Skip Bayless: Let Boosters Pay Players

[MUHoopsFan2]

I think that this is a very interesting -- and true -- comment.  I also think it can be used to support either side of the argument.  Personally, I believe that this is a strong justification for not paying players.  The loyalty (i.e., the money) is based upon the institution, not the players.  Sure, alums want their schools to be the best and have the best players.  But, I believe that if a minor league was developed for football pulling the cream of the crop, the alums at Alabama, Michigan, OSU, etc. would still fill their stadia and buy jerseys hoping that their alma mater would win the national championship.  I don't really recall people losing interest in NCAA basketball when the best players were going straight to the NBA.  People root for the name on the front of the jersey and I don't think the creation of minor leagues would change that.

Give me a break. It is about the players....PERIOD. Most Universities are knows on a large scale due to athletics. Get real.

[MUHoopsFan2]

+1

You are off here. No it would not be my friend.Trust me. Marketing and everything would be totally different. No one would go to games or watch them.

Not on any level.

If one and done's would go to this minor league for two years, like that Kentucky crew last year before they could be a pro no one in the world would care about college sports!

You have to be out of your mind. The tournaments during the year barely sell out anymore as it is. I will debate this until the cows come home because they need this option for guys who do not want to go to school.

No way in the world anyone would go if they had a minor leagues guys could go to get paid for two years over going to college. Fans that think it would be the same are in a bubble.

It would be 'different' but not the same and not as popular. Some have this ideological view of basketball and football but it is about winning and the best players.

[GooooMarquette]

Give me a break. It is about the players....PERIOD. Most Universities are knows on a large scale due to athletics. Get real.

So if all the MU players had chosen UW and all the UW players had chosen MU, you'd be a Badger fan?  Seriously?

I went to MU and will always be a MU fan, regardless of who plays there.  And if all the MU players had gone to some semi-pro league and lesser players had chosen MU...I'd still be a MU fan.

[MUHoopsFan2]

No way in the world college basketball or football would be as popular. No way in the world...it would be the end of college athletics.

Not in this day and age. Maybe earlier. But you are living in the past.

Say if all of the McDonald's All Americans or the top 100-15- recruits all went to the so called minor leagues from Scout.com and Rivals instead of college for 2-3 years to get an "education" you mean to honestly tell me that would not hurt the NCAA!?

And you say that the NCAA would be "better off?" Ha ha ha... I disagree my friend. And I bet you any money coaches would leave as well.

[Atticus]

You are off here. No it would not be my friend.Trust me. Marketing and everything would be totally different. No one would go to games or watch them.

Not on any level.

If one and done's would go to this minor league for two years, like that Kentucky crew last year before they could be a pro no one in the world would care about college sports!

You have to be out of your mind. The tournaments during the year barely sell out anymore as it is. I will debate this until the cows come home because they need this option for guys who do not want to go to school.

No way in the world anyone would go if they had a minor leagues guys could go to get paid for two years over going to college. Fans that think it would be the same are in a bubble.

It would be 'different' but not the same and not as popular. Some have this ideological view of basketball and football but it is about winning and the best players.

uropr

But there is a minor league for the NBA. It's called the NBADL. Franchises move from city to city every year because there is no support. If the top 20 (or whatever) kids go to a minor league or Europe or Kiwi League, the next 20 will get all the accolades (assuming they want to play in college). The 'next 20' will be the most highly recruited kids in the country. It has already been proven --- when there was no age limit, the kids that chose college received a ton of hype (Carmelo Anthony, for example).

If you think there is huge marketability for a league between college and the NBA....you should ask Glenn Rice Jr. He played college and then went d-league and then nba draft. No one followed him in the d-league.

[forgetful]

No way in the world college basketball or football would be as popular. No way in the world...it would be the end of college athletics.

Not in this day and age. Maybe earlier. But you are living in the past.

Say if all of the McDonald's All Americans or the top 100-15- recruits all went to the so called minor leagues from Scout.com and Rivals instead of college for 2-3 years to get an "education" you mean to honestly tell me that would not hurt the NCAA!?

And you say that the NCAA would be "better off?" Ha ha ha... I disagree my friend. And I bet you any money coaches would leave as well.

The coaches will go where the money is and that will stay in the NCAA regardless of the players.  

My guess is that you are under the age of 20.

I watch MU, because as a kid I used to sit on the floor in the old gym and watch the team practice.  That was before I could even appreciate good basketball.  I grew up with the team, listening to them on the radio often, as they weren't even on TV.  I could not have cared less who was on the team, I would find a favorite.  Often the team sucked, but that didn't matter.

My scenario is by far the common scenario.  All fans like myself would continue to watch the teams play even if it got so hard to find players that they had to merge the men's and women's teams.  

Would some fans leave…probably, but I bet you they'd be back after their friends (who are more like me) keep talking about the season.  

[Atticus]

No way in the world college basketball or football would be as popular. No way in the world...it would be the end of college athletics.

Not in this day and age. Maybe earlier. But you are living in the past.

Say if all of the McDonald's All Americans or the top 100-15- recruits all went to the so called minor leagues from Scout.com and Rivals instead of college for 2-3 years to get an "education" you mean to honestly tell me that would not hurt the NCAA!?

And you say that the NCAA would be "better off?" Ha ha ha... I disagree my friend. And I bet you any money coaches would leave as well.

I cant wait for you to give us updates on Emmanuel Mudiay's performances on the dark side of the moon. What channel is that?

[Atticus]

I picked a random year....2001. According to a brilliant poster here, college basketball wouldnt survive if the top 20 kids never played college. Well, here is a list of the RSCI top 25 from 2001. I think college basketball is in a safe place. lol


1   �      Eddy Curry   6   1   1   1   1   1   595      6-10   C   South Holland, IL   NBA
2   �      Kelvin Torbert   2   4   5   2   1   2   590      6-4   WG   Flint, MI   Michigan State
3   -1      Dejaun Wagner   1   2   3   3   3   5   589      6-3   PG-WG   Camden, NJ   Memphis
4   1      Tyson Chandler   4   6   6   4   4   4   578      7-0   C   Compton, CA   NBA
5   -1      Ousmane Cisse   5   5   8   5   5   3   575      6-9   PF-C   Montgomery, AL   NBA
6   5      Kwame Brown   14   3   2   6   12   7   562      6-10   C-PF   Brunswick, GA   NBA
7   -1      Julius Hodge   3   9   14   7   7   8   558      6-5   WG-WF   Bronx, NY   NC State
8   -1      Desanga Diop   20   7   4   8   10   6   551      6-11   C   Mouth of Wilson, VA   NBA
9   1      Rick Rickert   9   19   9   11   6   10   542      6-10   PF   Duluth, MN   Minnesota
10   -1      David Lee   8   8   11   10   11   20   538      6-8   PF   St. Louis, MO   Florida
11   5      Jawad Williams   17   11   13   13   15   12   525      6-8   WF   Lakewood, OH   North Carolina
12   �      Carlos Hurt   11   15   18   12   13   13   524      6-2   PG   Louisville, KY   Louisville
13   2      David Harrison   19   12   15   16   19   11   514      6-11   C   Brentwood, TN   Colorado
13   -5      Jonathan Hargett   7   17   7   9   9   43   514      6-1   PG   Durham, NC   West Virginia
15   -2      Aaron Miles   16   28   20   15   8   9   510      6-0   PG   Portland, OR   Kansas
16   -2      Maurice Williams   21   22   16   14   16   14   503      6-0   PG   Jackson, MS   Alabama
17   2      T.J. Ford   15   14   10   23   24   26   494      5-10   PG   Sugarland, TX   Texas
18   -1      Josh Childress   12   24   26   18   18   16   492      6-5   WF-WG   Lakewood, CA   Stanford
19   1      Cedric Bozeman   13   20   22   22   17   24   488      6-4   WG-PG   Santa Ana, CA   UCLA
20   1      Wayne Simien   30   16   19   21   21   15   484      6-9   PF   Leavenworth, KS   Kansas
21   -3      Rashaad Carruth   18   32   24   19   22   31   460      6-3   WG   Mouth of Wilson, VA   Kentucky
22   7      James White*      10   12   17   14   17   435      6-7   WF   Chatham, VA   Florida
23   -1      Jamal Sampson   33   35   23   26   28   28   433      6-10   C   Santa Ana, CA   California
24   18      John Allen   10   13   21   52   54   29   427      6-5   WF-WG   Coatesville, PA   Seaton Hall
25   �      Jackie Manuel   47   30   27   24   23   36   419      6-5   WG-WF   West Palm Beach, FL   North Caro

