Cited reason is for "violation of NCAA rules"
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/2474593...
Breaking: Todd Gurley has been suspended indefinitely according to official UGA site, http://t.co/lsOanrwhzH. More coming.— Anthony Dasher (@AnthonyDasher1) October 9, 2014
"Alleged" violation of NCAA rules is key. Someone reported him and UGA has to suspend him while they check into it.— SicEmDawgs.com (@SicEmDawgscom) October 9, 2014
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Need to adjust my Six Pick...
Is it bad that the first thing that flew across my mind when I heard about this was everyone on TKP is now going to adjust their six pick? Just about that entire thread is going to be getting edited comments
Ha, I figured this would be the reaction for most people. Same deal as when old Crab Legs got suspended. It changes the outlook for the game.
To be fair, I actually picked Clemson against the spread even before the suspension, so I didn't have to change anything.
And I haven't done my 6-pick this week, but I'll obviously be taking this into consideration.
I'm sticking with my pick, but I did just flip to GT after reading the "salty" thread and seeing PJ is undefeated against Cutcliffe.
To be fair, most coaches were undefeated against Cutcliffe until a year or so ago.
Georgia fans:
This is accurate.
was anyone else relieved it wasn't a sexual or domestic violence thing?
Hooo boy... just in time for the Mizzou game (both SEC E teams at 4-1).
Sounds suspicious.
#GoESSEESEEPawwwlll!!!
Bammer money coming out to $EC police departments??
I had Mizzou before. Feel even more confident in my pick for some reason now.
Here is my question about a situation like this, just because I don't pay any attention to the indiscretions of college aged men playing football, but how exactly does this work. When they say he was turned in for an alleged violation, UGA has to suspend him pending an investigation. That makes it sound like there is an immediate suspension, and little to no due diligence verifying the claim of the alleged violation. Which then leads me to ask, who is the one making the allegation?
I am sure there are layers to it I do not understand, but it seems like just anybody could turn a kid in "allegedly" and have them sit a game or two to verify whether or not a violation actually took place. Even the NCAA wouldn't be that dumb...but you never know.
Maybe I should call the NCAA on Tuesday night and tell them I gave James Conner that book of Hardee's coupons.
I would assume the source or evidence presented to the athletic department/ football program was credible enough to go ahead and suspend him.
From the andy staples article on si.com
-source: todd gurley suspension
Couple of things here - UGa did not 'have' to suspend Gurley. They chose the prudent move of suspending him, and I would guess that was driven primarily by Mark Richt. As for the allegations, there is proof of 300+ pictures, 70+ jerseys, & 30+ mini helmets that Gurley has signed in exchange for compensation. Gurley sold cheap - asking for 'as much as' $25 for a jersey or helmet, but often settling for $8 a picture. Many of the jerseys are available on Ebay right now for $400 or so.
So, UGa has proof, and Gurley isn't denying what he did. What UGa did was prudent, because this is a blatant violation of an (ancient, some might say incorrect) NCAA rule. Probably the most basic of their rules. This is essentially the exact same situation that Johnny Manziel & Texas A&M handled very differently last year.
If I recall correctly, Manziel was on videotape signing a whole bunch of stuff. I think the punishment was, what, sitting out a half? Because he claimed he didn't make money off it? Right.
Fine, whatever, take them off the field, I only LOVE watching Gurley run over around and through opposing defenses, now will be disappointed when I turn on the UGA game.
I do appreciate that Richt doesn't really mess around, I really do. But it's just so disappointing. All Gurley has to do is put out a bad self portrait and then he can claim they want his autograph for his artistic talents. Just find another way around it and get him back on the field. Tired of this nonsense.
This has been going on for decades, though. It's not new. I can remember being really young but reading in SI about the corruption in the SEC, SWC, & Big 8. Yeah, it was that long ago. As far as getting it cleaned up, good luck on that. You could pay Johnny Manziel or Todd Gurley $12K a year for 'walking around money', and there would still be boosters gladhanding them Benjamins & the players would still think they needed an extra thousand or so a month.
There's always a Cinderella story in college football, and there's always incredible performances every weekend. We won't really miss Gurley while he's gone, and we can respect Richt for not caving in like so many other SEC coaches would eagerly do.
I'll miss watching Gurley - He's been one of my favorite players to watch for the past 2 years.
But hats off to Richt/UGA Admins for handling it the correct way.
I'm sure it's also a case of suspend the player now, so there's no question later and possibly have to "vacate" wins and championships.
Very true - we saw the same thing with Florida and the handling of the QB situation on Monday afternoon. Different suspension entirely, but the response was similar.
My Dad told me that he used to sell pencils to boosters when he played college football in the 60's, he would give them a ticket if they bought a pencil (couldn't sell his comped tickets).
From what I've read, they only have proof that Gurley signed a whole lot of items. They only have allegations that he received payment for it. They've suspended him while they investigate that part of the story.
If it turns out that he's innocent, it really sucks for Gurley that he's going to be suspended, but it's certainly the right move for the team. They've got a stable of beastly RB's backing up Gurley. They still have a chance to win without him, but if they let him play and he's later found guilty, they will have to forfeit the game.
Yup, they have 2 guys that would start at most other schools, that are averaging 7.2 and 9.7 per carry, and have 5 td's between them. Similar pace for the numbers that Gurley puts up.
It strains the limits of credulity to pretend Gurley didn't accept payment for signing memorabilia. There are substantiated reports of the amounts that Gurley accepted for each category of items, so to pretend it is even in doubt that he did accept money is extremely naive, to be as polite as possible.
Also, let's be adult minded - there is a huge difference in being declared 'not guilty' in a criminal court case, and in being innocent. Lastly, whether or not the team has acceptable replacements for a player has ZERO basis on whether or not the player should be suspended for rule breaking.
I read a thread back on reddit a few days ago where the OP specifically stated that the hammer was coming down on a big time player in the NCAA, but he wouldn't list who. Looks like it was TG, but apparently Gurley was making crazy loot from selling autographed items. (jerseys etc)
Yeah I saw that too. Crazy stuff.
gurley was a Heisman candidate before his suspension. Big blow to him and UGA for sure.
$400 http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/10/09/todd-gurley-georgia-bulldo...
So, 1 game suspension?
He'll rush for 6 TDs against the Jackets to make up for it.
I am guessing he is not a business major. The things he signed are probably fetching $400 a piece. Not to mention the lifetime of marketing earnings he would have gotten if he won the Heisman.
So assuming everything reported about getting $ for signed memorabilia is true, we've seen 2 other high profile players in similar situations result in drastically different results. Terrelle Pryor and Johnny Manziel.
I read Joe's year old post and kinda, sorta agree.
But I guess my question is who buys this stuff? If Brewer, or Fuller, or Rogers, or [insert your player here] set up a table outside Sharkey's selling John Hancocks for $5 a pop. Or more subtly their stuff was for sale at, say Bookholders. Would you buy it? I wouldn't. Even if it was legal under NCAA rules. It's just some scribbled sharpie on your ball cap. Why pay and risk your star players eligibility for it. I don't get it.
I think you would be surprised that many people would pay for the signature and think nothing about possible consequences for the player. Star players will always be a draw for fans. Not all fans are that knowledgable about the NCAA.
I remember standing behind Vick in line at Kroger during his break out season. It was just before midnight and the poor guy was just trying to buy some ho-hos and whole milk. People were running up to him in line and asking him for his signature. One girl ran up and had him sign the back of her receipt. I'm not convinced she knew who he was.
The "suspended indefinitely" is just worded used because no return date has been set, example, when Winston was suspended it was for one game. This insulates the program if it turns out he is ineligible then the school does not get effected in the fallout, if nothing comes of this quickly he is reinstated. It happened last year at least once.
Everyone I see on Twitter is coming down on the NCAA for the investigation. Mind you, me being where I am, "everybody" comprises a bunch of Georgia fans... and Joe.
Whatever your stance on profiting off your own image and autograph... if the rule was indeed broken and Gurley is declared ineligible by the NCAA, so be it. Just because you don't like the rule doesn't mean you don't have to follow it.
That said, go Dawgs.
^^^^THIS!!!
I get it, the rules suck. Do I think they should be readdressed and some of them changed? Heck yeah. It's his name, his picture, let him do with it as he wants.
That being said, the rules currently are how they are and if current players want to knowingly break the rules then they deserve to be punished. Similar in ways to the whole "legal pot" debate. Regardless of how you feel on the issue, it's illegal (here in VA anyway) and if you possess/smoke it then you can be punished for it and you know that when you purchase it.
The sad part is will the demand for said products go down if the Power 5 conference make it legal for the players to sell these?
This is a bit complicated. I tend to agree with you, "the rules are rules". However, the NCAA is an organization has set inconsistency as its only precedent. Punishments and enforcement seem to be wholly arbitrary.
I think the rule is dumb. I think denying a kid an opportunity to profit off his own likeness, while the NCAA, conference and school can is silly. In an effort to close the can of worms, I'm going to cut my response off at few hundred instead of million words.
Joe, I don't know that anybody here is going to disagree with you. If the kid make a profit from his own likeness he should be able to. He will be able to as soon as he graduates, so why not before. I would feel better if the money went into a trust that he can't access until graduation or he leaves school, but let him make some money.
I know some folks here are against pay for play and are in favor of amateurism, and quite frankly that's fine. I know Whit loves the amaeture model. Everyone's allowed to have different opinions and disagree.
I don't know Gurley's specific situation, but some of these kids and their families need money. In less desperate cases, some of these kids need pocket change to do the things that normal college kids do, like take their significant other out on a date or go out for dinner. I am wholeheartedly against a trust fund model, primarily because the NCAA would oversee it, and they've proven they're only competent at incompetence.
When I had an internship at Tech no one stepped in and garnished my wages. That was my money, I earned it and these kids should be able to earn money and do with it whatever they'd like.
The difference in an internship & being an NCAA athlete is that there were not the same rules prohibiting you like there are with NCAA athletes. Those rules have been around for several decades, so it's not like ignorance can be pleaded, either. More than any other rule, players know they can't take money based on their being a promotable athlete.
It matters ZERO whether one agrees with the NCAA rules or not - they are still the rules and have been for decades and are instructed to the players more than any other regulations. Are the rules stupid? Doesn't matter, they are the rules. Don't talk about bombs while in the screening line at the airport, and don't take money when you're an NCAA athlete.
Yeah they were rules made 20-30 years ago when the world didn't revolve around college football. Look at these SEC network TV deals and all the money surrounding the sport, look at how much it has grown in the past year. Maybe its time to look at the rule and maybe change it or come up with a way to provide a little bit more.
Up until awhile ago you could go to NCAAshop.com and type in manziel, up would pop a Texas A&M #2 jersey.. but the NCAA said that they're not using his name to sell products... nice lie huh.
Really late to the party here, but upholding decade-old rules is one sure way to fall behind the times. Hell, if older the rule, the better: black people would still be slaves and count as 2/5 of man for voting, women would be relegated to the kitchen and have no voice, and gay men would have to live a life of shame in hiding. Granted, these are extreme, but rules need to adapt the times as appropriate. It is obvious that the NCAA rules are quickly becoming antiquated and extremely unfair.
And these have to do with football how?
We don't mix politics and football here.
You really went to an extreme and completely irrelevant tangent to argue for not enforcing NCAA rules. I won't discuss any of what you posted because it was so irrelevant.
What I'll do is try to reinforce what should be as elemental as the rule itself - The most basic of NCAA regulations is that players CAN NOT accept money for play or as a result of their popularity from play. End of story. I would hazard that even the most willfully ignorant high school kids can comprehend that. It is not a new rule. it has been around for as long as the NCAA has been around. Thus ignorance is a phony BS weak excuse that is insulting.
Lastly, not liking a rule/regulation/law does not mean one gets to ignore it without suffering the consequences.
1. I went extreme because they're the examples everyone knows.
2. Civil Rights, while arisen in the course of policy, should not invoke anyone's political beliefs - if you get hot and bother by the fact Black men are free and have the right to vote, I don't know what to say. (If gay rights are a hot topic to you, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make anyone upset. I'll leave it at that.)
