| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RP
Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Posts: 1299
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/22/14 5:16 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Bone definitely was not released. Dawn Staley made a loud and public point of refusing to release her for an SEC or B12 school. |
Staley said she would not release Bone to another SEC school and would evaluate each school Bone mentioned separately, but she didn't say anything about the Big 12.
|
|
scfastpitch
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 616
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/22/14 10:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| newkid wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
| newkid wrote: |
| Matt5762 wrote: |
Just to give one example that is similar to Romero's circumstance: Jordan Jones was the leading scorer at South Carolina as a freshman, decided to transfer when she didn't figure to fit in well with the style of new coach Dawn Staley, was released and played 3 years at Florida (a conference school, no less).
http://www.thestate.com/2008/05/18/408476/coaching-transition-causes-jones.html |
What happened when Kelsey Bone wanted to leave SCar after one year? It was not a coaching change, but it was a case of a valuable player wanting to leave pretty much just because. (I think homesickness was cited.) |
There's no special issue. Scholarships and the NLI cover only the next year, and the NLI is the only situation where there is a time lag between the agreement and the start of the year.
If your freshman (or soph or junior) year doesn't work out, you can transfer, subject to the sit out rules, usually ne year, sometimes 2 for in conference, or not allowed in case of the ACC.
That differs from the present situation where a LOI was signed, with the expectation Patterson would be coaching, and then a change occurs. |
No, the present situation is not a LOI question. Romero has completed her LOI year. She has completed her freshman year, wants to transfer, and, as I understand it, will have to pay for her sit-out year herself, because the school won't grant a release. If the school will grant a release, then she will still have to sit out, but will be able to receive a scholarship. In a similar situation, Jordan Jones was released. I wonder if Bone was? I wonder if DeShields will be? |
Bone definitely was not released. Dawn Staley made a loud and public point of refusing to release her for an SEC or B12 school. |
Bone was released to go to Texas A&M . They were not in the SEC at the time . Don't remember anything about any other conference . I doubt if Dawn would have released her to go to Clemson , but Bone had no interest in going there .
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11140
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/23/14 9:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
So I just had another thought, for those still hanging on to this thread ...
What if players were allowed to take either cash or a scholarship, and could negotiate with schools?
For example, a star football player whose jersey will be sold by the school and NCAA, and who conceivably will help generate big bucks for everyone, could ask for a salary. A women's basketball player, on the other hand, wouldn't push for dollars, but rather a scholarship.
In other words, get rid of the one-size-fits-all concept for college athletes, and allow the market to decide how much a player is worth.
Sure, there would be bidding wars for top quarterbacks, but there are now, except they're under the table. This way everything would be open to public scrutiny, and if the public felt football players were paid too much, the universities would have to justify the expense.
And there would be some connection between the value of an athlete to a school and his compensation.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
kool-aide
Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1650
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/23/14 10:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
In other words, get rid of the one-size-fits-all concept for college athletes, and allow the market to decide how much a player is worth.
Sure, there would be bidding wars for top quarterbacks, but there are now, except they're under the table. This way everything would be open to public scrutiny, and if the public felt football players were paid too much, the universities would have to justify the expense.
And there would be some connection between the value of an athlete to a school and his compensation. |
This part is why I think that allowing players to do what every other student is allowed to do: earn money off their own image/name/etc. So if someone wants to pay them $5k to sit and sign autographs for an hour & a half, that's fine. Someone wants to pay them to put their face on a part promotion flyer, fine. They want to put out an album like that music major wrestler in Minnesota (or was it Wisconsin? I don't remember which school) no problem.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/23/14 12:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
If you prefer free agency, play for pay, and "free market" for athletes, then I suggest you simply follow professional sports leagues and leave college athletics alone for those of us who prefer amateur college athletics.
I fail to see any reason why you need to turn college sports into professional sports. There are already professional sports leagues for you to watch if that's what you prefer.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11140
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/23/14 2:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
If you prefer free agency, play for pay, and "free market" for athletes, then I suggest you simply follow professional sports leagues and leave college athletics alone for those of us who prefer amateur college athletics.
