Jump to content
PSUSMC

LSUs punter is 29 years old

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, treep2000 said:

Let's use Kyle Snyder as the example. 

While enrolled at tOSU, he could not touch the award monies or sponsorships from his achievements.  

Let's assume Matt Snyder is just as awesome but in the field of business, and starts his own business.  He makes a few hundred thousand per year, but is enrolled in business school.  

Why can Kyle not touch the results of his achievements, yet Matt can?

Is Matt in direct competition with and against other schools, where the results of that competition have extremely high stakes that factor in to the next year, and the year after that, funding not just business but the entirety of the academic department, and so on, to the point that those other schools are doing everything they can to get the next Matt, because of the high level of benefit Matt’s success lends to his school.....or is the majority of the benefit of Matt unto himself?  
 

I get what you’re saying....but as mentioned above, your comparison is apples to oranges. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, boconnell said:

Because Matt doesn't have a scholarship saying he can't be in business school if he takes hundreds of thousands of dollars.  

I agree with you that it's an arbitrary rule.  But it's also arbitrary to compare apples and oranges.

Drop the scholarship, and it's apples to apples... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, treep2000 said:

Drop the scholarship, and it's apples to apples... 

I mean the scholarship is a pretty big piece of the comparison. But even if you drop the scholarship it’s still not apples to apples. There are college athletes who are not on scholarship (all of D3 for example) and the rules are the same for them. Plus a whole lot of factors. And those rules and factors have everything to do with competitive balance, which is a complete non factor in the comparison you’re making. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lurker said:

Is Matt in direct competition with and against other schools, where the results of that competition have extremely high stakes that factor in to the next year, and the year after that, funding not just business but the entirety of the academic department, and so on, to the point that those other schools are doing everything they can to get the next Matt, because of the high level of benefit Matt’s success lends to his school.....or is the majority of the benefit of Matt unto himself?  
 

I get what you’re saying....but as mentioned above, your comparison is apples to oranges. 

Not really.  Matt is in direct competition with students from other schools in the business world and also professional businesses run by college graduates and business men and women so talented that they did not need to attend college and who get the to enjoy the benefits of their success. Business schools are in direct competition with each other to get the best students.  Many business schools are named after a successful alumnus who gave $$$ to the school earned by a successful business.  I am sure many business schools count on donations from their alumni to fund their businesses.  The business school may have been so impressed with Matt’s business acumen that they offered him a full academic scholarship to attend their institution and Matt may have picked this offer from several similar offers from other business schools.

From the point of view of the two students it is much less different than your take which focuses on how schools interact and compete with each other.  Matt may be in school as much for business as Kyle is for wrestling.  

don’t understand the question “is the majority of the benefit of Matt unto himself? How is that relevant at all?  I agree the majority of the benefit derived from Matt’s effort goes to Matt. Why should it go anywhere else?  If the majority of the benefit of Kyle’s effort goes elsewhere then he is probably being exploited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lurker said:

I mean the scholarship is a pretty big piece of the comparison. But even if you drop the scholarship it’s still not apples to apples. There are college athletes who are not on scholarship (all of D3 for example) and the rules are the same for them. Plus a whole lot of factors. And those rules and factors have everything to do with competitive balance, which is a complete non factor in the comparison you’re making. 

Many non athletes receive academic scholarships to attend college both at the D1 and D3 levels.   They can earn money from work in their field of specialization whilst attending school.   There might be some implicit earning restriction on students receiving need based scholarships but that seems less apples to apple should to me than a full academic scholarship vs a full athletic scholarship.  If Joe Burrow or even Kyle Snyder were able to make money on their likeness then they would almost certainly be able to fully fund their tuition with the proceeds.

If the NCAA were interested in competitive balance they would restrict the salaries of coaches/administrators, spending on athletic facilities, and some kind of financial fair play where alumni and booster cannot donate unlimited $$$ to subsidize the athletic department.  They aren’t very interested in that and competitive balance is poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, PinFallRecruit said:

Amateurism rules apply to the sport you are participating. So they would not have been able to play baseball. 

