I haven’t said much about the Todd Gurley bill, the one that would criminalize people who lead college athletes into behavior that jeopardizes their NCAA eligibility, winding its way through the Georgia legislature because:
- I have a natural antipathy towards knee-jerk legislation that’s crafted in response to something that happened to a specific person. (“Numbered House Bill 3 to reflect Bulldog’s jersey number…”)
- It’s unlikely to pass in the Senate.
- It’s a really stupid idea.
Doubt me on the stupid? Let the bill’s author explain.
“The individual who enticed him to sell his autograph was not punished, and that is the reason for this bill,” said the bill’s author, Rep. Barry Fleming, R-Harlem.
A 2003 law allows colleges to sue one of their own alumni whose actions harm the whole school’s eligibility, but that didn’t cover the Gurley situation.
“We punish the person who sells alcohol to minors as well as the person who buys the alcohol,” Fleming said, arguing the buyer of the autographs should have been punished the way Gurley was with the four-game suspension he served during the fall.
Nice analogy. Evidently nobody has bothered to point out to Rep. Fleming that the NCAA’s rules aren’t codified criminal law in this country. Although I’m sure Mark Emmert wouldn’t mind if some legislative body out there wanted to make the attempt.
Oh, and as far as punishing somebody “the way Gurley was”, Fleming’s bill imposes a $25,000 fine and jail time on somebody who is doing nothing more than engaging in normal commerce. And by normal commerce, I mean doing something that with any person on the planet other than a college student-athlete wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. You know, that whole free enterprise thing that we love to sing praises to here.
Fleming’s a Georgia grad, natch, so I’m sure this will stand him in good stead at whatever tailgates he attends. But it’s a really dumb stunt.
Get The Picture 
Sort of his own Emmert Vs Penn State Teapot Tempest.
More Government oversight, just what we need !
Not.
LikeLike
I hear his next bill is going to be criminal liability for bars in Athens that ’cause’ star students to flunk their tests. No? Hmmm….I don’t understand…shouldn’t we care more about the ‘student-athlete’s’ ability to be a student rather than an athlete? <-sarcasm
LikeLike
I have no idea if this is a good idea or not, but the market hammered that d-bag where he’ll have trouble ever working in the state of Georgia again.
LikeLike
Agreed, to say that he wasn’t punished isn’t exactly a fair characterization. The scorn heaped on him and his family was pretty bad. Not that I’m saying he didn’t deserve it individually, but I did feel bad for his family being drug into it.
I’ve never been in a situation where I legitimately had to fear for my safety for a period of time, but I bet it sucks, and is pretty bad punishment. I believe him when he says he wishes he’d never done it. Not because I think he genuinely felt bad about it, but because he had no idea how bad the blowback would be.
LikeLike
Why not put a law on the books that prevents the NCAA from penalizing players that make money off their image or signatures? It could keep UGA from penalizing players like they did this time and put all the pressure on the NCAA. UGA wouldn’t be allowed to co-operate and we would likely see penalties more in line with what happened with Newton and Johnny football.
LikeLike
What penalty for $Cam? He was suspended for a practice.
LikeLike
He was only suspended for like 11 minutes of that practice.
LikeLike
That would help with recruiting: come to Georgia where it’s illegal for the NCAA to punish you for making money. That might offset the COA hit we’re going to take.
LikeLike
On that note, why not create a law that makes it illegal for the NCAA to profit off of student atheletes likenesses? After all, they are “amateurs” and shouldn’t be used in that fashion 😉
LikeLike
Fleming nothing but a grandstanding lawyer who wants the attention that offering this bill brings.
LikeLike
I agree he’s grandstanding but his being a lawyer has nothing to do with it. He’s grandstanding because he’s a politician.
LikeLike
Agreed. It’s a stupid idea, and I hope it dies a quick death in the Senate.
LikeLike
The funny thing about bills like this is that they have one major unintended consequence; they make it extremely unlikely that anybody cooperates with college sports cartel investigations, because doing so exposes them to criminal penalties. Of course, that might be intended…
LikeLike
And, did you notice that, of all the bills the Georgia Legislature is considering, this one got the most press coverage?
LikeLike
Don’t like the bill, but on the the scale of dumb bills, it’s sorta a middle of the pack kinda bill.
LikeLike
It amazes me how we all want protection for the student athlete, but when a bill that would do just that is brought up we immediately dump on it.
This bill would make it very unlikely that an individual would blow the whistle on the student athlete and also removes the possibility of the student athlete being blackmailed (I will go public and ruin your career if you do not do X). Additionally, as someone noted above, who is going to cooperate with the NCAA when they could get fined or go to jail.
As far as the free enterprise thing you do not see cigarettes being sold to minors, power plants burning coal to their hearts content, or truckers being able to drive for 48 consecutive hours. There is some government oversight in almost every facet of our free enterprise system.
By the way. Where is the harm in this bill?
LikeLike
The bill isn’t about protecting student-athletes. It’s about assuaging the butthurt of Georgia fans who’re pissed off about the Gurley suspension.
Who in their right mind cooperates with the NCAA now if they’re not subject to its rules? The organization doesn’t have subpoena power, remember?
BTW, I didn’t say anything about the bill being harmful, just stupid.
LikeLike
So you know the motive and it has nothing to do with the student athlete. Is it ok that the bill has the unintended consequence of helping them and thus is not stupid, or if you do not divine the motive as being pure then burn it down?
Who cooperates? The dealer who is out to burn the student athlete and has no skin in the game that is who. Seems like we just witnessed this recently…..on wait we did.
LikeLike
That must like all the dealers who bought from Manziel and stepped up to tell the NCAA… oh, wait, they didn’t.
Anyone who has enough sense to talk to a lawyer isn’t going to speak with the NCAA, Gurley’s law or no Gurley’s law.
LikeLike
Last time I checked no dealers went pubic in the Manziel situation ever. As a matter of fact they were not trying to burn him. Now how could that possibly be different than let’s say the Gurley situation and his dealer who was writing emails to the press? Think about it……
LikeLike
And he clammed up as soon as he retained counsel.
What you’re saying is that a guy who was too stupid to pay attention to the legal realities of his situation will suddenly be smart enough to do so because a law got passed. If that’s how the real world worked, there’d be no crime.
LikeLike
Yeah…you are aware this is nothing like the Manziel situation right? Two different dealers made statements that they had paid Gurley. Those statements were made voluntarily. Not sure what kind of law you supposedly practice, but typically people do not run out and confess to a crime unless they are currently under the influence of something. smh
LikeLike
LOL. I can see we’ve entered the meaty portion of the debate here.
Hey, you’ve convinced me! Pass this law, and we’ll never have a problem with Georgia athletes getting paid again. You should go lobby the Senate; there are more than a few lawyers in it who will no doubt be convinced by the substance of your argument.
LikeLike
Well I could have went with the “it is a stupid law” argument, but since you beat me to the punch with nonsensical arguments this is all I was left with.
Glad I was able to convince you though. Surprised it took so long since you are the champion of the student athlete cause.
LikeLike
Any law that says “you can’t do this” or “you must do that” is an infringement on our privacy and therefore should be subject to a strict “is it truly necessary” standard, and if it isn’t, should be killed. And I say that as someone who, politically, is pegged by my right wing friends as “progressive.”
LikeLike
Pretty sure that is every law. So you would get rid of the seat belt law I assume.
LikeLike
I most definitely would, for all but children under the age of 14. Absolutely no reason for this to exist, and a waste of time for officers in enforcement. Like we don’t have some really bad crap going down all around us but we want to tell everyone not only that they should buckle up, but that they must do so. Big Brother needs a good ass whipping for the craziness over the past 50 years of government over stepping their bounds by miles. And yet we take it.
LikeLike
Why under 14? It is ok to tell the parents how to raise their children, but not how to live their own life? Also why from 14 to 18 are the parents are no longer required to make their kids wear a seat belt? Just curious.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that the lawmakers involved determined after much investigation that seat belt laws are necessary. As I recall, they were convinced that, without such laws, a much higher percentage of drivers don’t buckle up themselves or their kids, leading to a much greater incidence of injury and death, increasing insurance, health care, emergency worker and other costs for the general population. Nor were such laws enacted overnight–in fact, many states still don’t have secondary seat belt laws. Now, one may disagree with the conclusions they reached or the evidence considered, but my point is that such laws were not, to my knowledge, enacted without serious consideration over the course of some years.
LikeLike
I am pretty sure every state except one has either primary or secondary laws. I also believe Maine is looking at repealing their seat belt law so that number could move to two.
As far as the time they took to look at the law here is what was explained to me: It was first introduced in 1987 and killed by the Plaintiff’s bar. It was reintroduced in 1988 and passed once an exception was made that while not wearing a seat belt is a code violation it is not admissible in court in a personal injury case. Interestingly trucks were exempt from the law until some time around 2010 and to this day first responders (ie. the very same guy giving you the ticket) are exempt.
LikeLike
California already has a law on the books prohibiting agents from offering money or other thing of value to a student athlete. See California Business and Professions Code Sections 18897.6 and 18897.63.
Of course California regulates almost everything…
LikeLike