1. Full of righteous indignation about the Green suspension, I was composing another post about it in my head last night, but I see this morning that almost everything I want to say about it has already appeared in the bloggerverse (including this Clay Travis piece that hit on the “do as I say, not as I do” aspect of the ban – go figure). But I think that the person who’s most aptly summed up how I feel is Andy Staples, who wrote this:
Green shouldn’t have sold his jersey. But since it never planned to give Green a piece of the action, Georgia shouldn’t have sold Green’s jersey, either.
I proudly admit that I buy into the romance of amateurism, even the bastardized version of it that permeates major revenue college sports. It’s part of the charm behind sentiments like these and much of what explains my love of college football. On some level, it’s not a job for these kids and I don’t ever want to see the sport approached like that by them. So I can’t say that I don’t have any appreciation for the bright line the NCAA is trying to draw when it penalizes players for taking compensation for their play.
But I won’t deny that there’s a fair amount of bullshit in the NCAA’s position on the matter, either.
If you’re going to tell an A.J. Green that maintaining some degree of purity with regard to amateurism and college sports is important enough to deny him doing something that essentially any other person on the planet is allowed to do – profit from his own name – how can you not insist on the same standard from the (allegedly) non-profit educational institution that enrolls him? Shouldn’t it be held just as responsible? Beyond that, can the schools not see how corrosive this whole situation is to the very standards of amateurism they seek to promote through the NCAA?
All of which is not to say that I condone Green’s decision here. But I can sure put it in perspective.
2. I’ve got to tell you that the most curious part of the NCAA’s ruling is this language: “the student-athlete sold his Independence Bowl game jersey to an individual who meets the NCAA definition of an agent.” Not simply “agent”, but someone “who meets the NCAA definition of an agent”. About that, Tim Tucker writes,
The NCAA did not name the individual who bought the jersey from Green but said the person meets the organization’s definition of an agent -– “any individual who markets or promotes a student-athlete.” That put Green in violation of the NCAA rule against receiving benefits from agents.
Think about that for a minute. If you draw that out to its logical conclusion, you could argue that anyone who buys or obtains memorabilia from a player and then turns around and sells it, or merely markets it for profit, is an agent under that definition. That’s absurd. Now maybe that didn’t factor into Green’s penalty, as the length of the suspension matches the NCAA guidelines for the amount of the improper benefit he received in payment, but if it comes into play in the appeals process, I sure would like to know the nature of the agency of the person with whom Green dealt. (Not that the NCAA is likely to be forthcoming about that little detail.)
3. And now the tough part falls on Green’s teammates and coaches. It’s foolish to deny that the suspension is a major distraction from Saturday’s big game in Columbia. Hell, I’m just a fan and I feel distracted by this. Somehow, every one of them has to tap into his inner reservoir of reserve and find a way to focus and excel against South Carolina in spite of that.
They can do it, though. I thought the program had hit the lowest of low points last season with that horrific home loss to Kentucky. I couldn’t imagine then how a team that had so thoroughly unraveled against a mediocre opponent (don’t forget that Georgia outgained the Wildcats by 200 yards in losing) could get its act together in a week to play a top ten opponent on the road. And yet that’s exactly what they did, with Willie Martinez, Jon Fabris, John Jancek and Joe Cox in tow – and without A. J. Green, I might add – in beating Georgia Tech.
UPDATE: Tony Barnhart elaborates on my “corrosive” point above.
… Yes, the financial end of college athletics is certainly to the benefit of the schools. It’s all one big double standard, we know that. But certain things are just a blatant slap in the face to these guys. The fact that A.J. Green may lose a third of his junior season for selling a jersey while the University Bookstore sells six different versions of it with his name on it, is a double slap. It’s the establishment telling these kids: We can make money off your talent and fame in every damn way we please. If you try it, though, we’ll use the rules to take you out and to keep you in line.
