Peyton Barber was asked why he declared for the draft...

dawgstudent

Heisman
Apr 15, 2003
40,739
22,989
113
his answer was "my mother is homeless right now".

Feel for him and his family.
 

DerHntr

All-Conference
Sep 18, 2007
16,209
3,714
113
And if anyone offered to help her out previously when he had not declared, it could be an NCAA infraction. The rules are weird and forget these guys are human sometimes.
 

121Josey

Redshirt
Oct 30, 2012
7,503
0
0
And if anyone offered to help her out previously when he had not declared, it could be an NCAA infraction. The rules are weird and forget these guys are human sometimes.

Not since 2010, if my memory serves me correct. But this shouldn't remind us about the rules; rather that this is a game. Sometimes human compassion should not retreat from human bureaucracy.
 

coach66

Junior
Mar 5, 2009
12,719
343
83
Well, she could be living in Oxford working at the ammo plant*

Choices
 

rugbdawg

Redshirt
Oct 10, 2006
5,251
0
0
I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying that boosters should pay for her

living expenses because her son is an above average SEC football player?

What about the kid that took out student loans AND is working 40 hours a week? His mom is on disability and is struggling too. Would a booster pay for his mom too?

For every football player's mom that the booster adopts...he must adopt four other students' moms that don't play sports? What's the rule?
 

coach66

Junior
Mar 5, 2009
12,719
343
83
He tried, they almost signed him. Threw

His cake away didn't look edible.
 

codeDawg

Redshirt
Nov 13, 2007
2,102
0
36
Well if he can find someone that wants to pay for him, great! The athlete has someone, why stop them?
 

rugbdawg

Redshirt
Oct 10, 2006
5,251
0
0
Ok. So the hardworking student's mom is homeless too.

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. It sucks both are homeless. But that doesn't mean a booster can just pay for an athlete's parent's home. You understand that rules like this are in place because evil people exist. Rules exist because people suck.
 

121Josey

Redshirt
Oct 30, 2012
7,503
0
0
I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. It sucks both are homeless. But that doesn't mean a booster can just pay for an athlete's parent's home. You understand that rules like this are in place because evil people exist. Rules exist because people suck.

17 U. 17 your hypotheticals. 17 your pessimistic rants. Who said **** about a booster? Is that 17n joke? You can't 17n distinguish between taking in someone off the street and giving them a roof over their head and buying someone a house. Peyton Barber already had a school and the money wouldn't have been going to him, so you need to check the rules. You probably think State shouldn't have recruited JRob because he was living in a car his senior year of high school.

So you think it's okay for someone to pay to go to school while their mom is on the street. Got it. Damn, I hope you don't [ETA: ever get] a degree from Miss. State.
 
Last edited:

johnson86-1

All-American
Aug 22, 2012
15,275
5,813
113
I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. It sucks both are homeless. But that doesn't mean a booster can just pay for an athlete's parent's home. You understand that rules like this are in place because evil people exist. Rules exist because people suck.

I wouldn't call them evil. For those that advocate not allowing college football players to be paid, the rule might remain in place because people are envious and don't like that some college athletes can generate $100k a year in value when they can't generate $50k a year after getting a degree, but I don't think that level of envy quite raises to the level of evil. And for a lot of people, the envy is subconscious. They don't want athletes to get paid because they used to not be paid. They don't even think about why they have come to their conclusion so they never even have to face their feelings of envy.
 

codeDawg

Redshirt
Nov 13, 2007
2,102
0
36
What sort of evil people are you afraid of? I don't get what is evil about giving people things they need or want.
 

HD6

Sophomore
Apr 8, 2003
10,019
108
63
The problem with your analogy is that a booster can give money to a regular student like the one you described, no questions asked. But he cannot do it for an athlete.
 

rugbdawg

Redshirt
Oct 10, 2006
5,251
0
0
No. No. I'm saying rules, preventing a booster from putting a roof over a player's mom head or buying the mom a house, are in place to prevent the abuse of the system by evil people. In a perfect world, I, a booster, could buy a player's mom (who was struggling) groceries for the week or pay her rent for a month. Whatever it may be. Of course there isn't anything wrong with that. But you can't allow anything in that ballpark because there are evil people that would manipulate/distort/extend/anything goes that rationalization to buy players and their families.

And I don't think it's screwed up at all to give a full ride to a student, athlete, or student-athlete whose family members may be homeless. Thats ridiculous to suggest.
 

rugbdawg

Redshirt
Oct 10, 2006
5,251
0
0
You clearly don't understand how complicated this situation is, are an idiot, or both.
 

121Josey

Redshirt
Oct 30, 2012
7,503
0
0
You clearly don't understand how complicated this situation is, are an idiot, or both.

U rite. I should know that it's better to leave someone on the street so that the university football team doesn't have to forfeit any games or lose scholarships or have its name defamed. What is the penalty for the player? He sits out a few games because someone took care of his mother? The situation is complicated because you don't understand it. Dubmass.

