The "Can't Sell It" Rule Should Be Changed

[pharaz1]

well written and thoughtful post by the op.

i think one of the most frustrating parts of this issue is the clear hypocrisy by the ncaa. i understand why the rules are there and the concern some of the posters have expressed for abuse if rules are changed to allow players to profit off their name and achievements. but it is hard to ignore that the ncaa is punishing players for making money but at the same time the ncaa is protecting their own financial interests. this has become quite clear based on recent decisions by the ncaa in cam's case and now with our player's case - they will suspend these players but will not do it for the bowl game b/c it is not in their financial interest. i find that to be an amazing stand to take. and i think actions like this call into question the credibility of this institution and its ability to form, evaluate, and implement rules.

 

[Oh8ch]

This rule makes sense. The punishment of it does not

The punishment is the rule.

 

[3074326]

The punishment is the rule.

I disagree, but I know what you're saying. It shouldn't be a rule if they can't enforce it properly. Which goes back to what I said about the NCAA needing to get it's shit together and enforce it properly.

 

[MaxBuck]

What's to stop a Bobby Lowder down in Alabama (or our own $500 handshake scumbag from Dayton) from setting up a system where players would make thousands of dollars a year selling jerseys and other program related trinkets.

Nothing would stop it. Nor should it. That's kind of my whole point.

 

[pharaz1]

i don't see why a compromise can't be made to increase player's stipend for more severe punishments. increasing stipends is a step towards helping deter more players from receiving improper benefits, recognition for their contribution to generating money for the schools, and addressing what appears to be a legitimate concern by student-athletes that they have very little pocket money and are prohibited from getting a job to address this. at the same time the ncaa has a more justifiable reason to implement harsher penalties against players receiving improper benefits by saying they have made a reasonable attempt to address player's needs.

 

[Meyer]

This seems to be a prevailing philosophy and makes the point I have been arguing for so long.

We have to have rules for the kids - even if they are UNFAIR.

Why is that?

So some agent or booster can't just offer 5 million to player for his underwear???

 

[Meyer]

i don't see why a compromise can't be made to increase player's stipend for more severe punishments. increasing stipends is a step towards helping deter more players from receiving improper benefits, recognition for their contribution to generating money for the schools, and addressing what appears to be a legitimate concern by student-athletes that they have very little pocket money and are prohibited from getting a job to address this. at the same time the ncaa has a more justifiable reason to implement harsher penalties against players receiving improper benefits by saying they have made a reasonable attempt to address player's needs.

I agree with this.

Higher stipend, but if you mess up and get caught the punishment is greater.

The problem is that the punishment is already too high.

But the rule is fine. You can't let players just sell their services. That is the end of College Football as we know it.

 

[Tlangs]

The punishment is the rule.

The rule says 25% of the season which is 4 games. Tacking on the 5th game is bogus.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

I also don't endorse a completely regulation-free system wherein players are empowered to sell anything at any time for any amount. Thought would need to go into how best to administer this approach to provide student-athletes the ability to realize their market value while not giving free rein to the Bobby Lowders of the world.

1. Every school, conference, or other organization that gives any player any thing of value as an "award" for athletic achievement must register with the NCAA, giving a detailed description of each thing of value awarded (gold pants, Buckeye leaf, bowl ring, Heisman Trophy, etc.).

2. The NCAA certifies each thing of value as being an appropriate award for legitmate athletic achievement, giving weight to long-standing traditions such as gold pants and Buckeye leaves. The NCAA can reject any award as being a pretext for an extra benefit (the new "platinum jersey" tradition for beating MAC schools).

3. The NCAA sets a monetary value on each thing of value, e.g. $500 for a pair of gold pants. The NCAA will determine the value by considering (a) the inherent value of the itme and (b) the value of the item to a collector of memorablia.

4. The athlete who earns a thing of value can sell that thing of value for the amount set by the NCAA.

5. The athlete may include one autograph with the thing of value, which would increase the maximum sale price of the thing of value by an amount fixed by the NCAA (say $50).

6. The player selling the thing of value must submit a sworn statement to the NCAA setting forth the purchaser's name and the amount received. The player also agrees to willingly participate in any NCAA investigation involving the player, including turning over all relevant documents, regardless of whether the player is still in school at the time of the investigation.

7. The purchaser of the thing of value must submit a sworn statement to the NCAA setting forth the amount paid and the purchaser's relationship to the player and the player's school (alumnus, former player, season ticket holder, money launderer/BOT member....). The purchaser also agrees to willingly participate in any NCAA investigation involving the player or the player's school, including turning over all relevant documents.

