WFNY Wednesday Wahoos: Indians Minor League Weekly Review 5/9
May 9, 2012Box Score: Indians 1, White Sox 8
May 9, 2012Sports Illustrated’s Jim Trotter has a piece out today on Terelle Pryor. Among many things discussed was the circumstances that led to Pryor’s suspension at OSU and the season he had last year in Oakland sitting on the bench.
“It was humbling,” he said. “A mistake I made when I was a freshman by selling my pants for $3,000 just took away everything from me. I was just driven into the ground. I was the worst person in the world. My face popped up on the screen, and it seemed like I was the only one who did anything. I was the only one who was getting attacked. At that point last year, I’m 21 and it just felt like everything was against me, like I can’t do anything right. I did something to help somebody else out, and I end up getting into trouble. I understand. I shouldn’t have sold the stuff and taken $3,000. But I was kind of in a place where I didn’t understand why this is happening to me — especially for the reason that I did it.
“The reason why I did it was to pay my mother’s gas bill and some of her rent. She was four months behind in rent, and the [landlord] was so nice because he was an Ohio State fan. He gave her the benefit of the doubt and she said, ‘My son will pay you back sometime if you just let me pay you back during my work sessions.’ She ended up losing her job, and she and my sister lived there. Let me remind you it was freezing cold in November, December, and she’s using the oven as heat. That’s what I did as a kid. I was telling the NCAA, ‘Please, anything that you can do. I gave my mother this so my sister wouldn’t be cold, so my mother wouldn’t be cold.’ They didn’t have any sympathy for me. It’s not like I went there and bought new Jordans. It’s documented. Whenever I write my book the proof will be in there, the receipt that the money I gave my mother was to pay the electric and heat bill. The truth is going to come out one day when the time is right. I don’t think I deserved [being punished] in that way, because of the reason I was doing it. I felt like I was doing God’s work in a way, and I was getting driven into the ground.”
Do take a moment and read the whole piece if you are an Ohio State fan. It probably won’t change your opinion of Pryor. It certainly doesn’t change the fact that Oakland decided they need to give Matt Leinart a shot at the back-up job.
[Related: Raiders use third round pick on Pryor in supplemental draft]
37 Comments
“She was four months behind in rent, and the [landlord] was so nice because he was an Ohio State fan. He gave her the benefit of the doubt and she said, ‘My son will pay you back sometime if you just let me pay you back during my work sessions.’”
This is a blatant NCAA violation. I’ll be curious to see what comes of this.
“This is a blatant NCAA violation.”
How so?
He is gone now. Hopefully nothing. If you think people were mad at him before, wait and see if this turns into something else…
Did she play for the team? No benefits for parents now too I guess.
Student athletes and their families cannot receive preferential treatment. A landlord making an exception on someone 4 months behind in rent simply because her son is an OSU football player falls under preferential treatment.
I’d be shocked if OSU got hit with anything else for it. This happened under the previous regime’s watch, and the current regime is already paying the price for the previous regime, so I don’t think they’ll hit OSU again. But you never know with the NCAA. Hypocritical and unpredictable.
I don’t agree. If the landlord completely forgave the rent due for that reason, maybe, but all we know (or can reasonably glean) is that he postponed payment due, but obviously did not forgive or forego the rent payment. Landlords can, and do, make exceptions like that all the time for any number of reasons. In this case, it appears to be because of a promise of Pryor’s future earning potential (arguably unrelated to his status as an OSU player), but Pryor’s mom still owed the rent and apparently the landlord demanded its payment at some point – otherwise, Urban Meyer would probably still be calling games for ESPN. (Which, all things considered, would be bad, from a purely selfish standpoint!)
You may be right, but I don’t think it’s at all “blatant.”
Pryor flat out said it was because the guy was an OSU fan. Not sure how much more blatant you can get.
You’re right that you could apply plausible deniability if all we knew was that the landlord made an exception for her. But when Pryor says to SI that it was because the guy was an OSU fan, it makes it a little harder to play devil’s advocate.
Pryor said it was because he was a Buckeye fan. Poor choice of words because, if true, then it is a NCAA violation and I agree with Andrew that it’s blatant.
I think the NCAA is done beating the pinata over these guys though. I doubt anything comes of it (I am guessing it came about during their investigation).
they also did their own investigation. i’d think this already came up if Pryor used it in his defense.
Reggie Bush.
(your comeback can’t be Cam Newton as Pryor admitted knowledge)
Oh well. I guess now that landlord can’t play NCAA football for violating the made up rules. Whooptie-doo!
[Comment deleted by Mr. Owen. Re-posted in compact format in response to Andrew.]
Unfortunately (or fortunately, for once), the by-laws don’t work that way. See my last response to Andrew.
