Not April Fools' Day - NCAA confiscates reporter's cat mug
So, the NCAA, bastion of upholding the virtues of student athleticism, has a deal with Powerade (TM) that only Powerade (TM) cups shall be used on press row of NCAA games, because won't someone please think of the student-athletes?
Jason Gay of the Wall Street Journal knew this and pretty much set this up to make this a story, but the NCAA's goons fell for it and took the guy's cat mug - with 4 minutes left in the second half. Short, amusing read about this stunt. At this point, anything that prods the NCAA and their hypocrisy is fine by me. also, i hope that the NCAA has to report confiscated cat mugs as some sort of benefit and self report a violation.
warning - pictures of non-NCAA, athletic juice sponsored drink-ware below:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304157204579473352891772622
Are you saying you don't like reading anymore?
I still do, but I used to, too.
That cat mug was a travesty that had to be dealt with. I'm surprised it took so long for the NCAA police to confiscate it. VIVA EL/LA NCAA!!!
There is something funny yet frightening about it at the same time. On one hand, it is pretty comical that the NCAA would be that petty, but it is frightening because it makes you think that they are willing to let so many things go, but woe to the person who would dare cheat them out of about a dime or so in revenue by supplying their own beverage container. At least the priorities are that much clearer now.
"The NCAA should be...abolished." - Okay.
"It is an illegal monopoly which exploits student athletes..." - umm...illegal monopoly, no. Exploitation, yeah (to an extent).
"...and deprives them of basic rights." What the fuck? You serious, Clark?
I think you need to research what, exactly, are basic rights.
...and that's it. I'm not reading the rest of that nonsense.
"Come up with a rational argument and then post. And if you can't read a couple paragraphs then maybe you should go back to school."
Dude, this isn't an ESPiN chat board...take that bush league shit somewhere else.
Go back to school if you cant read...derp derp...
That's low class and bush league. You know exactly WTF that means. Don't be a dick.
Typical democrap response. Go take your oversized SUV and drill for oil somewhere, you stupid hippie!
lol what? He was sarcastically imitating remdog. Not only is mentioning politics verboten, it's not even remotely relevant here.
The good news is that your sarcasm meter is only half broken.
Damn. Except it's April Fools so that means you being sarcastic is a joke, so you were really serious. #Logic'd
Your words: "The NCAA is a monopoly. It has been granted an illegal exemption in this regard."
What exemption has been granted, and an exemption from what? How is the exemption illegal? If the exemption was illegal, why wasn't the person/people responsible for granting the "illegal exemption" prosecuted?
Reading further, you seem to think it was a court granting the exemption (would it then be a "legal exemption"? Or even an "illegal legal exemption"?) What court, what case? Tell me when the NCAA was granted any exemption from any law by anybody.
Holy crap, you make me feel like I am defending the NCAA's rules. I have to take a shower now.
The NCAA is a group of colleges and universities. These colleges and universities have no monopoly on anything. Some mouth-breathers don't understand what the NCAA is and come up with claims like "NCAA iz illegul monopolly," but, frankly, it is better to just ignore their rambling rather than engaging them. If they were serious about discussing how to improve college sports, they'd first learn about what college sport is and how it works.
As for the OP, he/she falls into the old logical fallacy of believing that anything they don't like is "hypocrisy." This case may represent poor judgement, money-grubbing, or an excess of officiousness, but it isn't hypocrisy unless the NCAA is confiscating cat cups while arguing that other groups should not confiscate cat cups.
You are right; no point in engaging here (although the repeated false claim that the NCAA has an anti-trust exemption is annoying).
And +1,000 for your second paragraph--I didn't know that there was anybody left on the internet who knew the actual definition of "hypocrisy". Glad to see that I am wrong.
is a group of colleges and universities which are ...... wait for it.... businesses! When these businesses combine to form a group called the NCAA, they form a monopoly. Get it???
And how is individuals making millions while suppressing the earnings of employees in the name of "amateurism" not hypocrisy??? If "amateurism" is so great, why shouldn't everybody involved follow the rules of "amateurism." Just look up the definiton of hypocrisy.
If you're a thinker and interested, here's an informative reasoned article on the NCAA monopoly and it's corrupt practices:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/opinion/nocera-the-college-sports-car…
But I should give up. The non-thinkers outnumber the thinkers here.
If you're a non-thinker, feel free to neg-bang or respond with some stupidity.
