The NCAA claimed De La Haye violated bylaw 12.4.4, which says a student-athlete "may establish his or her own business, provided the student-athlete's name, photograph, appearance or athletics reputation are not used to promote the business." Never mind that it's exactly what the NCAA does when it sells college football to television audiences.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Well this one is certainly in the grey area of the language...that being said anytime I can have an active rooting interst in the NCAA getting screwed I am will be happy to support that side.
The obvious problem is if/when this would become standard you have kids making huge money from no show companies that wouldn't exist without the alumni / school support...I mean if North Carolina was willing to commit academic fraud sponsored by the University in the name of athletics where would that leave all schools who are truly marginal in terms of what they are currently doing?
Jeez I apologize if just made statement there that is somewhat supportive of the NCAA...but it is a fair concern.
I'm sorry, I'm not a fan of the NCAA BUT this sounds like another kid who doesn't want to follow the rules.
1. They asked him to stop
2. They gave him a waiver that he could still make videos, just not football videos
3. They said choose between the football videos or your scholarship...he chose to do the videos.
Now he's not on the team and can't do the football videos anyway, so um, what was the point?
The NCAA doesn't want college amateur players to profit from their sport. That is pretty much the definition of an amateur athlete. They have to make this a zero tolerance policy because the small cracks that seem harmless can and will open up a floodgate. What harm is there is charging for autographs? How about an Autograph with a Nike Jersey that they are paid to wear? How about the "amateur" athlete gets a 200K car for wearing the Nike Jersey and signing the autograph? And on and on until it's which school can bribe the kid more to come there. That isn't an even playing field now and SUPPOSEDLY that is one of the main goals of the NCAA to make things fair and even across the academic universities.
I have to say, I'm with the NCAA on this one. People have to follow the rules, even you kid.
I can't stay silent on this ... this is the epitome "snowflake" generation and the lack of education received from our schools. Always the victim, never taking responsibility for their actions.
"I have a right to free speech" ... yes you do, but with that speech also comes the ramifications. In this case the loss of the ability to play football at an NCAA school.
"The school cannot take my scholarship"... actually they can. The scholarship was contingent upon you playing football. Now that you can't play... no scholarship. IF it was an academic scholarship, then there may have been some merit to this argument.
Today's young adults seem to forget the difference between rights and privileges. One - everyone has regardless of skill. The other is earned. Playing football or any other sport on an NCAA team is not a right. You need to earn that spot by playing within the rules. The team has rules, the school has rules, the league, the NCAA. each can withdraw that privilege at any time for a breech of those rules.
If this player were smart, he could have had the best of both worlds and still play within the NCAA rule: "12.4.4, which says a student-athlete "may establish his or her own business, provided the student-athlete's name, photograph, appearance or athletics reputation are not used to promote the business"
Simply post the videos under an pseudonym, pixel out the face, don't wear team issued clothing. Then he is an anonymous person performing physical acts for entertainment. Then you beat the NCAA at its own game... as they are doing the same thing when they license EA Sports to make NCAA 2K17 and show a UCF kicker with no name on the back of the jersey.
And lets not forget to mention that a state funded university is offering scholarships to - what appears to be - a non citizen (as he is sending money to family in Costa Rica).
I am far from an NCAA supporter, but on this one I think they got it right.
NewUmpire posted:I can't stay silent on this ... this is the epitome "snowflake" generation and the lack of education received from our schools. Always the victim, never taking responsibility for their actions.
"I have a right to free speech" ... yes you do, but with that speech also comes the ramifications. In this case the loss of the ability to play football at an NCAA school.
"The school cannot take my scholarship"... actually they can. The scholarship was contingent upon you playing football. Now that you can't play... no scholarship. IF it was an academic scholarship, then there may have been some merit to this argument.
Today's young adults seem to forget the difference between rights and privileges. One - everyone has regardless of skill. The other is earned. Playing football or any other sport on an NCAA team is not a right. You need to earn that spot by playing within the rules. The team has rules, the school has rules, the league, the NCAA. each can withdraw that privilege at any time for a breech of those rules.
