Schofield Tweet

#426
#426
Would Admiral be in the NBA if he hadn't played college ball? Would Grant? Not all players can make that jump to the pros, and college gives them the ability to focus on their craft. They're not just getting educated academically, but in their sport as well. Sure, they can't work while in school, but most of their needs are being taken care of. They also don't have to work multiple jobs to pay for school and the basic necessities of life.

NBA needs to go back to letting kids that are good enough out of HS into the league, and those who aren't can go to college to prepare for their future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lefteye
#427
#427
Weezer said:
Would Admiral be in the NBA if he hadn't played college ball? Would Grant? Not all players can make that jump to the pros, and college gives them the ability to focus on their craft. They're not just getting educated academically, but in their sport as well. Sure, they can't work while in school, but most of their needs are being taken care of. They also don't have to work multiple jobs to pay for school and the basic necessities of life.

NBA needs to go back to letting kids that are good enough out of HS into the league, and those who aren't can go to college to prepare for their future.
Click to expand...

On this point, I agree. If you can play in the NBA at 18 then you should be able to play. It's not like football which is a much more physical sport. Barring these athletes from immediate entry serves no real purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#428
#428
Weezer said:
Would Admiral be in the NBA if he hadn't played college ball? Would Grant? Not all players can make that jump to the pros, and college gives them the ability to focus on their craft. They're not just getting educated academically, but in their sport as well. Sure, they can't work while in school, but most of their needs are being taken care of. They also don't have to work multiple jobs to pay for school and the basic necessities of life.

NBA needs to go back to letting kids that are good enough out of HS into the league, and those who aren't can go to college to prepare for their future.
Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with Admiral Schofield using his name and image to make money?
 
#429
#429
zjcvols said:
What does any of that have to do with Admiral Schofield using his name and image to make money?
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that most players benefit more than the "woe is me, I can't have a job" mentality they project.
 
#430
#430
Weezer said:
Just pointing out that most players benefit more than the "woe is me, I can't have a job" mentality they project.
Click to expand...

Again, what does have to do with Schofield being able to make money off his name and image?
 
#431
#431
sbm362 said:
Not a good look.
Click to expand...

What's not a good look? Grown ass men telling young men they should be content with what they had, not what they deserved?

Everybody claims to like the merit system in sports until we start talking about money. Then people become "everybody gets a trophy" types. There is no reason that Schofield should get the same benefits that Tyler Summit got, unless you're advocating communism.
 
#432
#432
zjcvols said:
Again, what does have to do with Schofield being able to make money off his name and image?
Click to expand...

Is it worth inviting more corruption and confusion into the game? Do we want boosters to be able to legally buy players in the name of commercialism? For most college players, what is more beneficial to them? Making money of your name and likeness or the ability to have a full ride scholarship to a university to play sports? The majority of players are not ready for the NBA after high school. They go to college programs where they are built up and taken care of more than the average student. Connect the dots, Z. The reason they would be able to make money off of name and likeness ties directly into what the university puts into them.
 
#433
#433
n_huffhines said:
What's not a good look? Grown ass men telling young men they should be content with what they had, not what they deserved?

Everybody claims to like the merit system in sports until we start talking about money. Then people become "everybody gets a trophy" types. There is no reason that Schofield should get the same benefits that Tyler Summit got, unless you're advocating communism.
Click to expand...
They didn't get the same benefits. Admiral was on a full ride athletic scholarship. Tyler was a walk on.
 
#434
#434
Weezer said:
Is it worth inviting more corruption and confusion into the game? Do we want boosters to be able to legally buy players in the name of commercialism? For most college players, what is more beneficial to them? Making money of your name and likeness or the ability to have a full ride scholarship to a university to play sports? The majority of players are not ready for the NBA after high school. They go to college programs where they are built up and taken care of more than the average student. Connect the dots, Z. The reason they would be able to make money off of name and likeness ties directly into what the university puts into them.
Click to expand...

Sure I’m perfectly fine with players making more money off their name and image. I don’t care if they are treated well already. They should have that ability. How would you feel if you were performing well at your company and you asked for a raise and they told you “Well, you are already taken care why do you need more?” Wouldn’t make you happy would it?
 
#435
#435
zjcvols said:
Sure I’m perfectly fine with players making more money off their name and image. I don’t care if they are treated well already. They should have that ability. How would you feel if you were performing well at your company and you asked for a raise and they told you “Well, you are already taken care why do you need more?” Wouldn’t make you happy would it?
Click to expand...
School is not a job. They're not playing college basketball to make a living. You're smarter than making such a stupid comparison.
 