Couldn't an argument be made that freestyle and folkstyle are two different sports?  If so, why did Snyder have to defer his prize money (I think that's what he did)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lurker said:

I mean the scholarship is a pretty big piece of the comparison. But even if you drop the scholarship it’s still not apples to apples. There are college athletes who are not on scholarship (all of D3 for example) and the rules are the same for them. Plus a whole lot of factors. And those rules and factors have everything to do with competitive balance, which is a complete non factor in the comparison you’re making. 

again, I ask... who is being hurt by these rules?  You're attempting tangential sidebars in order to defend these archaic rules.  

"competitive balance"?  Sounds pretty non-competitive if you must force it to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have the talent, and ability to play in the NFL as a starting quarterback for the Bengals... 

AND... I am enrolled in a university that has a football team...

AND... i wish to play BOTH in the NFL and for my college football team

AND... my professional contract doesn't prohibit it...

AND... my body can hold up against the punishment...

Then why couldn't I do both?  Who is being "hurt" or "harmed" by allowing me to play?  it should be my choice.  no one elses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PSUSMC said:

graduated HS in 2009 and still has a year of eligibility left. No mission, no military service. He (apparently) signed a baseball contract before ending that endeavor and walking on at LSU to play FB.

But greyshirts and deferred enrollment get posters here riled up...

It’s not the fact that some guys are 24 or 25 that gets me riled up, it’s the fact they’ve been training in a college room for 6 years. Most guys who get a 6th year from a medical redshirt were sidelined for 6 months max. It’s not good for the sport to have our limited scholarships stretched out even further...and in most cases I’d say it’s not the best thing for the wrestlers to be attached to their undergraduate institution for 6 years. Even if they would’ve gone to grad school regardless, what are the odds the grad school program at their undergraduate school is the right one for them? There’s something to be said for getting on with your life, whether that be transitioning to freestyle or doing whatever the next phase brings.

If someone went and played minor league baseball for 5-10 years after high school and then went to college and wanted to wrestle I’d have no problem with them being eligible. Playing a sport full time while not violating amateurism rules likely means working a full time job on the side...which is a tough way to spend your twenties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jackwebster said:

Couldn't an argument be made that freestyle and folkstyle are two different sports?  If so, why did Snyder have to defer his prize money (I think that's what he did)? 

Nope. While different rules, not different sports. The rules are different in the NBA and NFL than they are in college. Does that make them different sports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NCAA revolves around their athletes being amateurs, which by definition is not a profession. Once you get paid, it becomes a profession. So whether or not it hurts anyone else, they have would have to change that model.

The athletic department and the institution operate under different sets of rules, so comparing an athlete to a regular student isn't going to work. It's like comparing Folkstyle, and Greco to each other and saying they are the same. Sure they are wrestlers, but they are operating under different sets of rules and regulations. Compare Kyle to a tennis player who is allowed to make up to 10k (I think that is the number) a year beyond actual expenses. 

The NCAA isn't out to make everything fair. They try to establish a baseline of fairness. What I mean by this is that they may limit the number of coaches an institution can have but not how much they get paid or how good they are. They also try to keep the rules even across the board and only provide for exemptions and special circumstances when they are forced to. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, treep2000 said:

again, I ask... who is being hurt by these rules?  You're attempting tangential sidebars in order to defend these archaic rules.  

"competitive balance"?  Sounds pretty non-competitive if you must force it to occur.

I'm not defending anything, I'm very happy to see college athletes are going to be able to make some money soon.  I'm not sure where you are getting that because I didn't say anything close to defending rules on athletes receiving money.   I'm just saying because of the extremely competitive nature of athletics, and the stakes for each university that comes with it.......comparing a college athlete and a business student in this topic is not a "apples to apples" comparison as you say, and explain my POV as to why.  Sorry if I wasn't clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, PinFallRecruit said:

The NCAA revolves around their athletes being amateurs, which by definition is not a profession. Once you get paid, it becomes a profession. So whether or not it hurts anyone else, they have would have to change that model.

