-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
Employees vs. Student-Athletes
- Thread starter GuyIncognito
- Start date
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
It's true, they absolutely do mean it.
Although a few March mornings getting up at 4:30am and conditioning until you puke might knock some of the zeal out of them.
Everybody wants to be a Navy SEAL or a recon Marine too until the shit starts.
Although a few March mornings getting up at 4:30am and conditioning until you puke might knock some of the zeal out of them.
Everybody wants to be a Navy SEAL or a recon Marine too until the shit starts.
I used to play COD to get my marine fix
"Scholarship altheles get money for "fast food" on a meal card from places on campus.(Depending on your campus) Plus 3 meals a day from the cafeteria.(depending on your campus) If anyone is going to sleep hungry its because they just got high and are too lazy to go get food."
Bruce Wayne
Well-Known Member
Hell, we used to get to the cafeteria right as it opened for lunch, eat a big meal, play cards for two hours, eat a second lunch, and still make it to baseball practice.
These guys are doing it wrong.
These guys are doing it wrong.
DeadMan
aka spiker or DeadMong
Bruce Wayne
Well-Known Member
My metabolism could handle 5,000 calories a day back then.
goblue96
Disney and Curling Expert
Hell, we used to get to the cafeteria right as it opened for lunch, eat a big meal, play cards for two hours, eat a second lunch, and still make it to baseball practice.
These guys are doing it wrong.
Would you make it back in time for dinner?
Even ARMA was too real fore reel.
Bruce Wayne
Well-Known Member
Wooly
Well-Known Member
The thing is, if we go to paying the players, then the big time schools will obviously get even more talent, since kids will sit buried in the depth chart to get paid. Also, I don't see the scholarship limit lasting if we go this route. The more we go to an open labor market, the more the big time schools will demand to be able to use the full weight of their resources to get the most advantage they can. Once you start down the path of using even more money to lure kids, it will take on a life of its own. I think we remember how that worked in the 50s at Oklahoma. They had a dynasty with talented kids getting paid to sit on the bench and not go to others schools. They had kids on the bench who didn't get on the field, but still played in the pros. We will see an even greater degree of "agents" at the high school level, demanding to get a cut to deliver a kid to a certain school, and creating bidding wars.
I think all of that ruins CFB, makes it maybe not even watchable. I agree with RIP CFB if that happens. I don't want the strong getting any stronger in CFB.
I think all of that ruins CFB, makes it maybe not even watchable. I agree with RIP CFB if that happens. I don't want the strong getting any stronger in CFB.
Look at it from the kids' side tho wooly. Since they're the reason this whole thing exists. Either extremely draw back how hard it is on them or compensate them. If they put hard restrictions that kids could only put in 25 hours a week or something like that then it is fair.
atlbraves
Well-Known Member
All of this already happens (especially the bold part - see: Oregon Ducks), so the changes would be a lot less drastic than you might expect. Plus, there are enough heavyweight programs that we don't have to worry about one school taking over. We're not going to see a team like UConn in women's basketball.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Texas, Ohio State, Florida State, etc. are FULL of kids buried on the depth chart who could be prominent players at smaller programs.
Once again, virtually every complaint that gets made about a player compensation system is already true of the current system.
Lack of parity? Check.
Big money schools at an advantage? Check.
Players choosing prestige over playing time? Check.
Upstarts like OSU and Oregon rising to prominence solely by throwing money around? Check.
The only question, therefore, is whether this system should more justly compensate the people on which it depends.
I don't see the logic here. If the big time schools had that kind of pull, there wouldn't be a scholarship limit right now, would there?
And yes, creating bidding wars. I.e. opening the market for people to earn what they're worth. This goes back to something I said a while back that a lot of the hostility to paying players is actually some kind of Puritan hostility to a bunch of poor young kids getting a big paycheck.
As far as agents go, THAT ALREADY HAPPENS. Again, the difference is whether it happens under the table where it can't be monitored or regulated or whether it should happen in the daylight where everyone can see what's going on.
Yeah, the influx of money has been such a disaster for the popularity of the NFL, NBA, MLB, EPL, etc.
And you think the forward pass made football unwatchable. The fact that paying players their worth would make the game unwatchable to you is, to my mind, evidence that it would remain watchable to everyone else.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Further: fuck the game, fuck the NCAA, and fuck college football.
This entire system is an unholy racket spawned by the exploitative commercialization of an industry that was allowed to take place because nobody thought very much about what was actually happening.
Why should the NFL's farm system and the U.S. system of higher education be coupled together? Is there any justification for that aside from "well that's the way it's always been?" Why does Jameis Winston have to pretend he's a student for three years? Is there any merit at all to that facade? Why do millions of fans pretend those kids they're cheering for have one fuck to do with the local university?
If you sit there and watch Nebraska games on Saturday and think you're doing anything but watching a bunch of hired guns play for whatever program they think gives them the best shot at an NFL paycheck, you're delusional.
The cake is a lie. This entire system is built on top of willful delusions about the nature of the game and those who play it. It's a lie, and anyone who opposes freeing up the market on the grounds that it will "ruin the game" is complicit in perpetuating that lie.
That was the entire point of my article, actually.
This entire system is an unholy racket spawned by the exploitative commercialization of an industry that was allowed to take place because nobody thought very much about what was actually happening.
Why should the NFL's farm system and the U.S. system of higher education be coupled together? Is there any justification for that aside from "well that's the way it's always been?" Why does Jameis Winston have to pretend he's a student for three years? Is there any merit at all to that facade? Why do millions of fans pretend those kids they're cheering for have one fuck to do with the local university?
If you sit there and watch Nebraska games on Saturday and think you're doing anything but watching a bunch of hired guns play for whatever program they think gives them the best shot at an NFL paycheck, you're delusional.
The cake is a lie. This entire system is built on top of willful delusions about the nature of the game and those who play it. It's a lie, and anyone who opposes freeing up the market on the grounds that it will "ruin the game" is complicit in perpetuating that lie.
That was the entire point of my article, actually.
Last edited:
Who gives a shit if it gives the richer schools more players? Go do something else for 3 hours on a Saturday if you don't like the product. Let fans at Oklahoma and Florida and Alabama and Ohio State flagellate themselves over their superiority while you get yardwork done.
Wooly
Well-Known Member
A general reply to OU, AltBraves, Mak, Kella, or whomever is bothered by my dissent from wanting to pay players:
If we are looking at it from the kids side, we should not be using college as a farm system for the NFL, and we should not be giving them a fake education as compensation for playing football at the college level either (which is the so called payment for playing at a major football program). Get rid of both. Start treating them like any other student in the class room, and stop making them act like a professional football player in terms of their time, attention, and commitment (which requires the schools to stop acting like an NFL farm system). Plenty of other sports have kids who take school seriously, just not major football, basketball, and baseball. Change the culture and approach to these sports. Yes, that means a lot of money leaves college athletics. That is not just fine, but a good thing. Get rid of scholarships, kids who want to play a sport while going to school still will if they can, even without scholis, like they do in many other sports.
If we are looking at it from the kids side, this is what needs to happen: club sports, less time on sports, no athletic scholis, school is the primary focus, no ridiculous false hope of professional advancement in athletics. I hear people talk about paying the players to look after them, as if that means they care about the football players. In a true open market, that is only good for less than 1% of college football players. The rest will still play in a system (at lots of different levels of CFB) that deemphasizes school for athletics to their disadvantage, even when there is no money on the table for them. If we really care about these kids, get rid of the whole facade, get rid of the whole system and lie, and just let them be students who play a sport in the afternoon (probably at the club level). You don't see anyone but me and a few others advocating for this though, do ya?
If you like CFB, I get that, so did I for decades. However, unless you are willing to watch what amounts to club sports between different schools, you are watching something that exploitative in nature. That is true whether you pay a few CFB players or not. So let's not split hairs over different levels of hypocrisy, over who's preferred system is less exploitative than the other. Frankly, I am not offended that you support paying players and want to watch that kind of CFB. I disagree with it, but I was not going to be calling people out for it...except people seem to be doing that to me. In that case, let's not accuse me of supporting exploitation because I don't want to see even more money get poured into the sport, when just about everyone else here is also watching and supporting something that is still exploitative (paying players doesn't make it all fair, wonderful, full of integrity). Unless they are some college kids playing a sport in the afternoon for a lark (as Mak once correctly called my preference), they are being taken advantage of for the gain of someone else, since it detracts from school to their detriment. I think that it's interesting that I am about the only one that would like to see this no scholi or money outcome, yet some posts imply that I am the one that is supporting some kind of exploitative system by not wanting to see even more money go into the system in the form of paying players. Hell, for ten years I have been decrying the bad parts of CFB, including pointing out that the old bowl sytem (that so many want to go back to), was every bit the scheme the BCS is. Sounds like there are a lot of pots in this kitchen.
If we are looking at it from the kids side, we should not be using college as a farm system for the NFL, and we should not be giving them a fake education as compensation for playing football at the college level either (which is the so called payment for playing at a major football program). Get rid of both. Start treating them like any other student in the class room, and stop making them act like a professional football player in terms of their time, attention, and commitment (which requires the schools to stop acting like an NFL farm system). Plenty of other sports have kids who take school seriously, just not major football, basketball, and baseball. Change the culture and approach to these sports. Yes, that means a lot of money leaves college athletics. That is not just fine, but a good thing. Get rid of scholarships, kids who want to play a sport while going to school still will if they can, even without scholis, like they do in many other sports.
If we are looking at it from the kids side, this is what needs to happen: club sports, less time on sports, no athletic scholis, school is the primary focus, no ridiculous false hope of professional advancement in athletics. I hear people talk about paying the players to look after them, as if that means they care about the football players. In a true open market, that is only good for less than 1% of college football players. The rest will still play in a system (at lots of different levels of CFB) that deemphasizes school for athletics to their disadvantage, even when there is no money on the table for them. If we really care about these kids, get rid of the whole facade, get rid of the whole system and lie, and just let them be students who play a sport in the afternoon (probably at the club level). You don't see anyone but me and a few others advocating for this though, do ya?
If you like CFB, I get that, so did I for decades. However, unless you are willing to watch what amounts to club sports between different schools, you are watching something that exploitative in nature. That is true whether you pay a few CFB players or not. So let's not split hairs over different levels of hypocrisy, over who's preferred system is less exploitative than the other. Frankly, I am not offended that you support paying players and want to watch that kind of CFB. I disagree with it, but I was not going to be calling people out for it...except people seem to be doing that to me. In that case, let's not accuse me of supporting exploitation because I don't want to see even more money get poured into the sport, when just about everyone else here is also watching and supporting something that is still exploitative (paying players doesn't make it all fair, wonderful, full of integrity). Unless they are some college kids playing a sport in the afternoon for a lark (as Mak once correctly called my preference), they are being taken advantage of for the gain of someone else, since it detracts from school to their detriment. I think that it's interesting that I am about the only one that would like to see this no scholi or money outcome, yet some posts imply that I am the one that is supporting some kind of exploitative system by not wanting to see even more money go into the system in the form of paying players. Hell, for ten years I have been decrying the bad parts of CFB, including pointing out that the old bowl sytem (that so many want to go back to), was every bit the scheme the BCS is. Sounds like there are a lot of pots in this kitchen.
Wooly
Well-Known Member
I am fine with cutting back on their football time. I think they should, because spending that much time on football instead of school is obviously not good for the kids.
For some of them spending time in class is not good for the kids
Wooly
Well-Known Member
Yes, I could just not watch, which is what I tend to do now. However, that wouldn't make my comments any less true. If I happen to care about the direction of CFB, and want to comment on it, even while disparaging it, why not? I mean there are lot of things in life we could simply say this is stupid and walk away, or simply not waste our time talking about at all. But would it be so wrong to point out they are stupid? I am sure many of us spend time pointing out things we don't like, even when we don't need to. Sometimes we do it about insane commutes, drivers, and housing prices in the metro area of our nations capital, often on message boards we frequent during work.
Wooly
Well-Known Member
We are talking about college, right?
Yeah.
bjc
Butt Naked Wonda
So what happens to Winston, or JOHNNY FOOTBAW, or RGIII, Sammy Watkins, etc. or any athletes that don't give a shit about the US education system?
What exactly do we do with the athletes? Where do they go? The same kids that need serious help just to qualify for school?
In your proposed system, you're screwing the big-time athletes (the stars of CFB, some of the really good players.. Hell even some of the walk-ons!) and forcing them to be students. Wat? You're basically saying that they should all go to college, when it can be argued that your solution is worse than the current system.
I would be okay with a system that separates the NFL-farm players (all those big-time athletes that are going to play in the NFL? Most of them don't give a fuck about the university itself) from the real "student-athletes." I know schools like OU, FSU, Ohio State, etc. would hate that, and hell even smaller schools may hate it, but that seems okay to me.
Also this discussion reminds me of the same thing that goes on every year. When an underclassmen is set to decide on going pro or coming back for their senior season, I always lol @ the people who are like, "I think XY should come back and get his degree, then go to the NFL. The NFL is tough and a degree offers a second option." Like you give a shit about the player, you just want him to come back and help serve your desire to see the school succeed. You don't give a shit about him getting a degree. And how many of them get degrees that will actually help them do something more than be a car salesman or something? (This is not directed at Wooly... It's just that I've very recently read comments like this about how a player shouldn't go to the NFL.)
The best part is when the player declares for the NFL and everyone starts saying bad things about him to justify whatever bullshit is going on in their head.
What exactly do we do with the athletes? Where do they go? The same kids that need serious help just to qualify for school?
In your proposed system, you're screwing the big-time athletes (the stars of CFB, some of the really good players.. Hell even some of the walk-ons!) and forcing them to be students. Wat? You're basically saying that they should all go to college, when it can be argued that your solution is worse than the current system.
I would be okay with a system that separates the NFL-farm players (all those big-time athletes that are going to play in the NFL? Most of them don't give a fuck about the university itself) from the real "student-athletes." I know schools like OU, FSU, Ohio State, etc. would hate that, and hell even smaller schools may hate it, but that seems okay to me.
Also this discussion reminds me of the same thing that goes on every year. When an underclassmen is set to decide on going pro or coming back for their senior season, I always lol @ the people who are like, "I think XY should come back and get his degree, then go to the NFL. The NFL is tough and a degree offers a second option." Like you give a shit about the player, you just want him to come back and help serve your desire to see the school succeed. You don't give a shit about him getting a degree. And how many of them get degrees that will actually help them do something more than be a car salesman or something? (This is not directed at Wooly... It's just that I've very recently read comments like this about how a player shouldn't go to the NFL.)
The best part is when the player declares for the NFL and everyone starts saying bad things about him to justify whatever bullshit is going on in their head.
Wooly is probably one of 10 people in the world who have the correct view. He just wants college football to be like the 20s again, and that is okay. You have to do something, either go one way or the other. Money says we're heading in the opposite direction he wants, but like I said he still has DII and lower. They actually are student athletes for the most part, so it is still there.
Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize rich college athletes at big schools were driving up housing prices and clogging your commute
I don't give a shit if you complain, lol. Go right ahead complaining that they're not still running the Wing T and wearing leather helmets. The sport is leaving you in the dust, might as well just let it go.
