Quint;449286 wrote:I don't see how getting a loan based on his future performance isn't a violation of his amateur status.

I know its all speculation on our part, but I don't see how this is could be affordable for a college student. . . in a way that complies with NCAA rules.

Fab1b;449290 wrote:Tebow's family is not hurting for cash this I know.

lhslep134;449305 wrote:What about all of the $20,000 cars some OSU football players drive? They pay for the monthly payments because of the stipend they got. How do you know Tim didn't pay for this in installments, using the stipend money he received?

And what is so wrong with taking out a loan based on future performance. Isn't that what venture capitalism entails? Using money for speculative purposes in the hopes of a financial windfall, except in this case it's using future speculation as the basis of a loan, and if he were to get injured it would have been paid for by insurance, and if he didn't make money to pay it back, I'm sure his parents had to sign off as co-signers for the loan.

Quint;449448 wrote:

My issue is with the fact that a football player from Kent State probably can't get a loan from a bank/Hyperbaric Chamber Dealer for a $20,000 piece of equipment. However, Tim Tebow was able to. This appears to be profiting from one's own status as a collegiate athlete, and this is prohibited by the NCAA.

lhslep134;449452 wrote:No, he would be benefiting from his perceived future returns (and thus a low risk loan) in taking out a loan which he would have to pay back, which last time I checked there's not a rule against.

And your Kent State example? I don't think a loaner would perceive that players future returns to be anything anywhere close to Tebow, thus making the loan high risk and therefore unattractive to the banker.

It's simple finance.

Still confused?

Quint;449499 wrote:I don't think we are on the same page. I understand the economics behind the loan.

"NCAA rules forbid a student-athlete's family from receiving loans based on the athlete's 'reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional athlete.'"

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/16/sports/sp-renardo-sidney16

lhslep134;449537 wrote:Ignorance on my behalf sir, you are correct.

In any case, his family has money, so I don't even know if he needed a loan.

enigmaax;449566 wrote:Indianapolis, Indiana, May 3, 2001 -- The NCAA board of directors recently voted to allow student athletes to receive money for giving private lessons and also to take out a one time $20,000 bank loan based on future earnings.

According to a report in the Associated Press, to qualify for the loan, a student would have to be considered a likely first round pick in men's basketball, women's basketball or baseball, and at least a third round pick in football or hockey.

http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Articles%202001/NCAAloans.htm

Speedofsand;449574 wrote:Quint, give it up. Tim is the youngest of 5 kids, all have graduated college. His family's work has had success since long before he was a football star.

Click "about us" in the link, you can learn all about them.

Speedofsand;450067 wrote:update, Tim never even bought it

http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/12/tim-tebows-rep-chamber-pic-was-photoshopped/

Tebow's rep tells us that the owner of Pikes Peak Hyperbaric "couldn't have been further from the truth" when he told TMZ that Tebow purchased the chamber in 2008 for roughly $20,000.

Tebow's rep explained that roughly 6 weeks ago, Tim signed a "rental agreement with the manufacturer."

The rep tells us Tim had the machine in his possession in Florida ... but had it shipped to Colorado in an effort to help the Denver Broncos rookie "acclimate to the high altitude in Denver."

The rep says someone from Pikes Peak Hyperbaric helped set up the chamber in Tebow's hotel room "3 or 4 nights ago" and then asked for a photo ... not knowing that someone would later "photoshop" PPH's website onto the machine.

TMZ spoke with a rep from PPH -- who admitted photoshopping his logo over the original manufacturer's logo and told us, "It wasn't a well thought out process."

As for the 2008 statement -- the PPH tells us it was "misinformation" on its part.