The FBI Probe into College Basketball: How will it potentially effect the Hawks/NBA?

[cam1218]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

You need an established minor league for this to work however. Basketball is not baseball like, but it's not a sport in which you can just play immediately unless you are LeBron James. You need developmental time. 

College sports, especially the power 5 ones, do you really think in the major ones, players are actually coming for an education? I've looked at UGA's obvious pro football prospects "major" and I have said "They are not here for school at all" before. That's just the way it goes and in football you can't really have a minor league or straight to the league rule, the kids need to grow into men or they would be destroyed by the pros.

I agree with the learning curve, but we do have the G-League. I just think if you commit to play it should be for three years. The G-League should be the minor leagues, not college ball.

[cam1218]

15 hours ago, AHF said:

I'm lmao at people thinking D1 colleges are bringing their basketball and football players in to further their education.  They do not give the kids time to focus on a real academic curriculum and push them to take the bare minimum in coursework to keep themselves eligible.  They will absolutely place athletes into schools where they cannot handle the coursework because the college doesn't give a crap if the athlete is a real student or not as long as they can play.  

The colleges are focused on the millions that these players bring in by playing and wouldn't even have them attend class if it wasn't required.  Or if they can go UNC style.

The original point of a scholarship was the free education. It isn't like that today with the money the big sports bring in, but I'm sure there are still many athletes that benefit from this. 

[cam1218]

15 hours ago, MaceCase said:

Can't speak about "free education" when many of these athletes are pushed towards remedial courses and graded on a separate scale from other students by their schools in order to keep them eligible for games that generate millions.  

Athletic scholarships aren't some philanthropic endeavor as the "education" itself is often a tertiary concern at many of these schools.  I won't even get into the arbitrary nature that schools price their tuition,  I don't believe that con of an athlete being off the hook for a ~40k bill.  "Cost of education" is an odd term when a sociology major and a business major are on the hook for the same bill with vastly different prospects for monetary gain in their future.

I said the original point of scholarships was free education. It's not like that anymore, but I don't think anybody saw how much money there was in college sports many years ago.

A lot of players leave a HS team as the best player and wind up being just okay in college. It's unfortunate that they decide to use their free tuition on sociology instead of something more useful.

[MaceCase]

1 hour ago, cam1218 said:

I said the original point of scholarships was free education. It's not like that anymore, but I don't think anybody saw how much money there was in college sports many years ago.

A lot of players leave a HS team as the best player and wind up being just okay in college. It's unfortunate that they decide to use their free tuition on sociology instead of something more useful.

Of course you don't see the irony of claiming it's about "education" while at the same time claiming that that education should be used on something "useful".

[cam1218]

23 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Of course you don't see the irony of claiming it's about "education" while at the same time claiming that that education should be used on something "useful".

Again, I said the original point was free education. There are a lot of teams that don't compete for championships that have players who still benefit from this. 

It's a free education, the players pick what they want to use it for. If they choose to go to a power 5 school, pick something that might not help them professionaly, and skip classes because they know it's an easy grade, shame on them if they don't get drafted. There are a lot of people that leave college with student loan debt that they have to pay back. 

[MaceCase]

24 minutes ago, cam1218 said:

Again, I said the original point was free education. There are a lot of teams that don't compete for championships that have players who still benefit from this. 

It's a free education, the players pick what they want to use it for. If they choose to go to a power 5 school, pick something that might not help them professionaly, and skip classes because they know it's an easy grade, shame on them if they don't get drafted. There are a lot of people that leave college with student loan debt that they have to pay back. 

You're missing too many parts.  The "free ride" is conditional, if your play on the court or field isn't up to par then coaches alone, to speak nothing of the college, are given the absolute freedom to withdraw your scholarship at any point.  If the NCAA rules you to be ineligible then that is also further cause to withdraw your scholarship.  Because of this there is a great amount of pressure on the college athlete. 

There's no way around it, if you choose to be a biology or engineering major chances are you won't have the time or ability to focus on both your performance on the court/field and in the classroom.  If you focus on your studies then there's a good chance your athletic performance will suffer thus leading to a situation where your "free ride" is gone and you and your family are responsible for paying for your education.  If you focus on your performance on the field/court then there is a good chance that your performance in the classroom will suffer leading to ineligibility or a lack of preparation for your future career. 

There is a microfraction of a percentage of all college athletes that go on to professional leagues yet the great many more still contribute to the revenue and/or prestige of the schools they play for.  Because of this there is nothing "free" about athletic scholarships, there is a great obligation that comes along with it and pressure to fulfill it.....and it isn't in the classroom.

[cam1218]

3 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

You're missing too many parts.  The "free ride" is conditional, if your play on the court or field isn't up to par then coaches alone, to speak nothing of the college, are given the absolute freedom to withdraw your scholarship at any point.  If the NCAA rules you to be ineligible then that is also further cause to withdraw your scholarship.  Because of this there is a great amount of pressure on the college athlete. 

There's no way around it, if you choose to be a biology or engineering major chances are you won't have the time or ability to focus on both your performance on the court/field and in the classroom.  If you focus on your studies then there's a good chance your athletic performance will suffer thus leading to a situation where your "free ride" is gone and you and your family are responsible for paying for your education.  If you focus on your performance on the field/court then there is a good chance that your performance in the classroom will suffer leading to ineligibility or a lack of preparation for your future career. 

There is a microfraction of a percentage of all college athletes that go on to professional leagues yet the great many more still contribute to the revenue and/or prestige of the schools they play for.  Because of this there is nothing "free" about athletic scholarships, there is a great obligation that comes along with it and pressure to fulfill it.....and it isn't in the classroom.

I agree somewhat, but I think we will have to agree to disagree overall. GT had a guy graduate and start with a six figure job a year or so ago. I've always enjoyed your posts and I think we both feel a certain way about this argument. Luckily the Hawks play tonight so we can focus on basketball again on this forum!

[AHF]

There are exceptions.  Alec Kessler went on to be a doctor.  Steve Young a lawyer.  People like that at major D1 schools are the very extreme of the bell curve and totally not representative of what the opportunities are for 99.5% of athletes in major revenue schools.

Go back to the lesser demands of yesteryear and a nonprofit environment for the schools and I'll listen to how great and fair scholarships are.

[KB21]

Oh, a full ride is more than fair.  Particularly when a guy like me gets a degree in biochemistry and had impeccable grades only to have to take out student loans that have to be paid back to pay for my education.   And then you add $200,000 plus in student loans that I have to pay back for medical school.......so no, I'm not going to say these players should be paid and get a full ride.

[bleachkit]

8 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Oh, a full ride is more than fair.  Particularly when a guy like me gets a degree in biochemistry and had impeccable grades only to have to take out student loans that have to be paid back to pay for my education.   And then you add $200,000 plus in student loans that I have to pay back for medical school.......so no, I'm not going to say these players should be paid and get a full ride.

Dude, maybe you should try understanding economics like you do medicine. Top college basketball players on the open market would high 6 figures, some even 7 figures. That is far beyond the value of a college scholarship. Aside from that though, schools want to pay them, shoe companies want to pay them, and the only thing preventing from being paid is a massive anti-trust collusion operation known as the NCAA. If it's just amateur sports then why are coaches getting paid millions a year? It's professional sports in everything but name.