By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, Sept. 1, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Texas A&M star quarterback Johnny Manziel's suspension for the first half of the Aggies' opener last Saturday against Rice was a sickening display of the contemptible hypocrisy of the NCAA and college football's major powers.
Technically, A&M declared “Johnny Football” ineligible and the NCAA reinstated him after the first half, according to The Associated Press. Mr. Manziel, who last season became the first freshman to win the Heisman Trophy, drew this wrist slap for an “inadvertent” violation of NCAA rules by signing autographs — despite A&M and the NCAA saying “there is no evidence Manziel received money in exchange ... .”
That finding is contrary to ESPN reports that cited unidentified sources who claim Manziel was paid thousands of dollars to sign thousands of autographs for memorabilia brokers in Texas, Florida and Connecticut the day before his team started preseason practice.
But even if Manziel did sell thousands of his autographs for thousands of dollars, his suspension would be no less wrong.
Running what amounts to a minor-league feeder system for the NFL's money machine, Texas A&M, its fellow collegiate gridiron powers and the NCAA make billions of dollars off their players. Yes, these players have scholarships. But they are denied not just a piece of college football's financial windfall but also opportunities to capitalize on their own achievements for their own benefit — which they should have the right to do, like anyone else.
If that's not contemptibly hypocritical, what is?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- The market speaks: Cadillac dealers reject another electric folly
- Market perversions: Chrysler retreats
- The new SAT: Rigor gets a pass
- Sunday pops
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Adegbile nomination: Rejecting race-baiting
- THE BOX
- Another EPA crock: Sulfur silliness
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances