BREAKING: Johnny Manziel Investigation

[HedleyLamarr]

Every top player should do this and get their eligibility revoked. Rules would change real quick.

The players have the leverage here, they just either don't realize it, or can't organize.

Not sure if "amateurs" can form a union, but it would do them a ton of good.

If they want to do this, then don't go play college ball. No one's forcing them to. Why change everything to accommodate some kids who will be making millions in a few years anyway? It's like going into a freakin steakhouse and demanding they start serving seafood because its what you want. They have options. If they choose college, they are accepting the rules that come with it. And they're well aware of them by now. Don't need another damn union screwing everything up. They got it better than any other student and yet it's still not good enough. That's definition of greedy, which I thought was evil to you? They can lax the rules on them being able to make money outside of sports, allow them to hold jobs or sell personal items, but they do not need to be paid like pros.

Rebuttal: Excellent college athlete who is a consensus first round draft pick blows out their knee in the course of a regular season game. Still think they're going to make millions?

And no, they don't have it better than students on academic full rides. Those students can still get jobs.

Athletes get all-expenses-paid trips (first class flights and hotels, per diem) all over the country, and sometimes internationally.

Athletes aren't saddled with student debt of any kind once they leave school.

Athletes get first-pick of classes before Average Joe does.

Athletes get to miss class/exams and get to make them up when their schedule is convenient.

Athletes get unlimited clothing (albeit, with the school's name on it) at no cost.

Athletes get exposure for future employers, should their goal be to play a sport professionally.

Athletes get free, unlimited access to tutors.

Athletes get free parking on campus.

Athletes get school-provided, school-funded health insurance and exam fees.

Athletes get school-funded emergency trips in case of a death in the family.

Yeah, my ability to get a job at Home Depot or the Olive Garden totally trumps the perks that football and basketball student-athletes get.....

[The_Admiral]

Athletes get all-expenses-paid trips (first class flights and hotels, per diem) all over the country, and sometimes internationally.

Athletes aren't saddled with student debt of any kind once they leave school.

Athletes get first-pick of classes before Average Joe does.

Athletes get to miss class/exams and get to make them up when their schedule is convenient.

Athletes get unlimited clothing (albeit, with the school's name on it) at no cost.

Athletes get exposure for future employers, should their goal be to play a sport professionally.

Athletes get free, unlimited access to tutors.

Athletes get free parking on campus.

Athletes get school-provided, school-funded health insurance and exam fees.

Athletes get school-funded emergency trips in case of a death in the family.

Sounds like a great case for INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING NOT BEING IN THE FREAKING MINOR-LEAGUE SPORTS BUSINESS GOOD LORD WE'RE A NATION OF IDIOTS

[Gothamite]

No, it's a reasoned and considered response to the extremely silly argument that athletes don't get special perks from their schools. Its length is in direct proportion to the ludicrousness of the claim it rebuts.

If people supporting Manziel didn't make such patently false arguments, then litanies like Hedley's wouldn't be necessary. Until then...

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Yes, football athletes get tons of perks. However, most of them won't turn pro, and if they do, it's for B leagues in B towns throughout the US, where they'll make $50,000 a year until they turn 27 and blow out their knees. Then nothing.

If a chemistry grad assistant can get full tuition plus a modest stipend, why can't schools do that same for its football players? Or perhaps give them the option of either A. being a walking billboard for the school's athletic provider or B. receiving the value of being said billboard.

[dfwabel]

Athletes get all-expenses-paid trips (first class flights and hotels, per diem) all over the country, and sometimes internationally.

Well, there are other students which get the same opportunities, including team managers, athletic trainers, and band members who also possess the ability to work during the school year and off-season. The graduate assistant coach get the same benefit plus one big other one..THEY GET PAID!

Athletes aren't saddled with student debt of any kind once they leave school.

A scholarship is a one year renewable contract. There is no guarantee that after their Freshman year a coach will want them to return. It is the school's option to honor the scholarship for four years.

Athletes get free, unlimited access to tutors.

Depending on the course, there are plenty of free options to ALL students. If you fail to use it (or them) that is on the student.

Athletes get free parking on campus.

Free Parking in an impermissible benefit and subject to penalties since it is not afforded to the general student body.

Athletes get school-provided, school-funded health insurance and exam fees.

Incorrect. Proof of insurance has been required by the NCAA since 2005. However, the proof of primary coverage must be paid by the parent or an athlete's personal policy (or the school), and must cover up to the $90,000 deductible of the NCAA catastrophic injury insurance program. The parent's policy is what is billed first, then they are "reimbursed" via the NCAA policy.

Plus, Injuries sustained in college athletics that linger or develop into chronic conditions are generally not covered by a university’s or the NCAA’s medical insurance once an athlete has left college.

Lastly, when injured during a game or practice, there is no Worker's Compensation.

Athletes get school-funded emergency trips in case of a death in the family.