The NCAA enforcement people have been working overtime this summer trying to keep a lid on a bunch of these issues from Agent Gate to Hotel Gate. At the core of all of them is a system where the athletes realize on a daily basis that they are getting a raw deal. They get to the point where they don’t care any more. It’s “hey, if they catch me they catch me but I’m not taking this any more.”
We as fans wonder where the loyalty is to the institution. But through the eyes of a young kid from modest or poor circumstances, that loyalty street seems to only run one way.
82 responses to “It’s not easy being Green: three thoughts.”
I too believe this is a big distraction. I still believe we can beat the chickens without Green but I’m worried the team is too focused on this and not enough on the game.
Next time you hear of a “values-preaching” coach giving a “bad” kid a second or third chance after screwing up… remind yourself that some of these athletes are just now facing demands for self-discipline that you mastered in grammar school.
+1. I’ve read your comment 3 or 4 times now to let that sink in. Most of us know very little what it’s like to be in their shoes & forget what it was like to be an 18-21 yr old.
The biggest issue here is that it was HIS property that he sold for a reasonable amount of money. He didn’t steal the jersey or sell it to some booster for some exorbitant price. It was HIS property which he has every right to sell. What if he sold his textbooks that his scholarship paid for to half.com at the end of the semester (like every other student)? It is his property that he got as a benefit from being on scholarship, so how is that any different?
Because the NCAA says so?
What the NCAA is trying to regulate is “student”-athletes profiting from being a student-athlete. The textbooks are personal property in that they were paid for by the student; are you claiming AJ Green or any UGA player paid for his own jersey? It’s NOT his personal property, actually; it is the property of the university and the NCAA.
What is his property, as the Senator pointed out, is his name, which is actually the most marketable part…but that is why the concept of an agent is so broad, because there are a million and ten ways to market one’s name and profit from it–whether the assisting person/marketer/agent fits our definition of what an agent looks like or not. (Insert argument about NCAA hypocrisy in profiteering off of players’ names here: there have been national lawsuits filed about this recently…look ’em up.)
I do agree that the penalty is absolutely outrageous and outrageously inconsistent.
You are dead wrong on this one. The jersey in question was a bowl jersey and the student-athletes are allowed to keep them as part of the stuff they get at the bowl game. As a matter of fact the bowl pays for the jersey so the bowls emblem is on it. So yes he did sale his property. It was also sold to a memorabilia dealer which the money grubbing aholes at the NCAA choice to define as an agent.
I stand corrected, 69Dawg.
I have to agree First Timer. The NCAA has no business regulating the sale of personal property, while others treat AJ like a cash cow.
I’ll tell the other thing I’m sick of is all the folks out there calling for AJ’s head and talking about CMR’s lack of discipline. Cut me a break. Most of this garbage stems from an over zealous APD. If you think things aren’t handled differently in Gainesville, Tuscaloosa and Knoxville you are dreaming.
We like to pretend that these kids are worse than kids from the past. Well I got news for you — the boys from the 60s and 70s could teach these kids a thing or two. Jake Scott would have been arrested and kicked off the team his freshman year by today’s standards. And what about the pig theft and barbecue by the 1980 National Champs. Back then it was viewed as a prank, nowadays, somebody would be going to jail. I can go on and on of stories I personally know about.
I think UGA wins another close game against USCe, Green or no Green.
As a Florida fan, I would like to see Georgia get knocked off, but I just do not think that will happen.
I also think that upon appeal, Green will be playing against Arkansas.
Two questions about the appeal process:
1) Who do we state out case to? On an ESPN comment thread (dangerous, I know) I read someone say a panel of individuals from member institutions as opposed to people directly paid by the NCAA.
2). Think we get a 1-2 day turnaround like ol’ Masoli? Doubtful.
we need the tight ends involved in the passing game on saturday. it’ll be really tough if we don’t get 5-8 catches from the tight end position, imo.
