The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

NCAA allows transfers to be immediately eligible, no matter how many times they've switched schools


https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ncaa...-109368444

And this, along with paying guys unlimited amounts is what will destroy college sports. The last straw will be getting rid of eligibility requirements. Why should a kid want to go pro (or since they’re all pro now, I guess we have to call it major league) if he can make more working for a college team.

We need somebody in Congress to grow a pair and rally a coalition to save college sports. That is the only hope there is left. The NCAA can't enforce anything anymore because lawmakers and lawyers have usurped their power. The universities need to step up to lobby as well, but the crickets seem to indicate that they have absolutely no interest in fixing this mess, so I wouldn't count on that happening.

(04-22-2024 08:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  And this, along with paying guys unlimited amounts is what will destroy college sports. The last straw will be getting rid of eligibility requirements. Why should a kid want to go pro (or since they’re all pro now, I guess we have to call it major league) if he can make more working for a college team.

Hold on, if this forces more kids to stay in college, how is that bad for college?

(04-23-2024 08:55 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-22-2024 08:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  And this, along with paying guys unlimited amounts is what will destroy college sports. The last straw will be getting rid of eligibility requirements. Why should a kid want to go pro (or since they’re all pro now, I guess we have to call it major league) if he can make more working for a college team.

Hold on, if this forces more kids to stay in college, how is that bad for college?

Because they are attending 5 schools in 4 years. Does anyone think they are getting any education in that scenario.

Here is a story that sums up how ridiculous the situation is. Rodney Hill a Running Back from FSU was a redshirt freshman last year who got some reps and did alright. He decided to jump in the portal as soon as the season was over. He committed to FAMU. He then uncommitted from FAMU, back in the portal and committed to Miami. He then uncommitted from Miami, back in the portal and committed to FAMU. Then uncommitted from FAMU and is back in the portal... all in one offseason! There is no world in which this is good for college sports, and I would argue it is not good for the VAST majority of student athletes.

The universities have to find a way to re-emphasize the student side of this equation. They are not doing these young men any favors by turning a blind eye to whether or not they are accomplishing anything in the classroom. If you care about these young men, as you have tried in previous posts to frame your position in support of pay for play and wide open transfer portals, then you have to care about the education that is being promised and not provided. The culture has to change to one that delivers on the singular mission that a university has.

(04-23-2024 09:10 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 08:55 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-22-2024 08:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  And this, along with paying guys unlimited amounts is what will destroy college sports. The last straw will be getting rid of eligibility requirements. Why should a kid want to go pro (or since they’re all pro now, I guess we have to call it major league) if he can make more working for a college team.

Hold on, if this forces more kids to stay in college, how is that bad for college?

Because they are attending 5 schools in 4 years. Does anyone think they are getting any education in that scenario.

Here is a story that sums up how ridiculous the situation is. Rodney Hill a Running Back from FSU was a redshirt freshman last year who got some reps and did alright. He decided to jump in the portal as soon as the season was over. He committed to FAMU. He then uncommitted from FAMU, back in the portal and committed to Miami. He then uncommitted from Miami, back in the portal and committed to FAMU. Then uncommitted from FAMU and is back in the portal... all in one offseason! There is no world in which this is good for college sports, and I would argue it is not good for the VAST majority of student athletes.

The universities have to find a way to re-emphasize the student side of this equation. They are not doing these young men any favors by turning a blind eye to whether or not they are accomplishing anything in the classroom. If you care about these young men, as you have tried in previous posts to frame your position in support of pay for play and wide open transfer portals, then you have to care about the education that is being promised and not provided. The culture has to change to one that delivers on the singular mission that a university has.

Im not opining on whether it is good or bad for student athletes or their education. Im stating that if more kids stay in college, how is that bad for college athletics? \

There are some wild portal activity all over the country. I will state that some of these kids are making life changing money even though they will never play professionally.

(04-23-2024 08:55 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-22-2024 08:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  And this, along with paying guys unlimited amounts is what will destroy college sports. The last straw will be getting rid of eligibility requirements. Why should a kid want to go pro (or since they’re all pro now, I guess we have to call it major league) if he can make more working for a college team.

Hold on, if this forces more kids to stay in college, how is that bad for college?