[StillAWarrior]

Give me a break. It is about the players....PERIOD. Most Universities are knows on a large scale due to athletics. Get real.

I think it would affect college sports, but not nearly as much as you think.  And it certainly would not be the end of college athletics.  It's a symbiotic relationship:  the universities are known because of the athletics, and the athletes are known because of the universities. 

I'm a Marquette fan.  I've been a fan when they sucked, and I've been fan when they've been good.  They take a bunch of kids that I've never heard of, give them jerseys, and I root for them.  That's how many college sports fans are -- I'd wager most college sports fans.  If the best 100 players went to a minor league system, I'd still watch Marquette basketball and hope that our roster cobbled from the remaining players beats Wisconsin.  If HS kids are allowed to go to the NFL and/or a minor league, Alabama fans will still root for their team to beat Auburn and will still proudly wear their national championship t-shirts.  I think you seriously over-estimate how tied up people are on the level of the play.  They just want their alma maters to be the best relative to the other teams in their league.  But they will continue to root for them and follow them -- and spend money on them -- even if they're not.  The creation of another league might change that, but I don't think it would change that too much.

It's often said that these colleges are exploiting athletes.  While I don't really agree with that, I think there's certainly an argument that can be made that it is true.  If it's true, the reason that the colleges are able to do it is that they have a rabid fan base that will root for any kid that wears the jersey; they don't much care who the kid is.  They'll root for the kid as long as he's wearing the right jersey.  As soon as he transfers, they'll root for the next kid who gets assigned the jersey.

[NavinRJohnson]

Just cant have this argument anymore, but can all of those opposed to this or other suggested payments to players just be honest about why you are against them? You want your college football and basketball, NCAA tournamanet and mU games on TV and the Bradley Center, and the current system allows you to get it. You know darn well that should significant changes occur with a more real world type system of pay based on relative value were to be implemented, college athletics as we know it would be history. May not die completely, but likely would not be what we have come to know. You don't want that. Its about you, not the players involved. I get it. I am part of the problem because I keep buying tickets and tuning in, but i also think moving in that direction is the right thing to do, and if college athletics as we know it ceases to exist, so be it. I'll find something else to do.

Cue the "thousands of kids who get athletic scholarships will no longer get them" argument...yep, that's probably true. Again, so be it. Why does a volleyball player have a God given right to a free/reduced education funded by the money generated by his football playing brethren?

[Lennys Tap]

Cue the "thousands of kids who get athletic scholarships will no longer get them" argument...yep, that's probably true. Again, so be it. Why does a volleyball player have a God given right to a free/reduced education funded by the money generated by his football playing brethren?

Ding, ding, ding.

[StillAWarrior]

Just cant have this argument anymore, but can all of those opposed to this or other suggested payments to players just be honest about why you are against them? You want your college football and basketball, NCAA tournamanet and mU games on TV and the Bradley Center, and the current system allows you to get it. You know darn well that should significant changes occur with a more real world type system of pay based on relative value were to be implemented, college athletics as we know it would be history. May not die completely, but likely would not be what we have come to know. You don't want that. Its about you, not the players involved. I get it. I am part of the problem because I keep buying tickets and tuning in, but i also think moving in that direction is the right thing to do, and if college athletics as we know it ceases to exist, so be it. I'll find something else to do.

