|
|
Post by zeroposter on Nov 3, 2020 12:14:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by mallardhunter on Nov 5, 2020 6:18:56 GMT -8
This is an outrage and not at all surprising. The NCAA has long been toothless when it comes to their marquee names/sports but brings the hammer down on those programs on the periphery that have no recourse because they don't generate revenue.
This is why I think the NCAA is a relic of the past and that all programs should step out from beneath their umbrella. If enough programs do, the whole thing will crumble and a system better fitted to the realities of modern athletics can be created in its place.
For revenue sports: the value of the education is no longer enough when networks are paying hundreds of millions/year to conferences, coaches are making $3M at a minimum and can move whenever they please but the kids are stuck in their commitments, and the schools & networks rake in cash promoting college kids who get nothing. The methodology would need to be worked out (I like the idea of a escrow type fund held until eligibility expires) but certainly there has to be a better system than the current one, borne of 1950s thinking when sports were truly amateur.
For non-revenue sports: let's wipe away the morass of complexities the NCAA imposes. These kids really are there to get an education because in golf/tennis/equestrian, if you're elite you go pro. So let's do away with the overblown concern that an athlete may get some things that a regular student might not get (within reason).
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 5, 2020 12:14:10 GMT -8
This is an outrage and not at all surprising. The NCAA has long been toothless when it comes to their marquee names/sports but brings the hammer down on those programs on the periphery that have no recourse because they don't generate revenue. This is why I think the NCAA is a relic of the past and that all programs should step out from beneath their umbrella. If enough programs do, the whole thing will crumble and a system better fitted to the realities of modern athletics can be created in its place. For revenue sports: the value of the education is no longer enough when networks are paying hundreds of millions/year to conferences, coaches are making $3M at a minimum and can move whenever they please but the kids are stuck in their commitments, and the schools & networks rake in cash promoting college kids who get nothing. The methodology would need to be worked out (I like the idea of a escrow type fund held until eligibility expires) but certainly there has to be a better system than the current one, borne of 1950s thinking when sports were truly amateur. For non-revenue sports: let's wipe away the morass of complexities the NCAA imposes. These kids really are there to get an education because in golf/tennis/equestrian, if you're elite you go pro. So let's do away with the overblown concern that an athlete may get some things that a regular student might not get (within reason). The schools do not rake in cash. The schools break even, if they are lucky. There is no way to pay the kids without bankrupting most of the FBS universities, including Oregon State. There may be a way for the higher income universities to pay players, but you are going to see a big talent drain out of Oregon State and to those teams, if you allow the big schools to pay players. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Nov 6, 2020 19:23:03 GMT -8
This is an outrage and not at all surprising. The NCAA has long been toothless when it comes to their marquee names/sports but brings the hammer down on those programs on the periphery that have no recourse because they don't generate revenue. This is why I think the NCAA is a relic of the past and that all programs should step out from beneath their umbrella. If enough programs do, the whole thing will crumble and a system better fitted to the realities of modern athletics can be created in its place. For revenue sports: the value of the education is no longer enough when networks are paying hundreds of millions/year to conferences, coaches are making $3M at a minimum and can move whenever they please but the kids are stuck in their commitments, and the schools & networks rake in cash promoting college kids who get nothing. The methodology would need to be worked out (I like the idea of a escrow type fund held until eligibility expires) but certainly there has to be a better system than the current one, borne of 1950s thinking when sports were truly amateur. For non-revenue sports: let's wipe away the morass of complexities the NCAA imposes. These kids really are there to get an education because in golf/tennis/equestrian, if you're elite you go pro. So let's do away with the overblown concern that an athlete may get some things that a regular student might not get (within reason). The schools do not rake in cash. The schools break even, if they are lucky. There is no way to pay the kids without bankrupting most of the FBS universities, including Oregon State. There may be a way for the higher income universities to pay players, but you are going to see a big talent drain out of Oregon State and to those teams, if you allow the big schools to pay players. Incorrect that schools do not rake in cash. They absolutely do. There’s just an arms race to bring in more that requires equivalent outlays. Free market forces working to make college coaches rich. In a perfect world, the “free market” would fix this. If there’s such a demand for people to watch 18-22 year olds play football/basketball/baseball, then there should be a pro league for it that pays the players what they are worth, while schools can continue with rules that are intended to keep the playing field even. We don’t live in a perfect world. |
|
|
|
Post by mallardhunter on Nov 7, 2020 20:54:01 GMT -8
Good answer Kersting. There's a big diff. between revenue and income. I would wonder out loud too if the bookstore apparel that moves that has a number on it (therefore specifically tied to a player) is counted in the AD income or if that would be in a different bucket.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 8, 2020 0:17:22 GMT -8
The schools do not rake in cash. The schools break even, if they are lucky. There is no way to pay the kids without bankrupting most of the FBS universities, including Oregon State. There may be a way for the higher income universities to pay players, but you are going to see a big talent drain out of Oregon State and to those teams, if you allow the big schools to pay players. Incorrect that schools do not rake in cash. They absolutely do. There’s just an arms race to bring in more that requires equivalent outlays. Free market forces working to make college coaches rich. In a perfect world, the “free market” would fix this. If there’s such a demand for people to watch 18-22 year olds play football/basketball/baseball, then there should be a pro league for it that pays the players what they are worth, while schools can continue with rules that are intended to keep the playing field even. We don’t live in a perfect world. In a perfect world, a free market would break up the professional sport monopolies. Most of the world allows free market forces to control sports. Not in the United States. We have monopolies, who create drafts and draft rules, which mess with the free market. Without monopolies, professional teams would just sign players out of high school, who showed potential and train them to be great. Others can pay to be educated and be coached at the same facilities. The tradeoff to all of that is that some players never ever really receive a true education. Baseball used to be very free market until they started the draft in 1965. At the end of the day, though, Oregon State is on the short end of the stick, if payments are made to players. They will not be able to keep up with the majority of teams in the Pac-12. The hole that is currently present will just get deeper with any "reforms." |
|