The athletic department and the institution operate under different sets of rules, so comparing an athlete to a regular student isn't going to work. It's like comparing Folkstyle, and Greco to each other and saying they are the same. Sure they are wrestlers, but they are operating under different sets of rules and regulations. Compare Kyle to a tennis player who is allowed to make up to 10k (I think that is the number) a year beyond actual expenses. 

The NCAA isn't out to make everything fair. They try to establish a baseline of fairness. What I mean by this is that they may limit the number of coaches an institution can have but not how much they get paid or how good they are. They also try to keep the rules even across the board and only provide for exemptions and special circumstances when they are forced to. 

 

 

I think you proved my point in that the NCAA, which is an effective monopoly, isn't out for fairness for the individual, but rather, for profits of those they deem the winners.  It's essentially a legal racket.  How cute...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, treep2000 said:

I think you proved my point in that the NCAA, which is an effective monopoly, isn't out for fairness for the individual, but rather, for profits of those they deem the winners.  It's essentially a legal racket.  How cute...

It's not a monopoly. There are other organizations that the institutions could join if they wanted. They could also break away and do their own thing with their own rules if they wanted. The NCAA isn't 100% geared towards the athletes, but not sure where "they deem the winners" comes from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PinFallRecruit said:

It's not a monopoly. There are other organizations that the institutions could join if they wanted. They could also break away and do their own thing with their own rules if they wanted. The NCAA isn't 100% geared towards the athletes, but not sure where "they deem the winners" comes from. 

I said "effective" monopoly.  Which alternative organization would Iowa, okie state, or Maryland (or any D1) join?  Realistically?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PinFallRecruit said:

It's not a monopoly. There are other organizations that the institutions could join if they wanted. They could also break away and do their own thing with their own rules if they wanted. The NCAA isn't 100% geared towards the athletes, but not sure where "they deem the winners" comes from. 

Independent filling stations did not need to buy their petrol from Standard Oil from ~1890-1911 there were other smaller more difficult to access sources they could have used.  Windows was not the only operating system in the late 1990s.  Netscape could have looked to package their Navigator web browser in those to better compete with Microsoft's Internet explorer.  Yet both Microsoft and Standard Oil were unsuccessful in defending antitrust cases.

1 hour ago, PinFallRecruit said:

If they wanted to allow their athletes to make all the money, they'd make their own. 

 

The NCAA has over 1000 member institutions.  The NCAA and power conferences have lucrative TV rights deals for many sports that would be difficult to replicate for a breakaway group.  It's unlikely that teams in power conferences would consider such a thing.  Why would they act against their own self interest?   The system as is works too well for the Alabamas, Penn States, Ohio States, and Oklahomas for them to break away so that they can make less money and their students/athletes/employees can make more.  The only realistic avenue is a breakaway group formed by smaller less successful schools, which would also have less chance of being successful long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fishbane said:

Independent filling stations did not need to buy their petrol from Standard Oil from ~1890-1911 there were other smaller more difficult to access sources they could have used.  Windows was not the only operating system in the late 1990s.  Netscape could have looked to package their Navigator web browser in those to better compete with Microsoft's Internet explorer.  Yet both Microsoft and Standard Oil were unsuccessful in defending antitrust cases.

 

The NCAA has over 1000 member institutions.  The NCAA and power conferences have lucrative TV rights deals for many sports that would be difficult to replicate for a breakaway group.  It's unlikely that teams in power conferences would consider such a thing.  Why would they act against their own self interest?   The system as is works too well for the Alabamas, Penn States, Ohio States, and Oklahomas for them to break away so that they can make less money and their students/athletes/employees can make more.  The only realistic avenue is a breakaway group formed by smaller less successful schools, which would also have less chance of being successful long term.

