Katy Ledecky can't fight NCAA amateurism any longer

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.

Actually the "clock" does stop if you leave school. If you are in college and play a sport for 4 semesters and leave school only to return when you are like 26 (Assuming no prof. sports in between) you still have 4 semesters of eligibility. If you did NOT play a sport you would actually have 6 semesters of eligibility left

popplopi wrote:

Oooof wrote:

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.

That is old news and not the record. Not close to the record. I'm surprised nobody corrected you, especially the poster Oooof who seemed to know what he is talking about.

Ella Eastin destroyed that record by nearly two full seconds less than two weeks ago at the NCAA championships.

***

Regardless of the monetary situation, everyone seems to be ignoring a major reason Ledecky turned pro. She is increasingly vulnerable and she knows it. The recent results have been sub par. Ledecky even ducked out of a 200 freestyle rematch with Mallory Comerford of Louisville, who tied her for the NCAA title last year. It was probably a wise move because Comerford swam the second fastest 200 freestyle of all time in this year's final, defeating Simone Manuel handily and bettering Ledecky's best time in the event by more than a half second. Comerford is great on turns so right now she is far superior in 200 short course than long course.

Ledecky is already older than ideal for a female distance swimmer. For example, it has been more than 75 years since a woman aged 20 or older broke the world record at 800 meters. Those longer races are speciality of 15-19 year olds who monotonously keep spinning lap after lap. The records in those longer events are still comparatively soft and outside of Ledecky it has been wide open. Right now the Chinese are prioritizing the women's distance events, sensing the opportunity. There are several young Chinese who are in their mid teens and improving rapidly. They could easily be a major threat to Ledecky two years from now in Tokyo.

Instead of swimming under collegiate rules regulating how much time she can devote, Ledecky knows she needs to get back to intense training and focused on long course, not short course. The blowout defeat to Eastin in that 400 IM final a couple of weeks ago might have been a necessary jolt. Ledecky is good at the individual medley but not great. Now she can set aside any temptation to add that race to her international program, which had been speculated.

She can also perhaps return to her former coach and not remain with Stanford coach Greg Meehan. I think that will happen in a year or so, closer to the Olympics. It would look like a slap right now.

Awsi Dooger wrote:

popplopi wrote:

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

That is old news and not the record. Not close to the record. I'm surprised nobody corrected you, especially the poster Oooof who seemed to know what he is talking about.

Ella Eastin destroyed that record by nearly two full seconds less than two weeks ago at the NCAA championships.

I did correct him.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

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.

The other 99 NCAA sports are used to justify ball sports broadcast contracts.

I think it's important to remember how we got here.

The other sports were originally required to prevent a school from just having a basketball team. To have an NCAA basketball team, you have to have 5 other teams. Now, they use track, wrestling, volleyball, hockey to fill out program content of the conference networks, but that wasn't the intent 15 years ago.

Also, schools that "lose" money gain marketing exposure. It would be like saying Budweiser "loses" money with super bowl commercials. The schools can run the cost benefit analysis, and find out that financially sports are break even or beneficial.

Lastly, most college athletes don't generate income individual for the school. The brand of the school does most of the work. Outside of probably 2000 football players (of like 15,000 football scholarships) and another 1000 mens basketball players (of over 3000 mens basketball scholarships), and maybe another 1000 in other sports (maybe another 15,000) Nobody pushes the needle.

That's 4,000 athletes that are underpaid, and 29,000 that are compensated pretty fairly.

Everything you need to know is laid out in this report:

The Shame of College Sports, by Taylor Branch

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

The NCAA is beyond a monopoly, they are a cartel. They have way too much money and power. I think they received over $2 BILLION DOLLARS for the rights to the NCAA Final Four. They can crush someone's career on a whim.