In certain sports. In other sports it is still very much an amateur event.

 

It either is or it isn't. It can't be "sort of."

Enes got nailed for the money received being more than his expenses.

 

Seems inconsistent to me. I don't get the rationalization that it's "prize money" and it's OK because you're "repping your country." Why can't the fact that they repped their country and got a medal be enough?

 

Because the USOC decided they wanted to give these people a reward. And they asked the NCAA to let it slide. I have no problem with it.

 

Keeping prospective student athletes away from professional clubs is an important goal as far as I'm concerned. Other than the fact that both situations concern money, I don't see any real correlation.

Because the USOC decided they wanted to give these people a reward. And they asked the NCAA to let it slide. I have no problem with it.

 

Keeping prospective student athletes away from professional clubs is an important goal as far as I'm concerned. Other than the fact that both situations concern money, I don't see any real correlation.

 

So a recruit can't accept a meal off-campus during certain periods or it's "extra benefits" but a swimmer wearing the flag on her swimsuit can make $100k+ and you don't see an inconsistency?

It either is or it isn't. It can't be "sort of."

 

Sure it can. Because it very much is an amateur event it some sports. In others it obviously isn't anymore.

 

It's not very hard to understand.

So a recruit can't accept a meal off-campus during certain periods or it's "extra benefits" but a swimmer wearing the flag on her swimsuit can make $100k+ and you don't see an inconsistency?

 

Actually that recruit can never accept a meal off-campus.

Sure it can. Because it very much is an amateur event it some sports. In others it obviously isn't anymore.

 

It's not very hard to understand.

 

So tell me then how YOU would decide which sports are allowed to be pros.

So a recruit can't accept a meal off-campus during certain periods or it's "extra benefits" but a swimmer wearing the flag on her swimsuit can make $100k+ and you don't see an inconsistency?

 

The USOC is not a professional organization. A European club team is. Pretty simple stuff.

So tell me then how YOU would decide which sports are allowed to be pros.

 

I'm not the one making the rules. I'm just stating the facts. If it was up to me, it would be completely amateur. Events such as the World Cup and World Baseball Classic are for the pros.

 

Wrestling & Boxing are obviously still an amateur events in the Olympics.

So a recruit can't accept a meal off-campus during certain periods or it's "extra benefits" but a swimmer wearing the flag on her swimsuit can make $100k+ and you don't see an inconsistency?

 

Inconsistency is not something I'm worried about here. I'm concerned solely with keeping people away from these kids that don't need to be anywhere near them. In the case of the USOC, we know where the money is coming from and we know it's universal to any athlete that wins a medal. The rest of the NCAA rules are designed to keep agents and professional teams away from college sports. As long as we're operating under the current system, I accept things as I see them.

 

Now, if we want to talk about how pointless having our sports fandom run through colleges most of us didn't attend in the first place and why we pour money into watching people who aren't making any themselves then that's another place to start. The whole structure of sports organization in the United States needs to change and it starts with tearing down the barriers to new professional teams and leagues, not with making college sports more economically feasible for fair.

 

This discussion is several dozen levels below the one we need to be having.

The USOC is not a professional organization. A European club team is. Pretty simple stuff.

 

So simple that you're not following?

 

The post you quoted has nothing to do with the USOC. They can obviously make their own rules just like pro leagues can. The issue is how can the NCAA say a kid can't receive a hamburger at certain times YET allow a swimmer to take home six figures for her performance and still be an amateur?

The issue is how can the NCAA say a kid can't receive a hamburger at certain times YET allow a swimmer to take home six figures for her performance and still be an amateur?

 

Because they said so. You're imputing an issue of fairness to this that simply doesn't exist.

Inconsistency is not something I'm worried about here. I'm concerned solely with keeping people away from these kids that don't need to be anywhere near them. In the case of the USOC, we know where the money is coming from and we know it's universal to any athlete that wins a medal. The rest of the NCAA rules are designed to keep agents and professional teams away from college sports. As long as we're operating under the current system, I accept things as I see them.

 

Now, if we want to talk about how pointless having our sports fandom run through colleges most of us didn't attend in the first place and why we pour money into watching people who aren't making any themselves then that's another place to start. The whole structure of sports organization in the United States needs to change and it starts with tearing down the barriers to new professional teams and leagues, not with making college sports more economically feasible for fair.

 

This discussion is several dozen levels below the one we need to be having.

 

So your argument is that as long as the organization is deemed "legit" it doesn't matter how much money the "amateur" earns.

 

My argument is that you're either pro or you're not and earning money for performance makes one a pro. I'm not sure how the NCAA can argue otherwise.

Because they said so. You're imputing an issue of fairness to this that simply doesn't exist.

 

The "said so" argument is not the debate. The debate is how they justify the "said so."

So simple that you're not following?

 

The post you quoted has nothing to do with the USOC. They can obviously make their own rules just like pro leagues can. The issue is how can the NCAA say a kid can't receive a hamburger at certain times YET allow a swimmer to take home six figures for her performance and still be an amateur?

 

Again, it's not certain times. It's never, with the exception of an official visit.

 

If it was such a big deal you'd hear college coaches complaining. Receiving a free meal from a coach, agent, etc can lead to recruiting advantages. Getting money from the USOC is not a recruiting advantage.

The "said so" argument is not the debate. The debate is how they justify the "said so."

 

Because they're the NCAA. This is exactly my point. Look all around college athletics and tell me where fairness is the overriding goal. You won't find it. As long as college sports are managed in this way and by these people, fairness will have no part in the equation.

 

BUT, as long as we're operating under these rules, I'll make the NCAA's argument for them. The rules we're talking about have a two-fold purpose: 1) to keep schools and boosters from influencing recruits with money and benefits and 2) to keep professional clubs and agents away from students. I think this rule does both of those things. The amount in question is irrelevant given who it's coming from.