#436
#436
Weezer said:
School is not a job. They're not playing college basketball to make a living. You're smarter than making such a stupid comparison.
Click to expand...

But it works the same way. How come it’s fair to restrict their financial abilities to make money off their own name and likeness when a biology major can?
 
#438
#438
zjcvols said:
But it works the same way. How come it’s fair to restrict their financial abilities to make money off their own name and likeness when a biology major can?
Click to expand...
Are biology majors in demand when it comes to advertisement? Are they in danger of being bought and paid for?
 
#439
#439
Weezer said:
School is not a job. They're not playing college basketball to make a living. You're smarter than making such a stupid comparison.
Click to expand...

You're just saying this is how it is, not giving reasons why it should be this way. Why shouldn't they play college hoops to make a living?
 
#441
#441
BigOrangeMojo said:
How come? Rick Barnes made money due to him, the assistants made money due to him, the school made money due to him, the SEC made money due to him, ESPN made money due to him, the NCAA made money due to him, the State of Tennessee made money due to him, etc......
Click to expand...
Good point. Let's shut down college athletics.
 
#442
#442
n_huffhines said:
Ok, pick any low impact scholarship player and the point remains the same
Click to expand...
They start off on equal footing in college. The difference comes in one being able to advance to the NBA and the other having to use his degree.
 
#443
#443
n_huffhines said:
You're just saying this is how it is, not giving reasons why it should be this way. Why shouldn't they play college hoops to make a living?
Click to expand...
Paying college athletes will kill competition. Get used to seeing Vanderbilt or Harvard as NCAA football champioins
 
#444
#444
n_huffhines said:
You're just saying this is how it is, not giving reasons why it should be this way. Why shouldn't they play college hoops to make a living?
Click to expand...
If they want to come up with a stipend the school pays them, fine, but that's not what's being talked about. It's not simply paying players. It's paying certain players, and creating an opportunity for boosters to legally buy commitments. You talk as if this is some kind of even playing field, but it's not. Not everyone on the team will make money, let alone even money. There will be a hierarchy created, and that in no way benefits what is supposed to be a team sport.
 
#446
#446
zjcvols said:
But it works the same way. How come it’s fair to restrict their financial abilities to make money off their own name and likeness when a biology major can?
Click to expand...

I keep seeing you make this argument, but what do you mean? Biology majors aren’t exempt from NCAA regulations. And athletes don’t major in their sport.
 
#447
#447
Weezer said:
Are biology majors in demand when it comes to advertisement? Are they in danger of being bought and paid for?
Click to expand...

If a biology major at Tennessee made a major discovery, then that person could then use their name and image to profit. They could charge appearance fees. Just because an athlete is more in demand than a biology major for potential advertisers should not matter. They both should have the same opportunities.
 
#448
#448
It's not an employee/employer relationship. Never the less, certain rules are in place in order to be part of the program. I don't think that members of the dance team or cheerleaders are allowed to have visible tattoos in their programs. Maybe the LVs as well.

My only issue is that this opens the door to transform college sports, especially football, from from amateur competition to minor league professional sports. It will be even more money driven. IMO the biggest changes do need to be made with how the revenue is being distributed. Way too much has gone into Fulmer's pocket, Butch's pocket, Dooley's pocket, etc. and more should go into player welfare (long term health care primarily) and when there are surpluses more amenities for fans and school facilities for everybody. It's fine to allow SAs to make something off of their likeness IF it wouldn't be corrupted by boosters going after a competitive advantage (by buying players).
 
#449
#449
Weezer said:
If they want to come up with a stipend the school pays them, fine, but that's not what's being talked about. It's not simply paying players. It's paying certain players, and creating an opportunity for boosters to legally buy commitments. You talk as if this is some kind of even playing field, but it's not. Not everyone on the team will make money, let alone even money. There will be a hierarchy created, and that in no way benefits what is supposed to be a team sport.
Click to expand...

So you’re against capitalism? There’s already a hierarchy in team sports lol
 
#450
#450
Jimmy Football said:
I keep seeing you make this argument, but what do you mean? Biology majors aren’t exempt from NCAA regulations. And athletes don’t major in their sport.
Click to expand...

Because being able to make money off your name and image is something every American has the ability to do and not be punished for it as long as they are within the laws of the United States. NCAA athletes don’t get that right and it’s simply incorrect.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top