|
Post by artvandalay on Apr 10, 2014 8:41:08 GMT -5
With all the talk about paying players involved in NCAA sports how does this effect St Bonaventure? There are so many questions regarding this....Do the girls BB players get the same amount as the men? Do larger schools pay there players more than the smaller schools? This will change college sports as we know them. Curious to hear some different takes on this.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Apr 10, 2014 9:23:44 GMT -5
I am all for paying student athletes who major in underwater fire protection but for the rest of them it is taking the correlation of education and income and throwing it right out the window.
If it comes to pass, it will be the end of collegiate sports as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by sbu79 on Apr 10, 2014 12:10:54 GMT -5
A year or two ago I argued here that the day was coming that players would get paid. I thought that the power conferences would push for it. I think everyone responded it would would never happen or that the NCAA, as a whole, wouldn't allow it. I may have been off target thinking the majors would be the driver, but it is clear that something is going to happen.
Art makes a great point about the men's and women's programs. There already must be equality of opportunity at an institution. If schools start paying, you can bet that equality of compensation will be demanded/required. The only way around it, in my view, is to set payments at relatively low levels (i.e. the "full cost of attendance") and then allow indiviual athletes to receive any outside payments that are made available. I know the arguement will be made that rich boosters will control the sport, but, in reality, that is already the case anyway, just indirectly now.
Fire at will.
|
|
|
Post by gdub2009 on Apr 10, 2014 12:26:55 GMT -5
I still like the Olympic model. You won't get paid by your school, but you can get sponsorship money. This will basically allow the athletes who are really good to get paid what they are worth. These are the athletes earning the most money for their schools anyways. If you aren't good enough to get a sponsorship, then hey you are getting a free education. Stop complaining.
|
|
|
Post by OceanStateBonnie on Apr 10, 2014 13:59:45 GMT -5
I am dead set against paying college athletes any more than they already are getting - an opportunity for a free college degree. It will kill college athletics, at least below the level of the BCS conferences. For the non-LeBron Jameses of the world, college athletics is a way for the high school athlete to continue his or her career. And if they blossom while in college, they might actually get a chance to play for pay. What do you do with the under-performers, fire them? Lawsuit waiting to happen. Let the college player who wants to get paid try to get a tryout with a pro team. Let's keep the sanctity of amateur athletics in place. Keep them student-athletes not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by gdub2009 on Apr 10, 2014 14:45:24 GMT -5
OceanState, I absolutely agree with you. The only problem is the NBA makes you go to school for a year before playing in the NBA. A kid can go overseas for a year, but how many 18 years olds are going to want to do this. I feel the MLB model is the best. You can go straight to the pros out of high school, but if you choose the college route you have to play college ball for 3 years before going pro.
|
|
|
Post by maplehurst on Apr 10, 2014 16:14:09 GMT -5
I am beginning to wonder why I follow major college sports at all. There are only about 11 schools that can win the NCAA Championship in both football and basketball. In Women's Basketball there seems only one. Television revenue is a reality and is changing college sports as we know it. I say, let the players become employees of the universities. If they want an education, they can enroll and pay for tuition. Four years is all they get. No wait, that is close to what it is now.
|
|
|
Post by sony on Apr 10, 2014 16:18:09 GMT -5
tHe First challange is that the NCAA has got to at least leave the 19th century! Most of it's rules and policies are archaic and not relavant to today's times and athletes. For example, everybody kmows that the "jersey" with the number of the BMOC, is selling for mega $$ that are going right to the universlty. That jersey is flying off the selves, yet the BMOC who's number it is, and the only reason they sell thousands of them, isn't seeing a dime! It is worse in those larger institutions where the Athletic Department is not actually a part of the university but in fact, a seperate legal entity. However, for many of the reasons already cited previously and many more, I don't think organizing student athletes into collective bargaining units is going to happen anytime soon. Collegiate athletics would change so dramatically, it would cease to exist!
|
|
|
Post by dadster81 on Apr 10, 2014 17:38:07 GMT -5
As I discussed with some of my fellow workers, major college sports are changing. Lets face it, only BCS schools (and maybe the Big East) have the financial ability to pay athletes/students. The BCS has been threatening to leave the NCAA for quite a while. The BCS will break off, unofficially become the minor leage football and basketball for the NFL and NBA, including paying athletes. They will probably form some type of employment program, so they can ignore equal rights for nonrevenue sports. Enjoy March Madness for the next few years, since it will probably be gone as we know it in 5 years. The BCS will have its own tournament, with its own members. Do not plan on sseeing BCS paid athletes facing other D1 schools in a tourament. There is nothing for the BCS schools to gain (sort of like asking SU to leave the Dome in January). Remember, the NIT used to be a more prestigous tournament than the NCAAs. How about Maryland, 50 plus years as an important member of the ACC, now part of the Big Ten? Times change. As a side note, the NCAA was formed in 1905 to get control over the violence in the sport. Of the 39 founding schools, 20 are still D3. Maybe they are the only ones who kept true to the orignal purpose of the NCAAs.
|
|
|
Post by class70 on Apr 10, 2014 18:00:42 GMT -5
I believe there are only 23 schools in the US whose athletic programs are profitable overall. (I believe I read that in the WSJ a few days ago.) Obviously, more pay for athletes will make the fiscal problems worse. The present model is somewhat like the public school system in that the wealthy (in this case the talent in the money sports) do proportionately much more to fund education for all. It's not fair to those who are bringing in the dollars, but the alternative is a Darwinian system where decisions will inevitably be made to cut the biggest money losers. Actually, it sounds an awful lot like a free market, which I like. I'm confused!
|
|
|
Post by jjjacks17 on Apr 10, 2014 18:12:49 GMT -5
I'm afraid dadster's prediction is right. I'm preparing for the worst.
|
|
|
Post by OceanStateBonnie on Apr 10, 2014 20:30:42 GMT -5
Paying the college players and giving them the option to enroll as students would be like hiring mercenaries. I would find it difficult to be a fan. How about the NBA adopting the NFL rule where an individual has to wait until the time frame where they would have completed their junior year in college before being able to be drafted. I prefer student athletes to minor league pros.
|
|
|
Post by agoo on Apr 10, 2014 21:31:19 GMT -5
NBA taking the NFL rule is even worse than the 1 and done.
They should take the MLB route. Go pro out of high school or wait three years.
|
|
|
Post by gdub2009 on Apr 11, 2014 9:00:58 GMT -5
I really think March Madness will stay the same. Every time the higher ups for the NCAA meet, they always say they aren't changing anything with the NCAA Tournament because they don't want to break the one thing the NCAA does well. The football schools totally splitting is a little ways off if it is going to happen. Splitting off sounds easy, but there is so much more that goes into that. I think we will see the Power 5 conferences get special rules put in place for them, or split off into a new football division within the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by dadster81 on Apr 11, 2014 9:50:49 GMT -5
There is no reason (outside of bad PR, which will only come from non BCS schools) for the BCS to stay in the NCAAs. The NCAA is a (cough) nonprofit organization that you pay to belong to. There are other College Leagues outside of the NCAA with their own rules (for example, the NAIA). I am sure the BCS is looking at the fees they pay to the NCAAs and wondering, why? They control the TV Contracts for the most part, not the NCAA. Also, I cannot see a BB tournament where some teams are getting paid to play, and others are not. Lastly, I can see the BCS wanting to break off, so they will not be as scutinized as the NCAA can be by government. Right now, the NCAA is hoping they can pound a round peg (BCS wishes) into a square hole (their current rules, and all of the other members wishes).
|
|