Wicked.

It’s too bad he’s such a whiny-assed bitch, because Desmond Howard has a good point with this:

“But if you want to play the education game, then check this out. If they get my likeness for life, then they should be committed to my education for life. So if Mark Ingram 20 years from now, when they’re still selling his jerseys in Tuscaloosa, says ‘You know what? I want to get my Ph.D.’ Guess who should pay for that? They should be committed to his education for life. They’re still selling his jerseys.”

I could not agree more.  Well, actually, I could:  if the school is still selling those jerseys when the player’s kids are college-aged, they should get a free ride, too.  It’s the least a system that professes to promote both amateurism and academics should do.

Not that it’s gonna happen any time soon, though.

About these ads

23 Comments

Filed under Academics? Academics., College Football, It's Just Bidness, The NCAA

23 responses to “Wicked.

  1. Hogbody Spradlin

    What a great idea!

    It’ll never fly.

    • Macallanlover

      Agree, just amazed that Howard has this much depth. I don’t watch, or listen to him, much but this is the only impressive thing I have heard him say. The difficult part of this is: where do you draw the line? Selling jersey’s with his name/number on it is pretty obvious, using pre-game video of a previous championship team to market the program is less clear. What makes this so doable is it doesn’t cost the school anything, supports the university’s mission, and makes them look good.

  2. Bad Marinara

    And the additional cost for a student is minimal. Most of it is sunk costs.

  3. To be honest with you; while I agree that he makes a good point he falls into the over generalization problem with this issue. He does not lose rights to his image for life. Look at his personal website and book deal they show images of him while at Michigan. He uses those images for his personal use. The idea that those likeness rights are given up for life is also untrue since he had endorsement deals while in the NFL just like every other athlete in the NFL is able to do.

    My problem with this entire issue is that we are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The problem is the supposed disparity between academics and athletes applies to such a small group of individuals and people are trying to apply a universal solution to a small unique problem. The disparity applies only to the “superstar” which makes it to the NFL. There is no problem with supposed indentured servitude for the walk-on or the starter who does not get an NFL contract. We have to realize that there are casualties on every side. Whether it is the injury prone 5 star athlete that never makes it four years or the 5 star athlete that does not make what he thinks he is worth. Both of these are the aberrations to the standard deviation. When we try to make sweeping solutions to account for aberrations then we are going to create more problems and never comes to a solution.

    This is not to say there cannot be some corrections made but the extent of those corrections does not have to entail broad sweeping changes that affects the college football landscape. Rather these changes must provide for an increase in the standard of living expenses. I do agree with most that some of the things that the university could pay for is the ability of families to travel to see their children pay or these students to get home. The fact that the university could pay for these tickets without questions for certain dates and times and even could put up these parents for football, basketball, baseball, tennis, etc. and the level of disparity would diminish greatly for the extreme cases. But the benefit would be also a connection between the university and parents to support character development and most likely we would see a decrease in the amount of student-athlete foolhardiness which gets them in trouble.

    I believe that whomever is able to understand that these star players are aberrations to the norm and thus any solution must account for this will provide college football with an opportunity to move from wickedness to righteousness.

  4. rocksalt

    Devil’s Advocate:

    At what point is the jersey no longer your likeness? It didn’t take long for Terrence Edwards’ likeness to convert to AJ Green’s. The only time it would really stand would be in cases where we retired jerseys. So Herschel’s family is set (as well they should be!), and a few others, but everyone else’s likeness probably gets sunset with the next stud that hits the field.

    • Silver Creek Doug

      +1

      The school can’t put names on the jerseys they sell; it would be a NCAA violation.

      So, while Desmond makes an interesting case, it can’t be supported long term, just like the above post makes the point about the #8 jersey at UGA.

  5. Gravidy

    I know I’m in the minority on this, but here we go. Wow. I couldn’t agree less. Should his great grandchildren all get yachts and polo ponies as well?

    In a sense, I agree with you guys. In the grand scheme of things, paying for Mark Ingram’s continuing education is a relatively small cost to the Universiy of Alabama. If they choose to do so, then that’s good for them. I hope they do. But should they be required to do so for all athletes including the third string long-snapper…or the fourth string shot putter on the track eam? No.

    • Read what he’s saying more carefully. As long as ‘Bama is profiting off Ingram’s likeness, Ingram should get schooling at no cost to himself. So, no, it’s not about all athletes, or even certain athletes and their families in perpetuity, unless the school is still making commercial use of those athletes’ personas.

      • Gravidy

        First off, let me say this. You’ve told lots of people in the past to turn on their sarcasm meters. When reading my comments, it is often a good idea to turn on your smartass meter :-)

        Having said that, my reading comprehension skills are fine, but I’d suggest that you give his comments another look. He started off with this very broad comment “If they get my likeness for life, then they should be committed to my education for life.” Sure, he goes on to offer a specific sympathetic example to help make his point, but I believe he meant his comment in the broader sense. Unless I’m badly misunderstanding the rules, a university owns the likeness of the third string long snapper for life. And unless I’m badly misunderstanding Howard’s comment, I believe he thinks universities should have to pay for that guy’s education for life.