Because in that situation they arent staying in college for the education. They're staying for the paycheck. A college isn't supposed to run a pro sports league in addition to providing an education. Its supplemental to the primary mission of the school. Thats why players traditionally had to be students in good standing. I suspect that rule will change soon as well. And once that, and only having 4 years of eligibility are gone, college sports will begin competing against the Pros. And if a guy can make more money as a 10 year starter at Vanderbilt or SMU than he can as a third string bench warmer in the NFL or NBA, why would the guy go to the major league? There are probably colleges out there right now who would pay Taylor Heinike more than he's making in the NFL if he would play for them. Once a guy like him sues the NCAA for the opportunity to do so, I imagine that will be allowed as well.

(04-23-2024 09:22 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:10 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 08:55 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-22-2024 08:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  And this, along with paying guys unlimited amounts is what will destroy college sports. The last straw will be getting rid of eligibility requirements. Why should a kid want to go pro (or since they’re all pro now, I guess we have to call it major league) if he can make more working for a college team.

Hold on, if this forces more kids to stay in college, how is that bad for college?

Because they are attending 5 schools in 4 years. Does anyone think they are getting any education in that scenario.

Here is a story that sums up how ridiculous the situation is. Rodney Hill a Running Back from FSU was a redshirt freshman last year who got some reps and did alright. He decided to jump in the portal as soon as the season was over. He committed to FAMU. He then uncommitted from FAMU, back in the portal and committed to Miami. He then uncommitted from Miami, back in the portal and committed to FAMU. Then uncommitted from FAMU and is back in the portal... all in one offseason! There is no world in which this is good for college sports, and I would argue it is not good for the VAST majority of student athletes.

The universities have to find a way to re-emphasize the student side of this equation. They are not doing these young men any favors by turning a blind eye to whether or not they are accomplishing anything in the classroom. If you care about these young men, as you have tried in previous posts to frame your position in support of pay for play and wide open transfer portals, then you have to care about the education that is being promised and not provided. The culture has to change to one that delivers on the singular mission that a university has.

Im not opining on whether it is good or bad for student athletes or their education. Im stating that if more kids stay in college, how is that bad for college athletics? \

There are some wild portal activity all over the country. I will state that some of these kids are making life changing money even though they will never play professionally.

Yes, some are making a bunch of money, a couple are making life changing money, and thousands are being treated as expendable entities to enable those couple of guys to make a bunch of money, while universities pretend they are just doing what is right by supporting what the student athletes want. What they are really doing is failing thousands of students who are not being educated and are being encouraged to go out there and hustle their skills to earn whatever little money than can scrounge up in lieu of focusing on what will be the best long term outcome for them, getting an education.

(04-23-2024 09:28 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 08:55 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-22-2024 08:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  And this, along with paying guys unlimited amounts is what will destroy college sports. The last straw will be getting rid of eligibility requirements. Why should a kid want to go pro (or since they’re all pro now, I guess we have to call it major league) if he can make more working for a college team.

Hold on, if this forces more kids to stay in college, how is that bad for college?

Because in that situation they arent staying in college for the education. They're staying for the paycheck. A college isn't supposed to run a pro sports league in addition to providing an education. Its supplemental to the primary mission of the school. Thats why players traditionally had to be students in good standing. I suspect that rule will change soon as well. And once that, and only having 4 years of eligibility are gone, college sports will begin competing against the Pros. And if a guy can make more money as a 10 year starter at Vanderbilt or SMU than he can as a third string bench warmer in the NFL or NBA, why would the guy go to the major league? There are probably colleges out there right now who would pay Taylor Heinike more than he's making in the NFL if he would play for them. Once a guy like him sues the NCAA for the opportunity to do so, I imagine that will be allowed as well.

Education hasn't been the primary motivation for plenty of kids for the last 40 years. "I aint come here to play school" Athletes provide an athlete reason to get an education, they don't go to college to get an education and happen to play sports while they are there.

I have no clue on the elimination of eligibility requirements but again, if you have players staying in college to play, how does that make college sports worse? I understand the point of view of not wanting kids to be paid, etc, but you havent explained how that makes college sports an inferior product.

(04-23-2024 09:37 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:28 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 08:55 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-22-2024 08:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  And this, along with paying guys unlimited amounts is what will destroy college sports. The last straw will be getting rid of eligibility requirements. Why should a kid want to go pro (or since they’re all pro now, I guess we have to call it major league) if he can make more working for a college team.

