Johnny Manziel = Tebow 2.0, with issues

Scottemojo · Aug 7, 2013

joeseahawks":10ffa5d2 said:
A lot of people keep defending the Rules. But the rules are written to take advantage of "Cheap" and "Free" labor.
When these rules are written, who is sitting on the other side of the table to make sure the interests of the kids are taken into consideration? NOBODY.
On one side of the table is the NCAA (Colleges looking to make $$$, Coaches who look to make $$$) and on the other side the TV Networks (ESPN, Fox, ... ).
How can anyone imagine that the interests of the players are ever even considered? Their only argument is "But we are giving you scholarship" ... seriously? Does Johny M. need a scholarship? His parents can afford to pay for his whole school years. Do players who can afford to pay their way out of college get exempt from these rule?
Joe

Stop being thick. ALL of us are subject to unfair rules we have to put up with. Taxes can be unfair as hell, try not paying them and see what happens.
Johnny wanted a scholarship. He wanted the opportunity to play college ball. He signed up and in doing so took on the rules, unfair or no. And that scholarship came with exposure to the NFL, so pretending an internship in college ball is cheap labor is bullshit.

DTexHawk · Aug 7, 2013

Just an opinion, but I think he's done which is a sad thing.

JM misses out on a season, he drops in the draft, A&M fans miss a season of an outstanding college player to cheer for, college football misses an outstanding player, SEC loses an asset and marketing opportunity, and the NCAA goes on without missing a beat.

Smelly McUgly · Aug 7, 2013

No, an internship in college ball IS cheap labor, and that's no BS.

These schools and the NCAA make billions off of these students and what do students get? A bunch of BS restrictions on who they can sell their own damn autograph to and a worthless-ass college degree, as most of them are now that we have artificially inflated the value of college degrees to such a ridiculous point that just going out and becoming a welder can make you more money than a large amount of college degrees can.

I mean, I enjoy college football, but let's be honest: These guys, for the eyeballs they pull in, should be making millions already (or at least hundreds of thousands) in a nationally-televised NFL D-League for players between 18 and 22.

This NCAA rule is stupid, but what NCAA rule isn't? It's a sham of an organization. Still, I do have to agree that if the sham of an organization is your only shot at making real Eff You money, you have to know all the stupid, moronic rules that they have since they have you by the balls.

joeseahawks · Aug 7, 2013

What's funny is that people say ... "But, they get an education" ... how many of them graduate? Does "getting an education without graduating" count? How many get degrees, that allows them to get a J.O.B. ?
Many leave school after 2, 3 years. Without a degree.
Those who graduate do so in "African American History " or something like that. NO. I'm not trying to downplay "African American History", I'm AA myself and understand the value of history.
Many are even asked to take classes, that will "keep the eligible without having to work hard" (there are plenty of examples at UNC like Julius Peppers).
Colleges get tax payer money to educate Students, regardless ... I do pay taxes, so that students in my state, country get educated. In other countries in the world, Kids get an education without having be NFL Athletes.
I think the NCAA, the TV Networks, the millionaire coaches and the Colleges need to sit down and think through again how they run college athletics. This is a travesty. And someone needs to say it.
Joe

12th_Bob · Aug 7, 2013

Dude has some legit talent, but this is becoming a ridiculous media circus. Every day some other Manziel story is floating around, and it's a shame what fame has done to this guy. He has made some dumb mistakes himself, I'm just sick of hearing about this him right now though.

CPHawk · Aug 7, 2013

Smelly McUgly":3543k1uq said:
No, an internship in college ball IS cheap labor, and that's no BS.

These schools and the NCAA make billions off of these students and what do students get? A bunch of BS restrictions on who they can sell their own damn autograph to and a worthless-ass college degree, as most of them are now that we have artificially inflated the value of college degrees to such a ridiculous point that just going out and becoming a welder can make you more money than a large amount of college degrees can.

I mean, I enjoy college football, but let's be honest: These guys, for the eyeballs they pull in, should be making millions already (or at least hundreds of thousands) in a nationally-televised NFL D-League for players between 18 and 22.

This NCAA rule is stupid, but what NCAA rule isn't? It's a sham of an organization. Still, I do have to agree that if the sham of an organization is your only shot at making real Eff You money, you have to know all the stupid, moronic rules that they have since they have you by the balls.

I don't think anyone with a brain (or who gets nothing monetarily out of them playing) is disputing the fact the kids should get paid something more than they get. But that said, you have to figure if they get paid now you have to pay woman's sports, who are a drain on money, and men's sports who break even or are a drain like baseball and rowing. In fact outside of Football and basketball, pretty much every sport uses more money than they make. Is it fair? No, but when you sign on the dotted line you know this is the way it will be.

When I was 18 I signed up to go and get shot at and get a chance to fight for my country, I got paid crap for a job that ensures our country's protection. Maybe instead of worrying about our entertainers, we should pay those who keep the US free.

Smelly McUgly · Aug 7, 2013

CPHawk: Though I do thank you for your service to our country, your last few lines were a non-sequitur. We are talking about football players, not the military. If you want to start a thread about how we need to fund our VA services at triple the amount that we do now and how we need to improve in mental health outreach and treatment for our vets, we can talk about that in the appropriate place (and I will be more than happy to bang the drum for your cause).

Back to my original point: In a perfect world, the NFL would have their own D-League where we could divorce big-money athletics from the university system. Again, I love my Sun Devils, but the drain that the football team places on the university in some ways does not seem worth it. When you have coaches bullying TAs into giving their players passing grades for doing no work and college coaches making millions on the dimes of state universities, something wrong has happened. It's not that the coaches don't deserve it based on the highly-pressurized work that they are doing in a business that generates billions of dollars; it's that business is in many ways overtaking the original business of a university.

Of course, the NFL has a farm league for free on the NCAA's behalf, so they won't move to do anything about this situation.

Anyway, I hope Manziel isn't punished too badly. If it all comes to the worst, he should just see what a CFL team will give him to play a year for them. No, I wasn't being serious with that last part (though if I were a star basketball player, I would see about bypassing college and going to play in Europe for a year ala Brandon Jennings).

joeseahawks · Aug 7, 2013

If every College Sport loses money, how much money does my Chemistry department lose? How much money does my Computer Science department lose? How about the Medical Faculty?

Seriously, aren't schools there to Educate the students?
Why are they compared to publicly traded businesses Quarterly reports?
Basically the K-10 Form of the Security and Exchange Commission, that publicly traded companies are required to issue, where only profits and losses are what matters?

Joe

Dawgs0 · Aug 7, 2013

CPHawk":3llfh8yw said:
I don't think anyone with a brain (or who gets nothing monetarily out of them playing) is disputing the fact the kids should get paid something more than they get. But that said, you have to figure if they get paid now you have to pay woman's sports, who are a drain on money, and men's sports who break even or are a drain like baseball and rowing. In fact outside of Football and basketball, pretty much every sport uses more money than they make. Is it fair? No, but when you sign on the dotted line you know this is the way it will be.

When I was 18 I signed up to go and get shot at and get a chance to fight for my country, I got paid crap for a job that ensures our country's protection. Maybe instead of worrying about our entertainers, we should pay those who keep the US free.

I don't think the NCAA should have to pay those players. Like you said, then they would have to pay women's sports and other sports that don't make money. IMO, there are much easier and better answers.

I just think there should be a free market, where individual players can make money off their talent outside of the NCAA. A guy like Manziel should be able to sell autographs and other things to make money. The ability to sell autographs and other things should have nothing to do with the NCAA.

There should be a free market, where boosters can pay players and allow the players to make as much money as possible. What's wrong with that? Let the players have bidding for their services in recruiting if possible. If the NCAA weren't a fraud, they wouldn't have a problem with it.

Since the NCAA is a big money business, the players should have the right to profit from their talent in a free market system. That's the best way to deal with it. The NCAA isn't a "non profit" like they want you to believe.

The NCAA wouldn't have to pay players and players would make as much money as their talent would dictate. A scholarship system sucks, because a third string guy is getting the same deal as the Heisman winner. That is unfair.

The best answer is an NFL like system where better players make money. The better players would get paid more. What's wrong with that?

BTW, your last line is laughable. I have as much respect as possible for the military, but acting like athletes and soldiers are the same is delusional. Athletes are entertainers. Just like singers, actors, etc. That's why they need to get paid. People want to watch them perform.

People are willing to PAY to watch them perform. Who pays to watch the military perform? When people start paying to watch the military perform, then we can start comparing them to entertainers. Since the athletes are the ones performing, then they need to get paid like any other entertainer.

seahawk2k · Aug 7, 2013

The only equitable solution for all athletes that play college sports is to make the system for efficient. Despite its warts and everyone pounding the drum of the NCAA's greed, the rules are in place to ensure fairness on all levels across all schools.

The NCAA rules were set way before college football exploded. The rules are tight because people have abused the rules, setting the competitive balance off kilter. The goal of the NCAA is to see that every athlete is treated the same, regardless of their sport and status, whether you deem this to be fair, that's up to you. It is not the NCAA's fault that there hasn't been a sufficient semi pro league created in this country. If it is, its because the NCAA is so successful. So, in theory, you are penalizing the NCAA for being successful, fair?

Everyone rips on the BCS because its "corrupt" and is rigged to help the big schools, in theory, because the big schools make the most money and therefore have the most pull in decisions. People bitch about the lack of competitive balance because of the power that the big schools have, that the smaller schools are being forced to leverage themselves beyond their means or die in the arms race to keep up.

Yet these same people complain about players not getting paid? That these players need to be paid their fair market value and yada yada yada. With what? Whose got the money for that? Only the big schools.
So lets say that the revenue sports are allowed to play players. So, now, our entitled society gets what they want, the NCAA is abolished and in essence the NCAA turns into the minor leagues. The competitive balance is now non existant as schools like Alabama ink deals with an NFL team as feeder program. Sure, they can afford it but what about smaller schools that can't afford to pay for good talent? If they want to win, they have to pull funding for non revenue programs and kids that are on scholarships lose the scholarships. The importance of college football, which has that unheard of unique relevance unheard of in any other college sport is relegated to that of the NBA D-League. The charm of college football is gone because the players don't give a damn anymore, they got paid already, but, yeah, we don't care, its fair right? Market value and all that, we ignore what happened when the NBA was paying kids right out of high school and keep beating that "fairness" drum of "market value".

We rationalize it still, despite the fact that college football sucks right now, all the money your school(which isn't in the top tier) used to get based on tv deals(which had to be rewritten after conferences disbanded) is gone and they drop down to 1-AA because the scholarship system is still active down there, the talent pool sucks and it sure seems a waste but what the hell, we had to give money to immature teenagers rather than try and give them a college education.

By the way, I've yet to see anyone, Jay Bilas included, go into depth on how they would pay players. How would the system work? Provide some detail. Or are we just complaining to complain and don't have a tangible solution other than "pay the players". Give me some actual depth.

Dawgs0 · Aug 7, 2013

seahawk2k":3dtx4jiy said:
The only equitable solution for all athletes that play college sports is to make the system for efficient. Despite its warts and everyone pounding the drum of the NCAA's greed, the rules are in place to ensure fairness on all levels across all schools.

The NCAA rules were set way before college football exploded. The rules are tight because people have abused the rules, setting the competitive balance off kilter. The goal of the NCAA is to see that every athlete is treated the same, regardless of their sport and status, whether you deem this to be fair, that's up to you. It is not the NCAA's fault that there hasn't been a sufficient semi pro league created in this country. If it is, its because the NCAA is so successful. So, in theory, you are penalizing the NCAA for being successful, fair?

Everyone rips on the BCS because its "corrupt" and is rigged to help the big schools, in theory, because the big schools make the most money and therefore have the most pull in decisions. People bitch about the lack of competitive balance because of the power that the big schools have, that the smaller schools are being forced to leverage themselves beyond their means or die in the arms race to keep up.

Yet these same people complain about players not getting paid? That these players need to be paid their fair market value and yada yada yada. With what? Whose got the money for that? Only the big schools.
So lets say that the revenue sports are allowed to play players. So, now, our entitled society gets what they want, the NCAA is abolished and in essence the NCAA turns into the minor leagues. The competitive balance is now non existant as schools like Alabama ink deals with an NFL team as feeder program. Sure, they can afford it but what about smaller schools that can't afford to pay for good talent? If they want to win, they have to pull funding for non revenue programs and kids that are on scholarships lose the scholarships. The importance of college football, which has that unheard of unique relevance unheard of in any other college sport is relegated to that of the NBA D-League. The charm of college football is gone because the players don't give a damn anymore, they got paid already, but, yeah, we don't care, its fair right? Market value and all that, we ignore what happened when the NBA was paying kids right out of high school and keep beating that "fairness" drum of "market value".

We rationalize it still, despite the fact that college football sucks right now, all the money your school(which isn't in the top tier) used to get based on tv deals(which had to be rewritten after conferences disbanded) is gone and they drop down to 1-AA because the scholarship system is still active down there, the talent pool sucks and it sure seems a waste but what the hell, we had to give money to immature teenagers rather than try and give them a college education.

By the way, I've yet to see anyone, Jay Bilas included, go into depth on how they would pay players. How would the system work? Provide some detail. Or are we just complaining to complain and don't have a tangible solution other than "pay the players". Give me some actual depth.

Read my previous post. I've answered how I would pay players. The NCAA would not be involved.

I'll post it again. Here you go:

"I don't think the NCAA should have to pay those players. IMO, there are much easier and better answers.

