menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: OT: Adidas Federal Trial
Page: 1 of 4
mail
person
GoCats105
10/5/2018 8:36 AM
Brian Bowen's dad testifies:

https://deadspin.com/brian-bowens-dad-describes-black-mar...
mail
person
Buckeye to Bobcat
10/6/2018 12:04 AM
You know this thing is gonna get ugly.

Only 4 programs to me are clean: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, and Maybe Michigan. I have always been curious on some kids but Beilein has appeared to be clean and not gotten tangled up in the game. We’ll see, but eben Ohio $tate with Jaquan Lyle will get flagged.
mail
person
longtiimelurker
10/6/2018 10:27 PM
Buckeye to Bobcat wrote:expand_more
You know this thing is gonna get ugly.

Only 4 programs to me are clean: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, and Maybe Michigan. I have always been curious on some kids but Beilein has appeared to be clean and not gotten tangled up in the game. We’ll see, but eben Ohio $tate with Jaquan Lyle will get flagged.
350 or so programs and only 4 are clean? That's amazing. What egregious and nefarious things do you have knowledge that Saul and Company are doing that would make them dirty? I'll not doubt that Matta played some games to get Lyle and get him eligible but I don't see that continuing under Holtmann.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2018 12:41 PM
Seems like this case answers the question "how do schools afford to pay players?"

They don't have to. The shoe companies seem more than willing to do it for them.

It's high time they figure out how to systematize this and get these kids compensated. The folks at Adidas seem to feel it's a worthwhile investment to make sure kids are wearing their shoes before they turn pro, so the money is there. Seems pretty harmless to me to let them pay the kids directly for the right.
mail
OU_Country
10/8/2018 3:15 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Seems like this case answers the question "how do schools afford to pay players?"

They don't have to. The shoe companies seem more than willing to do it for them.

It's high time they figure out how to systematize this and get these kids compensated. The folks at Adidas seem to feel it's a worthwhile investment to make sure kids are wearing their shoes before they turn pro, so the money is there. Seems pretty harmless to me to let them pay the kids directly for the right.
So would you propose they pay the women's hoops team, volleyball, baseball, and softball as well? Because every time the proposition of paying players because they're not compensated comes up, we should remember that pesky issue involving Title nine won't allow for just the highest revenue sports to get paid.
mail
OU_Country
10/8/2018 3:17 PM
longtiimelurker wrote:expand_more
You know this thing is gonna get ugly.

Only 4 programs to me are clean: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, and Maybe Michigan. I have always been curious on some kids but Beilein has appeared to be clean and not gotten tangled up in the game. We’ll see, but eben Ohio $tate with Jaquan Lyle will get flagged.
350 or so programs and only 4 are clean? That's amazing. What egregious and nefarious things do you have knowledge that Saul and Company are doing that would make them dirty? I'll not doubt that Matta played some games to get Lyle and get him eligible but I don't see that continuing under Holtmann.
If I were guessing, he meant those schools because they're Adidas schools (or were) in the P6 of hoops.
mail
person
catfan28
10/8/2018 6:09 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
So would you propose they pay the women's hoops team, volleyball, baseball, and softball as well? Because every time the proposition of paying players because they're not compensated comes up, we should remember that pesky issue involving Title nine won't allow for just the highest revenue sports to get paid.
Bingo. That's what the "bloviators" of television fail to recognize (or just dumb down their argument for a mass audience).

To John Q. Fan who watches a few Alabama or O$U football games a year, they think "Gee wiz, college sports is big business. These kids have to be paid!"

What most don't realize is that athletics is a money LOSER for 99% of schools nationwide. If left to its own devices (without institutional support or student fees), college sports would not exist in a true "market economy". And if it did, there would only be football and men's basketball. No women's sports at all. No baseball. No soccer.

As much as talking heads may try to tell you, college athletics really isn't a business. Because a business would simply discontinue all of the programs required by Title IX. A business also wouldn't operate in the red, effectively ending all but a handful of P5 programs.

Glad that someone else understands that.
mail
person
rpbobcat
10/9/2018 6:29 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Seems like this case answers the question "how do schools afford to pay players?"

They don't have to. The shoe companies seem more than willing to do it for them.

It's high time they figure out how to systematize this and get these kids compensated. The folks at Adidas seem to feel it's a worthwhile investment to make sure kids are wearing their shoes before they turn pro, so the money is there. Seems pretty harmless to me to let them pay the kids directly for the right.
The HBO documentary "Student Athlete" really shows just how involved shoe companies in grooming/"guiding" players from grammar school on.
mail
person
Buckeye to Bobcat
10/9/2018 10:45 AM
longtiimelurker wrote:expand_more
You know this thing is gonna get ugly.

Only 4 programs to me are clean: Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, and Maybe Michigan. I have always been curious on some kids but Beilein has appeared to be clean and not gotten tangled up in the game. We’ll see, but eben Ohio $tate with Jaquan Lyle will get flagged.
350 or so programs and only 4 are clean? That's amazing. What egregious and nefarious things do you have knowledge that Saul and Company are doing that would make them dirty? I'll not doubt that Matta played some games to get Lyle and get him eligible but I don't see that continuing under Holtmann.
I was talking Power 5/Big East. Apologies for not saying that clearly and should have stated that. Firm believer Saul and the boys in Athens are clean. Do a lot of things right, just need to win some more head to heads. Just got to Europe after traveling for 4 days so haven't had time to respond to statement.

But yes, at Power level, wait for Duke and UNC to get whacked like they're a tall piece of grass.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/9/2018 5:30 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
Seems like this case answers the question "how do schools afford to pay players?"

They don't have to. The shoe companies seem more than willing to do it for them.

It's high time they figure out how to systematize this and get these kids compensated. The folks at Adidas seem to feel it's a worthwhile investment to make sure kids are wearing their shoes before they turn pro, so the money is there. Seems pretty harmless to me to let them pay the kids directly for the right.
So would you propose they pay the women's hoops team, volleyball, baseball, and softball as well? Because every time the proposition of paying players because they're not compensated comes up, we should remember that pesky issue involving Title nine won't allow for just the highest revenue sports to get paid.
No, I'm not proposing that. Title IX has to do with programs that receive federal financial assistance. I don't understand why it's relevant here. Whether or not Adidas and Nike -- two private companies -- choose to pay famous athletes money to wear their shoes is completely unrelated to scholarship money.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
10/9/2018 7:39 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Seems like this case answers the question "how do schools afford to pay players?"

They don't have to. The shoe companies seem more than willing to do it for them.

It's high time they figure out how to systematize this and get these kids compensated. The folks at Adidas seem to feel it's a worthwhile investment to make sure kids are wearing their shoes before they turn pro, so the money is there. Seems pretty harmless to me to let them pay the kids directly for the right.
So would you propose they pay the women's hoops team, volleyball, baseball, and softball as well? Because every time the proposition of paying players because they're not compensated comes up, we should remember that pesky issue involving Title nine won't allow for just the highest revenue sports to get paid.
No, I'm not proposing that. Title IX has to do with programs that receive federal financial assistance. I don't understand why it's relevant here. Whether or not Adidas and Nike -- two private companies -- choose to pay famous athletes money to wear their shoes is completely unrelated to scholarship money.
Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️
mail
OU_Country
10/10/2018 11:20 AM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
So would you propose they pay the women's hoops team, volleyball, baseball, and softball as well? Because every time the proposition of paying players because they're not compensated comes up, we should remember that pesky issue involving Title nine won't allow for just the highest revenue sports to get paid.
Bingo. That's what the "bloviators" of television fail to recognize (or just dumb down their argument for a mass audience).

To John Q. Fan who watches a few Alabama or O$U football games a year, they think "Gee wiz, college sports is big business. These kids have to be paid!"

What most don't realize is that athletics is a money LOSER for 99% of schools nationwide. If left to its own devices (without institutional support or student fees), college sports would not exist in a true "market economy". And if it did, there would only be football and men's basketball. No women's sports at all. No baseball. No soccer.