When businesses combine to form a group, that's called a cartel, not a monopoly, Mr. Thinker.
Also, by your "logic", which I hesitate to call logic, a pro sports team makes millions of dollars in concessions every year but only pays the people who sell them, like, $10 an hour, if that. Hypocrisy? I work for a company that rakes in 12 figures of revenue per year and I only get an infinitesmal percentage of that, while other people working for the exact same company get, like, over 100 times what I make. So unfair!!!
I think we ought to split hairs, actually. If you're going to take the point of view that you're the only rational thinker among a bunch of idiots, then you need to be correct in what you're saying. Otherwise you come off like a buffoon, which is pretty much what's going on here.
Let me educate you. What you're claiming the NCAA is, Mr. Thinker, is a monopsony, in which there are many sellers but only one buyer. It's not all that different from a monopoly, but the phrase "let me educate you" followed by faulty information is why you're being raked over the coals.
Now, do me a favor. In a monopsony, employees receive wages less than what they would make in a competitive market. So explain to me why the vast majority of NCAA athletes receive compensation far above what they'd make in a competitive market?
"is why you're being raked over the coals."
I thought it was because he's being a dick.
"The NCAA...is a group of colleges and universities which are ...... wait for it.... businesses! When these businesses combine to form a group called the NCAA, they form a monopoly. Get it???"
This is a perfectly circular definition: you are saying that the NCAA is a monopoly because the NCAA is a monopoly. It, of course, is not. Not only are their colleges which engage in athletic activities and don't belong to the NCAA, there are entire sporting organizations that don't belong to the NCAA. Get it???????????
"And how is individuals making millions while suppressing the earnings of employees in the name of "amateurism" not hypocrisy??? If "amateurism" is so great, why shouldn't everybody involved follow the rules of "amateurism." Just look up the definiton of hypocrisy."
People make millions of dollars in all kinds of activities, and while doing so are around others who don't make millions. That doesn't make the people who have million-dollar salaries hypocrites. The universities and colleges that make up the NCAA act in the name of amateurism because they are concerned with amateurs. People who want to become professionals in sports know that they cannot become professionals and still play for colleges and universities. That's not hypocrisy, thats just having a set of rules.
"But I should give up. The non-thinkers outnumber the thinkers here."
If you define non-thinkers as people who recognize silly arguments and note their silliness, you are right. You sure won't convince anyone by simply arguing that newpspaper opinion pieces that agree with you are "informative' and "reasoned." especially when those articles start out with the premise that the NCAA is the functional equivelent of OPEC!
The OP is using hypocrisy correctly here. The NCAA going after penny ante shit like the cat mug while turning a blind eye to far more egregious violations of the letter and spirit of NCAA rules is hypocritical.
Okay. Let's try this then. You've brought up the NCAA's "illegal monopoly" twice, but you don't want to talk about it now. Fine.
In your opinion, what basic rights are being withheld from these student-athlets?
but frankly, this issue is pretty clear and if it's not obvious to you initially, I doubt further reading will clarify it further for you.
I'm sorry, Remdog, that my limited mental capacity prevents me from comprehending such a difficult concept as what human rights are.
No, I'm not sorry. It seems as though you're done spewing nonsense, so we have that going for us.
And how'd you get to that conclusion, eh? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society! If there's ever gonna be any progress...
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
NCAA: Then who is your coach?
WOMAN: We don't have a coach.
NCAA: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of coach for the week.
NCAA: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that coach have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting...
NCAA: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely in-game adjustments,--
NCAA: Be quiet!
Now we see the intentional fouls inherent in the system.
Like them or not, there are rules. There are other ways of protesting besides blatently breaking the rules. Webber and Manziel were not right because they signed up with a set of rules in place.
Your apology philosophy is backwards.
The NCAA acts like a totalitarian state? Really? We are not a little over the top here?
Setting rules the players must agree to? Of course. You know, when I got my job, I had to sign a contract of rules I must agree to.
When I wanted a credit card, I had to sign a list of rules I must agree to.
When I wanted a loan from the bank, there were a list of rules I must agree to.
Not being able to negotiate with a large organization in order to be a part of it is both a) common, and b) not even remotely in the same area code as a totalitarian state.
And as for signing away your 'basic economic rights', they are doing no such thing. Again, join a company and make a discovery/invention and in almost all cases, that discovery/invention belongs to the company, not you. The idea that the people who are the 'talent' in the company do not retain all the proceeds of their talent is hardly a unique situation.
