"Without limits" is when this situation gets out of control.
The fact that the NCAA might need a "salary cap" speaks volumes about the unfairness of the current situation.
What is unfair about the current situation? That they get a free education, free room and board, free tutoring, free world class coaching, free access to network of powerful alumni that 99.9% of other students don't get.
The idea like most of Bayless ideas, is laughable.
It gets clicks. I'd be shocked if Bayless himself believes 50% of what he says.
What is unfair about the current situation? That they get a free education, free room and board, free tutoring, free world class coaching, free access to network of powerful alumni that 99.9% of other students don't get.
The idea like most of Bayless ideas, is laughable.
If someone was ready to basically pay you $10M when you were 18 years old, or you could go to school for 4 years and risk potential injury that would eliminate that $10M talent/skill - would 4 years of a free education, room and board, tutoring be enough to compel you to forgo that immediate payout? And like many of the top football recruits, assume you came from a family with limited economic resources - what would you do Chicos?
But how many 18-year olds are physically ready to jump to, and play in, the NFL? I would say very, very few. So either you would need some type of development league (low pay, risk of injury) or they go to college...and they don't need to stay for four years, I believe they only need to play two years if they redshirt.
This is the issue I have with paying college players - yes, a few sell a lot of jerseys and draw extra fans, but what about the third string right tackle or the backup punter? Do you pay them the same amount? We're talking about setting up a system more focused on the "superstars" of which there are very few. The majority of college football players don't play in the NFL, so a four or five year full scholarship with the attendant benefits seems more than fair.
Berg, there is money everywhere and it would hardly just be the ivies. There are only so many roster positions. You would also have many Ivy alumni that would be furious that certain kids are being rolled at their institutions that have no academic ability to succeed there.
The beneficiaries would be large schools with large alumni bases that already place sports at a high level with academics somewhere in the middle.
Furthermore, I don't know if it is college football's responsibility to pay players because the 18 year old's access to the free market is blocked by a labor agreement.
I agree that the NFL's labor agreement doesn't create college football's responsibility to pay collegiate football players. It is college football's responsibility to pay players because those schools use those players to generate a god awful amount of income for their athletic departments.
I don't disagree. I am not sure that you can just open it up completely. Even the NFL and NBA have salary caps.
That's the beauty of Bayless' argument. He's not advocating that schools squeeze their athletic departments budgets to pay the players
You would also have many Ivy alumni that would be furious that certain kids are being rolled at their institutions that have no academic ability to succeed there.Some of the Ivies - Harvard specifically - gave up "academic ability to succeed" a long time ago when they sold out to the socialist wing of the Democratic party to become it's training ground. They have become a degree mill for those who buy into the philosophy.
Some of the Ivies - Harvard specifically - gave up "academic ability to succeed" a long time ago when they sold out to the socialist wing of the Democratic party to become it's training ground. They have become a degree mill for those who buy into the philosophy.
Give me a break. The kid that just decommitted from SMU signed a 1 year deal in China for $1.2M. He'll get endorsements, too. Buy-bye. The NCAA shouldnt cater to a very select group of kids that DONT HAVE to play college basketball but willingly CHOOSE to. If the NBA wants an age limit, there is nothing prohibiting kids from playing abroad or in the D-League. Take a hike. See ya later. The NCAA shouldnt bend over backwards for a select group of kids that are using college basketball for a year or two to make an NBA roster. College basketball will do just fine if the top 20 or so kids every year decide to play for pay somewhere. To my knowledge, no one is putting a gun to each kid's head and telling him he has to play college basketball. Oh, not mature enough to play abroad? Well, apparently those same kids are mature enough 9 months later to interview agents, hire an agent, sign endorsement deals, sign a multi-million dollar contract, and present himself in a way that is endearing to a NBA franchise's fans. Get lost.
College football players have less options. Is that the fault of the NCAA? Nope. Dont like the rules? Take a hike. Again, there is no gun to the head of these high school players to sign with a college. So what is their alternative to college? I dont know. Maybe some of them should email the NFL commissioner and ask what their options are....
And I cant believe someone is arguing that they are risking injury. Again, no one is making them play the sport. There is risk/reward with every decision in life. If football players had an alternative to college, they would still risk injury in some other developmental league. And I HIGHLY doubt there is room on a 53 man roster for a kid right out of high school. No chance.
