Do all these kids nowadays have agents? This era of recruiting is so different. Everything is now about how much money I can get. I personally don't want those type of kids. UK is soooo much bigger than just a check. You come to UK to build, compete and showcase yourself to the basketball universe.
Agents
- Thread starter sosoblue
- Start date
Yeah they do, some seem like friends but the bigger players have legit agencies now. If they have contracts you better have a good one.
You want compete with this mindset we have to adapt "the times they are changin" money is king
They getting paid just to visit for a day, doubles if they spend the weekend.
If you don’t want “those type of kids” at UK then you might as well just quit being a UK fan. Because nowadays you can’t compete without em. That old mentality of kids playing for school and state is dead. If you want top flight talent you have to accept that you’re just hiring mercenaries on the take.
I don’t like it either, but it is what it is. Either accept it or find a new hobby.
This is such a simplistic view. Do you work your job for free at a company where you fo your job just because you want to be there? The original compensation was a scholarship, then it was a scholarship and exposure, and now it’s exposure and compensation.
Money is not everything. The top notch guys are trying to get to the nba and realize there are only a few schools that out pros in on a regular basis. To some tradition still matters. I feel like I read JQ dreamed of playing for Kentucky.
My 5 year old grandson has an agent trying to negotiate an extra doughnut for breakfast
No it's not a simplistic view. The purpose of a scholarship was a free education in exchange for providing some sort of skillset. That's what lost here. This was NEVER about kids being robbed of a paycheck for playing sports at an educational entity. Don't even try to suggest that it was. Someone other than the NBA needs to create a separate league for these athletes that aren't interested in competing in exchange for an education.
In today's world the dollar is more valuable than the education
Then go somewhere else and leave the schools alone.
It’s still a cluster
Done some local stuff with Alabama representatives and a lot of em are their buddies from school or something.
They really need to get some organization and oversight so kids aren’t getting taken advantage of.
Done some local stuff with Alabama representatives and a lot of em are their buddies from school or something.
They really need to get some organization and oversight so kids aren’t getting taken advantage of.
Same folks still thinking a scholarship is a form of payment. It is not. A scholarship is a benefit.
Imagine telling our servicemen & service women "hey we aren't paying you actual money on the 1st & 15th anymore, since we are giving you free tuition/ post 9/11 Montgomery GI-bill.
Imagine telling our servicemen & service women "hey we aren't paying you actual money on the 1st & 15th anymore, since we are giving you free tuition/ post 9/11 Montgomery GI-bill.
Money has always been part of major college sports. Now it's more 'legal'.
That’s an outdated mindset.
If we’re offering tradition and other schools are offering more money, our tradition ain’t winning many battles.
We can adapt and evolve or piss and moan about a bygone era that’s never returning. The choice is ours.
If we’re offering tradition and other schools are offering more money, our tradition ain’t winning many battles.
We can adapt and evolve or piss and moan about a bygone era that’s never returning. The choice is ours.
Wrong. You create it. The compensation now is money vs a scholarship as it was originally. I didn’t suggest anything. No one goes to work for free.
They weren't going to work for free, lol. Or are you suggesting it was "free" for them because education really isn't their cup of tea? If so, then they really belong in college as an athlete, on principal alone.
No, the purpose of an athletics scholarship was to try to cut down on illegal payments to players. Prior to 1956, full athletics scholarships were banned by the NCAA because they said athletics scholarships meant athletes were no longer amateurs.
The NCAA begrudgingly allowed schools to begin offering full scholarships because they thought players would stop accepting illegal payments from boosters and schools if they were compensated with a scholarship instead.
From the very start of college athletics, it has been about winning, and schools and boosters have been paying players. It’s naive to suggest that athletics were once pure and all about an education in exchange for a scholarship. That’s pretty much never been true for the top sports at big schools.
Only to us. To a kid thats making millions, we're just another seat at the negotiating table.
