NCAA rules kicker ineligible over YouTube videos
- Thread starter becrisgreg
- Start date
Well, whether or not you think the rule is fair, it's a pretty clear violation of it, and he chose not to remedy the situation after the NCAA allowed him a waiver if he'd de-monetize the streams.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,752
- 33,772
- 113
Hope he sues. We need as many athletes dragging the NCAA to court as possible, even if they don't win.
a few competing things here:
first, obvious violation. no complaints there.
second, why does the NCAA worry about this when they let academic and sexual assault issues slide all the time. it sends a very bad message that they are micromanaging minor things while completely ignoring more important things.
third, i understand their position. this would be a huge loophole for athletes to take payments that would be almost impossible for the NCAA to track as it is not public information. this would spread like wildfire - all the Miami players would have youtube accounts and who would know what is going on.
finally, the NCAA needs to either remove themselves from trying to protect amateurism and focus solely on being a clearinghouse for rules or they need to publicly address their blatant inconsistencies.
first, obvious violation. no complaints there.
second, why does the NCAA worry about this when they let academic and sexual assault issues slide all the time. it sends a very bad message that they are micromanaging minor things while completely ignoring more important things.
third, i understand their position. this would be a huge loophole for athletes to take payments that would be almost impossible for the NCAA to track as it is not public information. this would spread like wildfire - all the Miami players would have youtube accounts and who would know what is going on.
finally, the NCAA needs to either remove themselves from trying to protect amateurism and focus solely on being a clearinghouse for rules or they need to publicly address their blatant inconsistencies.
I'll jump on the other side of this issue. It's wrong and the player absolutely should have to shut it down.
Today the advertisers on his Youtube site are innocent. But what if a player that Ohio State or Alabama is interested in has a Youtube page. They could guarantee the player that if they come to tOSU or Bama that Jim Bob's Chevrolet will advertise on their channel for $40,000/yr.
I do agree that the NCAA should be equally pursuing running Baylor out of college athletics, but monetizing athletes through any type of advertising could go sideways quickly. I'd rather Bama, OU, tOSU, etc keep using bag men the way athletics was meant to be! :jimlad
Today the advertisers on his Youtube site are innocent. But what if a player that Ohio State or Alabama is interested in has a Youtube page. They could guarantee the player that if they come to tOSU or Bama that Jim Bob's Chevrolet will advertise on their channel for $40,000/yr.
I do agree that the NCAA should be equally pursuing running Baylor out of college athletics, but monetizing athletes through any type of advertising could go sideways quickly. I'd rather Bama, OU, tOSU, etc keep using bag men the way athletics was meant to be! :jimlad
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,752
- 33,772
- 113
meh. These players are already getting paid. The problem isn't worsened in the slightest by allowing players to monetize themselves.
So the NCAA said he could still monetize videos as long as they didn't mention that he's a football player. So you could still have Bob's Chevrolet funneling money to an athlete for a sham YouTube channel that had nothing to do with them being an athlete.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,752
- 33,772
- 113
exactly. This rule does not prevent any sort of nefarious behavior by schools/boosters trying to give compensation to players. It's purely about control of the athlete and the "amateur" status that big time college sports defends so harshly.
