Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
College & Pro Sports
Mutts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RonJohn" data-source="post: 993205" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>The shoes and tshirts issue was about protecting integrity of the sport, amateurism, and competition among the schools regarding recruiting. I believe that it was a valid thing for the NCAA to be concerned about. There is hypocrisy in how it was enforced. GT drew a lot of penalties, while there were no penalties for the father of a local recruit being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for that recruit to play at an SEC school. The hypocrisy in my opinion, is not in what the NCAA has tried to deal with, but in how they have not been consistent with the enforcement.</p><p></p><p>Also, even while the intent was to prevent amateur athletics from being turned into professional athletics, the actual rules didn't make any sense. Looking at how things used to be: A college athlete received tuition, books, room, and board. If the athlete had a poor family that needed financial assistance, he still couldn't receive any income during the season at all. A Clemson player had to get permission and a waiver from the NCAA in order to be able to take care of his brother who was in danger because their mother was an addict. A player for UCF had to make a decision between being a college football player and having a YouTube channel. (He chose the YT channel and a couple of years ago was estimated to be making $1 million per year) The rules were overbearing on people who were trying to do the right thing, but had loopholes in rule and enforcement that allowed the big programs to continue to directly pay players without consequence.</p><p></p><p>The NCAA has been basically toothless for a while. I don't think it will be much longer before a court ends up making student athletes employees, which will throw things way off. (much longer being relative to legislative and court case terms, not meaning in the immediate future.) The NCAA has done nothing and allowed lots of these issues to percolate, until they are ready to explode. Not surprising to me as there are more than 1,000 NCAA member schools. Getting consensus with a large group and getting rules drafted to implement good ideas is difficult with such large groups.</p><p></p><p>Back to the mutts: As I said earlier, the most the NCAA can do is request the messages from the lady filing the lawsuit. I think her lawyers would rather use that request to drive up the settlement with the athletic department than assist the NCAA with any investigation. We have seen the AJC's and ESPN's interpretation of the filing that was made through the lens of the lady's lawyers. That lens is going to be very clouded towards whatever makes her case, or settlement negotiating position, stronger. I believe that before anything actionable becomes public that there will be a settlement, and that she will not cooperate with the NCAA. I can hope for a better result, but that is what I believe will happen.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 993205, member: 2426"] The shoes and tshirts issue was about protecting integrity of the sport, amateurism, and competition among the schools regarding recruiting. I believe that it was a valid thing for the NCAA to be concerned about. There is hypocrisy in how it was enforced. GT drew a lot of penalties, while there were no penalties for the father of a local recruit being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for that recruit to play at an SEC school. The hypocrisy in my opinion, is not in what the NCAA has tried to deal with, but in how they have not been consistent with the enforcement. Also, even while the intent was to prevent amateur athletics from being turned into professional athletics, the actual rules didn't make any sense. Looking at how things used to be: A college athlete received tuition, books, room, and board. If the athlete had a poor family that needed financial assistance, he still couldn't receive any income during the season at all. A Clemson player had to get permission and a waiver from the NCAA in order to be able to take care of his brother who was in danger because their mother was an addict. A player for UCF had to make a decision between being a college football player and having a YouTube channel. (He chose the YT channel and a couple of years ago was estimated to be making $1 million per year) The rules were overbearing on people who were trying to do the right thing, but had loopholes in rule and enforcement that allowed the big programs to continue to directly pay players without consequence. The NCAA has been basically toothless for a while. I don't think it will be much longer before a court ends up making student athletes employees, which will throw things way off. (much longer being relative to legislative and court case terms, not meaning in the immediate future.) The NCAA has done nothing and allowed lots of these issues to percolate, until they are ready to explode. Not surprising to me as there are more than 1,000 NCAA member schools. Getting consensus with a large group and getting rules drafted to implement good ideas is difficult with such large groups. Back to the mutts: As I said earlier, the most the NCAA can do is request the messages from the lady filing the lawsuit. I think her lawyers would rather use that request to drive up the settlement with the athletic department than assist the NCAA with any investigation. We have seen the AJC's and ESPN's interpretation of the filing that was made through the lens of the lady's lawyers. That lens is going to be very clouded towards whatever makes her case, or settlement negotiating position, stronger. I believe that before anything actionable becomes public that there will be a settlement, and that she will not cooperate with the NCAA. I can hope for a better result, but that is what I believe will happen. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
College & Pro Sports
Mutts
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top