#Not NCAA property
- Thread starter fredmanthecatfan
- Start date
why don't you just tell me what you want to hear
I have a feeling me saying he was a talented player that would improve their chances of winning basketball isn't going to be the answer you want.
you two are going to have to get your arguments aligned
ok, Oklahoma St wasn't lucky , he was playing there regardless because of his brother, so its irrelevant what his earning potential would be somewhere else or playing in the G-league
my take is a college degree proves you can manage your life, still meet objectives and gather knowledge in a specific discipline as you grow. In some cases, mostly tied to labs, internships and work programs, you get training that makes you prepared for the ideal job. Your GPA shows just how well you juggled all of that.
This is coming from someone who hires 20 or so college graduates every year.
Correct, hence my "dig deeper" request. Your answer, while correct, was only surface level. What's funny, is that I believe you know that you were wrong, but are to prideful to admit it. You seem like a very intelligent person, it's ok to change ones position, to me, that's an even greater sign of intelligence, because it shows that one is open mined to logic, reason and persuasion.
Then shouldn't the players grievance actually be with the NBA and the NBA Players Association?
Isn't it that group, led by SJW James that is actually keeping these players that are good enough to get paid for playing a game, from being able to join their "work force", and cash in on their cash cow?
It's not the NCAA or the schools that are preventing the players from being able to make money on their basketball talents.
It's Lebron and the NBA. That sounds a lot like oppression and unfair rules to me.
I graduated from a pretty reputable university, Furman and I think that most college degrees are a complete scam. I'm completely and totally in favor of trade schools, where an actual skill is taught and learned.
Im gonna go out on a limb and guess that Cade (and all elite, lottery pick basketball players) are not worried about finishing their communications degree so they can add it to their resumé.
Why not just let them make money on their name, image and likeness? Currently they are preventing them from earning that revenue stream with no logical reason (hence why the NIL is coming). Players who are stars will make whatever money the "market" allows and the non-stars will learn to appreciate their scholarship when they realize Wheaties doesnt give a crap about the role players.
I personally would rather see the stars play in college instead of forcing them to the G-league.
Amazing some of you all think student-athletes are the only adults in America who shouldn't be able to benefit from capitalism.
Amazing some of you all think student-athletes are the only adults in America who shouldn't be able to benefit from capitalism.
no, you're not even close. I"m guessing you want me to tie attending that school to them increasing the schools revenue
and I've already told you that is irrelevant to your argument. You're obsessed with how much the school makes as some justification for a player profiting from their likeness. The two are separate issues.
the reason why is because Brandon Boston would have landed a no show job at a Kentucky horse farm making $50K for 3 months and as a side perk to the job, he would have received a house rent free for his parents for consulting. That's why they can't benefit from capitalism, because it would no longer be a sport for about 250 of the 300 or so Div I schools.
I'm not obsessed with anything related to sports, this is just a game, mere entertainment.
I'm just holding you accountable to your own standards, you believe that a school should be able to profit off of a players talent, so do I. I also believe that a player should be able to profit off of his/her own talent, you do not. There's no consistency in your position.
The biggest issue I see is that players would just go to the highest bidder. A car dealership in Alabama could pay an AD $1M to be in his commercials whereas a donor for UK might only be willing to pay Half million.
It would be the end of even the semblance of Amateur athletics. Might as well call it NBA Jr. League and put some rules around how much each player can be paid based on which year of college they are in.
And? As long as it's not illegal, let the market dictate the consequences. If enough people disapprove of a fake horse farm job, the people in charge of setting that up will be shamed into eliminating it. But your example is obviously extreme, most people are citing signed autographs or car dealership billboards.
Open market. Capitalism. Bama will "buy" the best fball players at the market price. Kentucky will "buy" the best bball players at the market price. And the world will keep spinning.
no I don't believe a school should profit from an individuals players talent. Its a team sport. Whether player X attended the school or not, the school would still do act and perform the same way.
You keep making these assumptions and statements that aren't based on the arguments I'm presenting.
oh man, clearly you became a fan after Eddie Sutton.