Wooly
Well-Known Member
As for the three posts by Alt Braves and Mak:
We are not talking about whether the rich schools are better off now, and have a lot of power now, we all know that. We are not talking about whether we have defacto agents in the game now, we all know that. We are not talking about whether money owns the sport and the kids are being exploited, we all know that.
I am saying paying the players will make this worse! Putting even more money on the line will bring about even more concentration of power and privilege to certain schools, more exploitation of high school and college kids, etc. I don't want to see it get worse, on the contrary, I want to see it decrease.
Once upon a time, there were no limits on paying players and we saw the affects of extreme concentrations of power. Rules were enacted to stop that, and scholarship limits were slowly added too. Relatively speaking, that DID create a lot of parity. Sure, the best teams still have better talent on their bench, kids who could start elsewhere. However, scholarship restrictions helped a lot of talent go to other teams.
You are right that there is no good reason to couple higher education and professional sports. So stop doing it. Paying players is the opposite of decoupling the two. It makes things worse, not better. Force the NFL to make their own farm system, and leave colleges alone, and reform college athletics to be a side activity of going to school.
We are not talking about whether the rich schools are better off now, and have a lot of power now, we all know that. We are not talking about whether we have defacto agents in the game now, we all know that. We are not talking about whether money owns the sport and the kids are being exploited, we all know that.
I am saying paying the players will make this worse! Putting even more money on the line will bring about even more concentration of power and privilege to certain schools, more exploitation of high school and college kids, etc. I don't want to see it get worse, on the contrary, I want to see it decrease.
Once upon a time, there were no limits on paying players and we saw the affects of extreme concentrations of power. Rules were enacted to stop that, and scholarship limits were slowly added too. Relatively speaking, that DID create a lot of parity. Sure, the best teams still have better talent on their bench, kids who could start elsewhere. However, scholarship restrictions helped a lot of talent go to other teams.
You are right that there is no good reason to couple higher education and professional sports. So stop doing it. Paying players is the opposite of decoupling the two. It makes things worse, not better. Force the NFL to make their own farm system, and leave colleges alone, and reform college athletics to be a side activity of going to school.
Wooly
Well-Known Member
Why are you so pissed this morning?
I posted that I don't like paying college football players, and you said to leave it alone and do some yard work.
I pointed out that you too post on the forums about things you don't like. We all do that. I don't tell you to shut up about commuting in DC. I actually find it entertaining. Isn't that how Utopia works? If no one posted about what they like, or don't like, or why....would Utopia even exist? What would we post? Things like "how are you doing today?"
I agree with Wooly's point about the ideal world of an NFL farm system and then actual student athletes. Every sport other than football/basketball works on this system. Of course nobody watches those other sports either... The problem is that change simply cannot happen for the following reasons:
1. The only entity capable of creating a profitable (or even break even) farm system is the NFL, and they have zero incentive to do that when they get the system for free at no risk
2. Universities also love the status quo. While all the athletic departments do the necessary lizard math to show that college football isn't really "profitable" for most universities, all the important people making decisions about athletics (university president, AD, coaches) receive very real financial benefits that simply wouldn't exist under a more "traditional" system that would resemble club sports. Just look at bonuses tied to bowl appearances/winning records/etc.
3. ESPN/Media/Advertisers/Nike essentially get to cash in on the players without paying them. ESPN gets all the ratings associated with pimping Johnny Footbaw, and they don't have to pay a dime to him while he's in school.
In short, everyone who could make a change to the status quo won't because they all benefit from it immensely.
So with that as the reality, how can we adjust the system to allow the athletes to also benefit from the immense trog nature of our country that is so addicted to college footbaw? To me, the obvious answer is to simply let the players sign endorsement deals. The Universities don't have to pay the extra cost to buy players or deal with the Title IX implications. Everyone else gets to keep their relative win-win-win status, but now the athletes get some win too.
I would also suggest the following changes:
1. If a school offers an athlete a scholarship, they are on the hook for 4 years. No cutting the kid and taking the scholarship away if they get injure or just plain suck. This would limit all that over signing nonsense too. I suppose schools could still oversign, but at least the kids wouldn't be exploited and simply left out in the cold.
