The Landscape of NCAA Olympic Sports

[3397char]

Build a wall
Hey lets ban Federally funded Univ BioMedical research from hiring Chinese post grads
Large buildings full of research would close

Just to be clear, this affects athletic scholarships only.

 

[3397char]

The Protect College Sports Act passes the Senate with a bunch of amendments. It still needs to pass the house as well, unclear if that will happen this term.


a great article by Greg on this here:

Senate Passes Protect College Sports Act; What It Means for UNC

The bill now heads to the U.S. House of Representatives, although its consideration will likely be delayed until after the midterm elections in November.

www.on3.com

and here is a summary of some key provisions as well:





of perhaps key interest to this board in $5 million in new revenue sharing set aside for non-revenue sports. As I understand it, this will include women’s basketball, but not baseball.

also, schools must maintain their scholarship count from the 2024-25 season going forward ( slow bar for UNC since we vastly increased scholarship count in 2025-26) this will include baseball.

 

[oldeastjl]

The House is out of session and won't reconvene until late November. In order for a bill to become a law, it must pass both houses during the same congress. This congress terminates at the end of the year. Due to turf battles, mainly thanks to Eduardo "Ted" Cruz and all-time House laziness, this bill is DOA.

 

[3397char]

The House is out of session and won't reconvene until late November. In order for a bill to become a law, it must pass both houses during the same congress. This congress terminates at the end of the year. Due to turf battles, mainly thanks to Eduardo "Ted" Cruz and all-time House laziness, this bill is DOA.

Either way, the senators who championed this bill got the win they wanted. It does it actually matter if it becomes law.

but I don’t see anything other than wishful fans saying this bill is completely DOA in the House. A tougher fight certainly, but strange things happen in lame duck sessions.

 

[oldeastjl]

Either way, the senators who championed this bill got the win they wanted. It does it actually matter if it becomes law.

but I don’t see anything other than wishful fans saying this bill is completely DOA in the House. A tougher fight certainly, but strange things happen in lame duck sessions.

The House put forth their version and it was not even given a hearing in the Senate. Cruz is holding up several House bills to get what he wants. He's the most hated senator in the chamber. It grabs headlines and gets attention. This bill won't pass.

 

[mpaer]

Just to be clear, this affects athletic scholarships only.

Yes
My point was making Foreign Player the Boogeyman is dumb There is a long list of NCAA problems bigger than this

 

[3397char]

Yes
My point was making Foreign Player the Boogeyman is dumb There is a long list of NCAA problems bigger than this

1. For better or worse, Congress is attempting to address multiple NCAA issues as we speak; this is not the only one on their radar.
2. While an argument can be made that the presenters of this particular bill are more interested in the xenophobic spectre of international students on college campuses, I do believe there is a legit argument to be made, in certain sports, that this is not the best version of college athletics.

Many college programs in tennis, golf, soccer, T&F/XC & Ice hockey have devolved their recruitment programs into merely combing semi-pro club teams overseas for the large majority of their roster. And as a result there are some smaller colleges where most of their international students are now recruited varsity athletes.

International students in the USA for academic purposes are much more likely to stay, a massive boon to the US economy. Even if they leave, their college participation helps keep us the intellectual and research leaders of the world, because most are well above average students and researchers. Over 80% pay the full, highest tuition rate, whereas roughly only 15% of US students pay full sticker price. International students are effectively subsidizing US higher education. If we contunue the recent trend in barring them, it is a gift to foreign universities, especially in China, allowing them to close the prestige and research gap.

International athletes, on the other hand, are much more likely to come and go. And while they are here, they are less likely to add much to what college campuses produce, except wins. Even if they are good students, they really do not have time to devote to the highest academic pursuits because of their sport. In the process, most are consuming scholarships, funded almost exclusively by US donors. It is, in effect, the opposite of academic international students, economically speaking.

Back to the recruiting, it just seems like one of many gaming-of-the-system techniques that coaches use to try and find a competitive advantage. And for the sports I mentioned above, especially tennis, it is becoming really hard not to use this model.

I have always advocated for UNC to seek out any player anywhere. On an individual or team level, I do not care which country appears on their passport cover. UNC should use the system in place to compete at its best.

But i am not opposed to addressing flaws in the system to make it better, or preserve what has worked. As to this particular issue, it is a fact that there are collectively many thousands fewer opportunities for US athletes than existed just a decade ago.

It is OK to just consider that trend the evolving open global market, as it should be. It is also OK to consider it something worth addressing, minus any nationalist red meat rhetoric.

 

[mpaer]

1. For better or worse, Congress is attempting to address multiple NCAA issues as we speak; this is not the only one on their radar.
2. While an argument can be made that the presenters of this particular bill are more interested in the xenophobic spectre of international students on college campuses, I do believe there is a legit argument to be made, in certain sports, that this is not the best version of college athletics.

Many college programs in tennis, golf, soccer, T&F/XC & Ice hockey have devolved their recruitment programs into merely combing semi-pro club teams overseas for the large majority of their roster. And as a result there are some smaller colleges where most of their international students are now recruited varsity athletes.

International students in the USA for academic purposes are much more likely to stay, a massive boon to the US economy. Even if they leave, their college participation helps keep us the intellectual and research leaders of the world, because most are well above average students and researchers. Over 80% pay the full, highest tuition rate, whereas roughly only 15% of US students pay full sticker price. International students are effectively subsidizing US higher education. If we contunue the recent trend in barring them, it is a gift to foreign universities, especially in China, allowing them to close the prestige and research gap.

International athletes, on the other hand, are much more likely to come and go. And while they are here, they are less likely to add much to what college campuses produce, except wins. Even if they are good students, they really do not have time to devote to the highest academic pursuits because of their sport. In the process, most are consuming scholarships, funded almost exclusively by US donors. It is, in effect, the opposite of academic international students, economically speaking.

Back to the recruiting, it just seems like one of many gaming-of-the-system techniques that coaches use to try and find a competitive advantage. And for the sports I mentioned above, especially tennis, it is becoming really hard not to use this model.

I have always advocated for UNC to seek out any player anywhere. On an individual or team level, I do not care which country appears on their passport cover. UNC should use the system in place to compete at its best.

But i am not opposed to addressing flaws in the system to make it better, or preserve what has worked. As to this particular issue, it is a fact that there are collectively many thousands fewer opportunities for US athletes than existed just a decade ago.

It is OK to just consider that trend the evolving open global market, as it should be. It is also OK to consider it something worth addressing, minus any nationalist red meat rhetoric.

Thanks
Appreciate your thoughts as always
Honestly I dont see how Euro Pro players in College Basketball are "OKAY"