Hold on, if this forces more kids to stay in college, how is that bad for college?

Because in that situation they arent staying in college for the education. They're staying for the paycheck. A college isn't supposed to run a pro sports league in addition to providing an education. Its supplemental to the primary mission of the school. Thats why players traditionally had to be students in good standing. I suspect that rule will change soon as well. And once that, and only having 4 years of eligibility are gone, college sports will begin competing against the Pros. And if a guy can make more money as a 10 year starter at Vanderbilt or SMU than he can as a third string bench warmer in the NFL or NBA, why would the guy go to the major league? There are probably colleges out there right now who would pay Taylor Heinike more than he's making in the NFL if he would play for them. Once a guy like him sues the NCAA for the opportunity to do so, I imagine that will be allowed as well.

Education hasn't been the primary motivation for plenty of kids for the last 40 years. "I aint come here to play school" Athletes provide an athlete reason to get an education, they don't go to college to get an education and happen to play sports while they are there.

I have no clue on the elimination of eligibility requirements but again, if you have players staying in college to play, how does that make college sports worse? I understand the point of view of not wanting kids to be paid, etc, but you havent explained how that makes college sports an inferior product.

This is the exact problem. It doesn't matter if kids don't value education, that is not their mission. It does matter that institutions of higher learning capitulate to that idea. Education is their mission. If a kid doesn't want to go to college because they don't value education, fine they don't go to college. Its pretty simple. As soon as Universities make education a meaningful part of the student athlete experience and expectation, then kids either decide they want to get an education, or they don't go to college.

And to answer your second question, I think the college game would be better without the players that don't have any interest in being a student and an athlete. I say clean the slate. Make college sports about college again. If that costs you some talent, so being, I don't think most college sports fans would stop watching their school because the talent level is a little lower, especially when the product proves to be better because you have players that stick around. I also believe that the reality is these elite kids need college sports more than college sports needs them, and they would get on board with the new world if the supposed adults in the room would just make responsible decisions and set forth a product course.

(04-23-2024 09:41 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:37 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:28 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 08:55 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-22-2024 08:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  And this, along with paying guys unlimited amounts is what will destroy college sports. The last straw will be getting rid of eligibility requirements. Why should a kid want to go pro (or since they’re all pro now, I guess we have to call it major league) if he can make more working for a college team.

Hold on, if this forces more kids to stay in college, how is that bad for college?

Because in that situation they arent staying in college for the education. They're staying for the paycheck. A college isn't supposed to run a pro sports league in addition to providing an education. Its supplemental to the primary mission of the school. Thats why players traditionally had to be students in good standing. I suspect that rule will change soon as well. And once that, and only having 4 years of eligibility are gone, college sports will begin competing against the Pros. And if a guy can make more money as a 10 year starter at Vanderbilt or SMU than he can as a third string bench warmer in the NFL or NBA, why would the guy go to the major league? There are probably colleges out there right now who would pay Taylor Heinike more than he's making in the NFL if he would play for them. Once a guy like him sues the NCAA for the opportunity to do so, I imagine that will be allowed as well.

Education hasn't been the primary motivation for plenty of kids for the last 40 years. "I aint come here to play school" Athletes provide an athlete reason to get an education, they don't go to college to get an education and happen to play sports while they are there.

I have no clue on the elimination of eligibility requirements but again, if you have players staying in college to play, how does that make college sports worse? I understand the point of view of not wanting kids to be paid, etc, but you havent explained how that makes college sports an inferior product.

This is the exact problem. It doesn't matter if kids don't value education, that is not their mission. It does matter that institutions of higher learning capitulate to that idea. Education is their mission. If a kid doesn't want to go to college because they don't value education, fine they don't go to college. Its pretty simple. As soon as Universities make education a meaningful part of the student athlete experience and expectation, then kids either decide they want to get an education, or they don't go to college.

And to answer your second question, I think the college game would be better without the players that don't have any interest in being a student and an athlete. I say clean the slate. Make college sports about college again. If that costs you some talent, so being, I don't think most college sports fans would stop watching their school because the talent level is a little lower, especially when the product proves to be better because you have players that stick around. I also believe that the reality is these elite kids need college sports more than college sports needs them, and they would get on board with the new world if the supposed adults in the room would just make responsible decisions and set forth a product course.

