WR Terrelle Pryor ('10 Rose, '11 Sugar MVP)

[Gatorubet]

Wrong according to who? The ncaa???? What we are trying to say is that the ncaa saying something is wrong does not make it actually wrong.

When a Florida or tOSU agrees to abide by NCAA rules, our opinion of the correctness of those rules becomes the mootest of moot points.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

I've only skimmed the last few pages, but can I sum up that nobody here is willing to or capable of defining "right" or "wrong" in any certain all-inclusive terms? I'm hoping that's the case. We're talking about circumstantial actions, so any "morality" (and I use that term loosely) should be purely circumstantial as well.

That being said, my perspective is that when you break a rule, regardless of who sets it, and the consequences of said broken rule affect anyone else besides you, there's a negative connotation to it. Both men in question here are guilty of that to me. So the only way to really weigh one more or less than the other requires a knowledge of the who and how of each person that has been affected by their actions and since none of us can really put a solid figure on that it comes down to perspective and opinion.

 

[Meyer]

Not wrong according to who? You???? What we are trying to say is that you saying something isn't wrong does not make it actually not wrong.

Yeah me. Selling ones own personal property is not morally wrong ever. No matter what the ncaa says or if it hurts your feelings.

If your employer made rules that tried to punish you for selling your own property, would that be okay to you and make you wrong just because they say so and because they put a rule in place????????????????

Didnt think so.

 

[matcar]

Wrong according to who? The ncaa???? What we are trying to say is that the ncaa saying something is wrong does not make it actually wrong.

If you want to play in the NCAA, you have to abide by the rules. So yeah, wrong. Unequivicably wrong. We may not like the rule, but it's there and if you break it, there's a consequence. I would assume we'd all agree that we'd rather he not have broken that rule.

Again, he didn't break a law, or hurt anyone or do anything malicious, but your "argument" is just a red herring.

 

[Meyer]

I've only skimmed the last few pages, but can I sum up that nobody here is willing to or capable of defining "right" or "wrong" in any certain all-inclusive terms? I'm hoping that's the case. We're talking about circumstantial actions, so any "morality" (and I use that term loosely) should be purely circumstantial as well.

That being said, my perspective is that when you break a rule, regardless of who sets it, and the consequences of said broken rule affect anyone else besides you, there's a negative connotation to it. Both men in question here are guilty of that to me. So the only way to really weigh one more or less than the other requires a knowledge of the who and how of each person that has been affected by their actions and since none of us can really put a solid figure on that it comes down to perspective and opinion.

The problem with this is that it only affects other people "negatively" because the ncaa says it does.

 

[matcar]

The problem with this is that it only affects other people "negatively" because the ncaa says it does.

Dude, that's the world that CFB exists in. It's like saying, well telling my boss he's an idiot only affects me negatively because he says it does.

 

[Meyer]

Dude so people like you want to just accept what the NCAA says and then try to judge people based on if they follow those bogus rules or not.

Of course we all wish he didn't do it because it has negative implications for Ohio State football, but that does not make what he did wrong.

Sorry but just because the NCAA says something is wrong does not make me judge a person's character or actions.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

The problem with this is that it only affects other people "negatively" because the ncaa says it does.

I would advise you to step back and tape a deeper look at this whole situation if this is the conclusion you've come to. You're putting on the blinders and arguing a poorly constructed point into the ground.

Take a look at each individual issue we're talking about here for each player.

Newton stole, cheated, got paid (all allegedly)

It goes without saying how those actions can/have/will affect those around him.

Pryor arbitrarily broke NCAA rules and got suspended.

Simply because Pryor doesn't have a direct victim doesn't mean his actions can be dismissed as "the NCAA hatin' on dudes". His actions and the actions of those who broke the rules with him set this huge chain of events in motion that include Tressel's suspension and possible NCAA sanctions being put on the school.

Who among us can know exactly how far-reaching those actions will go or have gone.

The rules, to me, are asinine and ridiculous...but nobody is immune to being responsible for their own actions simply because I don't like what they elicit.

 

[matcar]

Dude so people like you want to just accept what the NCAA says and then try to judge people based on if they follow those bogus rules or not.

Of course we all wish he didn't do it because it has negative implications for Ohio State football, but that does not make what he did wrong.

Sorry but just because the NCAA says something is wrong does not make me judge a person's character or actions.

Uhh, yes it does make it wrong. It's a rule...when you break a rule that you agree to, then it's wrong...whether you like that rule or not. It's a rule that everyone agrees to, so there's simply no getting around it.

Now, I get that you are taking a class on the subject and stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, but you're making no sense.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

Sorry but just because the NCAA says something is wrong does not make me judge a person's character or actions.

If I tell you I'm not going to steal $100 from you, then when you leave your wallet behind I take $100 dollars, you're not going to question my character or make some sort of statement about my actions?

 

[gnepmatt]

If I tell you I'm not going to steal $100 from you, then when you leave your wallet behind I take $100 dollars, you're not going to question my character or make some sort of statement about my actions?

bad analogy, they didn't steal anything They sold their own items, it's a ridiculous rule preventing college players from getting a few hundred/couple thousand dollars.

 

[jwinslow]

There is no wiggle room here Leon, no matter how hard you try to justify it.

The rules are firm. He chose to play in their league and decided not to follow them.

Many feel it is wrong to make such valuable athletes not receive cash for their performances, or think it is dumb that athletes have no alternative league so they must pretend to care about academics long enough to graduate in an athletic placement league.

Both of those arguments have a lot of merit on the surface. But if that were the bear solution, that means the system should change. But until it does, you earn your punishment if you violate those rules.

It is a hypocritical rule, but that doesn't make it ok to break it. The problem is if they remove the rule it becomes an easy way to give amateurs money. Who needs to illegally give troy smith a handshake when he can just sell a few dozen pairs of shoes, pants, jerseys, gloves from games? He can put on a new pair every half or more often if he wants to.

 

[MaxBuck]

I have no problem with collegiate football players being able to sell their stuff (including autographs, memorabilia, etc.) at all. If they were allowed to do so, it would essentially extend the benefits of the free market to the athletes without affecting either general university funds or scholarship funds available for non-revenue sports. And why should Mike Kne get the same benefits as Terrelle Pryor? Pryor brings millions to the university, and I see no problem with his getting millions from sales in return. Likewise with Jared Sullinger or Greg Oden. Allowing collegiate athletes to get income from sales like this would encourage them to stay in school longer - a win/win.

Frankly, unless college coaches are willing to live with salary and related income limits, I think it's imperative to allow college hoop and footballers to sell whatever they please for whatever they can get. The current system is way too exploitative of the athlete to the benefit of a small cadre of coaches. That's wrong IMO.

None of that excuses actions of Pryor and others in the past; it's just my opinion as to the best way forward.

 

[Buckeye513]

Yeah me. Selling ones own personal property is not morally wrong ever. No matter what the ncaa says or if it hurts your feelings.

If your employer made rules that tried to punish you for selling your own property, would that be okay to you and make you wrong just because they say so and because they put a rule in place????????????????

Didnt think so.

The rule is in place to prevent players from "selling" random shit they get from the school to boosters for 4 or 5 figures.

 

[jwinslow]

If your employer made rules that tried to punish you for selling your own property, would that be okay to you and make you wrong just because they say so and because they put a rule in place????????????????

Didnt think so.

If my employer made that rule, I wouldn't agree to be a part of that system.

And if I did compromise and decide the benefits (training and job placement afterwards) outweighed the negatives & limitations, I would deserve to be punished if I worked there and then broke the rule.

If I can't live by the rule, then I either work there and live with the consequences if I'm caught, or I don't work there.