I just used the tattoo thing as an example. But still, what determines a personal item? I totally agree that these idiots should be booted, but the way I see it the rule is not clear at all. And it has nothing to do with me being a Buckeye fan either as I would feel better about the situation if they were all out for the Sugar Bowl as well. But I just don't see how this rule is clear at all. If they sold something that was given to them, how is that any different from selling something they had before they even entered college? I think it would easily be argued. If one of them sold their basketball shoes from high school, it could easily be said that the only reason he got whatever amount for them, was because someone saw value in them due to the athlete's exposure from the sport. If that was the case, then it's no different then selling what they sold or even an autograph. I guarantee my shoes or autograph is not worth anywhere near as much as someone playing under the NCAA rules. Sounds a little out there, but I'm also thinking that a week ago, people would have thought it was nuts to think a player could get suspended for selling personal items. What about selling textbooks after they had the class? Those were given to them too and I gotta believe that happens all the time.
I also think the Cam Newton deal is completely relevant. These guys just sold some stuff. Cam was outright purchased by a school. It all falls under the same deal. No player can gain financially from the sport. Sure it was Newtons parents, but how is that not linked? I really doubt that if any of us contacted Auburn and said "Hey gimme a couple hundred thousand and I'll try to talk this guy into going there." that any of us would get anything. Needless to say, he got off free and clear (at least until about 3 years), so how is that not a variation in the rule? That would be the precedent they set. Just like the murder example, even though its pretty far fetched, if someone went to trial for a certain murder charge, fought it all the way through the system, and eventually was found innocent, it sets that precedent. If another guy had the same scenario, I guarantee his attorneys would run crazy over that precedent. It's an interpretation of the law, or in this case the NCAA rules. Which goes right back to the part about selling personal items. They set a precedent on selling personal items. So how far does this rule go? What if one received a free meal from making an appearance at a charity event? Isn't that receiving something due to the athlete's popularity from the sport? I just think the rules are entirely too vague, and are not enforced evenly. And actually that's why, even though it's still a pretty unloyal thing to do, I honestly believe that these guys had no idea this was against the rules. Heck now they are probably wishing they would have collected a ton of cash to go play football at a school since it's so easy to get away with now. (of course that's assuming they really didn't)
This NCAA and tOSU by law is probably one of the oldest and most well known rules in the book. I'm kind of shocked you don't know much about it. This is like saying you didn't know murder was wrong in real life. AJ Green was just suspended 4 games earlier this season for selling his jersey and FSU had a huge fallout with it in the 90s. It's so well known that it gets to the point that they don't even report it anymore. It's just a "common sense" rule that you don't accept improper benefits by reselling items that are given to you by the university for your own financial gain because the financial gain is only because you are an athlete on the team to begin with.
1