        If I’m wrong, Desmond can log on here and tell me so. Until then, my opinion stands.

  6. Umich

    sidenote: If you have to pay to get a ph.d. you’re doing it wrong.

  7. LSU actually does have a scholarship for the children of former players, but I’m not sure if it goes on to grandchildren. Hell, there used to be one specifically for the children of any alumnus living out of state, but that’s had to be cut recently due to budget cuts.

  8. Cojones

    First, I think that Desmond Howard has a great point, one that can be whittled and shaped to a win-win for the University and the player. If two or more players grace the same number, no one should begin litigious conversation; such a policy should be magnanimous to cover any name changes to a jersey number’s use.

    Second, JEMR has the right attitude and his proposals should be studied and delved into because they might be workable and solve the monetary compensation argument while being fair to the player and to include immediate family.

    Can’t believe that on one site and blog that two thoughtful proposals worth consideration can be found. This is a lucky day, Senator. I say that because I haven’t read or heard anything plausible from talking heads on this issue since it has been brought up plus the ruminations of all of us together just hasn’t hit the mark. Both of these ideas, if combined, could produce conscience-leveling solutions. This all should be raised to a higher interest level; something that you are quite capable of doing.

  9. GreenDawg

    Raise your hand if you think Mark Ingram will want to go back and get his PhD anytime soon. Yeah, that’s what I thought.

    Anyways Bama actually does have a scholarship for children of former players, but they had to have played for Bear Bryant. I don’t agree with the whole idea of it. How many people nowadays have kids when they’re 18? Wouldn’t that be a pretty significant recruiting advantage for a recruiter to tell them their kids will get a free education if they choose a certain school?

    • TrboDawg

      I think there are more players in school with children than ever before – does anyone know how many of our football players are fathers?

  10. Ausdawg85

    And know it?

    /booo…hissss….booooo

    • Ausdawg85

      Bad snark for TrboDawg’s question. Post fail. Now posting too much…total fail.

      /shuts off computer.
      /mows lawn.

  11. Ausdawg85

    JEMR’s proposal would not fly either. With such a rule, Texas uses a private jet to shuttle the family to the 40 acres, houses them in the Four Seasons, etc,, etc. Not too many schools could keep up with that financially, so you’ve created yet another recruiting advantage.

    I don’t think universities should be able to use the athletes name on jerseys, etc. in marketing UNLESS said athlete is given a % of the revenue. So, if a #8 jersey is selling hot during AJ’s years at UGA, so be it. The next #8 may or may not create the same level of interest. But when you put “GREEN” on the item, then that’s exploiting a scholarship athlete with NCAA rules which specifically forbid him to profit from his own personal brand. That’s just wrong, and goes beyond the value of the scholarship that he and #92 (who’s that? Exactly…) gets.

    • Cojones

      Good luck if Texas can fly 85 families to games in private jets. Your overkill nullifies your point of “No!”

      Exploring the idea does not include a death pill. It costs nothing. If you have an argument for not exploring, then let’s hear it. These ideas have merit that gets away from the cash idea. If a great player’s family is treated to housing above the nominal cut then that is something the school, players and coaches have to work out. Don’t think your death pill applies even with Texas.

      Cutting a player in on the profits his name/w/jersey generates once he is away from the program breaks no NCAA rules that I am aware of , but I’m sure you will enlighten me.

  12. The thing about the recruiting advantage is not problematic in the same way the Longhorn network is. Certainly, there is a recruiting advantage but there is with the money UT or UGA makes verses a smaller D-1 school or BCS or whatever. What is wrong with having a legitimate, emphasis on legitimate, recruiting advantage. If I can possess a private jet and put parents up in the 4 seasons so that my prized stallions’ can have their parents at the game, then why not. I know that I am being a bit tongue in cheek but the issues is not as “wicked” as what is happening with the AU situation and the recruitment of Cam.

    Saying it is a recruiting advantage because we care for our student-athletes and their families and then back it up then that is an advantage I am willing to take. I do not see that as a problem. Is it fair? No but that is the difference between MWC and SEC.

    Despite my feelings towards my suggestions I believe that using players’ names while is school should also be wrong. I do agree there. There should just be a hard rule with the use of names and being in school; don’t do it. Percentage of revenue or not what is promoted is the “name in the front being a helluva lot more important than the one in the back.” Shouting school pride should get us to buy the number and not the name on the back. This way we escape the branding issue any way.

  13. Hobnail_Boot

    You think Ingram’s gonna have to pay a cent for his kids to go to Alabama? Riiiiiiiiight. Poor, exploited him.

    Give me a break.

  14. Darrren Rovelll

    I met Desmond Howard @ the 2004 Heisman Trophy ceremony. He sat down @ table that was predominantly non-athletes & proceeded to introduce himself to each individual there. He probably did not to let most of know who he was but he did anyway and his introduction did not include Heisman winner or Super Bowl MVP. He talked to my wife & me for about 30 mins and not a single topic of the conversation was about football. I thought he was a really intelligent, engaging and fairly humble guy.

    His idea is pretty good and I hope that someone who has the influence to make changes gives Desmond’s idea some consideration.