Yeah I get what you're saying. The playing field isn't level. I didn't argue it was. Do you get what I'm saying? I'm talking about the perception of a level playing field. There is a HUGE difference in a program attracting better players because they have better facilities, better coaching, better coeds, etc. and flat-out buying a player's commitment with cold, hard cash. Most programs earn their money used for resources through years of success. You have the occasional Oregon or Oklahoma State elevated from ultra wealthy boosters but, for the most part, athletic departments have grown over time as a result of winning. I find that an acceptable disparity, and it gives hope that if you're a disadvantaged program, like Butler or VCU in basketball, that you can incrementally grow bigger by having little successes along the way. I also like knowing that my school's basketball program earned its reputation and resources through hard work.Spaceman Spiff wrote:You mentioned Alabama football. According to rivals, they had had the #1 ranked recruiting class four years in a row. How level is the playing field?thenewazcats wrote:"Our school can offer you a better experience" vs "We will give you more money" have two very different impacts on the perception of a level playing field. That's not hard to see even if our heads are buried in the sand.
Nick Saban makes close to 10 million a year to coach. Players risk CTE, paralysis (Taliaferro, Mullins, LaGrande) and are prohibited from taking money people are freely willing to give them.
I'm a college sports fan, and my enjoyment of the games would be enhanced if I knew they players were making money off their likenesses. Instead, you see players on the cover of NCAA video games and get to know they sell millions and that players gets squat.
Why do you think Arizona football is moving to selling generic number jerseys? Because using player numbers to sell jerseys and not compensating players is part of litigation about how players are cash cows, not students.
If you start paying players, especially uneven amounts, the highest bidder will almost always win the best players. There's no hope for that four-year streak of #1 recruiting classes to ever break. Those facilities, coaches, fans, education, coeds, etc. won't matter a bit, because it just comes down to how much money you pay an individual. That will be the perception, and it will crush the NCAA IMHO. Right now, the playing field isn't exactly level, but the perception of it isn't that of MLB with no salary cap and the NY Yankees capable of buying a title any time they wish.
NCAA athletes are compensated in the form of a free education. If they don't care about the education, they shouldn't sign up to play amateur sports. Instead, go the minor league route. Play in the CFL or D League or Europe or form your own league where you run operations, lease stadiums, sell tickets, pay employees and collect revenue. I'm completely fine with elite athletes getting paid to develop their skills before qualifying as professionals. It shouldn't happen in an amateur setting.
