I don't understand why receiving a free education requires one to limit somebody's opportunity to earn money otherwise. We wouldn't feel okay about it if somebody was on an academic scholarship and was told they couldn't, say, take a paid internship at Goldman Sachs because of it.

Why is athletics different? I really struggle to understand the moral basis for insisting this is bad. I don't understand what the moral code's based on. The arguments seem to basically be rooted in tradition and maintaining competitive balance, and not about what is inherently fair.

Recall that scholarship numbers were virtually unlimited and boosters were working behind the scenes to stockpile talent.

Most NCAA rules are put in place to try and correct an abuse of some sort. The restrictions on outside income were put in place for a reason. During the 60s & 70s scholarship athletes were being paid for no show jobs by boosters. The job restrictions were put in place to address the amateurism side of it but more importantly to level the playing field so that schools like 'Bama and Texas in football and Kentucky in basketball couldn't buy up the best athletes. Recall that scholarship numbers were virtually unlimited and boosters were working behind the scenes to stockpile talent. [/QUOTE]This all makes sense and I understand that the rules came about in direct response to problems. What I'm suggesting -- though obviously not clearly enough -- is that the adherence to such a strict definition of amateurism and a desire to level the playing field shouldn't necessarily be the driving factors that they once were. Boosters paying athletes for no show jobs is only something that needs to be legislated away if you accept that athletes shouldn't get paid at all. The fundamental question I'm asking is why it's so important to people that athletes not have the ability to earn money through endorsements.

The answer seems to be mostly about competitive balance, and from a moral standpoint I just can't really justify -- for myself -- valuing that over such basic individual freedoms.

I think the NBA already agreed to do this. I think HS Seniors will be eligible for the draft again in coming years.

The NFL's policy is much more restrictive. I think Harbaugh's suggestion is an interesting one.

You're right, they have no obligation to do so. However they do have a huge financial interest in continuing to do so. There's nothing stopping the NCAA or its member schools from deciding tomorrow to not even offer athletic scholarships and to insist that players just play for the love of the game. They don't do so because there's a huge, huge amount of money in college sports and they want that money.

The NCAA and its member schools have very, very consciously turned amateur athletics into a big business that generates -- for some schools -- a whole lot of money. Anybody running a business has to consider the needs of labor, and it was only a matter of time before the NCAA's ability to have their cake and eat it too came to an end.

They aren't obligated to do so. At least not yet, legally speaking. The reason they have decided to do so is because they can't form a winning argument in the court of public opinion (or, for that matter, in actual courts in the states who passed legislation) against doing so. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

I'd be cool with that. I'm also cool with schools not shouldering any of the burden of paying folks for their talent and just lifting restrictions on what athletes can otherwise earn.

[QUOTE=IceCat76]
The thing I find bogus about this Name and Likeness baloney is that outside of a very few of the kids' Name and Likeness aren't worth much if not associated with big time school. And not worth much except to a booster that wants make points with an AD. Those very few that are worth something should probably go pro anyway.

Let's also appreciate that schools offer most athletes partial scholarships because it is a way to assure they get income from the student athlete paying the remainder the tuition.

Also interesting how many more scholarships women have then men,for the same sport.

RP - think we are saying the same thing - few athletes get full - most get partials - which requires them pay the rest- creates income for the school. It's like giving away a free soda with a meal - great profit play by restaurants.

A lot of it comes down to how much you like a sport.