NCAA To Allow Players to Declare for Draft and Still Return To School

[Coug]

Yeah, let's force kids that could spend that time earning millions to play for free instead.

Nobody gives a damn about the kid earning millions in the NBA but the kid.

Why should anyone have to stay in college longer than they want to, or go to college at all?

The NBA dictates that rule apparently.

Scholarships are year-to-year. The school is only committing to the player for one year, but if a player does the same thing they're ruining college sports?

And, really? A LOT of money? Do you think Okafor's scholarship cost more than the school made off of him? Was his presence at Duke a net financial gain or loss for the university? I'll give you one guess.

/rant haha

15 to 30K even for one year is a LOT of money to a college freshman coming out of high school. So yep, it's a lot of money. As for what the athletic department might get money wise doesn't matter since the kid isn't paying his own way into school anyway. I'm not sure how that argument is even relevant.

 

[Vol8188]

Nobody gives a damn about the kid earning millions in the NBA but the kid.



The NBA dictates that rule apparently.



15 to 30K even for one year is a LOT of money to a college freshman coming out of high school. So yep, it's a lot of money. As for what the athletic department might get money wise doesn't matter since the kid isn't paying his own way into school anyway. I'm not sure how that argument is even relevant.

I didn't ask who, I asked why?

 

[NashVol11]

Nobody gives a damn about the kid earning millions in the NBA but the kid.

"Who cares about the actual players? Let's focus on lining the pockets of owners and schools that did nothing to earn it."

15 to 30K even for one year is a LOT of money to a college freshman coming out of high school. So yep, it's a lot of money. As for what the athletic department might get money wise doesn't matter since the kid isn't paying his own way into school anyway. I'm not sure how that argument is even relevant.

You said schools are paying a lot of money to host a player's NBA audition. In reality, the schools are GETTING paid a lot of money that is earned by the players, and in any other league would go straight to those players. See how that changes the narrative?

And either way, let's not act like a 30K scholarship is the same as a 30K payment to the kid. It's dumb to talk about how that's a lot of money to them when A) they're not getting that money and are just as broke as any other college kid, and B) an NBA contract would give them up to 100x more.

 

[Coug]

I didn't ask who, I asked why?

This whole situation revolves around that NBA rule. I'm not the one imposing that rule so unless you have a different question to ask me then I have to revert back to my previous answer to the exact same question.

"Who cares about the actual players? Let's focus on lining the pockets of owners and schools that did nothing to earn it."

You said schools are paying a lot of money to host a player's NBA audition. In reality, the schools are GETTING paid a lot of money that is earned by the players, and in any other league would go straight to those players. See how that changes the narrative?

And either way, let's not act like a 30K scholarship is the same as a 30K payment to the kid. It's dumb to talk about how that's a lot of money to them when A) they're not getting that money and are just as broke as any other college kid, and B) an NBA contract would give them up to 100x more.

That's most certainly not what I was saying and you are completely missing the point.

How did this conversation turn into how a player should be getting scholarship money put in their own pocket? Do you even know what you're talking about?

 

[NashVol11]

Imagine if the music industry worked the same way. Every aspiring artist is required to attend a musical conservatory where they work on their first album. In 1987, Axl Rose and his friends release the most successful debut of all time, selling 25 million copies for hundreds of millions of dollars and entertaining people across the country. But, the conservatory keeps all of that money because Rose "wasn't ready" to be a professional musician.

They arbitrarily require him to be there, then they take his money, then they tell him that he should be grateful because he gets to attend this conservatory (which he doesn't need and would gladly skip if not for the requirements) free of charge.* In fact, maybe they should just "ready" him even more by keeping him there for his second and third albums and keeping that money too. How would you feel about that?



*Well, mostly free, except that working on his zero-profit album left him little to no time to hold down a job and have actual spending money.

 

[NashVol11]

How did this conversation turn into how a player should be getting scholarship money put in their own pocket?

It started there, when you said a student-athlete on scholarship was being "awarded money" to play a sport and go to class. I'm saying that it's not "awarding money" to have someone forgo millions (in actual money) in order to throw them a few grand (in books). Not sure why that's hard to understand.

 

[Coug]

Imagine if the music industry worked the same way. Every aspiring artist is required to attend a musical conservatory where they work on their first album. In 1987, Axl Rose and his friends release the most successful debut of all time, selling 25 million copies for hundreds of millions of dollars and entertaining people across the country. But, the conservatory keeps all of that money because Rose "wasn't ready" to be a professional musician.

They arbitrarily require him to be there, then they take his money, then they tell him that he should be grateful because he gets to attend this conservatory (which he doesn't need and would gladly skip if not for the requirements) free of charge.* In fact, maybe they should just "ready" him even more by keeping him there for his second and third albums and keeping that money too. How would you feel about that?

*Well, mostly free, except that working on his zero-profit album left him little to no time to hold down a job and have actual spending money.

Lol! Ok, but we're not talking about musicians we're talking about athletes. While I appreciate the analogy I don't believe they relate in this case.

It started there, when you said a student-athlete on scholarship was being "awarded money" to play a sport and go to class. I'm saying that it's not "awarding money" to have someone forgo millions (in actual money) in order to throw them a few grand (in books). Not sure why that's hard to understand.

I think you took this too literally. They're being "awarded money" indirectly in that they are getting a free ride, free room and board, free food, etc.

An 18/19 year freshman college basketball player can't forgo millions of something that they've yet to earn the right to receive. Your argument assumes the freshman basketball player has automatically earned the right to move on to the NBA as if it's some sort of entitlement.

 

[NashVol11]

Lol! Ok, but we're not talking about musicians we're talking about athletes. While I appreciate the analogy I don't believe they relate in this case.



I think you took this too literally. They're being "awarded money" indirectly in that they are getting a free ride, free room and board, free food, etc.

An 18/19 year freshman college basketball player can't forgo millions of something that they've yet to earn the right to receive. Your argument assumes the freshman basketball player has automatically earned the right to move on to the NBA as if it's some sort of entitlement.

Because we're talking about what should happen, and in any other job (including their own until like 2006), they have earned that right. And if you assume that, then the perspective changes from "They should stay 3 years because they're getting paid to go to class and should graduate" to "Wait, the school is taking all the money earned by the players. And we want to make this happen for LONGER?"

Whether or not "awarding" is literal doesn't really matter, if that makes sense. I'm saying that taking everything into account, it's less like "awarding 30K" and more like "taking millions that you didn't earn, and leaving a token 30K behind." Through that lens, a three-year rule doesn't make sense, at least if you care about fairness.

 

[alexbond45]

Because we're talking about what should happen, and in any other job (including their own until like 2006), they have earned that right. And if you assume that, then the perspective changes from "They should stay 3 years because they're getting paid to go to class and should graduate" to "Wait, the school is taking all the money earned by the players. And we want to make this happen for LONGER?"

Whether or not "awarding" is literal doesn't really matter, if that makes sense. I'm saying that taking everything into account, it's less like "awarding 30K" and more like "taking millions that you didn't earn, and leaving a token 30K behind." Through that lens, a three-year rule doesn't make sense, at least if you care about fairness.

It makes sense in the NFL. A great majority of CFB players are barely ready to start in the COLLEGE LEVEL, and must train for at least a year to start. Quite a few NFL players also might take a year or two to really reach their prime.

If kids forgo eligibility to enter the draft right out of high school, they just wasted their football career because they did not receive necessary development in college to be prepared for the NFL.

Now basketball and baseball are a bit different...but football is too physical for high schoolers to skip an entire level of play.