should college athletes be allowed to make money off their name????
 

watchin college gameday and desmond and paul finebaum were debatin


i agree with desmond. i think a college player should be allowed to sell their signature or their brand for money. cause they have put in the hard work and have the talent and should be able to benefit appropriately is my opinion

Being from the UK I never understood this whole college circuit when it comes to sports in the USA. It's almost like that these amateurs are held in equal esteem as older professionals.

Here what you do as an amateur means **** and your reputation means **** too, it only matters when you do it at a professional level.

Don't look at the college circuit as amateurs. The college circuit here in the states is more like semi-pros and the pool that gets picked from when it's time to draft and they go pro from there.

As far as college players selling their brands/signatures for money. No fuck that, they already get free scholarship and all those other benefits. They don't also need that cream off the top. Plus they already do it anyways just in an indirect way.

Ok and another thing that I find strange are the draft picks. I've noticed in some sports like Basketball that the weakest teams get to pick the best college players? Surely if this is true, wouldn't the best college players want to go to one of the stronger teams?

If the best college players went to the stronger teams then it would just create a consistent monopoly on being a strong team and having all the weaker teams just stay that way forever. The best college players go to weaker teams to attempt to fix that but sometimes they still end up just being collateral and being traded off to another team for certain players.

216 could probably go into more detail about the drafts than me though. I don't watch drafts when they happen.

I can see the logic in that, but take soccer here in Europe and in most of the world. There is obviously no college structure, but the best young players normally go to the best teams and their aim is to make it in those teams. They only go to a weaker team if the can't cut it at the team or as is quite often the case, they go out on loan to get valuable playing time with a lesser team.

In order for a weaker team to get stronger, they usually don't rely on getting highly rated youngsters, but usually through a clever transfer policy and a manager that can get the best out of the team. So the team gets stronger based on their own merit, rather than having a system in place to help them out.

It's not that I disagree with the US sports system, it's just that its very different to what goes on here.

The thing is that one really good player can't hold an entire team on his back so even if he does get handed to a weaker team, They still need to get stronger on their own merit.

So I guess that if a very good college player goes to weaker team and does really well and carries them, there are strong chances that he'll be traded/transferred to a bigger team in the future.

I dont agree with that draft logic.

in football success brings money and you use the money to buy players. The best clubs can afford the top players so they bid for them.

I wouldnt want S****horpe to be given Isco just cos theyre crap. if youre **** its your job to work your way up.

The downside to this is tycoons buying clubs and then buying star players cos the owners have billions. Bad because any club can effectively buy trophies if they get taken over by a rich owner.

each american sports i different

baseball sounds much like soccer in regards to contracts. there are no salary caps, the draft matters very little by comparison (cause so many good players arent american and not subjected to the draft is one reason). there are teams who put out terrible teams and turn the most profit (astros for example) and thats ust not good for fans to know youre team is basically purposely terrible

but baseballs players union has fought for, by far, not even close, the best contracts in american sports


as far as the draft it makes sense and its awesome in nba and nfl. worst teams get the best players and usually those players do turn around the franchise. there is so much parity in the nfl its ridiculous, which is great for the sport. strong teams and strong divisions drastically change so fast so if youre a fan you arent stuck in dogshiit for eternity (well save for a few mismanaged franchises like oakland lol)

that rarely happens tbh

chameleon is part right on what he said but didnt add much context. it depends on position how much a top pick can have on their team, but usually the first year isnt a huge improvement because of the learning curve, so they can be bad again and receive another high pick the next year. get a few high picks in there and eventually build a contender (see oklahoma city thunder in nba)

Giving crap teams the best players is an awful idea imo.

well yea if youre a fan of the teams that are already loaded and good lol

Dont watch NFL but Aston Villa only just avoided relegation last season. wouldnt want to be handed a load of players just cos we arent very good. Where iz the achievement in that?

i see what you mean


like you shouldnt be rewarded for bein bad


but how could a team ever improve if their players are all inferior to other clubs?? its no fun if your best players just always get poached by teams with more money which seems like thats kinda how soccer works. thats how baseball works and it sucks for competition


you look at nfl where every team has a chance every year. just literally maybe 2 years ago the west coast was a shathole for football and now the west coast is the best football in the country (san fran, seattle). football is really americas game and i think this is why, cause all fans can have hope.

This was the point I was aiming at earlier, the draft concept in US sports is quite alien to us and goes against the historical context of team sports here, which are built around a greater tradition of historical success. Whereas to Americans it's quite the norm to use a draft system to potentially improve their team, so as they say it's horses for courses.

Quite easily by having a better manager and buying better in the transfer market. It's not like the team in question here Aston Villa haven't got the money to get some better players. They're a big club that doesn't like to spend in the transfer market.

like you are not familiar with the draft im not so familiar with transfers and soccer contracts and leagues. i know a limited amount from my brother being somewhat of a soccer fan (cause he plays FIFA on ps3 all the time lol)

but if the nfl were like soccer and there was no salary cap, there would be hardly any incentive for good coaches or players to want to coach in small markets and crappy locations. no offense to fans of these teams but who would want to play in minnesota?? or buffalo?? when you could play alongside the beach or in a big market (texas markets, new york, california, etc). those teams would get loaded with all the best talent unless some free spending billionaire bought one of the clubs in an undesirable location

i mean its like with baseball where theres no salary cap and the draft means very litle. the yankees just sit their and poach the best players from other ball clubs (and other teams but yankees the most). which sucks for half the league who opens every season with no chance of hope. if you give the worst teams the best players in the draft it helps balance the playin field a little bit.

the alternatives are 1) give best teams the best college players and make the seperation betwene the good and bad teams even greater or 2) have no draft and let the college players sign with whoever they want, which most would likely go to the teams that are already great.

kinda more back on topic but colleges make sooooo much merchandising money off student athletes. yes they get free education, but the monetary value of that is so little compared to the money they generate by their hard work. its not like these players can hold normal college jobs either. i think right now the issue is coming to a forefront unlike anytime previous. i dont think a stipend is a good idea. in any other business on earth you can use your hard work, talent, accomplishents to brand yourself and make money except college sports. seems unfair to me

Where is the achievement in just being mister money banks and just buying up a good squad?

There isnt any, which is why i hate clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City, But there are only about 10 teams who are bankrolled by sugar daddies across europe and they are two of them. To put that into perspective england has about 700 football clubs.