[pefloresjr]

Paying athletes makes sense in the context of a market system, but the underlying mission of a University (at least publics and non-profits like Stanford) is not market oriented at all.  For a non-profit educational institution to run a professional sports enterprise is, to me, a repulsive idea. 

Instead, I have long thought that the baseball model is more or less the ideal solution.  Young ball players should have a choice of entering directly into professional minor league teams or to play for a few years as amateurs at a university.  This puts the choice into their hands, and at the same time it preserves the underlying mission of a University and protects it somewhat from the corrupting influence of the professional sports world.

I do think that the present system deserves to be changed.  Let the NFL create its minor league teams and let Universities be Universities.

I completely agree.  Those who want to go with a pure market based answer to issue of the corruption of the student-athlete model are really just giving in and pushing for the full and complete corruption of that model.  Instead, we should try to return the system to a true college competition.  Why should those who believe we should maintain a non-professional model quit and go play with those Ivy League type schools if they don't like it.  Wouldn't it be better if those who corrupt the system and exploit their student athletes be the ones who are told to go play their professional league?  I realize that the NCAA is not pushing for the true student-athlete model found at Stanford, but pushing for full abandonment of the model seems like a silly answer.  There is nothing preventing colleges or other private interests from forming their own professional league where they can compete by offering more money to the players they want. 

I also think that Shaw is being very realistic and thoughtful when he acknowledges that use of a student-athlete's image needs to be addressed within the student-athlete model.  Trust funds held until the expiration of eligibility makes some sense here but there are probably other solutions as well. 

The bottom line is that true student athletes do not need to be compensated because they participate voluntarily in athletics just as they do with any other extracurricular activity.  If the activity takes too much time, they can stop participating and participate in the other opportunities that are offered to every other admitted student.  I realize that in many colleges, many student-athletes are not really interested in or qualified to take advantage of those opportunities.  I just don't believe that the solution to that problem is to give up and simply hire those athletes to compete with other actual students in collegiate sports. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Paying athletes makes sense in the context of a market system, but the underlying mission of a University (at least publics and non-profits like Stanford) is not market oriented at all.  For a non-profit educational institution to run a professional sports enterprise is, to me, a repulsive idea. 

Instead, I have long thought that the baseball model is more or less the ideal solution.  Young ball players should have a choice of entering directly into professional minor league teams or to play for a few years as amateurs at a university.  This puts the choice into their hands, and at the same time it preserves the underlying mission of a University and protects it somewhat from the corrupting influence of the professional sports world.

I do think that the present system deserves to be changed.  Let the NFL create its minor league teams and let Universities be Universities.

I completely agree.  Those who want to go with a pure market based answer to issue of the corruption of the student-athlete model are really just giving in and pushing for the full and complete corruption of that model.  Instead, we should try to return the system to a true college competition.  Why should those who believe we should maintain a non-professional model quit and go play with those Ivy League type schools if they don't like it.  Wouldn't it be better if those who corrupt the system and exploit their student athletes be the ones who are told to go play their professional league?  I realize that the NCAA is not pushing for the true student-athlete model found at Stanford, but pushing for full abandonment of the model seems like a silly answer.  There is nothing preventing colleges or other private interests from forming their own professional league where they can compete by offering more money to the players they want. 

I also think that Shaw is being very realistic and thoughtful when he acknowledges that use of a student-athlete's image needs to be addressed within the student-athlete model.  Trust funds held until the expiration of eligibility makes some sense here but there are probably other solutions as well. 

The bottom line is that true student athletes do not need to be compensated because they participate voluntarily in athletics just as they do with any other extracurricular activity.  If the activity takes too much time, they can stop participating and participate in the other opportunities that are offered to every other admitted student.  I realize that in many colleges, many student-athletes are not really interested in or qualified to take advantage of those opportunities.  I just don't believe that the solution to that problem is to give up and simply hire those athletes to compete with other actual students in collegiate sports. 

Cheers,
Pete F.