|
Post by silverchloride on Aug 3, 2020 11:24:22 GMT -5
I am going to admit, right up front, that I am not up to date on current pro sports, but I can only remember Kobe (and Wilt Chamberlain*) playing right out of highschool. What year did the guy state that, Like I mentioned it was only a $22,000 total degree in 84, that is pretty cheap =)
It is over priced, but that is what it costs without a scholarship, so relative to non-scholarshpipped students (which is the majority) it is actual money saved. Just like a 1200sq/ft 2 bedroom home on a 6000sq/ft lot is 2.4 million in West LA.
Caveat; UCLA was still relatively expensive in 1984.
FYI, Wilt was at Kansas for 3 years. He only left 1 year early, and played for the Globetrotters that year, not the NBA. His college coach retired before his soph year (freshmen were not eligible), and by his junior year he was constantly triple teamed, teams would stall for most of games (pre shot clock) and any joy was sucked out of the college game for him, so he left when given the opportunity. Yes, that is why I put an asterisk. It is reported that he played under a different name as a pro when he was 16.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 11:27:28 GMT -5
There were a lot of guys who played right out of high school until the NBA (Not NCAA) changed that rule. Moses Malone was one of the first to bypass college. In the 90s and 2000s it became pretty common. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Darius Miles, Dwight Howard, Lebron James are a few of those who bypassed college. But, there were some massive whiffs like Kwame Brown (#1 Overall) and Eddy Curry and a few who tried to go straight from high school and weren't drafted. I think that is what caused the NBA to change the rule. A few have gone international out of high school rather than play college. Options do exist. It's like I said above. Sometimes, opportunities to go pro are there. Sometimes, they aren't. That high school kids who could get drafted in the 1st Round of the NBA have to go to college is the NBA's doing. The NFL requires 3 years removed from high school. Sure, having the NCAA as a place the players can be stashed for a year (or 3) makes that call easier. I think professional leagues have grown where they were able to grow, and failed when they weren't. If you look outside of the U.S., virtually every elite, professional athlete turns pro by 18. It is only here that fans think players "aren't ready" for the rigours of professional sport, meanwhile you have players aged 18-22 who are the best in the world at their respective sports. As for professional leagues in sports like volleyball - the NCAA has a chokehold on the labor market. Again, look around the world; if there was no NCAA, there would be professional development opportunities. To suggest that the conditions under a monopoly (as it was described by the man who orientated it) such as the NCAA are indicative of what the market can and would bear, in a world without such an entity controlling the sector, is simply false. I just think you overestimate the appetite for professional sports absent the universities. And, thus, the profitability of those pro sports.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 3, 2020 11:34:18 GMT -5
I think a pro VB team in NE would go over quite well. If they had it at the "Bob" I think you could regularly have 5-7000 fans.
|
|
|
Post by coldsnap on Aug 3, 2020 11:35:50 GMT -5
I will try and keep this as short as possible even though there's a lot to talk about here. Playing college sports is a privilege not a right. I do not want to speak against the profession I am in or the one my children have the privilege in which to compete. There are some different ways that this can be approached. No one is stopping anyone or any organization from developing a farm system for major college sports. Baseball and basketball already have one. I haven't watched too many D league games but maybe there's an ESPN package? If the NFL wants to start one have at it. High school players can have a choice. They can get 30-40K (being generous) a year and play in front of empty stadiums with the slim hope of making it to the NFL that presently exists already. Most will wash out after a couple years if the NFL deems them not good enough and then maybe they saved enough money to pay for a college education. Let college football carry on as normal without those that go play the football minor league. College football will still fill the stadiums they have ranging anywhere from 20,000 to 120,000. College will still have the best coaches, the best facilities, the best trainers, academic support, gear, sport psychologists, nutritionists, doctors, and oh yeah, a fully paid education with all travel expenses paid, associated costs with playing their sport and the extra cost of attendance stipend they now can receive. Let the NFL see if it wants to compete with itself. College football is what it is because of the tremendous rivalries and alumni support for their Alma Mater. Another option is to pay the players to play. Let's say they get paid whatever the cost of that education is worth plus maybe $25,000. Since we are in the real world now, there are bills that have to be paid. For starters, they now have to pay for their education just like all other non athletes do already. Any extra gear they want outside of the basic uniform is an extra cost. The same goes for academic tutoring, nutrition counseling, sport psychology, extra individual workouts with a coach or strength staff. Whatever the hourly rate is they will have to pay. You can get whatever types of meals you want while traveling with the team but it's coming out of your own pocket. By the way, since we are talking real world here, you can also get fired for not performing up to par. After all it's a job now. The last option is to continue to make meaningful strides to improve college sports as it exists now. It will never be perfect for everyone but it is still a system that provides a great way for many kids to earn a degree who might not otherwise have been able to and certainly not at places