John Oliver on March Madness
03-16-2015, 07:27 PM
A lot of valid criticisms of the NCAA, but I just have a really hard time getting worked up about this issue. Mainly because college athletes choose to do what they do, and I think very few of them would trade their situation for that of a nonathlete at the same school (and of course many athletes would not have even been accepted if they weren't athletes).
A far more worthy cause are the millions of non-athlete students who are struggling under brobdingnagian student loan debt.
A far more worthy cause are the millions of non-athlete students who are struggling under brobdingnagian student loan debt.
A lot of valid criticisms of the NCAA, but I just have a really hard time getting worked up about this issue. Mainly because college athletes choose to do what they do, and I think very few of them would trade their situation for that of a nonathlete at the same school (and of course many athletes would not have even been accepted if they weren't athletes).
A far more worthy cause are the millions of non-athlete students who are struggling under brobdingnagian student loan debt.
A far more worthy cause are the millions of non-athlete students who are struggling under brobdingnagian student loan debt.
03-16-2015, 08:41 PM
(03-16-2015, 07:27 PM)dabigv link Wrote:A lot of valid criticisms of the NCAA, but I just have a really hard time getting worked up about this issue. Mainly because college athletes choose to do what they do, and I think very few of them would trade their situation for that of a nonathlete at the same school (and of course many athletes would not have even been accepted if they weren't athletes).I don't recall anybody holding a gun to the head of any of my debt-laden friends.
A far more worthy cause are the millions of non-athlete students who are struggling under of exceedingly large proportions student loan debt.
On topic, I agree with the video for the most part. Oliver lost me a bit with the race baiting, but that's par for the course considering the target demographic.
(03-16-2015, 07:27 PM)dabigv link Wrote:A lot of valid criticisms of the NCAA, but I just have a really hard time getting worked up about this issue. Mainly because college athletes choose to do what they do, and I think very few of them would trade their situation for that of a nonathlete at the same school (and of course many athletes would not have even been accepted if they weren't athletes).I don't recall anybody holding a gun to the head of any of my debt-laden friends.
A far more worthy cause are the millions of non-athlete students who are struggling under of exceedingly large proportions student loan debt.
On topic, I agree with the video for the most part. Oliver lost me a bit with the race baiting, but that's par for the course considering the target demographic.
03-17-2015, 06:33 AM
(03-16-2015, 07:27 PM)dabigv link Wrote:A lot of valid criticisms of the NCAA, but I just have a really hard time getting worked up about this issue. Mainly because college athletes choose to do what they do, and I think very few of them would trade their situation for that of a nonathlete at the same school (and of course many athletes would not have even been accepted if they weren't athletes).
A far more worthy cause are the millions of non-athlete students who are struggling under of exceedingly large proportions student loan debt.
Timing is particularly bad because men's basketball is the one sport where going straight to the pros out of HS is a viable option.
(03-16-2015, 07:27 PM)dabigv link Wrote:A lot of valid criticisms of the NCAA, but I just have a really hard time getting worked up about this issue. Mainly because college athletes choose to do what they do, and I think very few of them would trade their situation for that of a nonathlete at the same school (and of course many athletes would not have even been accepted if they weren't athletes).
A far more worthy cause are the millions of non-athlete students who are struggling under of exceedingly large proportions student loan debt.
Timing is particularly bad because men's basketball is the one sport where going straight to the pros out of HS is a viable option.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
03-17-2015, 10:15 AM
My frame of reference is Stanford and as far as I know, our academics for athletes are nothing like what happened at UNC. But we are an outlier to the paradigm outlined in Oliver's piece. What's interesting: which schools actually do provide value for an athlete's services? And the flipside: if the Div. 1 schools/NCAA got religion, how long would it take for the NBA, NFL pro teams to establish their own farm system?
I wish they would. How many current players at Alabama, USC, Oregon, Ohio State (and probably Stanford) et al would take that perceived shortcut to where they want to be in the end? Football and basketball would still be played and maybe even in front of sellout crowds (Stanford should be so lucky).