Respectfully, no, it doesn’t. Pryor said it was because the guy was a fan, but do you think that any investigation would draw that same conclusion based on any conversation with the landlord? “Yep, I decided to postpone payment of $3,000 of rent because I love dem Bucks!” He would say that he postponed payment because he felt sympathy for the tenant, and believed that he and the tenant had developed a reasonable payment policy. “But are you an OSU fan?” “Sure, but I’m not giving up $3,000 in rent from anybody – and didn’t. Indeed, I got my money.” But . . . I say all of that just because it’s fun.
In reality, the NCAA by-laws are much more clear, per an article dated 7 May 2012: http://michaelbucknerlaw.wordp…
By-law 12.1.2.1.6 (Preferential Treatment, Benefits or Services):
Preferential treatment, benefits or services because of the individual’s athletics reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional athlete, unless such treatment, benefits or services are specifically permitted under NCAA legislation. [R] (Revised: 1/11/94, 1/14/08)An NCAA official interpretation (published on June 6, 2000) of the bylaw states the following “objective guidelines generally should be used in determining whether such benefits are contrary to the legislation”:
1. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete’s parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) develop as a result of the athlete’s participation in athletics or notoriety related thereto?
2. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete’s parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) predate the athlete’s status as a prospective student-athlete?
3. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete’s parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) predate the athlete’s status achieved as a result of his or her athletics ability or reputation?
4. Was the pattern of benefits provided by the individual to the athlete (or the athlete’s parents) prior to the athlete attaining notoriety as a skilled athlete similar in nature to those provided after attaining such stature?
Under the interpretation, “the origin and duration of a relationship and the consistency of benefits provided during the relationship are key factors in determining whether the benefits provided are contrary to the spirit and intent” of the legislation.
/
The landlord/tenant relationship between the “OSU Fan” and Pryor’s mom clearly pre-dated Pryor’s status as an NCAA “student athlete.” He didn’t rent the property because Terrelle was the Buckeyes gunslinger. He rented it because he’s a landlord, and landlords rent properties. No violation. Moreover, if the landlord ever, even once, postponed her rent before he enrolled at OSU (a pretty common and likely occurence), then no violation.
So, clearly not blatant. Indeed, “more likely than not” a non-violation.
I’ll advocate for this devil every day.
Reggie Bush’s family received a benefit directly from the university (or its boosters). That relationship clearly derived from and after Bush’s status as a prospective USC student athlete. Clear violation.
The facts are entirely different w/r/t Pryor and his mom’s landlord. Not even in the same kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species of boat – which, I am sure, is why the NCAA never did anything about this.
(Okay, maybe kingdom, phylum, or class, but clearly not genus or species.)
not true. Reggie’s family received money from an entity not related to the school. they were a group trying to become a sport agency and utilizing Reggie’s fame to do it.
also, any “fan” can be construed to be a “booster” as a booster is anyone who contributes financially to the school.
#4 is the clear red herring
Yes. That’s why I said “booster.” (I couldn’t remember if the school played a part or not – but I think the NCAA determined that it did.)
Still, that relationship developed as a result of, and after the fact of, Bush’s status as a prospective USC student athlete. Clear violation under the by-laws.
Not sure I understand what you mean. A red herring is something intended to distract or mislead. Did you mean “red flag?”
If so, I would counter that #4 is but one factor in the NCAA’s determination of whether the benefit was improper. Evidence of #4 goes to more to “weight” than to “admissibility,” as we say.
And just for the record, I think this “preferential treatment” rule is an utterly stupid, heinous and unjust policy. My personal crusade (if I had the time, that is) would be to end it.
With some exceptions for incarcerated criminals, every other American of capacity and majority has the right and privilege to profit off of their name, likeness, and achievements. For some reason, though, we’re okay with carving out a class of people based on their status as so-called “student athletes,” and providing a private entitity with the power to punish and sanction this class of people for attempting to do what anyone else anywhere within these glorious United States can do freely.
The solution to the scandal problem in the NCAA is to remove this idiotic and unjust rule and allow NCAA athletes to profit off of their name, likeness, and achievements as they are duly able. That’s it. No need to pay athletes or trouble ourselves with any such conversation or movement. If they can make money, cool. Let them make money. If they can’t, oh well. They can work harder, achieve more, and gain a more prominent reputation and marketable value. Pretty “American,” in my opinion – unlike the NCAA.
/soap box vacated, rant concluded, microphone held out arms-length and dropped in dramatic fashion.
yes, I did mean red flag, too much bouncing between discussions for me.
I need you to FOCUS, man. I’m on a crusade, here!
the NCAA determined that the school allowed for the environment in which such a system could happen.
and really, it seems like USC got hammered awfully hard considering Reggie was the only “proof” of misconduct they had on the school compared to the Ohio State, UNC, Miami, etc. cases.