Incorrect. There is a NCAA Special Assistance Fund which is available to most not all student-athletes, those who are ineligible for Pell Grants cannot access the fund. Hospice or an obit is needed for the funds to be freed.

Who know who else often has a catastrophic leave plan? EMPLOYEES!

[The_Admiral]

Who said they don't get perks? No duh they get perks, some of which, if certain people are to be believed, are basically sex-trafficking. That's never been the argument. The argument has traditionally been that it would be a lot cleaner and simpler if the whole thing were above ground instead of creating this black market/token economy of scummy weirdness.

[Gothamite]

Well, rams80 did, in a manner. Which necessitated the lengthy post.

But thank you. That was a logical, reasonable defense of the position and will contribute much to the conversation. Does that mean we've now dispensed with the notion that people opposing do so out of some kind of envy?

Well, rams80 did, in a manner. Which necessitated the lengthy post.

But thank you. That was a logical, reasonable defense of your position and will contribute much to the conversation. Does that mean we've now dispensed with the notion that people opposing that position do so out of some kind of envy?

[The_Admiral]

By the way, I saw Scummy Weirdness open for String Cheese Incident at Burning Man

[McCall]

As I have said and am sure others would agree, you can allow them to have jobs in the offseason or sell their own personal items for profit. I think most think that's reasonable. But how does a fix as easy that get overlooked and jump straight to "pay them salaries and form a union because they don't get the opportunities other students get"? Most students have those jobs in order to pay for the schooling and other benefits that the athletes are getting for free.

[HedleyLamarr]

I'm not so sure I can agree to letting the players selling their personal items for profit. That would have to be severely limited, and even then, it's still an awfully slippery slope.

The reason why student-athletes "can't get a job" (they can, but there's a lot of restrictions) is because employers would claim an athlete is working for them, while this player either wasn't setting foot on the company's property or was making far more than what their equals were making. Employers were basically these boosters for a program, disguising these payments as employee paychecks.

The same thing is very possible if you allow players to sell their own things....program boosters could mask themselves as buyers for these items and pay well above market value for them. AJ McCarron could put his jizz towel up for sale, and some Alabama fanatic would pay $1000 for it. A program could give their star players a bunch of various items (jerseys, hats, shirts, whatever), a player could sell them to buyers (known as boosters) for an insane amount, etc....that could get really shady in a hurry.

About the only fair way I can see a compromise between the pay vs. no-pay crowd is to pay the athletes for their services (per season, per game, whatever), but the players can't touch that money until their eligibility is up. Put this money into an account where the school and/or NCAA can monitor its activity. Should a player need to dip into this account, their eligibility vanishes and the school/NCAA are notified that a player is no longer able to play. (Although, that last part has to be tied into scholarship length so it prevents coaches from abusing that loophole.)

[RyanMcD29]

I'm in the train of thought that the NCAA's problems are mainly FBS or major D-1 basketball and all this "paying the players" controversy also revolves around those two. Hate to break it, but due to Title IX, if your school has football, and your on a non-revenue sport, say a soccer, baseball, hockey, or lacrosse team, you're not getting a full scholarship. If you're playing D-3 anything, regardless of gender, you're not getting a full scholarship. If you're playing a non-revenue at a D-1 or football at an FCS school or anything at a D-2 or D-3, more or less the whole "free ride" argument goes out the window. I mean, yes the "finding academic money elsewhere" thing comes into play, but chances are you're still paying for your college, albeit at a discount. And I can't really go into the whole scheduling argument considering I had first dibs among my class due to my major, so I mean yes I guess that part's a little unfair but it's not like it's going to affect the average student's schedule as much as guys like me did as well. And the job after college stuff may work for baseball or hockey, but otherwise unless it's dealing with boosters of a program, that's not going to get you any more of an advantage than going to the same school as your employer or an old boys network from an institution or a fraternity affiliation. So there's the "benefits" argument. Yes, football and basketball players will get that. Non-revenues and anything below D-1 probably aren't going to get all that much.

Then in terms of actual NCAA enforcement and whatnot, well, it gives a good way to organize championships outside the two money makers and not have it as the "haves and the have nots" of exclusion like non-sponsored sports do (ie: rowing). And really, aside from some D-2 women's tennis team having some European who already went pro from time to time, there's not really many eligibility issues to deal with. I mean, can they get rid of some of the stupid restrictions Jay Bilas tweets about every other day? Sure. But other than that it works at every level besides football and basketball.

My suggestion? Well, you're not gonna break up the NCAA for basketball with the piles of money all the schools are making with the NCAA Tournament, but it's easily feasible to just have FBS Football break away. You know, do all the pay the players, get rid of eligibility standards, make the rules, yatta yatta stuff. And it's not like the NCAA has that much control over FBS football anyway to begin with outside of eligibility and rules setting. The conferences, schools, BCS, bowls, networks, and whatnot are the ones really in control there. I guess give a little bit of a period for FCS schools/conferences to determine which path they want to go on after the split, too. That way the screwed up part of the NCAA's taken care of while the stuff that works remains in place.

