DGL n NIL

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
All high school and college athletics -- every sport -- fits that definition. It's because the coach is hired full time to train kids who are there for 4 years. In college, 5 years, if a player takes a redshirt. But no other sport market applies rules to the number of years a player can compete. It's a full-time job for professional athletes for as long as they make the team. It's a full-time job for college coaches, 365 days a year, as long as they win. For high school and college players it's part-time, and college players get EVERYTHING paid for and can't be cut from the team, without cause, once they are enrolled. It isn't as straightforward as you want to make it.
This is a silly argument. Internships are similarly time boxed, and yet interns are paid market wages (which sometimes in some industries in rough economies is 0 or negative). Being time boxed is not a reason to argue markets won't work. Please find another line of argument to justify why coaches deserve market rates but student athletes don't
 

BoilerAndy

All-American
Aug 31, 2010
6,115
9,280
113
This is a silly argument. Internships are similarly time boxed, and yet interns are paid market wages (which sometimes in some industries in rough economies is 0 or negative). Being time boxed is not a reason to argue markets won't work. Please find another line of argument to justify why coaches deserve market rates but student athletes don't
You asked for an example, which you said did not exist. I gave you multiple. I think it's you who needs to find another argument.

And internships? Wasn't it you who argued the unfairness of the medical system and how interns are treated and paid? Are you changing your tune?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris P Bacon

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
You asked for an example, which you said did not exist. I gave you multiple. I think it's you who needs to find another argument.

And internships? Wasn't it you who argued the unfairness of the medical system and how interns are treated and paid? Are you changing your tune?
don't compare medical residencies to regular internships in many other industries. Medical residencies absolutely are not market rates. Most other internships are.

unless I missed something, what exact examples did you give? all i saw was more silly explanation for why college sports is different and justify why student athletes should be paid below their market rates.
 

Wolegib

All-American
May 23, 2013
9,428
5,483
113
an example that is not talked about much. Musicians can get full ride scholarships. they do exit. a musician puts in just as much time during the week for that half time show as an athlete does for a game. the pep band has to be at every game athletes are at. a musician works just as hard at their craft as any athlete does. Should they be compensated as much as an athlete is?

During the 60's UW's football team lost around 30 games in a row. During the good years, the y would win 3-4 games. the same was said about their basketball team. the fans were happy if their basketball team had a ..500 record. But the stadium and arena were still packed. the fans came to get drunk and watch the band play. they could care less about the product on the field. Do you truly believe fans come to Purdue games to watch basketball? or is it more a chance to socialize in public? much like going to a movie? when you go to a movie in college, do you go to actually watch the movie? or do you go to watch your date? Playing putt putt or canoeing can be as exciting as going to a sporting event.

now back to the musicians. many of the band members at many schools are on full ride scholarships. HOWEVER >>>>>>>>>> they are also allowed to play their own gigs and earn money on the side without those gigs affecting their scholarships. I knew some musicians ho were regularly asked to fill in for local orchestras as part of a professional show. When Manheim Steamroller performs, there are 5 professionals, and their back-up orchestra is made up of local people. and those locals get paid. i believe this is what the NCAA was trying to do for their sports with the creation of the NIL . to tell the athlete, they can be like a musician and make some money on the side if they wanted, and still be able to keep their scholarship.

I was a part of the purdue glee club in the 70's. We practiced a lot more than any athlete did. and we had twice as many performances. and our soloists had a lot of gigs on the side for private JPC parties etc. Our soloists were making at least $1,000 a month on the side playing for purdue alumni functions in the 70's. and they received a lot of those Benjamins that were never reported. We may have been labeled as amateur students, but we were professional musicians.

another story. I personally know several track athletes who were also on Olympic teams. they were considered as amateurs, but they were compensated, had nice cars and lived in nice houses off campus.

what you see now has been going on for ages. it's just more transparent. And you have more idiots who don't have anything else to spend their money on. if they didn't spend it on an athlete, they'd just give it to a politician. So what's the difference?
 

