FSU IS GOING TO GIVE ABOUT $60,000 TO JAMEIS FOR HIS

[retro44]

8-10 million dollar insurance policy.

Bounty gate all over again...

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/08/01/florida-state-jameis-winston-loss-value-insurance

The NCAA is so lame and weak over blatant loophole recruiting advantages with dollars DANGLING over star recruits heads.

These are monetary benefits that general students and non revenue athletes would never be considered for

 

[Full_Rebar]

After A&M did it successfully, you knew everyone else would follow. Saw a thing from Feldman last night that Baylor was looking into this for Petty and two others.

I have big issues with this for a couple of reasons. One is that this money is coming from the student-athlete opportunity fund, so the BS about not compensating for likeness usage due to fairness to other sports is exposed as the joke it is. No other student at these schools is going to get more than a couple of thousand to fly home after a death in the family or to cover loss due to theft/fire.

Second, what is the difference in paying Winston 60k (w/ academic benchmarks to be met) instead of covering 60k of insurance premiums? The 60k is clearly an extra benefit to him and his family based upon athletics participation. Complete joke.

 

[retro44]

Emmert reminds/looks like your typical corrupt politician that has the attitude of hey....As long as the NCAA makes money, I make money then you power 5 guys can bend and twist any rule you want to benefit your school over the others.

Knowing how Fla. St. treats Winston he might have a pay-off clause if he goes to jail before the NFL or MLB.

 

[Full_Rebar]

The hypocrisy is what drives me nuts. "Protect the academics...but play games when and where tv/corporate sponsors tell you". Despite anyone's thoughts on conference expansion, it's clear that it impacts the academics of students not chartering for away games.

 

[longtimefan]

8-10 million dollar insurance policy.

Bounty gate all over again...

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/08/01/florida-state-jameis-winston-loss-value-insurance

The NCAA is so lame and weak over blatant loophole recruiting advantages with dollars DANGLING over star recruits heads.

These are monetary benefits that general students and non revenue athletes would never be considered for

When I saw your headline, the first thing that popped into my mind was "LEGAL DEFENSE FUND".

 

[OrangeTarheel]

Yeah, I thought this was about continuing to defend him against allegations until he leaves school.

I wonder how this is seen from a perspective of fairness within university sports programs? Who can be denied participation in such insurance coverage? If any athlete wanted such coverage would the university provide it? Is there a difference between Jameis going to the NFL, a woman basketball player going to the WNBA, a gymnast going to the Olympics or a soccer player heading to a club team overseas? These are all opportunities with earning potential directly related to their status as student athletes.

 

[retro44]

I don't think the university can pay for any legal defense fees against crimes he may have committed.

They would have to defend every theft, DWI and rape charges for every student then.

Cleary Winston is receiving a benefit way beyond what regular student would receive...he's entitled says jimbo.

 

[UnknownOrange]

Lol this is insane. Marqise Lee did the same thing. Baffles me. Hey guys if I don't sell enough tickets can I take out an insurance policy to pay me as if I did? Just in case I twist my ankle... get real

 

[Lou_C]

Yeah, I thought this was about continuing to defend him against allegations until he leaves school.

I wonder how this is seen from a perspective of fairness within university sports programs? Who can be denied participation in such insurance coverage? If any athlete wanted such coverage would the university provide it? Is there a difference between Jameis going to the NFL, a woman basketball player going to the WNBA, a gymnast going to the Olympics or a soccer player heading to a club team overseas? These are all opportunities with earning potential directly related to their status as student athletes.

Why wouldn't those situations qualify for this? I don't see why they wouldn't. The premiums would almost certainly be much lower, so I would think it could be done, if there was an insurance company willing to write it.

How is this not a good thing? Especially in football, which unlike the Olympics or overseas soccer teams, has a rule PREVENTING someone like Winston from going pro for another year. Why is it a bad thing for someone like Winston or Clowney or anyone like that, since they are being forbidden to go ahead to the NFL, to be protected against a catastrophic injury?

Or in basketball, if a guy is a junior and a late first/early second round pick, and wants another year of school to finish a degree, or just to improve his position, why isn't it great for a school to be able to do this?

Is it because some schools might have more resources to pay for policies than others? That's the way everything is. Just because Clemson can afford Chad Morris at OC and Louisiana Tech can't, we don't outlaw paying Chad Morris.

I don't get why anyone would be opposed to something that is a great option for a kid in this scenario.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Lou- it's not a "bad" thing, but it exposes the hypocrisy of the arguments of many NCAA staff and D1 admins about the notion of fairness. If schools are willing to pay 50k insurance premiums out of an assistance fund, why can't they just pay cost of attendance?

I'm sick of hearing people saying increasing support for athletes will cause schools to drop sports because they have the money...or when they say it won't be fair to Olympic sports because the current system isn't fair to them now.

The notion of a level playing field is a joke.

 

[Lou_C]

Lou- it's not a "bad" thing, but it exposes the hypocrisy of the arguments of many NCAA staff and D1 admins about the notion of fairness. If schools are willing to pay 50k insurance premiums out of an assistance fund, why can't they just pay cost of attendance?

I'm sick of hearing people saying increasing support for athletes will cause schools to drop sports because they have the money...or when they say it won't be fair to Olympic sports because the current system isn't fair to them now.

The notion of a level playing field is a joke.

Oh, I agree with that. I think people are finally getting that point, hence the autonomy that's coming. That fairness notion has been absurd for a long time.

You're just never going to be able to legislate a level playing field between Texas or Alabama and Rice or Georgia Southern. The only people that get hurt by that is the kids. If you're good enough to play for a school that can protect you with something like this, or provide three full meals a day, or can provide an A+ strength program instead of a C+ strength program, then it's ridiculous to say you can't have those things because Middle Tennessee State can't provide those things.

 

[milerock]

Haven't these type policies been paid almost as an advance against future earnings? Paying these out of funds for student emergencies or hardship
does not seem right to me. Where am I wrong?

 

[Lou_C]

Haven't these type policies been paid almost as an advance against future earnings? Paying these out of funds for student emergencies or hardship
does not seem right to me. Where am I wrong?

I don't think you can defer the payments until you make the pros. I think they can be financed, but I don't think they can just be contingent on future earnings. If it all came out of future earnings, that means a kid might not get injured, but might just play poorly or fail a drug test or some other non-injury reason that derails his career, and the insurance company wouldn't get their premium. I think the insurance company has to get their premium.

If this became a situation where some volleyball player can't get home for her mother's funeral because all the money has been spent on Jameis Winston or Bryce Petty's NFL insurance, then I agree that would be problematic. But there's no indication that's happening.

As long as schools can come up with a way of providing this that makes sense and doesn't screw over other athletes, then yes, they should pay for it rather than making the kid pay for it.

To even be insurable like this they have to be a special talent and underwritten by an insurance company. It's not like they can just offer every recruit an insurance policy that that will pay them if they don't make the NFL, no insurance company would underwrite that. But if a kid is good enough to qualify (in football, basketball, golf, track, whatever), and the school can pay it, it's a win all around. The school gets another year of the talent, the kid gets another year of education as well as athletic development, the pros get a kid that's a more prepared, and the kid's family isn't on the hook for premiums that they can't afford.