3. Less extreme examples:
a. Safety of cars, i.e. requiring seat belts and airbags
b. Standards of employment - can't be fired for racial discrimination
c. NFL head hunting rules and QB safety rules
d. Addition of replay to baseball, football, and virtually every major sport (not golf, yet...)
e. Standards of pay of exploited migrant workers.
e. Are exploitated collegiate players next?
You can keep hammering home the elements of rules and how they shouldn't change. But I can't. I cannot suggest the current state of collegiate football was the same when the rules were enacted. Marketing on the likeness of players has gotten out of hand. These players bring in multi-million dollar revenues for $100K education return. Times change. So do rules. Adaptability is key to success in all phases of life.
Here's where your emotions made you wrong - I NEVER said the rule shouldn't change. I just said he was dumb for breaking the rule. There is a vast difference in the two. Over & over, I talked about not breaking the rule. I didn't talk about not changing the rule.
Gay rights aren't a 'hot topic' with me. But... again - they have zero relevance. At least not on a sports board THAT HAS SPECIFIC RULES AGAINST DISCUSSING POLITICS. What about that do you not understand? DO NOT DISCUSS POLITICS ON THESE MESSAGE BOARDS. NOT IN ANY CONTEXT.
You're way too busy raging emotionally to even read what you're trying to fight over. I'd suggest you go back and re-read the posts above, but I don't think it would matter at this point.
Pump the brakes. Chazz pushed a line a bit, but I generally agree that most of the examples, while powerful, were historical and generally understandable. Probably not the best way to engage in the conversation, but the latter post was significantly more on-point. Please avoid ALL CAPS REBUKES and condescension about someone's emotional state, which I think are unwarranted here. I see no one "raging" here except perhaps you in this post, which is as much against the spirit of the community as anything else that may be perceived in this thread.
Sorry if I misunderstood. I am for changing the rule and sympathetic to those who break it. I understand you are not, which is a very popular stance. (I think Joe, me and the rest of the pay-for-play crowd are still in the minority.)
I never tried to discuss politics, if anything, I'm apolitical, and simply tried examples. It just so happens that it takes politics to change rules. And yes, I was extreme in my examples, so I apologize. I do appreciate the debate. Thanks.
Let me be clear - I am not taking any - repeat for emphasis, any - stance on whether or not the rule should be changed in this discussion. That is what you kept missing. I am not taking a stance on whether the rule is good or bad, should stay or go. None whatsoever.
My stance was on the seemingly undeniable fact that Gurley - and every college athlete - is fully aware of the rule and the possible punishment for breaking it. Thus he should suffer the consequences, even if that means we don't get to see him play again. That was my stance - that was my only stance. I don't take it to be popular, I take it because it's the right thing to do. It's an old rule, everybody knows it. Everybody. That... was my stance. Nothing else.
Enjoy the day, it's going to be filled with Jameis Winston stuff about his actions. Later...
To be fair, there haven't been many days the past 15 months or so where this hasn't been the case.
Ha, he does know how to 'maintain a public profile', doesn't he? I think this one might be the final straw. He can stall, as I'm sure F$U will encourage, to try to keep proof of his accepting money to be revealed until after the Notre Dame game. I'd guess that is the short term goal.
It always seemed to me he was going to be gone after this year, anyway. Just like with Johnny Football, he can't do well on campus within the rules.
Swvadon is just trying to say that Todd Gurley:
Kind of like speeding - I go 75mph on the part of I81 where the speed limit is 60. Do I think it's stupid that the speed limit is low? Yes. Do I understand that I'm breaking the law? Yes. I have made a conscience, calculated decision to break the law, thus, I am liable for any legal action taken against me. Same goes for Gurley.
Thanks. That was indeed all I was trying to say.
Not to pile on here, but it was called the 3/5 Compromise, not the 2/5 Compromise.
Wait a minute --
Furthering political discussion on here is never a good thing, even under the guise of clarification. It only gives hope to the germ of more talk about a totally irrelevant topic to the original discussion. That is never worthwhile.
How can you argue slavery and the 3/5 compromise is a political issue? It is a historical issue. There is no chance that these antiquated laws will reopen for debate. Can we talk about Abraham Lincoln? Or is that taboo too. I've seen Jefferson brought up several times, should we shun people that bring him up?