Can we also get rid of minimum wage, union rules, OHSA and EEOC rules while we are at it?
What's unfair about it, particularly football, is that the top recruits are blue chip commodities that schools fight over - and profit handsomely from - in building powerful and profitable football teams. These kids bang the hell out of their bodies, are one injury away from never being able to cash in on the near world class talent they've worked hard to develop by the age of 18 - and aren't able to cash in for 3 years.
There is no other scenario/"profession" I can think of where a person develops an elite talent/skill, and is not able to cash in on it for 3 years, when the market would otherwise be ready to pay big money for that talent - other than college football model.
If someone was ready to basically pay you $10M when you were 18 years old, or you could go to school for 4 years and risk potential injury that would eliminate that $10M talent/skill - would 4 years of a free education, room and board, tutoring be enough to compel you to forgo that immediate payout? And like many of the top football recruits, assume you came from a family with limited economic resources - what would you do Chicos?
What's unfair about it, particularly football, is that the top recruits are blue chip commodities that schools fight over - and profit handsomely from - in building powerful and profitable football teams. These kids bang the hell out of their bodies, are one injury away from never being able to cash in on the near world class talent they've worked hard to develop by the age of 18 - and aren't able to cash in for 3 years.
There is no other scenario/"profession" I can think of where a person develops an elite talent/skill, and is not able to cash in on it for 3 years, when the market would otherwise be ready to pay big money for that talent - other than college football model.
If someone was ready to basically pay you $10M when you were 18 years old, or you could go to school for 4 years and risk potential injury that would eliminate that $10M talent/skill - would 4 years of a free education, room and board, tutoring be enough to compel you to forgo that immediate payout? And like many of the top football recruits, assume you came from a family with limited economic resources - what would you do Chicos?
Give me a break. The kid that just decommitted from SMU signed a 1 year deal in China for $1.2M.
There are lots of professions with restrictions. I could study for years to be an expert in medicine, but not want to pay for medical school. I would still be banned from ever practicing that trade, even if I was far superior from my independent training.
I could become an expert in the legal field and publish article after article in legal journals, but would be banned from practicing law unless I went to law school.
That's the beauty of Bayless' argument. He's not advocating that schools squeeze their athletic departments budgets to pay the players, he's just saying let boosters -- volunteers willing to foot the bill -- have the ability to toss away as much of their own personal wealth as they want in order to recruit/compensate players. He's really saying just legalize what many schools, especially in the SEC, already are doing under the table, so every booster can have the equal right to willingly toss money recruits way.
I'm guessing you really don't know the facts. The only options he had to play basketball were the Far East where he could earn real money or the D-League where he would make less than someone working at Starbucks. That's it!
And the only reason this is the case is that all the rich, capitalist, free-marketers are only rich, capitalist, free-marketers when their own pockets are getting lined.
Jay Bilas once described how it would work ...
Big time blue chip recruit gets 300k plus tuition. Big time recruit, agrees to stay 2 years, maintain a 2.5 GPA and not get arrested. If big time recruit leaves early, fails to keep grades or gets busted, the contract details fine and damages big time recruit must pay.
Finally since big time recruit is getting paid, he can hire tutors (the school can provide a list if interested) and an accountant to pay taxes.
Poor kid. He had to go all the way to the "Far East" to earn some money ($1.2M) playing basketball. Jeez, I really hope he doesn't have a long morning commute to the gym everyday. Maybe he should file a grievance... :'(
Yup. An 18 year old kid has to go to a different country, different culture, different language, different game for what reason?
Oh, because in his own country, he is banned from trying to make it in the NBA.
Ah.... the Land of Opportunity.
You are equating profession that can determine whether a person lives or dies with basketball? Let's not get silly while we make our arguments.
Awesome. This is going to be so great. Incredibly well thought out, too. I can't wait for the game fixing kicks in, when the holdouts start happening, etc. It's going to be awesome.
Can we pinpoint the size of the SEC under the table scheme? Or is it more rare than reality and has a life of its own? Sure, there is Cam Newton and certainly others. Obviously others that haven't been caught, but one wonders how much of it is also built up as myth, too. Do not think anyone knows this answer, but I suspect bigger in the imagination than reality. Maybe if Bayless could use his expert journalistic skills to expose how big the problem is he would have more supporters on this, but until he can define the problem accurately his solution may be opening up the abuse many X times.