Bethboilerfan

Senior
Sep 14, 2012
3,814
4,015
113
an example that is not talked about much. Musicians can get full ride scholarships. they do exit. a musician puts in just as much time during the week for that half time show as an athlete does for a game. the pep band has to be at every game athletes are at. a musician works just as hard at their craft as any athlete does. Should they be compensated as much as an athlete is?

During the 60's UW's football team lost around 30 games in a row. During the good years, the y would win 3-4 games. the same was said about their basketball team. the fans were happy if their basketball team had a ..500 record. But the stadium and arena were still packed. the fans came to get drunk and watch the band play. they could care less about the product on the field. Do you truly believe fans come to Purdue games to watch basketball? or is it more a chance to socialize in public? much like going to a movie? when you go to a movie in college, do you go to actually watch the movie? or do you go to watch your date? Playing putt putt or canoeing can be as exciting as going to a sporting event.

now back to the musicians. many of the band members at many schools are on full ride scholarships. HOWEVER >>>>>>>>>> they are also allowed to play their own gigs and earn money on the side without those gigs affecting their scholarships. I knew some musicians ho were regularly asked to fill in for local orchestras as part of a professional show. When Manheim Steamroller performs, there are 5 professionals, and their back-up orchestra is made up of local people. and those locals get paid. i believe this is what the NCAA was trying to do for their sports with the creation of the NIL . to tell the athlete, they can be like a musician and make some money on the side if they wanted, and still be able to keep their scholarship.

I was a part of the purdue glee club in the 70's. We practiced a lot more than any athlete did. and we had twice as many performances. and our soloists had a lot of gigs on the side for private JPC parties etc. Our soloists were making at least $1,000 a month on the side playing for purdue alumni functions in the 70's. and they received a lot of those Benjamins that were never reported. We may have been labeled as amateur students, but we were professional musicians.

another story. I personally know several track athletes who were also on Olympic teams. they were considered as amateurs, but they were compensated, had nice cars and lived in nice houses off campus.

what you see now has been going on for ages. it's just more transparent. And you have more idiots who don't have anything else to spend their money on. if they didn't spend it on an athlete, they'd just give it to a politician. So what's the difference?
I think what you are describing would be acceptable to most people but that is not what is happening with NIL. There is a huge difference between a $1,000 a month and $500,000 a year. In addition student musicians are unlikely to go on to professional music careers as music is a very difficult professional path so most students are interested in getting an education. By the way I find college band performances very entertaining and I am quite sorry that they no longer show them.
 
Apr 26, 2019
171
364
63
That’s my point: when they become ACTUAL professional minor leaguers, the popularity of those sports will follow that of other professional minor league sports. Might as well be the Lafayette Lions or whatever at that point.
That is correct. The only reason that they are able to capitalize monetarily from college sports the way they do is because of the emotional attachment we have for our universities. We channel that through the sports teams but i know for me, NIL changes how I feel about college sports and it feels dirty that it comes down to being a professional sport. If that is the case , I don’t have interest anymore because people are at schools because of money and not because of chemistry with the community they are part of. It changes alot about how I spend my money and time.
 

bonefish1

All-American
Oct 4, 2004
14,485
13,521
113
an example that is not talked about much. Musicians can get full ride scholarships. they do exit. a musician puts in just as much time during the week for that half time show as an athlete does for a game. the pep band has to be at every game athletes are at. a musician works just as hard at their craft as any athlete does. Should they be compensated as much as an athlete is?

During the 60's UW's football team lost around 30 games in a row. During the good years, the y would win 3-4 games. the same was said about their basketball team. the fans were happy if their basketball team had a ..500 record. But the stadium and arena were still packed. the fans came to get drunk and watch the band play. they could care less about the product on the field. Do you truly believe fans come to Purdue games to watch basketball? or is it more a chance to socialize in public? much like going to a movie? when you go to a movie in college, do you go to actually watch the movie? or do you go to watch your date? Playing putt putt or canoeing can be as exciting as going to a sporting event.

now back to the musicians. many of the band members at many schools are on full ride scholarships. HOWEVER >>>>>>>>>> they are also allowed to play their own gigs and earn money on the side without those gigs affecting their scholarships. I knew some musicians ho were regularly asked to fill in for local orchestras as part of a professional show. When Manheim Steamroller performs, there are 5 professionals, and their back-up orchestra is made up of local people. and those locals get paid. i believe this is what the NCAA was trying to do for their sports with the creation of the NIL . to tell the athlete, they can be like a musician and make some money on the side if they wanted, and still be able to keep their scholarship.

