ah yes, and I submit that they are being compensated, to a tune of $30,000 to $40,000 per year in the form of the scholarship. This form of compensation should be sufficient; to say that it isn't would mean to say that a free college education is not that valuable to these players (really, students). To that end I don't know why it wouldn't be welcomed with open arms, since just about all of these players are students and have no plans to play in the NBA. So then these players are at these colleges not for basketball, but primarily for academics; that is what's valuable! The fact that they are given this education for free should be all the compensation they require because it is their priority.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Mar 21 2008, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 21 2008, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't buy that Jigga. That college scholarship is worth a lot, but what value does it hold to a person who's looking to play basketball for a living?</div> The only means of getting drafted outside of living in europe for a year or two? With high school players not being able to get drafted the opportunity to play college basketball becomes the primary platform for making the NBA. Now there's value to that scholarship; up to 120-160k. The value is still retained for a player who wants to leave after 3 years without finishing, its just that they don't take advantage of it. I don't think the NCAA should give more than this immense amount of scholarship just because a young man makes the mistake of undervaluing an education. The argument for additional compensation then inherently devalues academics for a collegiate athlete, and further serves to undermine the notion that the majority of college basketball players will not make the NBA. </div> I just think we just got to stop going through this charade, calling them student-athletes. Yes, there's a percentage of them that actually do take advantage of that scholarship (either because they know they don't have a shot at the NBA or are just academically inclined), but that's not the case for the majority of the players. Most players are looking at basketball as a profession. And, since they're forced to spend a year in college, I think they deserve some sort of compensation for the profit they generate, for the risk of injury they endure, and (with those that really aren't looking for an education) for the time they spend "studying" that could be better spent practicing/training. That compensation should be useful for them or relevant to their future plans and, to be frank, education isn't for most of these kids.
First, would you say that most NCAA Div-1 basketball players go to the NBA (I hope your answer is a resounding "helllllll no") So then fault all the athletes for making this mistake by throwing away their education for a shot at the NBA. The truth of the matter is that most div-1 bball players (just about all) are not playing in the league, and so the reason I supplied here holds.
It's true, my reasoning doesn't really apply to most NCAA players. But I do think this whole process is seriously unfair for kids that are looking at basketball as a profession. Someone already pointed out the restrictions they face in terms of training. People always try to spin it as a place where they can mature, but in reality its more like an ordeal they have to go through. You don't notice the difference really because Americans have had a huge headstart, but Europeans have an advantage when it comes to early development. I think the NCAA should give players the choice to either get that scholarship or be paid for their participation in the sports program. That, or there should be some sort of OHL-esque minor league developed. I know I'm being real unrealistic, but it doesn't seem fair to me as it is currently.
I would agree that to the very small percentage of players (~7 a year) who could be going to the NBA instead of college, collegiate basketball gets in the way of them making a living. But even that's the fault of the NBA. But even then that's such a small percentage that NCAA-wide would be disproportional and inappropriate. EDIT: Oh and I totally forgot to address the concept of choosing conpensation, as it was an idea that I thought up a couple posts ago. The problem that arose in my mind would be that no college player would choose monetary compensation over a scholarship unless the money is more than a year's worth of tuition. No school is going to pay a college player ~35,000 for a term's worth of play (although I suppose that's what we're discussing), and if they do, wouldn't all students take the money? Even a guy who sits on the bench all term? No, a subjective way of determining who is allowed to take this deal would need to be put in place. There's just too many issues to make that concept realistic.
I'm not just thinking of players who could be in the NBA now. I'm also thinking of those who want to play NBA down the road. And its not just about the NBA. There are a lot of kids who'll making a living in the numerous leagues all over the world (in the US, Europe, China, Central/South America, etc.). This "student-athlete" role they have to play is just an obstacle that doesn't benefit them 2, 3, or 4 years from now when they're making money playing ball. EDIT: I agree, that the idea of a choice is pretty problematic. But, you have to look at in terms of relative worth. Sure a full college scholarship is worth more than whatever a player would get paid. But in respect to their future careers, the scholarship is only worth something to those who'll need to use it. Future ball players would get much more use out of some tangible money, the extra time they can devote to practice, etc. It is still ridiculously unfeasible, but its interesting to talk about.
So then who decides relative worth? Well it should be the schools, since they're the ones paying out to their players. But the players should have a say, too! After all- oh my god there are going to be NCAA agents... Here's an idea: a fair distinction is made in the application process for prospective athlete/students. You can apply as a student, whereby the process is the same as it is now. Or you apply as a strictly basketball player; someone who doesn't take classes, is there to only earn money for the university in terms of playing, and is paid a reasonable amount for it. I know this already bastardizes college sports, so for the sake of somewhat-legit discussion agents will have to be thrown out; player 'salaries' would not be extravagant, but would be constant for all those who apply under this distinction. Strictly Athletes would be paid the same despite different abilities, but we assume they make the difference once the pros comes up. Thoughts?
