Wendell Carter's mom is cuckoo for cocoa puffs

[HOFCeluck]

Rough outing for eman77ster.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Right now you have almost no choice but to go to college in order to make the NBA.

Doctors have to go to medical school. Lawyers have to go to law school. That’s not slavery. That’s doing what you need to do. Kids that want to play basketball for a living have to play basketball. They can go to college, go overseas, or play in the G league. They have choices. Or they can choose to do something else. They don’t have the right to play in the NBA. And these kids are compensated with free tuition (just because some don’t value it doesnt mean it’s worthless) room and board and a ton of exposure they can’t get elsewhere. Nothing like slavery.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Stop, stop he’s already dead!

 

[Fat tire 13]

Well MLB is different because the low minors path for a 17 year old is likely similar to college. NHL that isn't the case. NCAA hockey also competes directly with a superior entity in the CHL (Major Juniors.)

But you aren't allowed to go to the AHL or ECHL until you are 19 or 20 and at least a year removed. Bazley would be ineligible for the AHL if he was a hockey player for another year. Lots of high draft picks spend 8 games on an NHL roster often not playing then go back to juniors due to age. The NHL doesn't want their prospects playing with grown men fighting for a living when there are better options.

Still the NCAA allows athletes in the sports that aren't predominantly African American to be drafted and build relationships (NHL has development camp every summer for college and junior prospects) with pro teams.

Basketball tweak is easy go to the hockey model.

For football draft everyone as 20 year olds and have the teams tell most of them to finish up their college eligibility. The only problem comes up with combine/draft calendar overlap with spring semester. And the NFL thinks its draft is the most exciting thing in sports and 3 days of must see TV you can't skip the combine to finish up your degree or simply get more credits before you have to go to camp.

Its in the NBA and NFLs interest for every team to have a pool of good NCAA players that they can watch and monitor their development.

Unless you're a first round draft pick in MLB with a big signing bonus, I would argue the quality life of a low level minor league baseball player is much worse than a D1 athlete with a scholarship. And NO one goes straight to MLB without a stint in the minors. Sure, the top prospects get a fast track. Everyone else is riding the bus with $20 food stipends and staying in cheap motels. There are pros and cons to every sport, and yes the schools profit (and professional owners do too), but everyone has to pay their dues at some point. I'm not saying college athletes should never get paid, but in the grand scheme of things a D1 athlete with the perks is not a bad gig

 

[STEVEHOLT]

It is slavery. And the fact that it is mostly black kids that make the NBA, makes it even more blatant. And IMO designed to be racist (1951).

Right now you have almost no choice but to go to college in order to make the NBA. All these other "options" like Europe for an 18 year old are outrageous and I lose respect for anybody that makes it seem like they have other options (and there's plenty of you). Everybody around you is making millions off your name, your game, and your likeness including the guy who yells at you from the sideline everyday.

Meanwhile you are given a scholarship which is worth almost nothing to the university, ESPECIALLY compared to the value you are bringing back to the school. You are not there for the education yet you are forced to get it (and these schools are accepting students left and right in order to get FAFSA money, watering down college degrees regardless). The school doesn't care about your education to the tune of creating fake classes for you. All for the right to pay you absolutely $0. You are penalized for getting a free cheeseburger, because if you get paid anything it puts their billions of dollars at risk. And then in true psychopathic gaslighting fashion they tell you it is to "protect" student-athletes. All the while they are exchanging money through 12 different hands to happily give recruits $50k while the shills tell the public about the value of an education. How big a sucker do you have to be to buy this?

This is what modern slavery looks like. This is not an opinion, this is reality. It is utterly disgusting, and I hate to see the cognitive dissonance once the fans and those supporting these universities, coaches, and AD's come to terms with it. People say it is disrespect to "real" slavery. I say looking the other way at this is disrespecting real slavery.

This is not what modern slavery looks like. This is the most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted here. As we speak, there is actual real slavery going on all over the world where people are literally sold into forced labor and forced sex trade, their identity stripped from them. Modern slavery is in fact basically equivalent to olden times slavery.

To liken what these college basketball players go through to slavery is garbage. Nothing stops these kids from getting a legit education when they get there if they want to...does Duke care about any student getting an education? I'd argue they are given every advantage to succeed because the school benefits if the player does well in school.

