Interesting read.
This proposed 'fix' doesn't bode well for baseball and many other sports.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...1778/7/index.htm#top
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Fortunately, most people understand that the people writing and editing for Sports Illustrated are mostly idiots. What a total waste of time and space.
For a student that has full tuition/room/board - $1,000 tax free per month covers a whole lot of "incidentals". I wish I had $1000 per month for incidentals....
The entitlement mentality lives on.
The entitlement mentality lives on.
Just a heads up the article starts on page 7. It took me a while to figure that out.
I'm really tore on the issue. On one hand they are being "paid" with free room / board, books, meal plans, medical coverage, clothing and all kinds of other stuff. The other hand is they do bring in a ton of money for the school and there are the rules that prohibit them from holding down jobs to get money to live on.
I think before we start paying players and destroying the non-revenue sports the NCAA needs to look over their rule book and try to find ways to allow these kids to do some sort of work to earn money.
I'm really tore on the issue. On one hand they are being "paid" with free room / board, books, meal plans, medical coverage, clothing and all kinds of other stuff. The other hand is they do bring in a ton of money for the school and there are the rules that prohibit them from holding down jobs to get money to live on.
I think before we start paying players and destroying the non-revenue sports the NCAA needs to look over their rule book and try to find ways to allow these kids to do some sort of work to earn money.
Interesting, but TOTALLY unrealistic, article. It would not bode well IF it had ANY chance of happening.
quote:Originally posted by ctandc:
Interesting read.
This proposed 'fix' doesn't bode well for baseball and many other sports.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...1778/7/index.htm#top
quote:The other hand is they do bring in a ton of money for the school and there are the rules that prohibit them from holding down jobs to get money to live on.
What rules are these? I knew several athletes who held jobs while they were student-athletes.
Showing my age. That used to be the rule but it's been since changed. My bad on that one.
Entitlement my fat behind. College athletes work their tales off. They deserve every penny they get and then some. Your son may have a different experience at West Point, but for the most part there is no such thing as a TRUE full ride athletically, and very few TRUE full rides academically.
quote:Originally posted by YesReally:
.....The entitlement mentality lives on.
I had to laugh at the $1000 a month figure some think they deserve. "yeah, for my cell phone, car, beer, concerts..." 
Wasn't saying I agree. I just thought it interesting that some people think that way.
What is noteworthy isn't the credibility of SI or this fix, but that at last a whole bunch of attention is aimed at what is really going on with the NCAA. More press, more people looking into it, more pressure to make changes.
Any change would probably be welcomed and at least a baby step in the right direction towards adding some balance in favor of the athlete!
SI did enlist the help of some notable professionals in developing the article to at least see if it were feasible from tax, accounting and legal perspectives.
Any change would probably be welcomed and at least a baby step in the right direction towards adding some balance in favor of the athlete!
SI did enlist the help of some notable professionals in developing the article to at least see if it were feasible from tax, accounting and legal perspectives.
Well the article mentions the coming changes / restrictions as far as academics and admissions that they infer will already make a great impact on College Football / Basketball...what they consider the "Revenue generating college sports".
I wonder if this impact, in reality, will be significant?
I wonder if this impact, in reality, will be significant?
Why can't they make $$ off sales of their own jersey?
It is hard to give this "model" any consideration when it says:
"Once freed of those mandates, athletic departments could demote any men's sport that was unable to break even to club status.
This is the most controversial part of SI's model and for good reason: It could mean the death of every men's sport other than football and basketball."
Is it feasible? Sure. Idiotic, but feasible. Eliminate everything but football and basket ball and it's feasible. I'm not sure why we're wasting bandwith on this article.
"Once freed of those mandates, athletic departments could demote any men's sport that was unable to break even to club status.
This is the most controversial part of SI's model and for good reason: It could mean the death of every men's sport other than football and basketball."
Is it feasible? Sure. Idiotic, but feasible. Eliminate everything but football and basket ball and it's feasible. I'm not sure why we're wasting bandwith on this article.
quote:Originally posted by Prime9:
What is noteworthy isn't the credibility of SI or this fix, but that at last a whole bunch of attention is aimed at what is really going on with the NCAA. More press, more people looking into it, more pressure to make changes.
Any change would probably be welcomed and at least a baby step in the right direction towards adding some balance in favor of the athlete!
SI did enlist the help of some notable professionals in developing the article to at least see if it were feasible from tax, accounting and legal perspectives.