I never thought I'd ever agree with Lou Holtz, much less quote him, but he made an excellent point a couple nights ago when he compared the NCAA's rule to getting a patent while working at a company. If I were to patent the device my team created in our senior design project, VT would automatically get 50% of any profits right off the top (and that's after they pay for all the legal and processing fees), with the rest being split between the project contributors. From what I've heard, that's on the higher end of things when it comes to universities. When I interned at Celanese (a chemical plant in Narrows, VA), they had it written into my contract that any patent I obtained during my time with Celanese, whether or not it was on company time or had anything to do with company processes automatically belonged to them, 100%, with I think a little cut for me. Point is, these kids are already compensated with a free education and the fact that they don't get everything they want is pretty on-par with the rest of the world. Should scholarships cover the full cost of attendance? You bet. Should athletes get a cut of merchandise sales and TV money? Nope. Welcome to the real world.
I agree with you in theory. Here's the problem though: wouldn't allowing athletes to profit from their likeness basically just open up a channel for unlimited booster money to be funneled directly to players and recruits?
Hey [RANDOM 5 STAR PLAYER] ! Can I have your autograph? I'll give you $5,000. You know as a [SEC SCHOOL] fan I think I would be in the market for your autographs on a regular basis if you came to play for us. What would you think about selling me one autograph a month for $10,000 during your tenure as a [SCHOOLS MASCOT]?
Think it over! GO [SEC SCHOOL]!
Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. No matter how much you pay the players, there will be some who desire more. There will also be some boosters who find ways to break the rules and give extra money to the players. Give a $1K monthly stipend to the revenue players, and there will be just as many as now that still want some hundreds pressed into their palms on a regular basis.
Players deserve some cash, but anyone who claims giving it to them will eliminate any of the illicit funding is being purposely ignorant of how the system works.
This is happening right now all across the country with $100 handshakes.
So basically, your solution is to just legitimize it completely? If we're going to go that route, why don't we just lift the ruse of "benefiting from their likeness" completely and let schools and boosters give recruits and players as much money as they want whenever they want?
Is that what you're proposing? If so, that's cool. I disagree but think it's at least consistent. I think if you do that it would destroy college football as we know it creating a super-class of a handful of schools (Virginia Tech would not be one of those schools), basically making the disparity between the haves and the have-nots even larger than it is today.
That wouldn't create a very interesting entertainment product to me. The relative parity is what keeps things interesting to me.
I'm in favor of capitalism for all parties.
I want to stop pretending the amateurism model, that the NCAA laughably toutes as rich with integrity while it and the schools make billions of dollars a year, works well. The rules are antiquated and have not adapted with the game.
I don't think recruiting would devolve into an all-out bidding war for players. I think the market would correct itself. And if it does, so be it. I'm not afraid of Virginia Tech being a have-not if it means a fair cut for the players.
Many problems would be solved if the NFL didn't prohibit players not 3 years removed from high school from entering the draft. The NFL and NCAA have nestled into a nice collusion where the NCAA is essentially minor league football and both leagues make a butt-ton of money.
yes my exact thought I just couldn't word it like this!!!!!!!!!
you'd still have to have some sort of governing body though, wouldn't you? Who would be the "NFL" of college? Would there be a salary cap like the NFL? A Salary floor? I suppose that would violate your notion of "free market capitalism"...
What would you do with all of the other sports? What about basketball? What about baseball at some schools or women's basketball at other schools? Are we establishing a new professional minor league for all of these sports, but limiting admission to schools that can afford to run them professionally?
It just seems like a bag of worms to me, and I think it would end up with a really uninteresting entertainment product of 16 or so Big time programs playing each other. Doesn't sound like a fun concept to me, I watch sports to have fun.
And this is why the NCAAs approach has been to ignore it and keep trying to act like nothing is wrong. It's a major challenge as to how to get it all to work and they haven't wanted to deal with it.
We put a man on the moon and have a vehicle roaming Mars. I'm pretty sure this can be figured out too.
DING. DING. DING.
I'm not arguing for retaining the NCAA model. I'm waiting to be pitched on a solution that works. The "Pay the players" argument is a fine one, but it almost always turns into a "The NCAA is bad" thing. We all know the NCAA is bad...so what's the answer?