And this would be a perfect example of making the college athletics product worse. I understand that point of view, but if that is the type of athletics you want, there are plenty of D2 and D3 schools to watch.

The elite college athletes dont need college sports in basketball. They can go play at OTE or overseas for a season.

(04-23-2024 09:46 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:41 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:37 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:28 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 08:55 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  Hold on, if this forces more kids to stay in college, how is that bad for college?

Because in that situation they arent staying in college for the education. They're staying for the paycheck. A college isn't supposed to run a pro sports league in addition to providing an education. Its supplemental to the primary mission of the school. Thats why players traditionally had to be students in good standing. I suspect that rule will change soon as well. And once that, and only having 4 years of eligibility are gone, college sports will begin competing against the Pros. And if a guy can make more money as a 10 year starter at Vanderbilt or SMU than he can as a third string bench warmer in the NFL or NBA, why would the guy go to the major league? There are probably colleges out there right now who would pay Taylor Heinike more than he's making in the NFL if he would play for them. Once a guy like him sues the NCAA for the opportunity to do so, I imagine that will be allowed as well.

Education hasn't been the primary motivation for plenty of kids for the last 40 years. "I aint come here to play school" Athletes provide an athlete reason to get an education, they don't go to college to get an education and happen to play sports while they are there.

I have no clue on the elimination of eligibility requirements but again, if you have players staying in college to play, how does that make college sports worse? I understand the point of view of not wanting kids to be paid, etc, but you havent explained how that makes college sports an inferior product.

This is the exact problem. It doesn't matter if kids don't value education, that is not their mission. It does matter that institutions of higher learning capitulate to that idea. Education is their mission. If a kid doesn't want to go to college because they don't value education, fine they don't go to college. Its pretty simple. As soon as Universities make education a meaningful part of the student athlete experience and expectation, then kids either decide they want to get an education, or they don't go to college.

And to answer your second question, I think the college game would be better without the players that don't have any interest in being a student and an athlete. I say clean the slate. Make college sports about college again. If that costs you some talent, so being, I don't think most college sports fans would stop watching their school because the talent level is a little lower, especially when the product proves to be better because you have players that stick around. I also believe that the reality is these elite kids need college sports more than college sports needs them, and they would get on board with the new world if the supposed adults in the room would just make responsible decisions and set forth a product course.

And this would be a perfect example of making the college athletics product worse.

Not in the least. College basketball fans aren't here to see Cooper Flagg. They are here to see Duke.

(04-23-2024 09:48 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:46 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:41 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:37 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:28 AM)monarx Wrote:  Because in that situation they arent staying in college for the education. They're staying for the paycheck. A college isn't supposed to run a pro sports league in addition to providing an education. Its supplemental to the primary mission of the school. Thats why players traditionally had to be students in good standing. I suspect that rule will change soon as well. And once that, and only having 4 years of eligibility are gone, college sports will begin competing against the Pros. And if a guy can make more money as a 10 year starter at Vanderbilt or SMU than he can as a third string bench warmer in the NFL or NBA, why would the guy go to the major league? There are probably colleges out there right now who would pay Taylor Heinike more than he's making in the NFL if he would play for them. Once a guy like him sues the NCAA for the opportunity to do so, I imagine that will be allowed as well.

Education hasn't been the primary motivation for plenty of kids for the last 40 years. "I aint come here to play school" Athletes provide an athlete reason to get an education, they don't go to college to get an education and happen to play sports while they are there.

I have no clue on the elimination of eligibility requirements but again, if you have players staying in college to play, how does that make college sports worse? I understand the point of view of not wanting kids to be paid, etc, but you havent explained how that makes college sports an inferior product.

This is the exact problem. It doesn't matter if kids don't value education, that is not their mission. It does matter that institutions of higher learning capitulate to that idea. Education is their mission. If a kid doesn't want to go to college because they don't value education, fine they don't go to college. Its pretty simple. As soon as Universities make education a meaningful part of the student athlete experience and expectation, then kids either decide they want to get an education, or they don't go to college.

