Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 13:43:52 GMT -5
We must have a lot of coaches and administrators on this board. I can't imagine who else would be so invested in making sure the players get as little as possible. It's weird because the kids we're talking about usually come from modest beginnings to say the least. People talk about how there's not enough money, but even 500 extra dollars could mean a lot for these kids. A coach gets hired for 4 million a year and nobody bats an eye. A school signs a multimillion dollar deal with nike and nobody bats an eye. We could develop a system that's fair and still maintain competitive balance if people weren't so afraid of what's next imo...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 13:49:50 GMT -5
We must have a lot of coaches and administrators on this board. I can't imagine who else would be so invested in making sure the players get as little as possible. Well, from the perspective of Georgetown University, we haven't had a player on our roster that would get paid significant sums in a free market type of system for years. Which seems to be a fact the "pay the players!" crowd doesn't seem to understand. Assuming 13 scholarship players per team, there are 4,589 Division I players. That's not to say it's not a problem, but there's a tremendous focus on the 1% of players who might get paid a lot versus everybody else who would not. And, if the NBA lets guys like Zion Williamson go straight to the NBA, that number will decline even further. I completely agree guys like that should have every right to make as much money as they want, but that avenue should be through going to the NBA directly. The NBA has taken advantage of college teams and used them as incubators of talent (which reduces risk to NBA owners), which creates perverse incentives. College basketball wasn't created as a place for guys like that to camp out for one year and then get their monster contracts. It's silly. They should be able to go directly into the professional ranks. Of course, that wouldn't solve the problem, but it would go a long way toward getting the biggest incentive for bribery and illegal payments out of college. McClung could make a lot on the free market. He may never make the NBA, but other folks are using his popularity and generating income that he will never see.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Mar 28, 2019 14:00:28 GMT -5
We must have a lot of coaches and administrators on this board. I can't imagine who else would be so invested in making sure the players get as little as possible. Well, from the perspective of Georgetown University, we haven't had a player on our roster that would get paid significant sums in a free market type of system for years. Which seems to be a fact the "pay the players!" crowd doesn't seem to understand. Assuming 13 scholarship players per team, there are 4,589 Division I players. That's not to say it's not a problem, but there's a tremendous focus on the 1% of players who might get paid a lot versus everybody else who would not. And, if the NBA lets guys like Zion Williamson go straight to the NBA, that number will decline even further. I completely agree guys like that should have every right to make as much money as they want, but that avenue should be through going to the NBA directly. The NBA has taken advantage of college teams and used them as incubators of talent (which reduces risk to NBA owners), which creates perverse incentives. College basketball wasn't created as a place for guys like that to camp out for one year and then get their monster contracts. It's silly. They should be able to go directly into the professional ranks. Of course, that wouldn't solve the problem, but it would go a long way toward getting the biggest incentive for bribery and illegal payments out of college. What would be the harm in opening it up and seeing what the market will bear for these guys?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 14:03:03 GMT -5
Mentioned this in the other thread before it got locked but aren't we ignoring the fact that the NCAA leaves a lot of money on the table because it needs to make it seem like it's not a business? How much would a Duke jersey with Williamson on the back be worth for instance? I mean, the woe is me for the .5% of college athletes that could actually cash in on their likeness in a way that out values their tuitions/room and board is out of hand. Between the under the table pay-offs these players get while in college coupled with the exposure that likely increases contracts with sponsors upon going pro, has anyone actually properly figured out out much their missing out on in the short term and out that is or isn't offset by longer term gains? Again, let everyone go to the NBA out of high school, effectively eliminating the players that are worth more than they are getting from the college system, and end the stupidity of this altruistic argument. I do feel more sympathy for these kids that often come from modest backgrounds than I do for the institutions that are profiting off them. I just want to point out that the angle the article was pursuing most was not about paying players directly but allowing athletes to profit from their images and likenesses, such as through sponsorship deals. Are you opposed to that as well?
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Mar 28, 2019 14:06:36 GMT -5
Mac will get paid to play- we just don’t know at what level and where.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,339
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Mar 28, 2019 14:14:26 GMT -5
Well, from the perspective of Georgetown University, we haven't had a player on our roster that would get paid significant sums in a free market type of system for years. Which seems to be a fact the "pay the players!" crowd doesn't seem to understand. Assuming 13 scholarship players per team, there are 4,589 Division I players. That's not to say it's not a problem, but there's a tremendous focus on the 1% of players who might get paid a lot versus everybody else who would not. And, if the NBA lets guys like Zion Williamson go straight to the NBA, that number will decline even further. I completely agree guys like that should have every right to make as much money as they want, but that avenue should be through going to the NBA directly. The NBA has taken advantage of college teams and used them as incubators of talent (which reduces risk to NBA owners), which creates perverse incentives. College basketball wasn't created as a place for guys like that to camp out for one year and then get their monster contracts. It's silly. They should be able to go directly into the professional ranks. Of course, that wouldn't solve the problem, but it would go a long way toward getting the biggest incentive for bribery and illegal payments out of college. What would be the harm in opening it up and seeing what the market will bear for these guys? Fully agree. The NBA should open up its labor market to all comers. The G-League should as well. A number of high school grads have gone to Europe and gotten paid. If someone feels they can make a living off of instagram videos, god bless ya. Go for it Big Baller League (is that still a thing?). Anyone who thinks they can get compensated better in these markets than the deal college ball offers should have that opportunity. For the remainder who feel that the current deal offered college by college athletics is the best for them---there is no reason to alter that by forcing the NCAA to "pay the players".
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 28, 2019 14:18:46 GMT -5
We must have a lot of coaches and administrators on this board. I can't imagine who else would be so invested in making sure the players get as little as possible. Well, from the perspective of Georgetown University, we haven't had a player on our roster that would get paid significant sums in a free market type of system for years. Which seems to be a fact the "pay the players!" crowd doesn't seem to understand. Assuming 13 scholarship players per team, there are 4,589 Division I players. That's not to say it's not a problem, but there's a tremendous focus on the 1% of players who might get paid a lot versus everybody else who would not. And, if the NBA lets guys like Zion Williamson go straight to the NBA, that number will decline even further. I completely agree guys like that should have every right to make as much money as they want, but that avenue should be through going to the NBA directly. The NBA has taken advantage of college teams and used them as incubators of talent (which reduces risk to NBA owners), which creates perverse incentives. College basketball wasn't created as a place for guys like that to camp out for one year and then get their monster contracts. It's silly. They should be able to go directly into the professional ranks. Of course, that wouldn't solve the problem, but it would go a long way toward getting the biggest incentive for bribery and illegal payments out of college. This is the wrong way to look at this debate... It's not just about the future NBA players... You can take out all the "best" players and ship them off to the NBA or whatever pro league, you'll still have talented basketball players being exploited by an unfair college system... Also "significant sums" is very dependent on who you're talking to...
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 28, 2019 14:31:40 GMT -5
You can take out all the "best" players and ship them off to the NBA or whatever pro league, you'll still have talented basketball players being exploited by an unfair college system... Also "significant sums" is very dependent on who you're talking to... I totally agree. But I have never seen any proposal that would enable players to get paid that would actually work. I do think there are a few minor things that can be done, that are small measures: - I see no problem with a school selling a "McClung" (or anybody) jersey, and a player getting a fair share for their likeness. - I see no problem with players getting paid for their likeness in a video game, etc., though again, you run into the problem that a game like the former College Hoops 2K series had all 350+ teams. There's simply no way that you can pay all those players for their likeness (unless it was a miniscule amount) and have a profitable game. You also run into the "EA Sports will pay X player $500K if they choose X school" problem - payment that isn't really for likeness but rather a way to guide people to certain schools. But, I think you could maybe monitor that. - I would be open to similar things that are fair compensation and don't have huge incentives for bribery. Where I do have problems is a system where schools would "sign" players, as if they were free agents. First, that exists and it's called the G league. Second, that would make the current system even worse, as the richer schools with a ton of money (and rich alumni boosters) would throw money at the 5 star players (or, frankly, anybody they wanted), and essentially, all the best talent would become even more concentrated than it is now, though the distribution of the talent might take on a different look than it does now. Don't get me wrong - I don't think the current system works particularly well either, but I also don't think college programs are designed for a free market style system so many people want. I went into debt to pay for Georgetown, so I fully understand the "significant sums" calculation means different amounts to different people. I would've taken any amount of money when I was an undergraduate if I had the opportunity, so I get it. And, not to be a broken record, but if they choose to stay and meet the academic minimums, these guys do get 4 year degree for free. I realize that a lot of people don't consider that value, or consider it to be beside the point, but it's real value they do get that thousands of undergraduates at Georgetown (and other universities) would kill for.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Mar 28, 2019 14:43:50 GMT -5
These guys could be product influencers like those idiots on instagram. Have their followers pay them
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,040
|
Post by jwp91 on Mar 28, 2019 19:15:06 GMT -5
Well, from the perspective of Georgetown University, we haven't had a player on our roster that would get paid significant sums in a free market type of system for years. Which seems to be a fact the "pay the players!" crowd doesn't seem to understand. Assuming 13 scholarship players per team, there are 4,589 Division I players. That's not to say it's not a problem, but there's a tremendous focus on the 1% of players who might get paid a lot versus everybody else who would not. And, if the NBA lets guys like Zion Williamson go straight to the NBA, that number will decline even further. I completely agree guys like that should have every right to make as much money as they want, but that avenue should be through going to the NBA directly. The NBA has taken advantage of college teams and used them as incubators of talent (which reduces risk to NBA owners), which creates perverse incentives. College basketball wasn't created as a place for guys like that to camp out for one year and then get their monster contracts. It's silly. They should be able to go directly into the professional ranks. Of course, that wouldn't solve the problem, but it would go a long way toward getting the biggest incentive for bribery and illegal payments out of college. What would be the harm in opening it up and seeing what the market will bear for these guys? How exactly do you close Pandora’s box? Do tell.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 28, 2019 22:19:37 GMT -5
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,762
|
Post by blueandgray on Mar 29, 2019 2:38:34 GMT -5
Something incredibly refreshing about Izzo’s take.
|
|
|
Post by iheartdurenbros on Mar 29, 2019 11:58:05 GMT -5
Something incredibly refreshing about Izzo’s take. If this came from someone who didn't spend all last season trying to duck from questions about his assistant's and players' sexual assault charges, I would find this refreshing. He stayed clear from Brian Bowen. Good for him for avoiding the cheating scandal, I guess. He believes in accountability and transparency when the gaze is turned away from him.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 29, 2019 11:58:24 GMT -5
I mean, the woe is me for the .5% of college athletes that could actually cash in on their likeness in a way that out values their tuitions/room and board is out of hand. Between the under the table pay-offs these players get while in college coupled with the exposure that likely increases contracts with sponsors upon going pro, has anyone actually properly figured out out much their missing out on in the short term and out that is or isn't offset by longer term gains? Again, let everyone go to the NBA out of high school, effectively eliminating the players that are worth more than they are getting from the college system, and end the stupidity of this altruistic argument. I do feel more sympathy for these kids that often come from modest backgrounds than I do for the institutions that are profiting off them. I just want to point out that the angle the article was pursuing most was not about paying players directly but allowing athletes to profit from their images and likenesses, such as through sponsorship deals. Are you opposed to that as well? I'm not opposed to fixing the inequalities of the system, whether that be playing the players or allowing them to profit off of their likeness. My issue is that the focus of the argument always centers around the less than 1% of college athletes that actually could profit off of their own likeness and disregards the hundreds of thousands of college athletes from similarly modest backgrounds that are only able to get a degree and move up in life because of the athletic scholarship provided to them because of the money made off the more profitable sports. Does the system need to be fixed? Yes, definitely. My frustration is that very little solutions being thrown out there factor in the non-profitable sports (which are almost all if we are being honest), specifically female athletes, and how overthrowing the system to benefit the small fraction of those who are putting in more financially than they are taking away. Who, not for nothing, are generally positioned to be set up much much better financially than their peers in 1-3 years anyways. Everyone can act that caring about Zion Williamson and how The NCAA/Duke is profiting off him is looking out for little guy against the giant media Goliath, but its not. He's profiting from the exposure and really just part of the Goliath himself, even if his official pay checks won't start rolling in until May. That, plus the fact that the media is painting the NCAA as the clear cut villain, which, while they are awful for numerous reasons, at least most, or at least some, of the money that goes to the universities and NCAA works its way back to athletes and students in the universities in some shape or form. The real players that make money off these athletes are the ESPNs/CBS/Fox who collect their ad revenue and then get on their high horse and complain about the injustices of the system they set up. Where does Jay Bilas think his paycheck is coming from?
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 29, 2019 13:41:43 GMT -5
I mean, the woe is me for the .5% of college athletes that could actually cash in on their likeness in a way that out values their tuitions/room and board is out of hand. Between the under the table pay-offs these players get while in college coupled with the exposure that likely increases contracts with sponsors upon going pro, has anyone actually properly figured out out much their missing out on in the short term and out that is or isn't offset by longer term gains? Again, let everyone go to the NBA out of high school, effectively eliminating the players that are worth more than they are getting from the college system, and end the stupidity of this altruistic argument. It's not a take the greater value scenario, why are you positioning the debate this way? Players will be allowed to declare right out of HS very soon but I don't see how that solves the inequities of the system in these high revenue sports... The issue is that inequities in the system are quite unclear in terms of looking at high revenue sports specifically in this manner. Outside the small fraction of players that clearly have monetary value as individuals, any value add the rest of the athletes have is directly tied to the collective they are a part of. Who is suffering here and how much are they actually suffering and who does equalizing their losses truly come at the expense of? Because, my guess its not the ESPNs/Universities that will be evening the score here but the athletes of the non-revenue sports (which is the majority) that are already usually already at a disadvantage to the revenue sports as it is. I don't have a problem with people addressing the inequalities in the college system, as there are a lot. However, the overall tone and theatrics people use when discussing it is out of hand. There are a lot of injustices and inequalities in higher education and college athletics but when people are only interested in fixing the glamour issues, like future millionaires missing out on a few hundred grand for a few, instead of ones that have true victims or are the root of larger issues, I just can't take it seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 16:54:29 GMT -5
I do feel more sympathy for these kids that often come from modest backgrounds than I do for the institutions that are profiting off them. I just want to point out that the angle the article was pursuing most was not about paying players directly but allowing athletes to profit from their images and likenesses, such as through sponsorship deals. Are you opposed to that as well? I'm not opposed to fixing the inequalities of the system, whether that be playing the players or allowing them to profit off of their likeness. My issue is that the focus of the argument always centers around the less than 1% of college athletes that actually could profit off of their own likeness and disregards the hundreds of thousands of college athletes from similarly modest backgrounds that are only able to get a degree and move up in life because of the athletic scholarship provided to them because of the money made off the more profitable sports. Does the system need to be fixed? Yes, definitely. My frustration is that very little solutions being thrown out there factor in the non-profitable sports (which are almost all if we are being honest), specifically female athletes, and how overthrowing the system to benefit the small fraction of those who are putting in more financially than they are taking away. Who, not for nothing, are generally positioned to be set up much much better financially than their peers in 1-3 years anyways. Everyone can act that caring about Zion Williamson and how The NCAA/Duke is profiting off him is looking out for little guy against the giant media Goliath, but its not. He's profiting from the exposure and really just part of the Goliath himself, even if his official pay checks won't start rolling in until May. That, plus the fact that the media is painting the NCAA as the clear cut villain, which, while they are awful for numerous reasons, at least most, or at least some, of the money that goes to the universities and NCAA works its way back to athletes and students in the universities in some shape or form. The real players that make money off these athletes are the ESPNs/CBS/Fox who collect their ad revenue and then get on their high horse and complain about the injustices of the system they set up. Where does Jay Bilas think his paycheck is coming from? In this case we're not talking about schools paying kids, but allowing players to use their popularity to turn a profit. I think "overthrow the system" is a tad much, and I don't see how that effects the other sports. I think it's important to remember that there's really only a small fraction of kids receiving full scholarships. There are only 5-6 sports that are required to give full rides at the D1 level, and individual schools decide on the others. 2 on the mens side, and 3-4 for the ladies. Some sports give out partial scholarships. Some give none. Georgetown football is a prime example. The majority of kids playing sports in college are not on athletic scholarship. Not to defend ESPN but they are paying for the content. They pay the conference. The conference pays the University, and that's were it stops. But yeah, I agree they're exploiting the system too. Imo what Zion will be worth in a couple years should have no effect on a person's opinion of what he should be receiving today. The reason why he's used imo is because people tend to use the most extreme examples to make their points, but personally I believe this stuff benefits a kid like Isaiah Washington more than a kid like Zion. "Jelly" "Jelly Fam" that's all his creation. You see this stuff everywhere. Nike named Paul George's shoe, ‘JellyFam PG1’. Isaiah averaged 4ppg as a Sophomore for Minnesota. He's not going to be a pro, and he can't even make a dollar of the movement he created.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 29, 2019 17:37:12 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to fixing the inequalities of the system, whether that be playing the players or allowing them to profit off of their likeness. My issue is that the focus of the argument always centers around the less than 1% of college athletes that actually could profit off of their own likeness and disregards the hundreds of thousands of college athletes from similarly modest backgrounds that are only able to get a degree and move up in life because of the athletic scholarship provided to them because of the money made off the more profitable sports. Does the system need to be fixed? Yes, definitely. My frustration is that very little solutions being thrown out there factor in the non-profitable sports (which are almost all if we are being honest), specifically female athletes, and how overthrowing the system to benefit the small fraction of those who are putting in more financially than they are taking away. Who, not for nothing, are generally positioned to be set up much much better financially than their peers in 1-3 years anyways. Everyone can act that caring about Zion Williamson and how The NCAA/Duke is profiting off him is looking out for little guy against the giant media Goliath, but its not. He's profiting from the exposure and really just part of the Goliath himself, even if his official pay checks won't start rolling in until May. That, plus the fact that the media is painting the NCAA as the clear cut villain, which, while they are awful for numerous reasons, at least most, or at least some, of the money that goes to the universities and NCAA works its way back to athletes and students in the universities in some shape or form. The real players that make money off these athletes are the ESPNs/CBS/Fox who collect their ad revenue and then get on their high horse and complain about the injustices of the system they set up. Where does Jay Bilas think his paycheck is coming from? In this case we're not talking about schools paying kids, but allowing players to use their popularity to turn a profit. I think "overthrow the system" is a tad much, and I don't see how that effects the other sports. I think it's important to remember that there's really only a small fraction of kids receiving full scholarships. There are only 5-6 sports that are required to give full rides at the D1 level, and individual schools decide on the others. 2 on the mens side, and 3-4 for the ladies. Some sports give out partial scholarships. Some give none. Georgetown football is a prime example. The majority of kids playing sports in college are not on athletic scholarship. Not to defend ESPN but they are paying for the content. They pay the conference. The conference pays the University, and that's were it stops. But yeah, I agree they're exploiting the system too. Imo what Zion will be worth in a couple years should have no effect on a person's opinion of what he should be receiving today. The reason why he's used imo is because people tend to use the most extreme examples to make their points, but personally I believe this stuff benefits a kid like Isaiah Washington more than a kid like Zion. "Jelly" "Jelly Fam" that's all his creation. You see this stuff everywhere. Nike named Paul George's shoe, ‘JellyFam PG1’. Isaiah averaged 4ppg as a Sophomore for Minnesota. He's not going to be a pro, and he can't even make a dollar of the movement he created. Perfect example Yaboy...
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 29, 2019 22:51:57 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to fixing the inequalities of the system, whether that be playing the players or allowing them to profit off of their likeness. My issue is that the focus of the argument always centers around the less than 1% of college athletes that actually could profit off of their own likeness and disregards the hundreds of thousands of college athletes from similarly modest backgrounds that are only able to get a degree and move up in life because of the athletic scholarship provided to them because of the money made off the more profitable sports. Does the system need to be fixed? Yes, definitely. My frustration is that very little solutions being thrown out there factor in the non-profitable sports (which are almost all if we are being honest), specifically female athletes, and how overthrowing the system to benefit the small fraction of those who are putting in more financially than they are taking away. Who, not for nothing, are generally positioned to be set up much much better financially than their peers in 1-3 years anyways. Everyone can act that caring about Zion Williamson and how The NCAA/Duke is profiting off him is looking out for little guy against the giant media Goliath, but its not. He's profiting from the exposure and really just part of the Goliath himself, even if his official pay checks won't start rolling in until May. That, plus the fact that the media is painting the NCAA as the clear cut villain, which, while they are awful for numerous reasons, at least most, or at least some, of the money that goes to the universities and NCAA works its way back to athletes and students in the universities in some shape or form. The real players that make money off these athletes are the ESPNs/CBS/Fox who collect their ad revenue and then get on their high horse and complain about the injustices of the system they set up. Where does Jay Bilas think his paycheck is coming from? In this case we're not talking about schools paying kids, but allowing players to use their popularity to turn a profit. I think "overthrow the system" is a tad much, and I don't see how that effects the other sports. I think it's important to remember that there's really only a small fraction of kids receiving full scholarships. There are only 5-6 sports that are required to give full rides at the D1 level, and individual schools decide on the others. 2 on the mens side, and 3-4 for the ladies. Some sports give out partial scholarships. Some give none. Georgetown football is a prime example. The majority of kids playing sports in college are not on athletic scholarship. Not to defend ESPN but they are paying for the content. They pay the conference. The conference pays the University, and that's were it stops. But yeah, I agree they're exploiting the system too. Imo what Zion will be worth in a couple years should have no effect on a person's opinion of what he should be receiving today. The reason why he's used imo is because people tend to use the most extreme examples to make their points, but personally I believe this stuff benefits a kid like Isaiah Washington more than a kid like Zion. "Jelly" "Jelly Fam" that's all his creation. You see this stuff everywhere. Nike named Paul George's shoe, ‘JellyFam PG1’. Isaiah averaged 4ppg as a Sophomore for Minnesota. He's not going to be a pro, and he can't even make a dollar of the movement he created. Again, I agree the rules themselves are too strict as there's no reason someone shouldn't be able to make money off a side business should they want to like Jelly Fam. My issue isn't with making changes. It's with the overall tone and dramatics put behind the call for changes as if it's a human rights issue. It's not. Isiah Washington could go make money off Jelly fam but he made the decision that going to college and getting degree was a better value. And to your point that what a player will make in the future has no bearing on what they should make this year, I disagree. The point is these players are choosing to play in college because it maximizes their bottom line in the future. The common refrain that they aren't benenfitting financially isn't true. I don't have a problem with players profiting from their likeness, I just think it's relevant to so few players as to be irrelevant and not addressing any of the actual injustices I've been hearing people drone on about for weeks (or years in Jay Bilas case). A much better argument is NCAA gymnastics where the only money these athletes can make off the sport is mid teenage and college years and they have to make some really tough choices and sacrifices in their early teens. Many have lmillions of dollars on the table, money they will never get back. Plus, the reason these rules exist so strictly is because of the high revenue sports taking money and bribes under the table, so again, cry me a river for the Zions of the world.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 30, 2019 0:26:04 GMT -5
In this case we're not talking about schools paying kids, but allowing players to use their popularity to turn a profit. I think "overthrow the system" is a tad much, and I don't see how that effects the other sports. I think it's important to remember that there's really only a small fraction of kids receiving full scholarships. There are only 5-6 sports that are required to give full rides at the D1 level, and individual schools decide on the others. 2 on the mens side, and 3-4 for the ladies. Some sports give out partial scholarships. Some give none. Georgetown football is a prime example. The majority of kids playing sports in college are not on athletic scholarship. Not to defend ESPN but they are paying for the content. They pay the conference. The conference pays the University, and that's were it stops. But yeah, I agree they're exploiting the system too. Imo what Zion will be worth in a couple years should have no effect on a person's opinion of what he should be receiving today. The reason why he's used imo is because people tend to use the most extreme examples to make their points, but personally I believe this stuff benefits a kid like Isaiah Washington more than a kid like Zion. "Jelly" "Jelly Fam" that's all his creation. You see this stuff everywhere. Nike named Paul George's shoe, ‘JellyFam PG1’. Isaiah averaged 4ppg as a Sophomore for Minnesota. He's not going to be a pro, and he can't even make a dollar of the movement he created. Again, I agree the rules themselves are too strict as there's no reason someone shouldn't be able to make money off a side business should they want to like Jelly Fam. My issue isn't with making changes. It's with the overall tone and dramatics put behind the call for changes as if it's a human rights issue. It's not. Isiah Washington could go make money off Jelly fam but he made the decision that going to college and getting degree was a better value. And to your point that what a player will make in the future has no bearing on what they should make this year, I disagree. The point is these players are choosing to play in college because it maximizes their bottom line in the future. The common refrain that they aren't benenfitting financially isn't true. I don't have a problem with players profiting from their likeness, I just think it's relevant to so few players as to be irrelevant and not addressing any of the actual injustices I've been hearing people drone on about for weeks (or years in Jay Bilas case). A much better argument is NCAA gymnastics where the only money these athletes can make off the sport is mid teenage and college years and they have to make some really tough choices and sacrifices in their early teens. Many have lmillions of dollars on the table, money they will never get back. Plus, the reason these rules exist so strictly is because of the high revenue sports taking money and bribes under the table, so again, cry me a river for the Zions of the world. Be fair Sleepy, The rules exist so tightly because the powers that be in college sports want to hold on to the "amateurism" myth as long as possible...
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,670
|
Post by seaweed on Mar 30, 2019 5:37:55 GMT -5
I wonder how many of the people here calling to fix the inequalities in”the system” would also support a living wage and higher tax brackets to fix the inequities in real life.
|
|