Complaining that something is broken is very easy, coming up with a solution to fix what is broken is very challenging. When I ask these questions it's not because I'm trying to defend the NCAA. It's because I genuinely want to hear the ideas people have in answering them. I think this is an interesting thought experiment.
This is the best thing I came up with.
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2013/august/5/scholarships-or-brand-ri...
Good read, thanks. Seems like a good middle of the road solution that addresses a lot of the problems especially with non-revenue sports. It also strikes me like there would be a lot of potential for abuse, but it looks like we disagree on that, which is fine. You advocate that the schools and everyone get a cut, which would mean a lot of accounting an oversight. Who would do this accounting for the players and who would conduct the oversight?
These aren't reasons not to do it, I'm just exploring the concept a little in depth on a bye week.
But it also kind of gets to my first point, why not just eliminate the middle man and allow schools to pay the players directly? Then the team doesn't have to worry about Logan Thomas' time being taken away from practice to shoot a spot for Kroger.
it also doesn't answer any of the counter points I raised in that post. Unfortunately, any type of capitalist based system just doesn't work if you want the college football experience and atmosphere to remain the same.
Speaking for myself, I'm not an expert enough on the NCAA structure, rules, or model to be able to come up with a solution. My point is that IF the NCAA really wanted to change the model there is enough intellectual capacity in this country to figure out how to do it. Their false cover of amateurism and that everything is fine because we have rules that we "enforce" is complete and utter bull(smurf) and the only reason its been able to continue is because there wasn't enough press or care to push it forward. Certainly the NCAA doesn't want it to change because their "non-profit" model has made a lot of people A LOT of money.
The model is broken and before a solution can even be modeled there has to be acceptance that it is broken. As much as I disagree with the unionizing of college athletes that was a landmark case that forced the NCAA to admit that the model is broken. Hopefully they can move past putting all their energy into denial and use it to come up with solutions.
So your argument is to keep everything the same because of VT or parity, or parity for the sake of VT, or because of what? I have only seen four points made commonly, in this chain or otherwise:
One - someone will always want more (well, welcome to America, we have been dealing with this issue in various ways for our existence). I'm not sure why greed would be an argument against (potentially) doing the right thing. I should not donate to charities because there are so many that are corrupt and don't pass enough through to the cause.
Two - parity, I do not think this should be part of the discussion at hand, the athletes. You are taking an issue about people, and turning into an issue about what you want to see on Saturdays. Better yet, about what you want to see happen with VT, with little regard of the merits of an opposing argument about the athletes.
Three - scholarships are compensation enough, probably the most sound of arguments. Throw in lifetime medical benefits for serious injuries directly tied to the sport and I am on board.
Four - rules are rules. Rules are rules, so he should be suspended, agree. But that is not the point of this discussions is it? No one is talking about whether he should or should not be suspended right now in this particular instance, they are talking about reflecting on the rules to see if it is right that he is suspended. It would seem there would be no progress made in many areas, in many different fields of study or otherwise, if rules were not reflected upon, tested, and challenged. I will not put forth examples, because the easiest of them would probably start talk about what is not at hand, but let's not bring ourselves to disregarding fundementally sound arguments for or against this important issue with rules are rules. We are discussing something bigger than individual infractions, and we all know it.
Where did I argue to keep everything the same?
I'm not arguing to keep everything the same but I'll give you some reasons you are not considering and demonstrates how bad an idea pay for play is:
1) Best Recruits to Biggest Merchandise Market: The teams that annually sell the most merchandise will attract the best recruits every year. VT can kiss every 5 star goodbye, and most of 4 stars. You can say, some kids will want to be a Hokie and will still choose VT, but it aint happening. You can't blame a kid for getting paid when they can in a game as injury prone as football. Get paid now. And the kids that do choose VT will be choose us for only one reason, because every team that "pays" more than VT does didn't accept him or didn't have enough room on their roster.
2) Revenue loss: Universities depend on merchandising to support non-revenue sports and other things. Players dipping into that are not just messing with the University's cash flow but the whole market of college athletics. Non-revenue sports will die off because there just isn't enough money. As I have pointed out previously, Hokie Wrestling was a club sport that has grown into a new powerhouse. That's not happening under pay for play.