2. Allow the scholarship to be deferred. If an athlete cannot manage to play sports and be a full time student simultaneously, then just let them come back for school when they finish playing (If they want to). Why pretend that these kids are capable of handling a full student work load and playing football. It is a joke.
3. Allow the athlete to transfer the scholarship to a family member. If they aren't college material, maybe they have a sister/brother/kid who is.
1. The only entity capable of creating a profitable (or even break even) farm system is the NFL, and they have zero incentive to do that when they get the system for free at no risk
2. Universities also love the status quo. While all the athletic departments do the necessary lizard math to show that college football isn't really "profitable" for most universities, all the important people making decisions about athletics (university president, AD, coaches) receive very real financial benefits that simply wouldn't exist under a more "traditional" system that would resemble club sports. Just look at bonuses tied to bowl appearances/winning records/etc.
3. ESPN/Media/Advertisers/Nike essentially get to cash in on the players without paying them. ESPN gets all the ratings associated with pimping Johnny Footbaw, and they don't have to pay a dime to him while he's in school.
In short, everyone who could make a change to the status quo won't because they all benefit from it immensely.
So with that as the reality, how can we adjust the system to allow the athletes to also benefit from the immense trog nature of our country that is so addicted to college footbaw? To me, the obvious answer is to simply let the players sign endorsement deals. The Universities don't have to pay the extra cost to buy players or deal with the Title IX implications. Everyone else gets to keep their relative win-win-win status, but now the athletes get some win too.
I would also suggest the following changes:
1. If a school offers an athlete a scholarship, they are on the hook for 4 years. No cutting the kid and taking the scholarship away if they get injure or just plain suck. This would limit all that over signing nonsense too. I suppose schools could still oversign, but at least the kids wouldn't be exploited and simply left out in the cold.
2. Allow the scholarship to be deferred. If an athlete cannot manage to play sports and be a full time student simultaneously, then just let them come back for school when they finish playing (If they want to). Why pretend that these kids are capable of handling a full student work load and playing football. It is a joke.
3. Allow the athlete to transfer the scholarship to a family member. If they aren't college material, maybe they have a sister/brother/kid who is.
Last edited:
College football is avoidable. It's a choice to watch it or care about it. You're just mad that people are making money that aren't you (this is a theme among your posts the past few years).
Don't fucking trog at me with this "why should anyone post about anything on the internet" bullshit, lol. I never told you to stop posting or stop complaining about CFB. Like I said, go nuts blathering into the void about the good ol' days.
Don't fucking trog at me with this "why should anyone post about anything on the internet" bullshit, lol. I never told you to stop posting or stop complaining about CFB. Like I said, go nuts blathering into the void about the good ol' days.
And who cares if it becomes even less "fair"? College footbaw is a fucking farce and it always will be, but like professional wrestling that is part of the charm for those who "get it." We get to laugh at all the "IT IS STILL REAL TO ME!" trogs. Nothing is better than tasting the tears of Bama fan as that shitty long field goal attempt was returned for a TD.
Wooly
Well-Known Member
It's true, the changes that would need to take place to stop the exploitative system in college football are not possible right now. I am sorry that is true. However, since it is true, and the system is not going to go away or stop being exploitative, I don't think it's so wrong to be against paying players. Paying the players isn't going to make the game a lot less exploitative, since only a few kids will get paid (unless they go the union or collective bargaining route, which most Utopians abhor). The worst exploitation in CFB comes from trading a nearly worthless education for their time and sweat, and that is not going to change by paying a few players. Since it's not going to significantly reduce the exploitative level of CFB, why is it so wrong to not want to pay them? At least not paying players helps keep the game from going back to the 1950s Oklahoma level of concentrated wealth and power, so I don't want to go that route.
I guess I am saying I think my level of hypocisy isn't so different than those supporting paying players, so why should they be so against my view?
