Comments on: Burn the NCAA rule book

By: rashad

rashad — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:11:34 +0000

good article. i got a question tho. if they do start paying college athletes then im going to court looking for backpay:-) ….. lol @ parker (HIV roulette with Arizona coeds) too funny.

athletes2actors.com

By: AR

AR — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:49:45 +0000

Logan, cash for performance (academics) has recently been tried in public schools and the results are very encouraging. Now, you can debate wether it’s right or wrong but when some districts have a 50% droupout rate, I say the hell with morality and lets do whatever it takes for them to graduate.

By: Saku 39

Saku 39 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:25:28 +0000

@12t

Yeah, I was thinking of some percentage-based system would be equitable. I don’t know their financial structure but I would rather the NCAA, not the universities, dig into their revenues from corporate sponsors and billion dollar TV contracts and they be the ones to pay the stipend. Like revenue sharing in MLB.

By: parker

parker — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:28:46 +0000

When I was in college I made a nice amount of money as an intern. And I made a decent amount of money as a bouncer when I wasn’t interning. Its sad that these guys can participate in this lucrative system but not have a way to benefit monetarily. What makes this worse is that players aren’t allowed to work outside of the system. They do receive certain benefits, but its my opinion that the players are under compensated. The question then becomes how to further compensate the players without hurting the game. Its a complicated issue that I doubt will change unless some other entity starts competing with the NCAA.

I love what Brandon Jennings did last year. I hate it because it lowered the quality of college basketball, but I love it because it challenged an unfair system. The young man missed out on a year of playing HIV roulette with Arizona coeds but gained what could be a lifetime of financial stability and valuable experience living on his own abroad.

By: 12t

12t — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:17:50 +0000

@23

what if their stipend was based on a percentage of earnings by the school per sport?

Or ever student athlete is paid the same stipend across all sports (if they’re on scholarship)?

The options are there. The NCAA needs to stop being greedy & discuss them. I love my Kansas Jayhawks but I wonder how much Super Mario gets everytime someone buys his picture-poster, magazine-book or etc… of “The Shot” plastered everywhere. I agree that colege should be for the love of the game, but his passion along with his teamates is used as a recruiting tool for even non-athlets.

By: Saku 39

Saku 39 — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:41:48 +0000

^^^ Funny O.J.

Interesting take on this situation, and I agree with your intent, but I wouldn’t want to further enable boosters. I think a small, equally distributed stipend would provide some assistance and reward for athletes, yet maintain a semblance of competitive integrity.

The big problem is that this program would have to extend to different sports (and genders) and might not be financial feasible.

By: O.J. Mayo

O.J. Mayo — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:06:00 +0000

I agree. show me the $$$

By: 12t

12t — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:23:41 +0000

This needs to be dealt with as two seperate issues.

A) kids with talent in basketball should be able to make a profit off their skill/trade and image

B) college basketball should be about students competing against other students

If a high school senior wants to cash in on his skill/trade & create some marketability for himself before he’s NBA eligible then he should go play overseas.

College should be for students who want to get their education in exchange for playing basketball to represent the school. While there I do agree that they should get a stipend (evenly distributed regardless of talent level) because the school makes money off of them.

By: mosduff

mosduff — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:34:37 +0000

“Like I said, things would still even out. Stephen Curry still would have gone to Davidson under a “free-market” system; he wasn’t a big-time recruit coming out of high school. Blake Griffin still would have gone to Oklahoma (hometown), Hansbrough still would have gone to UNC (it’s UNC), Eric Maynor still would have gone to VCU (not a five-star recruit). Kansas boosters could only break off 12-15 kids to sign a letter of intent, and they’re not gonna be so concerned with those 8th-15th spots on the roster, so no, the top programs won’t get ALL the talent.”

this is ridiculous. What about transfers? If someone has a stellar season at a small school for his rookie year, what stops the big schools from luring him away.

What you’re referencing is the exception, not the rule.

By: Billy Sunday

Billy Sunday — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:26:00 +0000

nice reference to he got game and blue chips…