3) #allthetransfers: going back to point 1, you have essentially created a highly lucrative transfer market. You are a Bama and for some reason you need an experienced QB (maybe due to injuries) you go steal one by attracting them with all the money they can make off their merchandising volume. Second string QBs, hell even 1rst Stringers that are break out stars in a smaller university, would jump at that chance to start earning big money. You can't blame them. Again, you can argue but Coaches can block kids on where they transfer to. Sure, but that is usually restricted to conference or teams your playing in next year. You can't blanket restrict anyone from transferring.
that's just a few. Point is, pay for play equates to the death of college football as we all know and love. Again, I am all for changes. Larger stipend, extended medical care beyond graduation, etc. But not pay for play.
I just keep clicking the turkey leg upvote since I cant seem to be able to do those fancy moving pictures where it shows you how much I agree with what you typed.
NCAA needs to find a way to make the olympic model work, but without giving any school a (significant) advantage. Definitely a huge challenge, but I think it could be doable. Would require an overhaul of NCAA rules.
It would require a huge overall and lots of lost profit/$$$ for the NCAA which is exactly the reason it will never happen sadly.
We will constantly see this happening year in year out because its the era now. The cat is out of the hat and people see exactly what the NCAA is doing and they want their fair share. A ton of BAMA players even admitted it but the boosters were not attached to alabama... no idea how that worked out lol.
Isn't it ironic that the NCAA is a not-for-profit business?!
I was looking at that pick in my Yahoo Pick'em, and going back and forth. I like Missouri, and then I remembered Todd Gurley, and what he did to Clemson. So I picked Georgia.
And then I saw this news. But I hate changing my pick after I hit submit, so I'll stick with it.
So, if he went down to the t-shirt store on his own time, and had screen printed some t-shirts with his name on it and colors 'similar' to UGA, would he be able to sell them? (no where does it say 'nike', or 'russel', or 'georgia' or bulldogs, just his own name from his birth certificate)
Actually, probably not, based on the NCAA rules.
I think I remember hearing about an athlete at University of Richmond who had a whole business set up, none of it actually tied to his playing of sports, but the NCAA shut him down anyway. He wasn't trying to profit from his sports prestige, just from his business savvy.
Not sure weather it was Dez or Blackmon this happened to when they were putting on possible Heisman campaigns. I can't wait for the NCAA to be disbanded. It's such a complete sham. There are pics of Bama kids with Dodge Chargers and fanned out cash, but others get suspended immediately.
Here's a bit more on the absurdity of the situation:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/10/9/6954229/todd-gurley-s...
As someone said above, I agree that rules need to be followed, especially something as blatantly obvious as this one. It's a stupid rule and needs to be changed, but now there's a huge to-do over a couple hundred bucks that someone really wanted to expose.
So if he's selling these on ebay, is there a way to "out him" to ensure that no other kids get run over by him. I understand there is a level of liability on the players, but if he is going to openly pay them, record it, and hold it for a convenient time later, I feel like he is as big of a ****** as anything in this.
Dee Liner from Alabama
I don't know how in the hell more didn't come of this one....Alabama has a way of making these problems go away.
Pretty sure CJ Reavis tweeted a similar picture of himself. Not sure if he deleted it or not.
He did...pretty dumb move also. He did delete it.
But we aren't Alabama....CJ probably had Monopoly money.
and this....
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/04/dj_flukers_account_hacked_say...
This is the one that I find hard to believe...I find it really farfetched that none of these Alabama players took any money from this "disassociated" booster for any of the signed merchandise.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/disassoci...
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/julio-jon...
Where there is fire, there is fire...
Here is a HUGE compilation of Alabama allegations, put together by an Auburn fan.
http://www.nevertoyieldfoundation.com/2013/where-theres-fire-theres-fire/
Great read. Emmert has $1.7M+ reasons not to really care and to be completely reactive; much like Godell. He's got a good gig, can play both sides by feigning interest in enforcement and has lucked out that the national media doesn't care enough to make it a story. Could you image if national media members put their effort into the fallacy that is the NCAA instead of other issues like the Redskins name change (not trying to start a new thread, just making a point). Amateurism died a long time ago.
