More potential NCAA changes

[watfly]

The issue is JUCOs are governed by the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) not NCAA.

In the modern world NCAA cant hinder the ability for a student athlete to receive NIL. Because NJCAA is different than NCAA why should NCAA count years played in NJCAA against NCAA eligability? It doesn't work this way with other non professional leagues.

To make it work NCAA would need to absorb NJCAA so everything is NCAA. However, at the current time this isn't how things are setup. Also NJCAA is unlikely to merge with NCAA and give up the golden goose that just landed in their lap.

This is going to make jucos very interesting to players. They're "cheap", ok facilities, and can provide 2 years of college level experience for players before playing NCAA for 4-5 years.

If you can get a 4 scholarship that's a free undergrad and grad degree.

I understand the circumstances and the arguments, I just think its the wrong direction for college athletics. IMO its getting on a bridge to far. Ed O'Bannon was getting screwed, but now its out of control.

Curious to see what happens to non-revenue sports.

 

[Simisoccerfan]

My dd is now two years out of college. Career is long over and I miss it but also I am glad. New rules are crazy. Roster limit of 28 will cut many opportunities. All of the money is heading to football players. I think the future of women’s soccer is a club sport with no scholarships except for a few programs. Sad times are coming for Olympic college sports.

 

[Slobodan]

My dd is now two years out of college. Career is long over and I miss it but also I am glad. New rules are crazy. Roster limit of 28 will cut many opportunities. All of the money is heading to football players. I think the future of women’s soccer is a club sport with no scholarships except for a few programs. Sad times are coming for Olympic college sports.

And football is going to shit as we speak.

Congrats on your daughter's experience and successes.

 

[Carlsbad7]

And football is going to shit as we speak.

Congrats on your daughter's experience and successes.

I don't think football is going to spit.

It's more that college sports in general are entering a world of you get what you pay for. Some programs got the memo others haven't figured it out yet.

Wistfully thinking back to a time where student athletes were essentially cattle owned by college programs isn't going to change anything. The genie is out of the bottle either get ahead of the changes or be forgotten.

 

[JeterwastheBEST]

I don't think football is going to spit.

It's more that college sports in general are entering a world of you get what you pay for. Some programs got the memo others haven't figured it out yet.

Wistfully thinking back to a time where student athletes were essentially cattle owned by college programs isn't going to change anything. The genie is out of the bottle either get ahead of the changes or be forgotten.

Yes, congratulations folks' slavery supposedly ended 150 years ago or so... The NCAA are some of the wors perpetrators of white-collar crime EVER....

 

[JeterwastheBEST]

I understand the circumstances and the arguments, I just think its the wrong direction for college athletics. IMO its getting on a bridge to far. Ed O'Bannon was getting screwed, but now its out of control.

Curious to see what happens to non-revenue sports.

I could say the same thing about your salary ......

 

[Slobodan]

Yes, congratulations folks' slavery supposedly ended 150 years ago or so... The NCAA are some of the wors perpetrators of white-collar crime EVER....

Playing college sports isn't slavery, Colin. Neither is the NFL combine. Jesus Fucking Christ... the victimhood with some of you is palpable.

If playing college sports is that fucking bad, don't do it. There's THOUSANDS of kids behind you willing to make you irrelevant.

 

[Slobodan]

I don't think football is going to spit.

It's more that college sports in general are entering a world of you get what you pay for. Some programs got the memo others haven't figured it out yet.

Wistfully thinking back to a time where student athletes were essentially cattle owned by college programs isn't going to change anything. The genie is out of the bottle either get ahead of the changes or be forgotten.

Cattle? Every college athlete in history was given a choice and made it. "You wanna be here? Cool. Here are the terms." Sounds a lot like a job offer. There are numerous privileges that come with being a collegiate athlete. That has value and none of those kids were slaves. Was it fair to not give them more? I'll have that discussion with you. Slavery? No.

"You wanna play for 4 different schools because one pays you more or you don't want to compete for playing time? Cool." This one isn't built for longevity and isn't going to end well.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Cattle? Every college athlete in history was given a choice and made it. "You wanna be here? Cool. Here are the terms." Sounds a lot like a job offer. There are a lot of privileges that come with being a collegiate athlete. That has value and none of those kids were slaves. Was it fair to not give them more? I'll have that discussion with you. Slavery? No.

"You wanna play for 4 different schools because one pays you more or you don't want to compete for playing time? Cool." This one isn't built for longevity and isn't going to end well.

Not making excuses. I agree, players knew what they were getting into.

However until recently + the transfer portal it was incredibly difficult to change colleges. This is where the "cattle" comment came from. College coaches knew that some players will work out on the field. Other players will work out not playing on the competitions teams. This is why some teams were stacked with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, string studs while others couldn't field a team.

In the end if you get a free degree sitting on the bench I guess that's not a bad trade. However what if that player could care less about a degree and just wanted to play a sport. Was it fair that they were sidelined just because they're a quality second string when they could have started somewhere else?

 

[dad4]

Cattle? Every college athlete in history was given a choice and made it. "You wanna be here? Cool. Here are the terms." Sounds a lot like a job offer. There are numerous privileges that come with being a collegiate athlete. That has value and none of those kids were slaves. Was it fair to not give them more? I'll have that discussion with you. Slavery? No.

"You wanna play for 4 different schools because one pays you more or you don't want to compete for playing time? Cool." This one isn't built for longevity and isn't going to end well.

The job offer analogy is correct.

1000 corporations got together and decided on a pay scale for their employees, enforcement clauses to punish anyone who overpays, and anti-compete clauses to prevent hiring each other’s employees. All three of those are illegal.

This is why the NCAA keeps losing in court. If Starbucks or Exxon tried it, they’d lose too.

 

[Slobodan]

Not making excuses. I agree, players knew what they were getting into.

However until recently + the transfer portal it was incredibly difficult to change colleges. This is where the "cattle" comment came from. College coaches knew that some players will work out on the field. Other players will work out not playing on the competitions teams. This is why some teams were stacked with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, string studs while others couldn't field a team.

In the end if you get a free degree sitting on the bench I guess that's not a bad trade. However what if that player could care less about a degree and just wanted to play a sport. Was it fair that they were sidelined just because they're a quality second string when they could have started somewhere else?

Well, I wouldn't even say "free degree" because I do give credit to the level of work needed from an athlete even when they aren't playing. As adults, we see the value in a degree even if you don't play much or at all. You still get some of the perks but I don't know how you convince your student athlete, training 3-4 hours a day, it's worth it to wear a pinnie and cheer for someone else.

As for your point about being fair, the adult in me says "shame on" the coach and/or parents for not telling a kid that Stanford and North Carolina only play 11 at a time like everyone else. Coaches don't want to move defenders and keepers around much so that cuts the 11 in half. Knowing what WE know, kinda hard to expect coaches to be fully forthcoming, too. A player at that level has to know it's a risk they run and won't really know until it happens. I'm not against the portal, at the end of the day, but I think the portal and NIL have become a bit of a slow growing cancer. Yes, you run the risk of dropping your pants and not getting asked out on another date, which is enormous, because I don't imagine coach wants you back once you've pushed that button, but what DOESN'T money corrupt? And I'm not a fan of multiple colleges beyond... say 1 move.

Maybe I'm being an old man about it but what I've seen thus far just doesn't sit well.

 

[Slobodan]

The job offer analogy is correct.

1000 corporations got together and decided on a pay scale for their employees, enforcement clauses to punish anyone who overpays, and anti-compete clauses to prevent hiring each other’s employees. All three of those are illegal.

This is why the NCAA keeps losing in court. If Starbucks or Exxon tried it, they’d lose too.

... and California democrats got together and said minimum wage should be $20 an hour for patty flippers and a lot of people lost their jobs. There should be a natural sweet spot, dictated by supply and demand, but college athletes are supposed to be amateurs and letting them become free agents doesn't end well (in my opinion). I think there are other ways they could have compensated the players and still maintained their amateur status in the interest of keeping college athletics as "pure" as possible. I mean, isn't that one of the reasons why so many of us enjoyed Florida vs. Florida State over Dolphins vs. Buccaneers? There's an element of youth and innocence... however corny or untrue that may be... and I'm seeing that slide over the cliff as we speak.

