While there were a few interesting bits of information in this article, on balance I'm dumber for having read it. The concept of a college freshman football stud player sitting out two years to prevent himself from being injured in preparation for the NFL draft is ludicrous. This is almost a reductio ad absurdum argument for the exact opposite of the point that was being argued.

He can play in the XFL in 2020.

You wouldn't be an NFL executive foe long.

What federal law?

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq

An argument about providing shelter/food/water in this context is completely irrelevant. We're talking about future multi-millionaires, not everyday Joes.

I stand by saying those whose primary concern in their work is money are folks that I wanted no part of in my career. Sadly, about 90% of pro athletes fall into this category. It would be refreshing for once to see someone turn down the mega contract, push for funds to be invested in a winning team and realize that you don't need $10 million/year to be fulfilled in this world.

For someone who seems to have rather liberal political positions, you always seem to be on the side of millionaires. Bernie may want to have a word with you :)

Tom Brady for you on line 1

(Snort)

Bob Kraft will get every last dollar to Brady he gave up. Probably in retirement. But he'll get his money.

A couple of things:

I'm 'on the side of millionaires' because we're on a message board about sports, an industry that pays a lot of people a lot of money. I'm actually just on the side of labor and ensuring people are paid for their labor in line with what the market bears. I also largely believe that the labor market's pretty efficient, and think people should be free to pursue compensation without folks like you moralizing about how that somehow makes them bad people.

The real irony is how utterly pointless the root of your moralizing is. You think it somehow demonstrates poor character to value compensation over football. Football. A game people play that doesn't matter even a little bit. You think the moral thing to do, somehow, is to value football over providing for generations of your family. It's patently silly and completely illogical. I mean here I thought providing for one's family and working hard to make sure nobody I love ever has to worry about going hungry or bankrupt from a medical bill was a good thing to do. Turns out I should be making really stupid financial risks because I love to play Skeeball, or whatever.

Let's say Trevor Lawrence has a career ending injury his junior year, because he opts to play instead of sitting out. In your weird mind, it shows more sound character to do that because of football, than to sit out a year, be guaranteed a big NFL contract and be able to provide for the people closest to him forever. That's a weird hierarchy of priorities.

Also, to be clear we're not actually discussing millionaires. We're discussing Trevor Lawrence, who has to-date earned exactly $0 playing football. It's created opportunity, yes. But he has been paid $0. He is not a millionaire yet. That he's likely to be a future millionaire doesn't make him a millionaire. There are any number of things that could keep that from being the case. And really, we're discussing Trevor Lawrence because he's a particularly clear example of a real issue. It applies to Delvar Barrett, too. If he'd been able to appear in an ad or earn at all to help support his mother, I think that would have been, you know, good.

And just to be super, super clear here: if I'm on the side of millionaires, you're siding with billionaires. To me, the 'little guy' is poor athlete who makes money for their university and can't afford to get home for Thanksgiving. Some of them will become millionaires. The vast majority of them won't. I think it's absurd the level of control the NCAA takes over what and how athletes can earn.

Who is the little guy you think you're standing up for?

He could. But a) who will pay for it and b) there's still a ton of risk. No policy will pay close to a 15 year NFL career. Or even just a rookie contract.

Sense of shame, I completely agree with all of your posts. Dabo, signed an 8 year 54M deal last year. Why doesn't he just give a few mill per year to his players? He wouldn't.

Insurance on players is a specialty line and only sold by someone like Lloyd's of London. Very, very expensive.

This sham will only change if guys like Lawrence start to walk away.

FWIW, I feel that coaches are vastly overpaid too. I'd be all for some sort of cap for head coach compensation in the NCAA. Of course, that will never happen so long as the big boys are writing their own rules.

Not going to get in a back-and-forth with Sense of Shame, we are firmly in opposite camps (as is typically the case). But two points I'll toss out:

1. I'm most on the side of college athletes at the MAC level and below, 99% of which will never sniff the pros and deserve to have a great college experience playing sports. Rules that are titled to benefit the behemoths (like player endorsements) don't help those guys or the fans/students/alumni of schools like Ohio.

2. Almost every school that sponsors college athletics loses money on it. A TON of money on it. If there's one thing that I wish you could see eye-to-eye with me, it's the fact that college athletics is a money-loser for all but a small handful of programs. The "poor athlete" you talk about is probably costing his university $50,000 a year in student fees.