The NCAA has had their amateurism put to the test in the supreme court and won.

I agree that it would be extremely difficult to break away. That doesn't mean if they don't like the rules they agree to play under, they can't work to change the rules. It's not in the institution's self interest to pay athletes either. That's more money they have to come up with for athletic departments that are already costing them money (outside of a few). It's going to cause athletic departments to get smaller as they have to pay their FB/BB athletes, as well as keep it even for Title IX purposes.

FYI - I'm all for Kyle Snyder being able to keep money earned from World /Olympic Championship competition that is provided by the national governing body (USA Wrestling) and the World governing body (UWW). I'd even say select pre-approved tournaments as well, think Masters for golf or Wimbledon for tennis. The next argument would be then, how do athletes in sports (FB) that don't have a World Championship make their money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 11:18 AM, PSUSMC said:

graduated HS in 2009 and still has a year of eligibility left. No mission, no military service. He (apparently) signed a baseball contract before ending that endeavor and walking on at LSU to play FB.

But greyshirts and deferred enrollment get posters here riled up...

what this kid did and a grey shirt and working out at the RTC are very different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, PinFallRecruit said:

The NCAA has had their amateurism put to the test in the supreme court and won.

I agree that it would be extremely difficult to break away. That doesn't mean if they don't like the rules they agree to play under, they can't work to change the rules. It's not in the institution's self interest to pay athletes either. That's more money they have to come up with for athletic departments that are already costing them money (outside of a few). It's going to cause athletic departments to get smaller as they have to pay their FB/BB athletes, as well as keep it even for Title IX purposes.

FYI - I'm all for Kyle Snyder being able to keep money earned from World /Olympic Championship competition that is provided by the national governing body (USA Wrestling) and the World governing body (UWW). I'd even say select pre-approved tournaments as well, think Masters for golf or Wimbledon for tennis. The next argument would be then, how do athletes in sports (FB) that don't have a World Championship make their money?

Not really.  The US Supreme court declined to hear the O'Bannon case.  The NCAA lost that case at both the district and appellate courts where the NCAA's form of amateurism at the time was found to violate antitrust law.  Sure what came out was closer to what the NCAA wanted than what O'Bannon and his attorneys had in mind and it was O'Bannon's side appealing to the supreme court, but supreme court did not weigh in.  Is there another case you had in mind?  

The NCAA will eventually have to figure out how to maintain competitive balance without amateurism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Fishbane said:

Not really.  The US Supreme court declined to hear the O'Bannon case.  The NCAA lost that case at both the district and appellate courts where the NCAA's form of amateurism at the time was found to violate antitrust law.  Sure what came out was closer to what the NCAA wanted than what O'Bannon and his attorneys had in mind and it was O'Bannon's side appealing to the supreme court, but supreme court did not weigh in.  Is there another case you had in mind?  

The NCAA will eventually have to figure out how to maintain competitive balance without amateurism.

Back in 84' the Supreme Court heard a case and said the amateurism is valid. The O'Bannon case was about the NCAA using their name, image, likeness, etc. without compensation. As you say, it was ruled that they have broken antitrust law, but it has also been deemed necessary at this point due to the nature of college athletics. Of course there are more lawsuits moving through and that could change really quickly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, PinFallRecruit said:

Back in 84' the Supreme Court heard a case and said the amateurism is valid. The O'Bannon case was about the NCAA using their name, image, likeness, etc. without compensation. As you say, it was ruled that they have broken antitrust law, but it has also been deemed necessary at this point due to the nature of college athletics. Of course there are more lawsuits moving through and that could change really quickly. 

The NCAA lost that 1984 case and it had to deal with selling TV rights.  The NCAA used to sell the TV rights to football games and each team could only have a max of 4 televised games/year.  Some schools got together and sold rights to other games and the NCAA didn't like it. They were going to kick the schools out of the NCAA for all sports and they sued to stop it.  The NCAA lost as the Supreme Court rule that the NCAA rules on TV rights was in violation of antitrust law in that it was an unreasonable restraint on trade.  It opened the door for teams and conferences to sell the TV rights themselves and is why we have BTN, SEC network, and such today.

Somewhere in the 1984 Board of Regents decision the court wrote "To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid" which wasn't really necessary for what was in dispute at the time.  The NCAA tried to use that statement in their argument in the O'Bannon case, but  it's not like Ohio State sued the NCAA because they wanted to pay their athletes and the NCAA wouldn't let them and the Supreme Court said its all good that restriction is a reasonable one no antitrust issue.  It's not like an athlete sued the NCAA for colluding to prevent him from getting paid to play and the Supreme court ruled it was all good.  It doesn't have the same precedent as either of those situations would.  And then a lot has changed since 1984.  The NCAA revenue from March Madness was only about $90 million now it is over $900 million.  The top college basketball coaches in the game were getting maybe $500k/year.  Now Coach K makes $9 million.  In 1984 the NBA revenue was only $165 million which inflation adjusted is well under half of what the NCAA will take in for just the march madness tournament this year.  Amateurism has a place in sport,  but if you have hundreds of people making making over $1 million annually off selling the games it probably isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 2:12 PM, treep2000 said:

Let's use Kyle Snyder as the example. 

While enrolled at tOSU, he could not touch the award monies or sponsorships from his achievements.  

Let's assume Matt Snyder is just as awesome but in the field of business, and starts his own business.  He makes a few hundred thousand per year, but is enrolled in business school.  

Why can Kyle not touch the results of his achievements, yet Matt can?

 

What if Matt's talent is not in business, but in music?  What if he starts a band, goes on tour, and rakes in mucho $$ that way?

You could apply the same comparison to a lot of different crafts, but it really just comes down to the fact that certain areas of athletics still have this notion that participants must be "amateur" and should not profit financially from their activities in their respective sport.  Sad, but the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fishbane said:

The NCAA lost that 1984 case and it had to deal with selling TV rights.  The NCAA used to sell the TV rights to football games and each team could only have a max of 4 televised games/year.  Some schools got together and sold rights to other games and the NCAA didn't like it. They were going to kick the schools out of the NCAA for all sports and they sued to stop it.  The NCAA lost as the Supreme Court rule that the NCAA rules on TV rights was in violation of antitrust law in that it was an unreasonable restraint on trade.  It opened the door for teams and conferences to sell the TV rights themselves and is why we have BTN, SEC network, and such today.

Somewhere in the 1984 Board of Regents decision the court wrote "To preserve the character and quality of the ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid" which wasn't really necessary for what was in dispute at the time.  The NCAA tried to use that statement in their argument in the O'Bannon case, but  it's not like Ohio State sued the NCAA because they wanted to pay their athletes and the NCAA wouldn't let them and the Supreme Court said its all good that restriction is a reasonable one no antitrust issue.  It's not like an athlete sued the NCAA for colluding to prevent him from getting paid to play and the Supreme court ruled it was all good.  It doesn't have the same precedent as either of those situations would.  And then a lot has changed since 1984.  The NCAA revenue from March Madness was only about $90 million now it is over $900 million.  The top college basketball coaches in the game were getting maybe $500k/year.  Now Coach K makes $9 million.  In 1984 the NBA revenue was only $165 million which inflation adjusted is well under half of what the NCAA will take in for just the march madness tournament this year.  Amateurism has a place in sport,  but if you have hundreds of people making making over $1 million annually off selling the games it probably isn't there.

I do appreciate the overview though. It is much more in depth than I had before. 

While the statement the court wrote may not have been necessary, why write it and include it in their opinion? Why wouldn't it apply? I get that the case wasn't directed to pay athletes like the cases are but it still has to have some bearing. What other way could they be talking about for paying athletes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...