If this player were smart, he could have had the best of both worlds and still play within the NCAA rule: "12.4.4, which says a student-athlete "may establish his or her own business, provided the student-athlete's name, photograph, appearance or athletics reputation are not used to promote the business"
Simply post the videos under an pseudonym, pixel out the face, don't wear team issued clothing. Then he is an anonymous person performing physical acts for entertainment. Then you beat the NCAA at its own game... as they are doing the same thing when they license EA Sports to make NCAA 2K17 and show a UCF kicker with no name on the back of the jersey.
And lets not forget to mention that a state funded university is offering scholarships to - what appears to be - a non citizen (as he is sending money to family in Costa Rica).
I am far from an NCAA supporter, but on this one I think they got it right.
Some decent train of thought until the last paragraph. Would this statement apply to out-of-state players also? There have been some decent arguments about in-state versus out-of-state presuming an individual residing in a particular state has more rights to benefits (i.e. scholarship dollars) being handed out by the state, but that is not current practice and I am somewhat at a loss as to how the "non-citizen" comment relates to NCAA regulations.
2017LHPscrewball posted:NewUmpire posted:I can't stay silent on this ... this is the epitome "snowflake" generation and the lack of education received from our schools. Always the victim, never taking responsibility for their actions.
"I have a right to free speech" ... yes you do, but with that speech also comes the ramifications. In this case the loss of the ability to play football at an NCAA school.
"The school cannot take my scholarship"... actually they can. The scholarship was contingent upon you playing football. Now that you can't play... no scholarship. IF it was an academic scholarship, then there may have been some merit to this argument.
Today's young adults seem to forget the difference between rights and privileges. One - everyone has regardless of skill. The other is earned. Playing football or any other sport on an NCAA team is not a right. You need to earn that spot by playing within the rules. The team has rules, the school has rules, the league, the NCAA. each can withdraw that privilege at any time for a breech of those rules.
If this player were smart, he could have had the best of both worlds and still play within the NCAA rule: "12.4.4, which says a student-athlete "may establish his or her own business, provided the student-athlete's name, photograph, appearance or athletics reputation are not used to promote the business"
Simply post the videos under an pseudonym, pixel out the face, don't wear team issued clothing. Then he is an anonymous person performing physical acts for entertainment. Then you beat the NCAA at its own game... as they are doing the same thing when they license EA Sports to make NCAA 2K17 and show a UCF kicker with no name on the back of the jersey.
And lets not forget to mention that a state funded university is offering scholarships to - what appears to be - a non citizen (as he is sending money to family in Costa Rica).
I am far from an NCAA supporter, but on this one I think they got it right.
Some decent train of thought until the last paragraph. Would this statement apply to out-of-state players also? There have been some decent arguments about in-state versus out-of-state presuming an individual residing in a particular state has more rights to benefits (i.e. scholarship dollars) being handed out by the state, but that is not current practice and I am somewhat at a loss as to how the "non-citizen" comment relates to NCAA regulations.
State Funded University and giving that money to a non-citizen a.k.a non-resident is the glitch. If the kid is not from that state, and is in fact from a foreign country, it is a double slap. What happened to people being grateful for what they got and earned, rather than expecting to get whatever they want?
Also, I would agree that a student residing in the state should have more benefit from the state than an out of state student.
My thinking on scholarships is probably far from popular. And I voice the opinion to my state legislators but 1 voice is not very loud. In short ... no state funded university should offer any scholarships to any person who is not a tax paying citizen of the state. This goes for both athletic and academic scholarships. I even take it a step further and feel that there should be no athletic scholarships ... period. Athletics should be used to supplement the education ... not replace it. Universities paying coaches multi million dollar salaries, building facilities that dwarf those of some professional teams. While we hear horror stories of students that can't read or write, that if their sports career were non-existent they would not be able to function in society. Sure you have the small % that make it. My opinion is that colleges should not be used as the minor leagues for professional sports. The money spent on major college sports is probably better spent elsewhere. The two kings of sports - football and basketball - consume nearly all the athletic budgets. And while at a school like Notre Dame / Alabama / UCLA - those sports may be money makers, they are loss leaders at most universities. And the support of those loss leaders is to the detriment of other less popular sports, baseball included. I would like to see the Student brought back into the definition of Student Athlete. As a tax payer, I believe in making sure the state residents are taken care of before those from out of state. Long winded and some tangents that can be an entirely separate thread or two.
