arian foster

[imac_21]

I don't support them. But who's going to stop them? Schools make their own rules. They arbitrarily decide where that profit money goes. And a lot of colleges are subsidized, so competing with them for non-rich students is nearly impossible. (which is why private colleges go for the rich population). They arbitrarily decided that the women's lacrosse coach should get the money CFB makes, and students / fans can't do a thing about that.

So because there is not currently a body to stand up to the NCAA, we . . . what? Ignore the problem? Or since there is no current solution, there is no problem. That's like the old story about how if there were no doctors, there would be no illness. Illness only exists because people exist to combat it.

Since there is not solution, there can't be a problem.

[quote[No they can't! All they can do is end the relationship between the team & the player. If a player can ca$h in on his celebrity without the help of the NCAA he can just quit. But we're talking about future pro' players 99% of the time, so of course they're more interested in an NFL contract than in selling autographs.[/quote]

Again, focusing on semantics. The failure to acknowledge where the power lies in this relationship (or that power even exists) leads to statements like the above. You might as well argue that parents can't give their children curfews because the children can always choose to run away.

So the school can't prevent a player from playing? The school can't set restrictions on what CFB players can do? The school can't give preferential treatment to CFB players like Clyde mentioned? You can't divorce the schools from the NCAA. They're all in bed together.

That's not what I said, is it? The school can prevent a player from playing, obviously. It's happened. But the school is following policy created by the NCAA. Arkansas held out Mallett because of NCAA policy, not because of University of Arkansas policy. What's the 49ers policy on PEDs? Do they have one, or is it the NFL policy that they follow?

Schools follow NCAA policy because the NCAA is the ruling body for college athletics. If the NCAA didn't insist on one year of ineligibility for transfers, would individual schools? The reason schools self-discipline is in an attempt to get in front of NCAA discipline. OSU punished Pryor et al for the tattoo issue in the hopes that the NCAA would accept it. I don't believe OSU has a policy that says their students cannot barter for tattoos, but the NCAA does.

But the NCAA is just a bunch of schools. Obviously 299 colleges have more power than 1 college. when it comes to policies. Just like 299 congressmen have more power than 1 congressman.

It's not the NCAA, but I happen to be the Athletic Director for the high school I work at. We have all kinds of convoluted rules set forth by our overriding bodies as well. Bodies that serve essentially as the NCAA. We enforce the policies set down by that organization. We don't create the policies.

Again, I'm following your logic all the way to the parking lot of a college, and then we part company because PLAYING COLLEGE FOOTBALL IS NOT A JOB.

And because it's not a job the people involved don't deserve the rights afforded to people throughout the developed world, and should not expect their situation to improve.

We shouldn't care how children are treated at school (I'm not talking college students, I'm talking children) because being a 4th, 8th or 12th grade student is not a job. If you don't like the way you get treated at school, you have the option to go to a different school. Teachers should be allowed to do whatever they want to the students. Especially if they can find ways to make money off them.

 

[TobyTyler]

Is that not the American Way? That's what the country was built on, yes? That's why there was so much vitriol for the Eastern Bloc throughout the majority of the 20th century from the west, yes?

"..........as the market dictates. " That was the key part to your argument for me. As you said, it is the American way.

 

[NinerSickness]

The NCAA is a perfect microcosm of communism. Consider this:

What if the NCAA decided that all of the money they make goes directly to reducing tuition for all students at their colleges. That'd be great for the students right? Wrong! If the NCAA did that, all colleges would do is raise tuition the exact amount per student that the NCAA contributes. It would be a net zero gain for students. Colleges would then just spend the extra money by giving better benefits to its employees (usually hidden in their retirement). The same exact thing happens when tuition becomes subsidized by tax payers.

The point is that colleges have absolutely no incentive to do anything whatsoever to benefit students because they know that nobody is going to compete for their steady income of students. They only do what helps themselves. This is why the best parking at schools is staff parking, staff gets private study rooms (that are almost never used) that students can't use even after hours, they cram students into giant auditoriums in tiny little seats barely big enough to put a piece of paper on the desk while staff get large, comfortable offices; they take FOREVER to process paperwork & make people stand in huge lines for everything like the DMV, etc. This is why I don't support the NCAA (unless you consider watching on TV supporting 'em).

