thedynasty1998;929865 wrote:Why is he still being defended? So he got paid for 10 hours of work one day? And that includes 5 hours of driving? How dumb does his attorney think people are? That's shady stuff for a communications major who is working for an excavating company of a guy who is having $100 hand shakes with players.

Pick6;929934 wrote:This kind of off topic and im definitely not saying this is what I think happened.. But is there any way to say it was a personal loan? I think I remember Tebow buying one of those hyperbaric chambers with a loan and it was OK because he got a loan based on his future potential or something.

Pick6;929934 wrote:This kind of off topic and im definitely not saying this is what I think happened.. But is there any way to say it was a personal loan? I think I remember Tebow buying one of those hyperbaric chambers with a loan and it was OK because he got a loan based on his future potential or something.

se-alum;929961 wrote:Student athletes cannot get a loan based on potential future earnings. It was proposed at one time, but never accepted.

se-alum;929961 wrote:Student athletes cannot get a loan based on potential future earnings. It was proposed at one time, but never accepted.

Pick6;929982 wrote:Would have swore thats how Tebow got his hyperbaric chamber while still in college

#1: 2000-103

To permit a student-athlete to obtain a loan (not to exceed $20,000) based on future earnings potential from a centralized lending institution, as specified.
First the particulars: it wasn’t all student-athletes. Only student-athletes that had qualified for the NCAA’s disability insurance for elite student-athletes. Currently, that would apply to student-athletes who are projected to be drafted in the first round of the NBA, MLB, or WNBA Draft or first three rounds of the NFL or NHL Draft. And it wasn’t a loan from just anyone but from a real bank.
The Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet sponsored the proposal through the Management Council, the predecessor to the Legislative Council. The Board of Directors did not yet have authority to sponsor legislation, so 2000-103 came from as close to the top as it could back then.
And the proposal was never actually defeated in an up and down vote. It was tabled and forgotten until 2008 when the shift to the current governance structure finally killed the proposal. It may not be paying athletes exactly, but it’s the most surprising rule that could have been from the last 10 years.

HitsRus;929844 wrote:Look, I don't want to go back and reiterate the points I've made thoughout this thread, but it'not all about Posey and Ohio State although it creates a forum for discussion. The NCAA as a governing body has become bloated and out of control, the enforcement of its 'rules' is selective and heavy handed. It holds its member institutions hostage with the funnelling of hundreds of millions of dollars (while restricting the laborers from earning from the fruits of that labor). The Ohio State University and other member Institutions are dependent of that money to run its athletic programs, and such, are forced to cow-tow to the NCAA lest they be struck with even more severe penalties. Devier Posey is an example of how one can get ground up in the gears of the system for minor infractions.

se-alum;929989 wrote:http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2011/04/ncaa-rules-that-could-have-been/

MICHAEL MAROT
AP Sports Writer
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - The NCAA management council voted Tuesday to allow student-athletes to receive money for private lessons and to obtain a one-time $20,000 bank loan based on future earnings. The council approved a series of proposals that are likely to alter the face of college athletics, especially college basketball.

To qualify for the bank loan, an athlete 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.

Those items all passed with at least 31 1/2 of the 51 votes.

Quoted for the lulz.

HitsRus;930200 wrote:be specific.

I am not alone in calling what the NCAA has become to task. Almost all of these types of violations go away...even the most egregious...if you just stop pretending that this is amateur athletics.

enigmaax;930198 wrote:After the Tebow discussion from a few years back, I thought it was actually passed (although I believe it was later determined that the report of Tebow's actually having purchased the chamber with that sort of loan was incorrect). The following article makes it seem that way (when it was originally, supposedly passed). In the quote, I cut out some of the other things that were passed at the same time.

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/041101/col_041101022.shtml

se-alum;930332 wrote:Yea, it was all passed by the Management Council, but the Board of Directors never approved it.

LJ;929901 wrote:The drive time thing is not a problem, if he was working for Papa's Burgers it would be shady, but it's not for the type of business he was working for, what he really got in trouble for was the week he got paid for 20 hours and worked 0. THAT was the biggest problem and THAT is a problem.

thedynasty1998;930597 wrote:It's actually the opposite. The compensation may have been within guidelines if documented correctly, however it is absolutely shady.

LJ;930614 wrote:I don't understand why you keep saying that something that is common practice in the industry he was working is shady.

thedynasty1998;930622 wrote:I really have to explain it?

A communications major from Cincinnati that lives in Columbus.

Is employed by a booster, to work construction, 2 1/2 hours away. The best part is they are justifying a 10 hour paycheck, in which we can assume 1/2 of which was driving his Dodge Charger from Columbus to Akron.
It's common practice for foremen to drive to their job site in the city in which they usually live. This is not common practice and no one can honestly say that it is.

thedynasty1998;930622 wrote: It's common practice for foremen to drive to their job site in the city in which they usually live.

thedynasty1998;930622 wrote:I really have to explain it?

A communications major from Cincinnati that lives in Columbus.

Is employed by a booster, to work construction, 2 1/2 hours away. The best part is they are justifying a 10 hour paycheck, in which we can assume 1/2 of which was driving his Dodge Charger from Columbus to Akron.
It's common practice for foremen to drive to their job site in the city in which they usually live. This is not common practice and no one can honestly say that it is.

LJ;930635 wrote:Another example, my buddy a (non-union) concrete worker was paid for his commute to Toledo and back 6 days a week for 4 weeks straight. A lot of that was paid out in OT.

Pick6;930639 wrote:A guy in my company had to build sill fence in Indiana...for 3 months straight. Worked 6 days a week and came home on Sunday and went back to Indiana Monday morning. You bet your ass the company paid for it.