What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NCAA HOOPS THREAD! -- K petitions to get Maui Jim Maui Invitational moved to Transylvania (1 Viewer)

Who is worse?


  • Total voters
    278
That’s cool but Baseball isn’t a revenue generating sport in college. We’re just talking about football and to a lesser extent hoops players here, cause they make the money. 

Also, why would you be against the players getting paid. Rather old white administrators pocket it? It’s not like it dissolves.  
Totally understand that football is the main revenue driver.   However, imagine if it becomes a free market and college football players are getting paid big money.  What is that going to do to youth sports?  It is already getting too specialized now but won't it push all athletes into playing football and not sports like baseball?  

Really not sure what the answer is, just don't like the idea of a free paying market place in college.  Perhaps a revenue sharing concept would make sense.

 
You were probably interested in an education.

I'm also guessing - but don't know - that you did not grow up in abject poverty and had a supportive family.
I was definitely interested in the education.  However, I did very well in baseball in college and was drafted after 3 years and signed a contract for $200k to play professionally so I do have some experience here.

You are correct I did not grow up in poverty though and my family was upper middle class.

 
Are you against all college students making money or just scholarship athletes?
They already get a substantial package. In addition to education, room and board, they get professional training in their sport as well as access to top-notch training facilities. Oh yeah, and they get cash stipends.

 
I was definitely interested in the education.  However, I did very well in baseball in college and was drafted after 3 years and signed a contract for $200k to play professionally so I do have some experience here.

You are correct I did not grow up in poverty though and my family was upper middle class.
I played for 2 years and signed a contract for $201k.

 
Totally understand that football is the main revenue driver.   However, imagine if it becomes a free market and college football players are getting paid big money.  What is that going to do to youth sports?  It is already getting too specialized now but won't it push all athletes into playing football and not sports like baseball?  

Really not sure what the answer is, just don't like the idea of a free paying market place in college.  Perhaps a revenue sharing concept would make sense.
 The youth will play what they are good at. I doubt 8 year olds are the thinking about 200k stipends 10 years from now. 

 
I'm all for college athletes getting paid.  What I can't wrap my head around is exactly how you go about setting that up.  Fixed amounts?  Open market?  Escalating pay each year?  Performance based incentives?  Tied to program revenue?  What about athletes in non-revenue generating sports?  

Seems enormous complications with any scenario.

 
You know, as a fellow Ducks' fan it pains me to do this, but I feel compelled to say this to you now.

When you claimed you had never heard of The Allman Brothers before, I thought it was some sort of Tanner like schtick; peculiar but perhaps humorous on some level.  Then two seasons ago, you thought Oregon would wax Washington yet again despite me telling you they were about to get abused and they lost by 60.  Maybe, I thought, you were just clouded by your famdom.  And then you fell in love with Trump and I winced as you defended him, but alone you were not in your seduction of the Orange Droolius.

Like an aging dotard, I pitied you and felt like maybe you were sheltered and just didn't know any better.  But now, with these posts, it is absolutely clear to me:  you've never even picked up, let alone read, a history book have you?   And this greatly saddens me because you are a product of Oregon public education, where 5 of my children go to school.  To have no grasp of our history frightens me tremendously.  I feel like I need to move or homeschool my kids.  I think you are a smart man, I've seen it on display in other threads, but my god, you are really ignorant of our history.
This guy's shtick is acting like he's never heard of anything.  Take the hook out.

 
I'm all for college athletes getting paid.  What I can't wrap my head around is exactly how you go about setting that up.  Fixed amounts?  Open market?  Escalating pay each year?  Performance based incentives?  Tied to program revenue?  What about athletes in non-revenue generating sports?  

Seems enormous complications with any scenario.
Don't forget Title IX

 
 The youth will play what they are good at. I doubt 8 year olds are the thinking about 200k stipends 10 years from now. 
An 11-year old just committed to Florida for softball. We've had kids as young as 13 commit to D1 hockey programs.

Maybe not 8, but it's insanity and it's not getting any better.

 
There’s no argument. How could you be against the players being paid? Are you a college coach pocketing cash or something? Baffling. 
Pretty sure the point of the post you quoted is that they literally do get paid now.

I'd be all for getting rid of the rules preventing players from going straight from high school to the pros.

 
Pretty sure the point of the post you quoted is that they literally do get paid now.