 

[pfister1]

This is all about the 1.2% of NCAA players each year that go on to make it to the NBA or less than 20% that play professionally in some capacity somewhere. Over 80% of the players that play college basketball aren't ever going to play professional basketball. They are either going to take advantage of the free education they received or not. We should definitely blow up the whole system for that less than 20%.

The money generated by the machine goes to fund the opportunity for people well beyond those that have any realistic hope of ever being able to earn a nickel from their basketball playing ability.

 

[shu 49]

This is a great post

It is perfect. Would fix a lot of things

 

[OrangeDW]

Rough outing for eman77ster.

I think his heart is in the right place, but not many well thought out points being made.

 

[shu 49]

It is slavery. And the fact that it is mostly black kids that make the NBA, makes it even more blatant. And IMO designed to be racist (1951).

Right now you have almost no choice but to go to college in order to make the NBA. All these other "options" like Europe for an 18 year old are outrageous and I lose respect for anybody that makes it seem like they have other options (and there's plenty of you). Everybody around you is making millions off your name, your game, and your likeness including the guy who yells at you from the sideline everyday.

Meanwhile you are given a scholarship which is worth almost nothing to the university, ESPECIALLY compared to the value you are bringing back to the school. You are not there for the education yet you are forced to get it (and these schools are accepting students left and right in order to get FAFSA money, watering down college degrees regardless). The school doesn't care about your education to the tune of creating fake classes for you. All for the right to pay you absolutely $0. You are penalized for getting a free cheeseburger, because if you get paid anything it puts their billions of dollars at risk. And then in true psychopathic gaslighting fashion they tell you it is to "protect" student-athletes. All the while they are exchanging money through 12 different hands to happily give recruits $50k while the shills tell the public about the value of an education. How big a sucker do you have to be to buy this?

This is what modern slavery looks like. This is not an opinion, this is reality. It is utterly disgusting, and I hate to see the cognitive dissonance once the fans and those supporting these universities, coaches, and AD's come to terms with it. People say it is disrespect to "real" slavery. I say looking the other way at this is disrespecting real slavery.

I normally disagree with respect and all but that is without a doubt as dumb a post as I have read. U are given all the tutors in and the world, free room and board, free NBA training, free trips to places normal college students don’t get to go to, and in the end u call that slavery. Wth are u thinking. Nothing ever in life is free and u should know that. Throwing the slave card is getting old. Everyone makes out in this deal. Carter does his job in school and the court, the school pushes for more news about him which in turn bumps his worth in the draft. Reread what capt. Tuttle said. That would shut everyone up and the slavery crap would go away. It’s ur opinion however wrong it may be. He coulda sat a year and stayed home. I would have loved that (slavery) for my son. No one appreciates any thing given to them. Always about what I ain’t getting. Smh. Let’s please commence with real life and (THE STRUGGLE) .

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

This is all about the 1.2% of NCAA players each year that go on to make it to the NBA or less than 20% that play professionally in some capacity somewhere. Over 80% of the players that play college basketball aren't ever going to play professional basketball. They are either going to take advantage of the free education they received or not. We should definitely blow up the whole system for that less than 20%.

The money generated by the machine goes to fund the opportunity for people well beyond those that have any realistic hope of ever being able to earn a nickel from their basketball playing ability.

Jaquan Newton just got his degree from Miami. I doubt he will play in the NBA, but maybe professionally someplace. I think it worked out for him and Miami, who was pretty good the last 4 years.

 

[Waltdods]

This is all about the 1.2% of NCAA players each year that go on to make it to the NBA or less than 20% that play professionally in some capacity somewhere. Over 80% of the players that play college basketball aren't ever going to play professional basketball. They are either going to take advantage of the free education they received or not. We should definitely blow up the whole system for that less than 20%.

No it's not.

Obviously, comparisons to slavery are both wrong and unhelpful, and everyone can take a well-deserved victory lap in explaining correctly that slavery is much worse than being a D-1 athlete.

But that doesn't mean that the system is just, or that many D-1 basketball and football players are not getting screwed.

