Oso planning to go pro
Revenue generating college sports have been professionalized. Transfer restrictions are in place to make these businesses easier to manage. The restrictions penalize the players and benefit the majority of schools and thereby their fans. We're fans, we don't want to see our ox get gored, so we want them, and we rationalize why restrictions are good.Hell, the State of Kentucky waited until 1973 to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment.
While I'm in favor of allowing players to play without sitting out a year if they get a release (the rule that exists in some other sports), I really don't understand all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to sit out a year. Does it suck to have to sit out a year? Yeah, I suppose it might. Is it pretty nice to get another year of free college, which will allow a student-athlete to either carry a bit lighter of a load or -- even better -- get started on a masters? Definitely.
No, it's a lie. Congrats on believing that dimwit. "Additionally, Harbaugh believes Michigan will be able to make this an annual event because there is not going to be any competition taking place. Basketball teams, for example, are allowed to take one foreign trip every four years. But those trips feature exhibition games.Michigan will not be playing any football exhibitions. Therefore, as of now, they'll be able to do this every year."http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2017/02/jim_harbaugh_plans_to_take_mic.htmlThere is a difference b/w a trip and a tour. A football tour was essentially unavailable to Michigan this summer.
Student-athletes are allowed to switch schools and immediately be given a full ride at the new institution - what an amazing gift!
A scholarship is not a gift. It's compensation - undercompensation in many instances - for what is essentially a full-time job that helps generate millions of dollars for the employer, i.e. the university.
Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?"
Ultimately, this, like all similar debates, boils down to whether or not you think adult SAs in revenue-generating sports should be grateful to be given a full ride, e.g., paid in kind, by the institutions that profit greatly off not having to pay them in cash. Also - claiming that its just a coincidence that the toughest transfer restrictions are in the revenue-positive sports is offensive and transparently self-serving.One caveat that I worry about here though - we all talked about Buzz cutting, etc., and when that happens, the NCAA apologists are quick to remind us that scholarships are one year renewable pacts. Under this rule, what's to stop coaches from cutting the second half of their bench every season to bring in the top guys from the mid-major conferences? Right now, its at least somewhat difficult to tell kids to take a hike.
My sentiments exactly. For those who favor the rule change it is a double edged sword. I wonder how many will like the new rule, when MU star players start jumping ship for the Power 5 schools because they are "pissed" at the coach or a less talented player they like gets "Buzzed" because a more talented player is coming in.
It's less about whether sitting out a year is some odious fate, than it is about giving athletes the same rights as any other student (or person, really) when it comes to controlling his/her destiny. And it comes down to siding with the right of the individual vs the rulers of billion dollar industry which relies on a largely one-sided relationship with a cheap, undercompensated labor force to produce its revenues.So, no, sitting out a year isn't a fate worse than death. But it's still an unfair restriction.
Honest question, aren't just about all employees in this country "undercompensated?" Isn't that simply how business works? Very few people are compensated the total amount of what they are worth/what they bring in to their company, because very few people are irreplaceable. If all employees were compensated what they were "worth" to the company then businesses wouldn't be profitable and businesses wouldn't survive. That's just how the system works.
No. Someone didn't take Economics as an undergrad I see.
He's actually right. I'm thinking you and him are using different concepts of "undercompensated."The argument of athletes being "undercompensated," largely stems from people thinking athletes bring in more revenue than they get back in benefits. The typical person working for any company will generate over 10x more revenue than they receive in compensation. So they are no less "undercompensated" than a typical employee. I believe you are looking at the idea that compensation is determined by the free market, so the typical employee is adequately compensated or he would go elsewhere. Many then argue that college athletics is not free-market. But, athletes have the opportunity to go work overseas if they deem college compensation inadequate. They don't, because they are better off in college.
Well of course I am using it in a free market sense. That's how it should be judged.To assume that someone should be compensated at the same level they generate revenue is nonsensical.
I say this very respectfully with a full understanding of how hard college athletes work: the large majority of scholarship athletes are vastly overcompensated when one compares the value they bring to their university versus what they receive.And for that, I am extremely grateful.
Doesn't that prove college athletes are appropriately compensated since the market wouldn't/couldn't compensate them further?
Imagine the NBA if all contracts were only for a max of one year...... and no incentive / penalty to changing teams. Yikes, you would have very elite teams and very bad teams.