Printable View
I thought this was interesting and, after thinking about it for a bit, probably true. Paying athletes $2K a year is the first step on the slippery slope. And there is entirely too much money in college athletics to stop the skid.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...nning-end-ncaa
I think the only way to save college athletics is to let them earn whatever they can from outside of the school itself. Title IX won't allow colleges to only pay football or men's basketball players, so I don't think we'll see the day where each college athlete gets $25k or some other arbitrary figure each year. The way to go is to stop the silliness of making it illegal to use one's name to make a living. If a local card shop wants to pay its college team's QB $5,000 to sign some autographs on a Sunday, so be it. If Nationwide Insurance wants to use Jared Sullinger in its next ad campaign and pays Sully $100,000 for his time, both parties should be allowed to do so.
I read the article and he made some good points. He referenced an excellent article in the Atlantic about this very thing. However, he talks about Seitz throwing out the reserve clause which he really did not do. The reserve clause is still alive and well in every major sport. It ends after a certain period of time now but it is still a part of every CBA. But that's nit picking somewhat.
I don't think judges and/or arbitrators will be as eager to blow up the NCAA as Pierce thinks. The O'Bannon case is an interesting one in that the NCAA is being contradictory in that an athlete has to authorize use of and waive any rights from their name or picture … to promote NCAA championships or other NCAA events, activities or programs but according to the NCAA the athlete doesn't have any property rights in their own athletic accomplishments.
I agree. The one stipulation I'd hold onto is the jersey/equipment. So essentially AJ Green would still not be allowed to sell his UGa jersey while he was still a member of the UGa Football team.Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat13
Anything he takes with him after graduation would be fair game obviously.
I think it's obvious the inequity of the amount of dollars generated and the amount that goes to those generating it. At the same time, I wholeheartedly believe that the value of the education they receive is plenty compensation for the service they offer. So the inequity remains, but I don't think the answer is to pay the players.
As much as I love college sports, I love education even more and think its value dwarfs that of athletics. I also love our educational institutions and don't want to see them become the means for wealth building for those who have no interest in the mission of the institution, and that's education.
I already struggle with the idea of universities as nothing more than a means to get to the NFL or the NBA, but take some solace in the fact that the majority of the athletes across all universities don't view it that way. I used to be opposed to the idea of baseball-like minor league systems as a stepping stone from high school to college for football and basketball, but I'm all for it now as I'd rather see college football be less than it is now than to have universities be used any more than they already are.
Divorce the teams from having a direct link to the schools. Let them become independent semi-pro entities that offer players a contract, with no obligation to go to classes (if they want to go to school they can, but they have to pay their own way). Players that want the free education can opt for a scholarship sponsored by the team. Teams could continue to play on campus and use school names and colors based on agreements btw the team and the school.
Where there's money involved, there's the seed for corruption. College football and basketball are rife with corruption because there is so much money involved. I still love the competition, which is different than professional sports because the players are still amatuers, but as long as this much money is being generated, there will be corruption. And the money will continue to roll as long as those with the money keep profiting from pouring their money into the system.
And I do not think you can divorce the competition from the schools or it loses its allure. It just comes down to how much corruption is able to be controlled at an acceptable level. Any reform will come out of necessity, not out of any moral imperative.
I agree with that. A great deal of it is, indeed, collegial -- that solid core of fans and alumni that care because it's their school that's playing, a different dynamic than how fans root for NFL teams. Their school. Take the college out of college football and you're just left with minor-league football.Quote:
Originally Posted by traderumor
I think the pure amateur thing is negotiable -- most people I know would not begrudge the players getting some money in addition to a scholarship. Having the players not be students at all is kind of a deal-breaker for me. They're not part of my school, they're just a semi-pro team two states away renting out the stadium, why would I give a rip what they do?
Of course, compared to what I owe in student loans versus what these guys get in a free education, regardless of whether they take advantage of it, I'd say they're already compensated quite nicely. Costs of tuition, room and board for the 4-5 years the student-athlete goes to school can easily exceed $100,000. That's why I say, if you want paid, no free school. If you want free school, no pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by IslandRed