hell in a handbasket
wow. today's espn college football main page reads like a rouge's gallery. serious trouble at major programs across the country (and yes, texas has its share). i don't buy the "college players should get paid" argument, and i certainly don't think it excuses bomar and others from their transgressions. another argument: this has been going on for years, we just hear more about it due to 24 hours sports networks, internet sites, etc.
thoughts?
posted by Brad @ 6:59 PM
4 Comments:
well, that was part of it. there was also the stories on:
the "U" suspending four players
bomar and quinn
tennessee dismissing a player and suspending another
taylor's issues at UT
etc.
my intent was to get a discussion going on the state of college football. we can see the symptoms, what is the disease. and is it more prevalent today, or do we just hear about due to massive media penetration?
there are myriad solutions suggested. my favorite is to create a trust for every football player that suits up. revenue from the individual program goes into the trust. when the player leaves for good, he is payed a porportional share of the trust depending on years in the program. i.e. you stay three years and bolt for the nfl, you get a certain percentage of your allotment. you exhaust your eligibilty, you get 100%. it is not an incentive for players to stay, but it would reward the thousands of players who play four years, earn their degree, and go into the workplace.
so there you go, for this discussion, pick your disease and offer a solution to the general state of college football. for example, "too many of these kids get treated like gods, their heads get to big, and they start acting like they are entitled. solution -athletes are prohibited from speaking with the media and no players names may appear on the backs of jerseys."
so forth and so on.
Here are my ideas of the solutions to the problem:
1. Give very player, scholarship or not, some sort of a stipend. Not just football players, mind you, every athlete who participates in NCAA competition (at Division I schools, and Division II schools that have scholarships). Not much of one, but there's enough revenue from football or basketball at most of these schools to cover somewhere around $1000-$1500 a month to these kids. Most kids have the opportunity to have a summer job or work during school - athletes typically can barely get to class and practice.
2. Have a zero tolerance policy for booster shenanigans. If you're paying the players, any other payment is verboten and results in the Bomar scenario - you're gone.
3. Provide an emphasis an things like economics and personal money management (for those going to the pros) and statistics (to explain to the 98% of college athletes who won't be pros what their chances are)
The problem with so many of these athletes stems from poverty and just being young and stupid - if you've got nothing, or you're treated like a god incarnate, it's really easy to believe that you deserve something for nothing. Adolescent males will be adolescent males, so providing them with something should take away some of the temptation for breaking the rules.
It could be argues that the smaller schools can't afford this, that they're atheltic programs are struggling financially as it is. So be it - stipends could easily take its place next to facilities, chances to play, and championship hopes as a sway, and it would take the money matter out of the hands of the boosters.
The other solution would be to just have an NFL development league, separate from the college game, and water down the college game, much like basketball. And allow kids to go straight from high school into the development leagues - you don't hear about too much booster badness with college baseball, do you? (ah, the ping of the bat - when will college baseball realize it ain't baseball if the bat ain't wood?)
joepa has touched an another sensitive subject. i fear we may see the rise of a "developmental" league for football. someone is planning on starting a spring league. there will be eight teams that will be in major university towns and play in the spring. players will be paid a minimum 70,000 a season. if this league succeeds, it could provide an alternative to troubled young athletes. why spend three years putting up with class and ncaa rules, when you can get paid to play and don't have to hit the books? i can't recall if the league starts this year, i think it is called the all-american league, and it supposedly targets local athletes not good enough to make the pros. i also seem to recall that all players must be post-graduate, but if the league succeeds, why not open it up to all players? the ncaa needs to do something fast.
how bout a rookie salary cap in the nfl? similar to the nba. that way, college athletes don't become instant multimillionaires upon leaving for the nfl. it may not discourage early entry to the draft, as top players will want to get into the league as soon as possible to begin the progression to a higher salary. but the delayed gratification may slow down the development of a god complex.
and outside influences may not be as willing to "loan" valuable goods to players or families of players if there is no guarantee of a return. just a thought.
and yes, title IX blows chunks.
Post a Comment
<< Home