketball, football), most of the players come from nothing. That isn't to say they can use their families economic situation to break rules. But I sometimes understand why they do it.
Imagine walking around on a beautiful campus seeing people wearing a jersey featuring the number you wear as big as day on the front. Imagine playing in a stadium 7-8 times a fall in front of 112,000 people who came to see you. Then imagine not having money to take a girl out to dinner. Or not having enough cash to go in on a pizza with some of your boys.
At some point, you would think, "This school is making a mint off me. And I can't even take my girl out?"
The NCAA and these institutions can get rich off these kids and the kids get nothing. I hate the argument about the "student-athletes" getting a scholarship. The scholarship is great. I would have given anything to have had all my schooling paid for. But it'd also be great if all the athletes did something with those degree, like graduate. The whole concept of the student-athlete is a joke, but that's another issue.
Schools give out scholarships to science majors, too. And those science majors are allowed to work and take whatever they want from whoever they want. Both the athlete and the academic have to keep a certain grade-point average. And the academic has to keep a substantially higher GPA, I know. But the school isn't making millions off the academic. And 112,000 people aren't paying $50 a ticket to see the science major do a chemistry experiment.
Think about this: Ohio State annually brings in $20 million on tickets sales alone. But Pryor can't sell a ring given to him to, allegedly, help his mother out? How is that fair? How is it right some OSU players, allegedly, swapped autographs for tattoos that probably cost no more than $150, but those same players can take $500 worth of schwag from the sponsor of whatever bowl game they're in?
Reggie Bush made USC millions. The school wants nothing to do with him. But his coach, who likely knew about everything going on, is free to take any job he likes.
Chris Webber did the same for the University of Michigan, but he can't go on campus or even donate money for a few more years. I still see "MICHIGAN 4" jerseys every now and then. So what if there's no name on back. Had Rob Pelinka been No. 4, how many of those jerseys would the NCAA and school have sold?
Stipends may be the answer
With the Newton ruling, the NCAA may have opened Pandora's Box. Language in the rules should be revisited ASAP, or you'll have every recruit in the country on the take. What makes the Ohio State case even worse is the NCAA wants to punish these students when it doesn't cost the NCAA a dime. I could've sworn we lived in a capitalist society. Or am I wrong.
That capitalism may only be set up to benefit a few, though, since all the OSU players will be on the field for the team's bowl game against Arkansas. That's all about money, too. No way the NCAA and ESPN were going to risk the loss of ad revenue by not having Pryor on the field. But who cares about some early September game against Akron on the Big Ten Network, right? Again, it's perfectly acceptable for the NCAA and TV networks to line their pockets. But curse the kids who tries to make a few dollars!!!
A much simpler way to attempt to fix the problem is paying college athletes. Most of the cases have the players taking small amounts, anyway. Why not just pay them (olympic sport athletes included) a stipend each semester of, say, $1,500-$3,000? All they want the money for is a pair of sneakers and maybe to take a girl to see a movie.
A university typically has about 500 athletes. Let's say OSU paid all 500 $2,000 each semester. That would only add up to the school spending about $2,000,000 each year (Remember, OSU makes $20 million a year in ticket sales alone). I know there would be some players who wouldn't think that amount would suffice. Throw the book at those guys. But I'm inclined to believe those greedy players would think a little harder about the decision they make if they know it can kill long-term prospects.
To take it a step further, athletes who are "the face of a team," such as Pryor, should get royalties from jersey sales. Why should people who already have money be allowed to get richer, while these players are held back. Sure, Pryor could make millions in the NFL, but there's no guarantee of that.
Realistically, the only way to put a stop to all this is if someone successfully sues the NCAA. But how long would that court case last? Years.
Hypocrisy of the higher order. That's what the NCAA exhibits time and time again.
I guess I'm no better. Here I am calling the group to the carpet, yet I'm infatuated with the product they put out.
If the NCAA can ride both sides of the fence, so can I.
Michigan State basketball coach Tom Izzo is suspended one game for employing someone at a camp who at some point had direct contact with a recruit - but not at the camp.
Now-Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari is free to go from school to school with no consequences even though each school he leaves always ends up facing sanctions.
Five Ohio State football players, including three starters, must sit out the team's first five games next season after it was discovered they sold awards, gifts and university apparel and received improper benefits in 2009. A sixth football student-athlete must sit out the first game in 2011 for receiving discounted services in violation of NCAA rules. If the suspension is upheld, Pryor's first game will be Oct. 8 against Nebraska.
NCAA makes rules as it goes
The NCAA says the players - Mike Adams, Dan Herron, DeVier Posey, Terrelle Pryor, Solomon Thomas and Jordan Whiting can still play Jan. 4 in the Sugar Bowl because of "inadequate rules education." Ohio State's first five games next year are against Akron, Toledo, at Miami (Fl.), Colorado and Michigan State.
The violations fall under the NCAA’s preferential treatment bylaws. They should fall under the NCAA's "We throw the hammer down when we want" bylaws.
The hypocrisy of the NCAA is astounding. How can that group even have a shred of credibility after it basically makes up rules as the situation allows?