I guess I am saying I think my level of hypocisy isn't so different than those supporting paying players, so why should they be so against my view?
Well because you are saving rich people money while punishing poor college kids. That's the main reason your view is so twisted. They make millions of dollars for other people every year, let them live comfortably.
I'm 100% for collective bargaining. When you don't have a union, you need one. Once you have a union nice and entrenched, then it is time to get rid of them.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
The system absolutely IS going away. You'd have to be blind not to see the writing on the wall at this point.
The question is not whether the system will change, but how. Either the NCAA will open up the market or the NLRB will take over.
I don't really see a third path, and especially not a third path that is essentially "keep everything the same."
I think a players union backed by Uncle Sam will end up being more destructive to the game than a free market would be, but you're getting one of those two things in the end.
The question is not whether the system will change, but how. Either the NCAA will open up the market or the NLRB will take over.
I don't really see a third path, and especially not a third path that is essentially "keep everything the same."
I think a players union backed by Uncle Sam will end up being more destructive to the game than a free market would be, but you're getting one of those two things in the end.
Wooly
Well-Known Member
I try, I try. I just don't have the time anymore. I know it's sad for all of us.
worst2first
Well-Known Member
ZeekLTK
Well-Known Member
I think it would be neat to see the schools go full on professional in a promotion/relegation league tied to the NFL.
This is what they do in Latin America for soccer. Universidad Nacional in Mexico City is one of the top professional teams in the country (UNAM Pumas) - they have a bunch of 30-year olds on their roster, and their stadium is in the middle of campus. lol
No limit on age of players or that they can only play for 4 years or anything. Hell, they don't even have to be enrolled at the school, they can just play for the team. Colorado State wants to buy Peyton Manning off the Broncos? Go for it. Michigan State wins the Rose Bowl with a roster of late 20s/early 30s players... and then plays the Lions in a pro/rel playoff to move up to the top flight. Etc.
This is what they do in Latin America for soccer. Universidad Nacional in Mexico City is one of the top professional teams in the country (UNAM Pumas) - they have a bunch of 30-year olds on their roster, and their stadium is in the middle of campus. lol
No limit on age of players or that they can only play for 4 years or anything. Hell, they don't even have to be enrolled at the school, they can just play for the team. Colorado State wants to buy Peyton Manning off the Broncos? Go for it. Michigan State wins the Rose Bowl with a roster of late 20s/early 30s players... and then plays the Lions in a pro/rel playoff to move up to the top flight. Etc.
BasinBictory
OUT with the GOUT
LOL @ Zeek's idea. Still, that would be going back to the early days of organized footbaw, when college teams actually DID play professional teams (and often won - being generally better organized, coached, and yes...funded, than the fledgling professional teams, which were more akin to circus acts than the hyper-augmented professional teams of today.
Question for the big baseball fans here (since I'm only a casual fan at best) - if a hotshot high school player is coveted by both the major league teams as well as colleges who would gladly award him a scholie for his services - which direction do they generally go?
I would imagine that the same decision process for 18-year old hotshot pitchers would hold true for 18-year old hotshot quarterbacks if the NFL had a true minor league/farm system. Well-off kids from middle class backgrounds would likely opt to suit up for a university team, while kids from poorer backgrounds would probably opt for the (perceived) quicker path to getting paid.
Question for the big baseball fans here (since I'm only a casual fan at best) - if a hotshot high school player is coveted by both the major league teams as well as colleges who would gladly award him a scholie for his services - which direction do they generally go?
I would imagine that the same decision process for 18-year old hotshot pitchers would hold true for 18-year old hotshot quarterbacks if the NFL had a true minor league/farm system. Well-off kids from middle class backgrounds would likely opt to suit up for a university team, while kids from poorer backgrounds would probably opt for the (perceived) quicker path to getting paid.
Zeek's idea is better than pretending "student athletes" are actually students. I mean it is already a farm system for the NFL so it isn't much of a stretch.