Cue the "thousands of kids who get athletic scholarships will no longer get them" argument...yep, that's probably true. Again, so be it. Why does a volleyball player have a God given right to a free/reduced education funded by the money generated by his football playing brethren?

There are going to be changes in college sports, and I'm OK with that.  Like you, if they change to the point that I lose interest, I'll find something else to do.  But I don't expect that to happen.  I honestly don't know what the changes will be, but it seems there are several key possibilities:  1) pay the athletes; 2) the big time football/basketball programs split off and do their own thing; or 3) a completely separate and potentially viable minor league for football/basketball.  If any of these things happen (or if nothing happens), I'm pretty sure I'd still be a Marquette fan.

College sports is marketing...effective marketing.  There are 332 DI volleyball programs in the NCAA.  Football isn't funding them all.  Schools will continue spending money on athletics just like they'll continue spending money to send countless mailings to every 17 year old with a pulse.  Whether they're right or wrong, schools perceive value in having athletics even if they're not directly profitable (and they aren't in many schools).

[jesmu84]

Just cant have this argument anymore, but can all of those opposed to this or other suggested payments to players just be honest about why you are against them? You want your college football and basketball, NCAA tournamanet and mU games on TV and the Bradley Center, and the current system allows you to get it. You know darn well that should significant changes occur with a more real world type system of pay based on relative value were to be implemented, college athletics as we know it would be history. May not die completely, but likely would not be what we have come to know. You don't want that. Its about you, not the players involved. I get it. I am part of the problem because I keep buying tickets and tuning in, but i also think moving in that direction is the right thing to do, and if college athletics as we know it ceases to exist, so be it. I'll find something else to do.

Cue the "thousands of kids who get athletic scholarships will no longer get them" argument...yep, that's probably true. Again, so be it. Why does a volleyball player have a God given right to a free/reduced education funded by the money generated by his football playing brethren?

Because some people want free market and capitalism in one part of society but not others?

[forgetful]

Cue the "thousands of kids who get athletic scholarships will no longer get them" argument...yep, that's probably true. Again, so be it. Why does a volleyball player have a God given right to a free/reduced education funded by the money generated by his football playing brethren?

Out of curiosity, why does a football player have a God given right to a free/reduced education and additional pay subsidized by students who are paying tuition.

Remember, many football programs do not make money and if you subtract donations and hidden subsidies, I don't think any programs actually make a profit, even for football alone.

[mu-rara]

Professional leagues need college sports because it is a lower risk proposition.

Colleges take the burden of vetting players off the NBA GM and puts it on the colleges.  We all know about the HS busts.  Spending at least 2 years in college lowers, not eliminates, the risk of a bust.

I think HS kids who don't want to go to college should have that option.  If the top 20 players each year want to get paid, let them.  It won't affect my love of the Warriors or college basketball.

[NavinRJohnson]

Out of curiosity, why does a football player have a God given right to a free/reduced education and additional pay subsidized by students who are paying tuition.

Remember, many football programs do not make money and if you subtract donations and hidden subsidies, I don't think any programs actually make a profit, even for football alone.

They don't, but if they generate the revenue, in my mind, they deserve compensation commensurate with their contribution (to the top line). I agree all programs are not created equally, but those donations and hidden subsidies happen as a result of college football's existence, as does TV money, ticket revenue, etc. you're kind of making my point...many Universities find football (or basketball) programs financially beneficial. They lead to additional $ in some form, even if they may not be completely self funded. Take it away, and you take away the donations, revenue, etc. that it generates. Can the same be said for gymnastics? Of course not. If tomorrow the gymnasts at XYZU stopped doing gymnastics, the impact on the University would be virtually non-existent. If the football players stopped playing football, the impact would be massive.