Started By
Message
Couple of questions about this no selling your signature rule.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 6:55 pm
Posted on 8/4/13 at 6:55 pm
Does this not strike anyone else as a stupid overreach? It's his own damn name. Why the hell shouldn't he make money on it if someone wants to buy it? At what point do you surrender the ability to have a job and help yourself out just because you took a scholarship? How does that make sense?
I know it's in the contract, but it's absurd. If he wrote an article under an assumed name, would that be a violation of his amateur status as well? How about computer code?
This is the dumbest crap ever. The NCAA needs to be curb stomped. It's a racketeering scheme. Here sign this, become an indentured servant, we now own you for the next four years. Aren't you lucky! Now step back from the Benz kid you might scuff the paint.
I know it's in the contract, but it's absurd. If he wrote an article under an assumed name, would that be a violation of his amateur status as well? How about computer code?
This is the dumbest crap ever. The NCAA needs to be curb stomped. It's a racketeering scheme. Here sign this, become an indentured servant, we now own you for the next four years. Aren't you lucky! Now step back from the Benz kid you might scuff the paint.
8
Posted on 8/4/13 at 6:56 pm to faxis
There's no doubt it's a stupid rule.
But you have to look at who is making the rule and who serves to benefit from that rule being there to begin with. You really think the NCAA is going to give up it's cash cow in merchandising when a kid could make a ton of money off of it himself?
But you have to look at who is making the rule and who serves to benefit from that rule being there to begin with. You really think the NCAA is going to give up it's cash cow in merchandising when a kid could make a ton of money off of it himself?
Posted on 8/4/13 at 6:56 pm to faxis
If you allow it then it becomes a mess.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 6:57 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
If A&M needs a roadmap on how to keep a star player eligible when images of a star player signing autographs that were later sold online surface, they need only look to Alabama, who disputed all suggestions that star players had been paid for autographs by asserting that while players had signed autographs no player had ever been paid for those autographs. Since no one could prove that players had been paid or received any items of value, there was no NCAA violation for signing autographs that were later sold.
From Outkick The Coverage. Nothing is going to happen.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 6:57 pm to faxis
Nah, I agree with it. He can't gain $ from his name. No one would gave a damn if you weren't a stud player.
Can't do that.
Can't do that.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 6:57 pm to faxis
You don't see the loophole? Instead of offering a player 50k to come to school A, they'll buy an autographed football signed by them for 50k.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 6:58 pm to Maroon Flash
quote:
From Outkick The Coverage. Nothing is going to happen.
Never underestimate the REC.
A&M doesn't have the REC.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 6:59 pm to faxis
I think what is incredibly stupid is that apparently a players' parents can sell his signature. That player can give his signature to a buddy who can sell it. The player can give his signature to the school, a charity or even an autograph dealer and they can sell it so long as the player doesn't get paid for it.
It's a stupid rule and unless they have a cancelled check, video tape evidence or one of the two parties admitting that cash changed hands, it's pretty hard to prove.
It's a stupid rule and unless they have a cancelled check, video tape evidence or one of the two parties admitting that cash changed hands, it's pretty hard to prove.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 6:59 pm to faxis
It's the NCAA what else would you expect from them
Posted on 8/4/13 at 7:00 pm to Maroon Flash
quote:
quote: If A&M needs a roadmap on how to keep a star player eligible when images of a star player signing autographs that were later sold online surface, they need only look to Alabama, who disputed all suggestions that star players had been paid for autographs by asserting that while players had signed autographs no player had ever been paid for those autographs. Since no one could prove that players had been paid or received any items of value, there was no NCAA violation for signing autographs that were later sold.
This is what will happen, IMO.
My only concern is Nathan Fitch. I bet he sold the shite online from his personal ebay account. If you can trace an account back to Nathan frick-Tard Fitch, then JFF will be donezo.
This post was edited on 8/4/13 at 7:01 pm
Posted on 8/4/13 at 7:01 pm to Rebel Land Shark
quote:
It's the NCAA what else would you expect from them
If the NCAA can't do anything to Miami as a result of Nevin Shapiro and can't do shite to UNC as a result of academic fraud, then I doubt anything comes from this.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 7:03 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
But they were able to enforce it against AJ Green and Terrell Pryor specifically for autographs. So it's entirely possible they could.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 7:14 pm to BluegrassBelle
True that, it isn't very often people sign the evidence of their guilt. they would have to prove JFF got money for it. Or not really, there is no real rules to the NCAA. Ask Penn St.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 7:20 pm to Maroon Flash
quote:
From Outkick The Coverage. Nothing is going to happen.
Lordy, a Clay Travis reference.
Aggies are sinking faster than I expected.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 7:22 pm to DWag215
JFF really associates himself with some dumb frickers, like that guy.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 7:25 pm to faxis
AJ Green missed 4 games for selling his jersey. A&M will face Bama in game 3 so god smiled at Bama once again.
Amateur athletes can't (openly) make any money or otherwise they aren't amateur anymore. and most importantly, it'll frick up NCAA and college athletic departments' tax exemption status.
Amateur athletes can't (openly) make any money or otherwise they aren't amateur anymore. and most importantly, it'll frick up NCAA and college athletic departments' tax exemption status.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 7:40 pm to faxis
quote:
Does this not strike anyone else as a stupid overreach? It's his own damn name. Why the hell shouldn't he make money on it if someone wants to buy it? At what point do you surrender the ability to have a job and help yourself out just because you took a scholarship? How does that make sense?
I know it's in the contract, but it's absurd. If he wrote an article under an assumed name, would that be a violation of his amateur status as well? How about computer code?
This is the dumbest crap ever. The NCAA needs to be curb stomped. It's a racketeering scheme. Here sign this, become an indentured servant, we now own you for the next four years. Aren't you lucky! Now step back from the Benz kid you might scuff the paint.
You hit the nail on the head sir. Everybody can make money off Johnny Manziel except Johnny Manziel. But, that being said, there is no fricking way that CBS Sports is going to stand by and allow THE biggest star in THE biggest game of the year to be suspended. That would cost them money, and that ain't gonna happen. He may sit Rice and Sam Houston, but you can bet your arse he'll play vs Alabama.
Posted on 8/4/13 at 7:40 pm to Crompdaddy8
The NCAA is already fricked
Posted on 8/4/13 at 7:49 pm to King Crimson
I certainly hope he will play in the game against Alabama
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News