HighEliteMajor said:
@Kcmatt7 I appreciate your passion. I am not tied to players staying four years. I don't like OADs.
But here's what's important. I want players that want to play in college. I am all for competition.
Further, I don't think you have to pay players to entice them to come. If you do, then they should choose something else if they want to get paid.
The concern I see above with universities getting paid for their players is off base. What company or entity does not make money off those that perform services for them? It's a red-herring.
Further, if the value of a college player's services is what the market will bear, right? Where is the market? It certainly isn't restricted.
See, what you and others want is for a private organization to change its rules to accommodate the desires of a few. Instead of competing, folks want to change an entities rules and make them something they aren't. See, the NCAA works great for most every athlete.
The market is there and open to be exploited. Start a league. Pay the players. Let them get endorsements. But if it was there, wouldn't someone have done it by now?
Ah, but that's the tricky part isn't it -- the players derive most all of their value from the stage that the NCAA provides. That's right, the universities have the facilities, the tourney, the TV contract, the national exposure, the marketing, the brands, right? Without it, there's nothing.
Thus is why the players just don't sign with UA, or Nike, or Adidas out of high school, or go sign autographs, or whatever, and skip college.
But you are ignoring the fact that they ARE getting paid with endorsements right this second. Ignoring that Nike and Adidas are never going to stop finding ways to pay players to attend certain schools or involve themselves in basketball. I do not think the NCAA should pay players. Or the Universities should pay players. I just do not think that they should restrict players earnings.
Why do you think they should restrict players earnings? How would that change the already screwed up landscape of College Basketball and College Basketball recruiting? How would it change KU basketball? What would it do?
Why continue the song and dance? Instead of players taking dirty money and the NCAA looking the other way full well knowing it is happening, why not just accept it and regulate it.
Your argument is, "its free market," and that is it and if the players don't like it, go somewhere else. I mean you are basically just opposing something just to oppose it if you can't tell me simply, why you think the NCAA should not let players fetch endorsements when it would cost the NCAA and its member schools absolutely nothing or, more likely, it would save everyone millions from the reduced compliance and investigating that would need to take place.
These rules were made to only apply to the small number of athletes in the first place. So saying a rule works for the large majority of athletes when it wasn't created for them in the first place is not actually digging into the problem.
You are basically saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Except it is broke, and now you are really saying "well it still kind of works and we don't really want to fix it, so just leave it how it is." What happens something comes around that actually does work, effectively ends CBB, and all we had to do was change a simple rule that was created for and only effected a small number of athletes? I love CBB and don't want to see it go away. But not being proactive about these types of things is exactly how you see large companies go out of business all the time.
