(06-23-2013 10:40 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 12:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 04:22 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  CommuterBob:
"I have no problem with paying players, but I also don't believe the current system is unjust or unfair to the athletes"

I agree with your point that really won't effect college sports, but I know of an individual that had a scholarship taken away because of a debilitating injury. Fair is letting him complete his scholarship, but that did not happen. Fair does not have anything to do with it.

I know that sucks, but there are also stories where players are allowed to keep theirs after debilitating injury, but almost all of those are for football or basketball. But I look at it another way: athletics still gets people enrolled who otherwise could not get into college. So that student who is no longer on athletic scholarship is still enrolled and has a chance to get a good education, even if they have their scholarship pulled.

How many lower-income kids can stay enrolled without that athletic scholarship?

The worst thing about "athletic scholarships" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is that instead of being a 4-year commitment, they are typically only for just a one year commitment with a rollover option - for the school, not the athlete, and has been said, there is no objective criterion like a GPA that the student can meet to ensure a renewal of the scholarship, it's strictly at the subjective whim of the coach.

The best athletic scholarship reform would be that the school must make a full, 4-year commitment to the kid, one that could only be revoked for academic reasons (failure to attend class, meet a certain GPA, etc.), not athletic reasons.

I would be fine if they evened it out one way or the other. Make scholarships 4 years or let kids move with no penalty. Now it is tilted heavily towards the schools.

Good point. Allowing kids to leave at any time with no penalty would even it out.

(06-23-2013 10:37 AM)RutgersMike Wrote:  I believe if a player has a career ending injury, his scholarship still is honored but it doesn't count against the 85 limit.

As for the O'Bannon lawsuit, even if the plaintiffs do win, it will be a settlement along the lines of the USFL decision. Even though people on this board (myself included) tend to view things through a football lens, I can't see this Supreme Court making a decision that would be in the adverse interests of every university athletic department in the country.

Why do you think that?

I don't give judges all that much credit.

Perhaps seeing "how sausage is made" by judges for over 26 years has left me a bit of a cynic in general and particularly when it comes to the judiciary.

Why wools they care about athletic program impact if they are pushing an agenda (cynic) or believe that law and justice are served (idealistic) by such a result?