I'd be all for getting rid of the rules preventing players from going straight from high school to the pros.
Why is it kids can go straight to the pros in baseball, tennis, golf and hockey, to name a few?  It's because those sports generate no money for colleges and the NCAA.  But in basketball and football they HAVE to go to at least some college.  It's criminal that we don't make a bigger deal out of this. Profit off these children while they can, force them into playing by the NCAA rules and then act like the "education" they receive is just compensation.  It's not.   

 
Pretty sure the point of the post you quoted is that they literally do get paid now.

I'd be all for getting rid of the rules preventing players from going straight from high school to the pros.
But that’s not going to happen because the nba and nfl like them to work out the kinks in college. 

Why do you not want colleges to pay players? What good reason could there possibly be for young talented athletes not getting paid for their work? And please don’t say scholarships and training. That’s as dumb as it gets. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is it kids can go straight to the pros in baseball, tennis, golf and hockey, to name a few?  It's because those sports generate no money for colleges and the NCAA.  But in basketball and football they HAVE to go to at least some college.  It's criminal that we don't make a bigger deal out of this. Profit off these children while they can, force them into playing by the NCAA rules and then act like the "education" they receive is just compensation.  It's not.   
Isn't the one and done rule an NBA rule?  I get the NCAA probably is involved in the legislation with the NBA it's the NBA rule that says players must be one year removed from high school.

Baseball isn't exactly free market.  If you arrive on campus for one day as a freshman you are no longer eligible to sign or be drafted again for 3 years (it's either no college or at least 3 years of college).  

Football is the one sport high school kids should not be allowed to go pro from high school.  99% or more of those kids would get seriously injured playing against grown ### men.  Very few have physically developed yet.

I'm fine paying the players but would you pay them all the same amount?  Have a totally open market system (the NBA doesn't even have that!)?  Put them in a union or make them employees of the university?   How soon before the first draft to tell these players which team they will play for like the NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL, etc... all do? 

 
Isn't the one and done rule an NBA rule?  I get the NCAA probably is involved in the legislation with the NBA it's the NBA rule that says players must be one year removed from high school.

Baseball isn't exactly free market.  If you arrive on campus for one day as a freshman you are no longer eligible to sign or be drafted again for 3 years (it's either no college or at least 3 years of college).  

Football is the one sport high school kids should not be allowed to go pro from high school.  99% or more of those kids would get seriously injured playing against grown ### men.  Very few have physically developed yet.

I'm fine paying the players but would you pay them all the same amount?  Have a totally open market system (the NBA doesn't even have that!)?  Put them in a union or make them employees of the university?   How soon before the first draft to tell these players which team they will play for like the NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL, etc... all do? 
Incentive laden contracts.

 
I'm all for D-1 football and basketball players getting some form of compensation, but implementing it would be very challenging - the devil is in the details.  For example, does the 5-star QB recruit get paid the same as the walk-on long snapper who earns a scholarship?  Do basketball players from Eastern Kentucky get paid the same as those at Kentucky?  Do field hockey players get paid, too?  Many details to work out. 

Also, I'm not sure how Athletic Dept budgets at D-1 schools are managed, but I believe the revenue from football and basketball pays for some or all the other programs, and we can't forget about Title IX.  Are coaches also paid from football and basketball revenue?  Stadiums and infrastructure?  Are many Athletic Dept's actually generating net income?  Where will the money to pay players come from? How much are they paid?  What unforeseen negative effects could occur from paying players? Would universities be forced to eliminate minor sports programs? Eliminate academic or need-based scholarships? Raise tuition?  If the NCAA can barely manage to pick the top four teams in the BCS bracket, how can they get hundreds of universities to agree on these complex issues?

 
I'm all for college athletes getting paid.  What I can't wrap my head around is exactly how you go about setting that up.  Fixed amounts?  Open market?  Escalating pay each year?  Performance based incentives?  Tied to program revenue?  What about athletes in non-revenue generating sports?  

Seems enormous complications with any scenario.
Wow man good point if only there were a gigantic regulatory body that oversaw college athletics that could put a framework in place.

 
I'm all for college athletes getting paid.  What I can't wrap my head around is exactly how you go about setting that up.  Fixed amounts?  Open market?  Escalating pay each year?  Performance based incentives?  Tied to program revenue?  What about athletes in non-revenue generating sports?  

Seems enormous complications with any scenario.
Take a large proportion of the revenue and create a pension for all of the athletes as a financial benefit, similar to the NFL.

 
I'm all for college athletes getting paid.  What I can't wrap my head around is exactly how you go about setting that up.  Fixed amounts?  Open market?  Escalating pay each year?  Performance based incentives?  Tied to program revenue?  What about athletes in non-revenue generating sports?  

