Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="triplethrea, post: 1071016, member: 1574"] So your argument, if I'm not mistaken, is the following: 1. 100% (and not 1% less) of all the revenue the schools make, is due solely to identification with the school/program and coaches, and absolutely nothing to do with any player. Thus, the players are not entitled to a penny more than their scholarship. 2. No player is worth more than their scholarship. 3. Tuition at Syracuse is worth more than salary in the D league, thus Syracuse is a better choice. Nobody is saying that fan loyalty is not a factor in attendance and merchandise. However, do you deny that a player like Marcus Smart provides additional revenue to a team like Oklahoma State? What about the extra national media attention? Will Oklahoma State get as much media attention next year when Marcus Smart is in the NBA? Will Oklahoma State not benefit if Marcus Smart goes on to do well in the NBA? If colleges are willing to give players anything more than their current scholarship, then it proves they are worth more than just their scholarship to the schools. And again, your comment "It's just the best option available for nearly all of them". It's the only realistic option for them if they want a chance to make millions rather than live in rough neighborhoods. If you offer Door 1 and Door 2, you force them to jump through whatever hoops Door 1 has. The problem is those hoops are unethical. I'm arguing that regardless of whether they have other choices (go 2000 miles away from home to Europe if you want! Don't play here!), the lack of market value given to the players is wrong. When you add the fact that they are technically forced to go to college, it's downright unlawful. And doesn't anyone else think "Go play in Europe or get lost!" is a little harsh? Why the tough guy attitude? For what? [/QUOTE]

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