| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5360
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/18/15 9:24 pm ::: Mo’ne Davis Launches Sneaker to Help Impoverished Girls |
Reply  |
|
| Quote: |
| The 13-year-old has teamed up with M4D3 to design a shoe with proceeds helping underprivileged girls around the world . . . . . .What’s up next for Mo’ne? When she’s not shooting hoops with the Harlem Globetrotters, she’s preparing for the release of her memoir this month. Somehow, my life feels so inadequate. |
http://www.theroot.com/blogs/the_grapevine/2015/03/mo_ne_davis_launches_sneaker_to_help_impoverished_girls.html
I know how she feels. Sheesh! Still wondering how all this will affect her eligibility. |
|
dtrain34
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 409
Location: Lacey, Washington
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 12:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Hail, Mo'Ne
Full of Grace.....
Eligibility? I'm worried she might not be canonized before she turns 18! That would be a travesty. C'mon Pope Francis, waive the usually requirements! I mean, she had two pretty good Little League pitching outings on television and drove around a 5'2" comedian in a celebrity game.
If that's not enough..... SMDH!
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 1:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It looks to me like her handlers might be having her grab everything they can and are gambling that the amateurism rules will be dead or changed by the time she gets to college.
If that's what they're doing I think that's a losing bet.
|
|
dtrain34
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 409
Location: Lacey, Washington
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 1:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
In all seriousness, NCAA rules don't kick in until 9th grade.
Plus, she will have major evidence that she was used by everyone around her. SHE didn't write a book or think of the idea; SHE didn't design a shoe with the thought of helping impoverished children.
She may end up hiring Mickey Rooney's lawyer before this is all over. Or to quote Brad Paisley: "...can't wait to date a supermodel, can't wait to sue my dad."
|
|
Carol Anne
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1739
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
|
scullyfu
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8860
Location: Niagara Falls
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 1:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| the article didn't say she was going to be receiving any money herself, so why would setting up a non-profit to help underprivileged girls be a violation of any amateur/professional status?
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 1:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| dtrain34 wrote: |
In all seriousness, NCAA rules don't kick in until 9th grade.
Plus, she will have major evidence that she was used by everyone around her. SHE didn't write a book or think of the idea; SHE didn't design a shoe with the thought of helping impoverished children.
She may end up hiring Mickey Rooney's lawyer before this is all over. Or to quote Brad Paisley: "...can't wait to date a supermodel, can't wait to sue my dad." |
What makes you think the amateurism rules don't apply at any time?
It doesn't matter if she was "used". If she or her family have received one dime from the shoes, the TV appearances, the NBA game, the public appearances, or anything else on the basis of her athletic noteriety, she has a problem.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5360
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 1:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Yeah I read it that way at first too. But the shoes are not for selling to impoverished girls (they certainly can try to afford them if they wish) but to bring in money to donate to programs for impoverished girls. |
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5360
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 2:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
What makes you think the amateurism rules don't apply at any time?
It doesn't matter if she was "used". If she or her family have received one dime from the shoes, the TV appearances, the NBA game, the public appearances, or anything else on the basis of her athletic noteriety, she has a problem. |
Then the rules, in my opinion, have too much overreach. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 2:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
What makes you think the amateurism rules don't apply at any time?
It doesn't matter if she was "used". If she or her family have received one dime from the shoes, the TV appearances, the NBA game, the public appearances, or anything else on the basis of her athletic noteriety, she has a problem. |
Then the rules, in my opinion, have too much overreach. |
This isn't a matter of some trivial detail. This is the very definition of amateur athletics. You can't get paid for or because of your athletic skill or performance. if you do, you're a professional, not an amateur. That's always been the case.
This goes right to the heart of amateur athletics. It's the fundamental distinction between amateur and professional sports. it's not a close call.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66905
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 2:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
What makes you think the amateurism rules don't apply at any time?
It doesn't matter if she was "used". If she or her family have received one dime from the shoes, the TV appearances, the NBA game, the public appearances, or anything else on the basis of her athletic noteriety, she has a problem. |
Then the rules, in my opinion, have too much overreach. |
This isn't a matter of some trivial detail. This is the very definition of amateur athletics. You can't get paid for or because of your athletic skill or performance. if you do, you're a professional, not an amateur. That's always been the case.
This goes right to the heart of amateur athletics. It's the fundamental distinction between amateur and professional sports. it's not a close call. |
There are exceptions in the NCAA rules. Several athletes have played professional baseball then gone back to school to play college football, for example.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 2:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
What makes you think the amateurism rules don't apply at any time?
It doesn't matter if she was "used". If she or her family have received one dime from the shoes, the TV appearances, the NBA game, the public appearances, or anything else on the basis of her athletic noteriety, she has a problem. |
Then the rules, in my opinion, have too much overreach. |
This isn't a matter of some trivial detail. This is the very definition of amateur athletics. You can't get paid for or because of your athletic skill or performance. if you do, you're a professional, not an amateur. That's always been the case.
This goes right to the heart of amateur athletics. It's the fundamental distinction between amateur and professional sports. it's not a close call. |
There are exceptions in the NCAA rules. Several athletes have played professional baseball then gone back to school to play college football, for example. |
LOTS of players do that all the time. Especially with baseball and another sport like football or basketball. It's very common. Generally, you can be a pro in one sport and an amateur in each other IF you keep both very distinct and clean and your compensation is directly tied to and identifiable with only that one sport. That's not really an "exception".
Playing in the NBA All Star celebrity game wasn't baseball specific, and general things like selling shoes or books or Tonight Show appearances can create an across-the-board forfeiture of amateur status.
And if she is paying an agent to arrange these various promotional activities, then she's toast.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5360
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 2:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| For awhile now I've felt that the NCAA rules, originally started in good faith, have turned into something ever-increasingly about the ability of the NCAA to make sure they get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro". They squawk about an amateur getting paid but for all intents and purposes, scholarships are a form of payment. The difference is that it comes from the self-legitimate NCAA and not outside sources. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 3:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| For awhile now I've felt that the NCAA rules, originally started in good faith, have turned into something ever-increasingly about the ability of the NCAA to make sure they get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro". They squawk about an amateur getting paid but for all intents and purposes, scholarships are a form of payment. The difference is that it comes from the self-legitimate NCAA and not outside sources. |
No, scholarships are "expenses" which have ALWAYS been allowed to amateurs in all sports.
This amateur/pro distinction wasn't created by nor is it limited to the NCAA.
Oh, and how exactly is the NCAA trying to "get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro"" with all those lacrosse, fencing, swimming, diving, cross country, water polo, tennis, softball, volleyball, field hockey, crew, gymnastics, wrestling, sailing, and all the other 90 percent of college athletes? Not to mention all the Division I and II athletes governed by the very same amateurism rules. I'm always amazed when this topic gets discussed that some people make it sound as if Power 5 conference football players are the only ones covered by the rules.
|
|
dtrain34
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 409
Location: Lacey, Washington
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 7:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
My point -- and I haven't checked to see if this is still true -- is that pre-high school violations have not been enforced by the NCAA as the athlete is not yet considered a PSA.
Even though Mo'ne plays on the high school team of her private academy, she's in the 8th grade and may not yet be subject to the rules.
I'm sure the NCAA in any case will get caught up in the aura of "she once struck out some boys so all is forgiven" and let her do what she wants under the guise of some "exceptional" rulings to the standard By-Laws.
What everyone is still forgetting is that it is not a done deal that this kid is D1 anything. Jasmine Plummer, the real life girl at the center of the story in the Keke Palmer/Ice Cube movie "The Longshots", after starring as a quarterback vs. boys in Pop Warner football, played JC hoops for Feather River College in superior California. Nothing wrong with that, but she had Mo'Ne like expectations placed on her, too.