And to answer your second question, I think the college game would be better without the players that don't have any interest in being a student and an athlete. I say clean the slate. Make college sports about college again. If that costs you some talent, so being, I don't think most college sports fans would stop watching their school because the talent level is a little lower, especially when the product proves to be better because you have players that stick around. I also believe that the reality is these elite kids need college sports more than college sports needs them, and they would get on board with the new world if the supposed adults in the room would just make responsible decisions and set forth a product course.

And this would be a perfect example of making the college athletics product worse.

Not in the least. College basketball fans aren't here to see Cooper Flagg. They are here to see Duke.

You are crazy if you think Duke would still be at that level popularity wise without elite athletes playing at their school. Players they know they will eventually see in the NBA.

(04-23-2024 09:51 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:48 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:46 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:41 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:37 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  Education hasn't been the primary motivation for plenty of kids for the last 40 years. "I aint come here to play school" Athletes provide an athlete reason to get an education, they don't go to college to get an education and happen to play sports while they are there.

I have no clue on the elimination of eligibility requirements but again, if you have players staying in college to play, how does that make college sports worse? I understand the point of view of not wanting kids to be paid, etc, but you havent explained how that makes college sports an inferior product.

This is the exact problem. It doesn't matter if kids don't value education, that is not their mission. It does matter that institutions of higher learning capitulate to that idea. Education is their mission. If a kid doesn't want to go to college because they don't value education, fine they don't go to college. Its pretty simple. As soon as Universities make education a meaningful part of the student athlete experience and expectation, then kids either decide they want to get an education, or they don't go to college.

And to answer your second question, I think the college game would be better without the players that don't have any interest in being a student and an athlete. I say clean the slate. Make college sports about college again. If that costs you some talent, so being, I don't think most college sports fans would stop watching their school because the talent level is a little lower, especially when the product proves to be better because you have players that stick around. I also believe that the reality is these elite kids need college sports more than college sports needs them, and they would get on board with the new world if the supposed adults in the room would just make responsible decisions and set forth a product course.

And this would be a perfect example of making the college athletics product worse.

Not in the least. College basketball fans aren't here to see Cooper Flagg. They are here to see Duke.

You are crazy if you think Duke would still be at that level popularity wise without elite athletes playing at their school. Players they know they will eventually see in the NBA.

And most of those players would still need Duke. Take a poll of people who actually attend Duke games, people who actually watch college basketball before the NCAAT and I promise you the vast majority would rather see a team full of guys like Jeremy Roach, Tyrese Proctor, Mark Mitchell that stick around for four years than see a team full of Cooper Flaggs that are one and done.

You have to consider that if my hypothetical existed, there would still be a hierarchy or programs, there would still be star players (who we spend 4 years getting to know), and there would still be the same level of excitement in rooting for your school... and in my opinion there would be better teams because I firmly believe that a team full of good talent, but no generational talent, that has been together for 4 years would wipe the floor with a team full of elite freshman or a team constructed 5 minutes before the season with 7 transfers.

(04-23-2024 10:02 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:51 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:48 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:46 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:41 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  This is the exact problem. It doesn't matter if kids don't value education, that is not their mission. It does matter that institutions of higher learning capitulate to that idea. Education is their mission. If a kid doesn't want to go to college because they don't value education, fine they don't go to college. Its pretty simple. As soon as Universities make education a meaningful part of the student athlete experience and expectation, then kids either decide they want to get an education, or they don't go to college.

And to answer your second question, I think the college game would be better without the players that don't have any interest in being a student and an athlete. I say clean the slate. Make college sports about college again. If that costs you some talent, so being, I don't think most college sports fans would stop watching their school because the talent level is a little lower, especially when the product proves to be better because you have players that stick around. I also believe that the reality is these elite kids need college sports more than college sports needs them, and they would get on board with the new world if the supposed adults in the room would just make responsible decisions and set forth a product course.

And this would be a perfect example of making the college athletics product worse.

Not in the least. College basketball fans aren't here to see Cooper Flagg. They are here to see Duke.

You are crazy if you think Duke would still be at that level popularity wise without elite athletes playing at their school. Players they know they will eventually see in the NBA.

And most of those players would still need Duke. Take a poll of people who actually attend Duke games, people who actually watch college basketball before the NCAAT and I promise you the vast majority would rather see a team full of guys like Jeremy Roach, Tyrese Proctor, Mark Mitchell that stick around for four years than see a team full of Cooper Flaggs that are one and done.

