Quote:

---

I won't assume anything about any particular player but a ton of athletes choose NCAA sports over a "legitimate paycheck" every year, including male basketball players.

The "problem" for the players seems to be those "legitimate paychecks" don't pay a lot. And they sure as heck don't pay enough to make up for the worse facilities and coaching they'd be getting.

And I say boohoo, that's not Texas A&M's problem.

---

Yeah, as of today, it's no contest between NCAA basketball and a G-league paycheck. In 5-10 years, when salaries double or triple and the G-league takes over as the official minor league for NBA basketball, the choice won't be so easy.

Harry Dunne said:

---

Iowaggie said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

Iowaggie said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

And players won't want to play in the Ball minors because he is a bush league ass clown and hopefully kids and families know better than to put their faith in him. But if there were a viable option, I think a lot of kids would go for that. I don't even mean a high dollar pathway, just something similar to MLBs minor leagues where the pay might not be that great at the beginning for most but there is a strong structure and definite path to the majors.

---

Few kids go for that because the fact is, most kids want to play in front of thousands at Kentucky for an NCAA championship instead of the minor leagues.

---

One last word on this: Most kids could give a flip about playing in the NCAA championship when you throw $100k at them. Wasn't Ayton 87% Kansas 13% Kentucky until Sean Miller set up 100 large for him? You think he all of the sudden thought Arizona had a better chance of winning it all?

---

You don't think Ayton plays in front of thousands at Arizona?

The choice wasn't which school, the question was about choosing NCAA basketball or minor leagues.
Both paths get you to the NBA if your good. He was already resolved to play NCAA basketball.

---

You're really good with the idiotic rhetorical questions, aren't you?

A guy that would be swayed by $100,000 seems like the perfect candidate to play minor league basketball to me. He is one of the guys that could actually have played in the G-league, but the typical G-league salary is around $20,000 (I think Caruso made 50 at the start of the year). So in this case it's not a joke, he was actually getting paid better at Arizona!

I understand where you are coming from, I really do, but do yourself a favor and do a little research on the numbers and the history of all of this before coming at this argument so strong. I think you might not be so blindly aggressive if you could for two seconds stop thinking of them as spoiled athletes and think of at least some of them as basketball players who will never have better earning potential than they do as young basketball players. We have 1M way worse problems than this in society, but that doesn't mean that the NCAA shouldn't be a little more generous with the people that generate the money they are living so fat off of.

---

Yep. I should do the research. I was the one wishing for a minor league system...oh wait, no I wasn't.

The fact is, most minor leaguers in baseball, the system you hold up as the model, isn't better. It has the players living below poverty level. Some college baseball players turn down signing bonus a lot bigger than what Ayton's handler got offered (allegedly) to choose to play college baseball over minor league baseball.


You keep blindly holding on to this myth that all these players have this great earning potential, but they don't. A small handful do. And that handful isn't obligated to go to a NCAA school. That handful has options.

The bottom 98% of college basketball players really don't have better options, but wouldn't be better off in a US minor league system either. The value is in the name on the front of the jersey, not the back.

I understand that people see all the money with the NCAA tournament, and believe it is just going to some owner type person, but the fact is the current NCAA basketball system in the United States offers more opportunities to kids then any other, even at schools that are losing money on basketball (without the benefit of the NCAA tournament).


I'm all for the top 36-60 teams in NCAA Division I separating from the rest of the NCAA.
Let them do whatever they want, pay whatever they want, and play whomever they want.
Don't let eligibility be an issue with passing classes, or even if a guy has already played professional, let him play for a college team. It's the free market, the player should not have to worry about only staying 4 years, or even 1 year.

Let's just lay off the weeping that these top players have to go to college for a year, or that the mediocre players don't have a strong enough minor league system.

Method Man said:

---

i don't. I guess we can give them a paycheck and make them pay for food, parking, training, housing etc. Most of them are doing way better than they would in some minor league imo.

---

They are doing way better because people have an affinity for their college.

The college has all the value and relationships, and it offers a platform for kids to succeed in front of thousands.

There are plenty of fans on the football board that prefer college football over the NFL, and it isn't because it is a higher level of play, or even that the team has been great. The college boosts their earning potential, and for an overwhelming majority of college athletes, the college gives them more than what they receive in return.



The problem isn't the NCAA. The problem is this shaky foundation of what the NCAA is built on that has been infected by a quota system on distributing scholarships and support: Trying to level the playing field for a diverse range of universities who have this broad range of sports and academic services to maintain. 2 sports at a handful of schools make money on their own. But those sports have to pay for many programs at many schools.

I agree with you on a lot of that, which is easier to do when you don't open with an ******* rhetorical question.

I'm not weeping for anyone, I just feel like the athlete should have a choice and that it's not right that a bunch of old white guys are getting rich off of them while they aren't seeing but a small fraction of the profit.