There are real issues with the NCAA, and with player compensation. But the argument is not helped by over the top hyperbole like your comments.
Your repeated statements to the contrary are wrong.
Take a gander at National Collegiate Athletics Association v. Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984).
Since you're too busy patting yourself on the back for your imagined genius I'll even summarize it for you.
Prior to 1984, the NCAA controlled college football television. It negotiated the contract and limited how much any one school could appear on television.
The Supreme Court held that the NCAA was subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act, and that its prohibition on individual schools or conferences making their own television deals violated said Act.
As a result, in 30 years we have gone from teams getting to play no more than 3 times a year on TV to near-riots occurring if their games aren't available while people are on vacation in China.
There are many other fallacies you've posted, but since most of them rest on your flawed statement that it is exempt from the antitrust rules, I'll go back to work.
Have a nice day.
Considering the deletion of an MGoBlogger's thread about a fictional serious injury to one of Michigan's star football players, are there any April 1 posting guidelines for MGoBloggers? For example, would any of these have been considered acceptable?
- Grad Programs Not Available at Alabama, Found at U-M; Chad Lindsay Enrolling
- U-M Solar Car Sets Transcontinental Speed Record
- Webber Re-Uniting with Other Fab Five Members to Appear at Spring Game
- David Cone, JDK and Rey and Jabrill Peppers to Perform at Spring Game
- Damien Harris Getting Ready to Re-Commit to Michigan
- Speight Confirms George Campbell Visiting for Spring Game
- Boehner, McConnell to Work with President to Improve Affordable Care Act
- Hillary and Jeb Say No to White House Runs in 2016
- Swiss Army Knife Has Competitor - Australian Navy Knife Selling Well
- Malaysian Air Flight 870 Disappearance Declared A Hoax – Everyone’s Alive
- Christie Admits Role in GW Bridge Lane Closures and Will Resign
- GM Gambling on New Chevy Vega; Christina Hendricks Will Be Spokesperson
a new thread that describes anyones favorite or on going April Fools joke?
I like that one. It's funny, it's plausible (if far-fetched) and it doesn't have me cursing MGoAprilFools like many of the others would.
I think the NCAA is woefully inadequate in many, many ways - enforcement of its own rules being at the top of my list. It's a bloated organization that seems in many ways to have lost its sense of mission. I'm in the camp that agrees that the NCAA needs reform (although I'm still studying the 'pay the athletes' issue).
But the cup policy seems to be utterly sensible to me. If there are limited on-court advertising opportunities during the tournament, and the cup rule is put in place to keep uniformity and promote the NCAA, I think the courtside enforcement of this rule doesn't grate one bit. This isn't Nam man. There are rules.
I do applaud the WSJ reporter for trolling the NCAA. It's a funny stunt. But really, it's only that in my mind - a stunt.
On the one hand, it's perfectly acceptable for the NCAA to enforce some rules regarding branding & visual clarity.
But on the other hand, the problem to me is that the NCAA is doing this because of contractual obligation with a sponsor. I'm not an NCAA hater and I do believe in the student-athlete but when they go to such lengths to protect commercial entities then it does become difficult to defend their actions in the face of the "athletes are exploited" criticisms.
If the rule was only NCAA branded mugs then fine but doing it on behalf of P*****ade is hypocritical to the student-athlete educational mission.
Right. The point of the article wasn't really that having a sponsor is bad. It's the lengths that the NCAA goes to in order to make a bunch of money everywhere they can while only giving a pittance (at least comparatively so) to the athletes.
What percentage of NCAA revenue (which comes almost exclusively from this tournament, I believe) would you guess goes back to the athletes in the form of coaching, facilities, room, board, books, etc? Is the NCAA itself making that much money?
I don't know but Emmert gets almost 2 mil a year. I'm sure there are some other dudes in there with some sweet salaries also.
So, the argument is that the NCAA should allow cat cups because Emmert makes more than $1.5 million? How much should they reduce Emmert's salary in order to ban cat cups without being guilty of "hypocrisy?"
Come on, dude. How many times does someone have to mention it's about what the players get, not just Emmert and cat cups.
Come on, dude. How many times do I have to read about how much Emmert gets and then, when I ask why that matters, get told that it does not?
If it is about how much the players get, how much SHOULD they get? Don't tell me about making millions, just tell me: what is the precise amount (of whatever) that players should get? And what does that have to do with cat cups (the subject of the thread)?