I was a part of the purdue glee club in the 70's. We practiced a lot more than any athlete did. and we had twice as many performances. and our soloists had a lot of gigs on the side for private JPC parties etc. Our soloists were making at least $1,000 a month on the side playing for purdue alumni functions in the 70's. and they received a lot of those Benjamins that were never reported. We may have been labeled as amateur students, but we were professional musicians.

another story. I personally know several track athletes who were also on Olympic teams. they were considered as amateurs, but they were compensated, had nice cars and lived in nice houses off campus.

what you see now has been going on for ages. it's just more transparent. And you have more idiots who don't have anything else to spend their money on. if they didn't spend it on an athlete, they'd just give it to a politician. So what's the difference?
The "time and effort" a musician puts in is not comparable to the time and effort an athlete puts in.
 

bonefish1

All-American
Oct 4, 2004
14,485
13,521
113
an example that is not talked about much. Musicians can get full ride scholarships. they do exit. a musician puts in just as much time during the week for that half time show as an athlete does for a game. the pep band has to be at every game athletes are at. a musician works just as hard at their craft as any athlete does. Should they be compensated as much as an athlete is?

During the 60's UW's football team lost around 30 games in a row. During the good years, the y would win 3-4 games. the same was said about their basketball team. the fans were happy if their basketball team had a ..500 record. But the stadium and arena were still packed. the fans came to get drunk and watch the band play. they could care less about the product on the field. Do you truly believe fans come to Purdue games to watch basketball? or is it more a chance to socialize in public? much like going to a movie? when you go to a movie in college, do you go to actually watch the movie? or do you go to watch your date? Playing putt putt or canoeing can be as exciting as going to a sporting event.

now back to the musicians. many of the band members at many schools are on full ride scholarships. HOWEVER >>>>>>>>>> they are also allowed to play their own gigs and earn money on the side without those gigs affecting their scholarships. I knew some musicians ho were regularly asked to fill in for local orchestras as part of a professional show. When Manheim Steamroller performs, there are 5 professionals, and their back-up orchestra is made up of local people. and those locals get paid. i believe this is what the NCAA was trying to do for their sports with the creation of the NIL . to tell the athlete, they can be like a musician and make some money on the side if they wanted, and still be able to keep their scholarship.

I was a part of the purdue glee club in the 70's. We practiced a lot more than any athlete did. and we had twice as many performances. and our soloists had a lot of gigs on the side for private JPC parties etc. Our soloists were making at least $1,000 a month on the side playing for purdue alumni functions in the 70's. and they received a lot of those Benjamins that were never reported. We may have been labeled as amateur students, but we were professional musicians.

another story. I personally know several track athletes who were also on Olympic teams. they were considered as amateurs, but they were compensated, had nice cars and lived in nice houses off campus.

what you see now has been going on for ages. it's just more transparent. And you have more idiots who don't have anything else to spend their money on. if they didn't spend it on an athlete, they'd just give it to a politician. So what's the difference?
I think a huge part you're leaving out of your argument is that people don't pay $100/ticket to watch the band play. If the band wasn't at the game, 65,000 people would still show up.
 

mathboy

All-American
Feb 4, 2004
10,598
10,446
113
Michigan
As a whole, this thread has been interesting, and very civil. Differences of opinion are well articulated. Thanks to atmafola in particular, for taking up an unpopular position and defending it very well. It is a pleasure to read through this whole argument. Nobody was told to mend the fries, or called names. See… the internet can work!

:cool:
 

SCBoiler1

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 10, 2014
1,241
1,743
113
That is correct. The only reason that they are able to capitalize monetarily from college sports the way they do is because of the emotional attachment we have for our universities. We channel that through the sports teams but i know for me, NIL changes how I feel about college sports and it feels dirty that it comes down to being a professional sport. If that is the case , I don’t have interest anymore because people are at schools because of money and not because of chemistry with the community they are part of. It changes alot about how I spend my money and time.