Many here keep saying - look, this is the system, if you don't want it, go to the G-league or Europe, or whatever. That's fine. This is indeed the system. But that doesn't mean the system is just, or that it can't be changed. And it doesn't mean that the "system" is inherently right. People can, and should, advocate for changing systems that are unjust even when those systems aren't slavery.

I suggest this thought experiment. Imagine the NCAA entirely removed the rules about compensation for athletes (someone suggested this several posts back). Does anyone seriously think that P-5 basketball and football players would receive less than they do now? Everyone knows the real value to the universities is less than what these guys are receiving, because everyone acknowledges that if the compensation rules didn't exist they would get paid more. (Obviously, even with the compensation rules, many guys are getting paid more, just in a black market.)

Once you accept that the players are being paid less than what they would receive in a free market, you can still argue for the present system, but you need to actually argue that the benefits outweigh the costs. And those costs are being borne by one group of people - the players. Big-time college sports is creating a lot of surplus, some of which would otherwise go to the players, but now instead goes to coaches, to administrators, to designers of expensive practice facilities, to Louisville prostitutes, to Mark Emmert, to ESPN, etc. Maybe that's a just system, but you're going to need more than saying it is the system to establish that it's a good one.

 

[Arangeman]

It’s exploitative.

Jalen Rose made a good point. For some of these kids it’s their only chance in life to maximize their name and fame for profit. The college exposure elevates their marketability, let colleges keep the bulk of the money.

But it’s time to let the kids make $ off their names and likenesses. Place the $ in an account that can’t be accessed until a certain age or receipt of degree, whichever comes first, somewhat preserving the amateur model. Not perfect but better.

 

[GooseMutt]

People in the past played for fun and pride. Greed has penetrated our society in every way. So sad

 

[two3zone]

Doctors have to go to medical school. Lawyers have to go to law school. That’s not slavery. That’s doing what you need to do. Kids that want to play basketball for a living have to play basketball. They can go to college, go overseas, or play in the G league. They have choices. Or they can choose to do something else. They don’t have the right to play in the NBA. And these kids are compensated with free tuition (just because some don’t value it doesnt mean it’s worthless) room and board and a ton of exposure they can’t get elsewhere. Nothing like slavery.

Law and med students also don't generate billions of dollars across the ncaa.

Giving them free education is the very least they could do.

 

[shantydaze]

I suggest this thought experiment. Imagine the NCAA entirely removed the rules about compensation for athletes (someone suggested this several posts back). Does anyone seriously think that P-5 basketball and football players would receive less than they do now? Everyone knows the real value to the universities is less than what these guys are receiving, because everyone acknowledges that if the compensation rules didn't exist they would get paid more. (Obviously, even with the compensation rules, many guys are getting paid more, just in a black market.)

It is a very complex thought experiment to be sure as the NCAA rules are not the only reason revenue sport athletes are not "paid". First, lets assume each school can decide whether to provide additional compensation, over and above the cost of attendance scholarship. As a university president, I would have to determine what effect such an action and the requirements of Title IX would have on all other scholarship athletes. Next, would the additional compensation transform a student-athlete into an employee of the university, subjecting the school to liability for workers' compensation claims, work place violations, etc. Finally, how would such a change affect the non-profit status and mission of the university/athletic department. I think this may give some schools pause as to whether it makes sense to pay players.

Lets say there were a way to work through some of these issues (perhaps licensing the university name to a third-party entity to field and operate a basketball/football program), how would this change the landscape of college athletics. Would it make sense and would it be possible to field non-revenue sports if there was significantly less money to fund these sports? Would Olympic training need to receive public funding as it could be losing its "minor league" system? What about those niche, quasi-revenue sports at some schools, lacrosse/hockey/baseball? As "employees" would revenue sport athletes need to sign employment contracts, would those contracts be guaranteed, and would they contain a non-compete? Finally, what kind of tensions would be created between the football and basketball programs? Football generates more money, but has more athletes that the money needed to be divided up between.

The final piece of the puzzle is how such a change would affect the popularity of the sports. Viewership of pro sports is declining. Does the official transformation and public acknowledgement that football and basketball are professional sports cause people to watch less? I cheer for laundry. While I like seeing former players do well in the professional leagues, unless they are on a team I already root for, I certainly do not follow them. I think my level of fandom would decrease if the team was affiliated with the school in name only and I can't really put it into words as to why that would be.

