Culliver Getting Money from UNC?

[qcgamecock]

Originally Posted by robgusc76

You've typed this out, hopefully realizing that the only person this would hurt, had it been found out while he was at South Carolina is Culliver, correct?

So you do not think there is anyway this could hurt our school? I certainly hope it does not but if you think it couldn't I will have to disagree.

[nicstockman]

I find it ironic that ReadR00ster has brought more attention to this thread than the original OP did.

[Travelin]

Originally Posted by Acockolypse Now

The real problem is obviously the agents. There is no way in hell coaches can police every guy on the team 24/7. If Cully took money I'm sure he's not the only one, and I'm convinced after reading the story about the agent and Terrell Pryor from Ohio State, that is happens EVERYWHERE.

States need to start putting real teeth to the agent laws, that's the only way to stop this.

Paying the players money legally would be a start along with stricter anti-agent laws. Much like what SOS has proposed in the past, but more than $300 a game if you are a starter or put up a lot of stats. The NCAA and University's have exploited our student athletes long enough. Guys like Lattimore, Clowney, Shaw and Ace should be making real money based on their performances in TV games, especially those on national television. It's a no brainer. Give them the opportunity to make big bucks in college on the gridiron and a lot of this agent shit will get curbed. Until then, more of these stories will surface and more innocent people, players and institutions will get hurt.

With the kind of money the networks are paying for these games, it's completely asinine that the players don't get a fair cut. A scholly just doesn't cut it when there's that much money being made off their ability to play the sport that's making it worth watching in the first place.

[I Bleed Garnet]

Originally Posted by Travelin

Paying the players money legally would be a start along with stricter anti-agent laws. Much like what SOS has proposed in the past, but more than $300 a game if you are a starter or put up a lot of stats. The NCAA and University's have exploited our student athletes long enough. Guys like Lattimore, Clowney, Shaw and Ace should be making real money based on their performances in TV games, especially those on national television. It's a no brainer. Give them the opportunity to make big bucks in college on the gridiron and a lot of this agent shit will get curbed. Until then, more of these stories will surface and more innocent people, players and institutions will get hurt.

With the kind of money the networks are paying for these games, it's completely asinine that the players don't get a fair cut. A scholly just doesn't cut it when there's that much money being made off their ability to play the sport that's making it worth watching in the first place.

I disagree.
That won't change anything.
Agents/boosters will still step in and recruiting would become a bidding war

[Travelin]

Originally Posted by I Bleed Garnet

I disagree.
That won't change anything.
Agents/boosters will still step in and recruiting would become a bidding war

Recruiting already is to a degree. Do you disagree that the players are being exploited for their talents by their own Universities and the NCAA? The way it stands now, makes it a lot easier for agents to prey on players.

It wouldn't change anything? I find that hard to believe.

[I Bleed Garnet]

Originally Posted by Travelin

Recruiting already is to a degree. Do you disagree that the players are being exploited for their talents by their own Universities and the NCAA? The way it stands now, makes it a lot easier for agents to prey on players.

It wouldn't change anything? I find that hard to believe.

I disagree.

There will still be ways boosters or agents will bend the rules.
Oh so now every football player gets say $1,000?
Well Phil Knight will step in and say, "hey I can put you in a Nike commercial if you come to Oregon and you can get even more money"

Also if you're going to say they've "exploited" all student athletes, that's wrong. If anything it's just the football and basketball players, and that won't go well with Title IX

[Travelin]

Originally Posted by I Bleed Garnet

I disagree.

There will still be ways boosters or agents will bend the rules.
Oh so now every football player gets say $1,000?
Well Phil Knight will step in and say, "hey I can put you in a Nike commercial if you come to Oregon and you can get even more money"

Also if you're going to say they've "exploited" all student athletes, that's wrong. If anything it's just the football and basketball players, and that won't go well with Title IX

I wasn't talking about female volleyball players and you know that.

I'm talking about more than a $1000. Big incentives for big plays. Fair incentives for playing time. There is nothing fair about the system as it stands now. As it stands now, a player can't get a burger bought for him without getting in trouble with the NCAA.

[I Bleed Garnet]

Originally Posted by Travelin

I wasn't talking about female volleyball players and you know that.

I'm talking about more than a $1000. Big incentives for big plays. Fair incentives for playing time. There is nothing fair about the system as it stands now. As it stands now, a player can't get a burger bought for him without getting in trouble with the NCAA.

I agree with that. Regarding the burger part.

But I just don't believe making incentives will curb any boosters or agents from stepping in.

[Travelin]

Originally Posted by I Bleed Garnet

I agree with that. Regarding the burger part.

But I just don't believe making incentives will curb any boosters or agents from stepping in.

They would have to pony up a lot more cash. That could make it harder to get away with and more serious if they get caught.

[I Bleed Garnet]

Originally Posted by Travelin

They would have to pony up a lot more cash. That could make it harder to get away with and more serious if they get caught.

I don't believe the amount of cash would make it tougher to get away with.
Cheating in college football has been going on for years.
Boosters/Agents have learned from mistakes and will still exchange large sums of money without the NCAA or Football programs knowing.

[MikeTrainNC8]

Originally Posted by nicstockman

I find it ironic that ReadR00ster has brought more attention to this thread than the original OP did.

This... Very Tater like

[Travelin]

Originally Posted by I Bleed Garnet

I don't believe the amount of cash would make it tougher to get away with.
Cheating in college football has been going on for years.
Boosters/Agents have learned from mistakes and will still exchange large sums of money without the NCAA or Football programs knowing.

Even more reason to give the players their due, legally.

[I Bleed Garnet]

Originally Posted by Travelin

Even more reason to give the players their due, legally.

OK?

It still won't change Boosters/Agents coming in and adding more to that that are against the rules.

[Flameout12]

Originally Posted by I Bleed Garnet

I don't believe the amount of cash would make it tougher to get away with.
Cheating in college football has been going on for years.
Boosters/Agents have learned from mistakes and will still exchange large sums of money without the NCAA or Football programs knowing.

But if a player has been given some spending $$, it should make them less vulnerable to booster/agent handouts. As it now stands, some could be quite vulnerable to a stack of bills. I think the NCAA needs to get smarter about this, get off their high horse, and find a work around for all of this. Conditions change and they need to be flexible when it's needed.

If the NCAA is not willing to build some kind of firewall against the bad guys trying to corrupt things, then what good are they?

[I Bleed Garnet]

Originally Posted by Flameout12

But if a player has been given some spending $$, it should make them less vulnerable to booster/agent handouts. As it now stands, some could be quite vulnerable to a stack of bills. I think the NCAA needs to get smarter about this, get off their high horse, and find a work around for all of this. Conditions change and they need to be flexible when it's needed.

If the NCAA is not willing to build some kind of firewall against the bad guys trying to corrupt things, then what good are they?

Don't take this word for word but they already get spending money.

http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/foot...in-ncaa-rules/

[Travelin]

Originally Posted by I Bleed Garnet

OK?

It still won't change Boosters/Agents coming in and adding more to that that are against the rules.

Is that your point?

No. Nothing will ever change that, but we can do things to deter them and make it more difficult for them to get away with it. Right now, it sounds like a good business option for anyone with the money.

[I Bleed Garnet]

Originally Posted by Travelin

Is that your point?

No. Nothing will ever change that, but we can do things to deter them and make it more difficult for them to get away with it. Right now, it sounds like a good business option for anyone with the money.

Yes because you said it would.

I still believe it won't.
People are giving athletes a little too much credit. Even with legal money being given to them I still believe they'd take more if offered.

[Flameout12]

Originally Posted by I Bleed Garnet

Don't take this word for word but they already get spending money.

http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/foot...in-ncaa-rules/

Thanks for the link. Yea, if they take advantage of those items, they should have pocket money. Lots of people wish they had ~$17K to blow. Just seems some of this can be considered violations if not handled properly.

[LegalCock]

diminishing marginal utility of a dollar; just saying.

[Travelin]

Originally Posted by I Bleed Garnet

Yes because you said it would.

I still believe it won't.
People are giving athletes a little too much credit. Even with legal money being given to them I still believe they'd take more if offered.

No, I didn't. I said it would be a start and a deterrent.


A thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from some act.

That should make it easier for you to understand.