As much as talking heads may try to tell you, college athletics really isn't a business. Because a business would simply discontinue all of the programs required by Title IX. A business also wouldn't operate in the red, effectively ending all but a handful of P5 programs.

Glad that someone else understands that.
That's one part of the argument that isn't going away, which is why arguing they deserve to be paid isn't likely to change anytime soon. Now, if there was a miraculous way that all D-1 schools suddenly shared the TV equally down to the nickel, I could see that changing, and I could agree with the argument for paying the players. Because then every school could possibly be close to not requiring student fees to fund them.

But in the real world, there are so many things to overcome to pay the players. The players deserving it is the smallest hurdle of all of them.
mail
person
rpbobcat
10/10/2018 11:37 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️
This.

If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies.

Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics.

In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX.
Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/10/2018 8:58 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️
This.

If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies.

Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics.

In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX.
Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse.
But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money?
mail
person
catfan28
10/10/2018 9:45 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money?
That would likely result in a drawn-out legal battle. Honestly, I'm not sure how it would turn out.

I will say this, though. IF it got to the point where student-athletes can accept endorsement money, it would be terrible for the vast majority of programs. The gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" would grow to be cavernous. Make no mistake - it would be a very bad day for Ohio and the MAC.
mail
person
rpbobcat
10/11/2018 6:30 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️
This.

If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies.

Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics.

In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX.
Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse.
But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money?
The NCAA would probably have to amend their bylaws beyond just endorsement money.

The HBO "Student Athlete" documentary has a segment on a football player from Baylor.

He was a walk on who made the team and became a regular player.
I don't remember if he was ever a starter.

Anyway,as a walk on he got nothing.
He was living on people's couches.
A family friend,with no ties to Baylor athletics,put him up in an apartment,and gave him money for food.

The NCAA considered that an "improper benefit" and banned him.

If the NCAA is going to allow athletes to be paid for endorsements,they have to address issues like this.
Last Edited: 10/11/2018 6:37:40 AM by rpbobcat
mail
OU_Country
10/11/2018 9:58 AM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money?
That would likely result in a drawn-out legal battle. Honestly, I'm not sure how it would turn out.

I will say this, though. IF it got to the point where student-athletes can accept endorsement money, it would be terrible for the vast majority of programs. The gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" would grow to be cavernous. Make no mistake - it would be a very bad day for Ohio and the MAC.
Agreed. It would be bad for nearly every team that isn't in a P5/P6 conference.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
10/11/2018 10:34 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️
This.

If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies.

Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics.

In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX.
Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse.
But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money?
If they are spending the money on a program or part of a school that receives federal funding, then the school would be responsible for providing an equal benefit to those not receiving the private funds.
mail
person
Maddog13
10/11/2018 11:14 AM
The trial is also bringing up issues of double dipping, fraud, and tax implications. It makes one wonder about the differences between private schools and public education sponsored schools. Those being charged here are being brought to justice due to existing Federal laws, but one wonders how schools are going to legally deal with some of these issues in the future -- not to mention the whole issue of legalized gambling in college sports. There must be loopholes here that someone is going to exploit in the name of winning. After all, it seems that the NCAA,itself,is willing to play along in the interest of the almighty dollar!! Long live, Capitalism; long live, the NCAA.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/11/2018 11:43 AM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money?
That would likely result in a drawn-out legal battle. Honestly, I'm not sure how it would turn out.

I will say this, though. IF it got to the point where student-athletes can accept endorsement money, it would be terrible for the vast majority of programs. The gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" would grow to be cavernous. Make no mistake - it would be a very bad day for Ohio and the MAC.
Agreed, it certainly wouldn't be good for Ohio and the MAC. But at this point, for me at least, ensuring people are fairly compensated and no longer restricting their earning potential outweighs that.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/11/2018 11:45 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️
This.

If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies.

Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics.