Seems enormous complications with any scenario.
None of these concerns are important. Just remove the illegal restrictions against athletes making money and the people who want to entice good players will figure out how to pay them. It happens everyday everywhere else and there's nothing that makes college sports an exception to the rules of normal and natural markets.

 
None of these concerns are important. Just remove the illegal restrictions against athletes making money and the people who want to entice good players will figure out how to pay them. It happens everyday everywhere else and there's nothing that makes college sports an exception to the rules of normal and natural markets.
Yep, I think most of the money to pay these kids doesn't even have to come from the schools. Allow them to sign sneaker contracts and sign up with an agent while they are students...isn't that where all of this is stemming from to begin with?

 
They already get a substantial package. In addition to education, room and board, they get professional training in their sport as well as access to top-notch training facilities. Oh yeah, and they get cash stipends.
This is completely true and just as completely irrelevant to the debate. Whatever compensation they receive now is the result of a unilaterally set, and possibly illegal, wage cap. That will be the issue when Kessler gets to the courtroom. Schools are going to have to argue why they should have a unique exemption to require financial limitations on a small subset of people.

 
I'm all for D-1 football and basketball players getting some form of compensation, but implementing it would be very challenging - the devil is in the details.  For example, does the 5-star QB recruit get paid the same as the walk-on long snapper who earns a scholarship?  Do basketball players from Eastern Kentucky get paid the same as those at Kentucky?  Do field hockey players get paid, too?  Many details to work out. 

Also, I'm not sure how Athletic Dept budgets at D-1 schools are managed, but I believe the revenue from football and basketball pays for some or all the other programs, and we can't forget about Title IX.  Are coaches also paid from football and basketball revenue?  Stadiums and infrastructure?  Are many Athletic Dept's actually generating net income?  Where will the money to pay players come from? How much are they paid?  What unforeseen negative effects could occur from paying players? Would universities be forced to eliminate minor sports programs? Eliminate academic or need-based scholarships? Raise tuition?  If the NCAA can barely manage to pick the top four teams in the BCS bracket, how can they get hundreds of universities to agree on these complex issues?
There's no requirement that the schools all have to do things the same way. They'll each have to do what's in their best financial interests. Just like now.

 
Endorsement money - The stars in college sports that generate the primetime TV money get paid. Those that don't, don't. 

Lamar Jackson at Louisville gets paid. Devonte Graham at Kansas gets paid. Backup senior guard at Kansas Clay Young who rarely if ever sees the court doesn't get paid. He gets a scholarship and a free education because he has no chance of having an NBA career. 

I see this working at all levels. Wherever a player generates hype and ratings in some form he/she has a chance to get paid. The star diver and lacrosse player at some major D1 school that generates next to no revenue gets what society deems their athleticism is worth. Shoe contracts for incoming college hoop players? Sure. TV commercial selling cars for a local football star? Why not? This leaves it up to businesses to determine whether or not a player is marketable enough to get paid. In the long view a players worth is determined by societal perception. 

I understand that the NCAA has a current stranglehold on the players identity rights, but that could be changed. Tell me why this is a bad plan. 

 
I support paying the players, but wouldn't title 9 mean you would have to pay equal amounts of female athletes? I'm guessing the women's sport that make serious money, at least for the elite teams, is softball. For the high revenue sports might be easier to form pro leagues affiliated with the universities or limit practice time even more per week for all d1 sports, so the players can be actual student athletes.

 
Welcome, Shick!

What do we think A&M boosters would have offered John F. Football (that nickname seems humorous in a different kind of way these days, no?) to return to school for one more year? A&M's own people estimated that Manziel was worth $37 million to the school.

Lots of people would find it beneficial for themselves to fund college athletes. Schools don't want that to happen because (1) some of those funds would have found their way directly to the athletic department and (3) the athletes themselves would have power and leverage in ways that they've never had before. Once a kid signs up now, he's pretty much out of options for improving on his situation.

Somebody on Twitter opined that this would really cause chaos among college athletic departments. Some of us see that as a feature, not a bug.

 
I support paying the players, but wouldn't title 9 mean you would have to pay equal amounts of female athletes? I'm guessing the women's sport that make serious money, at least for the elite teams, is softball. For the high revenue sports might be easier to form pro leagues affiliated with the universities or limit practice time even more per week for all d1 sports, so the players can be actual student athletes.
See the post just before your's. The clamor is not necessarily for schools to directly pay players. The rules are kinda murky on this but the worst case scenario is that payments by schools would indeed have to be made equally per Title IX but that some schools would still find it advantageous to do so, even if the payments are substantially smaller than what players are getting from Booster Bob.