Southern Miss was able to exploit the middle of the field at times, so I think there will be opportunities for the tight ends to make plays if everyone executes.
I think getting King or someone else open on a deep ball or two is just as key.
The run game looked only OK this past week, but we didn’t have too much of a seriously vertical pass game to spread them out either (now if Logan catches that pass from Murray, different story maybe.)
By definition wouldn’t the NCAA and the universities also be considered agents? – “any individual who markets or promotes a student-athlete.”- But I guess they are only looking out for the best interest of the Student-Athlete.
Schools are not individuals.
That said, I agree about the hypocrisy of letting schools profit from a player’s name.
I wonder how that class action lawsuit against the NCAA is going. I can’t get over the hypocrisy behind it all. I’m not for players getting paid, but they should be allowed to sell off their personal belongings just like everyone else in the country without jeopardizing their amateur status. That makes you a professional salesman, not a professional athlete.
If Tony Barnhart got out of the press box more often, he’d realize that UGA isn’t allowed to put the word “Green” on any of those #8 jerseys they peddle. NCAA rules prohibit use of an active student athlete’s name or image for profit, which is why you get “QB 11” and “WR 8” on your EA Sports college football game every year, and they have to put a player who just graduated or left school on the cover. Obviously, everyone knows who the blank #8 jersey is for, and everyone knows that the schools skirt those rules and use these guys to make ridiculous profits, and I agree with his sentiment 100%. Seriously, though, Tony, you make yourself look clueless when you write things like, “the school should be allowed to sell as many #8 jerseys as they like, but when they put the word ‘Green’ on them…” UGA’s like, “yes, we agree.”
What about teams that do not have names on jerseys?
I don’t know about this year, but in the past, Army, Vanderbilt, Iowa State have all gone with no name on back jerseys.
I bet those jerseys were also for sale in the retail market.
Is a #13 game used, no name Chris Marve jersey different from a Nike Authentics #13 jersey on sale at Vandy’s bookstore?
Why do the BCS schools continue to include themselves in the NCAA? Is it to give them a “bad guy” to blame?
Someday some player is going to sue the NCAA and that’s going to be the end of all this foolishness.
take the names off of these jerseys the univ. is selling, if a.j. cant profit off HIS name then no one else should. ive got a solution,if nike or whoever wants a player to represent them, it should not be the ncaa’s business.the players who are not stars are happy to get a free ride to college while the big names could do 1 advertisement and have enough money to last thru 4 years of school.
I’m kinda in agreement with you on this.
There’s no name on the jerseys. NCAA rules won’t let UGA sell a jersey with a name on it.
Which football player was it recently that likened being a college player to being a slave, and got flamed for it? Granted you can have your freedom any time, but access to the NFL is unlikely unless you are complicit in the NCAA plantation system.
There’s a #96 games used jersey on the Georgiadogs.com auctions signed by Brandon Coutu.
No name on back, and granted he is no longer a student, but still, is it about the name, or not?
Another person on another website asked about a rumor about UGA not being legally able to sell replicas with player names on them.
What a sham.
Hey, it’s the next post!!
With all respect to Dr. Barnhart, there is some confusion about the UGA bookstore selling jerseys with names on them.
I have read they don’t because it would be an NCAA violation.
Anybody know what the truth of this minor point in the story is?
As all of us have, I have given this a good bit of thought over the last few hours.
What do I really care about?
AJ knew what he was doing. He also, almost certainly, knew who he was “selling the jersey to”
The point AJ, I hope, now understands, is that if he gets caught, a whole lot more people than just him are punished.
He did the crime, but we all do the time.
As far as the immediate impact….well I just hope Ben Jones does not sell his jersey.
If the jersey is returned to AJ for a refund, is it still a crime? I sure hope there’s not a Dawg fan out there somewhere with that damn jersey hanging on their wall.
Good morning, Dawgs. Random AJ thoughts…
1) The team has been dealing with this for several weeks. It would be a bigger distraction if he had not been held out of game 1 and then this came down.
