(10-15-2019, 08:19 AM)ColoradoTree Wrote: Maybe mini golf isn't the most persuasive example, but I think the central point--that our priorities are hopelessly skewed when we're spending tens of millions of dollars on lavish facilities rather than putting some of those dollars into an account for the use of the student-athletes on whose backs that money is made--is absolutely fair.
Schools aren't allowed to pay players. So instead of funding a 401(k) for these kids, or funding an HSA for sport-related health care needs later in life, or creating a fund to give interest-free bridge loans to players' families when they fall on hard times, they compete for recruits by building these palaces that look cool, but don't meaningfully improve performance or add to the quality of anyone's life. It's absolute madness.
Sure, it's neat to have shiny facilities. They're cool! But surely we can have high quality facilities while also providing a more meaningful benefit to student-athletes.
A couple of thoughts:
"...when we're spending tens of millions of dollars on lavish facilities..." So, just wondering, which one are you: Henry Dale or Betty Smith? Otherwise, it seems like YOU'RE not spending any of this money. You may have very good ideas and priorities about how you think that money should be spent, but, if it's someone else's money, maybe their ideas and priorities are different.
"...don't meaningfully improve performance or add to the quality of anyone's life." Given how U of I's season is going, I'm inclined to agree with your skepticism that easy access to a mini-golf course is doing much to improve performance, but it should be noted that at least one of the players described his first look at the new facility as "happiest I've ever been." See, https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/...b7877.html . And, of course, the "state-of-the-art sports medicine suite, nutrition center, strength and conditioning complex" will probably help improve performance to at least some extent.
As for "funding a 401(k) for these kids, or funding an HSA for sport-related health care needs later in life, or creating a fund to give interest-free bridge loans to players' families when they fall on hard times," those would all be great, but I'm not aware of schools that provide any of those benefits to students generally, so it's not clear to me why they should be provided to athletes. Moreover, are they only to be given to scholarship athletes -- i.e., those athletes some small percentage of whom might actually be able to make a little money off their NIL -- or to ALL athletes, including those with no chance at all to make money off their NIL? If the former, aren't they already getting a substantial financial benefit from their free education?
(10-15-2019, 02:44 PM)Goose Wrote: I think that any athlete should have the option of selling their services to whoever will pay them for those services. I also think that any group of people should be allowed to organize sports leagues under any set of rules they mutually agree upon. If those agreed upon rules allow free tuition but forbid any other form of compensation, fine. The NCAA is notionally such an organization. If the member schools want to change the rules, they can. If a player doesn't want to play by those rules, that player can start an organization of like-minded players that operates differently.
It is quite possible to argue that the NCAA rules are too restrictive regarding compensation and that they should be changed. I do think that a better approach is possible, and that one should be found. However, I think the far more important question here is whether the State of California should intervene in that process. If I address that question, it will be a political position, so I will not do so.
Precisely...