(09-07-2017 09:10 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 08:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It's not a free market. It's amature sports.

Right. Bottom line is that they should be able to transfer just like any "regular student" is able to transfer.

There is no rule preventing them from transferring and going to another school and paying to attend classes just like a normal student. They can do that to their hearts desire.

(09-07-2017 09:27 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 09:10 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 08:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It's not a free market. It's amature sports.

Right. Bottom line is that they should be able to transfer just like any "regular student" is able to transfer.

There is no rule preventing them from transferring and going to another school and paying to attend classes just like a normal student. They can do that to their hearts desire.

Right but they're stuck in school for 5 years when they might not want to be.

(09-07-2017 08:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 08:29 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 07:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  A student athlete should be able to transfer universities just like any other student can if you truly believe they are "amateurs" and students first.

I thought we finally gave up that notion and started paying these kids 'cost of attendance'?

they aren't 'any other student' and get lots of benefits to go along with the athletic scholarship...with those benefits, comes rules...and sitting out should be one of those rules.

JMHO.

No worries. We just disagree. I don't think there should be any restrictions on student athletes when it comes to legal* financial opportunities or freedom of movement.

If universities are allowed to make millions in revenues, the athletes should be able to make as much as their labor produces.

Conversely, a non-revenue producing athlete on a fraction of a scholarship shouldn't be forced to not play a year because he/she only had to pay 80% of their own way instead of 100%.

From a 10k foot view, its a free market issue for me. The NCAA sets itself up as an oligarchy where the Universities and the organization itself take in the fruits of billions in revenue while those who create that revenue on the field/court are given less than the fair share of what their labor created AND restricts their ability to find a better economic opportunity without penalty.



*---by legal, I mean actually legal not stupid NCAA rules.

It's not a free market. It's amature sports. In the free market there is no Title IV requirement that schools provide equal opportunity for women's sports---even though women's sports are largely unprofitable. In fact, the NCAA requires that a school play a minimum number of sports, most of which lose money, just to participate in D-1 football. The only two sports that raise much revenue at all are football and men's basketball--and even those two sports are not making all that much money outside of the P5.

There are multiple court cases seeking to require that D1 football and basketball players be treated as free agents. I don't see how the courts can both find that schools must function as a free market while also finding that the schools must adhere to Title IX requirements for equal opportunity in women's sports. Free markets are not required to engage in a business that loses money. The courts can't have it both ways. Either it's a free market or it is amateur sports. It can't be both.

I think any objective look at the current structure of D1 makes it clear it really isn't designed as a money making venture. It may sometimes actually make money, but that's not its primary function (though its true that money does drive many of its decisions). I think in the vast majority of the cases, the D1 focus on money is due to the increasing costs required to operate a sports program, not the drive for profit itself.

This is the winner. Thread can be closed after this comment.


T


...

(09-07-2017 08:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 08:29 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 07:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  A student athlete should be able to transfer universities just like any other student can if you truly believe they are "amateurs" and students first.

I thought we finally gave up that notion and started paying these kids 'cost of attendance'?

they aren't 'any other student' and get lots of benefits to go along with the athletic scholarship...with those benefits, comes rules...and sitting out should be one of those rules.

JMHO.

No worries. We just disagree. I don't think there should be any restrictions on student athletes when it comes to legal* financial opportunities or freedom of movement.

If universities are allowed to make millions in revenues, the athletes should be able to make as much as their labor produces.

Conversely, a non-revenue producing athlete on a fraction of a scholarship shouldn't be forced to not play a year because he/she only had to pay 80% of their own way instead of 100%.

From a 10k foot view, its a free market issue for me. The NCAA sets itself up as an oligarchy where the Universities and the organization itself take in the fruits of billions in revenue while those who create that revenue on the field/court are given less than the fair share of what their labor created AND restricts their ability to find a better economic opportunity without penalty.



*---by legal, I mean actually legal not stupid NCAA rules.

It's not a free market. It's amature sports. In the free market there is no Title IV requirement that schools provide equal opportunity for women's sports---even though women's sports are largely unprofitable. In fact, the NCAA requires that a school play a minimum number of sports, most of which lose money, just to participate in D-1 football. The only two sports that raise much revenue at all are football and men's basketball--and even those two sports are not making all that much money outside of the P5.

Just because the NCAA makes rules requiring their institutions to spend money on more administrators/coaches for sports that dont make money doesn't mean that the students in the revenue producing sports aren't getting screwed financially. Furthermore, students in all sports should be able to financially benefit from their own likeness yet the NCAA, for the most part, forbids it.

There are multiple court cases seeking to require that D1 football and basketball players be treated as free agents. I don't see how the courts can both find that schools must function as a free market while also finding that the schools must adhere to Title IX requirements for equal opportunity in women's sports. Free markets are not required to engage in a business that loses money. The courts can't have it both ways. Either it's a free market or it is amateur sports. It can't be both.

Businesses have to abide by rules/laws that aren't financially beneficial all the time. At the same time they dont get the benefit of tax exemption either. To be honest, Universities shouldnt be in revenue producing sports entertainment business at all yet they are part of an organization whose members make billions in revenue yearly. So,
they make their revenue on free market bidding for revenue, ticket sales, etc yet don't have to pay free market prices for their labor and, at the end of the day, are largely tax exempt.

I think any objective look at the current structure of D1 makes it clear it really isn't designed as a money making venture. It may sometimes actually make money, but that's not its primary function (though its true that money does drive many of its decisions). I think in the vast majority of the cases, the D1 focus on money is due to the increasing costs required to operate a sports program, not the drive for profit itself.

Just because the organization(The NCAA and its member institutions) that receives all the revenue creates rules for themselves that diverts the money to non-moneymaking ventures doesn't mean that the students who create that revenue shouldn't get paid in correlation with their revenue creating value for that university and the NCAA.

Not just NO...but....HELL NO!!!

(09-10-2017 09:56 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Not just NO...but....HELL NO!!!

Ur signature says differently

you see what's happening in Basketball where a kid at a small school has a great freshman year and then decides to transfer. There has to be some consequences for that decision otherwise you would have rosters in flux every off season.

(09-06-2017 01:36 PM)StatueKnight Wrote:  The problem is that giving a scholarship is an investment in a player. That investment does not pay dividends many times until year three. so you house, feed, school. tutor, train and help the player meet his potential only for him to leave to go play at Alabama. Seems fair to me.

It works the other way too. All those 3,4,5 stars Alabama that aren't playing will want to transfer.


So, I support this. More P5 players for us please!