PonyFans.com

SMU Section F wrote:The NCAA has its problems. Their rulebooks should be cut down by a factor of 10 (at least).

That said, the real problem is that prospective athletes are "forced" to play college football/basketball by the professional leagues. If you can cut it in the pro leagues, you should be allowed to play there. If you can't, then a scholarship sure seems like a good deal. The only player I'd feel bad for is the one that could make money, but isn't allowed to due to arbitrary age limits.

There is a lot of money being made in college sports though and it seems very little of it goes to the groups "earning" it, so I would be far more interested in hearing about suggestions for distributing that in a way that better reflects the supposed non-profit status of most of the organizations involved. I have no ideas though, because this is not my area at all.

And I agree with most who say this will go nowhere due to Title IX, unionization issues, public/private, etc. Things may change, but this won't be it.

If you don't want to attend college and play college sports, and you're good enough, you can go play in Europe for bball or the CFL for football. No one is putting a gun to these kids' heads and forcing them to play college sports

East Coast Mustang wrote:

SMU Section F wrote:...

If you don't want to attend college and play college sports, and you're good enough, you can go play in Europe for bball or the CFL for football. No one is putting a gun to these kids' heads and forcing them to play college sports

Fair point.

As basketball keeps gaining traction in Europe, I fully expect to see it happen more. I'm honestly really surprised it doesn't already happen a lot more. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because there are fewer kids ready to play professional ball straight out of high school than some would have us believe...

How about paying the players on a percentage basis. women and men athletes would share equally a small percentage of the revenue their particular sport generates. Say 1% of the gate and television revenue. That way it would be an equal opportunity for each sport and the players generating the most revenue would get the biggest stipend.

ghost wrote:How about paying the players on a percentage basis. women and men athletes would share equally a small percentage of the revenue their particular sport generates. Say 1% of the gate and television revenue. That way it would be an equal opportunity for each sport and the players generating the most revenue would get the biggest stipend.

Not the worst idea I've heard; but would football players in the SEC get paid more than those in ACC, since SEC has bigger TV contract?

Also, the Title IX feminazis would still never go for this plan, as male football & bball players would benefit almost exclusively.

Increase stipends and make the insurance coverage better than what is is. Problem solved.

If they want to be paid, then there should be zero issue with "firing" them if they don't perform - just like the real world.

Seems pretty open and shut to me- you want to play college athletics, we give you a free college education. Look at student loan debt in America right now and tell me that isn't a huge opportunity to take advantage of, if you're willing to work hard in the classroom.

If you want to make money, have no interest in going to college, and are good enough to do so, play for the Arena League/CFL until you'll eligible for the NFL Draft, or for an international bball league until you're NBA eligible.

East Coast Mustang wrote:Seems pretty open and shut to me- you want to play college athletics, we give you a free college education. Look at student loan debt in America right now and tell me that isn't a huge opportunity to take advantage of, if you're willing to work hard in the classroom.

If you want to make money, have no interest in going to college, and are good enough to do so, play for the Arena League/CFL until you'll eligible for the NFL Draft, or for an international bball league until you're NBA eligible.

I don't think it is about pay but getting better benefits if injured.

So, these new high school recruits, who paid NOTHING to create the infrastructure (stadiums, college student body, university system) 'deserve' to get paid?

Let them unionize and start their own minor league

Section F is on the right track with his argument. Restated-the problem with College athletics is that people who do not share the schools' vision of the student/athlete want to criticize the NCAA. The NCAA as an independent organization has every right to determine its model of competition including that student/athletes have minimum academic credentials, attend legitimate coursework and make satisfactory progress toward a degree. There is nothing unfair about that whatsoever. The players get an academic program worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, food, board and expenses. The fact is that by 2016 the NCAA will have doubled-down on this vision of the student-athlete and guess what a lot of kids are going to be left out if they don't meet the new academic standards. The High school kids and AAU kids were given 4 years to prepare for these more rigorous standards.

The NFL, NBA/WNBA, MLB, US Soccer, the PGA etc all have different visions of player development. Nothing stopping them from redefining their own vision. No kid is forced to attend college-there are other avenues in almost every sport that they can take if they don't wish to play college sports. Its not the NCAA's fault that the NFL, NBA, MLB the PGA etc have different minor league systems or have rules in place to limit taking high school players-they have their own model which they have determined based on financial considerations, levels of competition and player maturity levels.

Then you got the AAU guys and other third party intermediaries with substantial numbers of dirty, slimy sycophants who have a vision for THEMSELVES

The NCAA is not a minor league with a mission to develop professional athletes. The NCAA in fact was here first. Its not the Universities' problem that many high school student and AAU players are not prepared to be admitted to major universities-they bend their admission standards over backwards already to admit the vast majority. Even those players who can't meet minimal academic standards have other avenues to pursue their careers at JUCOs/CCs and other levels of competition.

A substantial amount of the criticism of the NCAA is misplaced. Other professional interests don't get to re-define the NCAA's chosen model of competition to fit their own vision.

The problem is that nobody is on the same page when it comes to what the actual purpose of a collegiate athletic competition is, especially when it comes to FBS football and D-1 Basketball.

If you were to ask the NFL Commish, NFL owner, NFL coach and player what the purpose of the NFL was, they would all mention, in one way or another, that the NFL was there to put on a football game and get paid to do it.

But if you somehow where able to give a truth serum to an NCAA official, multiple college presidents, multiple AD's, coaches and players, all could give you different answers.

The NCAA official, I believe, would talk about developing young people, the usefullness of competition and it's role in collegiate academics.
The college presidents would talk about advertising for the school, college spirit, and it's place in alumni relations.
The AD might talk about bottom lines, it's attention for the school, and campus life.
The coach would talk about how he was getting paid to win, and possibly developing young people.
The athletes themselves would be all over the place: one might say he wanted to go pro, another might say he wanted a college education paid for, and another might say he just wanted to play. Heck, one might say he was doing it because his parents wanted him to.

God forbid you ask a booster who gives 7 or 8 figure donations to the athletic departments.

With nobody on the same page to begin with, there's bound to be massive issues.

The NCAA is reshuffling the deck on the Titanic right now. Walter Byers, NCAA founder was a charlatan who made a lot of questionable decisions in the 60's and 70's that are not going to stand the scrutiny of today's environment. This whole "student/athlete" is a scam that gives the NCAA a legal fig leaf.

This is not so much about player compensation as it is about medical coverage for the players.

This is a long article, but it details a lot of the scams that the NCAA has pulled over the years.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ts/308643/

The NCAA is about as overly bureaucratic and at times damn near corrupt an organization as you can find, but I think in principle the "student-athlete" idea is sound. I agree with East Coast Mustang that a free education is excellent compensation. The problem is that the current system tries to shoehorn athletes into the mold of a student when they really aren't any such thing. (I'm pretty happy I didn't have to learn to play linebacker to get my accounting degree.)

I'm not offering any sort of solution here. Just my thoughts. Personally I think the baseball system has it right... but college baseball doesn't make money.

Man...this is all pretty good stuff. Sometimes it's amazing the information in one of these threads.

The only thing I'd add is that we tend to forget the NCAA is a voluntary organization. If the universities didn't agree with most of what the NCAA does...they would leave and start a new organization.

That said...I think the main role for the NCAA today is to maintain the fiction of "amateurism." There are a hundred reasons the schools/media/NFL/boosters/etc...all want this system to continue, but every day it gets harder to keep it up.

My fear is that if it ever does lose the patina of "amateurism" we will not like what it becomes.