You have to consider that if my hypothetical existed, there would still be a hierarchy or programs, there would still be star players (who we spend 4 years getting to know), and there would still be the same level of excitement in rooting for your school... and in my opinion there would be better teams because I firmly believe that a team full of good talent, but no generational talent, that has been together for 4 years would wipe the floor with a team full of elite freshman or a team constructed 5 minutes before the season with 7 transfers.

I doubt any of this to be honest. But, no way to prove either way.

They should have never dropped the freshman rule. That started the ball rolling.

If a kid goes to college and makes millions, enough to set them up for life and potentially for generations if they get it right, what's the issue? I don't blame the athletes at all. You get an education so you can go into the field you got a degree in to make money and work. If they make more in 4-5 years than most of us will in our entire lifetimes, more power to them. I'd argue that these athletes are going to school for the future they want, which is playing a sport to help them live a life they dream of. Pros get endorsement deals and money outside of playing, its the same as these athletes now. I'll be completely honest, I don't give a rat's behind what happens with athletes at others schools. If ODU can be successful and maintain that in this era I will be thrilled.

Taking my ODU blinders off, so I think it's running rampant in college athletics? Yes, but I also think it's very new and in its infancy. There will be regulations in place eventually, I don't think the door is wide open and will never be shut, or at least closed off a bit. However I always hated the rule about athletes eligibilty hinging on on if they get money here and there. Reggie Bush just got his heisman back, which he never should have given away. Him getting paid had nothing to do with his accomplishments on the field. Johnny Manziel got in trouble for selling autographs, I thought that was insane. Deestroying had to give up football because his youtube channel was monetized. I remember when I was at ODU some students made a Heinicke Heineken shirt and the program sent a cease and desist to the students because it could have affected his eligibility because it used his name (the first of the three letters in NIL, Name, Image, and Likeness).

(04-24-2024 10:02 AM)MonGNARch Wrote:  If a kid goes to college and makes millions, enough to set them up for life and potentially for generations if they get it right, what's the issue? I don't blame the athletes at all. You get an education so you can go into the field you got a degree in to make money and work. If they make more in 4-5 years than most of us will in our entire lifetimes, more power to them. I'd argue that these athletes are going to school for the future they want, which is playing a sport to help them live a life they dream of. Pros get endorsement deals and money outside of playing, its the same as these athletes now. I'll be completely honest, I don't give a rat's behind what happens with athletes at others schools. If ODU can be successful and maintain that in this era I will be thrilled.

Taking my ODU blinders off, so I think it's running rampant in college athletics? Yes, but I also think it's very new and in its infancy. There will be regulations in place eventually, I don't think the door is wide open and will never be shut, or at least closed off a bit. However I always hated the rule about athletes eligibilty hinging on on if they get money here and there. Reggie Bush just got his heisman back, which he never should have given away. Him getting paid had nothing to do with his accomplishments on the field. Johnny Manziel got in trouble for selling autographs, I thought that was insane. Deestroying had to give up football because his youtube channel was monetized. I remember when I was at ODU some students made a Heinicke Heineken shirt and the program sent a cease and desist to the students because it could have affected his eligibility because it used his name (the first of the three letters in NIL, Name, Image, and Likeness).

The problem, as I see it, is that the system that you discuss is great for a very very few athletes, but mostly sets up a terrible system for the thousands that are not going to make millions. It puts them in the position of moving from school to school chasing a few thousand dollars at the expense of getting an education. The problem that I have with it is that these institutions of higher learning are all to happy to accept this structure and take advantage of those thousands of kids rather than building a structure that supports them in making the most prudent decisions, which for the vast majority of them, is pursuing the best educational opportunities that are available to them.

To put it another way, the incitive structure is completely broken. Athletes are currently incentivized to treat college as their next AAU league rather than an educational opportunity and I think that is a dereliction of the mission of supposed educators.

