Originally Posted by Hyde Park Flyer
Flyer98, I was specifically saying that there are players who play for the love of the game. That doesn’t exclude the possibility of having the pro dream. This isn’t exclusive to diii or club teams. Walk-ons don’t have a realistic shot at being paid to play. They may have an outside shot at earning a scholarship at best. Still, they play a game that makes their education significantly harder. They would not do that if they weren’t playing for the love of the game.
You should not confuse the love of the game with not caring about results. Part of the love of the game is the love of competition. It’s odd that people believe an 18 year old high school player will play with no expectation of future money or scholarship but a 19 year old plays only for money, fame, and notoriety. It’s odd that people believe that money is the sole goal while the Olympics still has competitors that make very little if anything in their sport. Playing and winning is a powerful motivator.
Nothing here should be seen as suggesting that athletes should not be able to receive some form of payment. I do think that there has to be some allowance for NIL earnings. I’ve long held this belief. I also believe it’s reasonable to monitor, manage, and limit any payments.
Posted via Mobile Device
|
Those are all very good points but I guess in my mind, the walk on, the DII guy, the adult rec league stuff are examples of people that don't really have a choice but to play for love of the game. Those guys are still going to play college ball because they love the competition, and maybe alot of the walkons will get to play alot more (or even become scholarship athletes) if the other guys go somewhere else. College basketball might actually revert to what it looked like in the 60s and 70s when UD was a premier program.
I am not saying that guys who get paid don't love the game. Obviously if you can get paid to do what you love that is best of both worlds. But if we expect kids who could get paid to play, to "just play for the love of the game" then I think it is fair to expect the same from the schools, the TV networks, etc... Just break even and donate all the rest, or get rid of PSLs and make season tix $150/yr. Sell a beer for $2. Don't charge CBS $2,000,000,000.00 for the TV rights and so on and so on with stuff that will never happen. Everywhere you look everyone is maximizing profit but the people who actually have the unique skill that makes the whole thing go should just play for love.
Also, I view the NIL stuff as completely separate from the basketball. Players are being paid for their (local) celebrity not for playing basketball and to that extent I don't think it can be regulated. The fact that a bunch of principals got together and voted on whether or not a group of people should be able to make money off their own image and likeness is illustrative of the problem. In what universe is that something that a high school administrator should decide? I can see a future where kids will play AAU or club ball exclusively and high school sports suffer the same fate and many fear college sports are going to suffer. I can remember when I was in high school kids that were really good at tennis or golf or soccer all had private coaches (for tennis and golf) and played on club teams (for soccer) but not on the high school teams.
Will there be kids and families that make bad decisions and get taken advantage of? Sure. Taylor Swift's parents should be jailed for letting her sign the contract she signed at 14 or for at least not getting her a better attorney, (that is hyperbole, of course parents are going to do the best they can), but we wouldn't think about telling her or any other prodigy that they have to go to college and major in music for a year (and play concerts that the school would charge for but for which they would not be paid), before they could become a professional. Do you think she doesn't love music?
I think if we didn't all love college basketball and know what this is likely to do to college basketball, this would be a no brainer of a discussion. As was mentioned, nobody seems to have a problem with child actors, and I really don't see what the difference is from the standpoint of the actor/player.