I fail to see any reason why you need to turn college sports into professional sports. There are already professional sports leagues for you to watch if that's what you prefer. |
Do you truly believe a multi-billion dollar industry is populated by "amateur" athletes?
We had the same fiction in the Olympics for most of the 20th century, and the Olympics are still the Olympics -- and in fact, I think much better now that shamateurism has been abolished?
Granted, the cross country runners are amateurs (name one that competes for your school). The football players? Please ...
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/23/14 4:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
If you prefer free agency, play for pay, and "free market" for athletes, then I suggest you simply follow professional sports leagues and leave college athletics alone for those of us who prefer amateur college athletics.
I fail to see any reason why you need to turn college sports into professional sports. There are already professional sports leagues for you to watch if that's what you prefer. |
Do you truly believe a multi-billion dollar industry is populated by "amateur" athletes?
We had the same fiction in the Olympics for most of the 20th century, and the Olympics are still the Olympics -- and in fact, I think much better now that shamateurism has been abolished?
Granted, the cross country runners are amateurs (name one that competes for your school). The football players? Please ... |
I don't think the Olympics are still the Olympics
When younger, I enjoyed them.
I then got turned off by the commercialism of the Games, coupled with the pretend amateurism. While that pretense is gone, and I cannot think of a way to return to the legitimate amateurism, of the past, I no longer pay much attention to the Olympics. I'll turn on the basketball, because I want to see the players I know, and I may watch curling, because it is cool, I generally don't watch much else.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/23/14 4:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
| I then got turned off by the commercialism of the Games, coupled with the pretend amateurism. While that pretense is gone, and I cannot think of a way to return to the legitimate amateurism, of the past, I no longer pay much attention to the Olympics. I'll turn on the basketball, because I want to see the players I know, and I may watch curling, because it is cool, I generally don't watch much else. |
You must be pretty old to remember it with legitimate amateurism. It certainly never had it any time after WWII.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/23/14 5:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
If you prefer free agency, play for pay, and "free market" for athletes, then I suggest you simply follow professional sports leagues and leave college athletics alone for those of us who prefer amateur college athletics.
I fail to see any reason why you need to turn college sports into professional sports. There are already professional sports leagues for you to watch if that's what you prefer. |
Do you truly believe a multi-billion dollar industry is populated by "amateur" athletes?
. |
Yes, I do. As I said, if you don't like the way it is, then follow the pros. Then you wouldn't have to suffer this bitter cynicism that seems to be eating at you.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/23/14 6:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
If you prefer free agency, play for pay, and "free market" for athletes, then I suggest you simply follow professional sports leagues and leave college athletics alone for those of us who prefer amateur college athletics.
I fail to see any reason why you need to turn college sports into professional sports. There are already professional sports leagues for you to watch if that's what you prefer. |
Do you truly believe a multi-billion dollar industry is populated by "amateur" athletes?
We had the same fiction in the Olympics for most of the 20th century, and the Olympics are still the Olympics -- and in fact, I think much better now that shamateurism has been abolished?
Granted, the cross country runners are amateurs (name one that competes for your school). The football players? Please ... |
I don't think the Olympics are still the Olympics
When younger, I enjoyed them.
I then got turned off by the commercialism of the Games, coupled with the pretend amateurism. While that pretense is gone, and I cannot think of a way to return to the legitimate amateurism, of the past, I no longer pay much attention to the Olympics. I'll turn on the basketball, because I want to see the players I know, and I may watch curling, because it is cool, I generally don't watch much else. |
I agree. I enjoyed the Olympics much more when it was amateur, most especially the basketball. It was always so interesting to watch a new group of American college players every four years go against the rest of the world.
I have almost no interest in watching a bunch of dunking, chucking American pros play in the Olympics. I say "almost" because it was very interesting to watch the American team lose several years ago (maybe it was in the World's) to Greece, who played 1940 Jewish team basketball and sliced up the American thuggernaut.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/23/14 6:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
If you prefer free agency, play for pay, and "free market" for athletes, then I suggest you simply follow professional sports leagues and leave college athletics alone for those of us who prefer amateur college athletics.
