1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why College Sports is a Scam No. 101...

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by qtlaw, Aug 24, 2016.

  1. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    The best way to do it is to have each athlete receive a stipend from the school on top of the scholarship for expenses, which the NCAA is finally, begrudgingly, dragged kicking and screaming by the courts into permitting.

    Then allow athletes to seek money on their own through their own through private means, whether that means their own sneaker deals, doing commercials for a local auto dealer, etc. The third string kicker won't get much, but the star quarterback will get his market value.
     
  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    The fact that you're the biggest critic of the current situation, and also offer up the dumbest fix for it, fascinates me.
     
  3. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    What is so dumb about my idea? Big East commissioner Val Ackerman even said the NCAA is considering allowing endorsements.
     
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Ok. Great. Which doesn't explain why you still want to set the salary they would receive from the school.

    They still would not be receiving market value.

    But, of course, I know why you refuse to support a free market: you don't want to blow up a system you actually enjoy.

    So, like with the WWE, you're a hypocrite, but find a way to justify it.
     
  5. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    You really are clueless, aren't you? I've posted on here for years that I'd like to see the system as it currently stands blown up.

    The issue, though, is that the colleges are still educational institutions, bound by Title IX, and the athletes are still college students. There would be the concern that college would, for example, pay the star men's basketball player more than the star women's basketball player. This way, the athletes would not be receiving a salary. They would be receiving a stipend as part of their scholarships. They would all be treated equally by the school.

    Private businesses and individuals are not bound by Title IX. They could pay the athletes what they wish. Then the athletes could earn their market value.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
  6. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

  7. SpeedTchr

    SpeedTchr Well-Known Member

    If you want to be a fucking professional athlete, be a fucking professional athlete. I am hardly a supporter of the status quo.

    I would love to see college football and basketball blown to shit, pushed off campus, and into the minor leagues where they belong. Let the NFL and NBA play for their own damn development systems. Then, if a kid wants to get a degree AND be a pro athlete, he can pick a school and do whatever he wants on his own dime.
     
  8. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Schools don't have to pay them shit. But they sure as hell shouldn't bloody well own them. They should be free to make money of their own name and hold "jobs".
     
  9. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    The reason these rules HAVE to be in place isn't necessarily because of not wanting to pay the student-athletes.

    It's because the schools, athletic departments and the boosters can't be trusted. At all.

    Jock-sniffing car dealerships have long had those summer jobs of washing or delivering cars for star athletes for $30 an hour.

    If student-athletes become free to transfer at each year or each semester without penalty, the post game handshakes will take longer than the damn games. Every unhappy player will be shopping around his services and every coach pissed off when he loses would be trying to lure the very players who just beat him.

    Add in relaxed restrictions on paying players and that begs for fixing games to creep in as well.

    Think it's bad now? This would make the Southwest Conference of 1982 look like a fantasy football draft with a $25 entry fee.
     
  10. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Wouldn't players be more apt to fix games now because they're not (or at least before the stipends were instituted) getting paid? They would have needed the money, as opposed to just wanting it if they were getting money.

    Besides, we're already getting the free-for-all now when it comes to coaches leaving left and right. Contracts are meaningless.

    Plus the NCAA and schools may be getting stuck with the scenario you described fairly soon with the Kessler lawsuit trial looming. While it might be a few years as it winds its way through the court system with appeals, if the NCAA loses, at some point they would need to come up with a palatable system where players get their market value, yet are not jumping from team to team each year. Otherwise, if they lose the case, the NCAA and schools may be looking at college athletes being free agents.
     
  11. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    These conversations always baffle me. Everyone with an opinion about whether someone else "should" get paid or how much they should get paid or under what circumstances. How would you feel if I stepped into your life and decided that my arbitrary sensibilities should determine the value or lack of value you offer (or how much you can command) with regard to an agreement you want to enter with someone else?

    Athletes SHOULD get paid IF they have leverage that makes them valuable enough to someone else, and IF they know how to exercise that leverage (and are not prevented from exercising it). How much any one player commands isn't that complicated. Same as how much anyone commands for a service isn't that complicated. The answer should be, "whatever someone else is willing to pay him / he's able to extract from them." It's just like everything else in life. Parties to an agreement are perfectly capable of determining for themselves how much they want and how much they are willing to offer. If they come to some sort of an agreement, it shouldn't be my business.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page