10-12-2019, 11:42 PM
(10-01-2019, 12:39 PM)Whatever Wrote: It's a terrible solution and will pretty much kill what little competitive balance there is in college athletics.
Players will flock to whichever school has the most wealthy boosters who will pay them thousands of dollars for an autograph. Boosters will make offers to the good players of small schools to transfer,so even if the little guys get some good players that fly under the radar, they will get bought out from under them. Top recruits will be bidding wars amongst the boosters.
I don't agree with paying amateur athletes, but if you're going to compensate them, it needs to be a regulated amount done through the college's so noone gets a competitive advantage.
Competitive balance? Can North Dakota State compete with Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, or Ohio State?
If a violinist with a music scholarship to UCLA can make money playing gigs, why can’t a gymnast make money from an endorsement?
This whole NCAA argument regarding competitive advantage is complete BS. What makes a team more competitive than a coach? Jumbo Fisher can leave Florida State for Texas A&M and does he need to sit out a year? No. But, if one of his players wanted to follow him they would have to sit out a year (if the university didn’t block the transfer.) Why? Competitive balance. What a crock of shit.