 
One thing I've never quite understood - and not in a "explain this to me, please, I'm too dumb" way, or, heck maybe exactly that way - is how institutions of higher learning became enormous profit centers with regard to football and basketball.  It's my understanding that Division I schools are not-for-profit institutions.  So why do they move gigantic sums of cash every season?  Where does all the money go? 

It's sort of as though I set up a nonprofit to sell widgets.  The widget company makes no money, but has a $1B "endowment" for some reason.  It pays several of its employees tens of millions of dollars.  Meanwhile, it also belongs to (let's call it) a "conference" of 13 other widget manufacturers against which it competes, and the conference itself generates and moves massive amounts of revenue and has several highly paid employees.  Meanwhile, it might surprise everyone to find out that not one dime of this money has anything to do with actually making widgets.       

 
One thing I've never quite understood - and not in a "explain this to me, please, I'm too dumb" way, or, heck maybe exactly that way - is how institutions of higher learning became enormous profit centers with regard to football and basketball.  It's my understanding that Division I schools are not-for-profit institutions.  So why do they move gigantic sums of cash every season?  Where does all the money go? 

It's sort of as though I set up a nonprofit to sell widgets.  The widget company makes no money, but has a $1B "endowment" for some reason.  It pays several of its employees tens of millions of dollars.  Meanwhile, it also belongs to (let's call it) a "conference" of 13 other widget manufacturers against which it competes, and the conference itself generates and moves massive amounts of revenue and has several highly paid employees.  Meanwhile, it might surprise everyone to find out that not one dime of this money has anything to do with actually making widgets.       
and the factory workers who produce the widgets are indentured servants

 
One thing I've never quite understood - and not in a "explain this to me, please, I'm too dumb" way, or, heck maybe exactly that way - is how institutions of higher learning became enormous profit centers with regard to football and basketball.  It's my understanding that Division I schools are not-for-profit institutions.  So why do they move gigantic sums of cash every season?  Where does all the money go? 

It's sort of as though I set up a nonprofit to sell widgets.  The widget company makes no money, but has a $1B "endowment" for some reason.  It pays several of its employees tens of millions of dollars.  Meanwhile, it also belongs to (let's call it) a "conference" of 13 other widget manufacturers against which it competes, and the conference itself generates and moves massive amounts of revenue and has several highly paid employees.  Meanwhile, it might surprise everyone to find out that not one dime of this money has anything to do with actually making widgets.       
How?  The TV contracts became insane over the last 20-30 years.  Where does the money go?  Things like these buildings and fancy practice facilities:  http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-clemsons-football-facility-2017-10#not-far-from-there-is-a-wiffle-ball-diamond-with-artifical-turf-a-sand-volleyball-court-a-horseshoe-pit-and-a-fire-pit-it-is-basically-every-college-kids-dream-16

 
and the factory workers who produce the widgets are indentured servants
Right, by which I mean I know that's some people's position, and I wasn't arguing one way or another on that.  My point was that whenever the "pay the players?" debate comes up, I always find myself taking several steps back and needing an explanation as to how and why colleges and universities became massive cash centers due to football and basketball.  It's like that just has to be the case, and in fact, it doesn't.  And shouldn't be as far as I can tell. 

 
Endorsement money - The stars in college sports that generate the primetime TV money get paid. Those that don't, don't. 

Lamar Jackson at Louisville gets paid. Devonte Graham at Kansas gets paid. Backup senior guard at Kansas Clay Young who rarely if ever sees the court doesn't get paid. He gets a scholarship and a free education because he has no chance of having an NBA career. 

I see this working at all levels. Wherever a player generates hype and ratings in some form he/she has a chance to get paid. The star diver and lacrosse player at some major D1 school that generates next to no revenue gets what society deems their athleticism is worth. Shoe contracts for incoming college hoop players? Sure. TV commercial selling cars for a local football star? Why not? This leaves it up to businesses to determine whether or not a player is marketable enough to get paid. In the long view a players worth is determined by societal perception. 

I understand that the NCAA has a current stranglehold on the players identity rights, but that could be changed. Tell me why this is a bad plan. 
It depends, might be a good plan, I don't know.  Your idea likens these players and colleges to a stock.  And lets the chips fall where they may.  I can see good reason for that.  But inevitably, it will end up a race for who has the most money.  And only a few will compete.  Might as well make it a league of a few in and of itself.