People act like its 1906 and Purdue started a football club of existing students and took a train up to Notre Dame based on some kind of school rivalry.

Most of these guys wouldn't be at Purdue if it weren't specifically to play basketball. Nothing has changed. Now they just get paid for it. I'm really not sure why this bothers people so much.
 

SCBoiler1

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 10, 2014
1,241
1,743
113
That is correct. The only reason that they are able to capitalize monetarily from college sports the way they do is because of the emotional attachment we have for our universities. We channel that through the sports teams but i know for me, NIL changes how I feel about college sports and it feels dirty that it comes down to being a professional sport. If that is the case , I don’t have interest anymore because people are at schools because of money and not because of chemistry with the community they are part of. It changes alot about how I spend my money and time.
On the flip side if Purdue had bad players nobody would come to the games either. We can all say we're just cheering on the boys from Purdue but if they were bad, nobody would watch no matter what's on the front of the jersey.
 

FirstDownB

All-American
Oct 12, 2015
9,739
13,812
113
On the flip side if Purdue had bad players nobody would come to the games either. We can all say we're just cheering on the boys from Purdue but if they were bad, nobody would watch no matter what's on the front of the jersey.
Talent is relative to what your competition has. Winning and tradition is what fills stadiums, not empirical talent. That's why Nebraska is a much bigger draw than Jacksonville. Or why there are more IU/ND fans in this state than Pacers fans.
 

Bethboilerfan

Senior
Sep 14, 2012
3,814
4,015
113
People act like its 1906 and Purdue started a football club of existing students and took a train up to Notre Dame based on some kind of school rivalry.

Most of these guys wouldn't be at Purdue if it weren't specifically to play basketball. Nothing has changed. Now they just get paid for it. I'm really not sure why this bothers people so much.
I can only speak for myself so with that in mind: I was shocked and taken aback by the role of the booster or whatever he/she is called because he/she is much more involved than I would have ever anticipated. I do not watch professional basketball because I do not feel connected in any way to the team so I don't care much who wins/loses. That is not true of Purdue where I have a deeply personal connection as an alumnus whose path in life was to a great extent determined by my years there. The players appeared to share this connection with me. I do not want to lose that connection to the team which I think still exists at Purdue but for how long?
 

SCBoiler1

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 10, 2014
1,241
1,743
113
I can only speak for myself so with that in mind: I was shocked and taken aback by the role of the booster or whatever he/she is called because he/she is much more involved than I would have ever anticipated. I do not watch professional basketball because I do not feel connected in any way to the team so I don't care much who wins/loses. That is not true of Purdue where I have a deeply personal connection as an alumnus whose path in life was to a great extent determined by my years there. The players appeared to share this connection with me. I do not want to lose that connection to the team which I think still exists at Purdue but for how long?
I understand what you're saying but the players will still be connected. They'll still go to class and most will still try and earn a degree, the only difference is that some will get paid. I don't see how this diminishes their connection. I guess we'll see but if guys are transferring because their chasing money they probably weren't that connected anyway.

I guess many Purdue fans fear that the best players may not consider Purdue because Purdue can't compete with the 'Big Boys" in the NIL world but the reality is that Purdue hasn't had a lot of success recruiting the top tier guys anyway.
 

BoilerAndy

All-American
Aug 31, 2010
6,115
9,280
113
don't compare medical residencies to regular internships in many other industries. Medical residencies absolutely are not market rates. Most other internships are.

unless I missed something, what exact examples did you give? all i saw was more silly explanation for why college sports is different and justify why student athletes should be paid below their market rates.
You posted:

these poor athletes who are under-compensated for their efforts, and maybe some of them get an education too (which often they are getting shortchanged on, when the demands of your revenue sports makes it incredibly difficult to enroll in a degree that you might wish to and better fits your educational aspirations). But don't look over here at others who are being fairly compensated for their efforts, even though both of you are responsible for the product being sold.

When your argument fell apart, you claimed:

i said "under-compensated relative to market value" not "under-compensated to effort". Big difference.

