Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Direct pay to athletes will be the end of college sports as we know (and love) it, including the non-revenue sports. Colleges will just decide they don’t want the hassle or expense or paying players. When that happens, competitive sports will likely become “professionalized” around pro teams much like the English soccer model but for sports that can afford it (football, basketball, soccer (already happening)). Without the incentive for a college scholarship, many travel or club teams will really struggle to survive and many will fold. Youth sports will still exist in some form (maybe better) since there won’t be the travel club player imbalance. The most negative impact (besides the loss of college sports generally) might be the end of United States’ Olympic dominance in the non-revenue Olympic sports—track, swimming, volleyball, etc. Without the lure of a college scholarship, participation in those sports will drop drastically thereby impacting the overall talent pool.

Meh. Lots of people in other countries play sports even though they aren't connected to schools (high school or college). And there's no way colleges won't pay athletes in revenue-generating sports, so long as they are still making millions. It's not like the NFL folded because players had to be paid.

.

That’s true but womens participation is way higher in the US bc of the college scholarship model.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Direct pay to athletes will be the end of college sports as we know (and love) it, including the non-revenue sports. Colleges will just decide they don’t want the hassle or expense or paying players. When that happens, competitive sports will likely become “professionalized” around pro teams much like the English soccer model but for sports that can afford it (football, basketball, soccer (already happening)). Without the incentive for a college scholarship, many travel or club teams will really struggle to survive and many will fold. Youth sports will still exist in some form (maybe better) since there won’t be the travel club player imbalance. The most negative impact (besides the loss of college sports generally) might be the end of United States’ Olympic dominance in the non-revenue Olympic sports—track, swimming, volleyball, etc. Without the lure of a college scholarship, participation in those sports will drop drastically thereby impacting the overall talent pool.

Meh. Lots of people in other countries play sports even though they aren't connected to schools (high school or college). And there's no way colleges won't pay athletes in revenue-generating sports, so long as they are still making millions. It's not like the NFL folded because players had to be paid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Direct pay to athletes will be the end of college sports as we know (and love) it, including the non-revenue sports. Colleges will just decide they don’t want the hassle or expense or paying players. When that happens, competitive sports will likely become “professionalized” around pro teams much like the English soccer model but for sports that can afford it (football, basketball, soccer (already happening)). Without the incentive for a college scholarship, many travel or club teams will really struggle to survive and many will fold. Youth sports will still exist in some form (maybe better) since there won’t be the travel club player imbalance. The most negative impact (besides the loss of college sports generally) might be the end of United States’ Olympic dominance in the non-revenue Olympic sports—track, swimming, volleyball, etc. Without the lure of a college scholarship, participation in those sports will drop drastically thereby impacting the overall talent pool.

Meh. Lots of people in other countries play sports even though they aren't connected to schools (high school or college). And there's no way colleges won't pay athletes in revenue-generating sports, so long as they are still making millions. It's not like the NFL folded because players had to be paid.

Anonymous wrote:Direct pay to athletes will be the end of college sports as we know (and love) it, including the non-revenue sports. Colleges will just decide they don’t want the hassle or expense or paying players. When that happens, competitive sports will likely become “professionalized” around pro teams much like the English soccer model but for sports that can afford it (football, basketball, soccer (already happening)). Without the incentive for a college scholarship, many travel or club teams will really struggle to survive and many will fold. Youth sports will still exist in some form (maybe better) since there won’t be the travel club player imbalance. The most negative impact (besides the loss of college sports generally) might be the end of United States’ Olympic dominance in the non-revenue Olympic sports—track, swimming, volleyball, etc. Without the lure of a college scholarship, participation in those sports will drop drastically thereby impacting the overall talent pool.

Anonymous wrote:I admit I have not followed as closely but I thought the new rule was going to allow athletes to get paid for their name and likeness? Not just straight up paid because they’re playing a revenue generating sport on a college team? In other words, only the very best athletes who are potentially marketable will see any money. The majority of college football and basketball players do not fit that category. I guess I’m not seeing what really changes for the non-superstars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they already do, they get a stipend. The smart athletes invest it while the not so smart ones have silly apartments, cars, and huge tv's

What planet do you live on? These kids are using this money for school supplies, food, and clothes.

Anonymous wrote:they already do, they get a stipend. The smart athletes invest it while the not so smart ones have silly apartments, cars, and huge tv's

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s cool for the mostly white male coaches to get millions and the schools to get hundreds of millions, but the athletes, many of whom are POC and/or poor shouldn’t get any of the revenue they create because it might make their connection to the school more … tenuous?

I see you.

People don’t watch college football and basketball to see the athletes or to see the game played at the highest level. They watch because the players represent the school and the community. They live on campus, they attend classes on campus, they share the campus experience. The fans love the campus, not the players. When that is lost—and it will be once student-athletes are paid—“college” sports will become just another professional sports league in direct competition with the NFL and NBA.

Anonymous wrote:they already do, they get a stipend. The smart athletes invest it while the not so smart ones have silly apartments, cars, and huge tv's

Anonymous wrote:they already do, they get a stipend. The smart athletes invest it while the not so smart ones have silly apartments, cars, and huge tv's

Anonymous wrote:Opposed. Jordan Addison should not have been allowed to leave Pitt for USC because USC boosters can raise millions

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if reasonable limits can be imposed on both amount paid to individual athletes as well salary cap limits for teams so that one team cannot buy all the top players as was done in the Bear Bryant era with scholarships.

Any individual limit should be in excess of career ending injury insurance policy premiums.