His argument is the old "well they're doing it anyway so just legalize it". That has gone haywire over the years in many examples.
Ners claimed he couldn't think of a single profession. Those are the most obvious and thus are fine for an argument of that sort. Whether their should be restrictions is a whole different argument compared to whether there are other examples of it occurring.
The fact is, that there are a lot of restrictions requiring a specific amount of training and proof of ability before one can be employed in specific professions.
The reason I picked the examples I did, is because it involves a group within that profession (doctors, lawyers, CPA's) that dictate the requirements to joint the 'club'. Just like the players associations help dictate what is required in their discipline.
But the reaction to an overly regulated system isn't complete anarchy. I am all for enhanced benefits, and I don't care one lick if scholarships for Olympic sports are diminished as a result. I am also not opposed to athletes cashing in on their likeness in some way.
But just turning everyone loose I don't think is the answer.
I'm also not going to buy into Chico's hyperbole that its the end of the world if athletes get more money either.
Yep. And add teachers, dental hygieinsts and plenty of other occupations - which don't determine whether people live or die - that have minimum requirements before you can make a living. A huge portion of our economy is filled with people who had to go to a certain amount of schooling and pass various tests to be eligible for their occupation.
Why is it required that the football and basketball teams pay for all the non revenue sports? Is the business school required to pay for the English department? Is the engineering program required to pay for the philosophy department?
Schools will make a determination if the want more than two sports teams (football and basketball). My guess is the Olympic sports will be fine.
Yes but the national association of dental hygienists, or the national association of teachers did not pass rule requiring an age requirement for employment. The national basketball association does have an age requirement.
Age discrimination is something recognized by the law, education discrimination is not.
Can we pinpoint the size of the SEC under the table scheme? Or is it more rare than reality and has a life of its own? Sure, there is Cam Newton and certainly others. Obviously others that haven't been caught, but one wonders how much of it is also built up as myth, too. Do not think anyone knows this answer, but I suspect bigger in the imagination than reality. Maybe if Bayless could use his expert journalistic skills to expose how big the problem is he would have more supporters on this, but until he can define the problem accurately his solution may be opening up the abuse many X times.
His argument is the old "well they're doing it anyway so just legalize it". That has gone haywire over the years in many examples.
Yep. And add teachers, dental hygieinsts and plenty of other occupations - which don't determine whether people live or die - that have minimum requirements before you can make a living. A huge portion of our economy is filled with people who had to go to a certain amount of schooling and pass various tests to be eligible for their occupation.
The NFL is a monopoly. In fact, it was ruled so in a court of law in the USFL trial - even though damages were only $1, it doesn't invalidate the ruling. If you want to earn money playing football in the United States, you have little choice but to kowtow to the monopoly. Its requirement that an athlete spend three years in college is arbitrary, unnecessary and self-serving. I would like to see some athletes fight it in court; the problem is that the deep-pocketed NFL would cause so many delays in any legal proceeding that the athlete would be at least a college junior by the time he'd get heard anyway.
Maurice Clarett fought it in the courts and he lost.
In a free-market society, these people are free to pursue their professions of choice without the requirement of a college degree. Some choose to study acting, singing, violin and dance, but the professional powers-that-be who control the purse strings do not require such study. Nor do they place arbitrary age limits on the pursuit of the profession.
Clarett Won in lower court, narrowly reversed on appeal.
If by "narrowly" you mean "unanimously," you would be right.
OK thanks Heisenberg. As I said, it was unanimously overturned on appeal.
I think a more apples-to-apples comparison with athletes are performers.
Concert musicians, actors, singers, dancers, etc.
In a free-market society, these people are free to pursue their professions of choice without the requirement of a college degree. Some choose to study acting, singing, violin and dance, but the professional powers-that-be who control the purse strings do not require such study. Nor do they place arbitrary age limits on the pursuit of the profession.
The NFL is a monopoly. In fact, it was ruled so in a court of law in the USFL trial - even though damages were only $1, it doesn't invalidate the ruling. If you want to earn money playing football in the United States, you have little choice but to kowtow to the monopoly. Its requirement that an athlete spend three years in college is arbitrary, unnecessary and self-serving. I would like to see some athletes fight it in court; the problem is that the deep-pocketed NFL would cause so many delays in any legal proceeding that the athlete would be at least a college junior by the time he'd get heard anyway.