Don't you think it's problematic to allow college athletes to make tons of money and unlimited transfers? Don't you think that ends badly?

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

... and California democrats got together and said minimum wage should be $20 an hour for patty flippers and a lot of people lost their jobs.

Except reality got in the way with this interpretation. Some will scream until they lose their voice that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs, and then when it actually happens they get quiet until the next election, as jobs are not lost (or gained) any more than usual, with the change that the lowest-skilled workers can't be programmatically underpaid.

There should be a natural sweet spot, dictated by supply and demand,

Not a thing about this is natural, nor has it ever been, and all restrictions on supply and demand in this space up to now are contrived based on agendas.

I mean, isn't that one of the reasons why so many of us enjoyed Florida vs. Florida State over Dolphins vs. Buccaneers? There's an element of youth and innocence... however corny or untrue that may be... and I'm seeing that slide over the cliff as we speak.

Big-time college sports, if anyone actually looked behind the scenes, has been corrupted for many, many decades. If it gave off the aura of youth and innocence, it's because fans were happy not to think too hard about it.

Don't you think it's problematic to allow college athletes to make tons of money and unlimited transfers? Don't you think that ends badly?

Yes. There's now huge momentum to "let the free market" reign, and give students much more flexibility in where they can play, how they can play, and how much and by who they can be paid. It makes a farce of "amateur" sports, and turns it into another pro league, where the players are more concentrated around a 4 year age band.

 

[dad4]

... and California democrats got together and said minimum wage should be $20 an hour for patty flippers and a lot of people lost their jobs. There should be a natural sweet spot, dictated by supply and demand, but college athletes are supposed to be amateurs and letting them become free agents doesn't end well (in my opinion). I think there are other ways they could have compensated the players and still maintained their amateur status in the interest of keeping college athletics as "pure" as possible. I mean, isn't that one of the reasons why so many of us enjoyed Florida vs. Florida State over Dolphins vs. Buccaneers? There's an element of youth and innocence... however corny or untrue that may be... and I'm seeing that slide over the cliff as we speak.

Don't you think it's problematic to allow college athletes to make tons of money and unlimited transfers? Don't you think that ends badly?

Ends badly? Not at all.

I think the end state is we give up on the illusion of amateur college football. People get paid whatever the market will bear, with no collusion and price fixing among employers.

That means football teams would start earning the same kind of money as other entertainers who can sell out 50,000 seat stadiums.

Now, if your school wants to field a football team by offering $20 per hour, go for it. Nothing wrong with that. Play against other schools with similar views, and enjoy your games. Just don’t complain that ESPN doesn’t offer 30M per season for the TV rights to your “pure” league.

 

[crush]

People get paid whatever the market will bear, with no collusion and price fixing among employers.

100%. I remember a few years ago the market said people only get paid and allowed to enroll in Big U if they take the jabs. Some employers got triple bonus pay from the medical market if they were able to sucker you in to being jabbed. No jabs, no pay or enrollment. That is one hell of a market Dad. This was the kind of market we all lived in, and it was insane because those WHO controlled the market were clearly psychopaths and control freaks. Let's see what the market bears next.

 

[Slobodan]

Ends badly? Not at all.

I think the end state is we give up on the illusion of amateur college football. People get paid whatever the market will bear, with no collusion and price fixing among employers.

That means football teams would start earning the same kind of money as other entertainers who can sell out 50,000 seat stadiums.

Now, if your school wants to field a football team by offering $20 per hour, go for it. Nothing wrong with that. Play against other schools with similar views, and enjoy your games. Just don’t complain that ESPN doesn’t offer 30M per season for the TV rights to your “pure” league.

Really? You aren't seeing a ton of problems already that come from this? Why do we need college football at all if it's not amateur? We have the NFL. It's better quality already. How long before we start looking at college football like the NBA? Nobody is paying to see them play. Nobody is paying to watch our kids play club soccer. It's headed that direction.

 

[Slobodan]

Except reality got in the way with this interpretation. Some will scream until they lose their voice that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs, and then when it actually happens they get quiet until the next election, as jobs are not lost (or gained) any more than usual, with the change that the lowest-skilled workers can't be programmatically underpaid.



Not a thing about this is natural, nor has it ever been, and all restrictions on supply and demand in this space up to now are contrived based on agendas.



Big-time college sports, if anyone actually looked behind the scenes, has been corrupted for many, many decades. If it gave off the aura of youth and innocence, it's because fans were happy not to think too hard about it.



Yes. There's now huge momentum to "let the free market" reign, and give students much more flexibility in where they can play, how they can play, and how much and by who they can be paid. It makes a farce of "amateur" sports, and turns it into another pro league, where the players are more concentrated around a 4 year age band.

Except that jobs were lost. A small business owner simply cuts positions because he has to pay the milkshake maker $20 an hour instead of $15. Or he gives fewer raises to the deserving. The problem isn't the perception of "I'm making milkshakes for $15 so I'm underpaid." The problem is that milkshake guy thinks milkshakes should buy him a lifestyle.

Yes, I know college football and basketball has been dirty for a long time, because that's where the money is, but it's always been about entertainment and, in my opinion, the entertainment is moving in the wrong direction. Effectively what we're saying is, NCAA making as much money as possible... bad. 20-year old making as much money as possible... good. How many of those athletes would be in college at all if it wasn't for collegiate sports?

They were always free to play where they wanted to play and how they could play. The idea that they're somehow slaves or victims, to me, is an absolute joke. More lack of accountability for the current generation.

 

[Slobodan]

Really? You aren't seeing a ton of problems already that come from this? Why do we need college football at all if it's not amateur? We have the NFL. It's better quality already. How long before we start looking at college football like the NBA? Nobody is paying to see them play. Nobody is paying to watch our kids play club soccer. It's headed that direction.

Too late to edit. I meant that college football runs the risk of ending up like the WNBA. Or some farm system for the NFL. Not good.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Too late to edit. I meant that college football runs the risk of ending up like the WNBA. Or some farm system for the NFL. Not good.

Why is college sports maintaining some odd understanding of "amaturisim" important?

It's weird to have 50k+ fans show up for a college football game but somehow the athletes that draw the 50k+ fans are considered amateurs?

It's also weird that minor league baseball teams don't play against college baseball teams. Why? The players are all roughly the same age and skillset.

 

[Slobodan]

Why is college sports maintaining some odd understanding of "amaturisim" important?

It's weird to have 50k+ fans show up for a college football game but somehow the athletes that draw the 50k+ fans are considered amateurs?

It's also weird that minor league baseball teams don't play against college baseball teams. Why? The players are all roughly the same age and skillset.

Because 'amateur' is why it exists to begin with. It's the entire essence of college sports in general. That's the novelty of it. That sans some exceptions, there's some purity to it. Otherwise, it's just another minor league.

It's not weird at all. It's been that way for a very long time. Now, all of a sudden, they have to get paid? It's always been argued that would become a problem and it didn't take long to find fruition. Some traditions are worth saving.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Except that jobs were lost. A small business owner simply cuts positions because he has to pay the milkshake maker $20 an hour instead of $15. Or he gives fewer raises to the deserving. The problem isn't the perception of "I'm making milkshakes for $15 so I'm underpaid." The problem is that milkshake guy thinks milkshakes should buy him a lifestyle.

It's a nice story, but it's fear-mongering bullshit spread by people (and their mouthpieces) who want to pay as little as possible to workers, especially ones without any political power. It's not true. It's never been true. But the target audience continues to believe and spread it.

They were always free to play where they wanted to play and how they could play. The idea that they're somehow slaves or victims, to me, is an absolute joke. More lack of accountability for the current generation.

They weren't victims or slaves before, and they aren't now. Lack of accountability has very little to do with it, but it's certainly a common "get off my lawn" argument. Along with the terrible music, dress, and hairstyle of the younger generation (repeat this argument every 20 years or so, it never gets old).

Because 'amateur' is why it exists to begin with. It's the entire essence of college sports in general. That's the novelty of it. That sans some exceptions, there's some purity to it. Otherwise, it's just another minor league.

It's not weird at all. It's been that way for a very long time. Now, all of a sudden, they have to get paid? It's always been argued that would become a problem and it didn't take long to find fruition. Some traditions are worth saving.

Things can be weird for a very long time. People also generally don't like change. Unfortunately it doesn't mean that keeping things weird is the way to go.