This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Sure it matters. If USC didn't do anything wrong, and wasn't negligent, then they shouldn't get a thumbs-down smiley.Doesn't matter.I don't think USC had anything to do with it, or had any knowledge of it.A bigto USC, Bush and his family, and all of the double-named aliases in the world.
They are being paid, with an education. Maybe in your mind it doesn't meet the amount they could make in the NFL but it is still the give and take of the system. And yes, someone offers something against the rules, you do turn it down. No matter what you think of the rules, they are there for a reason and if you don't violate the rules.
Would they have to forfeit one national title or two?
I think the Yahoo article indicates that they moved into the house last year. So one, I guess.Would they have to forfeit one national title or two?
I could be wrong here but I don't believe the NFL has an anti-trust exemption. The rest of what you said is spot on, of course (although I'm not positive that I think athletes should be paid. We know it's a complicated issue.)
I was playing off the joke about whether or not they even won two national titles. You could argue that the one last year was the only one they got.I think the Yahoo article indicates that they moved into the house last year. So one, I guess.Would they have to forfeit one national title or two?
In fact he didn't have to agree to anything. We all have choices and he made the choice to go to USC and obey the rules. If he violated the rules he should be punished. It is that simple.
The NFL doesn't have its own special little antitrust exemption the way Major League Baseball does; but as is the case with any employer that bargains collectively with a union, the subjects covered by the collective bargaining agreement are generally exempt from antitrust scrutiny. So obvious would-be antitrust violations like the NFL Draft are protected by the CBA. (Eligibiligy rules are a tougher case because the people they negatively affect, like college freshman, never agreed to the CBA.)
That parenthetical part was Clarett's big argument, but that ultimately failed. IIRC he was going after the NFLPA as well as the NFL, because the NFLPA provided no protection for someone like him, and obviously it wasn't bargained for.Of course, that's how it always is with CBAs.
As far as I can tell, the only consequences for Bush is that he might have to give up his stats. I suppose if that includes giving up his Heisman, that's a pretty big deal. But perhaps it was worth it to him to hook his family up with a nice house for a year.
So are you Ok with him breaking the rules, if he did?As far as I can tell, the only consequences for Bush is that he might have to give up his stats. I suppose if that includes giving up his Heisman, that's a pretty big deal. But perhaps it was worth it to him to hook his family up with a nice house for a year.
He's punishing all his teammates as well (if USC has to forfeit games), without their permission.
That's a fair point. You can think he's a scumbag if you want.
Why not? That was his choice to make. He could either follow the rules and avoid punishment, or break the rules and get punishment. I don't see a problem with either option.So are you Ok with him breaking the rules, if he did?As far as I can tell, the only consequences for Bush is that he might have to give up his stats. I suppose if that includes giving up his Heisman, that's a pretty big deal. But perhaps it was worth it to him to hook his family up with a nice house for a year.
So what exactly is morally wrong about what Reggie Bush did? I'm not talking about breaking the rules. I want to know how Reggie Bush accepting a nice house for his family to live in negatively impacts society.Some rules are unjust. This country once had rules that permitted slavery and segregation. It's a good thing that people disobeyed those.
So in your opinion I can go out and rob a bank or kill someone as long as I get punished then you don't have a problem.Why not? That was his choice to make. He could either follow the rules and avoid punishment, or break the rules and get punishment. I don't see a problem with either option.So are you Ok with him breaking the rules, if he did?As far as I can tell, the only consequences for Bush is that he might have to give up his stats. I suppose if that includes giving up his Heisman, that's a pretty big deal. But perhaps it was worth it to him to hook his family up with a nice house for a year.
Taking someone's property or killing them are acts that hurt someone directly. I'm not saying what Bush did was right since it could affect his teammates, but he broke a rule that he disagreed with and took his chances. As a libertarian, I believe unless your actions hurt someone else then it's not immoral to break a law. In this case, Bush's actions are immoral since they could severely impact his teammates and he should not have done it. However, the liklihood of the NCAA punishing their big money maker (that's what it's all about anyway) is very low.So in your opinion I can go out and rob a bank or kill someone as long as I get punished then you don't have a problem.Why not? That was his choice to make. He could either follow the rules and avoid punishment, or break the rules and get punishment. I don't see a problem with either option.So are you Ok with him breaking the rules, if he did?As far as I can tell, the only consequences for Bush is that he might have to give up his stats. I suppose if that includes giving up his Heisman, that's a pretty big deal. But perhaps it was worth it to him to hook his family up with a nice house for a year.
You should have a problem every time someone breaks a rule, law whatever. No matter how much you think it doesn't affect you it does.
Glad my parents taught me right from wrong and to do the right thing.