Clearly you think that because there are rules, there are no judges.
 

rugbdawg

Redshirt
Oct 10, 2006
5,251
0
0
I understand that. But I believe that's not the problem with my analogy because an athletic booster isn't going to do that. That's the problem with the booster and to a larger degree society. The average booster isn't gonna give money to the regular student...because it doesn't benefit him or the athletic program. And, more practically, there won't be a system or network to funnel money to the regular student's family.

Edited to add: I'm all for the university to create a charitable organization that assists students and their families in the necessities of life. So that the student doesn't have to quit school to go home to "work on the farm." It would have to have a blind system. This organization would get a ton of "booster" money and benefit all.
 
Last edited:

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
61,335
33,064
113
Here's the deal. If you just let people "help out a football player in need," you're giving free range for boosters everywhere to pay players and you may as well just shut down the enforcement division. The NCAA has a benevolence fund that players can apply to for help, and they have in very limited circumstances allowed players to get help from boosters in the past. Yes, it sucks for a player like Barber (although if he makes it in the NFL he and his mom will be just fine). But you're really opening Pandora's Box if you just allow an Auburn booster to help him right now. Hell, if anyone wants to be a good Samaritan for him right now, there's nothing in the world stopping them. I wonder how many Auburn boosters will step up now that his eligibility is gone.
 

121Josey

Redshirt
Oct 30, 2012
7,503
0
0
Here's the deal. If you just let people "help out a football player in need," you're giving free range for boosters everywhere to pay players and you may as well just shut down the enforcement division.

The NCAA has clearly stated that they will not act against 3rd parties associated with the player. So your argument is misplaced.
 

121Josey

Redshirt
Oct 30, 2012
7,503
0
0
You are truly clueless. Nevermind.

You are an evil person. And you are the reason that there are rules.**

I used to think your rants were a gimmick but now I see that you are not very bright. Thanks for confirming our worse fears.
 

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
61,335
33,064
113
The NCAA has clearly stated that they will not act against 3rd parties associated with the player. So your argument is misplaced.
Then exactly what are you complaining about? Go ahead and write him a check.
 

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
61,335
33,064
113
OK. Write her a check then. You're proving my point. You really don't care enough to help her. And neither would the Auburn boosters if her son hadn't rushed for 1,000 yards. Sucks. But it's a fact.
 

ronpolk

All-American
May 6, 2009
9,455
5,481
113
You clearly don't understand how complicated this situation is, are an idiot, or both.

That's an easy answer... 121josey is truly an idiot. Easily the dumbest poster on sps.

I agree with the point you've been making in this thread. As much as it sucks, you can't allow a booster to pay for his moms house. Because I highly doubt there are any other non-football students that same booster is taking care of. Perfect example of this is how many poor homeless kids has a certain OM family helped in Memphis? We all know the answer to that and we all know why.
 

121Josey

Redshirt
Oct 30, 2012
7,503
0
0
OK. Write her a check then. You're proving my point. You really don't care enough to help her. And neither would the Auburn boosters if her son hadn't rushed for 1,000 yards. Sucks. But it's a fact.

OK. Money solves all problems. How about I write her a check for $15? That's about how much I care about it. But nobody - booster or charity - in a better position to assist has cared to helped them. I don't know how they got in this situation, but Barber's family doesn't seem to be looking for a handout.

I'm also proving your point that passing winter nights without a warm place to sleep is less important than how many yards a relative rushed for this season.**
 

rugbdawg

Redshirt
Oct 10, 2006
5,251
0
0
Nothing you have said makes any sense. Your position, apparently, is that any booster can give any parent of any CURRENT student athlete ANY amount of assistance as long as it was not used to induce them to sign with said school. And, you actually believe NCAA rulings support this. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then, somehow, I am evil for pointing out why these rules exist...to prevent what has happened at USC/Ole Miss to somehow be defensible or twisted as receiving a permissible benefit. Hell, in the legal field, attorneys have been reprimanded and suspended from practicing law for doing the right thing. (forwarding a 20 dollar copay for client's MD visit to receive treatment, forwarding a 200 rental payment so the client is not on the street, paying client's car insurance for a month, etc). Judges enforce these rules acknowledging that the result is wrong but the rules are there to protect the client from crooked lawyers.

I don't know what you do for a living but, whatever it is, I hope you don't have to think logically. I guess when all else fails, result to name calling. That's what Trump does.
 

121Josey

Redshirt
Oct 30, 2012
7,503
0
0
Nothing you have said makes any sense. Your position, apparently, is that any booster can give any parent of any CURRENT student athlete ANY amount of assistance as long as it was not used to induce them to sign with said school. And, you actually believe NCAA rulings support this. Nothing could be further from the truth.

No. That's not what I'm saying. The NCAA has said that it won't pursue action against ANY benefits given to 3rd parties. How can you not understand that? If you doubt that, were you not alive during the $cam?

Then, somehow, I am evil for pointing out why these rules exist...to prevent what has happened at USC/Ole Miss to somehow be defensible or twisted as receiving a permissible benefit. Hell, in the legal field, attorneys have been reprimanded and suspended from practicing law for doing the right thing. (forwarding a 20 dollar copay for client's MD visit to receive treatment, forwarding a 200 rental payment so the client is not on the street, paying client's car insurance for a month, etc). Judges enforce these rules acknowledging that the result is wrong but the rules are there to protect the client from crooked lawyers.