You can say it's a great system and not communist, but Jason Cook said Manziel generated how many dollars for A&M? Like 60 million by himself during his Heisman run?

You seem to think that giving him a scholarship and aid package worth ~50k/year is adequate compensation for the 60 million he made (while chodes like Sumlin and Hyman and Emmert make millions on the athletes' backs). To me, that sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability." Yes, I know that this model would not give the lesser sports the same amount of money. That's how the free market works.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

You can say it's a great system and not communist, but Jason Cook said Manziel generated how many dollars for A&M? Like 60 million by himself during his Heisman run?

You seem to think that giving him a scholarship and aid package worth ~50k/year is adequate compensation for the 60 million he made (while chodes like Sumlin and Hyman and Emmert make millions on the athletes' backs). To me, that sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability." Yes, I know that this model would not give the lesser sports the same amount of money. That's how the free market works.

---

Since we're talking markets, the government should not be allowing people to deduct donations to the athletic department. It's a handout to athletic departments and the wealthiest portion of the nation, two populations that are in least need of financial assistance.

Tax the income that people are spending sponsoring a football/basketball team. Allow schools to pay the revenue generating players a modest salary and tax that income as well. Government comes out way ahead financially, donors/networks decide what fair market value is, and players learn about paying taxes before they reach drinking age.

wacarnolds said:

---

Quote:

---

I won't assume anything about any particular player but a ton of athletes choose NCAA sports over a "legitimate paycheck" every year, including male basketball players.

The "problem" for the players seems to be those "legitimate paychecks" don't pay a lot. And they sure as heck don't pay enough to make up for the worse facilities and coaching they'd be getting.

And I say boohoo, that's not Texas A&M's problem.

---

Yeah, as of today, it's no contest between NCAA basketball and a G-league paycheck. In 5-10 years, when salaries double or triple and the G-league takes over as the official minor league for NBA basketball, the choice won't be so easy.

---

NBA coming for the talent

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22615784/nba-making-plans-get-involved-high-school-level-once-again-espn

Quote:

---

A plan is expected to include the NBA starting relationships with elite teenagers while they are in high school, providing skills to help them develop both on and off the court. It would ultimately open an alternate path to the NBA besides playing in college and a way 18-year-olds could earn a meaningful salary either from NBA teams or as part of an enhanced option in the developmental G League, sources said.

---

Quote:

---

A new plan could establish a way for the ultra-elite level of players such as Bryant or James to go to the NBA as 18-year-olds and also create a way for high school graduates who might not be ready to immediately go to the NBA to continue their development with NBA teams while enabling them to earn money that could help their families. This would be an alternative to college and perhaps the seedy and legally questionable world of looking for under-the-table payments.

---

Good. That's fine. Ben Simmons added nothing to college bball IMO. Let those kids go straight. It's all projections as nobody cares at all about g league.

Oh well that is one dude. How about the hundreds of kids that generate no money? That come for two years don't play a minute and get a medical scholarship? What's their salary?

Method Man said:

---

Oh well that is one dude. How about the hundreds of kids that generate no money? That come for two years don't play a minute and get a medical scholarship? What's their salary?

---

Billy Kennedy gets paid over $2 mil per year. You're telling me half of that can't go to the players?

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

You can say it's a great system and not communist, but Jason Cook said Manziel generated how many dollars for A&M? Like 60 million by himself during his Heisman run?

You seem to think that giving him a scholarship and aid package worth ~50k/year is adequate compensation for the 60 million he made (while chodes like Sumlin and Hyman and Emmert make millions on the athletes' backs). To me, that sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability." Yes, I know that this model would not give the lesser sports the same amount of money. That's how the free market works.

---

And that is the exception, not the rule. Schools catch lighting in a bottle, occasionally. and thank goodness they do, or red ink splashes like the overwhelming majority of D-1 and D-2 athletic departments. You don't pay those types before they come. They might bust.

Maybe a reward system, if it can be documented what they generated (less what was spent). That might be "fair". But, it's still College Team sports. So give a team with a big year a bonus? Let the players vote shares like the pros? That might work. Oh, wait, that's professionals, with unions. Jalen Rose could be the Labor Union President.

Guarantee the players aren't as upset as those around them, wanting something, telling them they deserve more.

Method Man said:

---

Oh well that is one dude. How about the hundreds of kids that generate no money? That come for two years don't play a minute and get a medical scholarship? What's their salary?

---

You've obviously hit upon a huge problem here. The NCAA amateur system was designed for one era, but today operates in a completely different one (e.g. soccer, track, etc. generate almost no money, yet football is a multi-billion dollar business).

Personally, I think the club model (basically, pay for your own crap) is better, though simply granting student-athletes rights of publicity would be a great start and a big improvement.