I just think there should be a free market, where individual players can make money off their talent outside of the NCAA. A guy like Manziel should be able to sell autographs and other things to make money. The ability to sell autographs and other things should have nothing to do with the NCAA.

There should be a free market, where boosters can pay players and allow the players to make as much money as possible. What's wrong with that? Let the players have bidding for their services in recruiting if possible. If the NCAA weren't a fraud, they wouldn't have a problem with it.

Since the NCAA is a big money business, the players should have the right to profit from their talent in a free market system. That's the best way to deal with it. The NCAA isn't a "non profit" like they want you to believe.

The NCAA wouldn't have to pay players and players would make as much money as their talent would dictate. A scholarship system sucks, because a third string guy is getting the same deal as the Heisman winner. That is unfair.

The best answer is an NFL like system where better players make money. The better players would get paid more. What's wrong with that?"

seahawk2k · Aug 7, 2013

That system skews the competitive balance. If you don't have boosters with deep pockets you can't afford the good talent. This isn't the NFL, its college football. There isn't a salary cap, and there would be no cap on spending. All of sports that involve salaries to players have the money somewhat regulated to ensure that the playing field is remotely level.

I agree that players should be able to profit from their own autographs and things of that ilk, but I think that still would have to be regulated. The more you deregulate and the more you pay, the more you turn college into the NFL, I like the distinction.

Dawgs0 · Aug 7, 2013

seahawk2k":24ti0hp0 said:
That system skews the competitive balance. If you don't have boosters with deep pockets you can't afford the good talent. This isn't the NFL, its college football. There isn't a salary cap, and there would be no cap on spending. All of sports that involve salaries to players have the money somewhat regulated to ensure that the playing field is remotely level.

I agree that players should be able to profit from their own autographs and things of that ilk, but I think that still would have to be regulated. The more you deregulate and the more you pay, the more you turn college into the NFL, I like the distinction.

Where's the regulation in MLB? Or soccer? There is none. That is how it should be. Athletes should be able to make as much money as possible from their talent. It should be a complete free market, like it is in real life. Who would stop you or me, from making as much money as we can legally? Nobody, because we live in America, not in the old Soviet Union.

If somebody or school or team is willing to pay you more money, who is the NCAA to say no? We live in America and in a free market society. You should be able to be paid as much as someone is willing to pay you. That would be fair, but sadly it's extremely unlikely for the corrupt NCAA, who wants to control the athletes.

College football is pretty much the NFL, in terms of how the NCAA makes billions of dollars. The difference is that the NFL fairly compensates their athletes, while the NCAA doesn't. If there's relegation, then it should be by a third party, who has no allegiance to the NCAA. The NCAA only has their own best interests.

The NCAA is employing indentured servitude. The NCAA isn't a "non profit" organization. They are a multi billion dollar industry, using athletes in order to make money, while not fairly compensating athletes. If it wasn't such a sickening fraud, it would be laughable. Compared to the money athletes bring in to the NCAA, a scholarship is essentially worthless.

BTW, boosters will always have an affect and schools with money will always have an advantage. Check out the facilities Uncle Phil has built in Eugene. Check out the facilities at Oklahoma State due to the billionaire booster T. Boone Pickens. You can ignore this, but these facilities have a direct affect on recruiting and these men are the biggest reasons their schools have had the success they've had.

Carmon1274 · Aug 7, 2013

You know how F***ed up this would be?

Its like watching USC ( New York Yankeys) dishing out 100million dollars in payroll for their own players. Yes, and is there gonna be a cap to this free agents of college players? It doesn't matter right because you should be able to be paid as much as someone is willing to pay you.

Dawgs0 · Aug 7, 2013

Carmon1274":1xovndo7 said:
You know how F***ed up this would be?

Its like watching USC ( New York Yankeys) dishing out 100million dollars in payroll for their own players. Yes, and is there gonna be a cap to this free agents of college players? It doesn't matter right because you should be able to be paid as much as someone is willing to pay you.

"It doesn't matter right because you should be able to be paid as much as someone is willing to pay you."

Exactly. That's the American way of life. The free market way. If you don't like it, there's always communism, where the gov. (NCAA) decides how much you should make. Do you think that's better?

There is no cap in MLB and soccer. They're doing fine. Even if there was a cap, like the NFL, it wouldn't be bad, because at least the athletes would be getting fairly compensated, which is what matters. BTW, I doubt you get mad when the Seahawks spend millions on players.

But, IMO, this proposal would be fair to all the sides. The NCAA would continue to make billions and the athletes would get compensated. What's wrong with that?

Carmon1274 · Aug 7, 2013

Dawgs0":2kgp8hr8 said:
Carmon1274":2kgp8hr8 said:

You know how F***ed up this would be?

Its like watching USC ( New York Yankeys) dishing out 100million dollars in payroll for their own players. Yes, and is there gonna be a cap to this free agents of college players? It doesn't matter right because you should be able to be paid as much as someone is willing to pay you.

Click to expand...

"It doesn't matter right because you should be able to be paid as much as someone is willing to pay you."

Exactly. That's the American way of life. The free market way. If you don't like it, there's always communism, where the gov. (NCAA) decides how much you should make. Do you think that's better?

There is no cap in MLB and soccer. They're doing fine. Even if there was a cap, like the NFL, it wouldn't be bad, because at least the athletes would be getting fairly compensated, which is what matters. BTW, I doubt you get mad when the Seahawks spend millions on players.

But, IMO, this proposal would be fair to all the sides. The NCAA would continue to make billions and the athletes would get compensated. What's wrong with that?

Should give up on the Mariners then when they are one of the bottom teams in team salary.

Carmon1274 · Aug 7, 2013

Also if schools bribe players, or give them money.

It's not wrong for Professional teams to distribute heavy $$ to refs then right?

kearly · Aug 8, 2013

I am saddened that Manziel would (allegedly) display such poor judgement. He risked a season and perhaps millions of dollars in draft stock over a few thousand bucks he didn't need. Even if he thought it was legal, it just makes him look dumb for not doing his homework first. To me, this makes me question his character and discipline as much as Alec Ogletree's Combine week DUI.

That said, I do think that it's a little silly that autograph selling is against the rules. He's technically being paid for a service/product. It's different than what Reggie Bush and others received. Though I guess one could argue that if not enforced, such practice could become a loophole.

In all seriousness, I really do wish that college teams were allowed to pay their players. With the NFL rookie pay scale being so low right now, it might not take a ton of money for colleges to entice players to stay for their 4th or 5th seasons. You wouldn't have any more Darron Thomases, etc. Allowing college fans a chance to keep their favorite players an extra year or two would be nice, and I'm guessing NFL scouting departments probably wouldn't complain too much either. Underclassmen bombed in the 2013 draft, something like 40% of them didn't even get drafted.

Dawgs0 · Aug 8, 2013

Carmon1274":2t22iz16 said:
Also if schools bribe players, or give them money.

It's not wrong for Professional teams to distribute heavy $$ to refs then right?

Here are some facts. In life some succeed and others fail. Some are rich and some are poor. It's sad, but it's a fact. The schools with money will succeed and the schools without it won't. Almost like it is right now. Better athletes will always go to teams with money and nice facilities, even if the athletes don't get paid. Teams with money have better facilities, which attracts better athletes.

Schools like Oregon will continue to win, because of their money and schools like Portland State won't, because of their lack of money. The teams who win won't change if athletes are paid. The only thing that will change is that athletes will be fairly compensated. I highly doubt that the teams who win will have a bigger advantage than they do now, in terms of facilities, etc.

Almost a "survival of the fittest". That applies heavily to sports as well. Teams with money will succeed, while teams without it will fall behind. It's sad, but that's a moral issue. It's life. That has nothing to do with whether players should be compensated for their talent. Not paying players to try to prevent an unfixable and moral problem is wrong and unfair to the athletes.

The thing with baseball and the Mariners is that, like the Yankees, they have the opportunity to spend more money. They have the opportunity. The fact that they don't spend more money is the Mariners fault. Not MLBs or the system's fault. You can continue to blame the system, but MLB has never stated that the Mariners can't spend more money or have they? Haha.

BTW, bribery is against the law. I don't think you understand that. Nothing I have proposed is against the law. Schools paying athletes is not against the law. Having bidding wars, like teams do on professional athletes, isn't against the law. Letting athletes profit off their talent isn't against the law. Do you understand that? Hope I explained it better.

seahawk2k · Aug 8, 2013

Educational systems are rooted in the attempt at equal opportunity, thereby making college sports adherent to those same scholastic philosophies. College football programs are used to fund other programs as well as other activities in the university unrelated to football. In order to compete in your "Moral" plan, a school would have to pull funding from non-revenue sports. So, in your Darwinian argument which, I agree with in many aspects of life, those people would be SOL because they chose to excel in a non-revenue sport.

I'm not sure you understand the interconnectivity of university funding. But its fun to talk in absolutes. Carry on.

Johnny Manziel = Tebow 2.0, with issues

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Similar threads