ts1227;610466 wrote:Assuming the artist is a fan, college football fans aren't exactly known for their brainpower. If you've been on JJ before and here now, you should know that firsthand
Blanket;610465 wrote:"One source indicates that there might be some official comment made by Thursday, including notice of possible suspensions."
that_guy;610473 wrote:This is hilarious. Cats Gone Wild getting his jollys off on some completely unsubstantiated rumors, and Gibby talking about the NCAA needing to hammer Ohio State.
Those two make me hate the SEC more and more everyday...
Blanket;610468 wrote:If this is proved to be true, the NCAA really needs to set an example and hammer Ohio State with suspensions.
If they do not, this opens up all kinds of flood gates with these types of violations
Ty Webb;610504 wrote:Now there is a report from an ESPN affiliate in Tennessee that Pryor and 4 others are going to be suspended for the Sugar Bowl for this and selling their bowl gifts
I really don't see how getting tatoos amounts to receiving improper benefits. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. Not only that, this will be very difficult to prove. What Columbus tatoo artist is going to substantiate the evidence? They do that and they have effectively killed their business in Columbus.cats gone wild;609361 wrote:I havent even posted on that thread, and no its not right for oversigning......and its not right for people to get improper benefits either (even though being minor).
Blanket;610468 wrote:If this is proved to be true, the NCAA really needs to set an example and hammer Ohio State with suspensions.
If they do not, this opens up all kinds of flood gates with these types of violations
dwccrew;610647 wrote:GTFO, you're serious? Over tatoos? I don't even view this as a violation. If the tatoo artist required an autograph as payment, who's to say that is not adequete compensation? It is at the sole discretion of the artist. Now if they were just giving them tats because they play football, that's an entirely different issue. But they've received compesation that they asked for, being the autographs, therefore there is no violation.
This is probably the dumbest non-issue I have ever heard of in college football.
I think an easy solution would be to pay $1 for each tatoo. The NCAA can't dictate what reasonable pricing for tatoo services are; as long as money has changed hands, it should be out of the NCAA jurisdiction. Players go back and pay $1 for each tatoo, finalizing the transaction.ts1227;610652 wrote:While it is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things compared to other violations, I'm pretty sure the NCAA views receiving any service in exchange for something where you are capitalizing on your athlete "celebrity" as problematic. In their eyes, you still got it for free because you play football; autographs are not acceptable payment.
If it happened, it's a self reported minor thing, life goes on.
dwccrew;610647 wrote:GTFO, you're serious? Over tatoos? I don't even view this as a violation. If the tatoo artist required an autograph as payment, who's to say that is not adequete compensation? It is at the sole discretion of the artist. Now if they were just giving them tats because they play football, that's an entirely different issue. But they've received compesation that they asked for, being the autographs, therefore there is no violation.
This is probably the dumbest non-issue I have ever heard of in college football.
dwccrew;610660 wrote:I think an easy solution would be to pay $1 for each tatoo. The NCAA can't dictate what reasonable pricing for tatoo services are; as long as money has changed hands, it should be out of the NCAA jurisdiction. Players go back and pay $1 for each tatoo, finalizing the transaction.
dwccrew;610660 wrote:I think an easy solution would be to pay $1 for each tatoo. The NCAA can't dictate what reasonable pricing for tatoo services are; as long as money has changed hands, it should be out of the NCAA jurisdiction. Players go back and pay $1 for each tatoo, finalizing the transaction.
ts1227;610671 wrote:NCAA would probably do something like send someone in on their behalf to ask for a similar tattoo, and get a price quote. If they didn't get it for something reasonably close to that $1 amount, it turns into an investigation, etc.
So while they can't set the market value, they can prove favoritism to some extent (obviously not foolproof, but there are ways they can go about it)
Sure, this shit happens everywhere, but it's still a violation if they get caught. If OSU had a bunch of people getting tats from one place, word will spread as it continues to happen. As mentioned... it's minor. If it happened, self-report it, maybe issue some suspensions, move on.
dat dude;610665 wrote:Although I agree it should be a small issue, it doesn't work like that. Permitting autographs in lieu of payment of any item would be a violation. What would stop a car dealership from doing the same to a big name player? If true, this would definitely qualify as a violation.
ytownfootball;610681 wrote:Hot chick $7
Fat stinky chick $87.50
OSU football guy $1
NCAA investigator $137
ts1227;610691 wrote:Had they only paid $1, they actually could get out of it easier. Pull a Cam Newton and say that you never identified yourself as a player and the artist took it upon himself to charge a price that was below market value. However, they're screwed on exchanging for autographs.
dwccrew;610679 wrote:Apples and oranges when comparing the tatoo artist to a car dealer. A car dealership has to purchase the vehicle and then given a suggest retail price by the manufacturer. A tatoo artist can name any price they choose. I have had different tatoo artists give me different prices that are way off from each other. It is much more subjective to price a tatoo than a car.
A tatoo artist can price the same exact tatoo for one person at $100 and the next person at $500 if they wanted and not get in trouble. However, if a car dealer tried to sell a car to one person for $10,000 and the next $50,000, there would be legal issues I assume.
So if the players went and paid $1, $5, $10 for the tatoo, I don't see how the NCAA can pursue the issue; even if they sent someone in to get a quote on a tatoo because, as I stated, they can quote however they'd like.
dwccrew;610705 wrote:I would think that they could still pay the $1 and just say the tat was not finished. I have not paid for work until the finished product was done before. Of course you have to have a good relationship with the artist though.
ts1227;610710 wrote:They still have paid for the finished portion with the autograph, regardless of if they have cash in hand for the rest of it.
That's where they are screwed no matter what, if it happened. They have at least some of a tattoo, and someone else has an autograph.
