MaxBuck
SoCal, Baby!
In the wake of the disappointing revelations about 5 Buckeye players, I think it's important to revisit the rule wherein ownership of certain property is in limbo for student-athletes between the time they receive it and the time their eligibility is exhausted. Obviously, had Pryor, Herron and Posey waited until after the final game of their senior seasons, they could have entered into the transactions that led to their suspensions without penalty. It was the fact they sold these items while still eligible that led to the problems for them. These same guys also could have sold toasters, calculators, old clothes (but not football clothes!), etc. without penalty. Say whatever else you like, but the logic of this is somewhat tortured, so much so that it's not surprising that young student-athletes may be confused by it.
Moreover, there is truth in the statement that Terrelle Pryor is, in many ways, helping to pay for the education of Samantha Prahalis, rifle-team members, synchronized swimmers, and other non-revenue-sport athletes. And perhaps more significantly, to pay for Jim Tressel's magnificent Upper Arlington home and Gene Smith's Mercedes. I don't begrudge Smith or Tressel their benefits; they have earned them via the free market. What troubles me is that Smith and Tressel are offered the chance to reap market-based revenues in a way that Pryor is prevented from doing.
I've posted elsewhere why I think paying football players a stipend is wrong. But I see no reason why Pryor, Herron et al should be prevented from selling their autographs, memorabilia, and other fungible symbols of their athletic excellence while they are active players. To those who say that this would impair amateurism, I simply ask this: were amateur athletes who participated in Olympiads during the amateur era prevented from selling their medals, or from selling autographs? No. Today, of course, true amateurism is pretty much limited to two groups: those who aren't good enough to get anyone to pay them, and US collegians.
This is a pure market-based solution to this NCAA problem. It allows the most-marketable athletes (like Pryor) to realize the greatest value, which is the nature of the market. And it eliminates the hypocrisy wherein coaches and administrators reap market benefits while athletes are prevented from doing so.
Many say this will allow too much access to "boosters." I disagree. Boosters will always have access to athletes for a variety of reasons - and the athletic departments get the benefits (so that Tressel and Smith can draw their high salaries). This won't change the access, it will simply allow athletes to realize more of the benefits their celebrity entitles them to.
Finally, although collegiate athletes can and often do sell autographs and memorabilia after their careers are over, the value of such items is by that time diminished; sale prices would be much higher were the athletes able to sell them while still active as collegians. Why does the NCAA believe it is in the interest of the student-athlete to force them to dispose of assets only after the value of such assets drops? It's inconsistent with their claimed interest in the welfare of those students.
Your comments are welcome!
Moreover, there is truth in the statement that Terrelle Pryor is, in many ways, helping to pay for the education of Samantha Prahalis, rifle-team members, synchronized swimmers, and other non-revenue-sport athletes. And perhaps more significantly, to pay for Jim Tressel's magnificent Upper Arlington home and Gene Smith's Mercedes. I don't begrudge Smith or Tressel their benefits; they have earned them via the free market. What troubles me is that Smith and Tressel are offered the chance to reap market-based revenues in a way that Pryor is prevented from doing.
I've posted elsewhere why I think paying football players a stipend is wrong. But I see no reason why Pryor, Herron et al should be prevented from selling their autographs, memorabilia, and other fungible symbols of their athletic excellence while they are active players. To those who say that this would impair amateurism, I simply ask this: were amateur athletes who participated in Olympiads during the amateur era prevented from selling their medals, or from selling autographs? No. Today, of course, true amateurism is pretty much limited to two groups: those who aren't good enough to get anyone to pay them, and US collegians.
This is a pure market-based solution to this NCAA problem. It allows the most-marketable athletes (like Pryor) to realize the greatest value, which is the nature of the market. And it eliminates the hypocrisy wherein coaches and administrators reap market benefits while athletes are prevented from doing so.
Many say this will allow too much access to "boosters." I disagree. Boosters will always have access to athletes for a variety of reasons - and the athletic departments get the benefits (so that Tressel and Smith can draw their high salaries). This won't change the access, it will simply allow athletes to realize more of the benefits their celebrity entitles them to.
Finally, although collegiate athletes can and often do sell autographs and memorabilia after their careers are over, the value of such items is by that time diminished; sale prices would be much higher were the athletes able to sell them while still active as collegians. Why does the NCAA believe it is in the interest of the student-athlete to force them to dispose of assets only after the value of such assets drops? It's inconsistent with their claimed interest in the welfare of those students.
Your comments are welcome!
). Same thing goes for the parents of athletes (I'm sure we've certainly had players who have had parents in tipped professions).