I wish they would. How many current players at Alabama, USC, Oregon, Ohio State (and probably Stanford) et al would take that perceived shortcut to where they want to be in the end? Football and basketball would still be played and maybe even in front of sellout crowds (Stanford should be so lucky).
My frame of reference is Stanford and as far as I know, our academics for athletes are nothing like what happened at UNC. But we are an outlier to the paradigm outlined in Oliver's piece. What's interesting: which schools actually do provide value for an athlete's services? And the flipside: if the Div. 1 schools/NCAA got religion, how long would it take for the NBA, NFL pro teams to establish their own farm system?
I wish they would. How many current players at Alabama, USC, Oregon, Ohio State (and probably Stanford) et al would take that perceived shortcut to where they want to be in the end? Football and basketball would still be played and maybe even in front of sellout crowds (Stanford should be so lucky).
I wish they would. How many current players at Alabama, USC, Oregon, Ohio State (and probably Stanford) et al would take that perceived shortcut to where they want to be in the end? Football and basketball would still be played and maybe even in front of sellout crowds (Stanford should be so lucky).
The piece was highly biased and directed toward a provocative viewpoint but nonetheless very, very, very compelling.Â
Oliver points out the hypocrisy and inequities in a system that has trouble spending all the money it makes while exploiting an unpaid labor force. The look is bad for the NCAA when presented this way - Unpaid atheletes playing in billion dollar stadiums for million dollar salaried coaches and in front of wealthy fans. And of course, Emmert is as pompous as ever in his rebuttal.
Stanford (and Stanford fans) may believe these inequities don't apply to US and OUR athletes get good value for service but if this is headed toward pay for play it won't matter. Our system and our program could become collateral damage. Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
Stepping back a bit - Does anyone think the college football landscape will look substantially unchanged in 2065 (50 yrs from now)? My guess is players WILL be compensated in some way, there STILL WON'T be a viable farm league and Stanford will have figured out how we fit into that world. (And fit we will - I don't see Stanford dropping the Pac 12 for an Ivy League.)Â
Frankly, I'd like to see our AD engage fully and help steer toward the future rather than wait and react to someone else's course. Is Muir up to this task? (I truly don't have enough info to know ... but I suspect we may miss Ted Leland on this issue.)
Oliver points out the hypocrisy and inequities in a system that has trouble spending all the money it makes while exploiting an unpaid labor force. The look is bad for the NCAA when presented this way - Unpaid atheletes playing in billion dollar stadiums for million dollar salaried coaches and in front of wealthy fans. And of course, Emmert is as pompous as ever in his rebuttal.
Stanford (and Stanford fans) may believe these inequities don't apply to US and OUR athletes get good value for service but if this is headed toward pay for play it won't matter. Our system and our program could become collateral damage. Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
Stepping back a bit - Does anyone think the college football landscape will look substantially unchanged in 2065 (50 yrs from now)? My guess is players WILL be compensated in some way, there STILL WON'T be a viable farm league and Stanford will have figured out how we fit into that world. (And fit we will - I don't see Stanford dropping the Pac 12 for an Ivy League.)Â
Frankly, I'd like to see our AD engage fully and help steer toward the future rather than wait and react to someone else's course. Is Muir up to this task? (I truly don't have enough info to know ... but I suspect we may miss Ted Leland on this issue.)
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
The piece was highly biased and directed toward a provocative viewpoint but nonetheless very, very, very compelling.Â
Oliver points out the hypocrisy and inequities in a system that has trouble spending all the money it makes while exploiting an unpaid labor force. The look is bad for the NCAA when presented this way - Unpaid atheletes playing in billion dollar stadiums for million dollar salaried coaches and in front of wealthy fans. And of course, Emmert is as pompous as ever in his rebuttal.
Stanford (and Stanford fans) may believe these inequities don't apply to US and OUR athletes get good value for service but if this is headed toward pay for play it won't matter. Our system and our program could become collateral damage. Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
Stepping back a bit - Does anyone think the college football landscape will look substantially unchanged in 2065 (50 yrs from now)? My guess is players WILL be compensated in some way, there STILL WON'T be a viable farm league and Stanford will have figured out how we fit into that world. (And fit we will - I don't see Stanford dropping the Pac 12 for an Ivy League.)Â
Frankly, I'd like to see our AD engage fully and help steer toward the future rather than wait and react to someone else's course. Is Muir up to this task? (I truly don't have enough info to know ... but I suspect we may miss Ted Leland on this issue.)
Oliver points out the hypocrisy and inequities in a system that has trouble spending all the money it makes while exploiting an unpaid labor force. The look is bad for the NCAA when presented this way - Unpaid atheletes playing in billion dollar stadiums for million dollar salaried coaches and in front of wealthy fans. And of course, Emmert is as pompous as ever in his rebuttal.
Stanford (and Stanford fans) may believe these inequities don't apply to US and OUR athletes get good value for service but if this is headed toward pay for play it won't matter. Our system and our program could become collateral damage. Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
Stepping back a bit - Does anyone think the college football landscape will look substantially unchanged in 2065 (50 yrs from now)? My guess is players WILL be compensated in some way, there STILL WON'T be a viable farm league and Stanford will have figured out how we fit into that world. (And fit we will - I don't see Stanford dropping the Pac 12 for an Ivy League.)Â
Frankly, I'd like to see our AD engage fully and help steer toward the future rather than wait and react to someone else's course. Is Muir up to this task? (I truly don't have enough info to know ... but I suspect we may miss Ted Leland on this issue.)
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
03-17-2015, 10:50 AM
(03-17-2015, 10:45 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:Stanford (and Stanford fans) may believe these inequities don't apply to US and OUR athletes get good value for service but if this is headed toward pay for play it won't matter. Our system and our program could become collateral damage. Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
I don't talk with many former football players, but when I do, they are in favor of pay to play and think non-athletes don't understand what they go through.
(03-17-2015, 10:45 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:Stanford (and Stanford fans) may believe these inequities don't apply to US and OUR athletes get good value for service but if this is headed toward pay for play it won't matter. Our system and our program could become collateral damage. Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
I don't talk with many former football players, but when I do, they are in favor of pay to play and think non-athletes don't understand what they go through.
(03-17-2015, 10:45 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:The piece was highly biased and directed toward a provocative viewpoint but nonetheless very, very, very compelling.Â
Oliver points out the hypocrisy and inequities in a system that has trouble spending all the money it makes while exploiting an unpaid labor force.Â
I was under the impression that it was now well known to the point of being common knowlege that the NCAA is an evil system full of hypocrisy and inequities. But, maybe I am paying too much attention and the situation is less well known that I thought.
Quote:And of course, Emmert is as pompous as ever in his rebuttal.
I have history (of a sort) with Emmert and don't think much of him at all. However, I have some sympathy for him in this case. He is an employee of all of the member institutions of the NCAA - he basically has to defend their decisions. Occasionally I hear him saying he would like to see member institutions do X in an effort to prompt them towards change. For the most part, he doesn't set the rules.
On the other hand, I do largely blame him for the NCAA disaster with respect to Penn State ... and he sure doesn't sound warm and fuzzy in interviews.
Quote:Our system and our program could become collateral damage. Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
...
(And fit we will - I don't see Stanford dropping the Pac 12 for an Ivy League.)Â
I wonder what Stanford's bottom line actually is. There is no doubt that Stanford has made very large investments into college sports in general, and the high profile sports in particular. That would be an awful lot to give up, especially based upon something as flimsy as scruples. Especially as one person's scruples is another rabid alumni's red herring getting in the way of EXCELLENCE.
Quote:Stepping back a bit - Does anyone think the college football landscape will look substantially unchanged in 2065 (50 yrs from now)?Â
Does anyone think that much of any landscape (including the actual landscape) will look substantially unchanged in 2065?
Quote:Frankly, I'd like to see our AD engage fully and help steer toward the future rather than wait and react to someone else's course. Is Muir up to this task? (I truly don't have enough info to know ... but I suspect we may miss Ted Leland on this issue.)
I probably would like to see Stanford lead as well.
But some of Leland's anti-arms race comments were exhibit A for a vast array of Stanford fans/internet posters as to how much he was a surrender monkey intent on destroying Stanford sports. And those comments didn't seem to really help the situation at all.
(03-17-2015, 10:45 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:The piece was highly biased and directed toward a provocative viewpoint but nonetheless very, very, very compelling.Â
Oliver points out the hypocrisy and inequities in a system that has trouble spending all the money it makes while exploiting an unpaid labor force.Â
I was under the impression that it was now well known to the point of being common knowlege that the NCAA is an evil system full of hypocrisy and inequities. But, maybe I am paying too much attention and the situation is less well known that I thought.
Quote:And of course, Emmert is as pompous as ever in his rebuttal.
I have history (of a sort) with Emmert and don't think much of him at all. However, I have some sympathy for him in this case. He is an employee of all of the member institutions of the NCAA - he basically has to defend their decisions. Occasionally I hear him saying he would like to see member institutions do X in an effort to prompt them towards change. For the most part, he doesn't set the rules.
On the other hand, I do largely blame him for the NCAA disaster with respect to Penn State ... and he sure doesn't sound warm and fuzzy in interviews.
Quote:Our system and our program could become collateral damage. Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
...
(And fit we will - I don't see Stanford dropping the Pac 12 for an Ivy League.)Â
I wonder what Stanford's bottom line actually is. There is no doubt that Stanford has made very large investments into college sports in general, and the high profile sports in particular. That would be an awful lot to give up, especially based upon something as flimsy as scruples. Especially as one person's scruples is another rabid alumni's red herring getting in the way of EXCELLENCE.
Quote:Stepping back a bit - Does anyone think the college football landscape will look substantially unchanged in 2065 (50 yrs from now)?Â
Does anyone think that much of any landscape (including the actual landscape) will look substantially unchanged in 2065?
Quote:Frankly, I'd like to see our AD engage fully and help steer toward the future rather than wait and react to someone else's course. Is Muir up to this task? (I truly don't have enough info to know ... but I suspect we may miss Ted Leland on this issue.)
I probably would like to see Stanford lead as well.
But some of Leland's anti-arms race comments were exhibit A for a vast array of Stanford fans/internet posters as to how much he was a surrender monkey intent on destroying Stanford sports. And those comments didn't seem to really help the situation at all.
03-17-2015, 06:10 PM
(03-17-2015, 02:03 PM)garvin link Wrote:And I don't think D-1 football players understand what the rest of us go through to pay our way. They don't work as hashers or clean the grills at McDonald's or (as my brother did to get through school) work repairing railroad ties. The idea that varsity football and basketball players are the tragically exploited underclass of American society does not resonate with me at all.I don't understand your beef. So, because you had to have a job in college like many people, the exploitation of these young men (even to the point of forbidding them from profiting from their own name) is no big deal?
(03-17-2015, 02:03 PM)garvin link Wrote:And I don't think D-1 football players understand what the rest of us go through to pay our way. They don't work as hashers or clean the grills at McDonald's or (as my brother did to get through school) work repairing railroad ties. The idea that varsity football and basketball players are the tragically exploited underclass of American society does not resonate with me at all.I don't understand your beef. So, because you had to have a job in college like many people, the exploitation of these young men (even to the point of forbidding them from profiting from their own name) is no big deal?
I don't really buy the Surrender Monkey characterization of Leland. Hang him high for hiring Teevens and then shoot him twice when you are done for hiring H.arris but he raised questions the NCAA needed to hear and he had the ear of his peers.Â
Leland was accused by some of tilting windmills, preachiness and being overly academic but I was glad someone from our school had a strong voice within the NCAA decision making. The onslaught of commercialized college athletics hadn't hit in its full force when Leland was around. This was a good 10 years before the new TV contracts, the Ed O'Bannon case resolution and the NW unionization effort.Â
His successor, Bowlsby, was the anti-Leland in some ways but between the traits of these two very different men we could find one superb AD.
But Leland DID hire W.alt H.arris and that is hard to forgive and impossible to forget.
