seahawk2k wrote:Educational systems are rooted in the attempt at equal opportunity, thereby making college sports adherent to those same scholastic philosophies. College football programs are used to fund other programs as well as other activities in the university unrelated to football. In order to compete in your "Moral" plan, a school would have to pull funding from non-revenue sports. So, in your Darwinian argument which, I agree with in many aspects of life, those people would be SOL because they chose to excel in a non-revenue sport.
I'm not sure you understand the interconnectivity of university funding. But its fun to talk in absolutes. Carry on.
If somebody outside of the NCAA is willing to pay you more money, who is the NCAA to say no? We live in America and in a free market society. You should be able to be paid as much as someone is willing to pay you. The fact that non revenue sport athletes won't make that money doesn't matter. If non revenue athletes aren't able to sell autographs or make money, that shouldn't stop other athletes from making money in a free market system.
The NCAA shouldn't have to directly pay athletes, but if an athlete is able to profit of his talent, why should the NCAA stop it? Your view of college athletics would make sense if the NCAA wasn't making billions from college football. College athletics aren't equal. Some sports make money and some sports don't make money for their schools and the NCAA.
Athletic programs won't have to pull funding from non-revenue sports, because schools wouldn't be directly paying these athletes. Athletes would be able to sell their own things (advertisements, etc.) and if boosters wanted to then they could pay athletes as well.
I just think there should be a free market, where individual athletes can make money off their talent outside of the NCAA. A guy like Manziel should be able to sell autographs and other things to make money. The ability to sell autographs and other things should have nothing to do with the NCAA.
There should be a free market, where boosters can pay athletes and allow the athletes to make as much money as possible. What's wrong with that? Let the athletes have bidding for their services in recruiting if possible and if the athletes want it.
BTW, and I'll say this again, boosters will always have an affect and schools with money will always have an advantage. Check out the facilities Uncle Phil has built in Eugene. Check out the facilities at Oklahoma State due to the billionaire booster T. Boone Pickens. You can ignore this, but these facilities have a direct affect on recruiting and these men are the biggest reasons their schools have had the success they've had.
Since the NCAA is a big money business, the athletes should have the right to profit from their talent in a free market system. That's the best way to deal with it. The NCAA isn't a "non profit" like they want you to believe.