[Genuine Realist]

[quote="dabigv13" pid='350232' dateline='1649209034']
 Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

Thanks for the laugh. Congress, doesn't matter the party in control, hasn't fixed anything in at least a generation. . . .

Hopefully that's not too political of a comment.

Because there is no regulation of compensating college athletes, we'll stumble along and might even end up somewhere in the ballpark you're advocating.  But that doesn't make it the correct thing to do from a policy standpoint.

I've never understood the arguments against this simple convention:  if you want to play college ball, play by those rules.  Then the object is to install rules that try and balance several factors, the most important being that these competitors are students first.  The second most important factor is that you want to have rules that will allow for the most participation schools can afford (because that INCREASES opportunity for your underprivileged kids to, you know, attend college), which also comply with Title IX.  And then there's some uniform "compensation" - a scholarship, a stipend, whatever.  But it's a balancing and rules need to be enforced, not abandoned.

If you don't like that balance - if the athlete feels THAT oppressed and deprived from the college rules - then go play pro ball.  This is already happening in men's hoops with kids passing on college in favor of G-League and Europe. Good for them.  Reserve those precious scholies for kids who actually WANT to attend college.  The Big Fly in the proverbial ointment is the NFL and its use of college as its D-League.  THAT's what needs to be remedied.  Do that, and all the other things can fall into place into a more workable, and student-benefitting model.  You know, what you call archaic.

The argument is pretty simple. 

There is an entire universe of athletes from poor families, some desperately poor, that could benefit as much from the education, as well as the broadening and maturing aspect of college life as any other group of 18 year olds. Ray Handley, who used to be assigned to the Southwest in his assistant days at Stanford, once remarked about the code - that he'd hear that the lad had 'heavy responsibilities at home', the sign that he had his hand out, which almost always disqualified him from Stanford consideration. 

You might think that such a kid is interested only in late model sports cars. But the first use of pro money is often to get their mother or caregiver into decent housing.

There's not the slightest reason to put a kid like that into an artificial squeeze. There's absolutely no reason why the athlete, and the school, and the pro franchise or sponsor, can't all have their cake and eat it too.

As for 'college rules', not so long ago the same thing could have been written about Olympic participation. I've mentioned tennis - the entire calcified establishment was against open competition - Wimbledon did something daring when it opened the gates in 1968. But it worked, and wonderfully well. And for that matter, the NIL is going to blow all the current rules to hell. The rules weren't found under a burning bush. They are subject to change and amendment as times change - and they certainly have.

The schools have to insist on academic standards. That's the necessary function of the NCAA. Also, schools have to keep their hands clean. No ringers. But after that, how a student athlete manages his finances, who pays, who provides, is absolutely irrelevant.

[Genuine Realist]

[quote="dabigv13" pid='350232' dateline='1649209034']
 Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

Thanks for the laugh. Congress, doesn't matter the party in control, hasn't fixed anything in at least a generation. . . .

Hopefully that's not too political of a comment.

Because there is no regulation of compensating college athletes, we'll stumble along and might even end up somewhere in the ballpark you're advocating.  But that doesn't make it the correct thing to do from a policy standpoint.

I've never understood the arguments against this simple convention:  if you want to play college ball, play by those rules.  Then the object is to install rules that try and balance several factors, the most important being that these competitors are students first.  The second most important factor is that you want to have rules that will allow for the most participation schools can afford (because that INCREASES opportunity for your underprivileged kids to, you know, attend college), which also comply with Title IX.  And then there's some uniform "compensation" - a scholarship, a stipend, whatever.  But it's a balancing and rules need to be enforced, not abandoned.

If you don't like that balance - if the athlete feels THAT oppressed and deprived from the college rules - then go play pro ball.  This is already happening in men's hoops with kids passing on college in favor of G-League and Europe. Good for them.  Reserve those precious scholies for kids who actually WANT to attend college.  The Big Fly in the proverbial ointment is the NFL and its use of college as its D-League.  THAT's what needs to be remedied.  Do that, and all the other things can fall into place into a more workable, and student-benefitting model.  You know, what you call archaic.

The argument is pretty simple. 

There is an entire universe of athletes from poor families, some desperately poor, that could benefit as much from the education, as well as the broadening and maturing aspect of college life as any other group of 18 year olds. Ray Handley, who used to be assigned to the Southwest in his assistant days at Stanford, once remarked about the code - that he'd hear that the lad had 'heavy responsibilities at home', the sign that he had his hand out, which almost always disqualified him from Stanford consideration. 

You might think that such a kid is interested only in late model sports cars. But the first use of pro money is often to get their mother or caregiver into decent housing.

There's not the slightest reason to put a kid like that into an artificial squeeze. There's absolutely no reason why the athlete, and the school, and the pro franchise or sponsor, can't all have their cake and eat it too.

As for 'college rules', not so long ago the same thing could have been written about Olympic participation. I've mentioned tennis - the entire calcified establishment was against open competition - Wimbledon did something daring when it opened the gates in 1968. But it worked, and wonderfully well. And for that matter, the NIL is going to blow all the current rules to hell. The rules weren't found under a burning bush. They are subject to change and amendment as times change - and they certainly have.

The schools have to insist on academic standards. That's the necessary function of the NCAA. Also, schools have to keep their hands clean. No ringers. But after that, how a student athlete manages his finances, who pays, who provides, is absolutely irrelevant.