(04-24-2024 10:07 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-24-2024 10:02 AM)MonGNARch Wrote:  If a kid goes to college and makes millions, enough to set them up for life and potentially for generations if they get it right, what's the issue? I don't blame the athletes at all. You get an education so you can go into the field you got a degree in to make money and work. If they make more in 4-5 years than most of us will in our entire lifetimes, more power to them. I'd argue that these athletes are going to school for the future they want, which is playing a sport to help them live a life they dream of. Pros get endorsement deals and money outside of playing, its the same as these athletes now. I'll be completely honest, I don't give a rat's behind what happens with athletes at others schools. If ODU can be successful and maintain that in this era I will be thrilled.

Taking my ODU blinders off, so I think it's running rampant in college athletics? Yes, but I also think it's very new and in its infancy. There will be regulations in place eventually, I don't think the door is wide open and will never be shut, or at least closed off a bit. However I always hated the rule about athletes eligibilty hinging on on if they get money here and there. Reggie Bush just got his heisman back, which he never should have given away. Him getting paid had nothing to do with his accomplishments on the field. Johnny Manziel got in trouble for selling autographs, I thought that was insane. Deestroying had to give up football because his youtube channel was monetized. I remember when I was at ODU some students made a Heinicke Heineken shirt and the program sent a cease and desist to the students because it could have affected his eligibility because it used his name (the first of the three letters in NIL, Name, Image, and Likeness).

The problem, as I see it, is that the system that you discuss is great for a very very few athletes, but mostly sets up a terrible system for the thousands that are not going to make millions. It puts them in the position of moving from school to school chasing a few thousand dollars at the expense of getting an education. The problem that I have with it is that these institutions of higher learning are all to happy to accept this structure and take advantage of those thousands of kids rather than building a structure that supports them in making the most prudent decisions, which for the vast majority of them, is pursuing the best educational opportunities that are available to them.

To put it another way, the incitive structure is completely broken. Athletes are currently incentivized to treat college as their next AAU league rather than an educational opportunity and I think that is a dereliction of the mission of supposed educators.

Thats a good way to put it. Well stated.

(04-24-2024 10:25 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(04-24-2024 10:07 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(04-24-2024 10:02 AM)MonGNARch Wrote:  If a kid goes to college and makes millions, enough to set them up for life and potentially for generations if they get it right, what's the issue? I don't blame the athletes at all. You get an education so you can go into the field you got a degree in to make money and work. If they make more in 4-5 years than most of us will in our entire lifetimes, more power to them. I'd argue that these athletes are going to school for the future they want, which is playing a sport to help them live a life they dream of. Pros get endorsement deals and money outside of playing, its the same as these athletes now. I'll be completely honest, I don't give a rat's behind what happens with athletes at others schools. If ODU can be successful and maintain that in this era I will be thrilled.

Taking my ODU blinders off, so I think it's running rampant in college athletics? Yes, but I also think it's very new and in its infancy. There will be regulations in place eventually, I don't think the door is wide open and will never be shut, or at least closed off a bit. However I always hated the rule about athletes eligibilty hinging on on if they get money here and there. Reggie Bush just got his heisman back, which he never should have given away. Him getting paid had nothing to do with his accomplishments on the field. Johnny Manziel got in trouble for selling autographs, I thought that was insane. Deestroying had to give up football because his youtube channel was monetized. I remember when I was at ODU some students made a Heinicke Heineken shirt and the program sent a cease and desist to the students because it could have affected his eligibility because it used his name (the first of the three letters in NIL, Name, Image, and Likeness).

The problem, as I see it, is that the system that you discuss is great for a very very few athletes, but mostly sets up a terrible system for the thousands that are not going to make millions. It puts them in the position of moving from school to school chasing a few thousand dollars at the expense of getting an education. The problem that I have with it is that these institutions of higher learning are all to happy to accept this structure and take advantage of those thousands of kids rather than building a structure that supports them in making the most prudent decisions, which for the vast majority of them, is pursuing the best educational opportunities that are available to them.

To put it another way, the incitive structure is completely broken. Athletes are currently incentivized to treat college as their next AAU league rather than an educational opportunity and I think that is a dereliction of the mission of supposed educators.

Thats a good way to put it. Well stated.

"Old Dominion University will be recognized nationally and internationally as a forward-focused metropolitan university with a collaborative and innovative approach to education..."

Our own mission statement and I would bet most other universities also mention Education in their mission statement. I've never been in favor for paying student athletes. Just my unpopular opinion. Now more than ever with transfers, how many hours and resources are wasted on players that likely wont even graduate from our university.