 

[NinerSickness]

So because there is not currently a body to stand up to the NCAA, we . . . what? Ignore the problem? Or since there is no current solution, there is no problem.

I don't consider college football players being suspended for selling their gear a "problem." You & I tend to have extremely different ideas about what qualifies as an injustice in this world. I'm sure there are areas (obvious ones) where we overlap though.

Again, focusing on semantics. The failure to acknowledge where the power lies in this relationship (or that power even exists) leads to statements like the above. You might as well argue that parents can't give their children curfews because the children can always choose to run away.

Kids can't just run away! The police would pick them up and bring them back.

That's not what I said, is it? The school can prevent a player from playing, obviously. It's happened. But the school is following policy created by the NCAA.

But the students also have to follow rules created by the individual school. And the individual schools are the ones who collectively create NCAA policies.

And because it's not a job the people involved don't deserve the rights afforded to people throughout the developed world, and should not expect their situation to improve.

They don't deserve rights as it pertains to the university at all. They deserve the same rights as every other schmuck in that country. They don't deserve the right to play for a football team or to be compensated by that team. This is kind of like when people on the radio complain on twitter that a radio host cuts 'em off & say the host is "stepping on their 1st amendment rights." They have the right to speak, but they don't have the right to be on a radio station's airwaves.

If you don't like the way you get treated at school, you have the option to go to a different school. Teachers should be allowed to do whatever they want to the students. Especially if they can find ways to make money off them.

Again, students can't just go to a "different school." They're required by law to go to school (at least in the US). All public schools have nearly identical policies within school districts, and they're not allowed to go to schools in districts where they don't live. And you're preaching to the choir about students getting f'ed by the schools. However, playing football is something people can choose to do or not to do because it's a hobby.

 

[imac_21]

I don't consider college football players being suspended for selling their gear a "problem." You & I tend to have extremely different ideas about what qualifies as an injustice in this world. I'm sure there are areas (obvious ones) where we overlap though.

Manziel was suspended for selling his autograph. I didn't realize autographs counted as equipment. Was it AJ Green that was suspended for selling his jersey? To be clear, it was HIS jersey. It belonged to HIM. It wasn't a team issued jersey, but one the team had given to him in a transfer of ownership

Kids can't just run away! The police would pick them up and bring them back.

Yeah, there are no runaways in the USA. The police caught them all and returned them to their parents.

[quotes]But the students also have to follow rules created by the individual school. And the individual schools are the ones who collectively create NCAA policies. [/quote]

The school policies apply to all students, not solely to the athletes. The rules and policies that apply to athletes are created by the NCAA. And yes, the individual school make up the NCAA. That doesn't mean they make up the rules. Unless you believe that individual stock holders have a say in how a publicly traded company is run.

The NCAA is a union of schools created with to serve the best interests of its members. Much like a labour union. Do you, Ninersickness, believe that all actions a labour union takes has the best interests of its members at heart. (he asked knowing the answer already based on over a decade of discussion)

They don't deserve rights as it pertains to the university at all. They deserve the same rights as every other schmuck in that country. They don't deserve the right to play for a football team or to be compensated by that team. This is kind of like when people on the radio complain on twitter that the host cuts 'em off & say the host is "stepping on their 1st amendment rights." They have the right to speak, but they don't have the right to be on a radio station's airwaves.

Doesn't everyone schmuck deserve the right to play for a team if they qualify? Just as every schmuck has the right to sell his likeness for whatever value he can get for it. Unless you're a college athlete. Then you can't sell your likeness. Only the NCAA can.

Again, students can't just go to a "different school." They're required by law to go to school (at least in the US). All public schools have nearly identical policies within school districts, and they're not allowed to go to schools in districts where they don't live. And you're preaching to the choir about students getting f'ed by the schools. However, playing football is something people can choose to do or not to do because it's a hobby.

Yes they can just go to a different school. I won't speak for American districts, but here we have 3 districts that all neighbour each other. You can go to any school you want. I was reading a story about students in a Minnesota district that could go to another school if they chose as well. There are restrictions on what you can do in that new school (you have to sit a year to play on a team for example), but the government cannot tell you what school you MUST attend.

