Little poll for you...how many of you still root for players from your college in the pro ranks?

Now, I want you to think about how many years those players who aren't on full-time rosters stick around and keep chasing their dreams? It seems like you'll hear of guys getting picked up for a few weeks or making a practice squad...one of those scenarios...for a good 3-4 years after college. Then, they move on to the rest of their lives.

If the NFL chose--today, with the 3-year NCAA policy in place--to start a "spring league" minor league feeder system filled with our former favorite players, I bet we'd watch. And if we watch, they make money.

Now, make that league even more competitive by putting little Johnny Manziel and Deanthony Thomas in there while they prepare to go to the "big league" NEXT TO our favorite college players of yesteryear...and I think the NFL would have a viable product.

(10-02-2013 04:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 04:04 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Another idea that could change things is if the NCAA instituted a rule that any kid who accepts an athletic scholarship to any NCAA school has to commit himself to playing for a full 4 years before turning pro...

That would be great but can the NCAA pass such a rule?

Kids are not entitled to a scholarship. If they want one, they should commit.

It's not about passing a rule: it's about the lack of ability to enforce it.

(10-02-2013 06:57 PM)SDSUguy Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 12:16 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 12:07 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 11:16 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  It looks like Delaney's statements about letting athletes turn pro out of high school maybe on the way.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...ons_sports

I think NFL football is too physical to allow young men coming out of high school to play. However, if you can join the service at that age, I guess why not the NFL….

There are a LOT of jobs that don't allow you to be hired out of HS regardless of talent. From professional jobs, to licensed jobs, to sales jobs, to even some retail jobs. I work as a mortgage broker. You won't be hired at my company straight out of high school. And we don't pay six figures (to start anyway) . Much less seven or even eight figures like the NBA.

That's a bad example....just because your company won't hire an 18 year old doesn't mean they CAN'T hire an 18 year old. That's the difference.

There is no difference. The NBA is an organization, just like the ones above. They can make whatever rules they want. Many of them actually have far stiffer education and experience thresholds. Fro example, no matter how smart you are, no matter how much you know, you cannot test out of college and med school or law school and get a degree to be a doctor or lawyer. And in the case of a doctor, even AFTER you have met the educational requirements, you STILL must have two years "experience," i.e. in residency, before you can be hired as a doctor. No hospital can hire someone without meeting that threshold, regardless of who owns the company, because of rules created by the AMA. People like to think this example holds no meaning because "they are doctors" but it IS the same. Especially because they have a specific experience requirement AFTER you complete 8 years of post high school education. If you were only retort is " if you can join the service at that age," then this applies to that. If not, it completely discounts the entire argument.


Back to the NBA, they make a rule that you must have at least one year of post high school experience. That is about as lenient a rule any company has EVER made for a prereq for a seven figure job. For that matter, it is actually more lenient than many jobs that pay by the hour.

(10-02-2013 03:25 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The professionalization of college athletics is a really, REALLY bad idea. All that will happen is they will come to be seen by the public as the AAA version of the real thing.

I see this argument a lot and it continues to puzzle me. The professionalization of college athletics happened a looooong time ago and it's only exacerbated by the latest TV contracts. We're college sports fans here, so what I've observed is that we're skewed toward this illusion that what we're watching are still amateur athletes that are playing for the love of the game/school and aren't training for the pros. The rest of America has no such illusions and sees it for what it is: a multibillion dollar business that is every bit as corporatized as the pro sports leagues. The *public* knows exactly that they're watching the equivalent of AAA football and basketball and aren't bothered by it whatsoever. They could give two craps if guys at Ohio State/Notre Dame/USC/etc. are getting paid as long as the product is entertaining. It's us (the most rabid college sports fans) that seem to be largely in denial.

So, people can disagree about whether college players should receive additional compensation, but let's not kid ourselves that we're not watching semipro leagues that just happen to have much different and effective branding tied to schools (and draw larger fan bases and TV dollars as a result of it).

My only issue with paying players is not the issue of doing it, but how it would be done, so as to keep the playing field level. And of course the fact that once the door is open, cheating (i.e. unleveling the playing field) becomes even easier. Ideally a true level playing field (NFL) would be ideal. A semi-level playing field (NBA) is more likely, but a completely unlevel playing field (MLB) is possible.

So essentially my issue would be more with execution than with the ideal.

Well stated, Frank. It's amazing to me how many people actually believe the NCAA propaganda and what's even funnier, is that many of the outcries you hear today on college athletes getting more compensation sounds the same as it did in 1950, when athletic scholarships was being debated.

Through my discussions on the subject, those against additional compensation for athletes boils down to these 5 reasons.

1) Some are worried their school's athletic teams wouldn't be able to compete.
2) Some are envious of athletes getting better treatment than them while they were in school.
3) Some would gladly change places and feel fine having their salary potential capped while others in the business can increase their salary. Basically, **** on me, I like that.
4) Some think these kids are getting a free education (free means no compensation (work) in return). Not the case.
5) And like it or not, race and economic classification is involved.

(10-02-2013 12:21 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Aren't you still growing into 21? Your brain isn't fully developed until 22ish. It's just not going to happen. Can't put teens at risk like that. And there is no minor league system to speak of.

You can still be growing until 26. I literally had an inch and a half growth spurt between 24 and 25.

(10-03-2013 01:23 PM)wrcwolf Wrote:  Well stated, Frank. It's amazing to me how many people actually believe the NCAA propaganda and what's even funnier, is that many of the outcries you hear today on college athletes getting more compensation sounds the same as it did in 1950, when athletic scholarships was being debated.

Through my discussions on the subject, those against additional compensation for athletes boils down to these 5 reasons.

1) Some are worried their school's athletic teams wouldn't be able to compete.
2) Some are envious of athletes getting better treatment than them while they were in school.
3) Some would gladly change places and feel fine having their salary potential capped while others in the business can increase their salary. Basically, **** on me, I like that.
4) Some think these kids are getting a free education (free means no compensation (work) in return). Not the case.
5) And like it or not, race and economic classification is involved.

You're cynical.

They're getting compensation. Increasing their compensation to the level of a student on a full ride academic scholarship is fine. Increasing it to more (other than all the free tutoring and counseling they get) and you have to question what the purpose is.

Here's the reality. A full scholarship is more than all but the 1-5% of the football and basketball players is worth. All but a couple dozen schools lose money on sports. Most schools lose money on football and basketball. The regular student's fees are subsidizing athletics. If not paying them gets those whose sole purpose is training for the pros to skip college, that's a good thing. Opens a spot in the school for those who want to get an education.

(10-03-2013 01:51 PM)brista21 Wrote:  You can still be growing until 26. I literally had an inch and a half growth spurt between 24 and 25.

I bet your wife LOVED it.