Hey, this ain't the legal profession. This is the NCAA. They have their own toothless procedures and make up rules, I mean guidelines, as they go Your analogies suck.

Please remind me what happened to USC/Ole Miss. I'm clearly not on your level of NCAA trivia.
 

121Josey

Redshirt
Oct 30, 2012
7,503
0
0
I agree with the point you've been making in this thread. As much as it sucks, you can't allow a booster to pay for his moms house.

Are you using "house' when you mean to say "home"? Or do you think "homeless" means "smaller home than middle-class" and the boost just wants to take up payments on the mortgage? Maybe you've heard the old pirate saying, "Any port in a storm?" So, it's better to let this lady stay on the street than finding her somewhere to live? An apartment is too much? A room to rent? A church mission?

Let her stay there and wait for her son to play his last football collegiate football game is the correct answer. Now it all makes sense. The program is more important than a life. Why haven't I seen that before? I am such an idiot.**

Because I highly doubt there are any other non-football students that same booster is taking care of.

If there were non-football students that the booster were helping, would that make a difference? But if a booster pays for the house of a non-football student's parent, does the student have to pay taxes on it?

If a coach from the team picks up the phone to call the city hall in that town and asks if they can find this woman and get her help, is that also breaking NCAA rules?
 

ronpolk

All-American
May 6, 2009
9,455
5,481
113
I agree with the point you've been making in this thread. As much as it sucks, you can't allow a booster to pay for his moms house.

Are you using "house' when you mean to say "home"? Or do you think "homeless" means "smaller home than middle-class" and the boost just wants to take up payments on the mortgage? Maybe you've heard the old pirate saying, "Any port in a storm?" So, it's better to let this lady stay on the street than finding her somewhere to live? An apartment is too much? A room to rent? A church mission?

Let her stay there and wait for her son to play his last football collegiate football game is the correct answer. Now it all makes sense. The program is more important than a life. Why haven't I seen that before? I am such an idiot.**



If there were non-football students that the booster were helping, would that make a difference? But if a booster pays for the house of a non-football student's parent, does the student have to pay taxes on it?

If a coach from the team picks up the phone to call the city hall in that town and asks if they can find this woman and get her help, is that also breaking NCAA rules?

I'm not even sure the point you're making here but if you're asking me if I think it's wrong for a booster to provide a house, home apartment or any definition you want to use to describe a roof over someone's head for a football players mom then yes it's wrong. No one is arguing with you on the basis of if someone should be homeless or not. But if a booster wants to start putting roofs over the head of homeless people then pick a non football player.
 

HD6

Sophomore
Apr 8, 2003
10,019
108
63
If you read Brandon Marcello's article, you would know she is not in fact homeless.
 

DerHntr

All-Conference
Sep 18, 2007
16,209
3,714
113
I'm not saying it's a good situation. Making that clear. It definitely sucks.

That being said, he says in the interview that the mom is staying with her daughter and her three grand kids in an apartment. She's not literally out on the streets. I'm happy he has a chance to make some $ to help her get her own place and I'm happy she's not sleeping in a car, on the streets or even in a shelter.
 

codeDawg

Redshirt
Nov 13, 2007
2,102
0
36
I find it interesting that people who typically identify as conservatives and want government and regulation out of their lives are the first people to denounce college athletes getting any more compensation than a scholarship.

Maybe the answer is to put these same restrictions on any student receiving a scholarship. If you are on scholarship, nobody can buy you a meal, give you a job, or give you cash in any way. That should ensure the integrity of scholarship that everyone is so concerned about.
 

johnson86-1

All-American
Aug 22, 2012
15,275
5,813
113
No. No. I'm saying rules, preventing a booster from putting a roof over a player's mom head or buying the mom a house, are in place to prevent the abuse of the system by evil people. In a perfect world, I, a booster, could buy a player's mom (who was struggling) groceries for the week or pay her rent for a month. Whatever it may be. Of course there isn't anything wrong with that. But you can't allow anything in that ballpark because there are evil people that would manipulate/distort/extend/anything goes that rationalization to buy players and their families.

And that proves my point. NOthing in that post sounded evil, just not thought out. You can get a rule with evil results without many of the people supporting it actually being evil.
 

KurtRambis4

Redshirt
Aug 30, 2006
15,926
0
36
Why?

I find it interesting that people who typically identify as conservatives and want government and regulation out of their lives are the first people to denounce college athletes getting any more compensation than a scholarship.

wouldn't those two things go together, with being fiscally conservative?
 
Maroon and White

Latest

  1. 01 Maroon and White Football Mississippi State Keys to Victory vs. Auburn
  2. 02 Rivals Basketball Recruiting 4-star center Chris Brown commits to Mississippi State
  3. 03 Maroon and White Football Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Auburn Q and A
  4. 04 Maroon and White Basketball Mississippi State vs. Xavier: How, Where, and When to Watch Bulldog Basketball
  5. 05 Maroon and White "I started something I didn't finish": Mississippi State QB Kamario Taylor joins Sports Center to talk 2027 return