2) The NCAA rulebook is full of lunacy. Most folks would agree with that. However, it’s still the school’s obligation and the player’s obligation to stay in compliance with those rules, whether they agree with them or not.
3) It seems that AJ should have known better.$1,000 for an Independence Bowl jersey? That doesn’t seem reasonable.
4) I just don’t see the “hypocrisy” of schools selling jerseys. First, it’s the school’s uniform, not the player’s. We also recently heard that most athletic programs are losing money. The players should consider the jersey sales as another revenue source used to pay for their education.
5) Not sure I follow how the jersey becomes a player’s property anyway. Does the school or the bowl give the jersey to the player after the bowl game? Or does the player just take it.
6) Allowing players to profit from the sale of these items would be a huge mess. Talk about inviting he fox into the hen house…
Have a good day,
Regarding you not seeing the “hypocrisy”, how do you not see it? The school makes millions of dollars of these players’ names, but the players have no right to do so in their private life like the rest of us.
To use an example, I’m sure any Alabama fan that buys the #22 jersey does so just because it’s an Alabama jersey. That couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that Mark Ingram wears it, now could it?
I understand where you are coming from, but I think it’s more complicated than that.
Don’t we all hear that athletic programs are losing money? I think selling jerseys, etc. is just another way to pay for it all.
The athletic departments are losing money, not the football teams, the revenue from football pays for most of the other sports, at some schools, like UGA, that is enough to cover all sports and still turn a profit, at others it is not enough and so the athletic department as a whole loses money. But make no mistake UGA makes lots of money off the football team.
The players get to keep the bowl jerseys as part of their bowl “goodie bag,” thus becoming their own property.
I, for one, wear my Terrence Edwards jersey with pride.
Does it occasionally slip out of your fingers?
No, but it does see a wide open Lindsay Scott coming across the middle . . .
BD what rock have you been living under? How much do you think a bowl game jersey worn by Ingram from a previous year is worth now that he has won a Heisman? The buyer was betting that AJ was going to: (1 Have a big year; (2 Get drafted by the NFL; (3 Maybe win a post season award like the Heisman or Biletnikoff; (4 UGA wins the SEC or (gasp) the BCSNC and Green is the star player. Any or all of those thing happen, particularly if Green signed the jersey, and the thing is worth a boatload. Worst case (if Green wins none of those awards but is All-SEC and/or AA which he already is pre-season) it’s worth at least what the guy paid and he can get his money back.
I hope Ingram hasn’t sold any of his jerseys from last year. 🙂
I really have no idea what a jersey would fetch, other than searching a bit on the intertubes. You are probably right, but it seems a bit high to me.
Have a good one.
I know the amount of money is within the NCAA guidelines for suspensions. But, shouldn’t the perceived amount of extra benefit really be the issue? If a game-worn AJ Green jersey is worth only $500, and he sells it for $1,000, then the extra benefit would be $500. If he sells it for market value, then no extra benefit is earned, and shouldn’t be subject to sanction. If he buys a PS3 with his Best Buy gift card that he received from going to the bowl, and then sells it for market value, there is no
crime illegal behaviorrule broken, no?
I’m sure the NCAA would argue.
Plus, I’m not sure you can really argue that $1,000 is fair market value for gear worn in the Independence Bowl.
I thought fair market value is what someone is willing to pay for it.
Don’t we have an official agreement with one of the secondary ticket resellers?
Wikipedia (I know, I know) defines fair value as the “rational and unbiased estimate of the potential market price…”
I think the key point there is rational and unbiased. Did someone buy the jersey because they just had to have an AJ jersey at any price or was it just a way to compensate AJ in a manner that really wasn’t based on the jersey at all?
$1,000 for an actual game worn jersey is cheap.
Non-game worn it already costs $150.
If my wife wouldn’t kill me, I’d happily pay $1,000 for a game worn David Pollack or David Greene jersey.
I rest my case. See my post above.
The rule is the rule is the rule. He knew it and he broke it. Crying about the “unfairness” of the NCAA is tired and fruitless. There are likely a host of ways to get around a rule and AJ didn’t do so.
If AJ had given this to mom or dad and they sold it, would it be a violation?
Let Justin Houston wear #8 this saturday, then go out and kick scu’s butt up and down the field. That’s the best payback we’ll ever get!
How is a four game suspension justified? He didn’t rob an armored car, for Christ’s sakes. He paid the money back, sat out a game, isn’t that enough, you capricious NCAA sons of bitches?
Will A.J. accompany the team and, if so, will he be required to stay at the Hotel Whitney in Columbia and pay retail?
This is pretty sickening, if you ask me.
I suggest that everyone who owns and wears a jersey to the games this year turn it inside out.
UGA should fight for Green. By saying they will forfeit the next 3 games if they can’t play with one of their teammates. No games, no tv money,…ESPN can then force the hand of the ncaa. No?
I actually like the civil disobedience route–play Green anyway and tell the NCAA to take a hike. But only do this with an express agreement with the SEC league office that the game will count in the SEC standings. Maybe UGA could use the no-play threat as leverage on the SEC to get such a deal..
NCAA is the rule setting body that college athletics has agreed to be governed by. If colleges don’t like the rules….. well then, work to have them overturned and changed. The rules are there for everyone to see. It doesn’t make sense to me (imho-the horse has left the barn) to bitch about a rule after it has been broken. The NCAA geared up after the rings were sold on EBaY. Well, there you have it. They aren’t cutting UGa any slack. If we do anymore dancing in the end zone they will scrutinize us via penalties some more. This is one we can’t win. As many attorneys that patronize this blog …. one could have pointed that out. I certainly have had one or two tell me to STFU cut my losses and move on. It’s not always about being right. Meanwhile, we will beat the gamecocks and hogs – without AJ. That isn’t homerism…. it is what will happen. imho!
Actually, bitching about a rule after it has been broken is an essential component of the checks and balances of American democracy. When someone is charged with a crime, very often the law itself is challenged as unconstitutional. In fact, the courts cannot overturn a law until someone is charged with breaking it. Courts are prohibited from giving “advisory opinions” about the validity of laws before there is an actual case or controversy.
I’m not saying this is how it works in the NCAA’s quasi-legal proceedings, but speaking philosophically, bitching about a rule after it has been broken is, in fact, the American way.
My Father taught me long ago not to argue with someone highly trained to do so…. or with those who buy ink by the barrel. Your point is well taken. However, the NCAA is who it is because of the permission of those it governs. AJ will sit four games …. we will miss him, he will miss those stats come draft day. None the less… Dawgs will persevere.
Senator, excellent job on summarizing what is a complicated situation. I feel the same with you about the amatuerism aspect in regards to why “we” care so much about the sport of College Football.
Fred Gibson, what a douche.
I know you are, but what is
Just the 2nd person responsible for this mess.
Good point General.
And I have to tell you, as somebody whose family has contributed some not insignificant money to the university’s athletic program, I get tired of the argument the kids get nothing.
They get an education, assuming they take advantage of that, worth somewhere north of $300,000. And if they do the work, get the education and move on with their lives, they are infinitely better off than they would have been without the education, whether they play pro ball or just enter the workforce with the education and the fundamental discipline they learned playing ball.
The vast majority of these kids use the education to better themselves and their families.
To say they are field hands for the university is simply wrong and wrong-headed.
AJ is a sad case, but it could be much worse.
They get more than an education…. they receive an internship into the world of the high stakes NFL …. training, and opportunity. Someone quantify that please.
Who said they get nothing?
The point is, they are being exploited because the Universities are making MILLIONS in exchange.
And the rules of the NFL are such that they are legally forbidden from simply going into their chosen profession without being forced into 3 years of slavery.
Given a choice, management prefers that its group B labor (the uber-talented 5% of the workforce) be called indentured servants, not slaves.
“Greg Monroe can walk by a campus bookstore and see a #10 Georgetown jersey on sale for $100 and know that he’s never going to see a penny of that revenue. Would that jersey sell as well if he wasn’t wearing it? Would fewer fans attend Hoya home games if he wasn’t playing for them?
The answer, of course, is that there would be fewer fans of Georgetown, as well as NCAA sports in general, if the best athletes weren’t required to attend college for at least a year. But the NCAA needs to come to grips with the role that it has assumed. It’s marketing a professional-quality collection of leagues that generate more income than most professional sports teams, yet its participants aren’t compensated in proportion to their contributions. It’s pure exploitation and it’s as institutional as the keg stand and the mortarboard.”
Please don’t whine about exploitation ….especially if your wearing a pair of Nike running shoes or eating that tuna steak or wearing that fashion golf shirt. Following the rules by which you obtain a college education, and earn the internship provided by an institution of higher learning is such a small price to pay, for playing a kids game on Saturday – that you may play on Sunday- all the while , being the subject of adulation by thousands doesn’t fit the exploitation definition .
Nobody is “whining” about exploitation, and go ask the Nike factory workers if they feel they are being exploited. For the overwhelming majority its a huge standard of living increase. You are drawing a grossly flawed analogy.
Div1 Football and Basketball are outright exploiting the players to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Period. There is no free market whatsoever. They are the only game in town, and they keep it that way because then they keep ALL the profits.
A scholarship and room and board is short shrift compared to the profits being made off their blood, sweat, tears, and sometimes legs snapped in half.
You ask those factory workers. Just STFU. Who raised you anyway? Poor job. -1.
Nike Acknowledges Massive Labor Exploitation in its Overseas Sweatshops
From <www.commondreams.org Published on Thursday, April 14, 2005
by the Guardian/UK
Nike Lists Abuses at Asian Factories by David Teather in New York
Nike, long the subject of sweatshop allegations, yesterday produced the most comprehensive picture yet of the 700 factories that produce its footwear and clothing, detailing admissions of abuses, including forced overtime and restricted access to water.
The company has published a 108-page report, available on its website, the first since it paid $1.5m to settle allegations that it had made false claims about how well its workers were treated.
For years activists have been pressing Nike and other companies to reveal where their factories are in order to allow independent monitoring.
Nike lists 124 plants in China contracted to make its products, 73 in Thailand, 35 in South Korea, 34 in Vietnam and others in Asia.
It also produces goods in South America, Australia, Canada, Italy, Mexico, Turkey and the US. It employs 650,000 contract workers worldwide.
The report admits to widespread problems, particularly in Nike's Asian factories. The company said it audited hundreds of factories in 2003 and 2004 and found cases of "abusive treatment", physical and verbal, in more than a quarter of its south Asian plants.
Between 25% and 50% of the factories in the region restrict access to toilets and drinking water during the workday.
The same percentage deny workers at least one day off in seven.
In more than half of Nike's factories, the report said, employees worked more than 60 hours a week. In up to 25%, workers refusing to do overtime were punished.
Wages were also below the legal minimum at up to 25% of factories.
Michael Posner, the executive director of the organisation Human Rights First, described the report as "an important step forward" and praised Nike for its transparency.
But he added: "The facts on the ground suggest there are still enormous problems with these supply chains and factories – what is Nike doing to change the picture and give workers more rights?"
Nike has joined the Fair Labor Association, a group that includes other footwear and clothing makers, as well as NGOs and universities, which conducts independent audits designed to improve standards across the
The company said it needed further cooperation with other members of the
"We do not believe Nike has the power to single-handedly solve the issues at stake," the company said in the report.
Mr Posner said retailers such as Wal-Mart bore huge responsibility for keeping prices low and consequently compounding poor working conditions in factories overseas.
He said that the likes of Nike and Adidas needed to work together to gain some kind of counterweight.
Debora Spar, the author of a case study on Nike, said the report "shows the company has turned a corner, although I am not sure that I would describe it as a very sharp corner."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
I agree with you on Nike, AHD. MB has a point, though. There is actually a lawsuit pending brought by former NCAA athletes re: use of their names, images, etc. to sell products. Short step from there to present athletes if the former athletes win.
Deadspin had an article on this yesterday and the only thing they had up was a picture of AJ catching a pass and pictures and prices of the 6 different Number 8 UGA jerseys for sale in the school book store.
I have to wonder, if these kids were somehow compensated for their hard work, would they stick around in school and get a degree? This is what the institutions and NCAA desire, correct?
I wonder how many kids bolt for the NFL specifically to make some money to provide for their families.
They get to the point where they don’t care any more. It’s “hey, if they catch me they catch me but I’m not taking this any more.”
This right here is what I think is happening more and more.
Yes, a scholarship is nice. But when you see people making tens or hundreds of millions of dollars off you, does that $20k a year in scholarship/costs sound fair?
Well, and it’s not exactly what they want to get out of this, either, so it would be unsurprising if many student-athletes in the high-dollar programs had a somewhat jaundiced attitude about the scholarship.
Wonder if anyone that works for Steve Jobs has a similar complaint?
You aren’t forced to work for Steve Jobs before you are allowed to get a job working for ANY technology company.
You might have a point if people were allowed to go straight from high school to college.
Furthermore, nobody is working for Jobs for free. And if they feel they are unfairly paid, they can go work for another tech company.
You have made yet another asinine and idiotic analogy. Well done.
Well then, maybe you can start your own university system, put your collegiate sports in play and pay your players. I have no problem with that. Good stuff. Thanks for enlightening me. Nice comment. Well thought out. Good luck.
The Dawg players and fans should just direct all these vocal energy and indignation into beating up the cocks and the rest of the SEC.
I believe in calling a spade an effin’ shovel so I am going to lay it out for you guys. 1- The NFL will not take players that haven’t been in school three years. Which makes for a nice little farm system that doesn’t cost the pros a dime. I am not a lawyer, but it seems that not taking a player right out of high school if he has the ability to play at the NFL level is unfair restraint of trade. So is making a player sit out for a year after transfering. UGA gives one year scholarships that are renewed at the school’s disgression. If UGA gives schollys that are good for one year then the player should have the option of signing that new scholly or transfering and playing immediately. 2- The big boys, like UGA, Alabama, Ohio State, and the others of that ilk like being in bed with the NFL because they make mega bucks. The players may be quasi-amateurs, but the system is pro all the way. 3- How in the hell can the NCAA tell a person that he cannot sell his own property at whatever price the market will bear? Does the US Constitution apply to football players?
I guess what we need here is a union…a players union for HS players . Yep… that will work. It will better the whole football experience. Balance the scales and create fiscal equity for all those concerned…..however, your little girl who plays soccer in HS will have to find an intramural sport in college though….if she wants to continue, is that OK?
Most unions get formed because management goes too far in the way they exploit the workers. Unions are never the ideal, best case scenario. They are a necessary evil caused by management abusing their position of power.
That’s exactly what is happening right now vis-a-vis the NCAA and Div 1 basketball/football players.
They have a choice right now. They can either figure out a way to share the wealth a little better, or they won’t survive long term.
Eventually someone is going to come along and figure out a way to undercut and/or bypass them, and then college football and basketball as we know it will be utterly destroyed. That’s the tragic possibility we are facing right now.
If I were any of those NFL-alternate leagues right now, I’d start taking kids right out of high school. At a minimum, you’d get all that talent for 3 years, and you might even keep some of them.
Those exploited unions worked well for GM now didn’t they. Gheez. Have you ever signed a paycheck for someone that works for your company?