Clemson DB Sues NCAA

[DJCatfish]

Originally Posted by sandstorm2001

Apparently noting that many college athletes wouldn't be going to college at all if not for their athletic abilities is considered racist. That goes for both grades and financial situation. Is it also racist when people want scholly's to be a 4 year deal and one of the reasons they give is that without the scholarships a lot if these guys wouldn't be able to finish school?

I will give him credit though there's no reason for us to assume this Clemson player is one of those athletes. Honestly I couldn't even tell you for sure if the guy is black, but I would assume he is. Does that make me racist?

A quick google search reveals that this particular player who would be "bagging groceries" was on the ACC academic honor roll as a freshman. His dad played in the NFL before a 25-year career in finance, including two stints as Vice President of Investments for two Wall Street firms. He's the author of a freaking book called "Lee Jenkins on Money: Real Solutions to Financial Challenges."

So yeah, when someone says his honor-roll kid would be bagging groceries if it weren't for football, it comes across racist as hell.

[DJCatfish]

Originally Posted by bigdawg77

The problem with this lawsuit is its basic argument is there are no other options outside of NCAA or NFL for football when that is in fact not true. You might not like the other options but they exist and since they exist there is not colluision. Also this lawsuit is arguing that every college degree has the same value when in fact they do not a degree from Vanderbilt or Stanford is worth more then one from Alabama or FSU it's your personal choice as to what you value football training or life training.

That's like saying Charmin and Kleenex can collude to raise prices of toilet paper to $20 a roll, but it's not collusion since you can wipe with sandpaper.

[bigdawg77]

Originally Posted by DJCatfish

That's like saying Charmin and Kleenex can collude to raise prices of toilet paper to $20 a roll, but it's not collusion since you can wipe with sandpaper.

No it's more like saying they can raise their prices to $20 but I can still buy angel soft, qulited northern or store brand at regular price. I might prefer the 1st 2 but I have other legit options

[Lalli25]

Originally Posted by DJCatfish

Scholarships are not charity. I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion. A football scholarship is contingent on a person having a specific skill set and using that skill set for the benefit of the athletic program. It is not freely given, and has nothing to do with the financial need of the person receiving it.

I do find humor in the relax comment though. I guess when someone points out that your comments are uniformed and, in some cases, pretty overtly racist you think it's a contentious affair. Get some thicker skin -- it's just a message board, remember?

Football scholarships are the same as band scholarships. There is no difference in any scholarships and no school has to have them. The rules set by the NCAA are for anyone who wishes to participate in their league. Schools could pay athletes if they were to start another league. So no, this lawsuit has no merit.

Also your racist comment is a joke. These scholarships started when it was a bunch of dumb redneck white boys, so nothing racist about it. The problem for these athletes are idiots like you telling them their education isn't worth anything and they should just want to get paid. That mindset is what leads to so many being broke within 5 years of ending their career. How about we stop screwing these kids and help them to actually complete college with a legit major.

These athletes aren't the only college students unable to get professional jobs they want without working an internship and proving themselves for no pay.

[DJCatfish]

Originally Posted by bigdawg77

No it's more like saying they can raise their prices to $20 but I can still buy angel soft, qulited northern or store brand at regular price. I might prefer the 1st 2 but I have other legit options

I apologize heartily for not listing all the other toilet paper brands. The point is that collusion is collusion.

Aside from the fact that the definition of collusion has nothing to do with other parties that aren't involved in the collusion or what other options may be available, you have to see that your entire argument turns on what a "legit" option is.

Could the major oil companies raise gas prices to $20 a gallon since we have trains and bicycles? Heck, we've got electric cars now too! I guess Exxon is free to call up BP (and all the others, which I won't list exhaustively) since under your interpretation of the law there mere presence of a somewhat viable alternative means anti-trust law doesn't apply.

[bigdawg77]

I guess you can't see the fact that you don't HAVE to play college football if you don't feel it's in your best interest.

[DJCatfish]

Originally Posted by bigdawg77

I guess you can't see the fact that you don't HAVE to play college football if you don't feel it's in your best interest.

Again, the fact that you don't literally have to play is a total non-sequitur. You don't have to do much, but again, just because you don't literally have to drive doesn't mean gas companies aren't subject to anti-trust law. That position is nonsensical.

Likewise, I guess you don't see the fact that in the current market, it is indisputably in the best interest of a vast majority of players, and that every major player in the market to acquire players has openly agreed to a maximum amount of remuneration for playing, which CANNOT include cash payments.

Name one other multi-billion dollar business where that's true (and please don't say college football isn't a business).

What's really surprising is how many people on a college sports board are so opposed to this. What gives? If schools want to compete and give the players money, who cares? Why is it a big deal that coaches in the SEC make $3 million+, NCAA administrators make millions, etc, but the players just get a scholarship.

Heck, if the fair value of their services is a scholly and nothing more, this whole fight is a non-issue, because that's all they'll end up with anyways. The fact that there is so much opposition to this is an implicit admission that if schools couldn't collude not to pay, they would be paying.

