She can still compete in everything else too. How does turning pro limit her? Idgi
She can still compete in everything else too. How does turning pro limit her? Idgi
Begs what question? The post you're quoting states directly that swimming has an advantage due to easier recovery (a portion you oddly left out).
Separate the 1600m, 1500m, and mile by a week or more, remove one set of rounds, and the recovery issue is solved. Will they do that? No. It's impractical.
Track400h wrote:
Why does swimming have such a shallow talent pool?
nicely done!
Is she the swimmer who blew it by not cashing in her first Olympics when she was break-out star, but flopped in Rio?
No, she's the smart one cashing in now.
NCAA is the last bastion of full amateurism. And why?
It is not about paying the players to play (or swim). It is about preventing them from making money OUTSIDE the NCAA system = endorsements. Most college athletes are paid their worth; a few aren't.
Why can't a college athlete make money during the summer/Europe............ie. outside the college year.
Why won't a former Heisman winner sue NCAA for monopoly issues/preventing earning of income = endorsements.
Johnny Football had to take online classes at A&M because he would be mobbed. How much endorsement $$$ was he deprived of? Just say he had a career ending injury late in his senior year?
No business is protected quite like the NCAA.
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.
Scientists who do research in university laboratories cannot sell the rights to their research, and the University has rights to any patents that are generated. Although scientists can write books on their own time.
Where up all night to Lidecky!
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.
The Olympics dropped any pretense of amateurism leading into the 1992 Games (remember the Dream Team)?
The Olympics are not the issue (at least when it comes to this) while the NCAA is.
If you mean she could compete for the NCAA triathlon team (if Stanford had one), not if she signed a contract using her image or for endorsements. You can be a pro in one sport and play college in another but only if you are getting paid for that sport and not endorsements. Jeremy Bloom tried that approach a while back and the NCAA said no.
That is not "begging the question"; it is RAISING the question.
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.
Almost all college sports are money losers.
The average college football team makes more money than the next 25 college sports combined (
http://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-2016-10)
Only Men's Football and sometimes Men's Basketball take in more money than they spend. Swimming, Track and Field, and Cross Country lose money for the school.
Those professors are still paid a salary and often share in the royalties depending on the contract. The athlete is compensated with room, board, tuition, etc and now the cost of attendance.
harry wales wrote:
NCAA is the last bastion of full amateurism. And why?
It is not about paying the players to play (or swim). It is about preventing them from making money OUTSIDE the NCAA system = endorsements. Most college athletes are paid their worth; a few aren't.
Why can't a college athlete make money during the summer/Europe............ie. outside the college year.
Why won't a former Heisman winner sue NCAA for monopoly issues/preventing earning of income = endorsements.
Johnny Football had to take online classes at A&M because he would be mobbed. How much endorsement $$$ was he deprived of? Just say he had a career ending injury late in his senior year?
No business is protected quite like the NCAA.
There have been lawsuits such as the Ed O'Bannon case which stopped EAS from releasing its video games.
Some people want direct payments to the athletes. Some want an "Olympic" model that allows for endorsements. Some (few) want neither and to keep the system the way it is.
A former player cannot sue the NCAA since that player is no longer being harmed by the action. O'Bannon won because EAS was using his likeness so he could claim a tort in that case.
Johnny never made it past his junior year (redshirt sophomore) but yes if a player is hurt he/she is largely cut loose from the university in terms of treatment after that.
Why can't a college athlete make money outside of the season? Well, because the rules say he cannot. Of course he never had any say in those rules. It becomes a bit of a circular argument. (An athlete can make limited amounts of money but the conditions are pretty stringent--tennis players for instance can accept prize money up to the amount of expenses incurred attending a tournament).
When people complain about the NCAA it is important to remember that the NCAA is a "member institution". The colleges that are members make the rules. The NCAA has the unenviable task of enforcing them and interpreting at times. College presidents could vote any year now to allow athletes to sell their likenesses. The NCAA head is not making the rules.
Luv2Run wrote:
asgasfsdfasdf wrote:
Scientists who do research in university laboratories cannot sell the rights to their research, and the University has rights to any patents that are generated. Although scientists can write books on their own time.
Those professors are still paid a salary and often share in the royalties depending on the contract. The athlete is compensated with room, board, tuition, etc and now the cost of attendance.
A huge majority of athletes don't recieve full ride scholarships, even in big sports like football and basketball. If every athlete revived a massive scholarship it would offset the loss of professional gains, but a lot of amazing players on championship teams are still paying the school tens of thousands of dollars each year. They are being robbed of the income they generate by playing.
I've seen so many athletes from my city in Canada go down south to play Div 1 beliving that they will have a full ride all 4 years only to have their funds reduced massively after the first year when transferring back to Canada is near impossible. Most kids from Canada I've met regret going to the NCAA unless they become an All-American, because outside of that title there is no money for them. They come back after school burnt out, injured, and in massive debt.
well.... wrote:
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.
Almost all college sports are money losers.
The average college football team makes more money than the next 25 college sports combined (
http://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-2016-10)
Only Men's Football and sometimes Men's Basketball take in more money than they spend. Swimming, Track and Field, and Cross Country lose money for the school.
I read an article the other day with a great line about colleges losing money on athletics; it was something to the effect of "No matter how big the revenue stream, they can spend it faster than it comes in".
The truth is that football and basketball pay for all the other sports too. All SEC coaches in ALL sports have seen their salaries increase since the SEC Network came on line and tens of millions of dollars flowed into SEC schools. Yes, the track coach is making more money now too.
(PS a few sports here and there carry their own weight, but they are outliers. I think women's gymnastics at Georgia was paying its own way for many years--until they stopped winning NCAA titles or getting to the Super 6).
Very good point about partial scholarships. I neglected that. Division 1 football and basketball (men's and women's) are the only sports not allowed to give partial scholarships.
The other thing of interest is that even with the huge increase in revenue the scholarship limits have not been raised. It would be a good PR move to increase the limit to show that more kids are getting either an opportunity or more grant money. (Then schools would have to increase their limits because not all schools fund to the NCAA limit).
While *some* schools (24 as of 2015) make money with football and basketball, it's important to remember that the vast majority of school lose money on athletics, even when considering football and men's basketball.
Source (NCAA):
So, even if schools could pay athletes, only ~24 have any money to pay. Raising scholarship limits would be similarly unwise, unless you're willing to jack up student fees even more than they already are:
Source (Chronicle of Higher Ed):
https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/ncaa-subsidies-main#id=table_2014
Sports don't really belong in higher ed. But, if we keep the model we currently have, not allowing athletes to pursue endorsements should be criminal.
well.... wrote:
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.
Almost all college sports are money losers.
The average college football team makes more money than the next 25 college sports combined (
http://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-2016-10)
Only Men's Football and sometimes Men's Basketball take in more money than they spend. Swimming, Track and Field, and Cross Country lose money for the school.
The chart shows the revenue of each sport, not net profit. Some sports are more expensive than others.
1) turn pro;
2) don't compete in college;
3) go to whatever school that you want.
or
1) don't turn pro;
2) don't compete in college;
3) go to whatever school that you want.
Personally I'd only consider schools that would immediately provide the highest return on investment, and no long term debt.
Alternate Reality wrote:
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.
False. There is an age limit in D1. Lebron is too old. Unless they changed the rule.
harry wales wrote:
Most college athletes are paid their worth; a few aren't.
Huh? A school makes millions on broadcast contracts and the athletes are required to remain in poverty.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/11/27/florida-states-national-championship-and-heisman-hopes-could-pay-off-big/#648ce8d6769dOr how about NCAA corruption in basketball.
http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/376576-here-is-why-the-fbi-is-investigating-college-basketball-corruptionThe NCAA/BCS is desperate to remain in control of ball sport athletes at this point. The other 99 NCAA sports are used to justify ball sports broadcast contracts.