How would YOU reform the NCAA?


Journalist

Journalist

Listen up maggots! And that's an order!
I've seen several threads regarding the NCAA, player unions and what not ... and I wanted to know what would you do if you could reform the NCAA

IMO, at least allow "student-athletes" to transfer unfettered to schools they choose to transfer to, regardless of coaching changes or other circumstances.

I also believe once you leave that school, whether with a degree or not/athlete or not, then that school doesn't owe you anything after that.

Before y'all start talking about revenue-generating sports should keep their money and those non-revenue generating sports be damned ... just keep in mind that's one of the arguments the "one-percenters" use against the middle class and poor.
 
- 4-year guaranteed scholarships.
- Coaches have to provide legitimate reasons to not renew a scholarship.
- Coaches can't restrict athletes from transferring to certain schools or leagues (see Bo Ryan)
- Athletes should be allowed to transfer to any school without having to sit out a year.
- A cap on coaches salaries should be placed on the table.
- Allow the athletes to take advantage of sponsorship or endorsement opportunities.

As far as the one-percent argument is concerned.

We, the public, don't invest in non-revenue sports like we do football and basketball because we feel there is nothing in it for us on the other side if we are honest with ourselves.

You can't compare this to rich vs poor. We have to invest in the poor because it impacts how society itself functions. I don't think not paying lacrosse or soccer players will create chaos in the world.

When the HBCU basketball team or football team losses in postseason play we make it a referendum on HBCUs, young black adults, black families, our culture, etc. When a non-revenue sports team like baseball or softball loses in the NCAA tournament, nobody cares. It's not a referendum on anything in regards to the institutions or anything else. Why? Because we feel that we don't have anything invested in them.

Those sports should be club sports.

All these conferences and schools realigning is all being driven by the dollars that could be earn through revenue sports. The Big East died as a basketball conference because presidents wanted to chase football money.

There is a reason the football coach or the basketball coach is the highest paid employee at the university. The president at Bama said Nick Saban was the best hire he made for the school. The success of these sports create interest in the school, brings in a boatload of money and impacts enrollment and generates untold dollars into the business community.

Non-revenue sports, while valuable in their own right, just doesn't have that greater impact.
 



I agree with those suggestions ...
Like the Jeremy Bloom case, he was an Olympic snowboarder while playing football at Colorado, but couldn't reap the benefits of sponsorship from his side-hustle. If a kid plays football and paints, he should be able to make money from his artwork.
 
I think that the student-athlete academic performance should only be considered when calculating the APR while he/she is a student at the college/university.
 
The one single thing you could do to revolutionize a single sport would be reduce football scholarships to 66. Only 11 kids can play at a time (offense/defense). In theory if you divide that 66 you will have 33 on offense, and 33 on defense. That allows you to have depth all the way to 3rd string. It would also prevent bigger schools from simply stockpiling talent. There has been precedence for this, schools used to be able to sign upwards of 90+ kids until they started to cut down the numbers, because schools like Bear Bryant at Alabama would load up on kids sometimes simply so they couldn't go to rival schools.
 
Devil's Gun Trigger Man said:
The one single thing you could do to revolutionize a single sport would be reduce football scholarships to 66. Only 11 kids can play at a time (offense/defense). In theory if you divide that 66 you will have 33 on offense, and 33 on defense. That allows you to have depth all the way to 3rd string. It would also prevent bigger schools from simply stockpiling talent. There has been precedence for this, schools used to be able to sign upwards of 90+ kids until they started to cut down the numbers, because schools like Bear Bryant at Alabama would load up on kids sometimes simply so they couldn't go to rival schools.
Click to expand...


I agree with this.
 
DAHILL said:
Hell no.... college football would be a MESS.
Click to expand...

You can't let coaches leave on a whim with no limitations but restrict the athletes from doing the same.

What you could do is crack down on over signing. That's a tremendous issue that doesn't get enough attention.
 
JR said:
I agree with this.
Click to expand...

I don't. 66 is too low and if you have over 85 kids, they are not on scholarships anyway. They just want to play for that school. However, the trickle down effect would certainly help the non-BCS schools.
 
kendrick said:
You can't let coaches leave on a whim with no limitations but restrict the athletes from doing the same.

What you could do is crack down on over signing. That's a tremendous issue that doesn't get enough attention.
Click to expand...


Coaches can get fired on a whim too. Also, when talking about coaching, that is a profession. These kids are not professionals.
 
Tigerpride said:
Coaches can get fired on a whim too. Also, when talking about coaching, that is a profession. These kids are not professionals.
Click to expand...

And kids can't get released from their scholarships on a whim, too?

The athletes have no leverage since the scholarship is only guaranteed for one year.

Oh, these kids aren't amateurs either.
 
I agree with Kendrick, I believe scholarships should be guaranteed for 4 years and players should be able to transfer anywhere without punishment. I am 100% for the players.
 
jsupop33 said:
I agree with Kendrick, I believe scholarships should be guaranteed for 4 years and players should be able to transfer anywhere without punishment. I am 100% for the players.
Click to expand...

...and it will later be revealed that you are 100% for foolishness. If what you all propose comes about, college football will become a circus.

..and kendrick, yes, they are amateurs.

..and why should a scholarship be guaranteed for four years. If the school can no longer cut him, will he be allowed to quit or will this be a double standard?
 



jsupop33 said:
I agree with Kendrick, I believe scholarships should be guaranteed for 4 years and players should be able to transfer anywhere without punishment. I am 100% for the players.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't even be a need to recruit high schools heavy.... coaches would just recruit other college teams. A player gets upset with something a coach says and wants to transfer..... making them sit out is the BEST thing.... It makes them REALLY think about their decision.... do they want to sit out/move down a division or do they want to stick and play at the highest level.

also it would KILL FBS football.
 
Tigerpride said:
...and it will later be revealed that you are 100% for foolishness. If what you all propose comes about, college football will become a circus.

..and kendrick, yes, they are amateurs.

..and why should a scholarship be guaranteed for four years. If the school can no longer cut him, will he be allowed to quit or will this be a double standard?
Click to expand...

Yep, he should be able to quit. Schools would be more careful in who they recruit. A regular student can withdraw and attend another institution without sitting out a year. The captain of the chess team can transfer as they please.
 
College football is already a circus with the likes of Maryland and Rutgers joining the Big Ten strictly for a money grab.

All these college basketball coaches are complaining about the one and done rule, but fail to say that these kids are only guaranteed a one-year scholarship.

Also, the four-year scholarship would afford the athlete some protection from having it not renewed. A coach will think twice about yanking it if there is $100,000 attached to it instead of $30,000.

And if you think a guy like Jameis Winston is an amateur, then you need to reevaluate some things. The guy is a world-class athlete.
 
jsupop33 said:
Yep, he should be able to quit. Schools would be more careful in who they recruit. A regular student can withdraw and attend another institution without sitting out a year. The captain of the chess team can transfer as they please.
Click to expand...

An athlete can withdraw and attend another institution without "sitting out a year" like a regular student too. He/she just can't play in any NCAA games... like a regular student.
 
Tigerpride said:
I don't. 66 is too low and if you have over 85 kids, they are not on scholarships anyway. They just want to play for that school. However, the trickle down effect would certainly help the non-BCS schools.
Click to expand...

I disagree, they don't play 66. The NFL only has 53 and they don't play all of them.
 
jag4life said:
An athlete can withdraw and attend another institution without "sitting out a year" like a regular student too. He/she just can't play in any NCAA games... like a regular student.
Click to expand...

but they fan play chess, be in SGA and do other school related activities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top