8. All approved sales will be published on the NCAA website, with the player's name, the purchaser's name, the thing of value, and the amount paid to be included.

9. Any unapproved sale (that is, a sale that doesn't follow the procedures set forth above) will subject the player to an immediate suspension in accordance with current rules.

The key points, IMO, are #6 and #7. If the NCAA is going to allow sales of things of value, they need to get something in return from the people involved, namely cooperation in any subsequent investigation. People will be a lot less likely to cheat if they know that the NCAA can do some serious snooping into their affairs.

 

[powerlifter]

The system as is, can barely maintain itself. Throwing another variable into the mix is only going to make things worse. Trusting the NCAA to enforce everything equally and properly? No thanks.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

You can't sell items that are legally yours? I thought this was America. You are supposed to be able to sell anything that you da[censored]mn own on the free market. T-shirts and jerseys are another issue because of copyrights and endorsement issues, but you can't even sell something that has explicitly been transferred into your possession? Gimme a breeeeaaak. Where are the trial lawyers?

Again, NCAA = $$$

 

[Oh8ch]

The key points, IMO, are #6 and #7. If the NCAA is going to allow sales of things of value, they need to get something in return from the people involved, namely cooperation in any subsequent investigation. People will be a lot less likely to cheat if they know that the NCAA can do some serious snooping into their affairs.

Let's be clear. The NCAA has absolutely no authority to make TP or anyone else repay the value of anything they may have sold. The NCAA exists to enforce rules concerning competition in various sports among its member schools. All they can do to any athlete is take their ball and go home.

If Cam Newton took ten million to play at Auburn and got caught he would be free to walk away from Auburn with the cash in his pocket and nobody could do diddly.

 

[stxbuck]

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!

I agree with this to a point. IMO, championship memorabilia-rings,gold pants,etc. are different than jerseys and such. Why? B/c every student athlete is given cleats,jerseys,etc. as part of their being a student athlete. Championship rings, on the other hand, are earned by on field excellence. I don't beieve athletes should be able to sell equipment,b/c game worn jerseys,pants,etc. are something that is part of the athletic department,and not as an individual reward/token of excellence. Rings, on the other hand, are a tangible reward given to the athlete, not part of their everyday voacation as an athlete. wearing a tOSU jersey is something given to a player by the athletic department. Rings are something an athlete/team earns for themselves-and should be allowed to save or dispose of as they see fit.
That said, TP and Co. knew the rules,IMO, and chose to ignore them, so let them suffer the consequences.

 

[stxbuck]

An interesting solution, and well-presented. In a fundamental way, it is unfair that "the market" controls most aspects of college athletics, but that the players are prohibited from entering the market that they largely create.

Just understand that your system, like any other, can and would be abused. While many schools would continue to act with some integrity, Bobby Lowder would be passing out "memorabilia" like a crack dealer on a playground, and all the Boss Hoggs down on the Plains would be buying that [censored] back from the players for thousands and thousands of dollars. Pretty soon you'd have no shred of amateurism left. Not that that's a bad thing, but are institutions of higher education the proper place to for "the market" to operate? Maybe it's time for a purely-for-profit, no-more-hypocrisy developmental league, as ORD has suggested.

Another problem is that this creates an uneven field for those athletes that go to tOSU or Auburn, vs. the players at Ball State or SE Missouri St.. Also, I'm sure the going rate for jerseys at different schools would become a nasty sticking point in recruiting.................

 

[Systems_id]

But the rule is fine. You can't let players just sell their services. That is the end of College Football as we know it.

The end of College Football happened when conferences and Universities started signing multi-billion dollar contracts with the TV networks. It's just now people are starting to realize what some people have been saying for years: Big time college athletes are amateur athletes in name only and it's really not far to them. And no a scholarship doesn't even begin to cover how much some of these athletes are worth. Ask the NCAA what they think they're worth when they decided not to suspend Cam Newton despite Cecil clearly admitting to a violation. Ask the NCAA what they think they're worth when they allowed four key components of our offense to play in a multi-million dollar bowl game. Despite the sanctimonious bull[censored] spewing from the network, the execs over at ESPN are thanking the Greek Gods that their likely second highest rated bowl game has a chance to be preserved if Tressel doesn't bench all of them.

Amateurism in college sports died a long time ago.