On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, Matt Wickey wrote:
 
> On Mar 7,  7:20pm, Ryan Robbins wrote:
> > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > >In the current issue of Sports Illustrated, Alexander Wolff
> > >writes about Dan Kreft.  Dan is a senior electrical engineering
> > >major at Northwestern.  He has a sharp wit, a knack for
> > >writing and his own WWW page.
> >
> > >He has been putting updates on his page
> > >about the season, his thoughts and what he has been
> > >going through.  He caught the attention of the folks at SI,
> > >who asked him to write an article for them.
> >
> > >... since being paid for the article would break NC$$ rules,
> > >he offered to do it for free.
> >
> > >...The czars at the NC$$ still said no.
> >
> > >The NC$$ ignored the fact that the magazine
> > >wanted Dan because he could write, not because he played
> > >basketball.
> >
> > No First Amendment violation here. The NCAA isn't a public
> > organization. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private
> > organizations.
>
>         This argument seems sound.  But, by the same token, the NC$$
>         could also keep coaches and universities from cashing in
>         on their positions rather than making the athletes the only
>         scapegoats.
> >
> > But this case isn't even about the First Amendment. Don't be
> > fooled: If Kreft wasn't a college basketball player, Sports
> > Illustrated would have absolutely no interest in him.
> >
> > At first glance, a lot of the NCAA's rules look silly. But they're
> > not. College athletics is not supposed to be about athletes going
> > to college to major in hockey or basketball, and that means no
> > cashing in on these talents, even if there's no actual cash but
> > benefits not available to non-athletes.
> >-- End of excerpt from Ryan Robbins
>
>         The NC$$ spends *a lot* of time and energy making sure student
>         athletes don't get preferential treatment over non-athletes.
>         Why, then, are they not concerned with college coaches
>         and even universities exploiting their public status for
>         monetary gain?  Is it fair to other university professors
>         that the relatively uneducated basketball coach can make
>         lucrative endorsements for Taco Bell just because of his
>         popularity?  Is it fair to low profile universities that
>         the "big names" can get *very* lucrative advertising and
>         television contracts because of their name recognition?
>
>         IMO, (please note the lack of legal credentials behind
>         my name) if the NC$$ can keep a student athlete from writing
>         a column for SI without infringing on the first amendment,
>         they should be able to do the same with coaches and
>         universities.
 
For that matter, why is it that writing an article for SI is promoting
a business or cashing in on talent, but submitting to an interview is not?
The resulting publicity has value to an athlete, and it's unlikely that
SI would be equally interested in interviewing non-athletes.
 
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|   Michael Patrick Bresina   |     America's always had a problem     |
|  [log in to unmask]  |  with illegal aliens.  Ask any Indian. |
+-----------------------------+-----------+----------------------------+
|      The Rendezvous Online Service      |           telnet           |
|          Interactive TradeWars!         |       205.243.194.68       |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|           Common sense is what tells us the world is flat.           |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.