StrangeSox

Martial law, summary executions and total gun bans. (btw, East Chicago is a city in Indiana).

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-ncaa-evil.html There's plenty of revenue to go around.

But the schools and others making billions of dollars off of their play couldn't possibly pay for those policies, that'd ruin the sanctity of the game.

lol, the GOP is grilling Treasury Secretary nominee Jack Lew over Benghazi at the confirmation hearings.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 01:19 PM) I dont think the NBA should have an age lmit as long as you are a HS graduate. NFL, that's a whole other story. A college freshman would get literally killed in the NFL. NFL players are so big, strong, and fast. You need time to mature physically before you get into the NFL. Right, so what NFL team would waste big cap space and a roster spot on a player coming out without being physically capable of playing in the NFL yet? If they re-arranged things to have an actual minor league/development system that's a different story, but with the current rules?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 01:10 PM) Things change. At one point in the history of the US many of the players in the NBA would not have even had the right to vote. Just because something is old, just because its been around, does not mean its right. Until Curt Flood baseball didnt have free agents. Its tough, because no one wants to be the guy who fights their employer, there are a lot of consequences. Free agents will ruin the purity of the sport! Allowing professional athletes will ruin the Olympics!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 01:00 PM) No. One year past high school is the rule. It's an AND, not an OR rule: I guess I turned 19 during the calender year so I'd have been good, but someone who went to college early wouldn't have been. That'd be a rare situation, though.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:59 PM) Then go to the D league or Europe. yeah that's still not an actual argument in favor of the NCAA rules The NCAA runs a multi-billion dollar commercial operation where a majority of its labor is unpaid and is forbidden from having other income. Telling me that other leagues exist doesn't do anything to justify the NCAA's rules.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:43 PM) But a lot more mature than you were as a high school kid. I don't really know that I matured all that much during my freshman year, certainly not enough to matter if I was suddenly going to be handed $10M+ at 18 instead of 19. I was 18 at the start of my sophomore year, too, so I would have been forced to play two years of college basketball.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:41 PM) So go somewhere else and make millions. Instead he got a free college education. Poor guy. Nah, how about we cut the people generating all of that money in on the revenue stream? Why should the coaches and administration and everyone else involved who isn't an athlete get access to all of that money, but the people actually playing the games shouldn't?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:32 PM) Actually they don't. Lower level Big Ten teams make more money than more "successful" programs because of the fact that people are fans of the school/conference in which they play. Yes, obviously that's tied to the players, but guess what, Illinois has sucked for the last 60 years in football (with a token good year every 5-6 years) and yet people still buy Illinois merchandise. The school is still more important than the player. Teams don't exist without players. Yeah, league affiliation and pedigree matters, that's why the perpetually awful Browns bring in more revenue than any AFL team. But better conferences and better teams have more fans and more revenue. If the product on the field was terrible, people wouldn't watch nearly as much. Illinois games were routinely pretty empty when I went there, and I can't imagine they sold near the amount of merchandise that, say, OSU does.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:29 PM) While true that I adore the NBA and want the product to be "good", I really respect the right of the NBA to do what it wants with its private league. The NBA has the right to partner with the KKK and neo-nazis if they want, that doesn't mean we have to respect every decision they make and can't argue against certain rules or the way they operate.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:28 PM) Because then we have the direct link of X school is Adidas school, D Rose went to Adidas school. Now we have the behind the scenes "X is going to be a Nike client, X went to Oregon a Nike school." So that's a factor in where a person chooses to go, just one more on the hundreds of others. There's not an inherent bias towards big schools there, though. Schools big and small with use Adidas, others will use Nike etc.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:28 PM) IIRC if you're an employer with less than 15 employees you can. which would apply to no NBA team ever

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:27 PM) So how does the NBA get away with it? No women, no 18 year olds. Professional sports get all sorts of weird exemptions from the law

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:25 PM) Well, I disagree. The marketing hype machine chews out player after player. Players come through, the system remains. Fans are fans of the school first, the players second. Plus, kids go to college now despite having available alternatives to get paid because they know it's still the better route to get paid big later. Pretty sure there wouldn't be much to be a fan of if there weren't actual players on the field. Why do the most successful teams with the best recruits generate more revenue than schools with s***ty teams? That there exists some alternative to the NCAA doesn't justify the NCAA refusing to share any of the revenues with the actual athletes or even allowing those athletes to earn money from other sources.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:23 PM) That would make the most sense, which of cousre means it's not going to happen. Potential issues there e.g. boosters signing kids to "endorsement deals" for way more than reasonable amounts, but why shouldn't D-Rose have been able to sign with Adidas in college?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:23 PM) You are the king of unrealistic examples. What if an 8 year old alien from Krypton came here and wanted to play basketball and was physically mature enough to do so?

You know, it wouldn't even have to be salary from the school or from boosters. You could just let these kids sign endorsement deals like pro athletes.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:15 PM) The fallacy of your argument is that players get "nothing." They get a marketing hype machine for free. They get publicity for free. They get the opportunity to play on a national stage, for free. Me being a baller on a recreational league court doesn't mean crap if I can't market myself to the world and scouts. That "marketing hype machine" only exists because said machine is making $$$$ off of these athletes, $$$$ which the athletes get none of. Why should various entities get to make a bunch of money by selling jerseys with my name on it and TV and radio contracts to watch me play while I can't even get a free lunch from my (millionaire) coach? (BTW being wrong about a premise isn't a fallacy, it's just being wrong /pedantry)

I dunno, does the NBA really care if NCAA athletes are allowed to receive compensation?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:09 PM) Oh I agree, that's why college football is awful. Basketball is still an outlier though. Every decade you have a handful of mid-level teams that come out of no where and despite the money/facility difference, can still recruit well and be succesful and build up the program. Butler and VCU are recent examples, Gonzaga going back ten years or so. But I think it'd get even worse, and again, we're forgetting that college sports would basically become football and basketball and perhaps a fringe sport like baseball IF the program is good enough for it. Otherwise the school wouldn't have any money to fund those sports. Oh, and then schools get sued for violating Title IX when they get rid of all of their womens programs. So yeah, giant snowball. Football teams would have a budget, just as they do now. Athletes could be compensated from that budget without touching the funding for other sports. Or you could allow boosters to do it, which would also leave the other programs untouched.

yeah I guess I don't really have an issue with the NBA's rule to protect themselves for their own dumb GM's, I have a problem with the NCAA.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) How is that any different than college athletics today? ^^^^

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) The coaches that make that much money generate that much money and more in most cases. I don't really have a problem with it. The coaches couldn't generate s*** without the players on the field, who get nothing. Why should one side be allowed to make millions of dollars while the other side is forbidden from making a single penny? I posted an article that had several proposals a couple of posts up. But what mid-level school has a chance to compete with the bigger schools now? The best schools with the best (highly paid!) coaches and best facilities get the best recruits as it is. Picking NW and Illinois was a bad example, I'm sure a ton of NW alums have deep pockets. There are other ways of compensating student athletes for the billions in revenue they generate besides "anything goes! hookers and blow all around!" How many D-rose college jerseys were sold the year he played? Why shouldn't he receive anything from the people that are making money by printing his name on a jersey and selling it for $50+ a piece?