I fail to see any reason why you need to turn college sports into professional sports. There are already professional sports leagues for you to watch if that's what you prefer. |
Do you truly believe a multi-billion dollar industry is populated by "amateur" athletes?
We had the same fiction in the Olympics for most of the 20th century, and the Olympics are still the Olympics -- and in fact, I think much better now that shamateurism has been abolished?
Granted, the cross country runners are amateurs (name one that competes for your school). The football players? Please ... |
Actually, probably about 70 of the 80+ scholarship players on most football teams are amateurs as almost anyone would define it - no hope for the pros, and they know it, among other things. There probably are about 30 programs where that proportion is different.
It's a much different situation from the Olympics.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11140
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 9:41 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
If you prefer free agency, play for pay, and "free market" for athletes, then I suggest you simply follow professional sports leagues and leave college athletics alone for those of us who prefer amateur college athletics.
I fail to see any reason why you need to turn college sports into professional sports. There are already professional sports leagues for you to watch if that's what you prefer. |
Do you truly believe a multi-billion dollar industry is populated by "amateur" athletes?
We had the same fiction in the Olympics for most of the 20th century, and the Olympics are still the Olympics -- and in fact, I think much better now that shamateurism has been abolished?
Granted, the cross country runners are amateurs (name one that competes for your school). The football players? Please ... |
Actually, probably about 70 of the 80+ scholarship players on most football teams are amateurs as almost anyone would define it - no hope for the pros, and they know it, among other things. There probably are about 30 programs where that proportion is different.
It's a much different situation from the Olympics. |
Some of the employees may be amateurs, but the business is certainly for-profit.
And just some historical perspective: The ancient Olympics were shamelessly professional. Not only was there a "tour" of various what were then called "Games," winners of the Olympics were given lifetime stipends by their home cities and often ran the city-supported "gymnasium," which purportedly was there to train citizens as potential soldiers.
It is amazing to me that Olympic athletes were expected to be amateurs, but no one would ask an actor or a musician to perform for free.
And my guess is that musicians who go to a college are free to perform as professionals whenever and wherever they want while still playing in university-sponsored bands and orchestras. And they can transfer without having to sit out a year.
What's the difference, from the student's point of view?
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 10:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
If you prefer free agency, play for pay, and "free market" for athletes, then I suggest you simply follow professional sports leagues and leave college athletics alone for those of us who prefer amateur college athletics.
I fail to see any reason why you need to turn college sports into professional sports. There are already professional sports leagues for you to watch if that's what you prefer. |
Do you truly believe a multi-billion dollar industry is populated by "amateur" athletes?
We had the same fiction in the Olympics for most of the 20th century, and the Olympics are still the Olympics -- and in fact, I think much better now that shamateurism has been abolished?
Granted, the cross country runners are amateurs (name one that competes for your school). The football players? Please ... |
Actually, probably about 70 of the 80+ scholarship players on most football teams are amateurs as almost anyone would define it - no hope for the pros, and they know it, among other things. There probably are about 30 programs where that proportion is different.
It's a much different situation from the Olympics. |
Some of the employees may be amateurs, but the business is certainly for-profit.
And just some historical perspective: The ancient Olympics were shamelessly professional. Not only was there a "tour" of various what were then called "Games," winners of the Olympics were given lifetime stipends by their home cities and often ran the city-supported "gymnasium," which purportedly was there to train citizens as potential soldiers.
It is amazing to me that Olympic athletes were expected to be amateurs, but no one would ask an actor or a musician to perform for free.
And my guess is that musicians who go to a college are free to perform as professionals whenever and wherever they want while still playing in university-sponsored bands and orchestras. And they can transfer without having to sit out a year.
What's the difference, from the student's point of view? |
Last time I looked, violin players aren't competing against each other with weekly rankings and conference standings and the like, and there's no need to try to maintain a level competitive playing field. You really aren't claiming there is the remotest similarity, are you?
