RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

The National Review channels Clay Kallam

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5519
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/24/19 7:56 pm    ::: The National Review channels Clay Kallam Reply Reply with quote

Zion Williamson’s Injury and the Injustice of College Sports

Quote:
The NCAA’s structure is fundamentally unjust . . . .


Quote:
The NCAA is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise that does not meaningfully compensate its workers. . . . If anything, in some important ways it treats its workers substantially worse than their student peers.


Quote:
Talented students in other university activities have no comparable limits on their earnings. The school can hire them at market rates. They can work off campus at market rates. They completely own their images and likenesses.


Quote:
Many of those kids [who don't make the pros] are being denied the one chance they’ll ever have to capitalize on their own athletic gifts.


Quote:
Just organizations do not reap billions of dollars from mainly poor kids and then grant them fewer rights and more obligations than their peers.
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 4006



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/24/19 10:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 255
Location: Temple, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/19 9:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
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.


Disagree. Almost every school has "local heroes". Those players could easily market themselves for decent, though minor, money in the local area. Kristy Wallace was extremely popular at Baylor, for instance. She probably could have done endorsement deals, etc. But, instead, the university and the NCAA pulls in big money while the players aren't allowed to do anything. My daughter plans to be a theater major. If she got a minor role in a broadway play, the school would talk about it for the next decade. Why shouldn't an athlete be able to use his/her current notoriety?

It's odd that the greed level seems so strong in these big time sports. It's not like they are for profit businesses (of course, a for-profit couldn't get away with their behavior). Granted, a few of the ADs and coaches are raking in big money, but it's more about just feeding the beast.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9661



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/19 11:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 4006



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/19 12:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TechDawgMc wrote:
linkster wrote:
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.


Disagree. Almost every school has "local heroes". Those players could easily market themselves for decent, though minor, money in the local area. Kristy Wallace was extremely popular at Baylor, for instance. She probably could have done endorsement deals, etc. But, instead, the university and the NCAA pulls in big money while the players aren't allowed to do anything. My daughter plans to be a theater major. If she got a minor role in a broadway play, the school would talk about it for the next decade. Why shouldn't an athlete be able to use his/her current notoriety?

It's odd that the greed level seems so strong in these big time sports. It's not like they are for profit businesses (of course, a for-profit couldn't get away with their behavior). Granted, a few of the ADs and coaches are raking in big money, but it's more about just feeding the beast.


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.
Athletes, in signing a letter of intent are knowingly committing to amateur athletics. Do you want to see college basketball reduced to how much of a signing bonus schools can afford to pay?

I'm not opposed to capitalism but allowing a handful of college athletes to get rich a year earlier than the current system allows isn't enough justification for opening up a can of worms when no one has any idea of it's unintended consequences.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9661



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/19 12:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

>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



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 4006



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/19 1:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
>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.


I'm not sure but I'd guess that any outside work while still a student would not be the student's property, much like in private industry. Thomas Edison is regarded as one of the greatest inventors in history and yet over 95% of "his" inventions were actually discovered by his employees.

While I agree that the system is corrupt and broken, what makes you think that this would end corruption? Why do you think that pro football and basketball have player drafts where the weak teams pick first and salary caps?

Wherever billions of dollars are available, corruption will be close by.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3627
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/19 4:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 5380
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/19 6:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2538



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/01/19 12:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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...
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin