Katy Ledecky can't fight NCAA amateurism any longer

I do find it an interesting concept. Say, for example, LeBron going to college after the NBA. Without amateur requirements, would eligibility be based on GPA and progress towards a degree? Could you go to college, leave after one year in good academic standing, and go back to school when your NBA career stalls, be it 1 or 10 years later? Would you put in a salary cap, or would it be a free for all? Could players transfer own their own, or would they be traded (ex Alabama takes Josh Allen for $1,000,000 cash to Wyoming)?

Theoretically, she could still compete for the Olympic

short course triathalon, or the six mile swim.

I love her, she can out swim most college men in the mile swim short course.

Dur wrote:

Could you go to college, leave after one year in good academic standing, and go back to school when your NBA career stalls, be it 1 or 10 years later?

You could not do as your example states.

College eligibility basically starts when you enroll in college, playing a sport or not.

Eligibility runs for 5 years where you can take 4 years of active participation.

The "clock" does not stop if you leave school.

So, theoretically, Lebron has all of his eligibility left, not counting possibly losing it because he went to the NBA.

maybe I misunderstand the argument being made here, but I have long thought that the NCAA does not want to give up "amateur" status because the colleges currently make pot loads of money from college sports (through ticket sales and tv rights etc.) and the NCAA don't want that money going instead to individual athletes. in other words, the NCAA sees athletes as, essentially, employees to be exploited rather than as students to be nurtured.

I think I'm right in saying that a student who writes a book, for example, can sell the rights to her book or have it published and not lose her student credentials, so why should a discus thrower, a quarterback or a pitcher lose theirs?

can anyone explain why I am wrong?

cheers.

Cottonshirt wrote:

maybe I misunderstand the argument being made here, but I have long thought that the NCAA does not want to give up "amateur" status because the colleges currently make pot loads of money from college sports (through ticket sales and tv rights etc.) and the NCAA don't want that money going instead to individual athletes. in other words, the NCAA sees athletes as, essentially, employees to be exploited rather than as students to be nurtured.

I think I'm right in saying that a student who writes a book, for example, can sell the rights to her book or have it published and not lose her student credentials, so why should a discus thrower, a quarterback or a pitcher lose theirs?

can anyone explain why I am wrong?

cheers.

No, because you're right. Now it should be noted that the bulk of the NCAA "minor" sports, IE swimming, wrestling, track etc typically are a cash drain on most college sports programs. The money is primarily in football and basketball, and to a lesser extent baseball and soccer (also hockey, depending on where the college is). But football and basketball are high cash sports, and its likely that in order to protect that cash stream, all the other sports must suffer.

Cottonshirt wrote:

maybe I misunderstand the argument being made here, but I have long thought that the NCAA does not want to give up "amateur" status because the colleges currently make pot loads of money from college sports (through ticket sales and tv rights etc.) and the NCAA don't want that money going instead to individual athletes. in other words, the NCAA sees athletes as, essentially, employees to be exploited rather than as students to be nurtured.

I think I'm right in saying that a student who writes a book, for example, can sell the rights to her book or have it published and not lose her student credentials, so why should a discus thrower, a quarterback or a pitcher lose theirs?

can anyone explain why I am wrong?

cheers.

I don't think your example is valid. Playing a sport is an official school function, representing the school, and they want to control that (for money of course). The example of selling a book a student writes has nothing to do with the school, they are concurrent activities. Like how Zuckerburg wrote Facebook on the side while going to Harvard. No conflict there.

That said, the amateurism rules are hopelessly outdated and clearly aimed at a monopoly that enables big schools to get millions of dollars. I can see taking away a scholarship if you all of a sudden take a "pro contract", but otherwise, no reason they shouldn't be able to compete.

This is completely egregious when it comes to the NFL and NBA using NCAA as a defacto development league with no current recourse for the players.

Dur wrote:

I do find it an interesting concept. Say, for example, LeBron going to college after the NBA. Without amateur requirements, would eligibility be based on GPA and progress towards a degree? Could you go to college, leave after one year in good academic standing, and go back to school when your NBA career stalls, be it 1 or 10 years later? Would you put in a salary cap, or would it be a free for all? Could players transfer own their own, or would they be traded (ex Alabama takes Josh Allen for $1,000,000 cash to Wyoming)?

I like the CIS system in Canada the best. You get 5 years of eligibility. It doesn't have to used consecutively, you can take long breaks without penalty, eligibility never expires even if an athlete goes professional and finishes their undergrad, an athlete can still win prize money as a university athlete but can't have an active sponsorship with a company while competing.

CIS often gets older athletes at the end of a good track or hockey career using the last of their talent for a scholarship to finish the education they skipped out on. My coach after the 2001 world champs immigrated to Canada from Africa to earn an education. He wasn't running Olympic standards anymore, so no pro contract, but he was still fast enough to win CIS medals and decent prize money at local meets.

Cottonshirt wrote:

I have long thought that the NCAA does not want to give up "amateur" status because the colleges currently make pot loads of money from college sports (through ticket sales and tv rights etc.) and the NCAA don't want that money going instead to individual athletes. in other words, the NCAA sees athletes as, essentially, employees to be exploited rather than as students to be nurtured.

No one should give up their right to make money in college.

The answer: Compete on your own, outside of collegiate events.

SalmonRice wrote:

I like the CIS system in Canada the best. You get 5 years of eligibility. It doesn't have to used consecutively, you can take long breaks without penalty, eligibility never expires even if an athlete goes professional and finishes their undergrad, an athlete can still win prize money as a university athlete but can't have an active sponsorship with a company while competing.

CIS often gets older athletes at the end of a good track or hockey career using the last of their talent for a scholarship to finish the education they skipped out on. My coach after the 2001 world champs immigrated to Canada from Africa to earn an education. He wasn't running Olympic standards anymore, so no pro contract, but he was still fast enough to win CIS medals and decent prize money at local meets.