Apologies for making points without really making an argument in a long winded manner

[The_Admiral]

I'm too tired/lazy to write about it all that well, so try not to hold the poor craftsmanship against me too much here, but I feel like the whole culture of relishing others' NCAA violations, which at this point is inextricably just as much a part of being a modern college football fan as eating chicken wings on a Saturday, is not just about wanting a competitive advantage for your rival team but also part of a general culture of public shaming that, if you ask me, has really come of age since the economy collapsed. Not that it's a new phenomenon -- it's just Victorianism with broadband -- but with the sizable increase in fear and loathing brought on by everyone losing their jobs, pensions, and/or basic dignity from powers far above us, we're all just fighting to swim upstream with no qualms about holding a few heads under the water along the way and finishing the jobs on some other poor bastards before anyone can finish the job on us. We pretty much live it every day, so it's no surprise that we'd carry it over into sports.

When people are outraged over some drunk redneck saying n'igger, most of those people aren't reacting from a deep sense of pain that comes with having taken that word and everything it carries, because if you crunch the obvious numbers here, most people on this earth just can't know that pain. What they do know is they want to see punishment, they want scarlet letters, they want someone brought down from a surely ill-gotten high, and they want to loudly demonstrate that they're on the right side of the line before someone can catch them on the wrong side. Gawker traffics almost entirely in exposing people for having said or done one unacceptable thing or another, and it's not out of any moral imperative so much as an imperative to generate pageviews to in turn sell advertising. This guy got drunk, that guy sent dick pictures, it's the same dumb crap any old jerkass does but presented not with a wink and a "guess they're just like us" but with continuing team coverage until they've been broken down and shamed and sullied forever.

And so it goes with college sports, where we take the basic live-vicariously principle of Liking Sports and extrapolate it out to wanting everyone else's sins to be revealed before our (which is to say The Program's) sins can be revealed first. And when it happens, what a glorious day it is, to mock the exposed and the crudeness of their sins ("all this over tattoos? Goodness, what animals!"), to see someone fall from a great height, all the while hoping nobody finds out about our (which is to say The Program's) unfortunate misunderstandings involving forged exams, or free cars, or a certain incident which we'll say wasn't necessarily not rape.

It's an awful way to manifest an interest in sports because extrapolated, it's an awful way to live your life. And that's why liking college sports is increasingly awful.

[Gothamite]

Wow, admiral. An awful lot to read into other people's opinions. And vague enough that it doesn't actually require any evidence.

In fact, "people taking out their pain on a convenient if misplaced target" is the best explanation for adolescent rebelling-against-the-authority-figure anti-NCAA position I've ever read. .

[McCall]

That's what that was? I thought it was a rambling manifesto.

[Gothamite]

It was, but that's not necessarily bad, and I think that was the gist.

[HedleyLamarr]

I don't think the "build them up, admire them, then tear them down" mentality is limited to college athletes.

No player in baseball can hit homeruns unless they're grossly overweight or juicing. (Chris Davis and Jose Bautista started getting the "Are you juicing?" questions during their breakout seasons.) NFL fans are starting to wonder how long they can enjoy watching a player before he gets into trouble with the law. Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, the list goes on....folks and media are wondering (or in some cases....hoping) how these stars can be taken down.

A lot of the dislike for Johnny Manziel comes from the "He's a spoiled rich kid who hasn't been told 'No!'.", probably because we'd all love to be in his shoes....20 years old, Heisman Trophy winner, sitting courtside at Heat playoff games, etc. Some dislike him because he's just another selling point for the SEC.

I agree with you on where you think college sports is heading, off the field. Social media and 24-hour sports programming are starting to take the fun out of college sports the same way 24-hour news channels and talk radio has made politics so divisive.

[The_Admiral]

Agreed on baseball, and there are moments in the NFL, but I don't see nearly as much perverse schadenfreude when a pro gets arrested as I do when a program gets sanctioned. It's almost as if it's expected of them, while transgressions against the purity of amateurism still take us by surprise.

[Gothamite]

Hmm. I see it exactly the other way.

Spectators will be booing Braun for the rest of his career, yet who still cares or even remembers that the Oregon Ducks just got hit with sanctions in a recruiting scandal?

[rams80]

Hmm. I see it exactly the other way.

Spectators will be booing Braun for the rest of his career, yet who still cares or even remembers that the Oregon Ducks just got hit with sanctions in a recruiting scandal?

The NCAA's love tap of a response contributes.

[Gothamite]

I don't know what that means.

Should the NCAA come down harder on them? Absolutely. It's a feckless organization that is afraid to face down the big programs and consequently creates a two-tier system where players like Manziel can effectively break the rules with impunity.