F the NCAA

[PhDhawk]

I mean, shit, most jobs your health insurance doesn't kick in for 90 days after you've started.

To me, that's a bigger problem than not letting a college freshman sign a shoe deal if he decides to enroll in college.

[CrimsonNBlue]

In this case we're talking about deferring income for 9 months.

That's not even a thing. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

Does it include backpay?

Again, I think you are well intentioned, I just see that it only negatively affects the freshmen, and I'm not in favor of that considering they're committing no wrongs outside of just being freshmen.


Perhaps maybe the tampering and hush-hush of money exchange that exists now would be more regulated if it is brought up from under the table.

It's not a negative to freshmen, it's a positive to college student athletes.

I mean, rookie pay scale is longer and more limiting restriction to a player's earning potential than making them finish two semesters of school before becoming a shoe endorser.

I'm not sure that, along with compensating student athletes, there's a notion it has to be with no strings attached and exist in the wild west. That's not the case for almost anyone getting a job anywhere.

Well, it's better than nothing. I don't like the restriction, because I still don't see the benefit for freshmen unless they are allowed to get that back compensation later. I'm not arguing there aren't similar examples out there, it's that I'd probably also disagree with those.

The rookie pay scales, btw, are also bullshit.

[pdub]

That is, again, for a very select few basketball athletes, say 30-50 a year, that have no use for a college education ( though I still argue it's worth something even to them, more than we realize ). If they'd be able to enter the league or the G league would be more enticing or they left for Europe, your insulin analogy is moot.

[pdub]

Again, if left completely free market, college would be bidding for four years of players to stay and play in college instead of going league.

[TDub]

Does it include backpay?

Again, I think you are well intentioned, I just see that it only negatively affects the freshmen, and I'm not in favor of that considering they're committing no wrongs outside of just being freshmen.


Perhaps maybe the tampering and hush-hush of money exchange that exists now would be more regulated if it is brought up from under the table.

It's not a negative to freshmen, it's a positive to college student athletes.

I mean, rookie pay scale is longer and more limiting restriction to a player's earning potential than making them finish two semesters of school before becoming a shoe endorser.

I'm not sure that, along with compensating student athletes, there's a notion it has to be with no strings attached and exist in the wild west. That's not the case for almost anyone getting a job anywhere.

Well, it's better than nothing. I don't like the restriction, because I still don't see the benefit for freshmen unless they are allowed to get that back compensation later. I'm not arguing there aren't similar examples out there, it's that I'd probably also disagree with those.

The rookie pay scales, btw, are also bullshit.

My god. The first 30 picks get 1.6 mil or more the first year. What is it you want?? Good grief.

[pdub]

Its not fair!!

[PhDhawk]

School I went to gave out very few, some sports none, full rides for athletic scholarships. IIRC football could give out 10 while men's and women's basketball could each give 2. You had players getting 30% scholarships still being prohibited by NCAA rules from having summer jobs.

I'm not defending the NCAA. My point is that we're grossly undervaluing the worth of a scholarship. The % of student athletes getting them isn't what's relevant. What is relevant is that, compared to taking out student loans and paying off school with interest, a full ride is probably worth about a half million bucks over 4-5 years.

But we are now again confusing cost with value.

If KU Med implants me with an insulin pump for free, I am sure it would have saved me nearly 5 figures in surgery and device cost, but I am not diabetic, so what the hell value am I getting?

Your analogy doesn't work.

A college education has intrinsic value whether you use it for financial gain or not,

and

You avoid the debt. People who don't need implanted devices don't get them. Lots of people go to college who don't need it for their chosen career. And if there were no athletic scholarships, many of them would be those who are currently student athletes. If there's no college football, most of the KU players on scholarship wouldn't go pro, or semi-pro...they'd get a job, or go to college instead.

[CrimsonNBlue]

It's not a negative to freshmen, it's a positive to college student athletes.

I mean, rookie pay scale is longer and more limiting restriction to a player's earning potential than making them finish two semesters of school before becoming a shoe endorser.

I'm not sure that, along with compensating student athletes, there's a notion it has to be with no strings attached and exist in the wild west. That's not the case for almost anyone getting a job anywhere.

Well, it's better than nothing. I don't like the restriction, because I still don't see the benefit for freshmen unless they are allowed to get that back compensation later. I'm not arguing there aren't similar examples out there, it's that I'd probably also disagree with those.

The rookie pay scales, btw, are also bullshit.

My god. The first 30 picks get 1.6 mil or more the first year. What is it you want?? Good grief.

Less restrictions. The pay scales only benefit one party.

We are talking about a place where some employees make $40,000,000 and the owner is worth $76,500,000,000, so our middle class view of 1.6 million is not in the right context.

