[OutsiderFan]

Love his conjecture that the GOP only cares about white male athletes. How is that kind of BS condoned on a stated non political sports board? H E double hockey sticks, I am still banned from commenting on the Covid board for some unknown reason. . . .

As a thought exercise, overlay the preponderant boundaries of the Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 on this map.


I suggest closing this thread and starting a new one that discusses the merits of the Booker framework:

1. Increased health and medical coverage for athletes
2. Allowing athletes full rights to their NIL and how that could manifest
3. Athlete transfer without penalty
4. Having an advisory board that represents the interests of athletes (this needs to be fleshed out as it is a bit murky now)
5. Allowing athletes to hold jobs and generate income elsewhere (not in the proposal AFAIK, but important to consider)

---

How about answering 3 simple questions?

1.  Do you think college athletics benefits or harms the scholarship athletes, in the aggregate? And you can limit it to the black athlete if yo want?

2.  Do you think an NFL D-League would be a better or worse deal for the black athlete in America?  Regardless, don't you think the athlete should be given the choice to pursue D-League (and get paid) or go to college (and have the compensation be limited to tuition, room, and board - and perhaps academic assistance - plus the intangibles of college)?

3.  Do you think if every one-and-doner in college hoops played in the D-League, that the NCAA Tourney would not still be a popular, money-making endeavor?

1. Benefits
2. I don't know, and yes. Though I love college football, I can accept it being downsized in the interest of de-professionalizing college sports.
3. The NCAA hoops tournament isn't individually player-focused, so probably not that much.

I take the same stance on this issue as I do on pro sports union negations with ownership, with one caveat.

It really isn't my business what are and aren't acceptable working conditions for labor vs. management. Nor is it really up to me to decide how college sports move forward, how big they are, who participates, etc. The parties have to do whatever they need to do to fight for what they want. Whatever they decide together, I either accept supporting or don't. I hate the NFL's 17-game season, and will probably be less passionate about it as a result, but won't stop consuming it completely.

The caveat is college athletes don't have a union and no structure to organize and collectively bargain. That's why it then becomes necessary for the law to step in and provide rights unilaterally to college athletes.  

It may be true that college athletes ruin something great that they have now, pushing for more rights, but my position is let them have the choice and freedom to explore better conditions. Let schools decide if they want to really go full professional route or don't, based on the costs college athletes create by being empowered. Maybe athletes realize they can get a better deal, maybe they can't. Maybe schools realize they need to back off their professionalization of sports. My personal opinion is college athletes will be placated by being conferred with rights in the Booker framework.  But even if they aren't, there will at least be some kind of structure in place to advocate for themselves as a group.

IOW, give both parties rights that everyone else has, and let them figure it out between themselves. Personally, I don't like the college sports industrial complex arms race.  Alabama just gave its Offensive Coordinator a $1,000,000 raise to $2.5 million, something I personally find disgusting, but if the players all agree to a framework that allows it, I can accept it, even if such a world precludes Stanford from participating, or otherwise hurts its ability to compete at the highest levels of college sports.

Thanks for toning down the rancor, teejers1.  You asked very thoughtful questions.

[OutsiderFan]

Love his conjecture that the GOP only cares about white male athletes. How is that kind of BS condoned on a stated non political sports board? H E double hockey sticks, I am still banned from commenting on the Covid board for some unknown reason. . . .

As a thought exercise, overlay the preponderant boundaries of the Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 on this map.


I suggest closing this thread and starting a new one that discusses the merits of the Booker framework:

1. Increased health and medical coverage for athletes
2. Allowing athletes full rights to their NIL and how that could manifest
3. Athlete transfer without penalty
4. Having an advisory board that represents the interests of athletes (this needs to be fleshed out as it is a bit murky now)
5. Allowing athletes to hold jobs and generate income elsewhere (not in the proposal AFAIK, but important to consider)

---

How about answering 3 simple questions?

1.  Do you think college athletics benefits or harms the scholarship athletes, in the aggregate? And you can limit it to the black athlete if yo want?

2.  Do you think an NFL D-League would be a better or worse deal for the black athlete in America?  Regardless, don't you think the athlete should be given the choice to pursue D-League (and get paid) or go to college (and have the compensation be limited to tuition, room, and board - and perhaps academic assistance - plus the intangibles of college)?

3.  Do you think if every one-and-doner in college hoops played in the D-League, that the NCAA Tourney would not still be a popular, money-making endeavor?

1. Benefits
2. I don't know, and yes. Though I love college football, I can accept it being downsized in the interest of de-professionalizing college sports.
3. The NCAA hoops tournament isn't individually player-focused, so probably not that much.

I take the same stance on this issue as I do on pro sports union negations with ownership, with one caveat.

It really isn't my business what are and aren't acceptable working conditions for labor vs. management. Nor is it really up to me to decide how college sports move forward, how big they are, who participates, etc. The parties have to do whatever they need to do to fight for what they want. Whatever they decide together, I either accept supporting or don't. I hate the NFL's 17-game season, and will probably be less passionate about it as a result, but won't stop consuming it completely.

The caveat is college athletes don't have a union and no structure to organize and collectively bargain. That's why it then becomes necessary for the law to step in and provide rights unilaterally to college athletes.  

It may be true that college athletes ruin something great that they have now, pushing for more rights, but my position is let them have the choice and freedom to explore better conditions. Let schools decide if they want to really go full professional route or don't, based on the costs college athletes create by being empowered. Maybe athletes realize they can get a better deal, maybe they can't. Maybe schools realize they need to back off their professionalization of sports. My personal opinion is college athletes will be placated by being conferred with rights in the Booker framework.  But even if they aren't, there will at least be some kind of structure in place to advocate for themselves as a group.

IOW, give both parties rights that everyone else has, and let them figure it out between themselves. Personally, I don't like the college sports industrial complex arms race.  Alabama just gave its Offensive Coordinator a $1,000,000 raise to $2.5 million, something I personally find disgusting, but if the players all agree to a framework that allows it, I can accept it, even if such a world precludes Stanford from participating, or otherwise hurts its ability to compete at the highest levels of college sports.

Thanks for toning down the rancor, teejers1.  You asked very thoughtful questions.