In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX.
Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse.
But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money?
If they are spending the money on a program or part of a school that receives federal funding, then the school would be responsible for providing an equal benefit to those not receiving the private funds.
And if they're sponsoring an individual in addition to spending money on the program? As is, if Adidas signs a deal with Ohio they provide uniforms and equipment across sports. Couldn't that status quo remain while still removing endorsement restrictions put on athletes? If, in addition to the equipment deal, Nike wanted Zion Williamson to appear in print ads and paid him separately to do so how does that violate Title IX?
mail
person
BillyTheCat
10/11/2018 11:47 AM
One thing to keep in mind here is that many of the NCAA regulations which catch up so many student athletes and people who are just trying to do good, exist because someone at some point used the lack of a rule to cheat and win. It is not like the NCAA and the member schools (remember the member schools vote on the regulations) just arbitrarily make up rules.

And yes there are a ton of tax implications in college athletics, benefits that many would never think of, and pretty much no where are these benefits usually properly reported.
mail
person
GoCats105
10/11/2018 11:58 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Because the school itself receives federal funds, hence federal law applies 🤦🏼‍♂️
This.

If a college receives any Federal Funds,and don't think are many,if any,that don't,Title IX applies.

Title IX covers a number of things,beyond just athletics.

In fact,if I recall correctly,when the whole Urban Meyer issue came up,there were questions whether his wife violated the provisions of Title IX.
Nothing to do directly with athletics,but relative reporting abuse.
But I'm still not super clear on why the school is relevant in this case. If the NCAA changes its bylaws regarding student athletes accepting endorsement money from private companies, how is that a Title IX violation? Title IX presumably has to do with how schools that receive federal funding allocate those funds. Does it cover how private companies choose to spend their money?
If they are spending the money on a program or part of a school that receives federal funding, then the school would be responsible for providing an equal benefit to those not receiving the private funds.
And if they're sponsoring an individual in addition to spending money on the program? As is, if Adidas signs a deal with Ohio they provide uniforms and equipment across sports. Couldn't that status quo remain while still removing endorsement restrictions put on athletes? If, in addition to the equipment deal, Nike wanted Zion Williamson to appear in print ads and paid him separately to do so how does that violate Title IX?
Isn't that what they're already doing, but behind the shadows and closed doors so the NCAA doesn't know about it? As soon as Zion Williamson joins an AAU team, he is a moving billboard for Nike or Adidas. He's not getting paid directly, but someone is (usually his AAU coach) and he's receiving free gear and trips for doing so. I'd say he's already receiving endorsements without actually ever signing anything.
mail
person
Flomo-genized
10/11/2018 12:45 PM
It's not at all clear that Title IX would be implicated by paying some student-athletes but not others. There are legal precedents holding that schools are legally allowed to pay coaches for their men's basketball teams more than their women's basketball teams, for instance, because the former typically generate greater revenue than the latter.

It's not certain that this same logic would apply to paying men's basketball players more than female players, of course. But to say that paying certain athletes, but not others, would definitely violate Title IX is legally incorrect. It's an open question, with the most applicable precedent favoring the argument that there is no legal issue.

Meanwhile, if the NCAA merely allowed shoe companies to endorse student-athletes, that would not have any Title IX implications, because the resources provided by the school to the students wouldn't differ in any way. It may very well open up other cans of worms, but Title IX wouldn't be one of them.
mail
person
catfan28
10/11/2018 2:53 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Agreed, it certainly wouldn't be good for Ohio and the MAC. But at this point, for me at least, ensuring people are fairly compensated and no longer restricting their earning potential outweighs that.
So, you're essentially siding with the "top 1%" (i.e. the big boys of college athletics and the most elite athletes).

I will proudly carry the flag for everyone else (G5, FCS, D2, D3, NAIA) doing things the right way. There are thousands of great student-athletes, students, fans and alumni of those schools that don't deserve to have their experience/opportunities diminished.

Those student-athletes with pro potential will go on to make more than what almost anyone on this planet can dream of. College athletics needs to remain a level playing field (or as much of one as is possible, given the current corruption of money at the P5 level).

College athletics is NOT (and shouldn't turn into) a for-profit business. The unintended consequences of such would be tremendous.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 78
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)