RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Dancing With The Stars
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Iluvacc



Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 2523



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/16/18 8:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
CBiebel wrote:
elsie wrote:

as long as the rules are in flux for certain schools like ND, then its all a sham....they're not even embarrassed about it....

no one can say why transfer rules are favorable to some, and punitive to others...



I assume you are suggesting the Shepard situation. It's not like she was a unique situation, as some here imply:

Leticia Romero (From KSU as Freshman in 2013-14 to FSU as sophomore in 2014-15)
Chantrice White (From Illinois as sophomore (2015-16) to FSU as junior (2016-17)
Natalie Romeo (From Nebraska (stick a pin in this part, I'll get back to it below) as a sophomore (2015-16) to Washington as a junior (2016-17)).


In all the above cases the coach had been fired (in at least 3 of the 4 (including Shepard) the coach was being investigated by the university), and the players petitioned for the exemption.

The only thing that set Shepard apart from the rest above was that she ended up playing a key role in winning a National Championship.


Heck wasnt Chatrice White with South Carolina before Illinois ?



I think you're referring to Jatarie White


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6094



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/16/18 9:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
2018 NCAA D1 Manual

12.4 Employment.

12.4.1 Criteria Governing Compensation to Student-Athletes. Compensation may be paid to a student-athlete:
(a) Only for work actually performed; and
(b) At a rate commensurate with the going rate in that locality for similar services.
12.4.1.1 Athletics Reputation. Such compensation may not include any remuneration for value or utility that the student-athlete may have for the employer because of the publicity, reputation, fame or personal following that he or she has obtained because of athletics ability.



GlennMacGrady wrote:
2018 NCAA D1 Manual

12.4 Employment.

12.5.2 Nonpermissible.

12.5.2.1 Advertisements and Promotions After Becoming a Student-Athlete. After becoming a student-athlete, an individual shall not be eligible for participation in intercollegiate athletics if the individual:
(a) Accepts any remuneration for or permits the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind . . . .


A quick google showed that the stories and ads for DWTS don't show Arike, unlike the other celebrity contestants. She's getting a one-sentence explanation of who she is, with no photograph. I can't see how that constitutes advertising, recommendation, or promotion. Nor is it providing much value or utility to DWTS...her name is probably the least recognizable of the celebrities.


Providing less value than other contestants still falls short of not providing any value or utility.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2605
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/16/18 10:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Over 30 years ago, after the Jeremy Bloom fiasco (who was ruled ineligible for football at Colorado because he was making buckets of money as a World Cup and Olympic skier) the NCAA made it so you student-athletes are only ineligible for a sport if they accept money for that particular sport in which they are getting paid, and could continue to play other college sports.

Allowing a basketball player to get paid for a dance show doesn't strike me as all that unusual a ruling. Any more than a college football player getting paid to play professional baseball during summers, which happens frequently.


Sorry ArtBest23, but you have your facts wrong. Jeremy Bloom was ruled ineligible in 2006 and lost two years of eligibility as a football player. This was well after the NCAA changed its rules regarding earnings from another sport. He was ruled ineligible because he was making endorsement money as a result of his skiing. (Jeremy Bloom just turned 36 a few weeks ago.)

If Arike was making money as a result of her dancing ability in an event open to everyone then there would be no issue. But when the only basis upon which you are allowed to compete is because you are selected as a result of your notoriety in another athletic pursuit, the income has to be considered as related to that activity.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12535



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/17/18 11:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:

Sorry ArtBest23, but you have your facts wrong.


Or not. . .

If I wanted to waste the time I'm sure I could find other research that would say the same thing, but since It's quick and easy I'll just quote the Wikipedia explanation:

After a long fought battle with the NCAA to keep his skiing hopes alive for the 2006 Winter Olympics the NCAA declared him permanently ineligible, cutting short his college football career by two years. He went on to regain his #1 in the world skiing ranking in 2005 and competed for the United States in the 2006 Olympics. Two days after the 2006 Turin Olympics Bloom flew to Indianapolis to compete in the NFL Scouting Combine.

The NCAA has since changed the rules on amateurism so that student-athletes are only ineligible for a sport if they accept money for that sport. Under these rules, Bloom would be ineligible to ski for the Colorado team, but would be eligible to compete in all other sports, including football.


Not only are you wrong, but the matter was specifically put to the NCAA for a ruling, and they know you're wrong too, regardless of whatever "The NCAA Rules According to CalBearman" might say.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 2605
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/18 3:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:

Sorry ArtBest23, but you have your facts wrong.


Or not. . .

If I wanted to waste the time I'm sure I could find other research that would say the same thing, but since It's quick and easy I'll just quote the Wikipedia explanation:

After a long fought battle with the NCAA to keep his skiing hopes alive for the 2006 Winter Olympics the NCAA declared him permanently ineligible, cutting short his college football career by two years. He went on to regain his #1 in the world skiing ranking in 2005 and competed for the United States in the 2006 Olympics. Two days after the 2006 Turin Olympics Bloom flew to Indianapolis to compete in the NFL Scouting Combine.

The NCAA has since changed the rules on amateurism so that student-athletes are only ineligible for a sport if they accept money for that sport. Under these rules, Bloom would be ineligible to ski for the Colorado team, but would be eligible to compete in all other sports, including football.


Not only are you wrong, but the matter was specifically put to the NCAA for a ruling, and they know you're wrong too, regardless of whatever "The NCAA Rules According to CalBearman" might say.


First, you said 30 years ago, off by 18 years. Second, the rule allowing payments from other sports had already been changed. Roscoe Crosby got a more than $1 million bonus to play with the Kansas City Royals in 2001 but was still able to play football at Clemson. (The Roscoe Crosby story is a particularly sad one.) It wasn't the skiing earnings that made him ineligible; it was his endorsement income.

As for Wikipedia, I won't say for sure that they are completely wrong. It may be that the NCAA has further clarified its rules since then, but the rules of being a professional in another sport were already in place when they ruled against Bloom.


CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 587
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/18 6:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Washington Post has an article on this, debating various aspects of it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/04/19/arike-ogunbowale-on-dancing-with-the-stars-forces-ncaa-into-tricky-two-step/?utm_term=.55238deb0609

This paragraph basically mirrors a comment I made earlier in this thread:

More likely than the NCAA shifting its stance on athlete compensation is the body’s desire to capitalize on Ogunbowale’s popularity and the success of the recent women’s tournament, experts said. The NCAA is allowing Ogunbowale to make money off her fame because it serves a larger purpose for the rest of the NCAA in boosting the image of women’s basketball, Ridpath said.


CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 587
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/20/18 9:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I was just listening to a podcast where they were discussing this and a woman on the podcast talked about the various rules that they gave for Ogunbowale.

For instance, for the "behind the scenes" footage from practice, Ogunbowale is allowed to hold a basketball, but she isn't allowed to shoot it on camera. Her partner is, but not her.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8697



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/21/18 9:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So if Arike Ogumbowale, or any other NCAA athlete, was allowed to make money due to her athletic ability, how exactly would that hurt the NCAA or its member schools?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 831



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/21/18 9:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So maybe this will be a good thing, not only in providing exposure for women's basketball, but for all the NCAA's rules.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin