Reggie Bush has decided to give back his Heisman. I am split on this topic. I can see both sides. Technically he was ineligible at the time of the award since he took the "bonuses", so I can see taking it back. However, the monetary gains did not affect his play for the year. It wasn't like he took pills or shots to boost his performance. So I can see him not giving it back.

 

So how do you see it?

I think he at least saves a little face giving it back before they take it away. They almost had to considering the rules they have. I think the whole thing is stupid. I also think vacating wins is stupid. You can't undo the fact that they won or that he was the best player of the year. I think that in cases like this they should punish the school with sanctions, lost scholarships, etc. But, you cant' change history so just leave the records alone.

i agree, he saved alot of face and showed some humilaty by givingit back instead of allowing them to take it from him.

 

 

however, i think this rule is stupid. why shouldn't a college player make a profit on his playing style so long as it doesn't involve school property (ie: selling a jersey online) afterall the colleges make how much profit off those players, coaches make profit as well from product deals on items worn during game time; while the players get none of those profits even though they are wear the good and are the active billboard.

 

Reggie would still be playing just as good in some back water college as he would at a big uni he got the money on his ability, not because of the school he was at. the school doesn't own his ability any more than they own his name.

 

besides, the only difference between Reggie Bush and other star college football players is that Reggie got caught

besides, the only difference between Reggie Bush and other star college football players is that Reggie got caught

 

My grandpa used to say the same thing about rich men and theives.

 

I agree that players should get something but that could create a really sticky situation. Do you give better players more money? Does everyone get the same amount? Do you put a limit on how much a school can pay out or do you let them get into bidding wars for high school kids? What if a kid gets hurt, can you cut the amount you are giving him? I know all scholarship athletes get a small stipend, or at least they did in my day, why not just increase that to a more reasonable amount. And what about other sports? Most schools are making a ton of money off of football, true, but they are also using a lot of that to support other sports within the program. Do football players get paid and not other athletes? It could be a real mess.

i see how it could be a problem to allow for it. but i have an idea on how to do it.

 

 

Do you give better players more money? Does everyone get the same amount?

well when your talking about the boosters (like the case is with Bush) it's the capitalistic money model which makes the rules. ie: better product gets the money.

 

with the product placement it should be a % cut and set the % across the board no matter the player skill level.

 

ie: each player whose dressed gets $.05 per $ of the ad profit for each game their dressed on the field.

 

 

Do you put a limit on how much a school can pay out or do you let them get into bidding wars for high school kids?

 

this already happens with the scholarships. some schools can afford to offer a student a full scholarship, while others can only afford a partial. some schools get more endorsement deals from product lines while others get none. they would adjust acording to their means

 

with the boosters, again the capitalistic model will take place. if those boosters can afford to pay out lots of money then let them, if they can't then they wont.

 

the student will still have the determining factor on where they go to school though.

 

 

What if a kid gets hurt, can you cut the amount you are giving him?

 

it would depend on the legalease used in the docs. but looking at it from an NFL stand point, can a team not pay their player if he's benched the rest of the year due to injury?

 

with the boosters, their more like sponsers on the NFL level; sponsers are known to pull conracts off injured players or just not renew; same would apply with the boosters

 

 

I know all scholarship athletes get a small stipend, or at least they did in my day, why not just increase that to a more reasonable amount.

 

this is think is the root of the problem, why boosters give the athletes money in the first place and could be an easy way of fixing the problem. maybe the stopend includes a small cut for each player from the ad revenue the school makes off of using them as billboards for product placement.

 

 

And what about other sports?

 

it should be the same across the board, becuase it's done on all the sports the same rules should apply concrening profits made on their student players.

i just feel like the schools are taking advantage of the students by not allowing the students to profit from their own skills. more students get hurt or don't make it to the pros, than those that do. and even the ones that do, it's no guarentee they wont get hurt and not make that big payday.

 

 

the schools don't place enough of a presnces on grades, instead they push "we gotta win the title" an if the student plays poorly or gets a D they yank the scholarship. atleast if they can profit off their skills, they will have a little bit to fall back on if they don't make it or get hurt and can't play.

This is my first post outside of my introduction post a couple of days ago. Seemed like a good idea to jump right in on a controversial topic.

 

I am amazed that nobody seems to believe that a free degree from a university in this country counts as being "paid". Has anyone here had to pay to send a kid to school recently? Having put two into universities in the past five years, I attest to the fact that it is expensive.

 

Besides, isn't there a place for athletes to use their skills to make money? Oh, yeah! It's called the professional leagues.

This is my first post outside of my introduction post a couple of days ago. Seemed like a good idea to jump right in on a controversial topic.

 

welcome to DM :) if you want controversial topics make sure to check out the Debates & Discussion board; they always have good discussion going on over there :)

 

 

 

as to the scholarship, thats just the incintive offered by the school to get the kid to come play there. yeah it's a type of pay day, but one that doesn benifit the kid monetarially and allow him to profit directly from his skills.