The other issue is that I don't think it would stop the corruption. To keep some competitiveness between the schools, there would probably have to be a salary cap put into place. Why wouldn't Kentucky or Duke or Alabama or USC still use bag men to sweeten the pot for these kids and their families?

In the end, I think there would be a lot of unintended consequences that ultimately could kill the golden goose that is college athletics.

 

[reedny]

No it's not.

Obviously, comparisons to slavery are both wrong and unhelpful, and everyone can take a well-deserved victory lap in explaining correctly that slavery is much worse than being a D-1 athlete.

But that doesn't mean that the system is just, or that many D-1 basketball and football players are not getting screwed.

Many here keep saying - look, this is the system, if you don't want it, go to the G-league or Europe, or whatever. That's fine. This is indeed the system. But that doesn't mean the system is just, or that it can't be changed. And it doesn't mean that the "system" is inherently right. People can, and should, advocate for changing systems that are unjust even when those systems aren't slavery.

I suggest this thought experiment. Imagine the NCAA entirely removed the rules about compensation for athletes (someone suggested this several posts back). Does anyone seriously think that P-5 basketball and football players would receive less than they do now? Everyone knows the real value to the universities is less than what these guys are receiving, because everyone acknowledges that if the compensation rules didn't exist they would get paid more. (Obviously, even with the compensation rules, many guys are getting paid more, just in a black market.)

Once you accept that the players are being paid less than what they would receive in a free market, you can still argue for the present system, but you need to actually argue that the benefits outweigh the costs. And those costs are being borne by one group of people - the players. Big-time college sports is creating a lot of surplus, some of which would otherwise go to the players, but now instead goes to coaches, to administrators, to designers of expensive practice facilities, to Louisville prostitutes, to Mark Emmert, to ESPN, etc. Maybe that's a just system, but you're going to need more than saying it is the system to establish that it's a good one.

Well expressed points, as usual, and good damage control. But this (red) is where you're incorrect IMO. It's not a market. D-1 student athletes are, by definition, amateurs - including the 1-2% with pro potential. It's such a small number that, even if I bought your "compensation" argument, the exception would be driving the rule. The fact is that, as unfair as NCAA enforcement is, college sports benefit (handsomely I might add) the vast majority of SA's. Even NBA prospects (most) are just that - prospects. There is no "market" for them because, not only are they amateurs, they're not finished products. The very reason they choose college is to develop and enjoy being in an academic environment (at least at most legit schools). That is their choice, and as we saw with the Bazely fiasco, almost all of them think it's worth it.

Your analysis also ignores the huge costs colleges bear in funding their BB programs (among many other institutional expenses). Syracuse spends between $13 and $14M every year on its basketball program. There's lots of TV money, BUT they pay their players stipends and all their living expenses, along with providing an environment conducive to learning. They also, by law, have to fund other Title IX programs like womens soccer, ice hockey, lacrosse and other sports that are net revenue losses. Even without the title IX issue, the "value" argument is a mirage. While SU BB usually has at least one prospect with NBA potential, most of its players are not pro prospects. Even the ones that are, jump as soon as they're ready for pro ball (and sometimes even before). You can claim all you want that these guys should be compensated as "employees", and that they have all this "value" in the "market" ... but the NBA doesn't agree. Not until they're ready to be drafted are they truly "marketable" - and then they almost always leave college. Look at Bazely, a kid with obvious pro potential. Is he being showered with endorsement money? Hardly. The only people who want to hand him cash are agents looking to score a fee off him in a couple years .. and all they do is offer loans. So your argument continues to fall apart even for the few for whom you think the whole system should be reformed.

 

[Waltdods]

Well expressed points, as usual, and good damage control. But this (red) is where you're incorrect IMO. It's not a market. D-1 student athletes are, by definition, amateurs - including the 1-2% with pro potential. It's such a small number that the exception would be driving the rule. Stated another way, you urge reform of a huge enterprise that benefits (handsomely I might add) the vast majority. Very few S-As are NBA prospects. They represent a tiny fraction of the whole, and there is no "market" for them because they're not finished products ready for employment. The very reason they choose college is to develop as amateurs and students. That is their choice, and as we saw with the Bazely fiasco, almost all of them think it's worth it.

