Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Zelda Zonk, post: 5046763, member: 966"] Team sports have at their core a factor of roster construction. When a high schooler commits to a program, it’s after the school has invested time, effort, and money into that recruitment. The school awards a scholarship worth considerable money. I don’t see how it’s unfair to expect that commitment to be worth more than one year. The player agrees to conduct that fits within a set of rules from the larger organization. That’s the deal. To say that employees at some random company can just quit and move and get another job elsewhere ignores the virtual monopoly that college sports has. College sports is one company, essentially. There’s a reason why pro leagues have contracts. Because teams rely on roster construction toward achieving success. College sports is now pro sports with perpetual free agency. I don’t see how that’s sustainable, yet we don’t now have an organization to govern it. Colleges now have to ‘recruit’ 2-3x more, because the portal facilitates/insigates yearly chaos. People often cite that coaches can move without penalty, and while that’s true, it’s also significantly less frequent, and doesn’t alter the fact that a student athlete can still play/train/educate themself at that school under that same scholarship compensation. You may be recruited by a person, or staff of persons, but you commit to a school. That said, I’ve always been fully on board with a transfer waiver when a coach leaves—a significant part of the deal is that relationship. I’m surprised at some of the NIL conversations, about how the athletes deserve this money. Originally, the assertion was that the deserved pay because there was so much money in the sport that they were responsible for generating. But, this NIL money isn’t coming from program revenues. If they ‘deserve’ it now, it’s simply market-based. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?