I'm following this thread out of pure amusement.  I understand the
comments about protecting the integrity and "amateur" status of the
women athletes.  However, what about the contest Cheerios ran in
conjunction with the Icebreaker Tournament.  They ran a contest where a
youth hockey player from each of the four teams participating was
involved in some type of a shootout in Madison.  The kid representing
MSU won, and with that, the right to have his team's photo on the cover
of Cheerios for a month or so.  Now, in the NC$$'s infinite wisdom, will
they determine at a later stage that the eligibility of the kids who
appeared on the box is now in jeopardy and thus ineligible to play
college hockey at some point?
 
It seems like the NC$$ would want to strike some type of deal with
General Mills to capture some of the revenue from the US women's team.
But then again, my logic and their logic have never really been on the
same plane before.
 
Bret Marr
East Lansing, MI
 
 
 
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Matt & Shannon wrote:
>
> > ...Just kidding.
> >
> > According to WEEI out of Boston, five members of the Gold Medal winning
> > US Olympic Women's Hockey team will be kept from appearing on the team's
> > Wheaties box because they still have college eligibility remaining.  As
> > we all know, NCAA student-athletes cannot be promoted in such a manner;
> > that would be bad.
> >
> > Thanks, NC$$, for looking out for these women's best interests...
>
> It's not that I don't think this is ridiculous, because I do.  It's just for
> different reason.  My point is that these athletes aren't really amateurs.
>
> The NCAA's isn't so much that they're against the athlete's being promoted;
> the rule is that athletes are not allowed to endorese commercial products.
> This rule is absolutely essential if you are going to maintain the fiction
> of amateurism; I'd even go so far as to say that it's one of the rules that
> you couldn't bend at all, even in a case like this.  There are too many ways
> to pro quo this quid (for pretty much the same reason Doug Woog shouldn't
> have been leaving money under hats for a player even though his eligibility
> was up).
>
> Let's not kid ourselves; General Mills (I think that they are the
> conglomerate in question) doesn't want to put the U.S. hockey gold medalists
> on a box out of love of country and the goodness of its heart.  They think
> (correctly in my view) that this is going to make them some money.  If you
> really believe that college athletes are amateurs, then you should want to
> keep them as far away from commercial endoresements as possible.  That means
> keeping them off of Wheaties boxes.
>
> I say, "Put 'em on there."  But then I think that anyone that plays a sport
> explicitly for compensation (i.e. a college education) isn't an amateur
> anyway.
>
> J. Michael Neal
>
> HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
> [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.