 

i'm correcting one point, it wasn't a boosters that offered Bush the money; it was an Ad agency which did a verbal contract for a future investment when he turned pro.

 

again my arguement remains. why shouldn't an athlete be allowed to make a profit off his own abilities when the schools make alot of profit off of him. with bush, his college went to two bowls beause of him; both bowls came with millions of dollars in winnings for the school. had they not had bush on that team, they most likely wouldn't have gone. so why is it okay for the schools to profit off the kid, but for the kid not to profit off himself?

 

 

in reggies case, the ad agency gave him a 100,000 or so and his family a house in exchange for a verbal consent that he would use them when he got into the pros. he re-nigged on the deal so they outed him and 5 years later he's disqualified for the trophy.

 

why shouldn't a player be allowed to set up deals for his future and reap a payment then as an incentive to keep the deal. if the company is will to invest the capital, then it's on them if the player doesn't do crap in the draft or pros (alot liek investing in the stock market) since it's a future investment, that doesn't become real until he's drafted it doesn't effect his play in the college or the colleges standing contracts (ie clothes, shoes ect)

 

 

Besides, isn't there a place for athletes to use their skills to make money? Oh, yeah! It's called the professional leagues.

 

but whats the % of those who enter into the draft from full ride scholarships which get drafted. and out of those who get drafted, whats the % that will make it in the professionals? yeah it's a risk they take, thats fine. but what are the % of athletes which are all stars in the college level but can't cut it in the professional leagues?

 

 

lets that a kid who is an all star in universtiy, his team wins 1 bowl and he's the MVP and comes in 4th for the trophy pick. while he's playing good, a company see a future investment opportunity in him and approach him with the same offer as Bush. X mount of $ up front for a verbal contract that he'll sign with the company once he turns pro.

 

he gets into the draft, isn't drafted and is pushed into the free agency pool where he is ignored becuase the talent in the draft was just that hard; or he gets drafted low or signed from free agency but gets cut fromt he roster before the season starts because he just can't do it at the professional level.

 

 

his time to profit off the skills he worked hard on and put alot of time into was during college, now the star has shined out and no company or team wants him. atelast he would have the money from that future investment contract to float him until he finds a job.

in reggies case, the ad agency gave him a 100,000 or so and his family a house in exchange for a verbal consent that he would use them when he got into the pros. he re-nigged on the deal so they outed him and 5 years later he's disqualified for the trophy.

 

 

this also brigns up a different question.

 

 

shouldnt there be a statute of limitations or something on how long an investigation like this can be open on a player. it took them 5 years to get anything on him, isn't that a bit too long?

as to the scholarship, thats just the incintive offered by the school to get the kid to come play there. yeah it's a type of pay day, but one that doesn benifit the kid monetarially and allow him to profit directly from his skills.

 

(Haven't figured out how to use the Quote feature yet)

 

My point is that the value of the scholarship is being minimized. Take a look at the lifetime earnings of people with/without college degrees. The huge discrepancy there is why the value of a degree is so important to me.

 

It is exactly those student athletes who don't have the skills to make it at the professional level (yet, coming out of high school are good enough to be offered a scholarship) who get the most from this.

 

Debate about that set aside, college athletics are, as defined, amateur competitions. Pay for play is a professional concept. It seems to me that black and white.

 

Thanks for the tip about the Debates and Discussions board. I'll ramble on over there next.

I see your points Red but the thing is, the majority of the money that the school does make off of these kids pays for their scholarships and the scholarships of other atheletes. It's not like they are entirely profiting from it either. I think that the scholarship, and all it comes with, should be enough. The serious student-athelete is using sports as a way to get an education for free and is planning on being able to make a living with that degree and not as an athelete. The ones that don't seriously presue a degree and are using the school as a stepping stone to a professional sports career are taking the chance that they won't make it. The thing is that a lot of those who are considered outstanding atheletes are also the ones that would never make it in college without the help the program gives them. A lot of them wouldn't even be accepted to college. I think the fact that the university is giving them a chance to showcase themselves for a pro career should be payment enough.

by the way, DG, welcome aboard. If you go on the D&D section you'll find some really interesting discusions but watch your back. It can get brutal sometimes. :)

Honestly reggie bush was good and elusive in college but the best talent comes from the south, he was making highlights on a bunch of nobodies, fresno state is a joke of a football program, please if you dont want anybody to hate dont compare reggie bush to the great barry sanders, I dont even like him being compared to chris johnson.

 

 

 

Besides, isn't there a place for athletes to use their skills to make money? Oh, yeah! It's called the professional leagues. If they want to get exposure and grow college is the ONLY place they can go. This is actually as much about the NFL and colleges collaborating to ensure this free minor league continues.

 

My system would be to have the schools provide a scholaarship with no perks. Then allow the boosters to pay give gifts as they saw fit but no agents.