SIAP: Looks like Frost lost his kickoff man
- Thread starter RedSea_rivals91325
- Start date
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Man. Rough deal. The NCAA is, as always, a bunch of hypocritical jackasses.
Was the kid very good?
Was the kid very good?
Yup. I confess I have trouble seeing how those videos have anything to do with the game, but oh well.
Explain the hypocrisy.
Meanwhile, you do realize that the NCAA is simply enforcing the rules the body passes, a group (likely, I'm not bothering to look it up) including the UCF President.
Anyway, the hypocrisy is what, exactly. Go.
The hypocrisy, if you want to call it that, is in the selective enforcement of the rules. You have cases like this one, or Crouch's famous ham sandwich, where the NCAA seems like the ever vigilant watchdog keeping the game "pure" of all extra benefits for athletes, while at the same time schools all over the map are cheating ($$$) their asses off and getting away with it, or getting off with a slap on the wrist. I still don't understand how North Carolina avoided even worse sanctions, for example.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Ummmm... the NCAA is a "nonprofit" that makes money off these kids likeness. Carry on defending the NCAA, I am sure you are on the right side of that discussion.
Hypocrisy is not hard to see here. The NCAA (collective) makes billions while the kids who do the actual performing and getting hurt, get a scholarship.
Yes, it's not nothing, but for the NCAA to limit what a kid can make seems anti-capitalism. We understand the intentions of these rules were pure, to stop aggressive boosters from paying athletes, but this case is clearly not that. Yet we create rules for all when they should affect some.
Restricting a man's ability to earn money when as a collective group of schools, you make billions is absolutely hypocrisy.
Yes, it's not nothing, but for the NCAA to limit what a kid can make seems anti-capitalism. We understand the intentions of these rules were pure, to stop aggressive boosters from paying athletes, but this case is clearly not that. Yet we create rules for all when they should affect some.
Restricting a man's ability to earn money when as a collective group of schools, you make billions is absolutely hypocrisy.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
You know what? I think I am seeing his point. The NC2A is simply there to protect the best interest of student athletes. That is all that they are interested in.
Is there a way we can get the NC2A some kind of award for their work protecting the young adults that participate under their umbrella?
The ncaa is really just the vehicle to filter the billions to the schools.
Look at it as sort of a homeowners association. The enitity is created to create the rules and covenants the homeowners want, then enforce those rules. Some rules are stupid, like limiting the colors that houses can be painted, on the outside. It's my house, I should be able to paint it whatever color I want. If I want my grass to grow even with my roof, I should be able to. But I signed something that restricts what I can do, theoretically to protect the property values.
But people still ***** about the HOA rules.
Look at it as sort of a homeowners association. The enitity is created to create the rules and covenants the homeowners want, then enforce those rules. Some rules are stupid, like limiting the colors that houses can be painted, on the outside. It's my house, I should be able to paint it whatever color I want. If I want my grass to grow even with my roof, I should be able to. But I signed something that restricts what I can do, theoretically to protect the property values.
But people still ***** about the HOA rules.
I can't respond to each message, as I have a job, but here is the point: the NCAA enforces the rules the body politic puts in place, and the body politic is the member schools. The NCAA itself is not an independent entity, pulling ham sandwiches out of the mouths of athletes without having a rule or reason to do so - although I believe the "meals rule" involved in the Crouch circumstance was later relaxed anyway. Those rules are enacted by the member schools because the member schools do not trust one another, simple as that. Then to handcuff the NCAA, the entity is not given subpoena power, because the cheating school(s) want to get away with it - leading to more distrust among the member schools.
So for the UCF kicker, it is simply a matter of degree - where does the legitimate money earning begin (I'd agree, probably with his internet hobby) but we all know it ends with free rent for a USC Heisman winner or no-show car dealer jobs for OU teammates. What is stopping a USC or OU (or NU) alum from paying a stud kicker $20,000 for his internet postings if he'd just come to my school and make the winning kick?
This isn't hypocrisy, which is saying one thing and doing another. The rules are in place, everyone has an AD staffer to know them; there ain't any secrets about them. The issue is amateurism for revenue sports, complicated by Title IX laws if those sports broke off. Limiting thought to just the revenue sports - where the "NCAA makes money off the backs of kids" as one might say - is far too limited a viewpoint. It makes it easy to loudly conclude that the NCAA isn't there to "make lives better for the student athlete," but it ignores that the NCAA does make the life better for the DII UNO swimmer, as her opportunity to swim in college wouldn't exist without the NCAA.
I'm not claiming the system is perfect, but it ain't evil-spirited either.
So for the UCF kicker, it is simply a matter of degree - where does the legitimate money earning begin (I'd agree, probably with his internet hobby) but we all know it ends with free rent for a USC Heisman winner or no-show car dealer jobs for OU teammates. What is stopping a USC or OU (or NU) alum from paying a stud kicker $20,000 for his internet postings if he'd just come to my school and make the winning kick?
This isn't hypocrisy, which is saying one thing and doing another. The rules are in place, everyone has an AD staffer to know them; there ain't any secrets about them. The issue is amateurism for revenue sports, complicated by Title IX laws if those sports broke off. Limiting thought to just the revenue sports - where the "NCAA makes money off the backs of kids" as one might say - is far too limited a viewpoint. It makes it easy to loudly conclude that the NCAA isn't there to "make lives better for the student athlete," but it ignores that the NCAA does make the life better for the DII UNO swimmer, as her opportunity to swim in college wouldn't exist without the NCAA.
I'm not claiming the system is perfect, but it ain't evil-spirited either.
Rules are pretty clear about this stuff and you know what? I have some rules at my job that seem silly and I'd rather not follow either, but I do, because that's how the real world works and I need the money. I guess this kid decided he didn't need college, whatever works for him, but I think he kinda goofed here.
It was bound to happen. Even though it appears like he's making money on something other than football he is representing himself as a student/athlete. You can't really expect the NCAA to be sued for representing players to make money and yet let the players represent the NCAA and make money.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
If he can't make money with a great idea, then no athlete should be able to work at all. How the hell they can claim any of them got work for any reason other than that they are a college athlete, is impossible.
This is my line of thinking as well.
But you know how this goes, the NCAA is always several years behind the power curve when it comes to dealing with SAs and technology. Their broad paint-brush rules black anything ad-related because, again, they are always a decade or two behind the times, and don't acknowledge that basically anyone can make ad revenue on the internet without it relating directly to sports imagery.
And of COURSE it had to be one of these types of stories to come along, where the kid isn't even using the money for himself, but to help out his family. Nasty situation. Honestly, if this were Brown, I might not hate him for it, but I would respect his decision 100%.
If he's sending the money home to a "struggling family," losing his free-ride college scholarship over the ability to say UCF or use a logo in videos (while making others) is an odd choice, but it's his.