The OSU players said the money earned from selling the items - Big Ten championship rings, jerseys, etc. - went to help their families. That's debatable, of course. What isn't debatable, though, is the lack of consistency in the NCAA rules.
In the case of Newton, all he needed to do was play dumb to maintain his eligibility. How stupid must Reggie Bush feel after he "voluntarily" returned his 2005 award? And why don't all these Buckeye players just say "My parents sold those things without my knowledge" so they, too, can maintain their eligibility?
The NCAA is displaying hypocrisy of the highest order.
"You can prostitute out your son to a bunch of schools. We'll let that go. You can be a certified dirtbag. We'll let that go. But don't do what all other celebrities do and use your name to get free stuff. We'll kill you for that."
If Ohio State is smart, it will look into similar occurrences and fight the ruling.
In 2002, a group of Georgia players sold SEC championship rings and was initially disciplined. But the NCAA didn't uphold suspensions because a rule on selling memorabilia wasn't clear.
Athletes are exploited
Money will always be an issue for college athletes. In the two biggest revenue-generating sports (basketball, football), most of the players come from nothing. That isn't to say they can use their families economic situation to break rules. But I sometimes understand why they do it.
Imagine walking around on a beautiful campus seeing people wearing a jersey featuring the number you wear as big as day on the front. Imagine playing in a stadium 7-8 times a fall in front of 112,000 people who came to see you. Then imagine not having money to take a girl out to dinner. Or not having enough cash to go in on a pizza with some of your boys.
At some point, you would think, "This school is making a mint off me. And I can't even take my girl out?"
The NCAA and these institutions can get rich off these kids and the kids get nothing. I hate the argument about the "student-athletes" getting a scholarship. The scholarship is great. I would have given anything to have had all my schooling paid for. But it'd also be great if all the athletes did something with those degree, like graduate. The whole concept of the student-athlete is a joke, but that's another issue.
Schools give out scholarships to science majors, too. And those science majors are allowed to work and take whatever they want from whoever they want. Both the athlete and the academic have to keep a certain grade-point average. And the academic has to keep a substantially higher GPA, I know. But the school isn't making millions off the academic. And 112,000 people aren't paying $50 a ticket to see the science major do a chemistry experiment.
Think about this: Ohio State annually brings in $20 million on tickets sales alone. But Pryor can't sell a ring given to him to, allegedly, help his mother out? How is that fair? How is it right some OSU players, allegedly, swapped autographs for tattoos that probably cost no more than $150, but those same players can take $500 worth of schwag from the sponsor of whatever bowl game they're in?
Reggie Bush made USC millions. The school wants nothing to do with him. But his coach, who likely knew about everything going on, is free to take any job he likes.
Chris Webber did the same for the University of Michigan, but he can't go on campus or even donate money for a few more years. I still see "MICHIGAN 4" jerseys every now and then. So what if there's no name on back. Had Rob Pelinka been No. 4, how many of those jerseys would the NCAA and school have sold?
Stipends may be the answer
With the Newton ruling, the NCAA may have opened Pandora's Box. Language in the rules should be revisited ASAP, or you'll have every recruit in the country on the take. What makes the Ohio State case even worse is the NCAA wants to punish these students when it doesn't cost the NCAA a dime. I could've sworn we lived in a capitalist society. Or am I wrong.
That capitalism may only be set up to benefit a few, though, since all the OSU players will be on the field for the team's bowl game against Arkansas. That's all about money, too. No way the NCAA and ESPN were going to risk the loss of ad revenue by not having Pryor on the field. But who cares about some early September game against Akron on the Big Ten Network, right? Again, it's perfectly acceptable for the NCAA and TV networks to line their pockets. But curse the kids who tries to make a few dollars!!!
A much simpler way to attempt to fix the problem is paying college athletes. Most of the cases have the players taking small amounts, anyway. Why not just pay them (olympic sport athletes included) a stipend each semester of, say, $1,500-$3,000? All they want the money for is a pair of sneakers and maybe to take a girl to see a movie.
A university typically has about 500 athletes. Let's say OSU paid all 500 $2,000 each semester. That would only add up to the school spending about $2,000,000 each year (Remember, OSU makes $20 million a year in ticket sales alone). I know there would be some players who wouldn't think that amount would suffice. Throw the book at those guys. But I'm inclined to believe those greedy players would think a little harder about the decision they make if they know it can kill long-term prospects.
To take it a step further, athletes who are "the face of a team," such as Pryor, should get royalties from jersey sales. Why should people who already have money be allowed to get richer, while these players are held back. Sure, Pryor could make millions in the NFL, but there's no guarantee of that.
Realistically, the only way to put a stop to all this is if someone successfully sues the NCAA. But how long would that court case last? Years.
Hypocrisy of the higher order. That's what the NCAA exhibits time and time again.
I guess I'm no better. Here I am calling the group to the carpet, yet I'm infatuated with the product they put out.
If the NCAA can ride both sides of the fence, so can I.
Labels: Big Ten Network, Chris Webber, John Calipari, Michigan State University, NCAA Basketball, NCAA Football, Ohio State, Reggie Bush, Terrell Pryor, The Big Ten, Tom Izzo
posted by Jason Carmel Davis at
1:08 PM
0 Comments