Leland was accused by some of tilting windmills, preachiness and being overly academic but I was glad someone from our school had a strong voice within the NCAA decision making. The onslaught of commercialized college athletics hadn't hit in its full force when Leland was around. This was a good 10 years before the new TV contracts, the Ed O'Bannon case resolution and the NW unionization effort.Â
His successor, Bowlsby, was the anti-Leland in some ways but between the traits of these two very different men we could find one superb AD.
But Leland DID hire W.alt H.arris and that is hard to forgive and impossible to forget.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2015, 06:42 PM by Leftcoast.)
I don't really buy the Surrender Monkey characterization of Leland. Hang him high for hiring Teevens and then shoot him twice when you are done for hiring H.arris but he raised questions the NCAA needed to hear and he had the ear of his peers.Â
Leland was accused by some of tilting windmills, preachiness and being overly academic but I was glad someone from our school had a strong voice within the NCAA decision making. The onslaught of commercialized college athletics hadn't hit in its full force when Leland was around. This was a good 10 years before the new TV contracts, the Ed O'Bannon case resolution and the NW unionization effort.Â
His successor, Bowlsby, was the anti-Leland in some ways but between the traits of these two very different men we could find one superb AD.
But Leland DID hire W.alt H.arris and that is hard to forgive and impossible to forget.
Leland was accused by some of tilting windmills, preachiness and being overly academic but I was glad someone from our school had a strong voice within the NCAA decision making. The onslaught of commercialized college athletics hadn't hit in its full force when Leland was around. This was a good 10 years before the new TV contracts, the Ed O'Bannon case resolution and the NW unionization effort.Â
His successor, Bowlsby, was the anti-Leland in some ways but between the traits of these two very different men we could find one superb AD.
But Leland DID hire W.alt H.arris and that is hard to forgive and impossible to forget.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(03-17-2015, 06:36 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:I don't really buy the Surrender Monkey characterization of Leland.Â
I don't really either, was rather pointing out the difficulty for an AD to actually take such a stand.
Of course, if Leland had hired a Harbaugh equivalent instead of Teevens, Wlat back to back, then he could have done a lot more preaching about the woes of the commercialized-sports model without incurring the wrath of his own fan base.
(03-17-2015, 06:36 PM)leftcoast link Wrote:I don't really buy the Surrender Monkey characterization of Leland.Â
I don't really either, was rather pointing out the difficulty for an AD to actually take such a stand.
Of course, if Leland had hired a Harbaugh equivalent instead of Teevens, Wlat back to back, then he could have done a lot more preaching about the woes of the commercialized-sports model without incurring the wrath of his own fan base.
03-17-2015, 07:58 PM
(03-17-2015, 06:10 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:I don't understand your beef. So, because you had to have a job in college like many people, the exploitation of these young men (even to the point of forbidding them from profiting from their own name) is no big deal?
The NCAA isn't perfect, but athletes are not compelled to join it. They are not sweatshop workers as the piece comically compared them to. They are welcome to get a job and make money, or they can enjoy their free education and the perks that come with being a star athlete as an 18-22 year old. They would not be able to profit from their name if they weren't college football or basketball stars. They can choose to wait until the pros to make money off their name, or they can go overseas and make money off their name then.
To me, this issue is framed all wrong. This should not be about paying students to play sports. Many many many students play sports for the enjoyment of it, or for a scholarship, or more likely both. And very few of them have any expectation or chance of making their sport an extremely lucrative career. The real issue should be about improving the education of student athletes.
Then again I imagine if you polled the majority of college football players or basketball players, they would much rather bring in a few grand than have better educational opportunities. Should we acquiesce to this? And isn't that even more exploitative, paying athletes a pittance while continuing to fail them in their education?
(03-17-2015, 06:10 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:I don't understand your beef. So, because you had to have a job in college like many people, the exploitation of these young men (even to the point of forbidding them from profiting from their own name) is no big deal?
