NCAA hypocrites sticking it to "student-athlete" again?

[StillAWarrior]

I'm nonplussed by this particular students plight, but your stance is incorrect generally because the rules are stacked against the SAs. You make it sound like the school is this benevolent entity bestowing great value on an SA.....at the end of the day they are the ones exploiting those SAs for the schools financial gain so I have zero sympathy for the schools if a SA transfers

For the vast majority of SAs, the value equation is the other way around.  Granted, we're dealing with MBB here, so I get your point.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do get it.

[GGGG]

Right... Because a school has never dropped a scholarship for someone. Ever. Nope.

In the middle of an academic year?  I doubt that has happened often...if ever.

[mu03eng]

For the vast majority of SAs, the value equation is the other way around.  Granted, we're dealing with MBB here, so I get your point.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do get it.

Fair, the value to a wrestling SA is in their favor. However, you almost never hear the plight of the non-revenue SA who is getting "screwed" by the rules because they can't transfer or something.

In the revenue sports, the universities are absolutely raking the SAs over the coals IMO. That's not to say the SAs aren't getting anything but it is definitely disproportionate to what the university especially when you factor in rules that prevent SAs from working profiting from their activities while universities have near carte blanche.

[B. McBannerson]

I'm nonplussed by this particular students plight, but your stance is incorrect generally because the rules are stacked against the SAs. You make it sound like the school is this benevolent entity bestowing great value on an SA.....at the end of the day they are the ones exploiting those SAs for the schools financial gain so I have zero sympathy for the schools if a SA transfers

But are they really?

Say you are a women's high school soccer player from Illinois and you receive a full ride to Stanford, USC, Georgetown, Florida.

You receive ~$200K offset to tuition, room and board. A quality education.  Your earning power from one of those schools ~$2 million over lifetime.  Free equipment. Academic tutoring.  Networking with alumni.  If good enough, chance to showcase for bigger and better things athletically post college.

This continued pity party attack on the NCAA and what kids get in return is a heavily slanted argument.   Does Jimmy Butler get drafted into the NBA without him being exploited by Marquette basketball after playing at a community college?  How much did that exploitation earn Jimmy over a lifetime?  $100M?  Jae Crowder?  Steve Novak? Travis Diener? Jim MacIlvaine?  With the exception of some (not all) of the 1 and dones, the value equation for most revenue sports is also in the SA's favor.  99% of them don't play pro ball, but get all of the above.  Yet the vilification of the NCAA continues.  The money the NCAA brings in, almost all of it goes back to the schools for things like scholarships, opportunities for women and minorities, etc, etc.  As a parent of a possible future female scholarship athlete, it blows my mind that some of the same people screaming about injustice for maybe 20 guys a year are forgetting the 150 THOUSAND + minority and female benefactors of the NCAA contract. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These guys agree to terms and get rewarded heavily for those terms and we get upset because the RULES ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM, the rules they agreed to?   

[mu03eng]

But are they really?

Say you are a women's high school soccer player from Illinois and you receive a full ride to Stanford, USC, Georgetown, Florida.

You receive ~$200K offset to tuition, room and board. A quality education.  Your earning power from one of those schools ~$2 million over lifetime.  Free equipment. Academic tutoring.  Networking with alumni.  If good enough, chance to showcase for bigger and better things athletically post college.

This continued pity party attack on the NCAA and what kids get in return is a heavily slanted argument.   Does Jimmy Butler get drafted into the NBA without him being exploited by Marquette basketball after playing at a community college?  How much did that exploitation earn Jimmy over a lifetime?  $100M?  Jae Crowder?  Steve Novak? Travis Diener? Jim MacIlvaine?  With the exception of some (not all) of the 1 and dones, the value equation for most revenue sports is also in the SA's favor.  99% of them don't play pro ball, but get all of the above.  Yet the vilification of the NCAA continues.  The money the NCAA brings in, almost all of it goes back to the schools for things like scholarships, opportunities for women and minorities, etc, etc.  As a parent of a possible future female scholarship athlete, it blows my mind that some of the same people screaming about injustice for maybe 20 guys a year are forgetting the 150 THOUSAND + minority and female benefactors of the NCAA contract. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These guys agree to terms and get rewarded heavily for those terms and we get upset because the RULES ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM, the rules they agreed to?

First, almost no SAs in non-revenue sports are receiving full rides. I'm willing to bet that the Stanford track athlete is not getting a full ride.

Also, if there is really only one path to success in the pros (via college athletics) you don't really have much negotiating power to get a fair shake.

And how very socialist of you to say "well we should take from the big time athletes so we can provide for the non-revenue athletes"

[StillAWarrior]

But are they really?

Say you are a women's high school soccer player from Illinois and you receive a full ride to Stanford, USC, Georgetown, Florida.

You receive ~$200K offset to tuition, room and board. A quality education.  Your earning power from one of those schools ~$2 million over lifetime.  Free equipment. Academic tutoring.  Networking with alumni.  If good enough, chance to showcase for bigger and better things athletically post college.

This continued pity party attack on the NCAA and what kids get in return is a heavily slanted argument.   Does Jimmy Butler get drafted into the NBA without him being exploited by Marquette basketball after playing at a community college?  How much did that exploitation earn Jimmy over a lifetime?  $100M?  Jae Crowder?  Steve Novak? Travis Diener? Jim MacIlvaine?  With the exception of some (not all) of the 1 and dones, the value equation for most revenue sports is also in the SA's favor.  99% of them don't play pro ball, but get all of the above.  Yet the vilification of the NCAA continues.  The money the NCAA brings in, almost all of it goes back to the schools for things like scholarships, opportunities for women and minorities, etc, etc.  As a parent of a possible future female scholarship athlete, it blows my mind that some of the same people screaming about injustice for maybe 20 guys a year are forgetting the 150 THOUSAND + minority and female benefactors of the NCAA contract. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These guys agree to terms and get rewarded heavily for those terms and we get upset because the RULES ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM, the rules they agreed to?

I've always been inclined to agree with this point of view (and I feel even more strongly about it these days).  The overwhelming majority of student athletes are coming out way ahead in this deal.  In my opinion, that includes virtually every athlete in sports other than FB and MBB, and even the large majority of athletes in those two sports.  Obviously, I'm talking about those with full-rides (and to a lesser extent those with partials).

The number of transcendent athletes who I think can individually "move the needle" financially is pretty small.  Most fans root for the university/team, not the athlete.  While the jersey a fan wears may be associated with a specific athlete, if that athlete would have attended another school the fan likely still would have supported the team and purchased the jersey -- perhaps with a different number, or perhaps with the same number associated with a different player.  I think the athletes as a group have tremendous value to the university.  I think that the individual athlete that has incremental value to the university is pretty rare.

In short, I'm just not very sympathetic to the exploitation argument.  All that said, this shouldn't be interpreted to mean I'm a fan of many of the NCAA's rules.  I'm not.  I think many are stupid and unfair -- particularly those that relate to the ability to earn money.  I understand the abuses that led to those rules and acknowledge the need to maintain some level of control, but I think the rules are way too restrictive.

[StillAWarrior]

And how very socialist of you to say "well we should take from the big time athletes so we can provide for the non-revenue athletes"

I thought it important to tell my daughter, "If you get annoyed by favorable treatment of the MBB team, remember that MBB is paying the bills."

[Jay Bee]

Here's a thought: if you do not like the terms of a contract, do not enter into the contract.

[mu03eng]

Here's a thought: if you do not like the terms of a contract, do not enter into the contract.

Only works if there is an alternative contract to sign or a means of extracting concessions, neither of which are available to the revenue SAs

[Jay Bee]

Only works if there is an alternative contract to sign or a means of extracting concessions, neither of which are available to the revenue SAs

False. No one is forced to play college basketball in exchange for financial aid.

[mu03eng]

False. No one is forced to play college basketball in exchange for financial aid.

Name one US based player who made an NBA roster without going to a year of college under the current CAN?

Name one player from anywhere who made an NFL roster without going to college.

[WarriorInNYC]

Name one US based player who made an NBA roster without going to a year of college under the current CAN?

Brandon Jennings

Edit:  Agree its a lot more difficult for the NFL, but there are many players who walked on at universities and then earned a scholarship, then made it to the NFL.  Then there is Antonio Gates who had a scholarship, but it wasn't to play football.

Edit2:  Jarryd Hayne played for the 49ers and did not play football in college.  There are currently at least 2 players on current (doesn't mean they will make it all the way) NFL rosters (Alex Gray and Adam Zaruba) that did not play football in college.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Eric Swann only played in community college, yet was a first round pick and had a long, stellar career.  10 years, 2 time All-Pro.

Terrance Ferguson was a first round NBA pick after playing a year in China.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Name one player from anywhere who made an NFL roster without going to college.

Ray Seals, Sav Rocca, Michael Lewis and Lawrence Okoye

[Lennys Tap]

And I agree with what Lenny said about the spirit of the rule, though naturally I don't agree about my title being "hysterical."

I didn't say your title was "hysterical", I said it was a"BIT hysterical". #Fake News

[jesmu84]

But are they really?

Say you are a women's high school soccer player from Illinois and you receive a full ride to Stanford, USC, Georgetown, Florida.

You receive ~$200K offset to tuition, room and board. A quality education.  Your earning power from one of those schools ~$2 million over lifetime.  Free equipment. Academic tutoring.  Networking with alumni.  If good enough, chance to showcase for bigger and better things athletically post college.

This continued pity party attack on the NCAA and what kids get in return is a heavily slanted argument.   Does Jimmy Butler get drafted into the NBA without him being exploited by Marquette basketball after playing at a community college?  How much did that exploitation earn Jimmy over a lifetime?  $100M?  Jae Crowder?  Steve Novak? Travis Diener? Jim MacIlvaine?  With the exception of some (not all) of the 1 and dones, the value equation for most revenue sports is also in the SA's favor.  99% of them don't play pro ball, but get all of the above.  Yet the vilification of the NCAA continues.  The money the NCAA brings in, almost all of it goes back to the schools for things like scholarships, opportunities for women and minorities, etc, etc.  As a parent of a possible future female scholarship athlete, it blows my mind that some of the same people screaming about injustice for maybe 20 guys a year are forgetting the 150 THOUSAND + minority and female benefactors of the NCAA contract. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

These guys agree to terms and get rewarded heavily for those terms and we get upset because the RULES ARE STACKED AGAINST THEM, the rules they agreed to?

How would you feel if this system was implemented in general society? Take from the upper end and give to the lower tier because it's for the benefit of everyone

[MU82]

I didn't say your title was "hysterical", I said it was a"BIT hysterical". #Fake News

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!?!

What the eff are you effen saying?!?!?!

I'll shove a bit hysterical right up your (bleep)!

Wow ... that was fun.

Meanwhile ...

I almost always will come down on the athlete's side in these things, just as I did with the Cameron Johnson deal between Pitt and UNC. (And JB will ALWAYS come down on the institution/NCAA's side. I guess there's something to be said about consistency for both of us.)

The easiest thing to say is "rules are rules are rules," but there are individuals involved in these things.

This STUDENT wanted to get a little ahead of things. He certainly had zero reason to believe, on the first day of summer-school class, that there was even a chance Matta would be fired. Basketball coaches are almost always fired much earlier than that, and there had been no "scuttlebutt" on the rumor mill that Matta was in trouble. Had the athlete been less of a student and had he just decided to wait until the first semester of his freshman year to start taking classes, like most basketball players do, he would have been allowed to leave without having to sit out a year. He would have been rewarded for not being academically active.

I happen to think there is room to enforce the rules while still looking at extenuating circumstances.

But won't that set precedent? I suppose. So the next time this happens 10 years from now (or longer), the NCAA can deal with it at that time.

I think there's a decent chance of him winning on appeal. At least I hope so.

[WarriorInNYC]

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!?!

What the eff are you effen saying?!?!?!

I'll shove a bit hysterical right up your (bleep)!

Wow ... that was fun.

Meanwhile ...

I almost always will come down on the athlete's side in these things, just as I did with the Cameron Johnson deal between Pitt and UNC. (And JB will ALWAYS come down on the institution/NCAA's side. I guess there's something to be said about consistency for both of us.)

The easiest thing to say is "rules are rules are rules," but there are individuals involved in these things.

This STUDENT wanted to get a little ahead of things. He certainly had zero reason to believe, on the first day of summer-school class, that there was even a chance Matta would be fired. Basketball coaches are almost always fired much earlier than that, and there had been no "scuttlebutt" on the rumor mill that Matta was in trouble. Had the athlete been less of a student and had he just decided to wait until the first semester of his freshman year to start taking classes, like most basketball players do, he would have been allowed to leave without having to sit out a year. He would have been rewarded for not being academically active.

I happen to think there is room to enforce the rules while still looking at extenuating circumstances.

But won't that set precedent? I suppose. So the next time this happens 10 years from now (or longer), the NCAA can deal with it at that time.

I think there's a decent chance of him winning on appeal. At least I hope so.

I usually come to the side that he knew the rules going in, but also think this is a bad rule, and it should be changed.

But I'll ask you this question.  Who should pay for the summer courses he took?  OSU, the school that did not benefit from him having a scholarship?  NC State, the school where he did not take these courses?  Or the SA?

[Jay Bee]

Name one US based player who made an NBA roster without going to a year of college under the current CAN?

Name one player from anywhere who made an NFL roster without going to college.

In addition to those named above, Emmanuel Mudiay came to the US as a lil boy. He decided against SMU.... went to China instead, then 2 NBA

So, there are multiple examples. Yet, if the answer was "no one", no matta. So many kids go to college on a full ride bc it's such a great deal for them.

[MU82]

But I'll ask you this question.  Who should pay for the summer courses he took?  OSU, the school that did not benefit from him having a scholarship?  NC State, the school where he did not take these courses?  Or the SA?

A very reasonable question, and an interesting one, too.

Without letting it rattle around in my skull for too long, I'd say not Ohio State. Probably the SA would be the fairest way to deal with that expense. If the NCAA would allow it, I wouldn't mind if NC State paid.

If the NCAA agrees with the SA upon appeal, I hope we get to find out the answer to your question.

[StillAWarrior]

How would you feel if this system was implemented in general society? Take from the upper end and give to the lower tier because it's for the benefit of everyone

Answering only for myself, I disagree with the premise that they're "taking from the upper end."  If they were taking something from the athletes in revenue producing sports, and giving it to the athletes in non-revenue producing sports, I'd think you have a valid point.  But in my view, that's not what's happening.  The university (or at least the athletics department) is taking its own money and giving it to the athletes in both revenue and non-revenue sports. 

[GB Warrior]

I happen to think there is room to enforce the rules while still looking at extenuating circumstances.

But won't that set precedent? I suppose. So the next time this happens 10 years from now (or longer), the NCAA can deal with it at that time.

I think there's a decent chance of him winning on appeal. At least I hope so.

I would love for there to be an annulment period as it pertains to the head coach (can't just do all coaches, otherwise, slippery slope, people marrying dogs, SAs transferring 'cause their girlfriend dumped them and transferred, yada yada yada) to prevent exactly this. When you enter into a contract, you do (or should) do it with all relevant facts presented to you that can inform your decision. Just like you would want to know whether your spouse-to-be contracted herpes right before the wedding before entering into a binding agreement, student athletes should have insight into whether Rick Pitino has herpes.

Of course, there's no way this EVER happens, and the NCAA views it as the student marrying the university, not the coach.This would prevent the SA from being punished for something that could not have been reasonably anticipated. Set any arbitrary window of time and let's all agree to be adults about it. Set it in stone so the receiving university compensates the old university for cost of attendance, R&B, etc.

[MU82]

I would love for there to be an annulment period as it pertains to the head coach (can't just do all coaches, otherwise, slippery slope, people marrying dogs, SAs transferring 'cause their girlfriend dumped them and transferred, yada yada yada) to prevent exactly this. When you enter into a contract, you do (or should) do it with all relevant facts presented to you that can inform your decision. Just like you would want to know whether your spouse-to-be contracted herpes right before the wedding before entering into a binding agreement, student athletes should have insight into whether Rick Pitino has herpes.

Of course, there's no way this EVER happens, and the NCAA views it as the student marrying the university, not the coach.This would prevent the SA from being punished for something that could not have been reasonably anticipated. Set any arbitrary window of time and let's all agree to be adults about it. Set it in stone so the receiving university compensates the old university for cost of attendance, R&B, etc.

Logical and reasonable.

[Lennys Tap]

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!

A BIT hysterical?!?!?!?!

What the eff are you effen saying?!?!?!

I'll shove a bit hysterical right up your (bleep)!

Wow ... that was fun.

Meanwhile ...

I almost always will come down on the athlete's side in these things, just as I did with the Cameron Johnson deal between Pitt and UNC. (And JB will ALWAYS come down on the institution/NCAA's side. I guess there's something to be said about consistency for both of us.)

The easiest thing to say is "rules are rules are rules," but there are individuals involved in these things.

This STUDENT wanted to get a little ahead of things. He certainly had zero reason to believe, on the first day of summer-school class, that there was even a chance Matta would be fired. Basketball coaches are almost always fired much earlier than that, and there had been no "scuttlebutt" on the rumor mill that Matta was in trouble. Had the athlete been less of a student and had he just decided to wait until the first semester of his freshman year to start taking classes, like most basketball players do, he would have been allowed to leave without having to sit out a year. He would have been rewarded for not being academically active.

I happen to think there is room to enforce the rules while still looking at extenuating circumstances.

But won't that set precedent? I suppose. So the next time this happens 10 years from now (or longer), the NCAA can deal with it at that time.

I think there's a decent chance of him winning on appeal. At least I hope so.

Funny, some of your best work. This fan salutes you.

As for me, I generally believe that rules are rules and if you don't like them you should shine a bright light on their flaws in hopes that enough people will  agree and want to change them.

But sometimes the letter of the law is in conflict with the spirit of the law. IMO this is one of those times. Spirit trumps letter for me.

[MU82]

Funny, some of your best work.

Why is it funny? You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little forked up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to forkin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?