[Genuine Realist]

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

You know what else "removes the pro audition aspect of the decision?" . . . having the professional league in an entirely separate bucket.  You play in college because you want to attend college.  You may want to go pro later, after college, but until then, you play by the college rules.  If you're driven solely (or predominately) by pro audition, then go pro.

It's a simple and common-sensical principle, really.

 
Except that you can do both, and there's no reason to put an 18 year old kid on an either/or choice.

We'll save the Frost poem for a little later in life.

They can do both in my preferred world - it's just that when they play college ball, they have to play by college rules.  And I think you're ignoring the likely long-term effect of paying players (i.e., more stratification ==> fewer teams garnering TV interest ==> more schools dropping scholarship sports ==> fewer kids getting opportunity to attend college).

Final thought, since this has been beaten to death.

I too believe that college athletes should play by college rules. The question is whether those rules are good rules. I believe they are not (any more than the antiquated Olympic amateurism rules were good), and that they should be changed.

And I see not the slightest negative to the change, only benefits. That, too, was true of Olympic amateurism.

[Genuine Realist]

The bottom line is that when you remove the pro audition aspect of the decision, then the decision becomes what it should be, a determination of where the athlete fits in best in terms of academic motivation and brains. (We still have a G League for those completely disinterested in school.) It broadens the field, not narrows it. A Brandon Knight takes a hard look at Stanford, because he doesn't have to worry about proving anything to the NBA.

You know what else "removes the pro audition aspect of the decision?" . . . having the professional league in an entirely separate bucket.  You play in college because you want to attend college.  You may want to go pro later, after college, but until then, you play by the college rules.  If you're driven solely (or predominately) by pro audition, then go pro.

It's a simple and common-sensical principle, really.

 
Except that you can do both, and there's no reason to put an 18 year old kid on an either/or choice.

We'll save the Frost poem for a little later in life.

They can do both in my preferred world - it's just that when they play college ball, they have to play by college rules.  And I think you're ignoring the likely long-term effect of paying players (i.e., more stratification ==> fewer teams garnering TV interest ==> more schools dropping scholarship sports ==> fewer kids getting opportunity to attend college).

Final thought, since this has been beaten to death.

I too believe that college athletes should play by college rules. The question is whether those rules are good rules. I believe they are not (any more than the antiquated Olympic amateurism rules were good), and that they should be changed.

And I see not the slightest negative to the change, only benefits. That, too, was true of Olympic amateurism.