Oso planning to go pro
A school believes in a kid and gives them a 4 year scholarship and develops the kid....now the kid ups and leaves. Companies have policies / contracts if they develop someone (pay for their MBA) and the employee leaves early the employee must pay back the company. If the kid has to reimburse the school, I’m open to this.There are going to be so many roster changes that some schools instead of losing 3 or 4 kids could lose 7+ with no fault of their own....all because they had the audacity to take chances on kids that then blew up. If you don’t think that isn’t going to destroy programs and set fan bases in revolt you are kidding yourself.
Brother Cheeks:I'm afraid you've mis-stated. Athletic scholarships are one-year terms that are annually renewed by the college. If the student was given a guaranteed four-year scholarship, then OK, you're right. But they don't.This is why I like the idea of a two-year agreement with an ability to move after the second year. Fair for the student -- particularly if he has been over-recruited -- and fair for the school because you know you have him for two years. You give a release if the coach leaves or the school gets NCAA probation.
Is that a record for whoever cheeks is.
I think he was trying to fill a whole page with just his posts ! ! !
It is in some part still should be about giving kids the opportunity to graduate from the school of their choice, so I do not like giving the school the opportunity to "cut" kids. A scholarship should be a 4 year guarantee, with 1 free transfer, eliminate the grad transfer rule. If an athlete has already transferred once, no grad transfer.
This is where the hypocrisy is glaringWhen it suits your needs, you want athletes treated like employees - restricting their movement, binding them to contractual obligations, imposing non-compete constraints, demanding reimbursement, etc.But when it comes to issues of compensation and labor rights? They're students!It's like the late great John Matuszak's character in North Dallas Forty said of his team's management, "Every time I call it a game, you call it a business. And every time I call it a business, you call it a game."
And what are the protections for the school, counselor?Scholarships are already 4 years by the way. Sure looks like all the protections are one sided in your proposal. Kid sucks or dogs it....he keeps scholarship. Kid wants to leave, no renumeration for the school. Etc, etc.
And you hypocrisy doesn’t show....LOL.I am not restricting their movement....but you have to sit out. I am not saying you should be denied where you go. School is making an investment in student and guaranteeing a four year ride.....where is protection for school? Seriously, where is it? There is NONE in your proposal. No contract, nothing. School is screwed and from there comes the domino effect of program destruction, etc.Tell me where the protection of any kind exists for the school.
The protection is all of the $$$ that individual brought to the school while he was playing. If a key member of a team decides to transfer, that will free up playing time for others (including potential transfers in).
1. What hypocrisy? My position is consistent and always has been. Your position is not. You want athletes treated as students when it suits the schools' best interests. You want them treated as employees when it suits the schools' best interests. 2. Why are the schools owed protection? They deserve none. They benefit greatly from the players' labors while the player is there. Now you want them to benefit from the player not being there?
Thank you for admitting this is a one way street and schools are given the short end of the deal despite them being the ones that are cultivating, training, etc the talent of the kids.Your hypocrisy is not acknowledging what the school invests and provides to the student. Without the school and the platform, these kids would be doing what?
Oh, stop. You cannot possibly be this naive.College athletic departments are not charity organizations. They aren't "cultivating, training, etc." athletes out of the kindness of their hearts or because it makes the world a better place.They're doing it for one reason and only one reason: because it benefits the institution. And it does that in many ways, from financial to public exposure to student recruitment to alumni relations and more.A one-way street? Good God.As for complaint about schools that lose money ... well, if they're losing money, maybe they should get out of major college athletics. Of course, they won't do that, because they've decided the other benefits (see above) outweigh whatever financial losses they may claim.And before you whine about "lost opportunities" schools could solve that by giving out scholarship money previously awarded to athletes to deserving low-income students. They'd still save a fortune by not funding a major athletic department staff, coaches, facility costs, travel costs, etc. Problem solved. No lost opportunities.
And you can’t possibly be so naive to say “free labor” either. MU spends a crap ton of money on student athletes to train them, make them better....who benefits from that....only the school? Give me a break. How many players who had very little prospects to make the pros did so after that cultivation and training....plenty.And free labor is an interesting statement by you...with a college degree you make more than $2million over your life because of that piece of paper. Hardly free laborYou just want to make this as if the school should have no protections....your words!!! I thought a partnership was a two way street and when you have a one sided approach like you are proposing, it doesn’t end well.
You're arguing here against a bunch of straw men and things I didn't write. Cool. Guess that's what happens when you have no argument.
You wrote free labor in this very thread....good Lord
Nope.
Free labor. https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=59187.msg1165612#msg1165612
That's a post from October in which I didn't write free labor.Your willingness to lie to avoid admitting you're wrong knows no bounds.
As do coaches, dg, and for a helluva lot more benefits. Let's hold them all to the contracts they sign