Your arguments are very close to going off the rails.
Boston was a top 5 recruit. His market value was high. If UK didnt provide him the job someone else would have. And maybe he would have played better at that school. Who knows. Market value isn't based on already knowing the future.
Nitpicking a bit there leadbelly? You haven't changed. What an arrogant ***.
Because I provided you evidence?
Is Leadbelly your guy's internet safeword or something?
Boston was just an example, I'm not referencing what he did or didn't do on the court.
JMHO but I disagree here. The money would be coming from the popularity of the player, not the fan base. The majority of the highly rated players are already going to the blue bloods and other popular programs.
I honestly don't think Zion Williamson would make more money at UK that he would have at Clemson. If you are legit, you are legit anywhere. Is LeBron any more marketable at LA than he was in Cleveland? Nope...just brighter lights.
Not to mention the schools all have a limited number of scholarships. The school still has to want the player and those players who are being recruited at UK are generally being recruited at Duke, Carolina, Kansas and so on.
Why does it matter if the top 10 recruits get paid extra for autographs and endorsements while attending their one year in college? How does that ruin anything?
its one thing to say Lebron is just as marketeable at one NBA franchise as another but to say that Zion would have the same earning potential at a football school that doesn't prioritize basketball and is hit or miss on the ncaa tournament over going to a basketball blueblood?
frankly I don't now how you could even rationalize that argument
frankly I don't now how you could even rationalize that argument
because college basketball isn't capable of monitoring it
and 250 or so div I sports programs would have no chance of competing. Its lopsided now but in theory they can offer the same thing any other school can. But if you introduce unlimited earning potential, they are out of the race completely. Some would even fold up and stop having a team. You even admit that some schools would have an inherit advantage in getting players paid.
Now you are limiting access to college for many players to appease a handful of talented ones. College would be better off just telling the handful of talented ones to go elsewhere.
Kentucky/Duke/UNC/Kansas/MSU are not going to have 30 person basketball recruiting classes.
Cade Cunningham or someone of his magnitude would make just as much money at OSU as they would at UK. This isn't about the John Miller Ford ad in Lexington....people follow these guys. You think Cade would have that many more followers at UK than he does at OSU? No way.
Of numbers closer to mine than yours, you sure did sunshine.
If you are great, you are great. Doesn't matter where he plays. How many games of OK St basketball were on this season vs UK on ESPN?
so people in California are going to be buying Zion Williamson jerseys if he plays on a 18-14 Clemson team that doesn't make the NCAA tournament at the same rate they would be if he played on a 28-4 UK team that is a #1 seed going into the tournament (I can dream right?) I mean that is what we are talking about right? That he will develop fans outside the school fanbase?
I'm not saying he won't sell jerseys or whatever
but to say he isn't going to benefit from school choice is just well...inexplicable to me.
5 star recruits rarely ever go to non-P5 schools anyways. Every P5 school can and will meet market value if an elite 5-star wants to attend their school. This might help the blue bloods some but there will still be infinitely more parity in college basketball than there is in college football or any other major sports league where we see the same teams in the championship year after year after year. Again, the only major change is the ability to outbid G-league and overseas for the elite guys, which I would rather see in college.
so now the school is paying market value ? I thought this was player likeness and autographs
you've already got them cheating
just imagine Trevor Lawrence in an open and transparent bidding war. You really think any P5 school could compete?
There would be about maybe 10 schools that would be in the bidding war. You'd start seeing players putting athletic programs in the red as funds would be diverted to covering landing players that would allow them to compete with Alabama.
That is the traditional school of thought. But more and more people are realizing that college does little train people careers beyond teaching how to follow pre-established steps and delaying them gaining an expertise in their field.
If schools spent more on players than the players generated that's on them.
But the entire idea is flawed and only necessitated because the NBA didn't want to invest in a farm system (such as baseball and soccer -in most of the world). If the NBA dedicates itself to the g-league then college basketball, in it's current form, will die on the vine.
It's not fair to make money off players for non-market driven compensation. And it's not feasible to have competitive balance in an open market.