You're analysis also ignores the huge costs college bear in funding their BB programs (along with other institutional costs). Syracuse spends between $13 and $14M every year on its basketball program. Their revenue exceeds that, BUT by law they have to fund mens and womens soccer, ice hockey, lacrosse and other sports that are net revenue losses. Also, while SU BB usually has at least one prospect with NBA potential, most of its players are not pro prospects, and even the ones that are jump as soon as they're ready for pro ball (and sometimes even before). These are the guys you think should be paid, that have all this "value" in the "market" ... even though the NBA doesn't agree. When they're truly "marketable", they get drafted, and not until. Do you see Bazely, who has obviously pro potential, being showered with endorsement money? The only people who want to pay him are agents looking to score a fee off him in a couple years .. and all they do is offer loans. So your argument continues to fall apart even for the few for whom you claim the whole system should be reformed.

I mean, they are by definition amateurs because that's the definition we've given them. If we said they were professionals, they'd be by definition professionals but that doesn't really change any of the substance. Hell, I'm not even sure you're right about the definition - everyone agrees they are receiving significant compensation for playing a sport. Are they really "amateurs" but a minor-league baseball player making $1,000 a month is a "professional"? I guess?

Again, I think the focus on the small number of guys who ultimately play in the NBA is misguided, and it is definitely not my position. The issue is not (only) that the NBA prospects are being prevented from playing in the NBA for a year (there's actually an easy solution to this problem). It's that every guy is prevented from realizing his actual worth by the restrictive rules.

You say these guys don't have value, but they pretty plainly do: in the absence of NCAA compensation rules, guys like Frank Howard or Trever Cooney would receive more money to pay basketball at SU than they did. Do you (or anyone) really disagree with this? To take a bit of an extreme example, Gerry McNamara was never going to be an NBA player, but the University still made hundreds of thousands of dollars licensing #3 jerseys with a wink-and-a-nod. GMac had significant marketable value, which was in fact marketed, only a whole bunch of people who were not Gerry McNamara made the money from it. To take another extreme example, as a high-school senior, Paul Harris was probably worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to a school on an open market. He didn't get a dime of that, and has probably not made as much money in his entire career as he could have by selling his services at 18.

Finally, again, I think the it's-their-choice stuff isn't nearly as illuminating as it may seem at first glance. People make choices within parameters that exist. To take a hopefully non-politicized example: in 1772, it was a choice to live in the American colonies. By living there, you sacrificed certain rights and had to pay certain taxes to the British crown, and you lacked (more or less) the representation that people in England had. It was a choice to live here - someone who didn't like the system was free to move back to England. Each colonist who stayed was, in some sense, making a choice and taking the good with the bad. But that was not the end of the analysis. The question then was is this system fair? It is possible to advocate change to a system while acknowledging that people within the system are making choices.

 

[reedny]

I mean, they are by definition amateurs because that's the definition we've given them. If we said they were professionals, they'd be by definition professionals but that doesn't really change any of the substance. Hell, I'm not even sure you're right about the definition - everyone agrees they are receiving significant compensation for playing a sport. Are they really "amateurs" but a minor-league baseball player making $1,000 a month is a "professional"? I guess?

Again, I think the focus on the small number of guys who ultimately play in the NBA is misguided, and it is definitely not my position. The issue is not (only) that the NBA prospects are being prevented from playing in the NBA for a year (there's actually an easy solution to this problem). It's that every guy is prevented from realizing his actual worth by the restrictive rules.

You say these guys don't have value, but they pretty plainly do: in the absence of NCAA compensation rules, guys like Frank Howard or Trever Cooney would receive more money to pay basketball at SU than they did. Do you (or anyone) really disagree with this? To take a bit of an extreme example, Gerry McNamara was never going to be an NBA player, but the University still made hundreds of thousands of dollars licensing #3 jerseys with a wink-and-a-nod. GMac had significant marketable value, which was in fact marketed, only a whole bunch of people who were not Gerry McNamara made the money from it. To take another extreme example, as a high-school senior, Paul Harris was probably worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to a school on an open market. He didn't get a dime of that, and has probably not made as much money in his entire career as he could have by selling his services at 18.

