I dislike Jason Whitlock, but I think these are a must read...

• ytownfootball

  

  jordo212000;604995 wrote:I can see this is going nowhere. You are wasting your time with your suggestions.

  No offense but it's really no different than whining for a play-off system, both are pie-in-the-sky.
• lhslep134

  

  jordo212000;604995 wrote: Did you seriously think it was possible that you could slide TP a couple thousand for selling his #2 jersey and then turn around give nothing to the best volleyball player on the women's team? I'm just wondering.

  
  Uhm, yes. Have the players whose jerseys are made sign contracts with Nike giving them a very small portion of sales. If Nike felt compelled to make a women's volleyball jersey for the best player and sell it, then do the same for her.
  
  I don't understand how anyone could have sour grapes with that, if it's coming from Nike and not the university.
• jordo212000

  

  ytownfootball;605001 wrote:No offense but it's really no different than whining for a play-off system, both are pie-in-the-sky.

  
  Not really. There's a small chance that a playoff could happen.
  
  There is absolutely zero chance that men get compensated while women get nothing. It's illegal.
• lhslep134

  

  jordo212000;604995 wrote: I actually kind of doubt you "know all about Title IX" or else you wouldn't be coming up with these random ways to compensate players.

  
  
  Junior year in high school I had to write an argumentative paper on Title IX. I chose to argue for it's abandonment. I don't know it in and out like I used to, but I know what's worth knowing.
• lhslep134

  

  jordo212000;605005 wrote:
  There is absolutely zero chance that men get compensated while women get nothing. It's illegal.

  
  I don't understand you keep playing the gender card. I'm not talking about singling out men or women, I'm talking about getting compensated for jersey sales, and women's jerseys aren't made because no one will buy them (talking about university level).
• jordo212000

  

  lhslep134;605006 wrote:Junior year in high school I had to write an argumentative paper on Title IX. I chose to argue for it's abandonment. I don't know it in and out like I used to, but I know what's worth knowing.

  
  Yup. You don't know it like you used to. That's all I can say. I had to study for two different semesters in college.
• lhslep134

  

  Jordo....

  Did you seriously think it was possible that you could slide TP a couple thousand for selling his #2 jersey and then turn around give nothing to the best volleyball player on the women's team? I'm just wondering.

  
  Uhm, yes. Have the players whose jerseys are made sign contracts with Nike giving them a very small portion of sales. If Nike felt compelled to make a women's volleyball jersey for the best player and sell it, then do the same for her.
  
  I don't understand how anyone could have sour grapes with that, if it's coming from Nike and not the university.
  
  
  
  And I don't give a flying fuck about you studying Title IX, congrats on wasting 2 semesters of your life on garbage.
• jordo212000

  

  lhslep134;605053 wrote: And I don't give a flying fuck about you studying Title IX, congrats on wasting 2 semesters of your life on garbage.

  
  LOL. You were the one who bragged about your Title IX knowledge first. You said you wrote a paper on it. I just merely brought up that I had studied it too and it had been covered in two courses that I had taken while I was in school (sports law and sports management).
• enigmaax

  lhslep134;605053 wrote: Uhm, yes. Have the players whose jerseys are made sign contracts with Nike giving them a very small portion of sales. If Nike felt compelled to make a women's volleyball jersey for the best player and sell it, then do the same for her.

  
  Then what if a particular player gets an offer from Adidas for a larger percentage of that money?
  
  Isn't part of the NCAA's stance that they aren't selling an individual player's image, even with numbered jerseys? And haven't they already lost in court on that for players who exist in video games after their amateur status ceases? Money from jersey sales would open up a myriad of other issues, including the fact that the NCAA really would be pimping a kid to major sponsors by having existing deals with Nike or whoever.
• lhslep134

  

  enigmaax;605867 wrote:Then what if a particular player gets an offer from Adidas for a larger percentage of that money?
  
  Isn't part of the NCAA's stance that they aren't selling an individual player's image, even with numbered jerseys?\r.

