Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 142
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Reducing the parity is something that might be long time coming. The fact that there are 351(?) schools with division 1 programs is probably hugely overblown. How many are truly profitable in the first place. Even more relevant of a question is how many of those programs are actually doing their schools any good in terms of their "real" mission of educating students or is college athletics more of a distraction. Maybe paring down the number of programs is better for college athletics. The schools who actually have money for them can put out a better product. All those random youtube media videos to get to know our players... that's all paid for by money in the program, not school spirit. For all the posters who lament the good ol' days where you had a smaller ACC and round robin tournaments, you might actually get what you want. Instead of playing exhibition matches against Grand Canyon University, most of our out of conference matches will actually be against teams as good as Kentucky, Villanova, or Gonzaga. As far as I'm concerned, no one really knows how it will play out.

    Regardless of allowing boosters to pay players or not, it's pretty clear that not allowing players to benefit from their own likeness is an entirely unsustainable and immoral system not dis-similar to indentured servitude. The facade that these players maybe getting an education as payment is ridiculous. If it is really only due to this artificial regulations that we can enjoy college sports, then I'm fine with letting it die whatever death may comes.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by dchen09 View Post
    Reducing the parity is something that might be long time coming. The fact that there are 351(?) schools with division 1 programs is probably hugely overblown. How many are truly profitable in the first place. Even more relevant of a question is how many of those programs are actually doing their schools any good in terms of their "real" mission of educating students or is college athletics more of a distraction. Maybe paring down the number of programs is better for college athletics. The schools who actually have money for them can put out a better product. All those random youtube media videos to get to know our players... that's all paid for by money in the program, not school spirit. For all the posters who lament the good ol' days where you had a smaller ACC and round robin tournaments, you might actually get what you want. Instead of playing exhibition matches against Grand Canyon University, most of our out of conference matches will actually be against teams as good as Kentucky, Villanova, or Gonzaga. As far as I'm concerned, no one really knows how it will play out.

    Regardless of allowing boosters to pay players or not, it's pretty clear that not allowing players to benefit from their own likeness is an entirely unsustainable and immoral system not dis-similar to indentured servitude. The facade that these players maybe getting an education as payment is ridiculous. If it is really only due to this artificial regulations that we can enjoy college sports, then I'm fine with letting it die whatever death may comes.
    You are gonna get hammered on "indentured servitude" but we definitely agree. The coded language is strong.

    If this ends the charade of amateurism, I'm fine with that. If it means that Duke somehow opts out and ends up in an Ivy League style group of like-minded academic schools, I'm fine with that too. I'll still watch, and know that the players who are on the court for Duke want to be there and are actual students.

    I don't expect that though. Way too much money on the table.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by dchen09 View Post
    Reducing the parity is something that might be long time coming. The fact that there are 351(?) schools with division 1 programs is probably hugely overblown. How many are truly profitable in the first place. Even more relevant of a question is how many of those programs are actually doing their schools any good in terms of their "real" mission of educating students or is college athletics more of a distraction. Maybe paring down the number of programs is better for college athletics. The schools who actually have money for them can put out a better product. All those random youtube media videos to get to know our players... that's all paid for by money in the program, not school spirit. For all the posters who lament the good ol' days where you had a smaller ACC and round robin tournaments, you might actually get what you want. Instead of playing exhibition matches against Grand Canyon University, most of our out of conference matches will actually be against teams as good as Kentucky, Villanova, or Gonzaga. As far as I'm concerned, no one really knows how it will play out.

    Regardless of allowing boosters to pay players or not, it's pretty clear that not allowing players to benefit from their own likeness is an entirely unsustainable and immoral system not dis-similar to indentured servitude. The facade that these players maybe getting an education as payment is ridiculous. If it is really only due to this artificial regulations that we can enjoy college sports, then I'm fine with letting it die whatever death may comes.
    You lost me at "not dis-similar to indentured servitude". That is a ridiculous comparison. Read some history and see what indentured servitude was.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by dchen09 View Post
    Reducing the parity is something that might be long time coming. The fact that there are 351(?) schools with division 1 programs is probably hugely overblown. How many are truly profitable in the first place. Even more relevant of a question is how many of those programs are actually doing their schools any good in terms of their "real" mission of educating students or is college athletics more of a distraction. Maybe paring down the number of programs is better for college athletics. The schools who actually have money for them can put out a better product. All those random youtube media videos to get to know our players... that's all paid for by money in the program, not school spirit. For all the posters who lament the good ol' days where you had a smaller ACC and round robin tournaments, you might actually get what you want. Instead of playing exhibition matches against Grand Canyon University, most of our out of conference matches will actually be against teams as good as Kentucky, Villanova, or Gonzaga. As far as I'm concerned, no one really knows how it will play out.

    Regardless of allowing boosters to pay players or not, it's pretty clear that not allowing players to benefit from their own likeness is an entirely unsustainable and immoral system not dis-similar to indentured servitude. The facade that these players maybe getting an education as payment is ridiculous. If it is really only due to this artificial regulations that we can enjoy college sports, then I'm fine with letting it die whatever death may comes.
    DChen: There are a number of smaller schools, many of them private, who have decided that having a sports program is the key to the success of the college -- which involves attracting students who pay tuition and keeping the alums supporting Dear Old Siwash. But, of course, larger schools see the benefits of high-profile athletic programs. Long-time Arkansas coach and AD Frank Broyles referred to athletics as the "front porch of the university." And as Clark Kerr, the long-ago chancellor of UC Berkeley said in 1958 at the inauguration of the UDub president, Charles Odegaard, “I find that the three major administrative problems on a campus are sex for the students, athletics for the alumni and parking for the faculty.”
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    Pity the 10 or 11 or so poor schmucks on the team making $0.95 while the stars wallow.
    While that may be true at some schools, at the schools with the biggest followings I am betting we see some kind of reasonable compensation for even the low-bench players. I mean, hundreds of thousands of Duke fans know who Joey Baker is. That will be worth something.

    This would also be where I point out that a system that paid Joey Baker the same as Zion Williamson would be terribly flawed. This would also be the point where I point out that Steph Curry makes about 50 times as much as Damion Lee. I suspect the college compensation packages will be more balanced than that.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  6. #26
    If only items with this logo could have been sold while Zion was playing at Duke, we would have had him 4 years. Not on a face mask, of course, but on t shirts and everything else.
    61KZ0R-bWWL._AC_SX679_.jpg

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Albemarle, North Carolina
    I agree the athletes must be paid, I just feel this is among the worst ways to do it.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" -Stephen Hawking

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by JNort View Post
    I agree the athletes must be paid, I just feel this is among the worst ways to do it.
    Seeing as most of the experts think it is a good way -- it does not put a burden on smaller schools and it embraces the "free market" concept of compensating players whatever businesses and consumers say they are actually worth -- I would be interested in hearing why you think it is a bad idea and what your solution to the "pay the players" problem would be.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by JNort View Post
    I agree the athletes must be paid, I just feel this is among the worst ways to do it.
    Makes the most sense to me. Let the market set their pay. Let the players build a brand.

  10. #30
    I wonder if there could by a way to keep a players college choice from affecting his pay/endorsements.

    Maybe allow the endorsement deals, but only ones that are inked before a player commits or signs? Or maybe again later but not until after maybe 2 seasons at a school?

    Just wondering if there's any feasible way to stop this from being yet another advantage for bigger schools and programs over smaller ones. The advantages are already tilted enough in favor of power programs and conferences (and I say this well knowing that Virginia will likely only become a bigger and bigger brand over the next 5/10/20 years, or however long Bennett is there). There's got to be away to limit the endorsement deals from affecting recruiting even more than it already does OUTSIDE the rules.

    Seriously, once this rule change is in effect, what's to stop shoe companies from just paying kids to go to certain schools? How do you maintain any semblance of competitive fairness? (For the record, I'm aware it's far from a level playing field already - isn't this just going to make things worse though? Does anybody care?)

  11. #31
    About time they paid athletes what they are worth. Let the market dictate the salary.

    Sadly, it took the threat of the G League to get them to take this step.

    As usual the NCAA only move when it threatens their bottom line. Hopefully, this means some top players are more inclined to stay another year in college if they don't like where their draft stock is at.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Dukehk View Post
    About time they paid athletes what they are worth. Let the market dictate the salary.

    Sadly, it took the threat of the G League to get them to take this step.

    As usual the NCAA only move when it threatens their bottom line. Hopefully, this means some top players are more inclined to stay another year in college if they don't like where their draft stock is at.
    more likely the california law.
    It's being reported that due to coronavirus fears, Harvard has asked students not to return from spring break, and for classes to be held online.

    Not to be outdone, UNC told students to stop coming to class 27 years ago under Dean Smith.

  13. #33

    NCAA group supports player endorsement plan

    The NCAA's top governing body said Wednesday that it supports a proposal to allow college athletes to sign endorsement contracts and receive payment for other work, provided that the schools they attend are not involved in any of the payments.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Seeing as most of the experts think it is a good way -- it does not put a burden on smaller schools and it embraces the "free market" concept of compensating players whatever businesses and consumers say they are actually worth -- I would be interested in hearing why you think it is a bad idea and what your solution to the "pay the players" problem would be.
    True...but these small schools are going to get hit because any of the decent 4-5 star talent they may get (or even 3 star talent) aren't going to come sniffing around those schools. To make money off endorsements, you need exposure. And exposure is going to come from big schools or established schools.

    As someone who is a much bigger Duke basketball fan than college basketball fan (I'd watch an NBA game over any non-Duke college game any day and twice on Sunday), I think this helps Duke out while hurting 90%+ of the other schools. Unless you are a top 5 program (Duke, UK, KU, MSU, UNC) or a massive state school (UF, UT, OSU, etc), you're likely going to see a lack of talent coming to your school. Hell, if Duke isn't careful, it could very well see its brand slip which would translate to lack of national exposure which would translate to late of top recruits.

