I think one of the worst arguments in favor of the NCAA’s continued monopoly and refusal to pay students is that somehow, it would be bad if a few smaller schools can’t pay recruits the big bucks and attract them. First of all, enough schools will be around that will foster a healthy competition among schools for recruits. Second, who cares if the smaller schools and poorer ones can’t afford to lavish gifts on their players like the big schools? Isn’t that competition and free market? If McDonalds decides to pay their workers $15 an hour and the best ones flock there instead of Burger King, we say good, let them survive or fall on their own.
But the fact is that the NCAA colludes to keep operating costs low artificially by refusing to pay players. I want those smaller schools to go back to just being schools. What do I care if Boise State can’t get recruits over USC?
And people in this thread believe I’m delusional? Seriously, can I have some of what you’re smoking? The players we’re talking about are the elite D-1 players, not D-3 scribe.
Are you telling me that a majority of Northwestern’s scholarship football players are considered “elite”? I doubt that even 1/3 of them will ever play a down in even a preseason NFL game.
There is a problem if “the only players that matter” are the football and men’s basketball players at the major conference schools; this would give the schools the impetus to break away from the NCAA and form their own association, resulting in, "Okay, here’s God’s own number of billions of dollars for the rights to Big School Athletic Association’s football and men’s basketball championships that go to just those schools…oh, and NCAA, you can just lump your football and men’s basketball tournaments into the existing contract (baseball, softball, men’s ice hockey, women’s basketball, wrestling, men’s lacrosse, men’s & women’s soccer) for which we throw scraps at you…what’s that? Some of your schools can’t afford to offer sports any more? Then the best players can transfer to a BSAA school. Wait - what? The BSAA only offers the “popular” men’s sports (football, basketball, baseball, ice hockey. lacrosse - any more and they would be overwhelmed with women’s sports because of Title IX), and your men’s tennis players and gymnasts have nowhere to go? To quote Deep Thought (from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy), ‘Who will that inconvenience?’ "
Also, there’s nothing new about “football first” mentality; wasn’t this what led to the West Point cheating scandal of 1950?
I’m not worried about school that actually give a crap about academics. I worry about the state schools, which will subject to this ruling by Christmas, and their illiterate players taking BS classes to be eligible.
But that’s what happens now. You’re arguing for the system that allows - even requires - them to take BS classes in order to maintain a fiction that they’re students first and athletes second.
Why the heck would what you care about matter. This is the problem with all the bigotry and unfounded anger in this debate.
No one seems interested in actually solving the problem in a way that puts ALL the athletes best interests in mind while also ensuring that the schools can field sports teams without marginalizing their mission.
Instead it’s all about ghetto football players and football factories, when they are the minority in spite off what ESPN wants you to believe.
Schools should not be competing in the free market as sports franchises. That is a fundamental flaw of college sports that may not have a solution.
The top priority should be to protect the students and the educational function of the school. In a time of skyrocketing tuition and teacher layoffs, where the median school loses nearly 10 million dollars a year on sports already, it would be crazy to start having schools compete in a free market as sports franchises.
Third parties should be able to pay athletes whatever they want imo. Professional teams should not require athletes to go to college first. But the top priority, by far, is protecting the students and their education. Competing as a free market sports franchise is extremely dangerous for them.
Making big time sports wholly professional in the context of a free market will drive many (perhaps even a majority) of schools to revert to truly recreational sports. There is no question of their going all-out to compete with the big football schools for top talent because it will quickly become impossible. They’ll just have to give up competitive sports and let their teams become honest-to-goodness amateur teams. That’s a good thing.
No I’m arguing that their scholarship is all they deserve from the school. They should absolutely be allowed off-season jobs, and ability to capitalize on their likenesses.
I’m very pro union. My dad was in one, I hope to be in one after Grad School. I oppose people who will have obscene incomes in their future feeling the need to bite the hand feeding them.
The players who are going to go on to make loads of money don’t need the union as much as players who aren’t, and there are a lot more of the latter than the former.
There’s no reason for you to believe that players who fail to make the NFL are “more likely to graduate.” That would mean that every player who prioritizes football over studying is likely to make the NFL, and that’s a ridiculous assumption.
“Likely to graduate” doesn’t necessarily mean that they leave school with something worthwhile.
You’re still ignoring people who are left with life-debilitating injuries and whose scholarships are yanked as soon as they are unable to play.
They don’t need you to feel sorry for them. What they need is the same right you have, to bargain for compensation without a cartel of employers unilaterally deciding what you will (or, rather, won’t) get paid.
I agree scholarships should be for 4 years, and honored in event of catostrophic injury. I had no cite about graduation rates,so I hedged. If guys want a useless major, once again I won’t weep for them.
Why characterize it this way? Schools “lose” millions every year in engineering labs too. The school is spending that money so college kids can enrich themselves in athletics. Something every bit as valuable as any other field of study.
That’s a good point. The “losses” on athletics are still more than most departments, and schools already spend 3 to 6 times more per athlete than on other students, but athletics shouldn’t be denied money completely.
My main point is that there needs to be protection for the students. A competitive sports program that does poorly can unexpectedly lose a lot of money. It is unlikely that the history department will accidentally lose 30 million dollars a year because they didn’t perform well enough. But Rutgers has recently lost 30 million dollars a year on sports by not performing well enough, and that money comes from the education of the other students.
Maybe athletes can be paid purely by percentage of profit. The key point is avoiding the risk that usually comes with running a free market sports franchise.