[Lalli25]

Originally Posted by DJCatfish

Again, the fact that you don't literally have to play is a total non-sequitur. You don't have to do much, but again, just because you don't literally have to drive doesn't mean gas companies aren't subject to anti-trust law. That position is nonsensical.

Likewise, I guess you don't see the fact that in the current market, it is indisputably in the best interest of a vast majority of players, and that every major player in the market to acquire players has openly agreed to a maximum amount of remuneration for playing, which CANNOT include cash payments.

Name one other multi-billion dollar business where that's true (and please don't say college football isn't a business).

What's really surprising is how many people on a college sports board are so opposed to this. What gives? If schools want to compete and give the players money, who cares? Why is it a big deal that coaches in the SEC make $3 million+, NCAA administrators make millions, etc, but the players just get a scholarship.

Heck, if the fair value of their services is a scholly and nothing more, this whole fight is a non-issue, because that's all they'll end up with anyways. The fact that there is so much opposition to this is an implicit admission that if schools couldn't collude not to pay, they would be paying.

You do realize that 1 of 2 things will happen if they get rid of scholarships. The players will make less than they do now or they will just not give anything to players. There is no way to pay athletes as much as people like you think they deserve and sustain the system. You can't just pay football and basketball. It's entertaining to hear people say pay them but have no clue of how little money the schools really have in the athletic budgets at the end of the day.

[bigdawg77]

I can pretty much end this argument with two words Title IX. You want to see a shit storm screw with that law and women's group will make this guy's lawsuit look like a drop in the bucket.

[GarnetSwarm1990]

Athletes are getting a free education that can cost them upwards of 160,000+ bucks at some institutions (if they stay all 4 years, or 5 if they redshirt). I think that's pretty good compensation to get to play a game as your main objective. They only have to spend 12 hours a week in a classroom plus probly another 5-10 in study hall.

If actually getting an education was more important to these kids then they wouldn't be complaining. They play a team game, not an individual game where thousands of people come to watch. Then maybe I could talk about getting something.

The way I see it. Athletes should receive around 500 bucks (on a school monitored debit card) a month for what they do simply because their extra curricular activities do not allow them to get a job. That's the only reason. 500 bucks will give them some spending money and plenty of extra cash to spend off campus on whatever they need. Idc how much money their sport brings to the school every student athlete has to receive the same amount because it's only fair. It needs to be on a debit card of some kind to simply monitor what the kids are buying. Make it a mastercard from a local bank and do not allow transfer of funds or visits to atm's. (simply so you can feel safer that they aren't giving the kids money to buy drugs or the under age guys alcohol). If they can do that then I am all for it.

That's about 5,000 dollars a school year. That's plenty I feel.

But on the other hand a clempsun player trying to get free money....who is that really surprising? Google clemson paying players and I'm sure you'll find plenty of pictures lol.

[ccured]

Originally Posted by Sir Cuss

A partnership, for the most part, demands some type of profit sharing. That's not prevalent here. Screw "equal" partnership; there is NO partnership.

And clem5on sucks.

There is a partnership. Partnership just means a joint relationship. However there is profit sharing. The players are receiving a scholarship that is worth $30k to $60k a year. They are also getting a chance to greatly improve there future earnings. There is value to that as well

[ccured]

Originally Posted by DJCatfish

A quick google search reveals that this particular player who would be "bagging groceries" was on the ACC academic honor roll as a freshman. His dad played in the NFL before a 25-year career in finance, including two stints as Vice President of Investments for two Wall Street firms. He's the author of a freaking book called "Lee Jenkins on Money: Real Solutions to Financial Challenges."

So yeah, when someone says his honor-roll kid would be bagging groceries if it weren't for football, it comes across racist as hell.

Definitel do not think it was racist at all. And since you had to Google search and find out about the kid that pretty much proves it sure as hell wasn't overtly racist. Overtly means explicitly said like the monkey would be bagging my groceries. Which isn't even close. You made an assumption of race

[3MTA3]

The argument of "if you don't like it then leave the country" (CFL) is not a valid argument. Otherwise, the same thing could be said in prototypical employment lawsuits. You think an employer would be able to use that as an argument in court? HAH!

BTW- DJCatfish has been the most logical and rational poster in this thread.

[brat]

Sue the NFL for the right to play football out of HS, not the college which affords you the time and coaching to enhance your abilities further for a chance to be drafted.

Great for the kid who has done well for himself in school, but look at the Mary Willingham/ UNC mess.

She claims that something like 10% have the educational levels of 3rd graders or less with another 60% or so with 8th or 9th grade abilities, at best. Several are functionally illiterate, never read a book or written a paragraph. A very large amount of kids playing football shouldn't even be in college in the first place should just be ignored, I suppose. What's next? Sue High Schools and lower levels that they aren't better students. Sue parents because they didn't try or care enough to push their kids to do better in school?

This is another in an endless line of people playing the victim card. "It's someone else's fault my dreams of big money and fame isn't coming true."

How about stop offering tutoring and other help for these kids who play sports? Let them flunk out by the truck full. Yeah, I know, that too, would be the fault of the colleges or that, too, would be considered racist when many teams would begin to resemble what they looked like in the 1960's or earlier.

You're suppose to go to college to learn, not be paid as you go. Of course, the colleges could always take away any pretense of their trying to educate the athletes and let them major in sports and the hell with any other subject. Heck, why bother sending them to any class? No, wait, that won't work, because there will be others that are given free reign to work on their sport and do nothing else but aim for the pros and when they still don't get drafted or fail to make the squad, will sue because they didn't get an education to prepare them for life or prepare them for life after football.

Yep, it's always something.

[3MTA3]

Definitely are a lot of sour grapes in this thread. The OP specifically included it in the first post.

Oh, and regarding TitleIX- total nonissue. If needed, lawyers could definitely find a way "around" that. Don't underestimate the creativity of people when faced with a verdict in favor of the players.

People who throw up their hands and give up by saying "well... Title IX" are just being lazy.

[ccured]

How is the NFL rule and NBA rule not age discrimination? Is it because it's collectively bargained?

[DJCatfish]

Originally Posted by ccured

How is the NFL rule and NBA rule not age discrimination? Is it because it's collectively bargained?

In short, yes. If you want more detail, I think this summary of Maurice Clarett's lawsuit gives an overview: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.ed...=key_workplace

At least, that's the legal reasoning. That opinion has taken a lot of criticism over the years.

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by DJCatfish

Scholarships are not charity. I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion. A football scholarship is contingent on a person having a specific skill set and using that skill set for the benefit of the athletic program. It is not freely given, and has nothing to do with the financial need of the person receiving it.

I do find humor in the relax comment though. I guess when someone points out that your comments are uniformed and, in some cases, pretty overtly racist you think it's a contentious affair. Get some thicker skin -- it's just a message board, remember?

They don't give the scholarships out "for the benefit of the athletic department." They don't pay athletes to play. Scholarships are FINANCIAL AID to help promising young people pay for education so that the can develop skills and equip them with knowledge useful for like AFTER college. What you are saying is like saying the Pelle Grant I got after I made the honor roll was them paying me for services rendered. What about academic scholarships? How is that compensation? What about all these sports that don't even make money or at schools that don't make money in any sports which is most schools? How is that compensation? What are they are compensating them for? Losing money? Athletic scholarships encourage young people to become involved in sports and be fit and active and learn good things like how to be part of a team and to keep trying and to succeed with grace and lose with pride. Sports also gives kids somethings positive to do when they could be doing bad things instead. So to promote the positive impact sports plays on society, schools decide to reward some of these young people with educational opportunities. That's called charity. It has nothing to do with the fundraising schools do for themselves. If a rule was passed down banning athletic scholarships, they would carry on with all walk-ons who don't even get athletic scholarships. The profit is the result of having a strong fan base, not the the players. That is why a lot of schools don't even make money. Like it or not universities are charitable institutions, if they can make a good bit of money in the process, they will, and put that money to good use toward their mission of improving education and benefiting the community.

[Jethro Beaver]

ok lets use the "pay for play" system here as a "what if":

Harvard has unlimited money to spend ( pretend) they could pay each player $1mil
Clemson has smaller amount to spend (still pretending) they could pay $20,000

Which school would get the cream of the crop??
Not only would the lessor endowed schools get the bottom players, but they would have inferior programs and would cease to exist over time.
now throw in the fact that they would dump the money in to big money sports and the other sports would go away (Track and field, gymnastics ect.) causing many other student athletes to not be able to attend college and possible get an education.

If i'm 14 and play football on my Jr high school team which sales tickets and consesions and t-shirts and such, then shouldn't I get a cut of that? NO! But we will help prepare you for the next level so that oneday you may have the chance at a profesonal career.
Just my thoughts.

[Jethro Beaver]

Originally Posted by GarnetSwarm1990

Athletes are getting a free education that can cost them upwards of 160,000+ bucks at some institutions (if they stay all 4 years, or 5 if they redshirt). I think that's pretty good compensation to get to play a game as your main objective. They only have to spend 12 hours a week in a classroom plus probly another 5-10 in study hall.

If actually getting an education was more important to these kids then they wouldn't be complaining. They play a team game, not an individual game where thousands of people come to watch. Then maybe I could talk about getting something.

The way I see it. Athletes should receive around 500 bucks (on a school monitored debit card) a month for what they do simply because their extra curricular activities do not allow them to get a job. That's the only reason. 500 bucks will give them some spending money and plenty of extra cash to spend off campus on whatever they need. Idc how much money their sport brings to the school every student athlete has to receive the same amount because it's only fair. It needs to be on a debit card of some kind to simply monitor what the kids are buying. Make it a mastercard from a local bank and do not allow transfer of funds or visits to atm's. (simply so you can feel safer that they aren't giving the kids money to buy drugs or the under age guys alcohol). If they can do that then I am all for it.

That's about 5,000 dollars a school year. That's plenty I feel.

But on the other hand a clempsun player trying to get free money....who is that really surprising? Google clemson paying players and I'm sure you'll find plenty of pictures lol.