that are private and very expensive even if they have the grades to qualify. It is still a great way for them to get world class coaching and development, academic support, tremendous friendships, amazing college rivalries in front of packed arenas and stadiums. Many Universities will honor an athlete their scholarship even if they only attended 1 or 2 years so they can come back and finish once their pro career is over. This is not an opinion, or a best guess, but an absolute fact. College sports being successful does a lot more to support all the programs on campus and to build those world class facilities and employ those great coaches and staff that the kids get to be mentored by thereby helping them succeed in both their sport and their careers outside of sport. Let's see if we can fill an arena of 5500-8500 with an alternative volleyball league to that of Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Hawaii and Stanford to name a few. Give the players and option and see what they will choose? But I am all for free enterprise, if a minor league wants to pop up for football and any other Olympic sport out there and give options to these kids coming out of college I say great! Give the kids and their parents a choice. When it costs anywhere from $20,000 to $300,000 per student athlete per year to scholarship, house, feed, outfit, coach, travel, and support them, one could argue they are already paid for the privilege to participate.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 3, 2020 11:41:14 GMT -5
I think a pro VB team in NE would go over quite well. If they had it at the "Bob" I think you could regularly have 5-7000 fans. Right. And that’s exactly one team. Wouldn’t make for a very compelling league.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Aug 3, 2020 11:44:45 GMT -5
Say goodbye to villeyball and other Olympic sports. There is no money to support these endeavors outside of colleges.
You can pretend that pro leagues will pop up, but they won’t.
And there will be no real path for these athletes or any support.
|
|
|
Post by coldsnap on Aug 3, 2020 11:47:42 GMT -5
You are 100% correct. If they could have they already would have done it. We have a great system and it can be improved and that is what we should focus on doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 11:50:16 GMT -5
If you look outside of the U.S., virtually every elite, professional athlete turns pro by 18. It is only here that fans think players "aren't ready" for the rigours of professional sport, meanwhile you have players aged 18-22 who are the best in the world at their respective sports. As for professional leagues in sports like volleyball - the NCAA has a chokehold on the labor market. Again, look around the world; if there was no NCAA, there would be professional development opportunities. To suggest that the conditions under a monopoly (as it was described by the man who orientated it) such as the NCAA are indicative of what the market can and would bear, in a world without such an entity controlling the sector, is simply false. I just think you overestimate the appetite for professional sports absent the universities. And, thus, the profitability of those pro sports. I get that. But I think your frame of reference is limited. Neither Belarus or Romania have anything analogous to the NCAA but both have pro volley leagues. Judging the viability of pro sports based on our current sporting landscape, is like looking at the fact that U.S. prescription drug prices are 4000% higher than the rest of the world and imagining that we, as a nation, couldn't change that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 11:52:57 GMT -5
You are 100% correct. If they could have they already would have done it. We have a great system and it can be improved and that is what we should focus on doing. Google search: "What is a monopoly?".
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 11:58:49 GMT -5
If you look outside of the U.S., virtually every elite, professional athlete turns pro by 18. It is only here that fans think players "aren't ready" for the rigours of professional sport, meanwhile you have players aged 18-22 who are the best in the world at their respective sports. As for professional leagues in sports like volleyball - the NCAA has a chokehold on the labor market. Again, look around the world; if there was no NCAA, there would be professional development opportunities. To suggest that the conditions under a monopoly (as it was described by the man who orientated it) such as the NCAA are indicative of what the market can and would bear, in a world without such an entity controlling the sector, is simply false. I just think you overestimate the appetite for professional sports absent the universities. And, thus, the profitability of those pro sports. Of all things, why are UNIVERSITIES subsidizing these sports? And to a more indirect extent, why are university football and basketball teams subsidizing several dozen Olympic sports? Commentators aren't incorrect when they note the massive wealth transfer from primarily lower-income athletes to wealthier, whiter athletes playing niche sports.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 3, 2020 11:59:24 GMT -5
I just think you overestimate the appetite for professional sports absent the universities. And, thus, the profitability of those pro sports. I get that. But I think your frame of reference is limited. Neither Belarus or Romania have anything analogous to the NCAA but both have pro volley leagues. Judging the viability of pro sports based on our current sporting landscape, is like looking at the fact that U.S. prescription drug prices are 4000% higher than the rest of the world and imagining that we, as a nation, couldn't change that. What are sports like in those countries? I genuinely have no clue. I assume soccer is big there, but are those volleyball leagues sustainable behind no fewer than 5 massive, established pro sports leagues? What is the pay like in those leagues? Enough that somebody like Kathryn Plummer would want the paycheck instead of a degree from Stanford?