The NCAA isn't perfect, but athletes are not compelled to join it. They are not sweatshop workers as the piece comically compared them to. They are welcome to get a job and make money, or they can enjoy their free education and the perks that come with being a star athlete as an 18-22 year old. They would not be able to profit from their name if they weren't college football or basketball stars. They can choose to wait until the pros to make money off their name, or they can go overseas and make money off their name then.
To me, this issue is framed all wrong. This should not be about paying students to play sports. Many many many students play sports for the enjoyment of it, or for a scholarship, or more likely both. And very few of them have any expectation or chance of making their sport an extremely lucrative career. The real issue should be about improving the education of student athletes.
Then again I imagine if you polled the majority of college football players or basketball players, they would much rather bring in a few grand than have better educational opportunities. Should we acquiesce to this? And isn't that even more exploitative, paying athletes a pittance while continuing to fail them in their education?
03-17-2015, 09:19 PM
(03-17-2015, 07:58 PM)dabigv link Wrote:[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=11878.msg114918#msg114918 date=1426641012]
I don't understand your beef. So, because you had to have a job in college like many people, the exploitation of these young men (even to the point of forbidding them from profiting from their own name) is no big deal?
The NCAA isn't perfect, but athletes are not compelled to join it. They are not sweatshop workers as the piece comically compared them to. They are welcome to get a job and make money, or they can enjoy their free education and the perks that come with being a star athlete as an 18-22 year old. They would not be able to profit from their name if they weren't college football or basketball stars. They can choose to wait until the pros to make money off their name, or they can go overseas and make money off their name then.
To me, this issue is framed all wrong. This should not be about paying students to play sports. Many many many students play sports for the enjoyment of it, or for a scholarship, or more likely both. And very few of them have any expectation or chance of making their sport an extremely lucrative career. The real issue should be about improving the education of student athletes.
Then again I imagine if you polled the majority of college football players or basketball players, they would much rather bring in a few grand than have better educational opportunities. Should we acquiesce to this? And isn't that even more exploitative, paying athletes a pittance while continuing to fail them in their education?
[/quote]
The real solution is simply removing years-in-college restrictions from the NFL and NBA, and allowing collegiate players to profit off their own work. Nobody bothers to mention that under the current system, an 18-20 year old cannot choose to make money in his chosen field if that chosen field happens to be football - unlike any other college student. The system is designed to force these kids to stay in college (even if there's a market for their skills in the NFL) and milk their talents for millions while potentially exposing them to career-ending injury. Do they have to play football? No. But if football is what they're good at - if it's their calling - who are we to tell them that they either have to deal with this incredibly corrupt system or go find something else to do?
Meanwhile if Jameis Winston can profit from autographs, why shouldn't he be able to? Why shouldn't Marcus Mariota be allowed to sign an endorsement deal with Nike while still at Oregon?
(03-17-2015, 07:58 PM)dabigv link Wrote:[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=11878.msg114918#msg114918 date=1426641012]
I don't understand your beef. So, because you had to have a job in college like many people, the exploitation of these young men (even to the point of forbidding them from profiting from their own name) is no big deal?
The NCAA isn't perfect, but athletes are not compelled to join it. They are not sweatshop workers as the piece comically compared them to. They are welcome to get a job and make money, or they can enjoy their free education and the perks that come with being a star athlete as an 18-22 year old. They would not be able to profit from their name if they weren't college football or basketball stars. They can choose to wait until the pros to make money off their name, or they can go overseas and make money off their name then.
To me, this issue is framed all wrong. This should not be about paying students to play sports. Many many many students play sports for the enjoyment of it, or for a scholarship, or more likely both. And very few of them have any expectation or chance of making their sport an extremely lucrative career. The real issue should be about improving the education of student athletes.
Then again I imagine if you polled the majority of college football players or basketball players, they would much rather bring in a few grand than have better educational opportunities. Should we acquiesce to this? And isn't that even more exploitative, paying athletes a pittance while continuing to fail them in their education?
