collegebaseballrecruitingguide posted:
PABaseball posted:

When HS athletes enter college there is no guarantee they go pro, there is no guarantee they are even successful at the collegiate level. They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage. For about 300 athletes, their worth exceeds this value. They are worth millions and college did hold them back financially, with the tradeoff to that being that they got a head start on a free degree or are almost done with it. Now for every other college athlete they need that degree and will never be worth anything more than a potential successful alumni to the school. 

As for the money here is the problem. Athletes can receive money from boosters and companies for their image, great. Mike StudQB goes on recruiting visits. On the visits, the pitch isn't about the school or the facilities, it's about which booster has the biggest paycheck. Now Mike StudQB is making a decision based on money. When Mike StudQB gets to college and isn't the starter the endorsers drop their contract. Now Mike StudQB is looking for a new school that will pay him, now it has nothing to do with the education. What happens when Nike tells Joe StudRB that they'll give him more money and a shoe deal when he is the first pick in the NFL draft. But his stock is already thru the roof, just sit out the last 5 games because you can only get injured. Johnny Touchdowns will get a nice paycheck for the car dealership. They'll also set his mom up with a nice job if he attends the school of their choice and make 4 more commercial appearances. What happens when Andre All Star starts missing class to go to he mall for a poster signing and can't stay eligible, but likely won't be drafted this year? What happens when Zion tears thru a shoe and decides he doesn't like Nike anymore. Does he leave his school and go elsewhere? Do brands still get to pay to supply apparel for the schools? These are very lucrative deals for the institutions that supply the full scholarships and pay coaches. 

Athletes do not need a piece. Things are structured the way that they are so things like this do not happen. Athletes enter into contracts in which all the things listed (tuition, food, etc) are all supplied and the only rule is they must remain amateur. The other option is to not take the bad deal (college) and go pro in another country or league. That is capitalism, deciding your worth and getting your true value in the market. Not entering in a contract that explicitly states you can't make money and then complaining that you're broke. These kids know that the NCAA provides the biggest platform for them to raise their stock, they know that if they are injured for 3 straight years that they will have a degree to fall back on, which is why they pass up other options - because they are not as good. They can wait 3 years and take the big money because the CFL does not give them the platform to do that. If you want to blame somebody blame the NBA for not allowing kids to come out of HS. Blame the NFL for not having a minor league/developmental program. 

The only alternatives I see to athletes being able to profit is to forfeit the tuition and all the benefits and pay out of pocket. Gamble on yourself if you feel you're worth it. If the education is worthless for the top athletes then why don't they go to Australia for a year and make some money while waiting for the next NBA draft? Because they know they are one injury away from having no money and no education. 

 

You have a vivid imagination, my friend. May want to start writing fiction novels. Most of what you described already happens, btw.

Athletes transfer all the time anyway, so why would you be so wrapped around the axle about them transferring. Again, you are seeing this only in one light, that being corruption. Now, the way I see it, the most marketable athletes will be blue chip football and basketball players and Olympians. To say in a blanket way “athletes do not need a piece” I would reply: who the hell are you to say that? For some of these kids, they are the first in their families to attend college, let alone have a shot at a professional sports career. Some may come from a less than desirable socio-economic background. Here’s a great idea, let’s oppress them a little more, PABaseball. They are playing in college because they are either not good enough to go pro or are precluded from going pro due to rules designed to enrich the NCAA. The solution to this in your eyes is scholarship or endorsements, which to me is the WORST AND STUPIDIST approach to this! At this point, who do you think is going to step up to pay these kid’s tuition? BOOSTERS! At least there may be a way to make those agencies who may contract with the players to register through a process in which they agree to abide by a set of rules. Violate the rules? You can’t contract with an athlete. I don’t know, I am not an expert here...but what you seem to be wanting to perpetuate is the oppression of athletes who have the ability to earn from their fame...seems pretty elitist to me.

Definitely oppressed 

I believe it comes down to how much value is placed on getting a degree. I was the first in my family to attend college and also came from a less than desirable socio-economic background. If someone would have given me tuition, fees, books, a place to live, a card that would let me get a meal 3x a day and a stipend for cost of attendance. I can do this for 5 years (with a red shirt year) and leave with no debt and a masters degree and all I have to do is play a game that I love and keep my grades up, I would place a high value on that arrangement. 

Before anyone says they are not there for the education, than they should not be in college, go play somewhere else. But there isn't anywhere else for football players to play after high school. That sucks, but I do not see that as a NCAA problem. Maybe the new FXL will let them play.

This has been a good thread.  I have one more thing to add, then am going to try to withdraw from the debate:

I just do not understand the arguments that “college athletes should value their educations” and therefore we need to keep the current system. In the current system, highly rated football and basketball players are rarely real college students. And again I remind everyone, these are the athletes who will be affected by the CA law. The argument seems to say we ought have something the current system doesn’t provide, and therefore should keep the current system.

Similarly, I don’t know how you can defend the current system by saying changes will lead to corruption or to making sports all about money. The current system is not exactly a paragon on either of those measures.  Again, we are not talking about volleyball or water polo here.

Finally, when you say athletes can go play somewhere else if they don’t like NCAA rules, you are ignoring the fact that every major college athletic program in the US has formed a cartel for the express purpose of preventing athletes from playing elsewhere under different rules. When someone complains about an illegally maintained near-monopoly, it is no answer to say “if you don’t like the monopoly, then deal with someone else.”

Iowamom23 posted:
PABaseball posted:

They receive full tuition, free books, free housing, apparel, backpacks, free meal plans, and basically non prescription healthcare coverage.

I'd like to find the kid who got this deal because mine certainly didn't and I'm guessing most do not.

Your son plays the wrong sport.

there is a committee meeting in a few weeks to discuss this from NCAA according to ESPN report yesterday.  They will discuss the ramifications and the response.  I think the problem is that it will be a bidders war for the top players in every sport.  The school that can pay the most will stack every team in every sport.  it is not just the boosters but the schools that will be able to pay players for their likeness and name.  I know it happens now but I think this in its present form will go unbound.  We can say Vandy and schools like it don't have an advantage right now but they do over most state schools because of scholarships offered.  This will give the ones with the most money a big advantage.  A kid gets hot this year and next year he gets an offer from X money school and transfers.  The best players will not take scholarships because they will get cash so that allows them to transfer easily.  I just think it opens the door for a pay to play system that can deteriorate more what is happening.  There has to be a happy medium.

Surely there will be an initial feeding frenzy, and then things will level out.  How much, honestly, can boosters be expected to pay?  What if you are a rich booster who "buys" a ton of players for your team, and they don't win the national championship (because the other teams are doing the same thing, someone gets injured, etc.)?  You are probably going to re-assess how much money you want to put into this.  Are coaches going to deal with the micro-managing that will go along with this (and it surely will), or will they fight back?  In fact, it might impact the smaller sports more than the larger:  one rich alum who happened to play, say, water polo could continually pay players for his/her team when most of the others don't have that support, and build a perpetual power.  Oh wait, doesn't that already happen?

Just thinking about all this in context of baseball....right now a stud high schooler can sign to play pro ball, collect millions of $ in a signing bonus, and if he’s that good start making endorsement deals. I get that it’s all different in football and basketball, but will this really impact baseball ? I think from a recruiting aspect the Vandys of the world already have an advantage over other schools that won’t change. I’m just not sure that a high schooler who would earn enough in college to make a difference vs going in the draft are all that numerous 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×