Do you consider 16 year old Texas high school football players "professionals" too just because the schools make money filling 20,000 seat stadiums every Friday night? Are those kids supposed to get paid $200/game just because the school sells tickets to their games? It's the exact same situation; it's only a matter of degree between that Texas high school and the University of Texas.
|
|
Michael
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 601
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 2:01 pm ::: End of college athletics |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
So I just had another thought, for those still hanging on to this thread ...
What if players were allowed to take either cash or a scholarship, and could negotiate with schools?
For example, a star football player whose jersey will be sold by the school and NCAA, and who conceivably will help generate big bucks for everyone, could ask for a salary. A women's basketball player, on the other hand, wouldn't push for dollars, but rather a scholarship.
In other words, get rid of the one-size-fits-all concept for college athletes, and allow the market to decide how much a player is worth.
Sure, there would be bidding wars for top quarterbacks, but there are now, except they're under the table. This way everything would be open to public scrutiny, and if the public felt football players were paid too much, the universities would have to justify the expense.
And there would be some connection between the value of an athlete to a school and his compensation. |
Most schools are at break even right now on athletics budgets. You open up bidding wars like this and Michigan, Penn State, OSU, and UTenn will win every title they want. They simply have deeper pockets then anyone else and in a bidding war, you will be down to conceivably 12 -15 schools that could compete. While there is rampant cheating now, and I doubt any top 20 football team has under a million dollar under the table payroll, making it open would destroy any parity and eventually any interest in collegiate sports. The non-revenue sports would perish first, including WCBB
_________________
Michael
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 2:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| Some of the employees may be amateurs, but the business is certainly for-profit. |
Oh? Virtually all of the schools involved in college sports are non-profits. They don't have owners to pay. All the surplus revenue generated remains in the organization.
None of that has anything to do with whether or not the players are professionals or employees. Non-profits can and do use both.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
SueFavor
Joined: 20 May 2013
Posts: 387
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11140
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 4:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| Last time I looked, violin players aren't competing against each other with weekly rankings and conference standings and the like, and there's no need to try to maintain a level competitive playing field. You really aren't claiming there is the remotest similarity, are you? |
1) What do rankings have to do with a student's ability to make money?
Unless of course you're claiming that the rankings influence a school's ability to make money.
2) I also have my doubts about the whole idea of competitive equity. It obviously doesn't exist now -- look at women's basketball -- and never has.
Allowing players to negotiate their own deals with prospective employers would simply put everything on the table, and make it clear who was worth what. When free agency came into the NFL, all of a sudden offensive linemen started making more money than running backs because actual value was being negotiated rather than perceived value.
Maybe if players were allowed to negotiate with schools, we'd find that women's basketball players were more valuable than men's baseball players -- or not.
3) The fiction of a "non-profit" is that such an entity isn't interested in profit. What it means is that no shareholders benefit if the entity makes money. The non-profit can freely invest in facilities, pay its employees more and hire more employees -- and if a "non-profit" doesn't make a profit long enough, it will go broke, just like every other business.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 5:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Ok, so you simply reject completely the notion that there is any such thing as amateur athletics or that universities are non-profit.
So, just say so. But then there isn't anything really to discuss.
As I said, you should just follow the pros and leave college athletics to those of us who do believe in it. Why do you want to screw it up for the rest of us?
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 8:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I have to agree that non-profit status isn't really relevant to the employee or pay-the-poor-athletes more money issues.
Non-profit status simply means the revenues are not taxable income to the entity, and that profits aren't distributed to owners but are re-invested into the tax exempt purpose of the entity. The entity may still be a giant business -- like a university or hospital -- making a lot of money and with lots of employees, some making very big bucks.
If students become employees of the university, their financial aid will likely become taxable income just as the salary of a professor, administrator or coach. Therefore, the university will have to increase the levels of its financial aid (if allowed by the NCAA) so that each athlete-employee has the same after-tax spendable income that she did before unionization caused employee status.
Where does this extra money come from to jack up the "salaries" of the employee-athletes? It comes from the same place as extra money to jack up the salaries of other employees: from tuition raises on all the non-athletes including the violin student, from more taxpayer money being funneled into a state university, or (if legal) from even greater monetary solicitations from boosters.
