Would you vote for...?

L

longtex

Guest
Eliminating the requirement for school-sponsored athletic programs to restrict team membership to "bona fide" "students" in "good standing"? I sure's hell would. It's pretty much a joke, anyway.

This is not to say that a school couldn't offer schollies as part payment, for those who actually wanted to study... just that players could indeed be paid, directly or indirectly, and wouldn't have to enrolled.

Yeah, yeah, I know: then you get into salary caps, roster limits, all that crap... but still, wouldn't it be nice to have Vince still here? I'm sure you can think of some others pretty easily, huh?

"Coming up next, right after these words from our sponsors, quarterfinal playoff action in FULL CONTACT GOLF, so stay with us! "
 
no I would not...! College sports are pure... the only remaining place where Oklahoma players can get the money under teh table like they always have... it permits us Horns to honestly be superior...no I would not...
 
mmmmmmmmmm I don't think so.



I love the college game and rarely watch the pros. If the student part is lost, then you've created a semi-pro team I could care less about.
 
In short form, my answer to your question is no.

However, we've seen celebrities admitted to college for being great at something. I can't think of a great example, but think about Natalie Portman, admitted to Harvard. Schools often accept people for their excellence. Why should athletic talent be any different?

If someone excels athletically and wants to hone their skills at an athletic program that will challenge them, I'm all for it. Like a dancer enrolling at Julliard, athletes should have a chance to earn a degree in athletics.

That being said, I believe, as a future professor, that the university is for training. You get paid later. Or get paid now and skip the training.
 
Longtex, I think we agree for the most part in the thinking that it's blind to assume that the game is "pure" right now.

My problem with paying players is that it now (or soon) becomes a mini pro system, where might is right. He who has the most $$ is he who wins. This probably reveals my bias against pro sports.

You could make the argument (and you'd be right) that the top tier college programs have that advantage now. Texas, for instance, has some of the best facilities in the country...and we win a LOT. But when we start paying players who's going to be in the National Championship every year? Texas and Ohio State. To me, that's boring. (I'd prefer Texas has alternating opponents every year
wink.gif
)

When's the last time the Royals and the Blue Jays played for the World Series? And I use this analogy because I think MLB is the worst offender. I think paying players exorbitant salaries takes away from the game.

So do I think there ever will be a system that is fair? No. I would be in favor of a place for kids to go earn some $$ for their talent. Minor league football, if you will. I'd just prefer the University level to be salary free, which is currently our best system for parity.
 
I don't understand why no one has started a college of athletics yet. The reality is that sports are a legitimate industry in this country and a major that prepares you for a job in that sector could be very valuable. Not everyone has to plan on making the pros. You could have pre-law and business tracks for future agents, sports medicine tracks for pre-meds, pre-coaching tracks, sports administration and marketing, not to mention other media-related flavors like color-commentary and broadcasting. The odds of a UT athlete becoming a pro are almost certainly statistically better than those of a theatre major becoming a pro.
 
I'm on board.

Longtex, could we get you to come out of retirement? I don't know what your discipline is, but I'm pretty sure I could cover the business side.

Any takers for BLING 301?
biggrin.gif
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top