-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter RCollett
- Start date
The memorabilia is money-laundering the money gifts to the player.
No need to give him an envelope of cash, just buy one of his items to make it "legal" and pay handsomely for it, even though he and his teammates have flooded the market with those items which should have killed their sale value.
The market dictates that player X's game worn socks are only worth $50 because of all of the players trading them in, but Booster Joe pays $500-1000 for them, since you're allowing the purchaser to pay whatever he is willing to pay.
Upvote
0
MaxBuck
SoCal, Baby!
This is really a non sequitur. If Joe Booster is willing to pay $5,000 for a pair of Terrelle's socks, he's willing to pay $5,000 for a pair of Terrelle's socks. It may be because he really likes Terrelle, or he may need a pair of socks, or he may have some really creepy motivation. Doesn't matter why.jwinslow;1934585; said:
You're taking the position that an "envelope full of cash" is necessarily a bad thing, while I really see little problem with it. If a player is good enough, let him get the coin. "Money laundering" has a RICO element to it that isn't germane to this discussion.
"Allowing the purchaser to pay whatever they want" is kind of the basis of a market economy.
Upvote
0
MaxBuck
SoCal, Baby!
None. Again, I see the market as being the proper mechanism for players to get more cash. Bigger stars will get more coin.jwinslow;1934589; said:
If it's OK for coaches to use the market, I think it's inappropriate to keep players from the same opportunity.
Ultimately, if I were head of the NCAA, Cecil Newton's shenanigans would not have constituted a violation.
Upvote
0
BUCKYLE;1934562; said:
If they made the rules based on that, I could see the tuition at Auburn going really low. :tongue2:
Upvote
0
ORD_Buckeye
Wrong glass, Sir.
NCAA track athletes seem to think their scholarships are adequate.
Then again what do they know about rockin' full sleeves, blingin' in gucci and rollin' a new ride twice a year.
Then again what do they know about rockin' full sleeves, blingin' in gucci and rollin' a new ride twice a year.
Upvote
0
So was their new track facility... and... pretty much the entire athletic department. I doubt ORD will let that get in the way of his anger at the situation though.BUCKYLE;1938815; said:
Upvote
0
Diego-Bucks
Lost in Canada
ORD_Buckeye;1938792; said:
This is a moot point. Their scholarships exist because football and basketball bring in revenue. Athletic scholarships are a luxury. Track athletes better know better than to bite the hand that feeds them and start complaining when Track is a sport that can and has been cut in other schools. Football players on the other hand are making money for everyone else. Marketability.
Upvote
0
cincibuck
You kids stay off my lawn!
1. You lose the whole idea of "amateur sports," a notion that gets trotted out each Olympics and which has been proven to be a farce. Frankly, it looks more and more to me as if we already have such a system in place, it's just not stated out loud or put in print. My guess is that under a pay system only schools with a 90 to 100K seat stadium and a solid fan base would last -- and that might even end a program as rich in tradition as USC if the NFL puts a franchise back in LA.
2. Under a "paid to play" system I have to wonder how long the Big 10 would last? My guess: within 2 years Northwestern and Indiana would be gone. By the end of five only Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska would remain. Would they then play a home and home series each year?
Other conferences would be the same. Gone are all the "not quite ready for prime time schools" Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Ol' Miss, Mississippi State, South Carolina the entire Big East and the ACC. Texas, Oklahoma and maybe aTm. Maybe they link up with Notre Dame, USC and the rest of the Pac 10 falls off a cliff.
Perhaps a new Div 2 forms from the Wisconsin's, Ol Miss's, Washington's, Oregon's, Okie States and Mizzou's of the world. A third, a little Ivy of Rice, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, Vandy might emerge.
But what I most suspect is that the uneven level of competition would drop interest to the point of non-sustainabilty at all but the top twenty five schools. Maybe then the rest of the colleges could stop being the schools the big boys pound to get their bowl invites locked up and get back to the business of education at affordable tuition.
2. Under a "paid to play" system I have to wonder how long the Big 10 would last? My guess: within 2 years Northwestern and Indiana would be gone. By the end of five only Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska would remain. Would they then play a home and home series each year?
Other conferences would be the same. Gone are all the "not quite ready for prime time schools" Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Ol' Miss, Mississippi State, South Carolina the entire Big East and the ACC. Texas, Oklahoma and maybe aTm. Maybe they link up with Notre Dame, USC and the rest of the Pac 10 falls off a cliff.
Perhaps a new Div 2 forms from the Wisconsin's, Ol Miss's, Washington's, Oregon's, Okie States and Mizzou's of the world. A third, a little Ivy of Rice, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, Vandy might emerge.
But what I most suspect is that the uneven level of competition would drop interest to the point of non-sustainabilty at all but the top twenty five schools. Maybe then the rest of the colleges could stop being the schools the big boys pound to get their bowl invites locked up and get back to the business of education at affordable tuition.
Upvote
0