While it may not hurt you directly, anyone breaking any rule hurts someone somewhere.Taking someone's property or killing them are acts that hurt someone directly. I'm not saying what Bush did was right since it could affect his teammates, but he broke a rule that he disagreed with and took his chances. As a libertarian, I believe unless your actions hurt someone else then it's not immoral to break a law. In this case, Bush's actions are immoral since they could severely impact his teammates and he should not have done it. However, the liklihood of the NCAA punishing their big money maker (that's what it's all about anyway) is very low.So in your opinion I can go out and rob a bank or kill someone as long as I get punished then you don't have a problem.Why not? That was his choice to make. He could either follow the rules and avoid punishment, or break the rules and get punishment. I don't see a problem with either option.So are you Ok with him breaking the rules, if he did?As far as I can tell, the only consequences for Bush is that he might have to give up his stats. I suppose if that includes giving up his Heisman, that's a pretty big deal. But perhaps it was worth it to him to hook his family up with a nice house for a year.
You should have a problem every time someone breaks a rule, law whatever. No matter how much you think it doesn't affect you it does.
Glad my parents taught me right from wrong and to do the right thing.
...at least has the potential to affect Reggie in the draft this weekend, especially when a quick google search found that Sycuan Resort and Casino was the sponsor for the Padres opening day on April 3rd. Who threw out the first pitch? Reggie Bush.I doubt it will hurt him much, if any, but it will no doubt raise a question in some GM's mind that will need an answer before Saturday.
Michigan basketball forfeited EVERY GAME which Chris Webber, Maurice Taylor, Robert Traylor and Louis Bullock played in. They didn't give up their title because it came in the late 80's, well before the scandal.
So in your opinion I can go out and rob a bank or kill someone as long as I get punished then you don't have a problem.Why not? That was his choice to make. He could either follow the rules and avoid punishment, or break the rules and get punishment. I don't see a problem with either option.So are you Ok with him breaking the rules, if he did?As far as I can tell, the only consequences for Bush is that he might have to give up his stats. I suppose if that includes giving up his Heisman, that's a pretty big deal. But perhaps it was worth it to him to hook his family up with a nice house for a year.
How is this a character question?It's not like Bush committed a felony here. He didn't assault or rob anyone. Someone gave his family a really nice place to live and he took it. I'd do the same.
I'm not saying it's fair, though they do also get a full ride for their college education and get to play for bigtime programs which leads to them getting drafted and indirectly millions. Either way, the rules of the NCAA are well known, and it is unethical to violate the NCAA rules knowingly. In my opinion, it is raises a question of Bush's ethical make up.
Ironic. Because Swann was mind-blowingly stupid, he was denied the wonderful privilege of amateur competition and got to start making big bucks a year early.
I guess it comes down to what the Texans think. Personally I wouldn't be deterred.
Raises a question of Bush's ethical makeup as to what?I don't see the relevance here. It's not like he's going to be a repeat offender, unless he blows his money faster than his 40 times.
that was self imposed
UofM forfeits
So yes, USC is in danger of forfeiting games.
The NCAA didn't do it
I'm lost as to what question he has to answer.
I'd probably put quote marks around that self-imposed IMO.that was self imposed
UofM forfeits
So yes, USC is in danger of forfeiting games.The NCAA didn't do it
This is what I wrote in my post above:I'm not saying it's fair, though they do also get a full ride for their college education and get to play for bigtime programs which leads to them getting drafted and indirectly millions. Either way, the rules of the NCAA are well known, and it is unethical to violate the NCAA rules knowingly. In my opinion, it is raises a question of Bush's ethical make up.
"Why'd you accept all this free money Reggie?"
"Because I needed it."
"Oh."
If this was Lawrence Phillips or something, I could understand some hesitation. But even if you think this is a character flaw, I don't see how it could translate into the NFL. I'm just missing this one (it happens a lot) -- are we worried that because Reggie took money in college it means he cares more about his family than his teammates and that he might miss a game when his wife is going into labor or something?
Either way, I'm sure this won't change things with the Texans.
I might agree that its unethical to violate NCAA rules knowingly. I'm just having trouble connecting that to a problem with the NFL. Is there some similar NFL rule that you think he might violate knowingly that might be a problem?I think the situation surrounding this 'ethical violation' is pretty clearly tied directly to being in college. But that's just me I suppose.
You may be right about the inequity of the system cstu, but "rules are rules." Certainly we all have to abide by laws and rules of conduct that we may not agree are "fair" but are nevertheless legal and cause for punitive action if we violate them.At some point, maybe one of these athletes will take up the cause and bring this battle to court; but until that time comes, everyone knows what can and can't be done while on scholarship.
No there's no specific rule I'd be concerned about, but all of them. Once you break the rules like this--if he's guilty by the way--it's easier to break rules in the future. Who knows what Bush might want in the future, but this type of behavior suggests he going to do whatever he feels like doing to get it. Now, in the interviews I've seen of him, I am shocked that he would do something like this. He seems like such a wise kid and this would not have been a smart thing to do. I'm hoping it's BS.And if it is true, like I said earlier I don't equate it to a serious felony, but if I'm going to make a player the centerpiece of my franchise, I would want to know he's not going to want special rules for him. And if I'm the Texans and already have DD maybe I think a little longer about D'Brick who has no such question around him. Either way, if I were the Texans, I'd have a lengthy phone call with Bush to figure this out.
