Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="RandygoCuse, post: 3127114, member: 1231"]
A free college education is absolutely a benefit. Now a student getting a $250K education for free doesn't actually cost the school $250K, but I'll admit that there is an argument to be made that schools are already well compensating student athletes.
However, if shoe and video game companies can profit off of the players' likenesses, the players should be able to as well.  This wouldn't cost the school any extra money nor would they have to make cuts to support it.

As for the "problem" that alumni could pay players to sign with their schools...so what?  It doesn't cost me, the fans, or the school anything.  If someone wants to spend their money this way, who am I to say they can't.

I think the effect on parity is overblown.  First of all, not all the top athletes are going to want to go to the same school and compete for minutes if the ultimate goal is to go to the NBA/NFL. Second, the best high school guys don't always pan out at the next level, whether it's due to chemistry/coaching issues or just plain inaccurate exceptions.  Finally, in environments with single elimination tournaments and playoffs, having superior talent is often not enough.  We just saw this play out with FIBA.

Now I could be wrong about parity.  However, if I had to choose between parity (which doesn't really exist anyway) and fairness to the athletes, I choose the latter.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?