Tennessee's Jamie Nared was famously kicked out of a 7th grade boys league in Oregon and has fared well in her sport but was never Mo'Ne-itized. I saw another 12-year old girl score 11 points, including a buzzer-beating, game-winning 3 in a college women's summer league playing for one school's alumni squad against a legit JC team. But it wasn't on TV so again, no Mo'ne-isms.
The point is, all over America at any given moment some precocious kid is doing something phenomenal. Mo'Ne, as I recall, starred in the LL regionals and in the first game or two at Williamsport. Sample size, folks, sample size --- and Kevin Hart was a VERY SMALL sample size.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5360
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 7:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
| For awhile now I've felt that the NCAA rules, originally started in good faith, have turned into something ever-increasingly about the ability of the NCAA to make sure they get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro". They squawk about an amateur getting paid but for all intents and purposes, scholarships are a form of payment. The difference is that it comes from the self-legitimate NCAA and not outside sources. |
No, scholarships are "expenses" which have ALWAYS been allowed to amateurs in all sports.
This amateur/pro distinction wasn't created by nor is it limited to the NCAA.
Oh, and how exactly is the NCAA trying to "get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro"" with all those lacrosse, fencing, swimming, diving, cross country, water polo, tennis, softball, volleyball, field hockey, crew, gymnastics, wrestling, sailing, and all the other 90 percent of college athletes? Not to mention all the Division I and II athletes governed by the very same amateurism rules. I'm always amazed when this topic gets discussed that some people make it sound as if Power 5 conference football players are the only ones covered by the rules. |
Its money being paid on behalf of the student because of his/her athletic prowess, ie. compensation.
Any manner of sponsorships and funding that big companies give to schools with high profile athletes and winning programs, TV rights, merchandise licensing, ticket sales, concessions, parking fees, high priced box seating, apparel and paraphernalia sales, minimally compensated (scholarships and a chance at an education) advertisment for the school. And I have no doubt if the schools could monetize all those sports as well as they do the big three (and that depends on where you live because lacrosse is big business where its very popular, as well as tennis, and volleyball is king in some places) it would be the same end result. And speaking of being amazed, when did I ever say this was just about football? Some programs that have well followed track teams get lots of revenue streams from that. I don't get how people can look at the NCAA system and not say that it favors the NCAA. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 8:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
| For awhile now I've felt that the NCAA rules, originally started in good faith, have turned into something ever-increasingly about the ability of the NCAA to make sure they get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro". They squawk about an amateur getting paid but for all intents and purposes, scholarships are a form of payment. The difference is that it comes from the self-legitimate NCAA and not outside sources. |
No, scholarships are "expenses" which have ALWAYS been allowed to amateurs in all sports.
This amateur/pro distinction wasn't created by nor is it limited to the NCAA.
Oh, and how exactly is the NCAA trying to "get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro"" with all those lacrosse, fencing, swimming, diving, cross country, water polo, tennis, softball, volleyball, field hockey, crew, gymnastics, wrestling, sailing, and all the other 90 percent of college athletes? Not to mention all the Division I and II athletes governed by the very same amateurism rules. I'm always amazed when this topic gets discussed that some people make it sound as if Power 5 conference football players are the only ones covered by the rules. |
Its money being paid on behalf of the student because of his/her athletic prowess, ie. compensation.
Any manner of sponsorships and funding that big companies give to schools with high profile athletes and winning programs, TV rights, merchandise licensing, ticket sales, concessions, parking fees, high priced box seating, apparel and paraphernalia sales, minimally compensated (scholarships and a chance at an education) advertisment for the school. And I have no doubt if the schools could monetize all those sports as well as they do the big three (and that depends on where you live because lacrosse is big business where its very popular, as well as tennis, and volleyball is king in some places) it would be the same end result. And speaking of being amazed, when did I ever say this was just about football? Some programs that have well followed track teams get lots of revenue streams from that. I don't get how people can look at the NCAA system and not say that it favors the NCAA. |
You can look at any amateur athletic organizations rules. They all allow reasonable expenses. Always have. Can't help it if you disagree with that well established approach.
