Quote:
Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco
True, no one is forcing the kids to go to college and I certainly wouldn't want to force the schools to pay their players.
What I would like is for schools to be allowed to pay their players if they choose to do so. Soon enough, they'd all be doing it or their cash cows would quickly dry up and give no more free milk.
The vast majority of college players won't make a dime at the pro level unless they become ushers.
|
The problem is that people want to bomb college athletics so address the 2% of NCAA athletes that are actually any kind of profit drivers on their own.
First you have all the non-revenue sports; essentially everything other than football and basketball. Nothing else is profitable for the schools. So right there 9 of 10 NCAA athletes are coming out ahead by getting school paid for.
For the vast VAST majority of athletes in revenue sports, the scholarship model is completely equitable because they're fungible. Even a great OL isn't drawing attendance to the school. Evan Boehm was probably the highest profile, most successful OL recruit in Mizzou history and I'd venture that his time at Mizzou sold precisely zero tickets. The people that went to those games didn't go to them because he was there.
So what are you talking about? A handful of elite skill position players at middle tier schools. Alabama's selling out regardless of any single player. The 'traditional' football powers are going to get people to watch their games regardless of any single player that plays there. The only time an individual makes a difference is someone like Daniel at Mizzou; a guy that really made the program go from a relative also-ran to a legitimate draw.
And you say you don't want to force teams to pay their players but by allowing some schools to do so, you're essentially forcing ALL schools to do so unless you want to create an obvious have/have not situation.
Finally, Title IX makes this possibility an absolute disaster. Remember that schools have to funnel a great deal of the revenue generated by those big money sports to womens athletics that generate no money at all. The closer you get to break even for revenue sports, the more damage you do to every women's sport that is required to be funded and every non-revenue men's sport that may end up on the chopping block to find the $$$ to pay for those women's sports.
Paying players is just a really bad idea and by and large works to the benefit of very few individuals at the massive detriment of a great deal more of them. It's solving a problem that doesn't actually exist, IMO. Or at the very least is wildly overblown. As has already been said - if this relationship wasn't mutually beneficial, kids wouldn't still be playing. If nothing else, the exposure and coaching they get sets them up to make far more at the next level.