Calling college football a hobby is really quaint. Wouldn't that be a great conversation?

The scene: Three people meet in a park
John: Hi there random men. My name is John. I collect stamps.
James: Hi John and other random guy whose name I don't yet know. My name is James and I collect coins.
AJ: Hi John and James, my name is AJ and I play QB for the University of Alabama Crimson Tide.
John and James: Wow that's so cool!!!
John: AJ, I'd like to buy you a drink.
AJ: Thanks John, but I must decline. If I accept a drink from you I won't be allowed to continue my hobby.

End

Yeah, playing college football is a hobby.

 

[imac_21]

College football players mark gear with "All Players United" to protest NCAA | al.com

 

[NinerSickness]

I get that they can't even sell their own jerseys. I agree that's a really stupid rule. Autographs? Meh...

Yeah, there are no runaways in the USA. The police caught them all and returned them to their parents.

There are legal consequences for running away. Running away is not the same thing as quitting a football team.

And yes, the individual school make up the NCAA. That doesn't mean they make up the rules. Unless you believe that individual stock holders have a say in how a publicly traded company is run.

It's more like congress. Each school is like one representative. Except they're all in the same political party. They all negotiate the details, and they agree 90% of the time.

The NCAA is a union of schools created with to serve the best interests of its members. Much like a labour union. Do you, Ninersickness, believe that all actions a labour union takes has the best interests of its members at heart. (he asked knowing the answer already based on over a decade of discussion)

Depends on who you mean as its "members." The student athletes? Hell no they're not acting in their interest. The schools / staff / army of bureaucrats? Yes. And labour unions tend to act with 2 motivations. (1) Politics (2) the financial compensation of its members.

Doesn't everyone schmuck deserve the right to play for a team if they qualify?

Yes, but qualifying involves following their arbitrarily-set rules.

Yes they can just go to a different school. I won't speak for American districts, but here we have 3 districts that all neighbour each other. You can go to any school you want. I was reading a story about students in a Minnesota district that could go to another school if they chose as well. There are restrictions on what you can do in that new school (you have to sit a year to play on a team for example), but the government cannot tell you what school you MUST attend.

Generally speaking, in 99% of the case, a student has 1 or maybe 2 options where they can go to school (unless they have rich parents). And 99% of the time (in the US), the 2 schools are nearly identical. The government has a strangle hold on the education industry, and they don't allow anyone to compete with them.

Calling college football a hobby is really quaint. Wouldn't that be a great conversation?

The scene: Three people meet in a park
John: Hi there random men. My name is John. I collect stamps.
James: Hi John and other random guy whose name I don't yet know. My name is James and I collect coins.
AJ: Hi John and James, my name is AJ and I play QB for the University of Alabama Crimson Tide.
John and James: Wow that's so cool!!!
John: AJ, I'd like to buy you a drink.
AJ: Thanks John, but I must decline. If I accept a drink from you I won't be allowed to continue my hobby.

Pretty much. Or he'd have to play for a league that allows him to accept drinks from people.

 

[imac_21]

I get that they can't even sell their own jerseys. I agree that's a really stupid rule. Autographs? Meh...

So the NCAA is overstepping its bounds and restricting its athletes unnecessarily?

There are legal consequences for running away. Running away is not the same thing as quitting a football team.

There are consequences to walking away from a scholarship. They aren't legal, but they can be severe.

It's more like congress. Each school is like one representative. Except they're all in the same political party. They all negotiate the details, and they agree 90% of the time.

And they don't always have their constituents' best interests at heart.

Depends on who you mean as its "members." The student athletes? Hell no they're not acting in their interest. The schools / staff / army of bureaucrats? Yes. And labour unions tend to act with 2 motivations. (1) Politics (2) the financial compensation of its members.

