It is relevant unless you are talking about those who have NO interests in education whatsoever. And I am all for NCAA putting a higher academic standard for its athletes, and NFL establishing a minor league for those who have no interests in college education.
2 Likes
We’re probably not far off. My points have been aimed at fixing/improving the underground illegal activity that has occurred in college athletics by allowing athletes to ‘profit’ off their talent. Some athletes (a small percentage) are worth a lot to these college coaches, teams and agents which is why they’re getting paid illegally. If they could make money a la Olympians the ones who are worth it would make money and the vast majority would get the scholarship and nothing else.
I agree that paying players is a nonstarter.
transfer rules can be twisted
eligibility rules regarding medical redshirt should also be fixed. If a player lost a half season due to injury, at least give him/her the half season back rather than taking the whole season away.
Schools or NCAA as a whole could also provide better injury insurance, including long-term care.
1 Like
Yep I agree. It’s a shame in Football when a Senior (or anyone) gets injured in the first quarter of game 5. Incredibly unfair that’s the end of their career.
There’s a lot of possible ways everyone can make the process correct and more fair. Get that fixed first.
You missed my point. Why are we factoring in the scholarship into what they’re getting “paid” based on their value? Students get all sorts of scholarships - academic, athletic, disability etc. Schools willingly give those out despite them not being able to make money off that student. So I don’t really care what a scholarship is “worth” when factoring in what athletes should get “paid”.
Why does a university give academic scholarships? To bring in the “best” students, which has many benefits: improving the profile/ranking of the university, which will lead to more and better applicants; attracting higher profile faculty, who may raise the prestige of the university and bring in research grants; participating in the research; becoming successful after they leave the university, whereupon they can donate money back to the school and be part of an alumni network to help other alumni and further attract better students.
An academic scholarship, particularly one that’s not or not entirely need based, is the university paying that student to attend because it benefits the university. A scholarship – free access to the education, alumni network, etc., seems relevant in assessing what a student-athlete receives for his or her efforts.
2 Likes
This is only partially true. If the profit schools reaped from football and basketball were tied only to their institution’s brand, you wouldn’t see schools paying king’s ransoms to coaching staffs and AD’s to secure winners. You wouldn’t see the pressure put upon all of these people to WIN. You wouldn’t see Florida firing their head football coach (at great expense!) every four years because they don’t win 10 games. These programs attract dollars because they’re successful - when they’re less successful, they attract fewer dollars…and fewer, and fewer.
You can’t argue that, for instance, Alabama’s football revenue is a result of it’s brand when they pay their head coach $11 million a year - the very act proves that’s not the case.
I think you missed my point or misunderstood it. There’s no question these schools are paying huge dollars to secure winners. My point was the NCAA is successful because it’s tied to colleges. It is what it is because of that link. A minor league football or basketball system would be far less successful (with the same players and coaches who are on college) than what the NCAA has been able to achieve because of its tie in with colleges. My point with the coaches was that these college coaches who make millions wouldn’t make that coaching in some minor league system (the post I replied to commented on how most players would make less playing in a minor league system).
1 Like
Sure - I think it’s wrong to say that the value of college athletics is tied to the member institutions. Michigan’s brand is what it is because of a tradition of winning - those dollars would go elsewhere without it. Yes, people are broadly interested in college sports (and thus they are profitable) due to people’s nostalgia for their Alma mater or because they live in an area unserved by professional sports (like the Deep South). But the allocation of money within that is definitely cut-throat, and schools will invest heavily to get their piece. Players should receive some of that investment.
I don’t disagree with any of that. If I made it sound otherwise I wasn’t being clear. I was simply saying a minor league system wouldn’t ever be as successful as college football and college basketball.
A school gives out scholarships because they perceive that the recipients are valuable additions to the institution and the bigger community. Academic scholarships, need based scholarships, athletic scholarships, all the same, as long as it will eventually see benefit, some are more immediate, some are of long term. As long as you value college education, these a real financial gain otherwise your and your family has to shoulder. As I said, the market value of college athletes, outside NCAA, is no more than what minor league baseball players earn, with a handful of exceptions. The universities will be fine if the best college athletes want to play minor leagues instead of college. NCAA and its member schools should care about the well-being of college athletes, but they do not need to pay them
1 Like
They’re not treated equally because 99% of the time they’re not anywhere near as entertaining or enticing to the ticket buyer. Networks aren’t going to start spending big right dollars on women’s sports to try help make things more equal. ESPN spent all Spring last year talking about UCONN women’s basketball and how historic it was, yada yada yada, their Final 4 game did like 3 million.
1 Like
Absolutely agree with this. Pay for play is barking up the wrong tree as far as I’m concerned. Want to get paid go pro. It’s not like college’s are treating student athletes like slugs and I would agree with increasing a stipend but otherwise see my comments above.
Not as successful but if the NBA was smart they’d open the G league up to high schoolers and would add a round to the draft. Then teams would be able to (at any point in the draft) take their chances on drafting eligible kids (after high school or above 18???).
These kids would get a different designation and would ONLY be allowed to play for the G league affiliate of that team for the season with the ability to only be called up and added to the roster for the playoffs (or X games before). This would allow their G-league properties to trot out kids that might be future NBA superstars (like baseball does) driving interest in the teams which would sell tickets, sponsorships, etc.
I can see this being a model where the kids that are drafted in these spots get a 2 year contract different than those of the NBA “big league eligible” draftees that is slot based that would allow them to make more than the typical G league player and would entice them to maybe consider not going the NCAA route and instead cashing in on this, full time development, shoe contract, etc.
Might draw some talented kids and more eyeballs than we’d think.
I don’t think the G League would be as profitable as college basketball is, obviously, but I think the NBA takes a pretty dim view of player development at the college level (at least, drafting priorities suggest it, and a mountain of anonymous quotes confirm it) and very well may be willing to pay kids to give him them better coaching and training in their system.
@umhoops
I’m going to hazard something crazy here. I’m usually the last to ask to split off a digression, but could we please split this topic off into “potential changes to the structure of the NCAA” or something less cumbersome? Honestly, I click on this topic to read more about people getting busted. Because I don’t give a good damn what the excuses are - if you’re cheating, you’re a cheater. Personally, I’m in favor of official compensation for revenue athletes, but I’m anti-cheaters. I think it’s a separate topic. Doing stuff that you’re trying to make sure other people/the relevant authorities never find out about is cheating, whatever your excuse is.
5 Likes
Also, does it disgust anyone else that Louisville is eligible for this tournament? It disgusts me. A program built on prostitutes and cash that had the Bowen situation happen this year? Why is this a team that should be in the championship tournament?
I like the idea of student athlete with emphasis on student first. Its like any other institution that has rules. You don’t like it go to some other field of study or find another avenue to make it to the pros. I am not against College’s removing all the barriers from student athletes so that they don’t struggle during their college life but education is important in societal development. I’ve loved sports all my life and think college sports is more exciting than pros and one of the reason in my opinion is that its done for the love of the sport and not money although for many that the ultimate end result they are looking for.
1 Like
But athletes can do all those things - become successful in and out of sports, donate money back, raise profile etc - on top of doing things like make the university money immediately. Student athletes in revenue sports are not just a long term investment, but one that pays off in the very near future. Those on academic, need based etc don’t make millions of dollars for that school. So when looking at athletes that do, the scholarship isn’t relevant IMO. Because they can do what the non-revenue athletes and scholars do plus some.
And just because only a handful would make more than a 10-20k or whatever doesn’t mean we don’t pay any of them. NCAA had a billion dollars in revenue. Pay the players.