As opposed to a college student at Michigan State who freezes all winter becauses his mama back in Georgia can’t afford one. The second one just doesn’t happen to be good at basketball.
Is the second one actively prevented from using his most exceptional, marketable, skills to earn enough money to buy a coat?
No - just as the first one is not prevented from turning professional in his sport and attending school in the off-season.
Perhaps the rules should allow for athletes to make money off their names, provided there is no association with the school - for example, he can sell autographs, but not autographed photos of himself in uniform, or autographed team jerseys, and the school can’t sell them.
While we’re at it, why not change some of the other restrictions - for example, non-athletes aren’t banned from using their “marketable skills” for a year when they change schools, so why should athletes be subject to this rule? A student can change schools if a professor does; why can’t an athlete change schools to follow the coach that recruited him without restriction?
The second one can accept one as a gift from a well-meaning donor.
I don’t see the point of preventing the athlete from selling things that associate them with the school, especially photos. That just seems to maintain the current level of hypocrisy.
As for your other point, Jeffrey Kessler’s lawsuit will almost certainly tackle the issue of sitting out a year after a transfer and if not him, one down the line will. But while athletes should be able to follow the coach, sanctions for NCAA transgressions should as well. No more getting out of town just ahead of the posse (Hi, Pete Carroll!). Of course, in the Red Wiggler College Sports World of the Future, there won’t be all that many transgressions anyway, just the ones that throw up obstacles to student-athletes seeking educations.
Red: it would set off a bidding war, a war vanishingly few schools could win. I fully endorse transfers being immediately eligible.
Hypothetical -
College sports star writes an autobiography (maybe has help - many celebs have co-authors). The cover of the book has his picture and signature. The book is published and sells well. The college sports star makes money off of it. The college sports star is clearly banking on his fame and notoriety. Is this allowed? Should it be?
If it is allowed, why not a book with his picture and autograph on the front and just photographs inside, or blank pages?
Why not one page only with just a picture and autograph?
None of that would be allowed, Icarus.
Yes he is. Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker weren’t at school last year because they wanted to learn about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Who the hell wants a slave’s autograph?
(Not a fan of commercialized college sports, at all, in any way.)
What stops them from returning to school in the off-season now? (Okay, besides the Vegas Summer League…) And what stopped them from playing a year in Europe rather than going to college?
(Also, did either of them - or any other one-and-done, for that matter - bother attending classes in their one Spring semester, knowing full well that they were dropping out once the season ended? Why doesn’t the NCAA do something about that - say, for each “first counter” that drops out prior to completing their first year of classes, the school loses a scholarship the following year?
Oh, wait…the NCAA has, in fact, done pretty much the opposite when it comes to “one-and-dones”. In 2001, the NCAA tried to put a limit on first counters; 5 per year, and 9 (lowered to 8 in 2003) in any two-year period. However, too many coaches complained that too many of their players were leaving after one year, so then got rid of it in 2004.)
Of course it should be allowed. All of it.
Schools should also be allowed to restrict it in their offers to athletes, too. As long as they don’t all conspire to offer the same deal, which is what’s happening now. But it’s a horrendously stupid thing for schools to prohibit at all. What does it cost them if 900 people line up on a Sunday afternoon at a mall in Atlanta to pay $20 a pop for Todd Gurley’s autograph?
Maybe I’m wrong, but non-athletes aren’t banned from using their marketable skills while going to school, are they? For example, if I was working towards a comp-sci degree (bachelors), am I prevented from receiving a full-time salary from IBM for coding?
I do know that you can earn an MBA while working full-time, but am too long away from the undergrad level to remember the rules any more.
High-end athletes have a limited window of time when they can make money before age diminishes their earning capacity. Locking them up in restrictive contracts for four years is just wage theft. Colleges should either pony up and pay these athletes what the market says they’re worth, or turn on-campus sports into a club activity.
Because there are no such rules. Being a chem major and working for Dow or an engineer and working for Ford or Intel is usually of far more concern to the company than the college, and the school’s concern is usually that such connections aren’t used in inappropriate ways (e.g. high-end plagiarism and input into projects).
That athletes are expected to give the majority of their life effort to the sport, in return for no more than a mostly free ride on the ed side, and only have a 1:4 to 1:10 chance - if that - to go on to a worthwhile pro career, is the kind of old-school horseshit from the pre-FA days of baseball. Or worse.
The only value in amateur athletics is for the people who make money off the efforts of those who do the work without compensation. It’s not about autographs, it’s about denying them all compensation for their work.
How many of you would willingly take a job promising you a degree, perhaps with a modicum of actual education included, for no money, or any other benefits. You would get fired if you accepted money from anyone to stay alive, and if you don’t produce enough income for your employer you are fired, no degree, no severance, no unemployment compensation either. On top of all that every job you are qualified for maintains those same rules. You only have to stick with those rules for 4 years though, after that you can try to get a paid job doing the same thing, although there are only a handful of jobs available for the hundreds of people in this line of work.
The deal sucks. Pay them.
Like the unicorn, there ain’t no such beast.
Actually, both basketball and football have rules about the age at which you can turn professional. Given that there are few, if any, other options for keeping your skills competitive during the forced hiatus from pro ball, it can be argued that the NCAA has a monopoly on the skills of players between certain ages.
Without the college name, there is nowhere near the money in the system. And if the College name brings in the gold, they get to make the rules if you want to play.
Otherwise it would just be an unwatched minor league like Baseball and Hockey, except for a few top talents being paid to learn the craft by big clubs. And I doubt football would have anywhere the signing bonuses that the others get, It’s damn hard to tell if an 18 year old will turn into an NFLer, and I doubt there would be more than a couple a generation worth a million dollar gamble, with a hard salary cap in place.
Basketball is much more projectable, and would be more baseball like.
I said fundamentally the same thing as wolfman in post #11, and was summarily dismissed.
Yeah, the Seahawks would be screwed if they lost some scholarships…
Hilarious. Please, step into your desired role of future teacher of tomorrow’s youth, and draw at least three distinct comparisons between your incomprehensible 12-word vagary, and wolfman’s detailed, 3 paragraph response. There’s a very obvious reason your post was summarily dismissed. And you have been told this for YEARS on this board.