Quite honestly I care less and less about it all.  What I do know is I like some semblance of parity in sports.  Is that too much to ask?  It might be in today's day and age, but to me there should be one parameter that remains at least somewhat constant - a level playing field.  Money won't allow as much.  And the alternative does not seem too "sporting" to me.  Which is fine I guess.  You can have your "dynasties", I'd rather watch two sides square off in a relatively equal match and see who comes out on top and why.  Some would prefer to see domination in a lop-sided "game", which is okay if that's what you're into.  Might as well just have the top teams square off early on -- or later on, doesn't really matter -- because the rest have no chance, right?  Why have leagues where the majority of teams have absolutely zero chance of actually winning it?  It's silly to waste your time and money on something that will never happen, is it not?

There's no definitive right or wrong here, it's just a game in the end.  But for my entertainment dollar, I'll take a matchup where the result isn't predetermined (more or less) by bank accounts.

 
It depends, might be a good plan, I don't know.  Your idea likens these players and colleges to a stock.  And lets the chips fall where they may.  I can see good reason for that.  But inevitably, it will end up a race for who has the most money.  And only a few will compete.  Might as well make it a league of a few in and of itself.

Quite honestly I care less and less about it all.  What I do know is I like some semblance of parity in sports.  Is that too much to ask?  It might be in today's day and age, but to me there should be one parameter that remains at least somewhat constant - a level playing field.  Money won't allow as much.  And the alternative does not seem too "sporting" to me.  Which is fine I guess.  You can have your "dynasties", I'd rather watch two sides square off in a relatively equal match and see who comes out on top and why.  Some would prefer to see domination in a lop-sided "game", which is okay if that's what you're into.  Might as well just have the top teams square off early on -- or later on, doesn't really matter -- because the rest have no chance, right?  Why have leagues where the majority of teams have absolutely zero chance of actually winning it?  It's silly to waste your time and money on something that will never happen, is it not?

There's no definitive right or wrong here, it's just a game in the end.  But for my entertainment dollar, I'll take a matchup where the result isn't predetermined (more or less) by bank accounts.
It's already a race for the most money and only a few are competing at the top now. Schools will just need to organize themselves into groups of their financial peers. In any case, I feel pretty strongly that the players' individual economic rights should trump fans' rights to some kind of mythical and unobtainable "parity."

 
Everything is happening behind the scenes already. Allow players to take whatever booster X/car dealership Y is willing to pay to get them to their preferred school. People seem to think this will devolve into pure chaos and the backup backup backup free safety at Alabama getting handed $50K. That's a bull#### argument put out by the people who don't want to see the truly deserving players get compensated. Will it be "crazy" for a couple of years as everyone figures things out? Sure. But it isn't going to take long before the guys with the money realize where the negative ROI is and they figure out who really deserves to get paid considerable money, and who gets stuck with the occasional $100 handshake after a game. 

No Title IX implications here.

 
It's already a race for the most money and only a few are competing at the top now. Schools will just need to organize themselves into groups of their financial peers. In any case, I feel pretty strongly that the players' individual economic rights should trump fans' rights to some kind of mythical and unobtainable "parity."
Which is why I don't watch anymore.  No big deal.  The basketball "tournament" will enthrall.  64 teams.  Oh wait, they added a few onto that.  And sheeps root like crazy as if their squad has a chance in hell to win it.  OMG, we got into a tournament that we have zero chance of winning, this is so great.  We will get lambasted next week by future NBA players who are being paid under the table...CAN'T WAIT TO SEE IT ALL UNFOLD!

They should just call the teams by their biggest booster's names.  This week, we have the T. Boone Pickens vs the Phil Knights.  STAY TUNED!

 
There’s no argument. How could you be against the players being paid? Are you a college coach pocketing cash or something? Baffling. 
Because they want to go back to this mythical time in the 80's and 90's where they think the college kids only played for the love  of the game. 

 
Everything is happening behind the scenes already. Allow players to take whatever booster X/car dealership Y is willing to pay to get them to their preferred school. People seem to think this will devolve into pure chaos and the backup backup backup free safety at Alabama getting handed $50K. That's a bull#### argument put out by the people who don't want to see the truly deserving players get compensated. Will it be "crazy" for a couple of years as everyone figures things out? Sure. But it isn't going to take long before the guys with the money realize where the negative ROI is and they figure out who really deserves to get paid considerable money, and who gets stuck with the occasional $100 handshake after a game. 

No Title IX implications here.
Yup.

 
Endorsement money - The stars in college sports that generate the primetime TV money get paid. Those that don't, don't. 

Lamar Jackson at Louisville gets paid. Devonte Graham at Kansas gets paid. Backup senior guard at Kansas Clay Young who rarely if ever sees the court doesn't get paid. He gets a scholarship and a free education because he has no chance of having an NBA career. 

I see this working at all levels. Wherever a player generates hype and ratings in some form he/she has a chance to get paid. The star diver and lacrosse player at some major D1 school that generates next to no revenue gets what society deems their athleticism is worth. Shoe contracts for incoming college hoop players? Sure. TV commercial selling cars for a local football star? Why not? This leaves it up to businesses to determine whether or not a player is marketable enough to get paid. In the long view a players worth is determined by societal perception. 

I understand that the NCAA has a current stranglehold on the players identity rights, but that could be changed. Tell me why this is a bad plan. 
Boeheim addressed this on Saturday. You'll have coaches promising kids x amount of dollars in endorsements to come to the school. Boosters will get involved. Businesses negotiating with high school kids and parents. We want schools/boosters in cahoots with advertisers, getting into bidding wars for high school kids? Seems like it opens up a huge can of worms.

 
Boeheim addressed this on Saturday. You'll have coaches promising kids x amount of dollars in endorsements to come to the school. Boosters will get involved. Businesses negotiating with high school kids and parents. We want schools/boosters in cahoots with advertisers, getting into bidding wars for high school kids? Seems like it opens up a huge can of worms.
I like the cans that will be opened because kids who have been denied their economic rights will finally get to realize them instead. If you don't want HS kids to have talent worth bidding on, better change the nature of your industry so you don't have to depend on them for your economic success.

 
Boeheim addressed this on Saturday. You'll have coaches promising kids x amount of dollars in endorsements to come to the school. Boosters will get involved. Businesses negotiating with high school kids and parents. We want schools/boosters in cahoots with advertisers, getting into bidding wars for high school kids? Seems like it opens up a huge can of worms.
This already happens. "Sign here and I will make you a lottery pick." "I will get you that multimillion dollar shoe contract." etc. Except in this scenario, someone is actually ponying up and paying that money to the kid instead of it being based on hopes and dreams of it being delivered on the back end. 

Let the shoe companies spend $200K each on 10 kids. 2 will probably be a slam dunk investment. 3 will be a pretty good investment. 3 will have a negative ROI. 2 will likely be money flushed down the toilet. The next year, they'll use that info to decide how to better spend the next $2MM. And on we go. 

 
Lets say the endorsement thing happens.  We cool with a 5* QB (or RB, or Point guard, of whatever) player coming out on social media and flat out telling the world he's open to the highest bidder to do a "commercial"?  Then you've got Bob's Ribshack in Tuscaloosa setting up a go-fund me account for Bama fans to donate a couple of bucks to the cause. A week later, All American Joe Smith is collecting a half a mil for a 30 second spot and the Tide have their QB for 3 years.

Because that's where things are going if you open up that possibility. It will basically become crowd-funded player auctions.  (Or maybe Phil Knight will just set aside $5 Million a year for a Nike ad to fund Oregon's recruiting class)

For the record, the only athletes that are getting screwed by the NCAA are star football football players capable of being drafted earlier than their junior year (but can't because of NFL rules). Any basketball player that is good enough to get paid more than the value of a scholarship/everything that comes with it has an avenue available to do so. Good enough to go to the NBA after your freshman year? Go right ahead. Good enough to play pro ball somewhere but not quite good enough for the NBA? Drop out of school, update your passport and get on a plane to Lithuania. Want to skip college all together to avoid being "exploited"? Sign with an agent out of HS and spend your 9 months in private workouts preparing for the draft (like Mitchell Robinson is currently doing) or sign a deal overseas (like Mudiay did)

The guys that go to school for a year or stay in school for extra years do so because they recognize that its the best way to achieve their life goals (whether its a successful NBA/NFL career or a diploma that can give them other options). Every basketball player out there has a viable option to avoid their 1-4 years of indentured servitude. They just choose not to do so because.....SHOCKER......its a better decision for them financially than trying their luck in the Bulgarian B league.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can we start the tourney thread a bit early this year maybe to also cover conference tourneys so that we can separate the debates from the game discussion?  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top