The problem with college sports isn’t the athletes
Jun 8, 2024 9:23:57 GMT -5
FLCATAMOUNT likes this
Post by The Cats on Jun 8, 2024 9:23:57 GMT -5
The problem with college sports isn’t the athletes. It’s the schools.
www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/the-problem-with-college-sports-isn-t-the-athletes-it-s-the-schools/ar-BB1ntzYy?ocid=BingNews
The college athlete isn’t the one who needs reminding he or she is a student. It’s the colleges that forgot — they’re the ones that ran so profiteeringly amok that they turned athletes into labor law case studies. Once you make that simple thought reversal, the NCAA’s mess becomes easier to sort out. It’s going to take an act of Congress to fix it, you bet. But what needs regulating is the conduct of the schools, not the kids.
First it should be plain that the Power Five schools can’t be allowed to write the new rules because they will only continue their “kill-eat” behavior. This is obvious from their proposed resolution of the antitrust cases: They want to shunt 60 percent of the schools’ portion of a $2.8 billion settlement off on the shoulders of smaller colleges and universities that weren’t even named in the suits.
Alabama should have to eat its own rotting meal, not shove it down Seton Hall’s throat.
Congress should refuse any antitrust exemption until those terms are adjusted. When lawmakers do craft a limited antitrust protection, they should require fundamental corrections in the NCAA’s disordered, mission-contradictory structure. Starting from this premise: “Extracurricular programs that develop student talents via performance contests and events are education programs led by expert teachers,” writes the Drake Group, a think tank of academics that has been conferring with legislators on college sports. The emphasis is mine.
This suggestion comes from the Drake Group, and it’s beautiful. Now you can cut the yarn away from the cat. If Alabama wants to pay its football coach a ludicrous $11 million per year, then it should have to devote an equal $11 million to educationally tethered benefits to the athletes on the other side of the ledger. You want to restore reason and equity? That’ll do it.
www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/the-problem-with-college-sports-isn-t-the-athletes-it-s-the-schools/ar-BB1ntzYy?ocid=BingNews
The college athlete isn’t the one who needs reminding he or she is a student. It’s the colleges that forgot — they’re the ones that ran so profiteeringly amok that they turned athletes into labor law case studies. Once you make that simple thought reversal, the NCAA’s mess becomes easier to sort out. It’s going to take an act of Congress to fix it, you bet. But what needs regulating is the conduct of the schools, not the kids.
First it should be plain that the Power Five schools can’t be allowed to write the new rules because they will only continue their “kill-eat” behavior. This is obvious from their proposed resolution of the antitrust cases: They want to shunt 60 percent of the schools’ portion of a $2.8 billion settlement off on the shoulders of smaller colleges and universities that weren’t even named in the suits.
Alabama should have to eat its own rotting meal, not shove it down Seton Hall’s throat.
Congress should refuse any antitrust exemption until those terms are adjusted. When lawmakers do craft a limited antitrust protection, they should require fundamental corrections in the NCAA’s disordered, mission-contradictory structure. Starting from this premise: “Extracurricular programs that develop student talents via performance contests and events are education programs led by expert teachers,” writes the Drake Group, a think tank of academics that has been conferring with legislators on college sports. The emphasis is mine.
This suggestion comes from the Drake Group, and it’s beautiful. Now you can cut the yarn away from the cat. If Alabama wants to pay its football coach a ludicrous $11 million per year, then it should have to devote an equal $11 million to educationally tethered benefits to the athletes on the other side of the ledger. You want to restore reason and equity? That’ll do it.