Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OttoinGrotto, post: 1359434, member: 297"] That doesn't matter. It wouldn't be. Being able to profit from your name and likeness is completely different. I don't care about a level playing field. There are bigger issues at stake. But even if you're convinced that the playing field won't be level... well, look at the Yankees. Sure, they spend a lot, but that doesn't guarantee wins. They can still only have a 25 man roster. College athletics would be the same. Take a situation like Nate Wolters - a star at the hotbed known as South Dakota State University. There are absolutely businesses in that area that would treasure an endorsement from him. Or what about communities looking for positive female athlete role models? Or the attention athletes in the olympic sports would get every four years. People cry because of what they think Alabama and Kentucky would do, but why? Athletics is so much bigger than a handful of programs. Maybe athletes want to go elsewhere because they look at the situations and want to pick the one that makes the most sense for them. Maybe being a hometown hero profits. Maybe it doesn't. Let's allow them the chance to figure that out. I agree that he's trying to do what is best for himself. I'm proposing that it would be a good thing if he had a wider range of choices, among which is profiting from his own name and likeness. That's a right I believe everyone has (or should have as an unalienable right) in today's digital world. College athletes do not. It's absurd. That's quite insidious actually. The NCAA can't have a trump card like that where the value of a scholarship can never be fairly calculated or questioned so long as the income generated for athletics is variable. That's incredibly unjust. [/QUOTE]

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