[TDub]

Its insane what people believe is fair. Good god. That 1 point might have killed me listening to the rest of CnBs arguments because that is such a ridiculous demand.

[PhDhawk]

Does it include backpay?

Again, I think you are well intentioned, I just see that it only negatively affects the freshmen, and I'm not in favor of that considering they're committing no wrongs outside of just being freshmen.


Perhaps maybe the tampering and hush-hush of money exchange that exists now would be more regulated if it is brought up from under the table.

It's not a negative to freshmen, it's a positive to college student athletes.

I mean, rookie pay scale is longer and more limiting restriction to a player's earning potential than making them finish two semesters of school before becoming a shoe endorser.

I'm not sure that, along with compensating student athletes, there's a notion it has to be with no strings attached and exist in the wild west. That's not the case for almost anyone getting a job anywhere.

Well, it's better than nothing. I don't like the restriction, because I still don't see the benefit for freshmen unless they are allowed to get that back compensation later. I'm not arguing there aren't similar examples out there, it's that I'd probably also disagree with those.

The rookie pay scales, btw, are also bullshit.

Again, this all comes down to perspective. You're looking at this through the narrow perspective of earning money.

To me, there's so much more outside of monetary gain, that's offered by colleges/Universities, and you need to largely ignore them for your argument to work.

[pdub]

It is absolutely in the right context.
Forgive me if I dont find injustice in a 20 year old making more money in a year putting a basketball in a hoop than 90 percent of the world will make in their lifetimes.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I'm not defending the NCAA. My point is that we're grossly undervaluing the worth of a scholarship. The % of student athletes getting them isn't what's relevant. What is relevant is that, compared to taking out student loans and paying off school with interest, a full ride is probably worth about a half million bucks over 4-5 years.

But we are now again confusing cost with value.

If KU Med implants me with an insulin pump for free, I am sure it would have saved me nearly 5 figures in surgery and device cost, but I am not diabetic, so what the hell value am I getting?

Your analogy doesn't work.

A college education has intrinsic value whether you use it for financial gain or not,

and

You avoid the debt. People who don't need implanted devices don't get them. Lots of people go to college who don't need it for their chosen career. And if there were no athletic scholarships, many of them would be those who are currently student athletes. If there's no college football, most of the KU players on scholarship wouldn't go pro, or semi-pro...they'd get a job, or go to college instead.

I was merely illustrating value vs. cost, not trying to analogize the two situations--it is just the first thing that came to my head.

I am also not merely talking about financial gain. The larger point is that we have a collective group of like minded people (the schools) thinking they get to decide the value of something for each individual and they largely think the same. There's just a large part of the world where someone's bachelor degree isn't worth the heavy paper it is printed on. The fact that a bachelor's degree has proven to be valuable for me is something that was largely decided through my own privilege. There are millions like me, but millions not like me.

[pdub]

In the US, a person with a bachelor's earns 1.3 million dollars more over an average career than a person without one.

[Deleted User 863]

The schools coaches and sponsors can't seem to operate within the rules. Our program right at the top of the list. That's a big problem.

[CrimsonNBlue]

It's not a negative to freshmen, it's a positive to college student athletes.

I mean, rookie pay scale is longer and more limiting restriction to a player's earning potential than making them finish two semesters of school before becoming a shoe endorser.

I'm not sure that, along with compensating student athletes, there's a notion it has to be with no strings attached and exist in the wild west. That's not the case for almost anyone getting a job anywhere.

Well, it's better than nothing. I don't like the restriction, because I still don't see the benefit for freshmen unless they are allowed to get that back compensation later. I'm not arguing there aren't similar examples out there, it's that I'd probably also disagree with those.

The rookie pay scales, btw, are also bullshit.

Again, this all comes down to perspective. You're looking at this through the narrow perspective of earning money.

To me, there's so much more outside of monetary gain, that's offered by colleges/Universities, and you need to largely ignore them for your argument to work.

That's fine, and for the sake of arguendo, I will acknowledge value beyond financial gain.

I do think, though, that if these billion dollar schools are going to recruit and contract with players to represent them, compete in extracurriculars for them (and make money for them), the attendance costs, room & board are the bare minimum requirements, not the sharing of profits. I'd feel the same if there was money in debate team.

[PhDhawk]

But we are now again confusing cost with value.

If KU Med implants me with an insulin pump for free, I am sure it would have saved me nearly 5 figures in surgery and device cost, but I am not diabetic, so what the hell value am I getting?

Your analogy doesn't work.

A college education has intrinsic value whether you use it for financial gain or not,

and

You avoid the debt. People who don't need implanted devices don't get them. Lots of people go to college who don't need it for their chosen career. And if there were no athletic scholarships, many of them would be those who are currently student athletes. If there's no college football, most of the KU players on scholarship wouldn't go pro, or semi-pro...they'd get a job, or go to college instead.