A violin prodigy can play in a symphony at age 15 without one second of college training. A 10-year-old actor can get nominated for an Oscar. For that matter, a tennis pro can play in the U.S. Open at 16 without even thinking about college.
But the NFL monopoly is allowed to require its athletes to spend three years in its "minor league." Seems pretty un-American and un-free-market to me.
Now, what Bayless is proposing is a whole different discussion.
I don't know what the overall ratio would be, but for every dollar a booster gave to a player there would be a sizeable portion that would be reduced to the school. I would guess something like for every dollar maybe that is sixty less cents the school would get from a booster. That would hit the schools pretty hard.
But the reaction to an overly regulated system isn't complete anarchy. I am all for enhanced benefits, and I don't care one lick if scholarships for Olympic sports are diminished as a result. I am also not opposed to athletes cashing in on their likeness in some way.
But just turning everyone loose I don't think is the answer.
I'm also not going to buy into Chico's hyperbole that its the end of the world if athletes get more money either.
It's tricky to calculate because donations given over to recruiting star athletes should increase a school's athletic success which almost always leads to an increased pool of alumni making donations to their school and even increased donations form those already donating as a result of increased school visibility/pride.
Yep. And add teachers, dental hygieinsts and plenty of other occupations - which don't determine whether people live or die - that have minimum requirements before you can make a living. A huge portion of our economy is filled with people who had to go to a certain amount of schooling and pass various tests to be eligible for their occupation.
Thanks - this was the point I was trying to make. There is nothing that prohibits a talented academic kid from passing through school quickly and earning their degree/postgraduate education and becoming trained in the skill - medicine, law, accounting, dental hygeine, whatever you want it to be - that would essentially road block them from beginning to practice their chosen professions.
Furthermore, it is so incredibly hard to be considered elite and world class at those professions right out of the gate. Not the case with athletes, entertainers, performers. Football is a vey unique case in that it is a game that exposes you to the highest risk of debilitating injury, that could easily end your ability to perform at a world class level in an instant.
Except there is no firm age requirement for the NFL or NBA. If a person is extremely talented and is able to complete college by the age of 15 (lets say just like the prodigy's in the other fields). Then he/she is immediately eligible for the NBA or NFL draft regardless of age.
So the NFL/NBA is identical to all the others, they just have to meet the minimum requirements, either by reaching a certain age (not afforded to the other disciplines) or through meeting the minimum requirements.
There are lots of professions with restrictions. I could study for years to be an expert in medicine, but not want to pay for medical school. I would still be banned from ever practicing that trade, even if I was far superior from my independent training.
I could become an expert in the legal field and publish article after article in legal journals, but would be banned from practicing law unless I went to law school.
I could independently study scientific fields to become a world renowned expert, but at almost all prestigious universities would not be allowed to be a professor without a PhD.
These are all cases where the profession sets requirements for their field. Much like the NFL sets a 3-year requirement. In all those other disciplines, while you hone your craft and prove yourself, you make a tiny fraction (an instead often pay) to develop the requirements.
These kids have 0 value at this point until they play for a college. The spotlight that gives them creates great value in some cases.
If they are a freak of nature and do have value they can go play elsewhere (aka SMU basketball player). If there aren't alternative leagues it is because they are not marketable or profitable ventures and thus, the players actually do not have value.
Actually, in the case of the NBA, I believe that you have to turn 19 during the year the draft is held to be eligible regardless if you meet other criteria.
I thought so too, but looked it up and apparently they also have the caveat that if you have exhausted your eligibility (through participating not accepting money etc), then you are eligible.
section 1(b)(ii)
(A) The player has graduated from a four-year college or university in the United States (or is to graduate in the calendar year in which the Draft is held) and has no remaining intercollegiate basketball eligibility;
We have game fixing now. We have a version of holdouts now (see ReggieSmith and McKay).
The current system is broken now. This might make it better.
The first two are highly specialized practices that have laws against what you described. If you practice medicine without a license, you will be charged with a crime.
The only thing illegal about a booster giving a recruit cash is maybe gift tax evasion which would immediately go away if everything was opened up.
The source of my knowledge of the SEC under the table scheme is thinly based. It's based upon the article posted here a while back called something like "The Ten Rules for Paying College Athletes" which was discussed in its own thread.
Why is it required that the football and basketball teams pay for all the non revenue sports? Is the business school required to pay for the English department? Is the engineering program required to pay for the philosophy department?
Schools will make a determination if the want more than two sports teams (football and basketball). My guess is the Olympic sports will be fine.
Well and good. Except that it has nothing to do with Sports. You guys come up with all of these professions where the state wants to be sure that people are actually qualified. That is not necessary in Sports. The restrictions in sports are not about making sure that people are qualified. They are strictly arbitrary age restrictions.
I think most of us are adult enough to realize everything is not the same.
You would be dead wrong. I wrote a thesis paper on this in grad school around Title IX and it was already impacting male Olympic sports back then in terms of performances at the Olympics and elsewhere (world championships, etc) due to limited opportunities. That was 20+ years ago. It most certainly continues to have an impact.
How can it not have an impact when some sports will have to be dropped in these scenarios you guys keep coming up with? There is no choice but to drop some sports if some of these scenarios come to fruition. Thanks for quoting Sultan for me...glad he doesn't care one bit about Olympic sports...plenty of young men and women out in this country do as a means to get an education, represent their school, later their nation...I guess that's why he doesn't care one iota about them.
Your question above, all depends on how the P + L works. At some schools does the Engineering department help pay for the Nursing school....you bet they do. At other schools, depending how the accounting is done, no.
Well and good. Except that it has nothing to do with Sports. You guys come up with all of these professions where the state wants to be sure that people are actually qualified. That is not necessary in Sports. The restrictions in sports are not about making sure that people are qualified. They are strictly arbitrary age restrictions.
I think most of us are adult enough to realize everything is not the same.
I actually disagree on them not being the same. Training is training.
But to appease you there are age restrictions for:
Equipment operation, truck driving, bartending, police officer (21, 25 in chicago), working on a cruise-ship (21), flight-attendant, (criminal justice workers) etc, etc.
Are these age restrictions the results of Government laws or part of a private agreement (like a collective bargaining agreement)? I think this makes a difference.
Florida Atlantic Univ. Revenue Expense Profit
Football $2,280,834.00 $4,610,870.00 -$2,330,036.00
Men’s Basketball $379,745.00 $1,205,402.00 -$825,657.00
Women’s Basketball $121,177.00 $922,597.00 -$801,420.00
Other Sports – Men’s (8)(303) $340,689.00 $1,663,949.00 -$1,323,260.00
Other Sports – Women’s (8)(175) $432,511.00 $2,603,570.00 -$2,171,059.00
-$7,451,432.00
Ohio University Revenue Expense Profit
Football $7,467,896.00 $7,385,482.00 $82,414.00
Men’s Basketball $2,614,831.00 $2,327,125.00 $287,706.00
Women’s Basketball $1,149,723.00 $1,427,734.00 -$278,011.00
Other Sports – Men’s (6)(245) $1,884,051.00 $1,928,829.00 -$44,778.00
Other Sports – Women’s (8)(253) $4,363,211.00 $4,732,698.00 -$369,487.00
-$322,156.00
The fundamental question for me remains, why is it the NCAA's job to be the one that allows this opportunity for these elite of the elite to earn money?
That's not their mission. Why aren't those clamoring to destroy college athletics and ultimately reducing opportunities for men and women in other sports as well as revenue sports....why aren't you pushing to have a real minor leagues started by those professional sports? It shouldn't be the NCAA's job to change their model, change what they do for these edge cases.
If a kid doesn't want a free education...fine...go to the minor leagues and get paid.
The fundamental question for me remains, why is it the NCAA's job to be the one that allows this opportunity for these elite of the elite to earn money?
That's not their mission. Why aren't those clamoring to destroy college athletics and ultimately reducing opportunities for men and women in other sports as well as revenue sports....why aren't you pushing to have a real minor leagues started by those professional sports? It shouldn't be the NCAA's job to change their model, change what they do for these edge cases.
If a kid doesn't want a free education...fine...go to the minor leagues and get paid.
That pesky strawman attacks again. No one is clamoring to destroy college athletics.
Correcting above ...
The fundamental question for me remains, why is it the NCAA's job to deny opportunity for these elite of the elite to earn money?
Exactly.
