Antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA

I don't imagine any stars would stick around just for a pittance at college. They couldn't pay them enough. Plus, let's look at the Title IX implications. A school is not going to be able to pay the quarterback $500,000 and the field hockey star $200. The lawsuits will come flying in a hurry, and the schools know it.

I'm not against paying players in theory, but it will "ruin" (not my term, but OK) college sports in that the whole enterprise rests upon the conceit that these are sports designed for students, as if they were drawn from the general populace. Of course, it's not that way, and probably never has been. Also, the reason the power conferences haven't just bolted or tried to crush completely the small schools is that they know that to keep fan enthusiasm up -- especially for the NCAA men's basketball tournament -- there needs to be the conceit that a little guy has a chance.

The reason the NFL doesn't set up a minor league -- and that the NBA only did so recently -- is that college sports are a great deal for them. They develop the talent AND give it a known name so that shine can transfer into the pro leagues with nary a coaching and marketing finger lifted. The NFL and NBA don't have to pay the bulk of development costs, either, or the cost of running teams that don't draw nearly what a college team would. The NBA finally did a D-league mostly because with players going straight from high school or one-and-done, it actually was losing out on development.

Plus, the college name is a big draw for fans. People in Indiana might attend a Fort Wayne Mad Ants game, but they're going to love Indiana or Purdue.

 

I enjoy college basketball. (I personally like it more than the NFL.) But if we must do without March Madness, ok., we do without it. But I don't understand the logic behind the theory that we'd have no collegiate sports if players were fairly compensated for the revenue they generate.

If stars stick around now, why wouldn't they stick around if they were better compensated?

Professional collegiate sports would still be a great deal for the NFL and NBA.

The only difference involved is that the athletes would be compensated for the work they perform.

Customers might perceive the product even better knowing that the athletes are treated fairly.

 

You don't understand it because it's a sky is falling bullshit argument.

There will be college sports, it may be a bit different but there will always be college sports.

 

Somebody forgot the blue font.

 

I agree with a lot of you guys here. I enjoy March Madness but I'd get over it. It sickens me to see so many people profit off the NCAA tourney, and not the players. It bewilders me.

 

If Title IX is such an obstacle, then perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to amend Title IX.

 

Current college sports customers don't give a shit how these players are treated. They're supposed to be playing for the glory of ol' State U. They're going to be a lot more bothered that the professionalism is out in the open.

 

Do you really think fans would care? Did they care when the Olympics ended the amateurism requirement? I would guess that most fans, though they are mostly indifferent, would consider amateurism an anachronism. I can't imagine that anyone would give a shit that the quarterback is getting a paycheck. They all did work studies.

 

To allow for discriminatory activity at a federally funded educational institution? I doubt it.

I'm not against players seeking compensation. That's why I say let athletes get unlimited outside income. Local dealer wants to give them a car? Great. Players want to do endorsements? Awesome. Local bank president wants to give $1,000 bonuses? Wonderful. If you want to maintain college sports as you know them, that has the best chance of doing so.

 

UK basketball fans *really* think all the freshman are playing for the glory of Kentucky?

Even for delusional college fans, that is highly doubtful.

 

This is perfectly on target. We heard the exact same thing about Olympic amateurism, and it turned out the only people in the world who cared about keeping the athletes down were their IOC dictator overlords.

 

I'd have to look at how the law is worded, but it seems like you can amend it so this doesn't qualify as discrimination. Football and field hockey, for example, are clearly distinguishable activities. The football team would also, theoretically, be paid more than the men's swimming team. Separate activities, separate circumstances.