NewUmpire posted:My thinking on scholarships is probably far from popular. And I voice the opinion to my state legislators but 1 voice is not very loud. In short ... no state funded university should offer any scholarships to any person who is not a tax paying citizen of the state. This goes for both athletic and academic scholarships. I even take it a step further and feel that there should be no athletic scholarships ... period. Athletics should be used to supplement the education ... not replace it. Universities paying coaches multi million dollar salaries, building facilities that dwarf those of some professional teams. While we hear horror stories of students that can't read or write, that if their sports career were non-existent they would not be able to function in society. Sure you have the small % that make it. My opinion is that colleges should not be used as the minor leagues for professional sports. The money spent on major college sports is probably better spent elsewhere. The two kings of sports - football and basketball - consume nearly all the athletic budgets. And while at a school like Notre Dame / Alabama / UCLA - those sports may be money makers, they are loss leaders at most universities. And the support of those loss leaders is to the detriment of other less popular sports, baseball included. I would like to see the Student brought back into the definition of Student Athlete. As a tax payer, I believe in making sure the state residents are taken care of before those from out of state. Long winded and some tangents that can be an entirely separate thread or two.
I think you are on to something, as far as your take not being popular. I don't agree even a little bit. Sports bring educational value by teaching hard work, team building, etc. Additionally, a lot of colleges wouldn't have the prestige that sports give them, which in turn, ups their enrollment, which in turn allows them to offer better programs for ALL students. Without the money that some sports provide their universities, a lot of programs would be eliminated, athletic and academic.
Alumni also provide funds to universities, and one of the reasons these alumni are so loyal to their schools is because of their sports programs.
CaCO3Girl posted:I'm sorry, I'm not a fan of the NCAA BUT this sounds like another kid who doesn't want to follow the rules.
1. They asked him to stop
2. They gave him a waiver that he could still make videos, just not football videos
3. They said choose between the football videos or your scholarship...he chose to do the videos.
Now he's not on the team and can't do the football videos anyway, so um, what was the point?
The NCAA doesn't want college amateur players to profit from their sport. That is pretty much the definition of an amateur athlete. They have to make this a zero tolerance policy because the small cracks that seem harmless can and will open up a floodgate. What harm is there is charging for autographs? How about an Autograph with a Nike Jersey that they are paid to wear? How about the "amateur" athlete gets a 200K car for wearing the Nike Jersey and signing the autograph? And on and on until it's which school can bribe the kid more to come there. That isn't an even playing field now and SUPPOSEDLY that is one of the main goals of the NCAA to make things fair and even across the academic universities.
I have to say, I'm with the NCAA on this one. People have to follow the rules, even you kid.
But what about a kid who isn't on the football team? Could that kid go in, make YouTube videos about his university's team, and post them and make money off them? Why is that okay?
This thread is all over the board, not necessarily in a good way. As for the non-athlete, this was never about trademark infringement or some failure to procure a license (UCF never complained about the content) and many, many folks profit off of major programs while avoiding (or skirting) trademark infringement (just think about the local sports crew at the local TV station where they leverage off the team's image in the context of news). WXYZ is paying the school every time they splash the team across the screen and tell folks to stay tuned for udpates on the team's practice every night of the season and twice during the pre-season.
Athletic scholarship benefits and costs probably vary widely by school. Some schools do have a hidden "profit" from an enhanced image and increased attendance (and maybe some accompanying increased tuition and mandatory freshman housing to go along). The true cost of an athletic scholarship has also been debated with the question being does the scholarship athlete take up space and prevent a full pay student (most argue that the true cost is far below the shelf price tag). I do know some D3 schools have recently brought back football in order to entice additional male students so as to help re-balance the student body.