Really hope she gets the drop step on marketing and branding herself. She deserves boat loads of cash for being the Bob Beaman of female athletes. Absolutely remarkable world record margins.

Michael Phelps flubbed his branding by rollingout his cap and goggle line well after his prime, around the 2016 games. Would have been gold in 2008.

Yeah, the contracts both Phelps and ledecky will get set them for life but still. A little pocket change never hurt.

Great move though. Stanford education, to notch training groups, and a TON of cash... No brainer.

gloria wrote:

Theoretically, she could still compete for the Olympic

short course triathalon, or the six mile swim.

I love her, she can out swim most college men in the mile swim short course.

Actually, no. Her record in 400 IM is 23 seconds slower than the male record holder.

50-YARD FREESTYLE 18.20—Caeleb Dressel, Florida, 3-24-2016. 100-YARD FREESTYLE 40.00—Caeleb Dressel, Florida, 3-25-2017. 200-YARD FREESTYLE 1:30.46—Townly Haas, Texas, 3-25-2016. 500-YARD FREESTYLE 4:08.42—Clark Smith, Texas, 3-23-2017. 1,000-YARD FREESTYLE 8:33.93—Clark Smith, Texas, 12-5-2015. 1,650-YARD FREESTYLE 14:22.41—Clark Smith, Texas, 3-25-2017. 100-YARD BACKSTROKE 43.49—Ryan Murphy, California, 3-25-2016. 200-YARD BACKSTROKE 1:35.73—Ryan Murphy, California, 3-26-2016. 100-YARD BREASTSTROKE 50.04—Kevin Cordes, Arizona, 3-28-2014. 200-YARD BREASTSTROKE 1:47.91—Will Licon, Texas, 3-25-2017. 100-YARD BUTTERFLY 43.58—Caeleb Dressel, Florida, 3-24-2017. 200-YARD BUTTERFLY 1:37.35—Jack Conger, Texas, 3-25-2017. 200-YARD INDIVIDUAL MEDLEY 1:39.38—David Nolan, Stanford, 3-26-2015. 400-YARD INDIVIDUAL MEDLEY 3:33.42—Chase Kalisz, Georgia, 3-24-2017

NCAA Records 50-YARD FREESTYLE 21.17—Simone Manuel, Stanford, 3-16-2017. 100-YARD FREESTYLE 45.56—Simone Manuel, Stanford, 3-18-2017. 200-YARD FREESTYLE 1:39.10—Missy Franklin, California, 3-20-2015. 500-YARD FREESTYLE 4:24.06—Katie Ledecky, Stanford, 3-16-2017. 1,000-YARD FREESTYLE 9:08.4—Katie Ledecky, Stanford, 11-20-2016. 1,650-YARD FREESTYLE 15:03.31—Katie Ledecky, Stanford, 11-18-2017. 100-YARD BACKSTROKE 49.69—Ally Howe, Stanford, 2-24-2017. 200-YARD BACKSTROKE 1:47.84—Elizabeth Pelton, California, 3-23-2013. 100-YARD BREASTSTROKE 56.30—Lilly King, Indiana, 2-17-2017. 200-YARD BREASTSTROKE 2:03.18—Lilly King, Indiana, 3-18-2017. 100-YARD BUTTERFLY 49.43—Kelsi Worrell, Louisville, 3-18-2016. 200-YARD BUTTERFLY 1:49.51—Ella Eastin, Stanford, 2-24-2018. 200-YARD INDIVIDUAL MEDLEY 1:51.65—Ella Eastin, Stanford, 3-17-2016. 400-YARD INDIVIDUAL MEDLEY 3:56.53—Katie Ledecky, Stanford, 2-23-2018.

She doesn't have the NCAA or American Record in the 400IM.

400-YARD INDIVIDUAL MEDLEY 3:56.53—Katie Ledecky, Stanford, 2-23-2018.

Dude said she could beat most college men in the scy mile. Her record would’ve been 36th. I’d say that qualifies as beating most.

I picked some random dude, Jonathon Roberts of Univ. of Texas, who does IM. His PR is 3:38 versus Ledecky's 3:56.

Why does swimming have such a shallow talent pool? You'd never see a women winning everything from the 800m to the 5000m including relays at an Olympics. Her 5 golds in the pool are worth 1 gold in the 1500m on the track.

Tibetan Tom wrote:

Longerer wrote:

Dude said she could beat most college men in the scy mile. Her record would’ve been 36th. I’d say that qualifies as beating most.

I picked some random dude, Jonathon Roberts of Univ. of Texas, who does IM. His PR is 3:38 versus Ledecky's 3:56.

Okay?

Track400h wrote:

Why does swimming have such a shallow talent pool? You'd never see a women winning everything from the 800m to the 5000m including relays at an Olympics. Her 5 golds in the pool are worth 1 gold in the 1500m on the track.

It's not a shallow talent pool. The athletic requirements for being the best between swimming events are just more similar. It is like if track had 1500m, 1600m, 1mile in the Olympics and also 1500m, 1600m, 1mile with one eye closed. A miler could win 6 medals at the Olympics, assuming he could recover enough between events. Something swimming has a major advantage with since it is not weight bearing.

itsnot wrote:

It's not a shallow talent pool. The athletic requirements for being the best between swimming events are just more similar. It is like if track had 1500m, 1600m, 1mile in the Olympics and also 1500m, 1600m, 1mile with one eye closed. A miler could win 6 medals at the Olympics, assuming he could recover enough between events.

But this just begs the question. There is no one that could recover enough to win another event. If you won the 1600m, you are gonna get beat in the 1500m and the mile.