Then you wrote:

Name me any other sport market anywhere in the world where this such disparity between coaching pay and athlete pay other than NCAA revenue sports. just one. That's not proof by itself, it's just another corroborating point.

I gave a direct, real-life response which encompasses dozens of examples:

All high school and college athletics -- every sport -- fits that definition.

Your response:

This is a silly argument.

You went on to claim:

Internships are similarly time boxed, and yet interns are paid market wages (which sometimes in some industries in rough economies is 0 or negative).

My reply:

And internships? Wasn't it you who argued the unfairness of the medical system and how interns are treated and paid? Are you changing your tune?

To which you stated:

don't compare medical residencies to regular internships in many other industries. Medical residencies absolutely are not market rates. Most other internships are.
unless I missed something, what exact examples did you give? all i saw was more silly explanation for why college sports is different and justify why student athletes should be paid below their market rates.

So, yes, you changed your tune. And you repeatedly change it when your arguments are slipping. You claim that opinions and real-world examples countering your stance are “silly”, so you pretend they don’t exist. You deny making statements that are here in black and white when it turns out they obviously do not support your argument.

Just another person who moves the goalposts when they see their arguments are failing. I don't know how NIL will work out, but I expect that people can discuss it logically, with intellectual honesty, and without the drama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inspector100

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
You posted:

these poor athletes who are under-compensated for their efforts, and maybe some of them get an education too (which often they are getting shortchanged on, when the demands of your revenue sports makes it incredibly difficult to enroll in a degree that you might wish to and better fits your educational aspirations). But don't look over here at others who are being fairly compensated for their efforts, even though both of you are responsible for the product being sold.

When your argument fell apart, you claimed:

i said "under-compensated relative to market value" not "under-compensated to effort". Big difference.

Then you wrote:

Name me any other sport market anywhere in the world where this such disparity between coaching pay and athlete pay other than NCAA revenue sports. just one. That's not proof by itself, it's just another corroborating point.

I gave a direct, real-life response which encompasses dozens of examples:

All high school and college athletics -- every sport -- fits that definition.

Your response:

This is a silly argument.

You went on to claim:

Internships are similarly time boxed, and yet interns are paid market wages (which sometimes in some industries in rough economies is 0 or negative).

My reply:

And internships? Wasn't it you who argued the unfairness of the medical system and how interns are treated and paid? Are you changing your tune?

To which you stated:

don't compare medical residencies to regular internships in many other industries. Medical residencies absolutely are not market rates. Most other internships are.
unless I missed something, what exact examples did you give? all i saw was more silly explanation for why college sports is different and justify why student athletes should be paid below their market rates.

So, yes, you changed your tune. And you repeatedly change it when your arguments are slipping. You claim that opinions and real-world examples countering your stance are “silly”, so you pretend they don’t exist. You deny making statements that are here in black and white when it turns out they obviously do not support your argument.

Just another person who moves the goalposts when they see their arguments are failing. I don't know how NIL will work out, but I expect that people can discuss it logically, with intellectual honesty, and without the drama.
I think I need it to explain it to you very very very slowly.

I ask you to name "markets". so you go find a bunch of examples of things that are clearly NOT "markets", which is the exact thing I am railing against. let's break down the examples you gave

1. medical residency: very clearly not a market!!!! also very exploitative. there is something called match. something so anti-competitive, and anti-market, that congress had to create a special law to carve out a specific exemption that lets it continue existing.
2. College sports: another farcical example that's exploitative and so anti-market for student athletes, that we are here debating it.
3. HS sports: similar problems with college sports, except thankfully in many cases, there is such minimal revenues involved, that it clearly isn't market for students, and often also not market for the staff (the academic side is often subsidizing the sports side with many coaches also being teachers)

none of these examples are "markets" in the economic sense. The fundamental problem with you is lack of basic economic understanding. so the concepts just go completely over your head. and you find yourself making silly argument and misunderstanding terms, and also sadly think you're catching me in some "gotcha". just pick up some Econ 101 book. It would help you understand how prices are determined, and will help you make strong useful arguments

And yes in just about every sport where the wages of the athlete are not artificially constrained, athletes typically earn as much as and often more than coaches. Pick a sport, any sport, look in US and worldwide. The pattern remains the same. The only places 100 to 1 wage ratio exists are exactly in situations where coaching salary is market determined while athlete salary is deliberately constrained.
 
