Sign up, and you can customize which countdowns you see. Sign up
Aug 2, 2020
11:53:02am
rtNelson All-American
I would argue that many of the athletes would not be attending those schools
without their scholarships. Put up the average high school star athletes' transcript and test scores without admissions knowing they are getting a full ride/admission boost and many don't get in.

Of course, that's another benefit they are receiving, but "would otherwise have to pay" I think is a bit much. Because many would not be attending those institutions.

I would also argue that many would not be attending college at all. So the benefits they receive have to extend beyond pure monetary gain.

But I would say that they also bring much more to the university than the average student, at least in terms of revenue. Genuinely millions of dollars to watch them play. So to say that they shouldn't get ANY of that, I think is a bit much. Should they be getting contracts worth hundreds of thousands? Obviously not. But to say that there shouldn't be some pay scale system for them to live a bit better while putting in probably more work than most of us do I think is a bit absurd. They essentially have a job, outside of school work, that requires extreme commitment and physical peril. Give the kids a cut of the pie.

You can say that this will put many schools out of contention. But they already are out of contention, and we all know it. If your school can't afford to pay them, don't. But set a maximum amount, maybe a "pay scale" if you wish. Where you're allowed 10 "max contracts" 20 "medium contracts" or something of the like. A fixed amount that all schools must follow so no school can just offer a kid some absurd amount of money. That would put every school that can afford it on the same level, and by golly, all the schools complaining that they don't have enough money I promise you will find it if they want to stay competitive.

Schools that genuinely can't afford it? They can still offer scholarships with no monetary benefit, and they will still have no problem finding athletes to fill their rosters.

Will this stop some kids from attending say, a "Marshall", or "Bowling Green" or "Tulsa" that would have attended there regardless of offers because of family history, and create a bigger divide between the haves and have nots? Maybe. (Disclaimer: Those schools are just examples, I have no idea what their financials look like) But we already know that the divide is there, and not going away any time soon.

Could this actually spread out talent? Possible scenario: Alabama has a senior laden team with 10 juniors and seniors already on max "contract" for next season. So there won't be any more opening for the incoming freshman. 5 star recruit wants a max contract now, so he may have to go elsewhere to look for it. Maybe, instead of stacking more and more 5 stars at the same schools, they begin to more evenly distribute around looking for the max amount of money to be made during their time in school. Will this benefit BYU? Maybe... Could Stanford, USC, Oregon, UCLA already have max contracts and don't have space for the big name LDS kid that we could have lost but since we have one for him he attends BYU? Maybe. Could work against us too of course.

I just think the kids put in the time, make enough money for the big schools, that they should be compensated at least SOME. More than just the token education many of these kids get attending Swahili classes.
rtNelson
Bio page
rtNelson
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Last login
Mar 27, 2024
Total posts
9,820 (38 FO)
Messages
Author
Time

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.