NCAA looking into possible violation for endorsing online poker

[olivert]

There is big story developing with regards to
an endorsement contract with an online poker room
executed by an NCAA scholarship
student-athlete in a non-revenue sport at a Division II school
in Northern California who won over US$500,000
at a televised poker tournament about 3 weeks ago.

The NCAA Enforcement Staff in Indianapolis is looking into
whether this student-athlete has jeopardized his remaining
eligibility to compete in an NCAA sport
because this student-athlete won an online satellite,
was required to enter into a contract agreement to endorse
the online poker room in exchange for receiving his buy-in
(plus hotel accomdations and cash for travel expenses),
and executed the endorsement contract by wearing a shirt
with the logo of the online poker room
during the big televised tournament.

I have already been interviewed by a local newspaper regarding
this case for my role in bringing this case to the attention
of the NCAA and the school involved, and I am waiting to hear
from several TV networks to see whether
they are interested in doing a story on this case.

This will be a precedent-setting case for the NCAA
with regards on online satellite poker tournaments
and the associated endorsement contract
agreements for NCAA student-athletes.

The rule involved is NCAA Bylaw 12.5.3, which deals
with the "media activities" by student-athletes
with regards to endorsement contracts and promotional
activities which uses a student-athlete's
"athletic reputation and prestige".

The online poker room involved issued a press release
a week ago touting the student-athlete's status
as an NCAA Division II student-athlete in a
non-revenue sport at a school in Northern California.

--

Before you criticize me for getting the NCAA involved
and turning over key physical evidence to the NCAA, read
my reasons for doing what I did.

This issue goes well beyond one particular student-athlete
at a Division II school playing a non-revenue sport.

This issue involves thousands of NCAA student-athletes
who play poker recreationally. Many of them will try to qualify
online for the 2006 WSOP Main Event and other major televised tourneys.
All of them might lose their remaining NCAA eligibility
by entering into mandatory endorsement contracts required
by online poker rooms in order to
receive their buy-ins to major televised tournaments.

This issue deals with the way online poker rooms
structure contract agreements with players who qualify online.
In most cases, there is no way for the
online qualifier to "opt out" of the endorsement contract.

(PokerStars during the 2005 WSOP Main Event was an exception,
as the endorsement contract was 100% optional
and can be declined. That is the ONLY known
exception I am aware of in the past 2 years.)

This issue is WAY TOO IMPORTANT for poker players to ignore,
whether you are an NCAA student-athlete or not,
becuase it affects your ability to negotiate an endorsement
contract individually if you are an online qualifier, besides
its affect on the NCAA eligibility of student-athletes
who qualify online for a major televised poker tournament.

I have contacted Mason Malmuth and Ed Miller
to see whether they want to publish my 1200-word manuscript
on this issue on Two Plus Two Internet Magazine.

I want the NCAA to make a ruling on this case as quickly as possible
so that we know once and for all where the NCAA stands on this issue,
and how online poker rooms will have to make
adjustments to their endorsement contracts with online qualifiers
in order to avoid causing other NCAA student-athletes from losing
their eligibility.


Oliver Tse
Freelance Poker Business Reporter
olivert@oliver-tse.com

[jonnytone]

[ QUOTE ]
I have already been interviewed by a local newspaper regarding
this case for my role in bringing this case to the attention
of the NCAA and the school involved, and I am waiting to hear
from several TV networks to see whether
they are interested in doing a story on this case.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you are a bit%h to me.

[GotRivered?]

Look i understand what your saying about how there needs to be a decision on how the NCAA treats these situations. There are 2 major problems i have in your argument

1. I dont know the ins and outs of NCAA rulings on matters of endorsements so maybe you could provide more detail about thier rules but i cant see on how an outside competition event which isnt even sponsored by the NCAA would have consequences for endorsements within that competition. Because this argument seems to be mostly speculation.

2. This point could have easily been brought up with the NCAA without harming a single individual. Not to mention the degree you went in doing so by providing physical evidence. I dont think this situation requires throwing a student to the wolves to prove a point.

[olivert]

Ed Miller has rejected my manuscript. The story will NOT appear on Two Plus Two.

[PartySNGer]

Thank you Ed.

[duma]

the NCAA is one of the most backwards institutions in America. I have no doubt that you will lose your eligibility over this...

[jonnytone]

[ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller has rejected my manuscript. The story will NOT appear on Two Plus Two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now don't you feel foolish?

[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]
1200-word manuscript

[/ QUOTE ]

A) LOL

B) You have WAY too much time on your hands. There are plenty of poker stories out there. Ruining some kid's college life so you can bring this issue to the forefront is lame.

C) You are a self-promoter and completely transparent. You are doing this for no one but yourself. And, in the process, you are hurting some kid who didn't know better.

D) Here's a tip that might serve you well in the future: MYOFB.

[freekobe]

Posted deleted - knock off the flaming/personal insults or face consquences -Dids

[bigdog23]

Does the NCAA have a hotline to report stuff like this?? Damn nice work ruining some kids life.

If he plays a D-2 non scholarship sport nobody has ever heard of the kid outside of the school he goes to. So its obvious the poker site was not using him because of his atletic background. So why would you think it is a violation?

In the case of Jeremy Bloom, snowboarder who lost his NCAA eligibility at Colorado for doing ski endorsement, the NCAA has a bit better case that some of these endorsements are dervied from his football skill. Granted, i think it was unfair to him but at least people knew he was.