Finally, again, I think the it's-their-choice stuff isn't nearly as illuminating as it may seem at first glance. People make choices within parameters that exist. To take a hopefully non-politicized example: in 1772, it was a choice to live in the American colonies. By living there, you sacrificed certain rights and had to pay certain taxes to the British crown, and you lacked (more or less) the representation that people in England had. It was a choice to live here - someone who didn't like the system was free to move back to England. Each colonist who stayed was, in some sense, making a choice and taking the good with the bad. But that was not the end of the analysis. The question then was is this system fair? It is possible to advocate change to a system while acknowledging that people within the system are making choices.

The colonist analogy is a stretch, since no one forced GMac to leave paid employment (as a basketball player) to accept an athletic scholarship. He chose education and the amateur model. And that was a smart choice because, if you separate GMac from Syracuse, what's his value purely as a basketball player? It might be something. But is it more than an education at an elite private university? Doubtful. And that's the case for almost all of the SA's in the NCAA system.

The "value" is in the programs themselves, the histories, the rivalries .. the nostalgia. That's what draws fans and TV audiences.

 

[shantydaze]

[snip] You say these guys don't have value, but they pretty plainly do: in the absence of NCAA compensation rules, guys like Frank Howard or Trever Cooney would receive more money to pay basketball at SU than they did. Do you (or anyone) really disagree with this? To take a bit of an extreme example, Gerry McNamara was never going to be an NBA player, but the University still made hundreds of thousands of dollars licensing #3 jerseys with a wink-and-a-nod. GMac had significant marketable value, which was in fact marketed, only a whole bunch of people who were not Gerry McNamara made the money from it. To take another extreme example, as a high-school senior, Paul Harris was probably worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to a school on an open market. He didn't get a dime of that, and has probably not made as much money in his entire career as he could have by selling his services at 18.

The marketability of college athletes is an interesting chicken or the egg topic. At Green Bay Packers' games, I see people wearing Aaron Rodgers's Cal jerseys. I highly doubt any of the people wearing these jerseys are Cal fans. Rather, they are Rodgers's fans and are buying the jerseys because of him. Contrast that to your GMac example. Was there a large market GMac fans that want a jersey because of his name on it or were those jerseys being bought and sold to fans of Syracuse. If I had to guess which name (the one on the front or the one on the back) was incidental to the purchase, it would be GMac's. As an aside, I have never understood why all schools don't just use a generic number, or in the case of Syracuse, a famous number on all jerseys. Would SU really lose much repeat sales if they just sold a 44 basketball jersey?

I have always held the opinion that the success of college sports is based less on the people playing it and more on its association with the colleges and universities. A player's talent allows them to be placed in an environment that creates a market for their likeness. Otherwise, there would be just as many Tyler Landon Rio Grande Valley Vipers jerseys sold as Orange jerseys sold.

 

[Waltdods]

Your colonist analogy is a stretch, at least for the vast majority of SA's who are not pro prospects. You make it sound like GMac was driven away from a paying job by an unscrupulous employer and forced to move to Syracuse to accept an athletic scholarship. Quite the contrary. He was thrilled to come to SU, and why not? He desired an education and wasn't employable as a BB player. Separate GMAC from Syracuse and what's his "value"? Number 3 is a commodity because GMac was an amateur student athlete at a storied college program, not because of his professional basketball skills.

Even as to NBA prospects, however, the "value" argument is weak. First, as I said above, it's premature. Prospects (all but about 10 kids in the whole country) are not sacrificing an NBA salary because they're not NBA (or even Europe) ready. It's the college game - amateur/less-skilled competition -- that helps them to develop into marketable pros. Second, while schools benefit, it's their reputations as educational institutions that make college sports so valuable. Many of us watch out of nostalgia, while the college programs we all remember, with their student-athletes, compete in fierce institutional rivalries. That is what draws TV audiences. The whole point of watching is that the rivalries are between programs with amateur student athletes.

There is, however, one place where your argument makes sense ... and that's at the UK's and Alabamas of college sports. These are the places where the reforms you talk about are needed - where "education" is a sham. I can see changes aimed at taking away the one-and-done rules and allowing kids out of HS to be drafted. For the rest - those NOT READY for the NBA - college offers a place for development and learning.

There is something in here that I do agree with - that a lot of the value of college sports comes from the universities and, to some degree, the NCAA. Being a Syracuse University basketball player brings value - those "OVERRATED" shirts are referencing Gerry, but they're bright orange because of Syracuse. I do agree that this is something real, and something that should be accounted for. I am a little (maybe a lot) more cynical about how much, if any, of this actually has to do with the schools "reputations as educational institutions" but I do agree that college sports brings something unique and perhaps irreplaceable.

At the same time, flip the argument in your first paragraph: Separate Syracuse from GMAC and what's the value of a #3 jersey in 2006? Not much.

More generally, I would encourage you to look at how much your argument is based, in essence, on definitions. You say that GMAC "wasn't employable as a BB player." But he was, clearly, employable as a basketball player: Syracuse gave him a scholarship worth $50k, and a bunch of fringe benefits. He played basketball on national television probably 50 times over the course of his career. Tens of millions of dollars were made on games played by Gerry McNamara. You are saying he wasn't "employable" because he was playing for free. My argument is that he shouldn't have been playing for free. Saying that he was is pointing out a fact, but is not really engaging with the argument.

On your last point, I will say I am unconvinced there is a meaningful difference between college athletics at Syracuse and UK and leave it at that.

 

[Waltdods]

Your colonist analogy is a stretch, at least for the vast majority of SA's who are not pro prospects. You make it sound like GMac was driven away from a paying job by an unscrupulous employer and forced to move to Syracuse to accept an athletic scholarship.

Sorry for multiple posts, but I wanted to respond directly to this. This is not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying that Syracuse is unscrupulous, or that GMac was forced to do anything. I agree he made a choice within the confines of the world in which he existed. What I am saying is that those choices depend on the rules, and that the rules are unjust.

To take another example, professional baseball for years had a reserve clause that massively depressed player salaries. Each of the players who signed a contract were making a choice - they didn't have to play baseball, they could have played internationally instead, whatever. They were all, in a very real sense, making a choice. They didn't have to be professional baseball players! Much of what they earned came from being on the Yankees or the Dodgers, rather than from their own talent. But the system changed. And it was an unjust system then. Undoubtedly, many of the people supporting it were arguing that the players were making a choice, that they were free to leave whenever they wanted.

 

[NateW]

To take another extreme example, as a high-school senior, Paul Harris was probably worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to a school on an open market. He didn't get a dime of that, and has probably not made as much money in his entire career as he could have by selling his services at 18.

I just don’t see how college basketball could survive having programs blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on every Paul Harris that walks through the door. If he costs that much, what’s Melo worth? $2M? Imagine the bidding on football players!

Private Universities could not survive an open market model. State schools would get all the best players. And then everything that makes college sports profitable would be irreparably changed forever. Conferences, rivalries, nostalgia. IMO the business model that makes college sports profitable could never survive an open market as you describe. Is that fair to the Universities?

A free education is not fair? I’m not sure being a good basketball player at Niagara Falls HS should immediately garner you hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Law and med students also don't generate billions of dollars across the ncaa.

Giving them free education is the very least they could do.

Not the point, which was that some professions require people to pay their dues, and do what is needed to be done. Attorneys and doctors can’t just skip their training and hope to become professionals. Kids that want to play in the NBA need to play college basketball or professional basketball somewhere. Or they can wait until they are eligible. They choose college because it’s the best option they have, and it’s a pretty sweet deal compared the alternatives. And most of these kids aren’t generating much revenue at all for their universities. You think the 10th kid on the roster at North Dakota State is making that program money? Is North Dakota State even making money? And I’d argue it isn’t just the individual players generating billions of dollars, but the institutions and the coaches that have a lot to do with it. Legendary coaches and legendary program are always there, but the players come and go, sometimes after only 1 season. These players owe a lot to those coaches and institutions for helping them get to the NBA.

 

[HOFCeluck]

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Very insightful, as usual.