[/quote]
The real solution is simply removing years-in-college restrictions from the NFL and NBA, and allowing collegiate players to profit off their own work. Nobody bothers to mention that under the current system, an 18-20 year old cannot choose to make money in his chosen field if that chosen field happens to be football - unlike any other college student. The system is designed to force these kids to stay in college (even if there's a market for their skills in the NFL) and milk their talents for millions while potentially exposing them to career-ending injury. Do they have to play football? No. But if football is what they're good at - if it's their calling - who are we to tell them that they either have to deal with this incredibly corrupt system or go find something else to do?
Meanwhile if Jameis Winston can profit from autographs, why shouldn't he be able to? Why shouldn't Marcus Mariota be allowed to sign an endorsement deal with Nike while still at Oregon?
03-17-2015, 09:29 PM
You think allowing college athletes to sign endorsement deals would make this system less corrupt?
The age restrictions are up to the professional leagues. And as far as I'm aware, the courts have supported the professional leagues in this. I agree with you that this would be ideal, but I don't foresee it happening, and I don't think it's a good reason to force the NCAA to pay student athletes.
The age restrictions are up to the professional leagues. And as far as I'm aware, the courts have supported the professional leagues in this. I agree with you that this would be ideal, but I don't foresee it happening, and I don't think it's a good reason to force the NCAA to pay student athletes.
You think allowing college athletes to sign endorsement deals would make this system less corrupt?
The age restrictions are up to the professional leagues. And as far as I'm aware, the courts have supported the professional leagues in this. I agree with you that this would be ideal, but I don't foresee it happening, and I don't think it's a good reason to force the NCAA to pay student athletes.
The age restrictions are up to the professional leagues. And as far as I'm aware, the courts have supported the professional leagues in this. I agree with you that this would be ideal, but I don't foresee it happening, and I don't think it's a good reason to force the NCAA to pay student athletes.
03-17-2015, 09:39 PM
I'm not suggesting the students be paid by the NCAA. I'm suggesting the NCAA stop forbidding them from being paid by third parties.
Nobody cares if the 18-year-old tech guru gets wooed by Google, but when it's sports everybody loses their minds.
Nobody cares if the 18-year-old tech guru gets wooed by Google, but when it's sports everybody loses their minds.
I'm not suggesting the students be paid by the NCAA. I'm suggesting the NCAA stop forbidding them from being paid by third parties.
Nobody cares if the 18-year-old tech guru gets wooed by Google, but when it's sports everybody loses their minds.
Nobody cares if the 18-year-old tech guru gets wooed by Google, but when it's sports everybody loses their minds.
03-17-2015, 11:40 PM
(03-17-2015, 09:39 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:I'm not suggesting the students be paid by the NCAA. I'm suggesting the NCAA stop forbidding them from being paid by third parties.
While that may be both appropriate and on the way, it's clear why the current rule bans such payments. Allowing third party deals opens the door for open payments by boosters to attract the best recruits. The highest payers will have the best players.
(03-17-2015, 09:39 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:I'm not suggesting the students be paid by the NCAA. I'm suggesting the NCAA stop forbidding them from being paid by third parties.
While that may be both appropriate and on the way, it's clear why the current rule bans such payments. Allowing third party deals opens the door for open payments by boosters to attract the best recruits. The highest payers will have the best players.
03-18-2015, 07:51 AM
(03-17-2015, 11:40 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=11878.msg114934#msg114934 date=1426653560]
I'm not suggesting the students be paid by the NCAA. I'm suggesting the NCAA stop forbidding them from being paid by third parties.
While that may be both appropriate and on the way, it's clear why the current rule bans such payments. Allowing third party deals opens the door for open payments by boosters to attract the best recruits. The highest payers will have the best players.
[/quote]
The schools with the highest paying boosters already get the best players.
(03-17-2015, 11:40 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=11878.msg114934#msg114934 date=1426653560]
I'm not suggesting the students be paid by the NCAA. I'm suggesting the NCAA stop forbidding them from being paid by third parties.
While that may be both appropriate and on the way, it's clear why the current rule bans such payments. Allowing third party deals opens the door for open payments by boosters to attract the best recruits. The highest payers will have the best players.
[/quote]
The schools with the highest paying boosters already get the best players.
03-18-2015, 04:13 PM
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »