Almost time for Rachel Garcia Signature Cleats?

[bmakj]

diamond, I agree, revenue generating sports have perverted the entire college world. not certain there is a fix possible though, given the $$$ involved. It also points to larger problems in US athletics in general. in an ideal world:

-all pro sports teams would be subject to relegation, as most of their overseas counterparts are (ie finish in bottom X teams of league, for Y years, you get relegated to next level lower down). but given amount paid for franchises, owners would never agree to this.

-every professional sport would have robust minor leagues for development of players. MLB and NHL already do so, and NBA is moving that way. there still exist a lot of excitement for these college sports as well, just not the tidal wave of TV money. I fully expect MBB $ to decrease, might be slow, but it will happen, with a viable NBA minor league. people will tune in to watch the next big thing. NCAA MBB tourney will still generate a good deal of $ however, due to the excitement involved (DAvids vs Goliaths).

-each sport could only offer the same % of full schollies vs roster across the board. cannot have 60 out of 80 full ride football players and the equivalent of 8 full rides on 20(?) man (woman) SB or BB team.

-no special facilities/programs, other than physical therapy and training, for athletes only. no athlete only dorms, dining halls, gyms, etc.

football is actually going to destroy the rest of college athletics. P5 schools are going to break away, alllow payments to athletes. then, other than football fans, interest will plummet in the other sports for the P5 and those that remain in NCAA.

the issue is not how to fairly distribute the money, the issue is that the primary purpose of college sports (and by corollary college itself) should not be to generate revenue and/or to train athletes for a professional athletic career.

maybe the answer is to have $0.90 of every $1 generated by athletics distributed to general scholarship fund of schools involved, and all shoe/apparel deals must be with Univ, not coaches, and all of that $ goes to first equip all the sports equally on a per athlete basis, then any leftover to general scholarship fund. but this would mean the end of multimillion $ coaches, ADs, and NCAA officials, and that all that all those groups really care about.

 

[grmerrill]

I can't believe that here of all places this is gaining support. This will benefit a small number of players, almost exclusively men. I love that it's called "Pay to Play", how many of your DDs will see any benefit. Way to cater to the whining and complaining of an over paid "man child" that think they should have been paid in college and social justice warriors. Do you wonder why they aren't paying all athletes? Womens sports don't make money in the majority of the country. And this will only hurt your DDs future opportunities.

 

[bmakj]

I agree, in the long run this will hurt all college athletics. what I think needs to happen though, is to funnel the money away from paid individual s in the system (NCAA officers, coaches, ADs, etc.), and into the schools general coffers. NCAA officials should be limited to say $500k in compensation a year, same for ADs, coaches, etc., including all shoe/apparel/endorsement money. no side deals, shoe apparel deal should be with the school, not the coach, not the athletic department. I think if there were less people making absurd amounts of money, this would not be the issue it is. and all that money could be used to fund underfunded sports, or make school more affordable for all. everybody wins except the ones leeching of the athletes.

 

[texasheat]

And this will only hurt your DDs future opportunities.

Not saying that i agree with the new law, but how will it hurt our DD's future opportunities if a football player gets paid to do a milk commercial?

 

[bmakj]

because those successfull businessperson boosters who used to donate to the athletics department, will now instead use that money to hire the stud QB as a spokesperson for their business. trust me, this is going to suck more money into FB and MBB, and away from other sports.

 

[texasheat]

because those successfull businessperson boosters who used to donate to the athletics department, will now instead use that money to hire the stud QB as a spokesperson for their business. trust me, this is going to suck more money into FB and MBB, and away from other sports.

Got it. But don't see it really impacting the overall athletic department too much. How many football players on a given team would actually be valuable as a spokesperson? No one in Bowling Green Ky is going to care if their starting Defensive End is on a billboard. There are maybe 1 or 2 players tops that anyone would care about. You're talking a very small number of kids that would benefit from outside endorsements. Not enough IMO to alter the overall athletic budget to the point that it would trickle down and affect a softball player.

 

[bmakj]

Got it. But don't see it really impacting the overall athletic department too much. How many football players on a given team would actually be valuable as a spokesperson? No one in Bowling Green Ky is going to care if their starting Defensive End is on a billboard. There are maybe 1 or 2 players tops that anyone would care about. You're talking a very small number of kids that would benefit from outside endorsements. Not enough IMO to alter the overall athletic budget to the point that it would trickle down and affect a softball player.

but for success crazed boosters, whether the spokesperson is effective for their business is irrelevant. it is a way to obtain top recruits (and get a business write off too). even if no contact is allowed until after they are on campus, or play, recruits will know which schools have boosters handing out the legal big $ (they already know as well now the shady big $ schools and people generally).

it just moves all that above board and legal, if slightly delayed. and creates a bigger separation between general student body and student athletes in FB and MBB.

 

[texasheat]

but for success crazed boosters, whether the spokesperson is effective for their business is irrelevant. it is a way to obtain top recruits (and get a business write off too). even if no contact is allowed until after they are on campus, or play, recruits will know which schools have boosters handing out the legal big $ (they already know as well now the shady big $ schools and people generally).

it just moves all that above board and legal, if slightly delayed. and creates a bigger separation between general student body and student athletes in FB and MBB.

You're starting to stray from the original statement. If it already happens and softball players are doing fine, don't see how the simple act of legalizing it is going to harm softball players any more. Boosters tend to concentrate their effort/donations in specific sports. If someone is already a crazed enough booster to pay football players, it isn't going to cost the softball program anything because they are not currently giving to the general athletic program or the softball program. They are already giving it all to the football program.

 

[grmerrill]

You will see a push for those that are seen as the top talent to go to the top paying schools. Maybe you could field 11 FB players that are now on the gravy train or 5 MBB starters to not have the contention between the money makers and those on scholarship. Maybe you are ok with a law that tells your DD that if they were better or if people wanted to watch their sport they too could be making bank. They should accept that they are lesser athletes that play lesser sports. The money they will make using their name to do lessons is probably all they deserve. Like I said, it isn't pay to play, it's catering to the social justice warriors fighting for the vocal minority.

 

[bmakj]

You're starting to stray from the original statement. If it already happens and softball players are doing fine, don't see how the simple act of legalizing it is going to harm softball players any more. Boosters tend to concentrate their effort/donations in specific sports. If someone is already a crazed enough booster to pay football players, it isn't going to cost the softball program anything because they are not currently giving to the general athletic program or the softball program. They are already giving it all to the football program.

except in some cases schools will require that % goes to general athletic dept. I know ND used to (not certain if still the case) not let boosters earmark their donation. and even if it did go to specific sport, that was money the school did not need to pony up for scholarships, equip. for FB say. now the schools will miss out, boosters will be paying directly to athletes.

trust me, this will adversely affect all college athletics in the long run. I think big time college atheltics are approaching a tipping point, either completely sell out, or go on a $ diet and return to their true purpose, providing opportunities and developing student athletes.