Now that Duke and Kentucky have completely sold out
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
Perhaps you should define what, exactly, colleges are for before we travel too far down this path.
In theory, colleges are supposed to be an environment for academia. So, with that in mind, I'm personally in favor of eliminating all athletic endeavors on college campuses save for club sports and intra-murals. You could very easily provide a world class education without wasting so much time and energy trying to throw a ball through a hoop.
Which is exactly what most of the rest of the world is doing.
In theory, colleges are supposed to be an environment for academia. So, with that in mind, I'm personally in favor of eliminating all athletic endeavors on college campuses save for club sports and intra-murals. You could very easily provide a world class education without wasting so much time and energy trying to throw a ball through a hoop.
Which is exactly what most of the rest of the world is doing.
Exactly how many players leave after 1 year?
I'm not exactly sure but I think it's around 8. It's not nearly as big a problem as people want to make it. I went to college to prepare my for a job to make a living. If I could have done that in only one year I'd have been gone too. There's no way you can hold colleges responsible for who quits school. It just doesn't bother me that much. Only thing I'd like to see is them have to at least attend class and pass the 2nd semester. Maybe penalize the team a scholly or something if a player doesn't.
I'm not exactly sure but I think it's around 8. It's not nearly as big a problem as people want to make it. I went to college to prepare my for a job to make a living. If I could have done that in only one year I'd have been gone too. There's no way you can hold colleges responsible for who quits school. It just doesn't bother me that much. Only thing I'd like to see is them have to at least attend class and pass the 2nd semester. Maybe penalize the team a scholly or something if a player doesn't.
Good enough to get a degree in one year?
The guys leaving after a year will make more money in a year or two than I will in my life, maybe they'll finish school in the off season for when the basketball is over for them. I would rather they not restrict them from the draft out of HS, it's their decision to make and it's not like one year of college does them any good.
The solution
Let the very talented kids go to the NBA-D league and develop their skill set and get "called up" when the professional team thinks they are ready. If a kid wants to go to college then they must stay for 3 years. This will help improve the quality of the game. Also, I'm sure a kid will want to play in front of a sold out college arena rather than 2,000 people at a D-league game.
Let the very talented kids go to the NBA-D league and develop their skill set and get "called up" when the professional team thinks they are ready. If a kid wants to go to college then they must stay for 3 years. This will help improve the quality of the game. Also, I'm sure a kid will want to play in front of a sold out college arena rather than 2,000 people at a D-league game.
Re: The solution
If the pay were that good we'd see some of these kids skip college already.
Almost no one would go to the D League versus going overseas. The pay difference is massive.
If the pay were that good we'd see some of these kids skip college already.
Re: Now that Duke and Kentucky have completely sold out
wcowherd posted on 4/8/2015...
Why would you want to cap athletes' pay?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I never said I did. Of course that would be impossible since they have never been paid. You see, the coaches are the professionals and the college athlete is the amateur. Not a real hard concept to understand.
wcowherd posted on 4/8/2015...
Why would you want to cap athletes' pay?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I never said I did. Of course that would be impossible since they have never been paid. You see, the coaches are the professionals and the college athlete is the amateur. Not a real hard concept to understand.
I think it's a waste for a lot of colleges to have most of their athletic programs. This is not a good use of state funding or student resources.
I think you can justify Mizzou having most of what it has, and some of what is at a few schools (Mo State? Northwest's football team), but it's stupid for a commuter school like UMSL to have dozens of scholarship athletes playing sporting events that no one besides their families ever watch. The athletic department there is not remotely self-sufficient. Use that money to lower tuition across the board or to bring in more lower income students.
At least move some of these athletic departments to D-III where they don't have scholarships. UMSL should not be D-II.
False. One of two things happens:
1. Athletes paying $0 tuition are replaced with athletes paying $X in tuition. That's incremental revenue that could be used to lower tuition.
2. Athletes playing $0 tuition aren't replaced by any students. This eliminates the cost associated with educating these students. That's cost savings that could be used to lower tuition.
Beyond this, I would cut some of the sports programs and lower the overall athletic department budget. UMSL doesn't need a baseball and a softball team or golf teams. Arguably, as a commuter school, it really shouldn't have an athletic department to begin with.
I recognize it's not a huge dollar savings on a per student basis, but the idea that UMSL's athletic department isn't being subsidized by the general revenues of the university is silly.
This post was edited on 4/9 2:42 PM by Neutron Monster
UMSL does not give full rides for baseball, and gives even less for golf. Most of those kids are paying the majority of their tuition. Men's and Women's basketball get 10 full rides a year. No idea what volleyball gets, but I would venture to say they don't have many girls if any on full rides. Taking scholarships away will give you an insignificant amount in the grand scheme.
Doesn't matter if they're on "full rides". They have the same scholarship allotment as any other NCAA D-II school. If the players aren't getting "full rides", the scholarships are split between multiple athletes. Same money, no matter if it's given to one athlete or ten.
Insignificant is not an excuse to keep spending money.
Also the cost to educate a student at UMSL is close to 15k a year last I looked; the athletic department total cost is likely in the ballpark of 7 figures when you consider the admin costs of having staff, programs which travel, facilities for sports that aren't used for anything else, etc.
This post was edited on 4/9 3:11 PM by Neutron Monster
I find it interesting that you say Duke sold out. They had 8 scholarship athletes by tourney time, and I would bet that only 2 of them are one and done kids, and nobody expected Winslow to be when they signed him. His stock has blown up over the past month and a half. Cook was a senior, Plumlee and Jefferson will be seniors next year, Matt Jones and Allen will be 4 year kids, and Jones would be making a mistake if he leaves now.
And the point of college is to prepare you for a career. If a theatre major gets a role in a movie after their freshman and leaves school, no one says anything. To say this isn't what college is for is false. This is exactly what college is for. It just may not be what your view of college athletics is supposed to be.
And the point of college is to prepare you for a career. If a theatre major gets a role in a movie after their freshman and leaves school, no one says anything. To say this isn't what college is for is false. This is exactly what college is for. It just may not be what your view of college athletics is supposed to be.
I already explained with this is bull. You act like there are no costs associated with educating these kids that go away when they leave and also like there are no costs to having an athletic department.
You have to look at both the revenue and the expenses.
Plus the state of MO subsidizes tuition already; it's not like UMSL is making money by having extra kids in school. The state subsidy isn't awarded on a per student basis. They allocate a block amount in total.
This post was edited on 4/9 3:26 PM by Neutron Monster
Because they want to make money? Why does it matter? It's the fact that they can work however they want and make as much as they can and athletes cannot. Why would anyone be in favor of limiting how much anyone else can make, especially when thousands of people are profiting off of these kids.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Trust me, I am well aware of the cost associated with the operating costs of a collegiate athletic department. I also know that if it were costing them so much money, the state would do away with it. If they're good with it, why should I complain? Would you feel that same way if you were one of those scholarship athletes? What about UMKC, another commuter school, should we do away with their programs as well? Their budget is bigger than umsl's.
The question isn't whether they're profiting. The problem is that their wages are artificially restricted by a cartel. Again, why shouldn't any college student be allowed to make as much money and he or she can?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Again, do you not think college athletes are profiting?...I guess it goes back to every job or endeavor someone takes. You know what you're getting into, so it's up to the individual to make a choice. I feel sorry for no one.
Total straw man. No one is saying they don't know what they're getting into. What I'm saying is the system they're getting into is wrongly restricting wages while making wild profits off these kids. It's a cartel.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It's not a straw man, it's reality. I suggest you go on a crusade if you want it changed....As much as you don't want to admit it, the "full scholarship" college athlete is benefiting well from the current system.
I don't have the time or the inclination to go on a crusade. All I have is a common sense opinion.
Perhaps you don't understand the argument because you keep coming back to arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. No one is saying the athletes don't get anything from a scholarship or being an athlete in college. What is wrong is they cannot maximize their earning potential, which is the opposite of every other college kid in America. There is no logical reason for restricting the pay of anyone, including college athletes. You haven't made one argument against that statement, which leads me to believe you don't have one.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Perhaps you don't understand the argument because you keep coming back to arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. No one is saying the athletes don't get anything from a scholarship or being an athlete in college. What is wrong is they cannot maximize their earning potential, which is the opposite of every other college kid in America. There is no logical reason for restricting the pay of anyone, including college athletes. You haven't made one argument against that statement, which leads me to believe you don't have one.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This question shows you still haven't comprehended what he is pointing out, which is that "full scholarship" is a load of bull for a kid whose value to the university is 6 figures per year. The only reason "full scholarship" is the limit is because the NCAA is a cartel that artificially lowers the pay for its employees.
Restricting pay to college athletes
If you can't see the logical reason for restricting pay to college athletes yourself there's no reason for anyone to try to explain it to you.
I do comprehend Neutron. I'll pose the same question to you. Were you ever a "full scholarship" college athlete?
Coco, the tuba player and the chemistry student are also on scholarship, but they are allowed to work and earn spending money while the athlete is prohibited. At the same time the coach is taking in 2 mil a year because his #2 guard is shooting 50% from beyond the arc leading the team to a surprising 20+ win season. Figured it out yet?
