NY Mag published a good read tangential to the topic yesterday:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ege-athletes-without-ruining-ncaa-sports.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ege-athletes-without-ruining-ncaa-sports.html
Darius Bazley going straight to the NBA G-League-
- Thread starter given2fly
- Start date
Yet again short-sighted and not knowing exactly how the whole system works.
First, their #1 point has nothing to do with the NCAA and is not in the NCAA's hands, therefore, it already makes the whole thing moot.
Second, the other ideas (universal stipends, guaranteed 5-year scholarships, athletes union) don't explain where that $ is coming from. The NCAA? You realize it's a non-profit, right? It's a zero-sum game. We hear about the $ they bring in, but you don't hear about the $ they spend on all 3 divisions and all sports. The universities? They're all working in the red within the athletic departments already.
Do people know the actual scholarship structure for sports? Where are the 5-year full-scholarship guarantees coming from? Check this link to see what the allocations are (mostly thanks to Title IX) already: http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html Only football and basketball are full-ride-only sports. Every other sport has to (out of necessity) give partial scholarships.
A union has already been shot down for multiple reasons legally.
Again, you have to factor in the entirety of the NCAA when making these arguments. Problem is, that's not being considered.
I'm not here to argue, support or defend Chait's article. But he does present some interesting thoughts. Also you're incorrect that he's not considering the entirety of the NCAA. Perhaps you missed the portion where he discussed that.
More interesting to me is how you think the NCAA will fare in the coming decade? Is everything good? What would you change to better position them to serve their mandate?
You quoted my post in which I pointed out how he's not taking into account the entirety of the NCAA (whether he "says so" or not). You apparently missed that whole portion.
I think overall the NCAA is doing much better than what's the current media narrative. The current media narrative (which is driving the public perception because no one wants to think for themselves or truly understand what they're believing in) is strictly based on corporate/capitalistic interest which involves a very small percentage of the entire organization. It's not based on overall logic that considers the whole organization. There are small things I'd change (mainly to rules changes about eligibility that would significantly clear up grey areas and simplify the rule book), but overall, for what the NCAA is intended to do, I believe it's doing an overall good job.
So you boil the qualms student-athletes have with the NCAA to being driven by "media narrative"? As though the discomfort they feel themselves is actually not felt by them but rather siphoned into their mind by the media?
LOL, define qualms and define which student-athletes are saying this...
The NCAA has made some changes in recent years due to a student-athlete committee's "suggestions" in a way to ease public/media cries. And you know what's happening? Programs are being cut at a faster rate because those changes are costing even more for the organization and the universities.
You seem really hung up on the media. So by your logic, the NCAA made changes at the suggestion of student-athletes with the goal of reducing 'public/media cries'? They didn't do it with the goal of helping student-athletes? Well there's your first problem with the NCAA, caught up with so many things beyond the welfare of the actual players.
When folks like Jeremy Bloom are disqualified because of absurd rules, the organization has lost it's focus on student athletes. When schools are building billion dollar complexes and paying coaches $5m+ year, the organization has lost its focus on student athletes. When I have to pay $100 for a #5 FSU jersey made in a sweatshop and only a fraction of a fraction of the profit makes its way to the university, the organization has lost its focus. When university athletic budgets are so heavily skewed towards one or two sports, the organization has lost its focus. When student athletes can be shipped off before completion of their academic career because of on field performance, the organization has lost its focus.
LOL at using Jeremy Bloom as a basis for your argument. They addressed those type of rules almost a college generation ago. If you want to actually educate yourself, go here: https://www.ncaapublications.com/ The most recent D1 manual is free to download. In fact, all the rules books are free to download.
Yes, the NCAA attempted to make rules "to benefit the student-athlete". Again. those rules also have led to eliminating programs/sports. How's that benefiting the student-athlete?
Schools building $5million+ complexes has nothing to do with the NCAA. That's on the schools. And you know what...they're still operating in the red (probably because they want to keep you watching?).
Paying for the jersey....how's that on the NCAA or the schools? That's on you for agreeing to pay that cost.
Student-athletes "shipped off"....actually doesn't happen nearly as much as you think it does. The vast majority of sports/division/programs will keep a student-athlete because it's the right thing the do, even if the student-athlete hasn't performed up to expectations. Being "shipped off" happens at such a small percentage, that it's statistically insignificant. But again, that would require truly understanding and thinking about the entirety of the organization and all 500,000 student-athletes involved in all of the NCAA.
