Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
NCAA explores compensation for names, likeness
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GTRX7" data-source="post: 579594" data-attributes="member: 1045"><p>I think there is an important point being missed here. Some folks talk about these athletes having extreme "market value," but then say it is a red herring to say they have other options, because there are no other legitimate options to college sports. I am not sure it can be both ways. Either the players themselves have extreme market value apart from the schools (in which case there would be viable options outside the college system), or it is really the schools that drive the market value and the individual athletes are largely plug-and-play.</p><p></p><p>I my opinion, the "market value" of college athletics is 95% the colleges themselves, and 5% the individual athletes. Whatever kids come to play for Tech, I will root for. Whoever goes to Alabama, Alabama fans will root for. I don't think the market for the college stars exists independently of their schools. The fact that there are not other viable options proves this. If there really was a market for players in a non top-tier professional league, those leagues would exist. They don't. That is because, why does anyone care about following a league that is not the best? The answer for college sports only lies in the ties that fans have to their schools. Independent of those schools, the "market value" of those players plummet.</p><p></p><p>If Zion had gone to Italy or played in the G-League, I can promise you 100% that I would not have cared one single iota. I cared because he played for Duke. And that was interesting.</p><p></p><p>It seems your real problem is, if certain kids really are among the best, they should be able to play in the top pro leagues. Well, that is up to those leagues, not the NCAA. If a kid doesn't think the trade-off of a scholarship and other current benefits are fair, they are in fact able to go try their luck in the free market in the G-League, Europe, China, etc. The fact that you don't like those options says more about their real free market value (or the limitations being placed on them by the pro leagues) than it does about them being under-compensated in college.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GTRX7, post: 579594, member: 1045"] I think there is an important point being missed here. Some folks talk about these athletes having extreme "market value," but then say it is a red herring to say they have other options, because there are no other legitimate options to college sports. I am not sure it can be both ways. Either the players themselves have extreme market value apart from the schools (in which case there would be viable options outside the college system), or it is really the schools that drive the market value and the individual athletes are largely plug-and-play. I my opinion, the "market value" of college athletics is 95% the colleges themselves, and 5% the individual athletes. Whatever kids come to play for Tech, I will root for. Whoever goes to Alabama, Alabama fans will root for. I don't think the market for the college stars exists independently of their schools. The fact that there are not other viable options proves this. If there really was a market for players in a non top-tier professional league, those leagues would exist. They don't. That is because, why does anyone care about following a league that is not the best? The answer for college sports only lies in the ties that fans have to their schools. Independent of those schools, the "market value" of those players plummet. If Zion had gone to Italy or played in the G-League, I can promise you 100% that I would not have cared one single iota. I cared because he played for Duke. And that was interesting. It seems your real problem is, if certain kids really are among the best, they should be able to play in the top pro leagues. Well, that is up to those leagues, not the NCAA. If a kid doesn't think the trade-off of a scholarship and other current benefits are fair, they are in fact able to go try their luck in the free market in the G-League, Europe, China, etc. The fact that you don't like those options says more about their real free market value (or the limitations being placed on them by the pro leagues) than it does about them being under-compensated in college. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
NCAA explores compensation for names, likeness
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top