Source: Gemini
The original purpose of college athletic scholarships was primarily to attract and retain talented student-athletes by offering financial assistance, which was necessary as college athletics became more competitive and professionalized, according to Sports History Network. Before the widespread adoption of athletic scholarships, schools used various informal, and sometimes questionable, methods to incentivize athlete enrollment. Scholarships, in this context, served as a more regulated and standardized way to provide financial aid, ensuring a level playing field and helping schools compete for athletes.
I don't necessarily buy that money is everything. It's a multitude of things that make a kid decide on where to go, and trust me, as an attorney, and someone who negotiates contracts, money is about half the equation. It seems like 1) money, 2) playing time and therefore 3) exposure, and 4) best fit and vibe factor into where you go. I am sure there are kids who have taken less money to get more playing time, or because the offense a certain coach runs works better with his skill set.
Looks like your Gemini source doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
The decision to allow full scholarships in 1956 was part of the changes brought about after the NCAA went away from the Sanity Code in 1951 and appointed Walter Byers as Executive Director. Scholarships were implemented as a way to cut down on illegal payments to players.
I’d suggest you do some reading about this rather than relying on what a poorly designed AI product tells you.
That seems like a booming place to be if I were a young lawyers, so many kids in the portal in all the major sports, no way there are enough agents.
The initial premise of NIL was for the right reasons but somehow it’s become this nba type business and oh yeah there’s academics involved too. Not sure the legal solution to where the game and college sports get back to the original thought, but it’s like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube……..good luck.
There are a number of well researched and sourced books you can read about the history of college sports, the history of the NCAA and the evolution of the concept of amateurism (e.g., Sack & Staurowsky, Zimbalist, Byers).
You can also search through various legal journals to find numerous articles analyzing issues like amateurism or antitrust law applicability to the NCAA, which discuss what was said by the schools and folks like Walter Byers at the time athletics scholarships were made legal in 1956.
Sack and Staurowsky also summarized some of this research in the amicus brief they submitted to the Supreme Court during the Alston case. Per page 10:
For fifty years after enacting its first set of bylaws in 1906, the NCAA forbade athletic scholarships, called “grants-in-aid,” deeming them “pay” that violated traditional amateur norms. Pet. App. 141a-142a. However, in the absence of an enforcement regime, many schools sought to gain a competitive advantage by compensating players under the table, giving them make-work jobs, or providing them loans that did not require repayment. In 1956, after tolerating unauthorized payments for decades, the NCAA finally permitted schools to offer grants-in-aid covering tuition, fees, room, board, and incidental costs. O’Bannon II, 802 F.3d at 1054.
What the NCAA previously said was a blatant violation of amateur ideals became part of the fabric of college sport, with schools providing each scholarship athlete a grant-in-aid package that, depending on the institution, totaled tens of thousands of dollars every year. For the rest of the 20th century, the NCAA tinkered with the grant-in-aid as an acceptable form of pay, for instance eliminating incidental expenses in 1976, Pet. App. 69a, and establishing a Student Assistance Fund in 1991 to help athletes with exceptional financial needs.
College athletics right now is about as close to how things were in the beginning as it’s ever been.
Yale used to keep a $100,000 slush fund to pay football players. That was back in the 1880’s.
$100K in the 1880s was the equivalent of several million today. And college football in 1880 was a primitive club type thing played by only 16 schools in the entire country.
So unless you can provide a link, color me skeptical of this claim.
I provided a list of authors whose books you can read in one of my posts above. That’s where it comes from.
In terms of whether you think college football was a big thing back then, Woodrow Wilson’s quote from 1890 drives home the point. He said “Princeton is noted in this wide world for three things: football, baseball and collegiate instruction.”
Football was big. By the late 1880s, the annual Yale Princeton game drew crowds of 40,000 in New York and revenue of over $25,000. Thanksgiving day church services in New York City were ended early to accommodate the game. It was more than just a primitive club thing.
Page 3 of Gorsuch’s opinion in Alston case references how big college sports were at that point.