RebKell's Junkie Boards

[GlennMacGrady]

Zion Williamson’s Injury and the Injustice of College Sports

[linkster]

We are talking about maybe a dozen athletes among the hundreds of thousands of athletes in college. And it's a widely rumored that these players and their families are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars to sign.

The one thing I do object to is the NCAA using player's names and images.

[TechDawgMc]

[ClayK]

Since you brought it up ... here is my reform proposal that I sent to someone else just a day ago. It's too long, I know, and repetitive for those who've been on the board for a while, but it does put the pieces together, at least from my perspective.

-----------

As far as I can tell, the whole idea of amateurism developed in England in the late 19th century. A bunch of Cambridge/Oxford students wanted to have a boat race to prove their manliness, or whatever, and they wanted to crown a champion. Of course if the workingmen who rowed boats for a living were allowed to compete, they would trounce the college boys and defeat the whole purpose.

So it was decided that only "amateurs" could compete and "professionals" were not allowed.

My first question, then, is why that distinction should still exist? And as presently interpreted, it is basically designed to keep young, talented athletes from sharing in the wealth that their older co-workers and administrators now keep for themselves.

So what if we got rid of that distinction entirely, and let the market decide about who can play where and when and for how much? And let's extend that to the present college athletic structure ...

The free market reigns: I'm a high school quarterback with exceptional potential. I hire an agent, and colleges bid for my services (if I'm good enough, the pros get involved). I'm offered a variety of contracts, varying in salary and length, within the restrictions of four-year graduation, etc., and I choose the one I like the best. I may have an opt-out after two years that allows me to transfer, or one to let me turn pro, or maybe I commit for four years. The market decides ...

I'm the best female volleyball player in the country, and I have met the requirements for college admission. I get a few offers, and I take the best one. Most of my teammates get nothing, because their worth on the open market is basically zero. (Title IX restrictions can still apply, and scholarships are offered as they are now -- the money is over and above present benefits.)

So take Sabrina Ionescu. Coming out of high school, she would have signed a contract with Oregon, say, but since she wasn't expected to be as good as she is, maybe she signed for two years (or one), or whatever, with an opt-out. Since all scholarships are one-year agreements, that contract is not an issue, so if she didn't sign a contract at all, she could go on the open market whenever she wanted, either pro or college.

The bottom line, literally and figuratively, is that talent would be rewarded after negotiations, and colleges could choose to spend as much as they wanted to succeed (just as they do now). They could choose to focus on football, or maybe make a move into softball, investing a lot of money to create a powerhouse program that would give them free marketing.

And athletes would now have the freedom to decide their own futures, and be paid what they're worth -- which might be a lot or might be nothing.

The system would remain intact, so nothing would be lost -- the gain would be that the under-the-table payments, the arcane rules, etc., would be replaced by negotiations and publicly announced contracts.

Essentially, the acknowledgement is made that college sports are a business, even if they are loss leaders to create branding and increase market share, and that employees should be rewarded for their contributions to that business, just as they (presumably) are in the world at large.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[linkster]

[ClayK]

>If your daughter was a doctoral candidate and invented a cure for cancer the school she attended would own the patent. If she went to work for a major pharmaceutical Co and developed a cure for the cold the patent would belong to her employer.

Now this is an excellent point ... but the daughter could still get paid for her services in the same field outside of college without penalty, and could transfer without having to stay out of the lab for a year.

And certainly a contract between athlete and college could include, if the market supported it, a percentage of professional income for some specified amount of time.

Preserving a corrupt and broken collegiate athletic system doesn't seem to me to be that important, however.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[linkster]

[calbearman76]

The concept of amateurism from the Cambridge and Oxford days was intended to exclude "ringers." It is a concept that has been maintained in various forms through all types of competitions and, depending upon the perceived value of winning to the organizations, has also been the basis for bending the rules or outright cheating. This is quite different from other endeavors.

The problem we have with college sports (primarily football and men's basketball) is that the entire enterprise is no longer an adjunct to the primary basis of colleges (education) but rather a primary focus of many schools, or at least large segments of them. Men's college basketball and football at the 5 major conferences are not run as an adjunct to education. The vast majority of scholarship athletes would be unable to gain admission to their institution if it were not for their athletic ability.

All of the NCAA rules are designed as if they are played by "student-athletes," but this is not the case for the elite athletes. Some of the lesser athletes use the system to get an education, and that becomes the greater focus the further the potential for making money is in their sport. Duke is a wonderful institution of higher education, but Zion Williamson was not there for anything other than a basketball education. He was known to be a one-and-done athlete, only attending Duke for a year because he was barred from the NBA. He was never a student-athlete, he was an athlete who occasionally went to class.

I have no problem with the NCAA if it wants to try to regulate college sports in a spirit of fairness to the institutions. But the first rule has to be that the competition is between students, not wannabe athletes. Alternatively turn the sports into professional organizations sponsored by the schools.

[summertime blues]

The thing is, you're dealing with two whole different things here. You've got a small group of mostly male elite athletes who are using college as a one-and-done stepping stone to the pros. Then you have a larger group who are not doing the one-and-done but are still hoping to go pro, they just play college ball longer.Then you have a VERY MUCH larger group, comprising the so-called "lesser" athletes, the mid-major players, the D-ii and D-lll players, and almost *all* of the women, who are there to get an education and are using their skills to do so. it's hardly fair to pay those few elites. Also, there are a lot of other sports out there where there basically are no elite athletes.What about them?

_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

[Nixtreefan]

There are no easy answers but it is a shit show and I could see more going over seas and doing online courses for those who are actually interested in doing them.

_________________
"White privilege is unseen by white pompous asses"
Feelings, nothing more than feelings...