This is all such a sleazy- and bleak-sounding future to me, just to give even more money and privileges to the class of students at a university that are arguably already the most privileged.
Last edited by GlennMacGrady on 04/24/14 10:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 9699
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 10:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't really see why letting athletes profit from selling their autographs and appearing in some commercials and stuff is a problem, as long as it's monitored and doesn't turn into something sleazy or out-of-control.
They are celebrities because of their abilities, and as adult American citizens, should have rights to their image. The school could sort of act as their agent. That might relieve some of the pressure.
The more I think about it, I think paying a salary is a very bad idea, that upsets the whole apple-cart. They aren't employees, they're students.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 10:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FS02 wrote: |
I don't really see why letting athletes profit from selling their autographs and appearing in some commercials and stuff is a problem, as long as it's monitored and doesn't turn into something sleazy or out-of-control.
They are celebrities because of their abilities, and as adult American citizens, should have rights to their image. The school could sort of act as their agent. That might relieve some of the pressure.
The more I think about it, I think paying a salary is a very bad idea, that upsets the whole apple-cart. They aren't employees, they're students. |
So everybody wants the autograph and personal appearance of the star quarterback. Do you let him keep it all while the left guard and free safety get nothing? What about the swimmer or soccer goalie? What about the people sitting on the bench? Do you pool all the money and distribute it to everyone? Do half the starting football players at Auburn make a bunch of money because they have lots of fanatical fans (of course the fanaticism is about the uniform and has little or nothing to do with the particular players) while the players at Wake or Northwestern make nothing because no one cares about their team? And if so, then why would anyone any good go anywhere other than the twenty schools with the biggest fanbases?
How is your plan going to work in practice, and have you considered how it would impact college sports? If you have, I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts.
|
|
DblT81
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 167
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 10:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| FS02 wrote: |
I don't really see why letting athletes profit from selling their autographs and appearing in some commercials and stuff is a problem, as long as it's monitored and doesn't turn into something sleazy or out-of-control.
They are celebrities because of their abilities, and as adult American citizens, should have rights to their image. The school could sort of act as their agent. That might relieve some of the pressure.
The more I think about it, I think paying a salary is a very bad idea, that upsets the whole apple-cart. They aren't employees, they're students. |
Hi, I'm T. Boone Pickens and I would like to pay $200,000 for the autograph of every player on the Oklahoma State football team. I would also like to pay each player on the OSU women's basketball team $25,000 for an autographed jersey with their name on it and assuming that Nike changes the jersey style each year I would like to make that an annual purchase directly from each player. See I'm a billionaire and just a fan of Oklahoma State orange! Go Cowboys! Go Cowgirls!
P.S. can I go ahead and give prospective future Cowgirls money for their autographs since I've admired their athletic prowess in high school? Just a fan, don't want them to be compensated in any way. I just want to pay them for their autographs, assuming that they will be coming to Stillwater to play for OSU, of course. I love the Cowgirls and future Cowgirls! That should be OK. Its just an autograph and they deserve to profit from their images and athletic talents.
I understand that OSU will give these athletes a scholarship and room and board and medical care and training that amounts to at least $30,000 a year that many other students have to borrow, use up years of family savings or work at jobs that aren't part of a game. Too bad for those losers I don't want their autograph! |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 10:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
There is some debate in academia that football and basketball revenues should be taxed.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1336727
Each of the huge revenue producing football bowls are also structured as tax-exempt non-profit charities, which spend lavishly on expenses and bloated executive salaries.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/09/400023/bcs-taxes-part-1/
Yes, let's complicate this fiscal feeding frenzy by paying bonus money to the pro-athlete-students who have the misfortune of being forced into participating into these Roman gladiatorial spectacles.
Money should be removed from college sports, not added. The Ivy League is the model. Educate students in required courses the classics, history, philosophy, rhetoric, writing, literature, and the pure and applied sciences. Let them play volunteer sports games on a field or court if they want to for college credit. Don't charge anyone to watch these games. Don't pay any professor much more to coach these games, and certainly don't pay any student anything extra, including scholarships, to participate in these games.
|
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 9699
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 11:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| FS02 wrote: |
I don't really see why letting athletes profit from selling their autographs and appearing in some commercials and stuff is a problem, as long as it's monitored and doesn't turn into something sleazy or out-of-control.