  
  A. I think it would involve whatever uniform supplier the school has a contract with.
  
  B. But they are selling the player's image, regardless of their stance. That's the whole point of Whitlock's articles, that the NCAA and their rules are a sham and I agree with him. You shouldn't be able to exploit players and then turn around and yell at them for accepting money.
• enigmaax

  lhslep134;605976 wrote:A. I think it would involve whatever uniform supplier the school has a contract with.
  
  B. But they are selling the player's image, regardless of their stance. That's the whole point of Whitlock's articles, that the NCAA and their rules are a sham and I agree with him. You shouldn't be able to exploit players and then turn around and yell at them for accepting money.

  
  A. Not sure how that would go over the first time a kid challenged a school's contract. Once you say, "you can make money off your jerseys", you pretty much have to make it a free market.
  
  B. Kind of agree, kind of don't. The players get quite a bit out of the college experience, including money - I know, people want to argue that scholarships don't mean shit. Well, they do. They are taking that money that someone else can't have and for the vast majority of players who do not go pro, it means a lot in the long run.
  
  Also, it is pretty difficult to quantify or even prove that a certain player is worth a certain amount of money. I know we've been talking about jersey sales, but I don't think you can just say, "this guy sold this many jerseys so he is worth X amount." And how do you determine who gets a jersey to sell? I'm mixed on whether the school is really selling an individual's likeness by simply selling a jersey with a number on it. I know we associate the number to the person, kind of by default, but the brand is the school's, not the individual's.
  
  All in all, I don't think kids are being exploited - they are given a tremendous opportunity and a free ride that a lot of people would like to have. I don't think it is the responsibility of the school or the NCAA to pay them for participating in an extracurricular activity otherwise. I do, however, feel like whatever they do outside of that on their own should not interfere with their eligibility. The problem is, I guess, even allowing that to go on starts down that slope where the big money schools are going to gain huge advantages simply because they can pay more under the table, etc.
• georgemc80

  So how do we tell which jersey is being sold. My OSU jersies don't have names. Who is to say that the 7 jersey I got in 2004 wasn't a tribute to Joe Germaine? There isn't a name on it. What about the companies that produce OSU "like" jersies? I have a 10 and a 47 that aren't Nike...do they owe players money?
  
  
  Point is simple. It can't be refuted. These athletes are being paid with tuition, room and board, and a stipend. That is the deal, there is nothing wrong with it. Its fair.
  
  
  
  As far as this racist POS Whitlock....if there were ever these types of rumors about Sam Bradford or Tim Tebow...would he write about it?
• Al Bundy

  lhslep134;605004 wrote:Uhm, yes. Have the players whose jerseys are made sign contracts with Nike giving them a very small portion of sales. If Nike felt compelled to make a women's volleyball jersey for the best player and sell it, then do the same for her.
  
  I don't understand how anyone could have sour grapes with that, if it's coming from Nike and not the university.

  
  There are many multiple numbers on many football rosters. Do they share the money under your system?
• lhslep134

  

  Why are you guys acting so ridiculous? We all know who's jersey it is.
  
  Have you ever seen a jersey in a store and not known who's it was (of your team)?
  
  What an absurd point.
  
  I think the OSU jerseys released this year were #2, #8, #97, #51, and I'm guessing someone else. We all know that's Pryor, Posey, Homan, and Heyward.
• Al Bundy

  lhslep134;608082 wrote:Why are you guys acting so ridiculous? We all know who's jersey it is.
  
  Have you ever seen a jersey in a store and not known who's it was (of your team)?
  
  What an absurd point.
  
  I think the OSU jerseys released this year were #2, #8, #97, #51, and I'm guessing someone else. We all know that's Pryor, Posey, Homan, and Heyward.

  
  How do you know no one was wearing #2 for Jenkins two years ago instead of Pryor?
• queencitybuckeye

  lhslep134;608082 wrote:Why are you guys acting so ridiculous? We all know who's jersey it is.
  
  Have you ever seen a jersey in a store and not known who's it was (of your team)?
  
  What an absurd point.
  
  I think the OSU jerseys released this year were #2, #8, #97, #51, and I'm guessing someone else. We all know that's Pryor, Posey, Homan, and Heyward.

  
  And in two years, the numbers will be different. The players, no matter how good, are temps. The program sells the merchandise.
• ytownfootball

  

  #45 sat idle for years until Kat took it, they still sold them.
• jordo212000

  

  lhslep134;608082 wrote: I think the OSU jerseys released this year were #2, #8, #97, #51, and I'm guessing someone else. We all know that's Pryor, Posey, Homan, and Heyward.

  
  Does Christian Bryant get to share the loot with TP? What about Aaron Gant, Posey, and somebody named Dionte Allen?
  
  If I was Christian Bryant I would fight to death to get a cut of that.
  
  As long as there are no names on the back of the jersey it would be quite simple to make that kind of argument.
• jordo212000

  

  lhslep134;605053 wrote:Have the players whose jerseys are made sign contracts with Nike giving them a very small portion of sales. If Nike felt compelled to make a women's volleyball jersey for the best player and sell it, then do the same for her.

  
  That's just the thing, Nike won't sell them because they wouldn't make any money off of them. Have you ever seen a woman walk around in a volleyball jersey?
  
  For the sake of argument, let's say they do indeed try and sell them (and give players a cut). The money would almost certainly put into a kitty and divided equally among both men and women
• lhslep134

  

  Al Bundy;608115 wrote:How do you know no one was wearing #2 for Jenkins two years ago instead of Pryor?

  And how many times does that happen? Very rarely. And in that rare instance, I'd say both of them have a right to some of that money.
  
  I'm not talking about people wearing them. I'm talking about people buying them
• lhslep134

  

  jordo212000;608152 wrote:That's just the thing, Nike won't sell them because they wouldn't make any money off of them. Have you ever seen a woman walk around in a volleyball jersey?
  
  For the sake of argument, let's say they do indeed try and sell them (and give players a cut). The money would almost certainly put into a kitty and divided equally among both men and women

  
  
  I'd be fine with that though. Give the players some extra spending money.
  
  
  My entire point is based off my complete disagreement with the NCAA exploiting these athletes and than pointing fingers when athletes do things to get some extra spending money (ie Troy Smith).
• jordo212000

  

  yeah I get upset when the NCAA makes a big deal about petty stuff (the Georgia WR selling his bowl jersey), but I've always felt that this system is best for the sport. If you allow players to be given money from anybody, regardless of the amount... then I think you really open a can of worms. The sport is already pretty shady, it would only get more shady.
  
  Sure players are paid off all the time, but I think the main point of the rule is to try and dissuade others from joining in the act.
• lhslep134

  

  jordo212000;608164 wrote: If you allow players to be given money from anybody, regardless of the amount... then I think you really open a can of worms.
  
  .

  
  You absolutely open a can of worms, that's why you limit the sources of extra money, ie a fund from the university (at OSU it happens to be a stipend, but a lot of schools can't afford that) or something similar. You could use jersey revenue from both basketball and football (or whatever jersey is sold...I'm sure in Iowa they sell singlets haha) to put into that fund to be divided equally.
  
  And dude I can't agree more about AJ Green. Not being able to sell YOUR jersey for some extra spending money? Geez.
• Al Bundy

  lhslep134;608159 wrote:I'd be fine with that though. Give the players some extra spending money.
  
  
  My entire point is based off my complete disagreement with the NCAA exploiting these athletes and than pointing fingers when athletes do things to get some extra spending money (ie Troy Smith).

  No one is forcing the players to get paid tens of thousands a dollar year to play football. If they don't like it, good luck finding a job that will pay them that much as an 18 year old. Numbers are used over so often (and double numbers at the same time), how do you keep track of who the jersey is sold for?
• lhslep134

  

  Al Bundy;608190 wrote: Numbers are used over so often (and double numbers at the same time), how do you keep track of who the jersey is sold for?

  
  So you're telling me if you walked into Buckeye Corner right now you wouldn't know whose jerseys they're selling?
  
  C'mon Man!