And please tell us one school making a profit off of lacrosse or track or volleyball. There aren't any.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66905
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 8:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| And please tell us one school making a profit off of lacrosse or track or volleyball. There aren't any. |
Technically the schools are all non-profit, so none of them make a profit off of any sports.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 9:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| dtrain34 wrote: |
My point -- and I haven't checked to see if this is still true -- is that pre-high school violations have not been enforced by the NCAA as the athlete is not yet considered a PSA.
. |
I think you may be confusing recruiting rules with amateurism rules.
The amateurism rules specify a limited number that apply only to student athletes; the rest apply to everyone. I know of no age limit in the amateurism rules and have never heard that one exists.
Oh, and even with respect to the recruiting rules the NCAA cited UConn for a violation for Geno's contact with her despite her age, if I understand correctly.
She got some sort of specific waiver from the NCAA to get paid for the Chevy ad. A lot of people at the time criticized the rather contorted rationale that was provided.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 9:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| And please tell us one school making a profit off of lacrosse or track or volleyball. There aren't any. |
Technically the schools are all non-profit, so none of them make a profit off of any sports. |
That's confusing different meanings of "profit". Just because an entity is a not-for-profit doesn't mean they can't make earnings or a profit on particular undertakings. Rather it refers to what is done with those earnings. They don't distribute the profits to owners or shareholders. Rather those profits are used for the organization's tax exempt purpose (most commonly under 501(c)(3) for charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.)
So there's nothing wrong with making a profit, whether from football tickets or patent licensing, as long as those profits are poured back into the institution for its charitable purpose. That is the nature of a not-for-profit.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 9:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
| For awhile now I've felt that the NCAA rules, originally started in good faith, have turned into something ever-increasingly about the ability of the NCAA to make sure they get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro". They squawk about an amateur getting paid but for all intents and purposes, scholarships are a form of payment. The difference is that it comes from the self-legitimate NCAA and not outside sources. |
No, scholarships are "expenses" which have ALWAYS been allowed to amateurs in all sports.
This amateur/pro distinction wasn't created by nor is it limited to the NCAA.
Oh, and how exactly is the NCAA trying to "get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro"" with all those lacrosse, fencing, swimming, diving, cross country, water polo, tennis, softball, volleyball, field hockey, crew, gymnastics, wrestling, sailing, and all the other 90 percent of college athletes? Not to mention all the Division I and II athletes governed by the very same amateurism rules. I'm always amazed when this topic gets discussed that some people make it sound as if Power 5 conference football players are the only ones covered by the rules. |
I'm not questioning the legality but star college basketball players have been allowed to take out loans from banks where the collateral is their future earning potential, and then use the loan to insure themselves for millions against injury. The first I heard od it when when it was done by Patrick Ewing. It may or may not be income but it is certainly the acquisition of assets. And if that wasn't done solely benefit the NCAA financially then why can't the player spend the money any way they choose?
The NCAA isn't protecting amateur athletics, they are protecting the NCAA.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 9:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
| For awhile now I've felt that the NCAA rules, originally started in good faith, have turned into something ever-increasingly about the ability of the NCAA to make sure they get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro". They squawk about an amateur getting paid but for all intents and purposes, scholarships are a form of payment. The difference is that it comes from the self-legitimate NCAA and not outside sources. |
No, scholarships are "expenses" which have ALWAYS been allowed to amateurs in all sports.
This amateur/pro distinction wasn't created by nor is it limited to the NCAA.
Oh, and how exactly is the NCAA trying to "get the most out of an "amateur" athlete's earning potential before they "go pro"" with all those lacrosse, fencing, swimming, diving, cross country, water polo, tennis, softball, volleyball, field hockey, crew, gymnastics, wrestling, sailing, and all the other 90 percent of college athletes? Not to mention all the Division I and II athletes governed by the very same amateurism rules. I'm always amazed when this topic gets discussed that some people make it sound as if Power 5 conference football players are the only ones covered by the rules. |
I'm not questioning the legality but star college basketball players have been allowed to take out loans from banks where the collateral is their future earning potential, and then use the loan to insure themselves for millions against injury. The first I heard od it when when it was done by Patrick Ewing. It may or may not be income but it is certainly the acquisition of assets. And if that wasn't done solely benefit the NCAA financially then why can't the player spend the money any way they choose?
The NCAA isn't protecting amateur athletics, they are protecting the NCAA. |
It is specifically only for insuring against injury. And it's not just against future earnings. The policy itself pays the premium if the player is injured, and not just any player can take out such a policy or in any amount. As I understand it, it requires a determination of the potential loss from injury and is limited to a policy in some portion of that amount.
Loans against future earnings are generally prohibited. Indeed Cliff Alexander of Kansas is out of action right now because his mom took out a loan that affects his eligibility.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 10:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
It is specifically only for insuring against injury. And it's not just against future earnings. The policy itself pays the premium if the player is injured, and not just any player can take out such a policy or in any amount. As I understand it, it requires a determination of the potential loss from injury and is limited to a policy in some portion of that amount.
Loans against future earnings are generally prohibited. Indeed Cliff Alexander of Kansas is out of action right now because his mom took out a loan that affects his eligibility. |
When a governing body both makes and enforces the rules their attorneys can word things to allow anything they choose since they will rule on any challenge to their own rules. I have no information about Alexander's case but if the violation was for what the money is used for and not the loan itself, which I suspect is the case, then the NCAA is being arbitrary.
I'm not for or against borrowing on your athletic ability, but if the NCAA was truly the defender of amateurism they would ban all loans and tell those who wish to turn pro. Instead they invent a way to keep their stars and distort the concept of amateurism in order to profit themselves.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 10:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
That's nice, but as Justice Stevens wrote:
What the NCAA and its member institutions market in this case is competition itself -- contests between competing institutions. Of course, this would be completely ineffective if there were no rules on which the competitors agreed to create and define the competition to be marketed. A myriad of rules affecting such matters as the size of the field, the number of players on a team, and the extent to which physical violence is to be encouraged or proscribed, all must be agreed upon, and all restrain the manner in which institutions compete. Moreover, the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football -- college football. The identification of this "product" with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the "product," athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like. And the integrity of the "product" cannot be preserved except by mutual agreement; if an institution adopted such restrictions unilaterally, its effectiveness as a competitor on the playing field might soon be destroyed. Thus, the NCAA plays a vital role in enabling college football to preserve its character, and as a result enables a product to be marketed which might otherwise be unavailable. In performing this role, its actions widen consumer choice -- not only the choices available to sports fans but also those available to athletes -- and hence can be viewed as procompetitive.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5360
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/19/15 11:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| And please tell us one school making a profit off of lacrosse or track or volleyball. There aren't any. |
Technically the schools are all non-profit, so none of them make a profit off of any sports. |
That's confusing different meanings of "profit". Just because an entity is a not-for-profit doesn't mean they can't make earnings or a profit on particular undertakings. Rather it refers to what is done with those earnings. They don't distribute the profits to owners or shareholders. Rather those profits are used for the organization's tax exempt purpose (most commonly under 501(c)(3) for charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.)
So there's nothing wrong with making a profit, whether from football tickets or patent licensing, as long as those profits are poured back into the institution for its charitable purpose. That is the nature of a not-for-profit. |
And all that profit comes from huge crowds watching the Chancellor's speech on the stateof the university? Maybe they spend millions to cheer on highly paid coaches giving stirring pep talks. |
|
|
|