|
|
|
Post by coldsnap on Aug 3, 2020 12:09:22 GMT -5
In order for these pro leagues to work you would have to eliminate college sports model. The NFL wants college to exist as they don't have to fund it or compete with it. They just use it as a feeder. You can talk about having only pro league volleyball and no college but there will be a lot less girls inclined to play the sport if all they can do is play club and turn pro after or do nothing. It's ludicrous and the pro league would not be able to support a minor league like baseball and basketball have to a degree. Hard to compare us to other countries cause our college system is so much a part of our communities and tradition. A very small percentage of kids make it to the pros in any sport. They want to play college if they can and if they can play after then that will be great. But if not they got the chance to play and hopefully receive a scholarship to do it. What this whole thread really pertains to actually revolves around football. Let a minor league start up to compete with college and allow kids to turn pro right out of high school. Sounds good to me. Then kids that want to get paid a salary to play can do it. Market value is what they will get. The college kids can get so much more, play in front of big crowds, get more gear than they know what to do with, get the best coaching outside of NFL and maybe even better in some cases. Give them a choice and let them decide. College football will continue to exist and flourish at the very same rate it does now even if a percentage decide to take the pro route out of high school.
|
|
|
Post by jake on Aug 3, 2020 12:14:48 GMT -5
Greedy student-athletes and greedy university administrators may be getting their 'just deserts'!!!
Wouldn't it be so much simpler to end college recruiting completely.
Universities/colleges would be limited to using the school's student body to build their team rosters. No more bellyaching over shared revenues by SA!
For sure the NCAA needs to cut in half the number of allotted student scholarship per sport!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 12:15:58 GMT -5
Enough that somebody like Kathryn Plummer would want the paycheck instead of a degree from Stanford? You get why this isn't a good question right? Nothing in Belarus is paid as well as it is in the U.S. because the cost of living here is so much higher. A MUCH better question is, if she'd been born Italian (the country she played in last season), would KP be wealthier and a better volleyball player right now? I think it's really hard to imagine a world where the answer to both of those questions isn't a resounding yes.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 3, 2020 12:20:49 GMT -5
This is silly. If an athlete thinks he/she can earn more than what a scholarship offers then by all means go get it. College athletics is for amateur student/athletes. Of the hundreds of thousands of HS athletes trying to get a scholarship only a small fraction attain it. If an athlete wants more then move on. Thousands behind you that would be incredibly grateful to have the college scholarship and experience. You do understand why this post makes no sense, right? Collegiate athletics is the only path to the professional ranks in certain sports in this country and its existence chokes the life out of any other developmental opportunities for young athletes in the rest of them! Future professional volleyball players go to college to play volleyball because there is no viable alternative. That status quo will remain as long as the NCAA is propped up. On the bright side, the realities of Covid are exposing the more obvious deficiencies of the present model to even the most inattentive of observers. The end was always coming but I'd bet the virus accelerates it. The system of athletics should not be constructed solely for the benefit of the vanishingly small number of players who can jump quickly to pro. You may find there will be no athletics for many sports at all, and then you will have far fewer of those people because it won't appear to be an option. As it is, too much of our system rests on the myth that pursuing a professional career in sports is a good bet. With media providing the electricity, professional sports is like a bright lamp attracting most young kids like moths to their doom. Entire public educational systems, K-12, in parts of this country, are supported so meagerly that sports appears to be the only way out of the lower rungs of society for many. It serves the monied interests that run the pro leagues and the big college programs to keep that going. Volleyball is less affected, but we are grinding kids up in other sports. The opportunity to get a degree instead of running headfirst into the rotating knives of professional sports actually offers a way out for many kids caught up in this sports mill. For all its flaws, and there are many serious ones, college athletics gives the vast majority of students a chance to pursue their sport and also develop alternative interests and bankable expertise/connections should they not be able to continue in sports, as 99% won't. It's true that some universities and programs are totally subservient to the big athletics machine and they are big part of the problem. Others take their educational and service mission very seriously and try to make it work despite the conflicts. There is a lot wrong with the system, but there is some good to it too that we should be trying to build on. Now whether college sports should be the only path to a professional career, I think it depends on the sport. Do we really want HS kids going straight into the brutality of the NFL? I don't and I think we're wise for not promoting that. But the NBA and the NHL are different - it happens there. The only thing that prevents volleyball players from jumping straight to pros is that there is no professional sports league in the US to jump to, and a college education actually equates to more money than the vast majority of these players would be able to make overseas anyway. Heck, many Canadian kids opt for NCAA hockey rather than go the junior league route. For many players from all sports, they only get to develop, athletically and personally, in college. For women, it is often literally the only way to keep a sport alive. Look at what's happened to men's volleyball for instance.
|
|