Last edited:

goboilers2

All-American
Sep 26, 2001
8,522
1,052
113
St Augustine
The way this weekend shook out id be shocked if Gibbs-Lawhorn ever puts on a Purdue uniform.

Hate the be pessimistic but he looks like someone that wants to get paid. I could easily see him backing out and going to wherever offers him the most $$$
I would like to see NIL funds used to compensate the schools for scholarship funds. The top quality education is payment for four years. Given that, I can see why someone going to IU would want NIL payouts
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy_Rider

BoilerAndy

All-American
Aug 31, 2010
6,115
9,280
113
I think I need it to explain it to you very very very slowly.

I ask you to name "markets". so you go find a bunch of examples of things that are clearly NOT "markets", which is the exact thing I am railing against. let's break down the examples you gave

1. medical residency: very clearly not a market!!!! also very exploitative. there is something called match. something so anti-competitive, and anti-market, that congress had to create a special law to carve out a specific exemption that lets it continue existing.
2. College sports: another farcical example that's exploitative and so anti-market for student athletes, that we are here debating it.
3. HS sports: similar problems with college sports, except thankfully in many cases, there is such minimal revenues involved, that it clearly isn't market for students, and often also not market for the staff (the academic side is often subsidizing the sports side with many coaches also being teachers)

none of these examples are "markets" in the economic sense. The fundamental problem with you is lack of basic economic understanding. so the concepts just go completely over your head. and you find yourself making silly argument and misunderstanding terms, and also sadly think you're catching me in some "gotcha". just pick up some Econ 101 book. It would help you understand how prices are determined, and will help you make strong useful arguments

And yes in just about every sport where the wages of the athlete are not artificially constrained, athletes typically earn as much as and often more than coaches. Pick a sport, any sport, look in US and worldwide. The pattern remains the same. The only places 100 to 1 wage ratio exists are exactly in situations where coaching salary is market determined while athlete salary is deliberately constrained.
You continue to flip and flop. Medical internship discussion was a response to your claim about internships in general. Comprehension? Are internships a "market in an economic sense"? You are now claiming college sports is not a "market" yet your claim that no other "sports market" is handled like college sports was the heart of the debate. You now say HS sports are similar to college sports, yet you now define neither as a "market". If none are "markets in the economic sense", then perhaps you should not have described them as markets when you thought it benefitted your argument. Maybe you should re-read your own posts, or think them through more slowly. You are losing track of where you are moving the goalposts.

And maybe it's time you moved beyond your ECON 101 book.
 

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
You continue to flip and flop. Medical internship discussion was a response to your claim about internships in general. Comprehension? Are internships a "market in an economic sense"?
Internships in general are market places for labor. Companies hire interns they want, interns are free to choose to whatever companies they want. It is an economic market place

Medical residency (of which the "internship" year is just the first) is NOT like other internships. yes it has the same name. but it is not a market. it is violation of US anti-trust laws (i.e it is not a market at all). It only continues to exist as-is, because US congress specifically carved out a special exemption for it.

When I say something is not a market, I am saying it has "artificial barriers" not natural barriers that stops it from being an "economic market"
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerAndy

Scout70

Gold Member
Mar 5, 2014
314
243
43
and exactly why shouldn't he get paid? he has a skill that's marketable and is at 99+%tile. why exactly shouldn't get paid
Yes, the NCAA is a mess, but the NCAA isn't the only issue or the reason this NIL crap is a mess. The AAU circuit is the real issue. they fill kids with the crazy idea that all of them are going to end up in the NBA or even on a world league team. Parents and promotional coaches make career promises to kids. A college degree is worth in the neighborhood of 200000-1000000 over the 4-year life of the average player. (Tuition, books, housing, tutors, doctor care, meals, travel expenses, etc) they live a life others can only dream of. they have access to EVERYTHING a nationally recognized institution has to offer and they bend over backward to provide it. there was a day, not that long ago that a kid coming out of high school would recognize that and pick the institution, that at the very least, would provide them the opportunity to pursue a career after the career. Now, these kids are so singularly focused that they have no childhood, little college experience, or little high school for that matter. they are working and hustling from the time they can dribble a ball. I love sports. love Purdue. but college, life is more than dribbling a ball. you will only be young once. from an old man, trust me, it goes by way too fast and I wasn't an elite athlete with everything at my feet. Problem is, neither are any of them. but coaches, parents, and fans put them at such a level that reality is just unfathomable until it hits them in the face. College sports have exploited these kids in all facets. that is true. It is also true that no booster at the college level should be able to just go out and buy a team. As much as these kids are getting for just coming and playing, I do support a salary for all players. I think they could solve this very easily with 100000 (per year) for every (revenue-generating) player payable after their freshman year. If a college cant support that financially then get out of the game or form a sort of FCS developmental league. (would solve 2 problems and increase competition anyway). The payment after the freshman year would be forfeited if they went pro. (Obviously not needed if they are getting NBA Money and would be an enticement to return) Payment is also forfeited if academically ineligible at any time. They should have an enticement to learn and get the grades they came to school for in the first place. An average player would walk away with 400000 and a degree. that is nothing to sneeze at considering only 1 percent of players make the NBA and maybe 5 percent in the game oversees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy_Rider

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
Yes, the NCAA is a mess, but the NCAA isn't the only issue or the reason this NIL crap is a mess. The AAU circuit is the real issue. they fill kids with the crazy idea that all of them are going to end up in the NBA or even on a world league team. Parents and promotional coaches make career promises to kids. A college degree is worth in the neighborhood of 200000-1000000 over the 4-year life of the average player. (Tuition, books, housing, tutors, doctor care, meals, travel expenses, etc) they live a life others can only dream of. they have access to EVERYTHING a nationally recognized institution has to offer and they bend over backward to provide it. there was a day, not that long ago that a kid coming out of high school would recognize that and pick the institution, that at the very least, would provide them the opportunity to pursue a career after the career. Now, these kids are so singularly focused that they have no childhood, little college experience, or little high school for that matter. they are working and hustling from the time they can dribble a ball. I love sports. love Purdue. but college, life is more than dribbling a ball. you will only be young once. from an old man, trust me, it goes by way too fast and I wasn't an elite athlete with everything at my feet. Problem is, neither are any of them. but coaches, parents, and fans put them at such a level that reality is just unfathomable until it hits them in the face. College sports have exploited these kids in all facets. that is true. It is also true that no booster at the college level should be able to just go out and buy a team. As much as these kids are getting for just coming and playing, I do support a salary for all players. I think they could solve this very easily with 100000 (per year) for every (revenue-generating) player payable after their freshman year. If a college cant support that financially then get out of the game or form a sort of FCS developmental league. (would solve 2 problems and increase competition anyway). The payment after the freshman year would be forfeited if they went pro. (Obviously not needed if they are getting NBA Money and would be an enticement to return) Payment is also forfeited if academically ineligible at any time. They should have an enticement to learn and get the grades they came to school for in the first place. An average player would walk away with 400000 and a degree. that is nothing to sneeze at considering only 1 percent of players make the NBA and maybe 5 percent in the game oversees.
i started off reading your post mad as heck, and ended up much happier.
I don't blame kids for dreaming of NBA or NFL. When you look at the society and look at people that you can relate to, and you see the path to success is through those avenues, I don't blame anyone for going all in on that hope. It's easier for those of us with more relatable options to view the risk/reward different, and opt for the safety of a college degree. Their perspective is often different. And doors that looks easy and accessible to us, is not necessarily true for them, even though it looks like it should.

That I like that you advocate that student athletes they get a share of the money. You provided one good way to possibly do it. I am sure there are others. My ideal solution will probably shaped something like yours, something that incentivizes education, but still pay, maybe even save some of the money for post-school. Half paid while in school, and the rest paid after graduation or something. I sincerely wished NCAA would have really tried to find a solution. But their preference seems to always be to pass some regulations that they can't and won't enforce, and just pushes problem to the black market. So they can declare it isn't happening.