I was merely illustrating value vs. cost, not trying to analogize the two situations--it is just the first thing that came to my head.

I am also not merely talking about financial gain. The larger point is that we have a collective group of like minded people (the schools) thinking they get to decide the value of something for each individual and they largely think the same. There's just a large part of the world where someone's bachelor degree isn't worth the heavy paper it is printed on. The fact that a bachelor's degree has proven to be valuable for me is something that was largely decided through my own privilege. There are millions like me, but millions not like me.

Who a college degree is right for and who it's not right for is a different conversation.

In both cases, if you went to college and paid for it yourself or with student loans, you're looking at ~$200,000 dollars on average.

If a student athlete goes to college for 4-5 years and then goes on to become a lawyer, or goes on to be a landscaper, doesn't change the fact that by going to college for free he dodged having to pay $200,000.

[ousdahl]

If left unrestricted, you will have college teams trying to outbid the NBA for four years.

Blech.
No thanks.

Is anyone really proposing this, though? That the teams/schools themselves get to pay players.

It seems more so that they can just pursue opportunities outside of that, without the ncaa prohibiting it.

Whether a men’s hoops player can get a few bucks to do a shoe ad, or whether a women’s volleyball player can post vids of her…I digress, but the point is, that shit already goes down. Legitimately for every college kid who gets the opportunity besides student athletes; illegitimately for the student athletes.

I don’t think casting light on a black market is gonna compromise the product for fans.

Or if it is, then please tell us all about how you quit paying attention to college sports when they put a swoosh logo on jerseys, and/or when Self got his own burrito.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Your analogy doesn't work.

A college education has intrinsic value whether you use it for financial gain or not,

and

You avoid the debt. People who don't need implanted devices don't get them. Lots of people go to college who don't need it for their chosen career. And if there were no athletic scholarships, many of them would be those who are currently student athletes. If there's no college football, most of the KU players on scholarship wouldn't go pro, or semi-pro...they'd get a job, or go to college instead.

I was merely illustrating value vs. cost, not trying to analogize the two situations--it is just the first thing that came to my head.

I am also not merely talking about financial gain. The larger point is that we have a collective group of like minded people (the schools) thinking they get to decide the value of something for each individual and they largely think the same. There's just a large part of the world where someone's bachelor degree isn't worth the heavy paper it is printed on. The fact that a bachelor's degree has proven to be valuable for me is something that was largely decided through my own privilege. There are millions like me, but millions not like me.

Who a college degree is right for and who it's not right for is a different conversation.

In both cases, if you went to college and paid for it yourself or with student loans, you're looking at ~$200,000 dollars on average.

If a student athlete goes to college for 4-5 years and then goes on to become a lawyer, or goes on to be a landscaper, doesn't change the fact that by going to college for free he dodged having to pay $200,000.

See above post: is the deal really "come play basketball for us, we will save you $200,000 in student debt?" The alternatives avoid that road altogether. I think it again is trying to mark the cost of education as the value of a degree.

And, again, there is some value in a degree, but why should that preclude anything on top? Who decides that and why that amount is enough?

[PhDhawk]

Well, it's better than nothing. I don't like the restriction, because I still don't see the benefit for freshmen unless they are allowed to get that back compensation later. I'm not arguing there aren't similar examples out there, it's that I'd probably also disagree with those.

The rookie pay scales, btw, are also bullshit.

Again, this all comes down to perspective. You're looking at this through the narrow perspective of earning money.

To me, there's so much more outside of monetary gain, that's offered by colleges/Universities, and you need to largely ignore them for your argument to work.

That's fine, and for the sake of arguendo, I will acknowledge value beyond financial gain.

I do think, though, that if these billion dollar schools are going to recruit and contract with players to represent them, compete in extracurriculars for them (and make money for them), the attendance costs, room & board are the bare minimum requirements, not the sharing of profits. I'd feel the same if there was money in debate team.

I dunno.

My research during grad school resulted in a 4 year $2 million dollar grant. I don't feel cheated that I only got paid a stipend that was about equal with the poverty line. I got a job at Yale Med School from it, it helped me get an NIH fellowship, I got several publications, I went to meetings in Sorrento Italy, Quebec City, and Cold Spring Harbor to present my research. I wouldn't be a professor now, if it weren't for that.

From most standpoints I got ripped off, I got <5% of the funding I generated. But, I don't feel that way. When I look at our players, many who were mediocre, who have jobs as coaches, analysts, scouts, etc. It's hard for me to buy in that they were exploited or didn't get anything out of it.

[ousdahl]

This has been mentioned before, but don’t student athletes often pursue liberal arts degrees that, in any other thread, folks would be faulting them for pursuing cuz yall can’t get a job with them!