NCAA Hypocrisy: Lucca and Bowl Gifts

[JonDMiller]

I received an email yesterday after talking about the gifts that bowls are giving to players this year.

By NCAA rule, bowls can spend up to $500 per player for bowl gifts...some of these are Nintendo Wii game systems, trips to ski resorts, custom boots, etc.

The emailer said that Lucca Staiger gets one year taken away because he played on a team where teammates received stipends, but Lucca did nothing wrong, yet the NCAA will allow bowls to buy players gifts.

I agree with him; another instance of NCAA hypocrisy.

 

[acs4isu]

Once again, the NCAA shows that it talks out of both sides of its mouth. I find it to be complete lunacy that if I take my son and his friend out to lunch, and that friend happens to be Austen Arnaud, that I have just committed an illegal act that can wind up in Alusten's suspension from play. Yet a complete stranger who only has making his bowl game profitable on his mind can give him a Wii and that is perfectly legitimate. It is unconscionable that buying a $5.00 sandwich is prohibited, but a $500 game is acceptable. I understand the abuses that can be made (SMU, OU, the list goes on) but I'm talking a freakin' sandwich here, not a BMW. If a booster buys a kid he doesn't know an Escalade to get him to play ball, hammer them. If I want to buy my kid's friend a lunch, let me. Common sense is something that obviously must be checked at the door when you go to work at the NCAA.

 

[Aclone]

Sorry, Jon, I can't agree. You're comparing apples and oranges. Those bowl gifts are available to every player who competes--and no one is gaining an advantage by playing in a "pro" league. The problem is in the NCAA's definition of what constitutes "pro" in this case. Only two players out of how many receiving benefits? As well as the fact that they could have told him that this was a problem when he asked the first time around. They really should stand up to their word.

 

[bos]

First off, teh NCAA is a bunch of wishy washy hypocrites.

2nd. How were they and Dr. Phil able to find a Wii when most of the country can't?

Something is fishy.

 

[Cydkar]

Is ISU or Iowa getting gifts this year? There IS an advantage.

 

[abcguyks]

What's wrong with the original comment? I agree with Jon - this reeks of hypocrisy. Is it possible for you or I to receive such gifts? No. Can schools that regularly go to bowls use such gifts as an advantage over schools that don't? Of course.

How is such a practice not an unfair advantage?

 

[dbronco7sc]

I don't see what was wrong with this post... he's sticking up for Lucca and the cyclones on a cyclones site and brings up a good point that I haven't personally seen posted here before. Good post in my opinion!

 

[tejasclone]

Once again, the NCAA shows that it talks out of both sides of its mouth. I find it to be complete lunacy that if I take my son and his friend out to lunch, and that friend happens to be Austen Arnaud, that I have just committed an illegal act that can wind up in Alusten's suspension from play. Yet a complete stranger who only has making his bowl game profitable on his mind can give him a Wii and that is perfectly legitimate. It is unconscionable that buying a $5.00 sandwich is prohibited, but a $500 game is acceptable. I understand the abuses that can be made (SMU, OU, the list goes on) but I'm talking a freakin' sandwich here, not a BMW. If a booster buys a kid he doesn't know an Escalade to get him to play ball, hammer them. If I want to buy my kid's friend a lunch, let me. Common sense is something that obviously must be checked at the door when you go to work at the NCAA.

Well said. I don't get it, either.

 

[isucyfan]

Somebody's unhappy with their gutter guards.

 

[markshir]

Wow... why would you tell him to get a life? This exact topic was discussed here yesterday, Lucca and his situation has been a frequent topic of conversation. He posts without a hint of malice. If 99% of posters had made that exact post you wouldn't have thought twice.

It IS hypocritical. Throughout the process the NCAA has maintained that any benefits or payments beyond actual living expenses create a professional environment and make the participants ineligible. Well, a Wii can in no way be construed as necessary travel or living expenses. A $500 shopping spree at Best Buy is virtually the equivalent of cash, as it would allow players to save money they would have normally spent. Take into account the fact that the "professionals" on Lucca's team made less than the value of a college scholarship and you have a situation where players on certain teams are being paid based on the success of their team. How this is allowed is a topic of discussion worthy of being addressed, especially here as pertinent issues have been repeatedly brought up.

 

[brianhos]

What is with all the N00bs on here recently getting snippy with everyone for no reason?

 

[BryceC]

Let's face it, it's a lot easier to pick on one German guy than change a rule that effects hundreds of players across the country every year.

 

[brianhos]

Plus the teams in these bowls are the power teams in the country. You have to keep them happy, the NCAA could care less about ISU because we are not a power team right now in any major sport.

 

[mwitt]

ISU hasn't heard back on Lucca's final appeal yet, right? Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything that fueld this argument.

 

[CYdTracked]

Some of you guys should lay off on Jon for this post. You all blame him for drinking the Hawkeye kool aide (myself included at times) but for once here he agrees with what everyone else here does which is the NC double A-holes are hyprocrites. How can a kid like Lucca not do anything wrong and lose a whole year of eligibility yet some of these kids are getting up to $500 in gifts from bowls this winter? Make no mistake, the NCAA is all about the almighty dollar and will look the other way or find ways around something if its good for them.

 

[cloneu]

What is with all the N00bs on here recently getting snippy with everyone for no reason?

I heard that the Grinch was going around and peeing in lots of peoples cherrios. Maybe it has a correlation.

 

[guitarchitect7]

I think if does come down to the definiton of "Pro" and "recieving incentives" Getting paid and getting gifts in the grand scheme is no different. The difference becomes with the intentions of the giving which there is no clear definition for.

Every sport has an amature and pro status. Within basketball, you cannot get a salary in any way, otherwise you are considered Pro. Apparently you cannot also play on a team that a player recieves a salary otherwise the whole team is considered Pro. Why this happens I'm unsure.

Now with the gifts, I believe they look at it as just like a parent or friend giving them a gift. There is a bonus of it all, but is a congrats thing for making a bowl game. The schools recieve funds for making the games, I think its a extra bonus for the kids as well. They don't look at it as a salary or anything of that nature. Now this doesn't explain why Lucca is serving the time he is, but it's the only thing I can come up with.

My questions comes as this as well. Isn't against NCAA regulations to recieve any "gifts" to influence your decision in commitment. You can't get any money, material items, anything that would be considered compromising someone's decision. So how does this differ from the bowl gifts.

 

[markshir]

What if a bowl director qualifies as a booster for a team? Could I give every player on the Iowa State football team a gift under 500 dollars if I wanted to? Could 100 boosters do the same thing, and still have it be legal? What if instead of the players on Lucca's team being paid they each got two Xbox 360s a month from the director of the league, would that be ok?

Stupid rules. The NCAA tries to stamp out "ambiguity" in the application of their rules, but I don't buy it. Look at the LSU players who sold their championship rings for thousands and got no suspension because there was "no clear rule against it". Stupid.

 

[Aclone]

You are all missing the fundamental difference. Every school in the NCAA has agreed that players participating in Bowls may receive gifts. They have not agreed that two players on a German team can receive stipends above that which they decree "minimal". That is what the difference is, not merely whether a player receives something or another.

My problem is how they elected to enforce the rule, rather than the rule itself.

 

[CTTB78]

Talking about nice gifts, the bowl rings can't be cheap. I assume the athletic dept. pays for those?