(02-21-2020 11:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly--nobody ever touched on any of unintended ramifications of eliminating all caps on college athletics. That said---is it really that hard to see a fairly decent number of schools, unable to compete---dropping down---vastly cutting back on sports or dropping them altogether in a free agent environment? One need not envision a virtual Armageddon end of all college athletics to see a serious reduction in athletic scholarship opportunities could occur if free agency was instituted.

Maybe it's just that others either (a) don't share your speculations on the ramifications of free agency, or (b) don't think the rights of student X should be suppressed in order to benefit student Y?

Concerning (a), think about it: First, there is good reason to think few schools would drop down or abandon athletics. It might happen, yes, but it is by no means certain or close to it. Why? Because schools have, sadly IMO, proven remarkably resilient in clinging to football specifically and athletics generally that *already* is an uncompetitive financial disaster. Just look at all the FBS schools that run athletic programs, and football in particular, where operating revenues are only about 30% to 50% of operating costs, such that they soak their students or the academic side for fees and transfers to make it up, and with not only no apology but with bristling defenses about the "value of athletics"? Is having to pay players really going to push them over the edge? Not likely, especially when the cost of the typical player is unlikely to be more, and may well be less, than the current value of a scholarship.

Also, I think it just as likely that free agency will help the "have nots" as it will hurt them. As IIRC Tank once said, under the current football regime, his Illinois has to compete with Michigan and Ohio State for players on essentially one basis - the status and prestige of the program. And that's as impossible a game for Illinois to win as it is for USF or UCF to compete for 160 IQ kids with Harvard and Yale. But, allow Illinois to compete using money to pay players, and that could change the calculus significantly. And not just for P5. Schools like USF and Houston and UCF churn out thousands of new alumni every year. All it takes is one of them to become a Bloomberg or Pickens with money to burn and suddenly they might be able to out-bid even some P5 for better players. Or even without a Bill Gates they could pool their resources, collect $100 each from those hundreds of thousands, and create a big fund to buy players.

As for (b) that's a moral question and one I think has to be readily answered in favor of the high-market value students. It is no more right to take away the economic rights of a Joe Burrow just because that might mean 10 soccer players lose their scholarships any more than a new car company running lean with 10,000 employees but an innovative, better product should be shut down by the government because it might mean that 100,000 employees at existing firms lose their jobs because of the competition.

IOW's, the 'ramifications' of free agency are by no means obvious, nor is it clear that those ramifications create problems that government should fix.