Braxton Miller, when will he be done at OSU?

• stlouiedipalma

  Apparently the discussion of Braxton Miller is done, judging by all of the bitching about tattoos, ink and all that.
• Big Gain

  bo shemmy3337;792538 wrote:The issue was that they got free things and money for their items of value. An athlete is aloud a gift of 99 dollars and that would be a lot of ink lol. It was about the cash they got.

  Surely you aren't so foolish to suggest the NCAA allows $99 gifts. Even if true there MUST be a VERY VERY small limit. In the case of Ohio State a gift of $99, JUST from every alumni NOT every Ohio State fan would come to $25,000,000.
  
  DUMB
• bo shemmy3337

  Big Gain;793112 wrote:You must be a proponent of a Communist State or dumb as a pile of rocks. The "ink" is a miniscule part of the cost of getting a tattoo. You think the labor of an "artist" comes free????
  
  You must be 15 and never had a job, especially a service job. You think the cost of a Big Mac is only the beef and bun. The building, equipment and labor cost do not come free. Yep, a never worked before teenie pile of rocks.

  
  Yea your a real ass. The artist is the one who decides how much to charge. There is no set rate and the only thing you actually receive is the ink it self. Either your not reading my posts or your just stuck at the fact that I am a Michigan fan which would make sense as your nothing but rude. Lets say I decide to buy all the stuff needed for tattoos and then charge you only for the ink as my art is worth nothing to me, just want to get good at it or whatever. The artist or person who is doing the tattoo is the one who comes up with the total price and that can be whatever they want it to be.
• bo shemmy3337

  Big Gain;793122 wrote:Surely you aren't so foolish to suggest the NCAA allows $99 gifts. Even if true there MUST be a VERY VERY small limit. In the case of Ohio State a gift of $99, JUST from every alumni NOT every Ohio State fan would come to $25,000,000.
  
  DUMB

  
  Right they can not get 99 from 100,000 people but they can receive gifts from people if they choose to as long as it is under 100 bucks.
  
  A great example of what I am trying to say would be if you needed air in your tire. I could put it in it for you as I own an compressor, Now I paid X amount of dollars for it so there is overhead so I might charge you a little for the air but the air actually has no value as it can not be resold or traded just like tattoos. Also the comments about not having a job? really? we are talking about people giving away things to star athletes, clearly they are worried about making money on the tat. I just assumed the average guy would break even and only charge for the ink in order to say, hey I did so and so's tat to try and get more business.
• dwccrew

  

  bo shemmy3337;795629 wrote:Yea your a real ass. The artist is the one who decides how much to charge. There is no set rate and the only thing you actually receive is the ink it self. Either your not reading my posts or your just stuck at the fact that I am a Michigan fan which would make sense as your nothing but rude. Lets say I decide to buy all the stuff needed for tattoos and then charge you only for the ink as my art is worth nothing to me, just want to get good at it or whatever. The artist or person who is doing the tattoo is the one who comes up with the total price and that can be whatever they want it to be.

  
  Do you not get it? You don't get charged just for the ink, but the service as well. You don't just receive the ink, you receive professional service from a professional tattoo artist. The tattoo artist has a skill that they can charge a higher rate than you can because you have no skill (I am assuming) as a tattoo artist. That is like saying you could charge someone to do the same thing as an attorney, but the attorney can do it for free if they want. Wrong! Both (tattoo artists and attornies) have a skill and knowledge to provide an intangible service. These tattoo artists are not allowed to discriminate so severely when pricing out tattoos for players compared to common folk off the street. It is an improper benefit. What don't you get from that?
• bo shemmy3337

  dwccrew;795633 wrote:Do you not get it? You don't get charged just for the ink, but the service as well. You don't just receive the ink, you receive professional service from a professional tattoo artist. The tattoo artist has a skill that they can charge a higher rate than you can because you have no skill (I am assuming) as a tattoo artist. That is like saying you could charge someone to do the same thing as an attorney, but the attorney can do it for free if they want. Wrong! Both (tattoo artists and attornies) have a skill and knowledge to provide an intangible service. These tattoo artists are not allowed to discriminate so severely when pricing out tattoos for players compared to common folk off the street. It is an improper benefit. What don't you get from that?

  
  
  I get what your saying but there is many ways to get around this. A good example would be, I just got hail damage on my car. I need to pay to get it fixed now I can get prices from many places to see whom is cheaper. I will be getting the same thing at all of the shops but the amount will be different. Or I could use a friend who will do it for a case of beer. The amount of money people charge for labor and not materiel is completely up to them. I do get what your saying but only if they got the tat at the shop in front of other people. Had the artist done it at home than there could not be an issue.
  
  I also fix computers for people all the time, removing viruses and what not costs me nothing at all so how much I charge is completely up to me. If want to charge some people 50 dollars and friends nothing, that is completely up to me.
• bo shemmy3337

  "The tattoo artist has a skill that they can charge a higher rate"
  
  But no one says they have to charge a certain amount for that skill. They can charge whatever they want to for there skill and services.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  bo shemmy3337;795640 wrote:"The tattoo artist has a skill that they can charge a higher rate"
  
  But no one says they have to charge a certain amount for that skill. They can charge whatever they want to for there skill and services.