They are celebrities because of their abilities, and as adult American citizens, should have rights to their image. The school could sort of act as their agent. That might relieve some of the pressure.
The more I think about it, I think paying a salary is a very bad idea, that upsets the whole apple-cart. They aren't employees, they're students. |
So everybody wants the autograph and personal appearance of the star quarterback. Do you let him keep it all while the left guard and free safety get nothing? What about the swimmer or soccer goalie? What about the people sitting on the bench? Do you pool all the money and distribute it to everyone? Do half the starting football players at Auburn make a bunch of money because they have lots of fanatical fans (of course the fanaticism is about the uniform and has little or nothing to do with the particular players) while the players at Wake or Northwestern make nothing because no one cares about their team? And if so, then why would anyone any good go anywhere other than the twenty schools with the biggest fanbases?
How is your plan going to work in practice, and have you considered how it would impact college sports? If you have, I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts. |
Yes, give almost all the money to the star quarterback, and he can distribute it as he likes... that's basically how it works in the real world. If he's smart, he'll treat his O-Line to some nights on the town. I think most of the scholly student-athletes are just lucky to be getting a more-or-less free education and it seems to me they're not complaining too much.
Of course, there's a bazillion details to be worked out, and I'm not an expert on these matters, but I am starting to see this way as the most consistent with the principles of the capitalist system. Competitive balance is already shot to hell as Clay says, and I don't see how it could get much worse.
And of course, my main goal is to protect the purity of women's sports, and the non-revenue sports I love, and silence all the Title IX haters. Don't make all the non-revenue sports even more of a burden on the athletic departments, because that will eventually kill them. I've seen it happen.
I would like to keep the NCAA system much as it is, but just loosen the controls a bit and let the Johnny Footballs of the world, who think they deserve it, make some money.
There is nothing wrong with that.... I think. But the devil is in the details.
It would probably be much easier just to pay everybody, but I don't think it's the right answer, and I bet it would just lead to more problems down the road.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 9699
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/24/14 11:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| DblT81 wrote: |
| FS02 wrote: |
I don't really see why letting athletes profit from selling their autographs and appearing in some commercials and stuff is a problem, as long as it's monitored and doesn't turn into something sleazy or out-of-control.
They are celebrities because of their abilities, and as adult American citizens, should have rights to their image. The school could sort of act as their agent. That might relieve some of the pressure.
The more I think about it, I think paying a salary is a very bad idea, that upsets the whole apple-cart. They aren't employees, they're students. |
Hi, I'm T. Boone Pickens and I would like to pay $200,000 for the autograph of every player on the Oklahoma State football team. I would also like to pay each player on the OSU women's basketball team $25,000 for an autographed jersey with their name on it and assuming that Nike changes the jersey style each year I would like to make that an annual purchase directly from each player. See I'm a billionaire and just a fan of Oklahoma State orange! Go Cowboys! Go Cowgirls!
P.S. can I go ahead and give prospective future Cowgirls money for their autographs since I've admired their athletic prowess in high school? Just a fan, don't want them to be compensated in any way. I just want to pay them for their autographs, assuming that they will be coming to Stillwater to play for OSU, of course. I love the Cowgirls and future Cowgirls! That should be OK. Its just an autograph and they deserve to profit from their images and athletic talents.
I understand that OSU will give these athletes a scholarship and room and board and medical care and training that amounts to at least $30,000 a year that many other students have to borrow, use up years of family savings or work at jobs that aren't part of a game. Too bad for those losers I don't want their autograph! |
That's exactly how it would work. And most major universities have billionaire alums, and they would do the same, and it would end up exactly as it is now except it would all be above-board and out in the open.
And if the star football player blows his knee out, or gets blindsided by an OLB (to the point where his brain is fucked) before he ever makes the NFL, at least he'd have a little something to show for it.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
|
|