And I sure would love it if somebody from the NCAA honestly articulated what the organization's "job" is vis-a-vis being the minor league for the NFL in particular but also for other pro sports. Of course, if anybody did that, he or she probably would not be working for the NCAA shortly thereafter!
Correcting above ...
The fundamental question for me remains, why is it the NCAA's job to deny opportunity for these elite of the elite to earn money?
Are you suggesting the NCAA was setup to be the minor leagues for pro football or pro basketball, or are you suggesting that the NFL and the NBA don't want to invest to create such leagues because the college structure exists.
The distinction is important, I look forward to your answer.
I am suggesting that the NFL and other pro leagues do not want to invest in creating the kind of minor league system baseball and hockey have. I also am suggesting that the NCAA has willingly become a partner in this.
I am suggesting that the NFL and other pro leagues do not want to invest in creating the kind of minor league system baseball and hockey have. I also am suggesting that the NCAA has willingly become a partner in this.
I agree with point one, please expand on point two how they have become a willing partner in this.
The NCAA tournament money from television is about quantity of games and great stories, not about the abilities of a few elite players that could be playing pro. That contract would exist whether a handful of these kids are in the minor leagues or not. Football stadiums have been filled for 60+ years at the college level, long before we reached today's situation. What is the NCAA supposed to do, force a minor league system on those entities? How is that in the NCAA's control?
C'mon CBB, you cannot believe this!
The best teams get all the attention and ratings. And the best teams have the best players. And those players are Pro caliber.
Otherwise, D1AA, D2 and D3 (or FCS) would attract the same attention as D1 (or FBS) and that is absolutely not the case.
It is not. If it was truly that marketable and profitable to run a league (football or basketball) with players that are 18-22 and not ready yet for the NBA or NFL, then someone would have created it. Heck, they would instantly be competitive for the best talent, as the NCAA offers no money, beyond a stipend.
The reason it does not exist is that it is not financially lucrative, the audience base for NCAA stems from affiliation with colleges, that establishes loyalty. Outside of that these players have no value.
C'mon CBB, you cannot believe this!
The best teams get all the attention and ratings. And the best teams have the best players. And those players are Pro caliber.
Otherwise, D1AA, D2 and D3 (or FCS) would attract the same attention as D1 (or FBS) and that is absolutely not the case.
I agree with this totally, so thanks for saving me the time! I'm much too busy to keep prattling on about this subject ... gotta go finish watching the first season of House of Cards!
So if the lower NCAA divisions had their bball tournaments hosted on CBS/TBS/etc, they'd get the same ratings as the D1 tournament does? Is that what you're saying, CBB?
So if the lower NCAA divisions had their bball tournaments hosted on CBS/TBS/etc, they'd get the same ratings as the D1 tournament does? Is that what you're saying, CBB?
I agree with this totally, so thanks for saving me the time! I'm much too busy to keep prattling on about this subject ... gotta go finish watching the first season of House of Cards!
Skip Bayless is back in the news.
To him, that's #missionaccomplished and #donedeal
Now this is an interesting topic.
Skip was a reporter/columnist/journalist/media personality presumably making a good living. Then in about 2003? (not sure on exact timing), he started making more and more outlandish comments/commentary, where he himself became part of the story.
Now, professionally, I assume this approach has made him a good amount of $$, but it has also cost him any/all credibility he ever had. Now he's a joke, just trolling for clicks. We all know it.
So, why did he do it? Money?
If you were a successful journalist, would you turn "full heel" if it meant a payday from ESPN? Could you live with trying to play that character all of the time and having it ruin any amount of integrity you ever had?
(I don't know if I could do it, even if it was for a boatload of cash.)
I disagree totally. If there were minor leagues in basketball and football where all the elite players went, college football and basketball would still be far, far, far more popular than the minor leagues. People love good ol' State U or their alma mater.
Well, you're wrong...totally...time saved. LOL
It must be such a lonely feeling to be so right about so much so often.
The reason it does not exist is that it is not financially lucrative, the audience base for NCAA stems from affiliation with colleges, that establishes loyalty. Outside of that these players have no value.
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.
+1You 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.
Give me a break. It is about the players....PERIOD. Most Universities are knows on a large scale due to athletics. Get real.
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.uropr
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.
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.
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.
Give me a break. It is about the players....PERIOD. Most Universities are knows on a large scale due to athletics. Get real.
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?
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?
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?
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.