Snohomie wrote:No fair, Recon. How am I supposed to debate with you when all I can do is stare at that avatar? *deep breath* Let's try this again.
What's the problem if a coach does tell a player "If you play at Central Washington University, your autographs will be worth 5 bucks a pop. If you play at UW, it's 500 a pop"? I mean, big schools already have huge advantages over smaller schools (and, of course, smaller schools have their own) such as appearing on TV more often, networking opportunities, more attention from NFL scouts, etc. For the (vast majority) of players (in all sports) who wouldn't make money, that teaches them an important lesson about how little their athletic prowess will matter when they've graduated. Furthermore, this happens in other fields too. I have a couple friends who chose a certain school because that school had unique programs that placed students with (paid) internships in a field related to their degree.
All we're talking about is letting kids get a head start on entering their industry. You would still need to make sure schools don't pay players to sign them, I'm just talking about eliminating the wall preventing players from essentially working in their industry while attending college.
And what is the purpose of going to college, anyways? Go and ask students why they're in school - it'll go something like this "To get a (specific) degree" - why do you want that "So I can get a job in a specific field when I graduate" why do you want that "So I can make money". Very few kids pay 20-150k just for learning. Hell, you'd probably learn more by spending 4 years reading Wikipedia 40 hours a week. Kids pay that money so they can get a good job - the ones with a plan pay that money so they can work in a specific field. That's the reality of a job market that makes a Bachelors degree a pre-requisite for almost any inexperienced job-seeker trying to get a decent job - people with little interesting in academics (but a strong interest in not being poor) go to college to eventually make money. We just don't restrict their ability to work in certain industries while they're in school.
IMO, that is a MUCH better solution that simply upping the stipends. For one, almost all college athletic programs cost money, so by upping the stipends would lead to schools shutting down certain programs or raising tuition rates. This would keep costs the same for schools. Second, it educates athletes about the nature of sports as a business - a lesson potential professional athletes should learn in school. Third, it gives good college / poor pro players (like Chris Leak) what could be their best chance to make good money... ever! Fourth, it allows players to build resumes for the sports industry through things such as self-marketing, coaching clinics (for pay!), TV appearances, etc. Lastly, it reduces (not eliminates) the regulatory burden for schools and the NCAA.
This romanticized notion of the amateur athlete comes from outdated ideas that people go to college because they are academics and play sports because it is their last chance to really do so. Well, most people who can afford college go to college to make money (and can make money while attending college) and college is no longer the last chance for players to play team sports at a high level.
Snohomie, first a response video
. Distracted, yet?
Regarding the pay for signature, which seems to be the main thing we're discussing, I like the idea of trying to maintain a level playing field across the NCAA instead of furthering the talent level between the big universities and smaller ones (even other D1 schools). My main concern with the pay for a signature aspect is how it could be used as a bribery recruiting tactic. Let’s say a recruiter is at a players house and tells him if you play at Alabama, our richest (private) supporter would like to pay you $500 for 100 signatures to give his kids elementary school (or some crap like that). That’s a $50,000 reason to go play for that school. Maybe I am thinking too outlandish and I’m letting the movie Blue Chips get to my head but when cash starts changing hands between the student and public, it opens the doors for even more unethical business practice, requiring more regulatory burden on the university to keep things fair, not less.
The harsh reality is that is only about 1% of student athletes go on to play professionally, so it's not exactly harming these students future if they aren't treated as such. For the other 99%, they walk away from their universities with a college degree IF they understand they are not there to play sports professionally. Already, I feel student-athletes devotes to much time to being professional athletes instead of focusing on their college degree. In an attempt to help guide the other 99% to a successful future (and the 1% who have short professional careers), I'd rather colleges promote academics over any attempt to prepare them to be a professional athlete and build their image.
I do agree that these programs cost the university lots of money which is why I don't get the overall argument that the NCAA is making billions of dollars off them (not that you brought that up). In many cases, sports like football and basketball have been showed to have a huge positive affect on helping other programs in the university from going under.
Lastly (and not necessarily directed at you, Snohomie), boo-freaking-hoo that these athletes having to play sports as a way of paying for college. I do not get all the sympathy these players get from some people because their sport requires so much time in their lives. So does the waitress job another student has to have while going to school or the 5 years in the military another student uses to pay for schooling. For the 1%, I get it, they probably deserve more than a free education, but for 99% of these students, a full-ride scholarship if well worth any amount a time spent on a sport many would (and do) play for free.