- Messages
- 15,724
Taking a scholarship is basically akin to sign an exclusivity agreement. You get tuition, room and board, and the benefits, and you agree not to seek other avenues for making money. You are suggesting that they just drop the exclusivity part. The problem is that the purpose of the exclusivity part is to try and ensure a somewhat level playing field for all. Get rid of that and all you have is a less interesting NBA with even bigger imbalance.
On top of that most of the "free market" compensation will still be intrinsically tied to the university. Those "external sources" are still entirely dependent on a connection with the school. SAs wouldn't get free pizza just for being themselves. They'd get it for being a player for the local college. The external revenue would be revenue based on the relationship between the athlete and the school. Not just the athlete.
The fact is, for basketball and football, the limits imposed by the pro sports greatly diminishes the actual free market value of SAs during the years they aren't eligible to the point where a college scholarship is fair compensation. Could SAs make more? Probably. Can they make more without the association with a college? For most the answer is probably not.
Good arguments here, so let me take these in order...
1) I'm not sure the exclusivity agreement concept is accurate, but I see where you're going. Quid pro quo - we're giving you this educational package, you're giving us your hard work in the class room and on the field. You're pointing out the portion about not seeking other earnings, but the way a law can be changed based on the social mores of a society, that is easily changed based on prevailing thought. I can appreciate your desire for a somewhat level playing field, but does that even exist in football & basketball at this point? In my opinion, it doesn't.
2) This happens to be a really good point. It doesn't change the fact that someone may very well be willing to provide incentive regardless who sits in a particular spot or that spot may earn nothing. I like to use the free pizza example because it's kind of dumb and innocuous compared to the rampant cheating in football and men's hoops. Using the free pizza example, let's say the State Street Papa John's was willing to give free pizza annually to whoever was on the GT women's volleyball team in exchange for participating in an annual production of a poster in-uniform. Team members can opt out, but wouldn't get the free pizza. GT has approved use of trademarks because Papa John's is a sponsor. I think I've described a situation and I ask where's the harm? Why should that be prohibited?
3) Fair points. I'm absolutely in favor of the NBA eliminating 1 & done, which will skim the top layer off where a lot of the cheating goes on. The next level kids may be called 5* in name, but if their value goes down to or near $0 and all they get is a scholarship, then fine by me. If the market says they should only get $25,000 instead of $250,000, also fine by me. Regardless of what they do or don't get, I'm in favor of them being afforded that opportunity and the external sources, as I call them, being allowed to put forth what they're willing to offer.
Separately, a single data point is not a trend, nor is this enough observations for a sample size, but I found this interesting. We can all only hope the ACC Network starts creeping us towards the old B1G numbers so it can be reinvested in our GTAA programs.