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
Note from Juanyeh Thomas
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="ramblinjacket" data-source="post: 679140" data-attributes="member: 229"><p>We are arguing semantics at this point. We likely agree there is potentially meaningful long term value in a degree and so receiving that education for free has wonderful value that most people don't receive. We likely agree that for someone who was already planning to go to college and pay for it they now have alternatives with which to spend that money that was intended for college. We also possibly agree that people have choices and one doesn't have to go to college especially if ones family would be better served by near term income that they could provide by getting a job.</p><p></p><p>However on simple facts I don't agree its a "liquid asset". "Liquid assets" are defined as "an asset in the form of money or cash in hand, or an asset which can be quickly converted into cash without losing much value." There was no way for Bryce to "quickly" take his scholarship money and convert it to cash that he could use to help his family.</p><p></p><p>Now does the world of college sports have to change to fix this situation? I don't believe every bad situation requires institutions or governments to "do something". Often times the actions, while well intentioned and possibly even resolving the situation, have other profound unanticipated consequences that leaves the world a worse place.</p><p></p><p>My personal path forward would be to eliminate rules rather than shuffle them around. Let schools be free to distribute funds as they see fit which would include cash instead of or in addition to direct scholarship. Let kids be free to get jobs on the side so they can provide for family if they can make the time. Let school boosters be free to contribute to GoFundMe to raise money. Allow SA's the freedom to be paid for things like their likeness or signature. </p><p></p><p>Would this have the "unintended consequences" I spoke of before? It seems almost certainly. It likely means all of the largest schools would get all of the best athletes as they would have the donor base to attract kids. The rest of the schools would have to work with the rest of the kids to make them better athletes and very very occasionally something special would happen. Oh wait...</p><p></p><p>It could also mean the collapse of big time college sports and I am OK with that outcome. I suspect, but who knows, something else will rise in its place that is actually better in the total.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ramblinjacket, post: 679140, member: 229"] We are arguing semantics at this point. We likely agree there is potentially meaningful long term value in a degree and so receiving that education for free has wonderful value that most people don't receive. We likely agree that for someone who was already planning to go to college and pay for it they now have alternatives with which to spend that money that was intended for college. We also possibly agree that people have choices and one doesn't have to go to college especially if ones family would be better served by near term income that they could provide by getting a job. However on simple facts I don't agree its a "liquid asset". "Liquid assets" are defined as "an asset in the form of money or cash in hand, or an asset which can be quickly converted into cash without losing much value." There was no way for Bryce to "quickly" take his scholarship money and convert it to cash that he could use to help his family. Now does the world of college sports have to change to fix this situation? I don't believe every bad situation requires institutions or governments to "do something". Often times the actions, while well intentioned and possibly even resolving the situation, have other profound unanticipated consequences that leaves the world a worse place. My personal path forward would be to eliminate rules rather than shuffle them around. Let schools be free to distribute funds as they see fit which would include cash instead of or in addition to direct scholarship. Let kids be free to get jobs on the side so they can provide for family if they can make the time. Let school boosters be free to contribute to GoFundMe to raise money. Allow SA's the freedom to be paid for things like their likeness or signature. Would this have the "unintended consequences" I spoke of before? It seems almost certainly. It likely means all of the largest schools would get all of the best athletes as they would have the donor base to attract kids. The rest of the schools would have to work with the rest of the kids to make them better athletes and very very occasionally something special would happen. Oh wait... It could also mean the collapse of big time college sports and I am OK with that outcome. I suspect, but who knows, something else will rise in its place that is actually better in the total. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
The 2014 ACC Football Championship was played in what city?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Note from Juanyeh Thomas
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