Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="triplethrea, post: 1071685, member: 1574"]
If the smaller schools can't afford it, then they don't have to pay. Schools aren't forced to pay anything. It is strictly optional. Nobody forces you to buy an iPhone, you buy it because you want one and that's the price you need to pay.

Smaller schools are welcome to recruit players not good enough to be worth more than a scholarship. There are X number of spots available in the top conferences and schools willing to pay, all those not good enough for those spots will be worth less.

Why is it one way or another? Go here and don't get paid or sit at home eating cheetos.

If a player is directly responsible for earning millions of dollars to a university and WOULD get paid if it was a free market, why is he not allowed to do so? Why is he denied the right, with alternate option to "sit at home and eat cheetos." This is a very common argument amongst anti-pay-for-pay and the logic does not make sense. If they deserve the right to earn money, they should earn money.

All this "sit at home" talk is directly related to the "student-athlete" nonsense that was invented by the NCAA so they would win a lawsuit in the 70s. The foundation of the argument is shaky, because "student-athlete" is shaky. Any opinion built on top of it, "stay at home", is shaky as well.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?