For those who think this young man should accept the school's decision (NCAA was not directly involved) on this matter, would it matter to you if he were paying full tuition? Same rules apply.
MidAtlanticDad posted:For those who think this young man should accept the school's decision (NCAA was not directly involved) on this matter, would it matter to you if he were paying full tuition? Same rules apply.
Yes... The article was clear... he is suing the school for withdrawing the scholarship, not the NCAA for the ban on playing. The scholarship from UCF was not revoked because he was making videos or exercising his free speech. It was revoked because he was no longer playing football. He chose not to abide by the NCAA's rules, and was thus banned from competing. If his scholarship was academic, then he may have a case against the school. But he was getting an education for free with the understanding that he would be on the football team. When he decided to not abide by the NCAA's rules and was no longer eligible to play, he failed to fulfill his part of the contract... thus UCF withdrew the scholarship. If he were paying full tuition, there would be no lawsuit. If the school expelled him as a full paying student for making the videos... then I would say he is correct, unless he violated the schools code of conduct.
NewUmpire posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:For those who think this young man should accept the school's decision (NCAA was not directly involved) on this matter, would it matter to you if he were paying full tuition? Same rules apply.
Yes... The article was clear... he is suing the school for withdrawing the scholarship, not the NCAA for the ban on playing. The scholarship from UCF was not revoked because he was making videos or exercising his free speech. It was revoked because he was no longer playing football. He chose not to abide by the NCAA's rules, and was thus banned from competing. If his scholarship was academic, then he may have a case against the school. But he was getting an education for free with the understanding that he would be on the football team. When he decided to not abide by the NCAA's rules and was no longer eligible to play, he failed to fulfill his part of the contract... thus UCF withdrew the scholarship. If he were paying full tuition, there would be no lawsuit. If the school expelled him as a full paying student for making the videos... then I would say he is correct, unless he violated the schools code of conduct.
Maybe I didn't state my question clearly. Assume that he was playing football at UCF and he wasn't on any type of scholarship; paying full out-of-state tuition. Also assume that the school removed him from the football team because of his YouTube income. IMO, that is a safe assumption because the school has the same exposure to an NCAA rule violation whether he is on scholarship or not. Bylaw 12.4.4 is not for scholarship athletes, it's for all D1 student athletes.
You said with regard to an academic scholarship, "... then he may have a case against the school." The school would have likely chosen the same action (removal from the team) even if he was not on a football scholarship.
Iowamom23 posted:CaCO3Girl posted:I'm sorry, I'm not a fan of the NCAA BUT this sounds like another kid who doesn't want to follow the rules.
1. They asked him to stop
2. They gave him a waiver that he could still make videos, just not football videos
3. They said choose between the football videos or your scholarship...he chose to do the videos.
Now he's not on the team and can't do the football videos anyway, so um, what was the point?
The NCAA doesn't want college amateur players to profit from their sport. That is pretty much the definition of an amateur athlete. They have to make this a zero tolerance policy because the small cracks that seem harmless can and will open up a floodgate. What harm is there is charging for autographs? How about an Autograph with a Nike Jersey that they are paid to wear? How about the "amateur" athlete gets a 200K car for wearing the Nike Jersey and signing the autograph? And on and on until it's which school can bribe the kid more to come there. That isn't an even playing field now and SUPPOSEDLY that is one of the main goals of the NCAA to make things fair and even across the academic universities.
I have to say, I'm with the NCAA on this one. People have to follow the rules, even you kid.
But what about a kid who isn't on the football team? Could that kid go in, make YouTube videos about his university's team, and post them and make money off them? Why is that okay?
That's okay because the non football deal kid didn't sign a contract saying he'd obey the rules.
If the school didn't call out the kid for violating the NCAA rules then the NCAA would have gotten around to it eventually and the school would also be in trouble.
If you are basically getting your tuition paid for and agree to the rules then you have to follow them. As I said earlier, it's a slippery slope and one the non scholarship kid isn't even on.
I’m all for any way anyone sticks it to the NCAA.
RJM posted:I’m all for any way anyone sticks it to the NCAA.
He's going to loose, that's not sticking it to anyone.
