That’s not the case I’m making at all, and if you would have read my posts earlier in this thread, you would know that.
Drew Peterson decommits from Minnesota
- Thread starter Kat burglar
- Start date
That’s not the case I’m making at all, and if you would have read my posts earlier in this thread, you would know that.
"It exhibits just how fortunate these guys are to be getting a full ride and left with no college debt."
This is your quote from the post that I responded to. It certainly sounds like it's part of a case you're making. These players are certainly extremely fortunate in winning the gene lottery to earn scholarships, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve more than that.
What's the other case that you're making? That this will only further promote the already significant built-in advantages that the haves enjoy? I wouldn't have expected you to be the one to make this argument either. Anyway, the same 10 schools already get the best 50 players out there. They will just continue to get the best 50 players when this rule change happens, just that the players will be paid a little more. I don't think the extra money will make the player play any better, so I honestly don't think much will change imo. If some booster out there with cash to burn wants to pay a teenager a hundred grand to make himself feel better by his school winning a couple more games, who's me (or the NCAA) to object?
And you are missing the point -- this is America, a supposedly free society where one is able to make money off of one's own image and likeness if they so desire to do so. The collegiate athletics I used to love hasn't existed for about 30 years -- ever since kids started going directly to the NBA out of high school, and then when they started the one-and-done routine. I loved college basketball back in the 1980s, when most kids stayed at the same school for 4 years, and you built rivalries over the years like Georgetown with Ewing and Co. vs. St. John's with Chris Mullin and company. Four years of anger and hostility built up, playing three times a season. College basketball today is a lot like the NFL -- rooting for the laundry, with high roster turnover every year. There is really nothing special about NCAA basketball anymore. So why not let the kids who play it and generate all the income get a piece?
I totally agree. It’s bad. But that doesn’t mean I want it to get worse. I prefer my amateur sports to be “amateur”.
You're in denial if you think the revenue sports is amateurism.
Many college coaches make more than their professional counterparts.
Strength & conditioning coaches are now earning 7-figure salaries.
Yep, I don’t see this getting abused at all...
How does this get abused?
There is a bidding war by boosters for the best "amateur" players? Who exactly gets hurt in the process? How does this affect you?
All the schools that can’t compete because they can’t pony up enough money for a recruit in an amateur sport. I feel like I keep having to repeat myself over and over.
At least you’re admitting what will happen.
Eh in other words, the same schools that already can't compete when the players aren't getting paid? The blue-bloods will get the best players whether they're paid or not, they're blue-bloods because they have the biggest support (biggest stash).
Moreover, if someone like PBJ really wants to come to NU but can't because some other school is offering 500k, I'm pretty sure some NU booster will be willing to pay that bill to keep him.
That’s just denial. There were repeatedly Cinderella stories in D1 basketball by mid and low majors, and the gap was getting even smaller because they players could be on tv regardless of who they played for. Not it’ll just be a literal bidding war between the P5. It really surprises me that what you want.
So in all those Cinderella teams, name a single top 10 recruit (top 50 for that matter) that would have been bid away by the big schools had they had a chance to do so.
Is this top 50 enough for you?
https://www.midmajormadness.com/201...ssey-commitment-rick-stansbury-conference-usa
You think Sam Merrill would be at Utah State if hundreds of thousands of dollars were available elsewhere?
Last edited:
Sam Merrill was a nice player coming out of high school who grew up going to Utah State games — and who was going on a two-year LDS mission first. It’s unlikely he would have been the subject of a bidding war, but who is to say a Utah State booster would not have offered him an endorsement opportunity? Good LDS kid with local roots, I could see him selling milk and ice cream in the Cache Valley.
If transferring without sitting a year becomes allowed, these guys will be flying around all over (chasing “endorsement money”) so fast our heads will spin. D1 sports really is starting to suck.
They’re already flying around. Over 1,000 kids in the portal. Rooting for the laundry. It will get worse if there is no one-year layover. But that is the price you pay to give the athletes the freedom they deserve. No athletes, no games, no money. But you’re right — I enjoyed college basketball much more in the good, old days. But those days ain’t ever coming back.
It’s amateur sports. Money has nothing to do with “freedom”. Geez. 2 players from the top 20 of the 2019 class went pro out of high school. THEY exercised their freedom.
Well allowing them to professional is a step in the right direction . However, your argument losses all steam when their are restrictions that don’t allow players to play in highest level league in the world. I repeat a kid can NOT play in the NBA or NFL out if HS. It is not an option, end of story. The pro option is basketball is the D league. Team salary caps at $1.4 million. Not player cap. There is a de facto cap on earnings potential. You can go overseas to make more, but why not let any graduated HS player get drafted?
Football is a joke. Please name me an option for a HS player besides college? Trevor Lawrence could have made millions right out of HS. Instead he makes millions for Clemson and the ACC and NCAA. college football balance of power will hardly shift as it currently has nothing that remotely resembles parity. The amateur athletics you hold dear has been overseen by a corrupt organization that has always turned a blind eye to rules if it meant they made more money. They have to give up something to keep the golden goose.
Still trying to figure out why we have to guard the virginity of athletes from the threat they might make some money off their own image or likeness. Olympic athletes all subsidize their training and lifestyles with endorsements now. They don’t seem any less pure on the medal stand.
If you would have taken the time to read any of my previous posts, you would have to try and “figure it out”. But I get it, you don’t like the college game anymore, so you really don’t care that it simply becomes a bidding war.
I want to make a couple points.
It's interesting you bring up Bassey. WKU was able to "hire" the services of Bassey by paying his legal guardian for an assistant coach position. That's after months of speculation that Bowling Green was the front runner to "hire" both of them. So paying a couple hundred grand never deterred these smaller schools, kind of proves my point?
Sam Merrill was not a blue-chip recruit. No booster would have paid for his services.
Lastly, I thought we were talking about the Cinderella teams? As far as I can remember, the Cinderella teams were composed of lightly recruited diamond in the roughs that stayed 3-4 years to develop, not the blue-chips that schools have paid for.
It's no coincidence that it started in 2019 with the Australian Next Stars program. NBA also finally decided to chip in and make playing in the G League a viable option. It's great that those that don't want to play school, no longer act like they have to.
With whatever went on in Kansas with the Nike/Adidas boosters and what I mentioned above with the Bassey situation, it would be naive to think something like this doesn't happen already. I think it'd be net beneficial to at least get it out on the open. I don't know, maybe this change even benefits NU, who probably wasn't willing to skirt the rules before.
Well first of all I’m not convinced allowing athletes to earn endorsement money is going to lead to bidding wars. There are very few athletes coming out of high school with kind of cache. Secondly many high level prospects are now going to Europe or the G League right out of high school. So if money is their main motivation, they’re gone anyway. Third, the few “Cinderella” teams we see like Loyola and others aren’t built largely with four and five star recruits — the kind of kids who would be most likely to get endorsements deals. So yes I’ve read your posts, but I think you are very wedded to an apocalyptic scenario that’s not all that feasible.
I agree that basketball is starting to fix its problem on its own with changes to the G League and the more plausibly available option of playing professionally overseas directly out of high school. We're finally getting to the point where top high school players don't have to pretend they want to go to school for one year and now people want to make a radical change to the way college sports has worked?
IMHO, the problem is substantially caused looking forward because the NFL is using college football as its minor leagues. It's interesting that people want to fix the problem created by the NFL by changing college sports instead of forcing the NFL to adapt and make the necessary changes. Why can't the NFL have its own farm system like most other major sports do?
Get rid of the artificial barriers to athletes exercising their options directly out of HS. Provide a small percentage of revenue generated from media contracts for stipends and after college accounts for revenue generating sports. But, don't fundamentally change all of college athletics exactly when one of the big problems (basketball) is having a perfect market generated response to the problem.
I read an interesting article in the Athletic today quoting several agents and sports marketers on this topic. They said the money for most college athletes won’t be coming from endorsing products or businesses but rather from monetizing social media sites. They used a good example of a former walk-on to Ohio State’s basketball team who was authoring a popular podcast. Somebody created a t-shirt that he sold in conjunction with the podcast and he made $50,000 — all of which had to go to charity. One marketer estimated the OSU QB, based on his social media followers, could probably make about $300 K through monetizing his social media sites. Which he’ll be able to keep if they change the rules.
Instead of radically changing the rules of college athletics, why don't they change the rules of professional athletics so that he can be a professional football player directly out of high school and he can develop the skill that he is most focused on in the best possible environment for that development?
Because the NFL and the NCAA doesn’t want it. It costs money that the NFL would have to supplement. The proposed change to the college system costs them nothing. It is all supported by the private sector.
Right. The NBA and NFL rules require changes to the CBA for each league. Which isn’t going to happen.
The NFL isn't the private sector? I get that the NFL would rather have someone else pay for their minor league system. I don't get why people think that's a valid reason for fundamentally changing college athletics.
Besides which, there's pretty much no such thing as an 18-yr. old who's physically ready to play in the NFL.
College athletics were fundamentally changed when the Supreme Court ruled everybody could have their own TV deal. It’s only taken the NCAA 40 years to adjust its rules so the athletes who generate all that income can at least monetize their own image and likeness — at no cost to the schools.
There are very few 18-year olds who are physically ready to play in many sports. That doesn't stop the sports from setting up developmental leagues and programs that fit their physical development and are appropriate for them to play in professionally. Why is the NFL exempt from needing to pay for its own farm system?
The NCAA has been "adjusting" its rules for the last 40 years. What you're talking about now is a massive change that is far past "adjusting". Why change this rule instead of the NFL footing the bill for its own developmental program and allowing athletes who don't want to pretend to go to school to be professionals?
The NFL has zero incentive to develop a minor league. The get a free farm system from the NCAA. Universities have zero incentive to support a developmental league. The schools are happy as a pig in slop to get the premier players on campus and gleefully collect the TV revenue.
Why buy something you can get for free? Everyone makes money except the 85 doing the hard labor. I know you don’t care for it, but I am not sure why it is difficult to understand that basically NO ONE wants a developmental football league and therefore it is not about to happen. There is a reason the NCAA isn’t fighting this proposal. You don’t kill the golden goose!
Why have collegiate athletics? Are they central to the core mission of a university (teaching,research, service)? Why not go to the European system if club teams, and relieve schools of the burden of managing athletics in the first place?
PS—Let’s take your idea of a developmental football league to its logical conclusion. Let’s say the top 25 percent of college football players choose to go to the developmental league. You don’t think that will have a DRAMATIC impact on the quality of NCAA football and the interest in college football? It would have much more impact than letting kids monetize their social media accounts.
Last edited:
Actually, I don't think it would have as big an impact as you. People root for their school much more than for specific players. Take away the top players and I bet the SEC fans will still be as rabid as ever. College football and basketball are all about nostalgia, supporting the school you went to or for those that didn't go to college the one you family has always supported. The quality of NCAA hoops is much worse than the NBA yet I bet the NCAA ratings are higher through the season even before you factor in the boon that is March Madness. So while the quality would indeed suffer, I don't think that viewership/attendance would suffer proportionally.
Similar threads