    I'm happy players are going to get somewhat compensated in arguably the biggest "amateur" charade in all of sports (up there with college football). But this is going to hurt a lot of small schools who already have issues competing with the big dogs.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    True...but these small schools are going to get hit because any of the decent 4-5 star talent they may get (or even 3 star talent) aren't going to come sniffing around those schools. To make money off endorsements, you need exposure. And exposure is going to come from big schools or established schools...

    ...this is going to hurt a lot of small schools who already have issues competing with the big dogs.
    Among the top 50 recruits in the 247 composite (the guys who would be most likely to get endorsement deals) 5 are turning pro (to the NBA or elsewhere), 1 is going to Gonzaga, 1 is going to Marquette, 1 is going to Xavier and the other 42 are all going to either the ACC, SEC, B12, B10, or Pac??.

    The smaller schools weren't competing for the 4 and 5 star recruits anyway. The fact that endorsement deals tied to Auburn are going to pay better than Alabama-Birmingham won't make a difference in any recruit's decision, I suspect.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by atoomer0881 View Post
    The NCAA's top governing body said Wednesday that it supports a proposal to allow college athletes to sign endorsement contracts and receive payment for other work, provided that the schools they attend are not involved in any of the payments.
    Does that include boosters of the school?
    "This is the best of all possible worlds."
    Dr. Pangloss - Candide

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Among the top 50 recruits in the 247 composite (the guys who would be most likely to get endorsement deals) 5 are turning pro (to the NBA or elsewhere), 1 is going to Gonzaga, 1 is going to Marquette, 1 is going to Xavier and the other 42 are all going to either the ACC, SEC, B12, B10, or Pac??.

    The smaller schools weren't competing for the 4 and 5 star recruits anyway. The fact that endorsement deals tied to Auburn are going to pay better than Alabama-Birmingham won't make a difference in any recruit's decision, I suspect.
    Then we are going to disagree greatly. And it’s not just Power 5 vs everyone else; the ‘smaller schools’ in those power conferences are going to suffer. Duke football is going to get rocked by this, because a 4 star recruit can now ask, ‘do I want to get coached by a really good coach at a mediocre football school or go to a big school with a crap coach?’

    This will have a huge impact. and I mean that in a good way because at least this is an avenue for students getting paid.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Seeing as most of the experts think it is a good way -- it does not put a burden on smaller schools and it embraces the "free market" concept of compensating players whatever businesses and consumers say they are actually worth -- I would be interested in hearing why you think it is a bad idea and what your solution to the "pay the players" problem would be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Makes the most sense to me. Let the market set their pay. Let the players build a brand.
    Guys and gals, I have a lot to say on this subject, but I can't respond in detail now. Basically, extensions of the theme that college sports is an important part of the U.S., nay global, sports world. The way it works is by a complex variety of rules and cross-subsidies. Before we change one or another of the major legs of the system, we should think what it will do to the entire enterprise. College sports has been a thriving and exciting enterprise for the past century.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    True...but these small schools are going to get hit because any of the decent 4-5 star talent they may get (or even 3 star talent) aren't going to come sniffing around those schools. To make money off endorsements, you need exposure. And exposure is going to come from big schools or established schools.

    I could also see a development over time where schools located in big advertising markets - NY and LA - have a massive recruiting advantage as well. Schools with renowned marketing programs have an easy sell to bring players in and set them up with deals based on their connections and alumni.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Guys and gals, I have a lot to say on this subject, but I can't respond in detail now. Basically, extensions of the theme that college sports is an important part of the U.S., nay global, sports world. The way it works is by a complex variety of rules and cross-subsidies. Before we change one or another of the major legs of the system, we should think what it will do to the entire enterprise. College sports has been a thriving and exciting enterprise for the past century.
    I look forward to your future detailed thoughts on this topic, sage. I too expect some major unintended consequences as it's impossible to predict how this will all shake out.

    I think if there weren't a bunch of shady characters trying to take advantage of these guys, the model of them getting paid via endoresments and other deals (i.e. the olympic model) would work, but unfortunately that's not the case...Money complicates things. Hard to see how it will all play out, but the great article about the "bag man" phenomenon prevalent in SEC football will essentially be legitimized so we can expect a lot of bags of cash (well, I guess they will be able to be checks now?!?). We shall see...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-09-2020, 08:01 PM
  2. How to Pay NCAA Revenue Athletes
    By Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 03-03-2018, 02:55 PM
  3. A way NCAA athletes could receive compensation
    By g-money in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-28-2013, 03:06 PM
  4. NCAA Rules: Student-Athletes and Earning
    By ElSid in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-19-2010, 05:37 PM
  5. NCAA: Serious about graduating student-athletes?
    By Verga3 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-21-2010, 10:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •