NCAA eligibility - Bloom/Samardzija/Zbikowski

[BuckeyeNation27]

Anyone who is good enough to play pro sports and earn a paycheck is allowed that money. The money is the same for any athlete of comparable skill sets.

Now if Joe Blow wants to "sponsor/endorse" Athlete X (who also happens to be a star QB at some college) as a member of his tiddly-winks team, then the money is not allowed. Why should Athlete X get $50,000 for playing tiddly-winks when no one can actually earn that type of money from their tiddly-winks skills? This, of course, stinks for real sports where athletes ligitimately earn the lion share of their money from endorsements (skiing, biking, x-games, etc.). But, would you want Booster Joe Blow to give Athlete X (who also happens to be a star QB at Joe Blow's college) $50,000 for his X-Box skills? This is really just pay-for-play. That is the situation the NCAA is trying to prevent. Sucks for a select few individuals, but it prevents the wide spread abuse of fair play.

yes, but common sense being applied to the Bloom case would have allowed him to keep his endorsements. he was clearly not cashing in on his football fame, since he was a famous skiier before ever playing football.

edit: actually, i see the NCAA's side on this. if bloom was as good as Reggie Bush, then his endorsers could have chosen where he would play cfb. ignore the nonsense above

 

[3yardsandacloud]

yes, but common sense being applied to the Bloom case would have allowed him to keep his endorsements. he was clearly not cashing in on his football fame, since he was a famous skiier before ever playing football.

edit: actually, i see the NCAA's side on this. if bloom was as good as Reggie Bush, then his endorsers could have chosen where he would play cfb. ignore the nonsense above

It really does stink for a select few. Bloom would be OK if his earnings were as a result of prize money for winning skiing events. Then that money would have been available for anyone good enough to win, not just someone that is famous (theoretically in this case) for playing a college sport.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

It really does stink for a select few. Bloom would be OK if his earnings were as a result of prize money for winning skiing events. Then that money would have been available for anyone good enough to win, not just someone that is famous (theoretically in this case) for playing a college sport.

But boxers get paid win or lose. And the payout is determined not only by skill, but also by name recognition. What's to keep the WWE from paying James Laurinaitas some amount of money to 'rassle in his free time, regardless of his talent level. Hmmm....not necessarily a good example. How about this...what is to keep George Steinbrenner and the Yankees from drafting Teddy Ginn and Troy Smith and signing them to big baseball contracts to play in A-ball?

 

[3yardsandacloud]

I don't know what prevents some of the abuses you're talking about BKatt. I'm guessing for the "serious" sports (baseball), fans (and major league teams) wouldn't tolerate an owner stocking their team with non baseball talent. Plus I think the athlete would miss football season by playing in the minors. Same with boxing to an extent. The sport is tainted with so much corruption that fans would be screaming mad over matches that didn't pit real boxers. Plus to get to that point (a fight worth some money) and athlete would need to endure the amature ranks and preliminary fights that would risk serious injury.

To be honest, I don't see anything that would prevent abuse of the system if someone was jaded enough. But let's face it, in the sports where an athlete could earn serious money from participating, it is big business. Folks aren't there to line someone else's pockets ... only their own. They certainly aren't going to jeapordize their meal ticket by alienating the NCAA, their fans, their teams, their governing bodies, and their public relations image.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

I don't know what prevents some of the abuses you're talking about BKatt. I'm guessing for the "serious" sports (baseball), fans (and major league teams) wouldn't tolerate an owner stocking their team with non baseball talent. Plus I think the athlete would miss football season by playing in the minors. Same with boxing to an extent. The sport is tainted with so much corruption that fans would be screaming mad over matches that didn't pit real boxers. Plus to get to that point (a fight worth some money) and athlete would need to endure the amature ranks and preliminary fights that would risk serious injury.

To be honest, I don't see anything that would prevent abuse of the system if someone was jaded enough. But let's face it, in the sports where an athlete could earn serious money from participating, it is big business. Folks aren't there to line someone else's pockets ... only their own. They certainly aren't going to jeapordize their meal ticket by alienating the NCAA, their fans, their teams, their governing bodies, and their public relations image.

I guess what comes to mind for me is the Drew Henson situation. It's not a very good example, because the guy was a legitimate prospect, but I still wonder whether the Yankees would have drafted him as high and paid him so much if he wasn't also the Michigan quarterback. Just pondering.

I'm not accusing Tom Z. of anything. There is no doubt that he's a very good boxer (thanks for the info Brent:)), but this just seems like a dangerous precedent to set, in which athletes can capitalize on their amateur fame, even if it is indirectly.

 

[BB73]

Anyone who is good enough to play pro sports and earn a paycheck is allowed that money. The money is the same for any athlete of comparable skill sets.

Now if Joe Blow wants to "sponsor/endorse" Athlete X (who also happens to be a star QB at some college) as a member of his tiddly-winks team, then the money is not allowed. Why should Athlete X get $50,000 for playing tiddly-winks when no one can actually earn that type of money from their tiddly-winks skills? This, of course, stinks for real sports where athletes ligitimately earn the lion share of their money from endorsements (skiing, biking, x-games, etc.). But, would you want Booster Joe Blow to give Athlete X (who also happens to be a star QB at Joe Blow's college) $50,000 for his X-Box skills? This is really just pay-for-play. That is the situation the NCAA is trying to prevent. Sucks for a select few individuals, but it prevents the wide spread abuse of fair play.

I agree, and understand the NCAA's rationale. However, I believe that the nature of boxing and the way that bouts are promoted allows for a real potential for abuse.