The TV revenues for the Power 5 are staggering. 30 years ago the playing field was somewhat level. Now it's not even close. The problem as I see it for us and MAC level schools is thinking that we can get there by just spending more money on coaches salaries, new scoreboards, etc. It's just throwing away money.

I'm not "siding with the 1%." I'm advocating for unpaid labor to be fairly compensated and think it's un-American and anti-capitalist for athletic departments and coaches to get rich off of the labor of athletes while the athletes themselves have their earning potential limited by arcane rules.

Further, I think it's un-American and anti-capitalist that fans insist schools with successful athletic departments and athletes with exceptional skills must remain unpaid because of vague notions like "fan experience" and so fans can continue to delude themselves that the playing field's somehow level.

The notion that everyone is getting rich on the backs of athletes is such a fallacy created by TV talking heads. There are MAYBE 15-20 schools that actually make money off of college sports. And anyone who does make money, it's barely above break-even levels.
[/QUOTE]I'm aware of the financial situation at most athletic departments, and didn't mean to imply that "everybody is getting rich off of the backs of athletes." In fact, whether or not somebody is getting rich at all is irrelevant, all that's relevant to my argument is that any money at all is being made, even if the money being made isn't enough to turn a profit.

I think it's un-American and anti-capitalist to limit an individual's ability to earn money. If an athlete at any level is famous enough that a private company feels it benefits them in whatever way to pay them for services, I'm fine with that. It doesn't matter to me whether that individual plays for a team in an athletic department that's completely broke, or if they're Zion Williamson. For me, it's a question of principle.

Again, this is irrelevant to my point. Those 1,000 kids can continue to play the sport that they love. But the fact that nobody is interested in offering them an endorsement deal doesn't strike me as a reason to deny Zion Williamson the right to sign an endorsement deal.

Free-for-all and free market share a lot of characteristics. I'm pro free market in this case because it provides a solution to edge cases (i.e. Zion Williamson who is having his earning potential limited and taken advantage of) while protecting the amateurism of those who are actually amateurs.

And I don't doubt that this would be a shock to the system. The system needs shocking.

I don't doubt this, either. I just don't really care nor am I convinced it would actually be a bad thing. In fact, I suspect the "have nots" would stand to gain quite a bit by distancing themselves from the haves and staking their commitment to amateurism. There's a segment of college athletics -- a small, but substantial segment -- that are basically semi-pro leagues many sports. I have no real moral issue treating them as such and allowing athletes at that level to accepts endorsement deals and otherwise earn money on their notoriety.

I disagree. And I think you do, too. Right? I mean, in another paragraph you start arguing that a college scholarship is invaluable and is sufficient compensation. If athletes aren't labor, why are they being compensated? All I'm arguing is that the form of that compensation shouldn't be limited.

Yes, that's one type of student athlete. There's another type, too. That one exists doesn't negate the other's right to earn money based on their talents.

There is no minor league in football and the NFL has a strict age limit. The NBA also has an age limit. NCAA basketball provides far more publicity and a far larger stage than European leagues or the G-League.

I never stated that scholarships don't carry value. I just think that players should have the freedom to earn beyond a scholarship if the opportunity presents itself.

A student on an academic scholarship wouldn't be prohibited from working a side job. I see on reason why it should be different for an athlete.

[QUOTE=catfan28]
I know many families where kids are saddled with $100,000 bills coming out of college. Tell them that a full ride scholarship is useless. It ruins their finances until they are in their 40's.

+1

I clan see it now the Alabama Athletic Foundation just signs Forest Gump to a $1 Million dollar endorsement deal to promote the school or Sports Science at Alabama. The Ohio State Alumni Foundation just announced they will sign Andy Katzemoyer to a $2.5 Million dollar deal to indorse their new basket weaving program and serve as a Longaberger rep.

I said this on another thread that these rules exist because people have already cheated. Know why athletes were forbidden from working? Because boosters and departments themselves gave great sums of money for work not preformed. We’ve already been down this road and it did not end well. To accept a repacking of the same scams is to be ignorant of the human nature and their sports teams and fanaticism.

In fact, I'll go a step further, I think the NCAA should enact a salary cap on coaches. As BTC points out, it's a voluntary association, so if Ohio A&M still wants to pay Meyer $7.5 million a year (or whatever it is) they can just leave the NCAA. We might have six of seven schools do that, and the rest of the college football world can get back to playing something resembling amateur college athletics.

The total cost to attend Michigan is around 30k per year. Harbaugh makes 9M. It doesn't add up and will have to change in the future. You can't call it an amateur endeavor with those kinds of revenues and salaries.

What makes me curious is whether the backers of all of this are truly getting rewards from their investments? So many of these young blue chip players will ultimately disappear into the lost history pages of sports mediocrity, which is probably why you get what you can when you can. The real question is who ultimately benefits, and from what I can see none of those people are anywhere near this trial, including the Head of the NCAA.

The fact that LeBron is talking about the corruption of the NCAA is highly hypocritical, especially considering that he took a hummer in high school.....

All of the defendants in the trial got convicted.

According to what I've read,the defense team was so confident,they didn't even put on witnesses.

The press is saying that anyone with any familiarity with college basketball, or the NBA, knew the case was really a "stretch",especially that the defendants' actions "harmed" universities .

Problem for the defendants,they found jurors who weren't familiar with BB.

Now you have a couple of issues.

1.Do these guys rat out others to try to reduce their sentences ?

2.Does this put pressure on the coaches scheduled to go on trial early next year to try to get a plea deal,including cooperating ?

The notion that everyone is getting rich on the backs of athletes is such a fallacy created by TV talking heads. There are MAYBE 15-20 schools that actually make money off of college sports. And anyone who does make money, it's barely above break-even levels.

Why? Because much of the revenue brought in by football and men's basketball (even at the O$U and Alabama's of the world) goes to fund expenses for sports like women's soccer and track. For every Zion Williamson, there are 1,000 other kids that would do anything just to play the sport they love. That's one of the things I enjoy most about college athletics.