  
  Yeah, but if they treat a collegiate athlete preferably it is a clear violation. Sure, they can charge whatever they want, there isn't anything criminal involved, just the eligibility of the athlete.
• bo shemmy3337

  Manhattan Buckeye;795646 wrote:Yeah, but if they treat a collegiate athlete preferably it is a clear violation. Sure, they can charge whatever they want, there isn't anything criminal involved, just the eligibility of the athlete.

  
  And I would agree if what they were getting and leaving the store or whatever with was more than the 99 dollars aloud, than they would be breaking rules. But because the only physical item they are taking with them is the Ink, they should be OK. No difference here than getting a free haircut. If a free haircut makes then ineligible than you are 100% correct.
• dwccrew

  

  bo shemmy3337;795638 wrote:I get what your saying but there is many ways to get around this. A good example would be, I just got hail damage on my car. I need to pay to get it fixed now I can get prices from many places to see whom is cheaper. I will be getting the same thing at all of the shops but the amount will be different. Or I could use a friend who will do it for a case of beer. The amount of money people charge for labor and not materiel is completely up to them. I do get what your saying but only if they got the tat at the shop in front of other people. Had the artist done it at home than there could not be an issue.
  
  I also fix computers for people all the time, removing viruses and what not costs me nothing at all so how much I charge is completely up to me. If want to charge some people 50 dollars and friends nothing, that is completely up to me.

  Of course, but you are not a college athlete nor is your customer. If they are, then these are violations. You are getting confused between legality and NCAA violations. The artist can charge whatever they want, you are correct. But if they are charging non-athletes $100 per hour, they HAVE to charge athletes the same. They can not give preferential treatment, this is a clear violation.
  

  bo shemmy3337;795640 wrote:"The tattoo artist has a skill that they can charge a higher rate"
  
  But no one says they have to charge a certain amount for that skill. They can charge whatever they want to for there skill and services.

  
  Again, I know they can charge whatever they want, but they have to charge everyone relatively the same prices in the eyes of the NCAA. If they charge person A $100 for a tattoo. Person B $120 for the same tattoo and a college athlete $5 for the same tattoo, this is a violation because of the preferential pricing.
  

  Manhattan Buckeye;795646 wrote:Yeah, but if they treat a collegiate athlete preferably it is a clear violation. Sure, they can charge whatever they want, there isn't anything criminal involved, just the eligibility of the athlete.

  
  BINGO!!!!
• dwccrew

  

  bo shemmy3337;795649 wrote:And I would agree if what they were getting and leaving the store or whatever with was more than the 99 dollars aloud, than they would be breaking rules. But because the only physical item they are taking with them is the Ink, they should be OK. No difference here than getting a free haircut. If a free haircut makes then ineligible than you are 100% correct.

  
  Dear lord. Goods or SERVICES!!!!!!! How many times must you be told? They can not be given free services.
• bo shemmy3337

  dwccrew;795650 wrote:Of course, but you are not a college athlete nor is your customer. If they are, then these are violations. You are getting confused between legality and NCAA violations. The artist can charge whatever they want, you are correct. But if they are charging non-athletes $100 per hour, they HAVE to charge athletes the same. They can not give preferential treatment, this is a clear violation.
  
  
  Again, I know they can charge whatever they want, but they have to charge everyone relatively the same prices in the eyes of the NCAA. If they charge person A $100 for a tattoo. Person B $120 for the same tattoo and a college athlete $5 for the same tattoo, this is a violation because of the preferential pricing.
  
  
  
  BINGO!!!!

  
  I agree with everything you are saying but as long as what the person is actually getting in under the amount aloud by the NCAA in terms of money, I do not see how they could be in trouble. lll
• Ghmothwdwhso

  dwccrew;795633 wrote:Do you not get it? You don't get charged just for the ink, but the service as well. You don't just receive the ink, you receive professional service from a professional tattoo artist. The tattoo artist has a skill that they can charge a higher rate than you can because you have no skill (I am assuming) as a tattoo artist. That is like saying you could charge someone to do the same thing as an attorney, but the attorney can do it for free if they want. Wrong! Both (tattoo artists and attornies) have a skill and knowledge to provide an intangible service. These tattoo artists are not allowed to discriminate so severely when pricing out tattoos for players compared to common folk off the street. It is an improper benefit. What don't you get from that?

  
  Can't argue with dwccrew and his Av....
  
  The current players should be pissed at their fellow players for selling/trading awards that they fought and trained for. Did it mean that little to them? I think I know the answer. Former players Spielman/Hawk/Vrabel/Fickell/Krenzel etc. should be ultimately pissed at players that would do this.
  
  Practice field justice should be dealt to those that remain on the team.
• bo shemmy3337

  dwccrew;795651 wrote:Dear lord. Goods or SERVICES!!!!!!! How many times must you be told? They can not be given free services.

  
  No way is this 100% true. There is no way an athlete can get in trouble for free haircuts and other minor items IMO.
• bo shemmy3337

  The players got in trouble for the cash they received on top of the tats and what they sold to get the cash.
• dwccrew

  

  bo shemmy3337;795654 wrote:No way is this 100% true. There is no way an athlete can get in trouble for free haircuts and other minor items IMO.

  
  But they can for tattoos, which is what we've been discussing, no? You stated they were not in trouble for not getting charged for tattoo services, but for selling memorablia. They are in trouble for both since, as an athlete, you are not allowed to receive free services. I don't work for the NCAA so I don't know what they determine as a service that is exempt, but clearly tattoos are NOT allowed to be given for free or for trade of memorablia. I don't know about haircuts.
• dwccrew

  

  bo shemmy3337;795656 wrote:The players got in trouble for the cash they received on top of the tats and what they sold to get the cash.

  
  This along with trading memorabilia for tats.
• bo shemmy3337

  I am going to bed. lol I think the big issues had nothing to do with the tattoos and more the cash they got and what not.
• bo shemmy3337

  dwccrew;795659 wrote:This along with trading memorabilia for tats.

  
  Which I would agree is breaking NCAA rules as they are trading something in that has value so there for the artist is charging them something but if they were to go in, get a tat for just the cost price and leave without giving or receiving anything other than the INK I think they are OK.
• dwccrew

  

  bo shemmy3337;795662 wrote:Which I would agree is breaking NCAA rules as they are trading something in that has value so there for the artist is charging them something but if they were to go in, get a tat for just the cost price and leave without giving or receiving anything other than the INK I think they are OK.

  They weren't ok. It wasn't just memorablia. It was autographs and more. The players are not allowed to get preferential treatment. That is the key. The preferential treatment, which is what they were getting.
  
  If you don't get it at this point, you will never get it. But maybe all of us like MB, Big Gain and myself are wrong and you are right. Maybe as long as it is nothing physical, they can receive free services. SMH :rolleyes:
• Manhattan Buckeye

  bo shemmy3337;795649 wrote:And I would agree if what they were getting and leaving the store or whatever with was more than the 99 dollars aloud, than they would be breaking rules. But because the only physical item they are taking with them is the Ink, they should be OK. No difference here than getting a free haircut. If a free haircut makes then ineligible than you are 100% correct.

  
  It is. So yes.
• WebFire

  bo shemmy3337;795662 wrote:Which I would agree is breaking NCAA rules as they are trading something in that has value so there for the artist is charging them something but if they were to go in, get a tat for just the cost price and leave without giving or receiving anything other than the INK I think they are OK.

  
  Bo, you're wrong. Here is an real example from Michigan to help you understand.
  

  As someone who once helped a football player fix his car, Michigan compliance was so far up my ass there was a blue lot in my lower colon and I almost got my own blue bus stop. The player bought the tie rods and I did the labor since I knew how and had the tools. He paid me for my time in beer and pizza. Compliance jumped all over this and figured out the hourly rate for a mechanic was greater than the cost of the beer and pizza, thus he still owed me money. I attempted to lowball my time estimate for doing the job, they talked to a real mechanic and got the official time estimate for tie rod replacement. They were also unimpressed by the fact I helped all my friends fix their cars in exchange for beer and pizza. So they basically stood over him while he wrote me a check for what they demanded the difference was. They also made him pay my uncle who let us use the lift in his garage.
  
  I tossed the check aside and figured "I might cash this if he gets drafted, maybe". Someone though noticed the money never came out of his account and started calling me about cashing the damn check. This was old school Carr era though.
  
  The next time I worked on his car I sarcastically sent them an invoice (six page writeup for helping him replace two brake pads) "for their records", they crosschecked all my time estimates and sent me back an approval letter and a genuine thank you for the paper...

• bo shemmy3337

  dwccrew;795665 wrote:They weren't ok. It wasn't just memorablia. It was autographs and more. The players are not allowed to get preferential treatment. That is the key. The preferential treatment, which is what they were getting.
  
  If you don't get it at this point, you will never get it. But maybe all of us like MB, Big Gain and myself are wrong and you are right. Maybe as long as it is nothing physical, they can receive free services. SMH :rolleyes:

  
  
  I was just under the assumption that they could receive free services as long as the value of what they are actually receiving is less than 100 bucks. If it wrong to get say a haircut for free than I am wrong like one said before.
• bo shemmy3337

  WebFire;795764 wrote:Bo, you're wrong. Here is an real example from Michigan to help you understand.

  
  I understand it now but I don't think they worry to much about minor things like labor for a car.
• WebFire

  bo shemmy3337;795988 wrote:I understand it now but I don't think they worry to much about minor things like labor for a car.

  
  Not usually. And certainly not as a freestanding thing.