I’d be curious, in all honesty, to see what your viewpoint is on why this/these rule/s are there in the first place. It seems rather self-evident to me, but it is quite possible I’m missing some salient points.
TP had a chance and got sucked in to the void. He lacks the emotionally intelligence to succeed at the pro level. He may succeed yet. But it won’t be in the NFL. Not enough time in the bottle. No quarterback in him anywhere.
wow – still lots of hate for TP. I, for one, never blamed the kid. what he did was not illegal in any way, and i still feel – as a former student athlete – that it’s a ridiculous rule. why can every other kid on campus get a job except for student athletes? it’s LIFE – sometimes people have problems that money can help to solve. and it’s not like the kid was beating his girlfriend or stealing.
There is NO WAY POSSIBLE that this could ever be an NCAA violation. Just because Pryor said the guy was a fan does not in any way mean that his mom got preferential treatment. The NCAA would have to interview the guy, who would very quickly say, “who is Terelle Pryor? I had no idea he was a football player.” It’s not like the NCAA could get a “conviction” just by saying “we think he is lying.” would be bad form.
I believe the reasoning was, initially, two-fold. My understanding is that the rule first began as a means to, ostensibly, prevent “student athletes” from being able to obtain benefits that differed from regular “students.” In other words, a student that happened to play football was not to be afforded an advantage that a normal non-athlete student could not obtain. With just one look at the training facilities, training tables, study halls, etc. – even the scholarships offered – for major collegiate sports programs, we can see that this intent failed spectacularly. Besides, the “preferential treatment” that they receive is really on the margins. An argument can be made – and is often made – that student athletes are actually disadvantaged in material ways.
The second reasoning behind it was, I think, to ensure the integrity of the “amateur” collegiate athletics. In other words, to keep the collegiate athletic world free from corruption. Again, I’d say this failed spectacularly – I would say primarily (and ironically), as a result of the rule itself.
I think this second principle has since morphed into another motivation: maintaining competition, with the thought that the larger schools with bigger fan bases (such as OSU) would automatically be able to recruit and maintain better players by reason of the potential pool of preferential treatment available, to the disadvantage of the smaller schools (such as Kent, etc.). I think this is a non-starter, as common sense tells you that these larger schools already have serious competitive advantages. I doubt that eliminating the preferential treatment rule would at all alleviate these advantages. I suspect that you would see no change in recruiting, as those recruits would still generally have to perform and make themselves stars in order to profit meaningfully (and even the Josh Cribbses of the world would find serious profit from being who they are at their “small” schools).
That’s what I think. What’s your impression? I’m sure I’m missing something, but nothing that I have thought of justifies maintaining the rule.
it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople!
not to mention that if college’s granted student athletes the right to profit on their name&image then they could sue the NCAA and conferences from profiting on such in their advertisements, games, video games, merchandising, etc.
can ‘o’ worms garry, can ‘o’ worms
there are so many disadvantages for the “non-superstar football or basketball” student athlete that it is ridiculous.
outside the “20hrs” practicing and ridiculous other training hours, smaller schools in sports like baseball have to travel the entire spring during the week. they are gone every single Tu, We, Th from March through May (places like TxState). how those kids manage to succeed in school as 99% of them are not getting drafted I have no idea.
(I know you know this, but just adding to the general discussion here)
I doubt he makes it in the NFL, but it has to do more with his skillset (which happens to be perfect for the CFL if he will consider it).
Nah, that’s what contracts are for. “Here kid, review and sign this assignment of rights contract. Take your time. Talk to your parents and a lawyer if they have one. Get it back to us, and we’ll have you sign your scholarship.” Valid offer, acceptance, and consideration.
Anyway, some cans ‘o’ worms should be opened. Justice demands those worms be released!
As a former non-superstar (walk-on, non-scholarship) football student athlete (so far from superstar that I barely felt the radiated solar warmth), I can attest to that.
Imagine if those non-superstar athletes could get something – anything – of financial benefit for their hard work. Even in small communities, there could be opportunities, however small, for a varsity player of these teams. They might not be able to market their hard work, but who knows? Right now, they’re NCAA criminals if they even think about it.
See OBannon NCAA Lawsuit:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-and-march-madness/ncaa-lawsuit/
Even if it’s in the contract, people will say the contract is unjust and fight it in court. The case above is about fighting ‘after’ they left school and the NCAA still controlled their image.
At the worst though, it’d make for some real interesting debates.
Interesting. I wonder what the NFL/NBA/ and MLB do. The universities would have to figure out a way to craft something similar.
Meh, at least Pryor knows what the word “humbled” means, unlike his boy LeBron.