I mean the schools that make up the NCAA as its members. Explain to me how it benefits Texas A&M to prevent Manziel from making money by signing autographs. How did it benefit Oklahoma State to suspend Dez Bryant for the year because he spent the day with Deion Sanders? How does it benefit Georgia (or any school) by preventing AJ Green from selling his own property? How does it benefit Ohio State by preventing Terrell Pryor et al from trading gear and autographs for tattoos. How do any of the rules that prevent the athletes from making money off their likeness benefit the schools? How does creating an environment where Arian Foster has to break the rules or go hungry benefit Tennessee?

Yes, but qualifying involves following their arbitrarily-set rules.

That doesn't make the arbitrary set of rules okay. See: Factory Acts of Britain.

Generally speaking, in 99% of the case, a student has 1 or maybe 2 options where they can go to school (unless they have rich parents). And 99% of the time (in the US), the 2 schools are nearly identical. The government has a strangle hold on the education industry, and they don't allow anyone to compete with them.

I don't care about personal means. A student has the legal right to attend any public school they so choose. You are saying that college athletes have the option to not participate in college sports, but in many cases that means giving up post secondary education or going into massive debt. They have to weigh the pros and cons of getting the education vs dealing with the NCAA's inane, and in some cases archaic, policies.If you are a high school student who doesn't like their school you have to weigh the pros and cons of the going to the local school where you are poorly treated/unhappy vs going to another school where you can be happy but face increased expenses.

Pretty much. Or he'd have to play for a league that allows him to accept drinks from people.

And this is a colossal failure of the system. It's remarkably flawed and needs to be fixed.

 

[NinerSickness]

So the NCAA is overstepping its bounds and restricting its athletes unnecessarily?

What kind of bounds. Legal? No. Moral? I don't agree with the AJ Green thing at all, but I wouldn't get on a soap box & say absolutely. I don't think the NCAA is "right," and I don't think they're "wrong." To be redundant, it is what it is. And it is a corrupt, screwed up institution with its tentacles in a ton of different aspects of college and vice versa.

There are consequences to walking away from a scholarship. They aren't legal, but they can be severe.

That's the choice. Get a scholarship or be like everyone else. I don't have a problem with that.

Explain to me how it benefits Texas A&M to prevent Manziel from making money by signing autographs.

It doesn't. It's stupid, but it also protects the NCAA against legal slippery slopes by covering all possible bases for them. And the NCAA is fine with extreme policies as long as it covers their own asses in all cases.

That doesn't make the arbitrary set of rules okay. See: Factory Acts of Britain.

Again I agree, but I don't buy the comparison to a job.

I don't care about personal means. A student has the legal right to attend any public school they so choose.

They don't in California at least. If a parent wants to take his kid to a school outside the district, they won't admit him.

You are saying that college athletes have the option to not participate in college sports, but in many cases that means giving up post secondary education or going into massive debt.

Right. Just like everybody else. That's why I'm not championing this cause as some injustice. The NCAA is never going to act in the interest of students, and there's no possible way to make them because it's essentially a communism microcosm. But 99% of the time, you're talking about the financial status of people who will soon be millionaires in the NFL. People don't pay for an autograph from the left guard or backup RB at Sacramento State. People pay for the autograph of a star player. Star players will get their money soon enough. They can even get insurance policies in case they get injured. They're doing just fine.

 

[Hangman]

Just going to add my 2 cents. I went to college for 10 years and am still paying it off 12 years later. Down to $3500 left to pay but it is still there. That being said I think it is greed from colleges and the NCAA to not pay these kids.

The cost that the colleges pay for scholarships is nothing. They add an extra seat to the class and have a few dorm rooms used until they move into the football players house, which most big time colleges have.

For young kids giving up their body and risking their athleticism, which is sometimes the biggest asset these kids have to have a very minor chance to get a job in the NFL and most come out receiving nothing is a bad trade off. Yes, some kids get a degree, but schools want these kids to take fluff courses so they can concentrate on football. They also get useless degrees because they are lied to about them going to be drafted to the NFL.

Now I know some places like Stanford are great with education as well as athletics, but that is not the norm.

I think these Kids should get some pay as they are giving schools millions in revenue each year. Some of that revenue is spent in other athletic programs and education programs. Why not take some of that large amount of money and set aside some for the players. I am not talking a ton of dough, just enough to make it on campus. Campus life does get expensive with meals that are not covered, taking girls out on dates, school projects, gas for the car, laundry, ect...

My idea would be to pay players about $100/week. Not a ton, but enough to get players by for the week.

The NCAA needs to remember its a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. But the players can be considered employees and get paid.

 

[NinerSickness]

The NCAA needs to remember its a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. But the players can be considered employees and get paid.

Making them "employees" would open the NCAA up to all kinds of legal liability, so there's no way they'll ever do that.

 

[Hangman]

Making them "employees" would open the NCAA up to all kinds of legal liability, so there's no way they'll ever do that.

Well they can argue they are employees now. They are interns learning a craft. That makes them liable using that logic. In fact they are liable for damages and that is why there is a lawsuit in the works now just like the one the NFL had for injured players.

 

[NinerSickness]

Well they can argue they are employees now. They are interns learning a craft.

Legally, they're neither of those things. And I'm not just talking about injury liability; Calfornia passes about 700 bills a year, and a lot of them pertain to employees, interns, etc. The NCAA will never open themselves up to that kind of liability.

Legally, CFB players are like members of a club who go on field trips.

 

[Hangman]

Legally, they're neither of those things. And I'm not just talking about injury liability; Calfornia passes about 700 bills a year, and a lot of them pertain to employees, interns, etc. The NCAA will never open themselves up to that kind of liability.

Legally, CFB players are like members of a club who go on field trips.

The club is held liable if a field trip goes bad and people get injured. NCAA gets money from what the players do. They would not get any money if they didn't play. The NCAA is responsible for what happens and so are the schools. They like to pretend they are not, but they make agreements and contract with the kids, Like the NCAA gets the likeness from the players to make even more money from. The schools get a contract saying that the kid will play with their school and not a competitor school. If they switch schools they have to wait a year to play. Its an NCAA rule, but the schools wanted that rule to stop kids from switching all the time. But schools can cut players who want to go to a school, but they already have too many scholarships. There is no penalty for the schools for that. How many kids declare to go to a school then change their minds and cant play their freshman years? It seemed like there were 3-4 this year.

Injured players will win this lawsuit and win about the same as what the NFL gave up. But for the NCAA it is a drop in the bucket.

 

[NinerSickness]

The club is held liable if a field trip goes bad and people get injured.

I know they're liable for injuries. I'm talking about all the legal regulations concerning employees. And it's thousands of pages long in most states. The NCAA will never make its student-athletes "employees."

 

[Hangman]

You are right, it will be the schools who do that. But the NCAA governs the schools. That might make them the de facto employers as they also collect a lot of the revenue from the games to pay its employees.

 

[NinerSickness]

You are right, it will be the schools who do that. But the NCAA governs the schools. That might make them the de facto employers as they also collect a lot of the revenue from the games to pay its employees.

No, the schools aren't going to make them employees either. You ever hear the saying "what's good for the goose is good for the gander?" The schools are the NCAA, and the NCAA is the schools. All these colleges are in bed together. And they're never, ever ever going to make CFB players employees because they have zero incentive to do so (quite the opposite).

Colleges are interested in three things: (1) getting as many employees working for them as possible (2) getting those employees as many benefits and as much pay as possible so they can (3) kick back a percentage to their unions. They're not going to take money off the employees' table (like the golf coach, the women's sports coaches, the rowing coaches, etc) and give it to the students. That's like asking republicans to increase funding for NPR.

 

[CalamityX11]

This thread is just awesome... good posts by all.

Definitely informative and entertaining to read the various opinions without hitting a bump in attacks... good stuff faithful!

 

[JDM]

Umm, okay:

"I just feel strong about the injustice that the NCAA has been doing for years," Foster said Friday. "That's why I said what I said. I'm not trying to throw anybody under the bus. ... I feel like I shouldn't have to run from the NCAA anymore. They're like these big bullies. I'm not scared of them."

You're a successful and rich NFL player. Why would you be scared of the NCAA? What on Earth can the NCAA do to you now, Arian?

You wanna make a difference? You do it while you're in college, not when you're an all-pro in the NFL.

You have no leverage in college. Plus you would have to sacrifice your future.