It's ok now Gurley can focus on the draft and putting up beast numbers. The NCAA is such a scam and it is unreal... the whole "free" scholarship argument I can understand from a non athlete's perspective but is not even close to what they make off of using players ect ect.
Gurley was a top 5 draft pick, Gurley will still be a top 5 draft pick and he can take his cash all the way to the bank.
/End of Rant!
Damn I need some VT football!
I doubt top 5. It has been how many years since there a rb was even taken in the first round. Most NFL teams are now using a RB by committee approach and replacing the rb after his second contract if not his first.
All the more reason to allow them to make some money while in college.
Gurley came in I think around 8 on Kiper's Big Board. Granted that means nothing about the draft at all though, but just food for thought.
Two years. Doug Martin and DMFW in 2012.
David Wilson was the last I remembered.
Yeah, he was the last pick in the first round. Martin went exactly one pick before he did.
(I looked it up)
I'd be shocked, RBs just don't get drafted that high these days. I suspect Gurley will be a mid-late 1st round pick.
Oh you mean like Dwayne "I have more money and resources at Clemson than I ever had in my life" Allen?
Or this one from Clemson recruit Mike Bellamy (the school even went so far as to demand he remove these pics from the internet)
Yeah, the NCAA really takes this crap seriously...
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/investigation-into-gurleys-possib...
And yet other people are saying a decision could come next week and that he's looking at 2-3 games based upon a UGA #SOURCE.
Now that's just funny right there.
Yessir.
Given Johnny Clipboard got a half and looks like Gurley will end up with 8 games it's a little sad too.
Lots rush to complain while ignoring the timing. Johnny Football got whacked in the middle of the summer, when A&M had time to formulate a strategy. Gurley was whacked in the middle of the season, so instead of weeks & months to answer, UGa only had hours & days.
Huge difference that many choose to ignore when comparing 'time of punishment'.
I get that. Just sad that it could result in a half year ban for a similar "indiscretion" while some seem to get nothing. That is all. I understand the timing and how it came yo light. And what he supposedly did IS against the rules.
It's hard to feel sad for someone who does something so dumb as that. Especially when it is the most basic of rules by the NCAA about retaining eligibility. Gurley did it while leaving a mound of evidence, as well. At least if he'd taken an envelope of cash there'd be no evidence. As it is, there's over 400 items that he's signed for sale. Make no mistake, he won't 'suffer' long. He's a junior, can declare for the NFL at any point and receive a huge advance on a signing bonus as a result.
Weren't we recruiting both Todd Gurley and Keith Marshall? Amazing how differently their careers have turned out...Marshall is fifth in rushing at UGa this year. Wonder if he would've fared better in Blacksburg...a shame.
#alltheinjuries
Not gonna lie, this may be the best thing that could've happened to Gurley this year. Given UGA's terrible strength and conditioning program, the good news here is that it's darn near impossible that he'll tear his ACL again.
^I was thinking this. NFL scouts don't care how many autographs you sell.
Maybe they do. But in that case, more is better.
Hell, Tebow went in the first round. He was a failure of a player but the Broncos surely turned a profit by having him on the team.
It definitely won't touch his draft stock but it sucks for college football. That kid was fun to watch. My dad went to UGA for vet school so my family has always been VT first and UGA second.
Gurley never tore his ACL (unles he did it in HS).
That was Keith Marshall.
Now news is out that Jameis Winston also signed over 300 items for the same memorabilia agent as Todd Gurley, virtually all of them in sequence with similar signatures on similar sections of the memorabilia - footballs, jerseys, helmets, photos, etc.
So, exactly the same situation as Todd Gurley. Food for thought...
Maybe they'll suspend him from another baseball game.
Breaking News: FSU has suspended Jameis Winston from the Orioles vs. Royals game tonight....
I can't wait to see if FSU tries to save face and make an actual move against public perception or just keep in their usual course of action with Winston. Until I see otherwise, I'm betting on the latter.
IF this guy is telling the truth I'm sure there are 50 guys that signed helmets for him.
Latest info on Jameis Winston, as well as some update on Gurley...
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11697064/florida-state-se...