M FB players worth 470,000
Basically positing what if college players got the same deal as pros' CBA, which seems unlikely to happen. Maybe this is only useful as a gauge of each program's revenue, in which case, it must be said that Dave Brandon is good at that part.
September 26th, 2013 at 10:43 PM ^
Texas sure isn't getting alotta bang for their buck
September 26th, 2013 at 11:01 PM ^
Edit: please ignore me.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:01 AM ^
Im going with the Delany ideology. Honestly The University of Michigan is an academic institutuion. I can name thousands of players from Ohio, Penn st, Notre Dame, or any other major University that didnt go pro, but benefeted from their association with said school. I live in columbus and honestly every former buckeye is beloved. If you need a job after school just bust out your proof you played at Ohio and bam your just about in anywhere with more leverage than most. So go ahead and do the IMG thing, semi pro and we will see it sink quickly as the kids who do participate realize that NFL money isnt guranteed and there opportunity to play and develop themselves in college was wasted. Eventually these kids will see that the opportunity of an education and the weight attending a school like michigan holds in the professional world. Delany is spot on and knows that they hold the cards.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:18 AM ^
pro athletes and college is mistaken. Colege revenue is generated (mainly) by the love of the school, the alumni base, school rivalries, and the atmosphere at college games, which is unique in sports. None of those factors have one thing to do with the players.
I'm not arguing against compensation, as I'm for giving more to players for spending money so there is less temptation to take outside cash, and certain star players that sell uniforms should get some cut of that to be held in a fund until after they leave. But that's where it stops for me. And the idea of players that get treated like kings on campus and aftwrwards, while they receive the equivalent of 50k a year in free education, medical, room and board, food and travel for being there, having a union is ludicrous.
September 27th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^
I't way more than 50K per year that is spent on student athletes. In the BIG the avarege spent on players was 116K in 2010. http://deadspin.com/5976391/sec-schools-spend-163931-per-athlete-and-other-ways-the-ncaa-is-a-bonfire-for-your-money
September 28th, 2013 at 12:49 AM ^
Really? They just harvest the love in the stadium and sell that? You don't think it's TV revenue, ticket sales, and merchandise that's generating the revenue? But you're right that it has nothing to do with the players. That's why Texas A&M doesn't make plenty of money selling Manziel jerseys. Doesn't happen. Nope.
September 26th, 2013 at 10:50 PM ^
September 26th, 2013 at 10:59 PM ^
September 26th, 2013 at 11:28 PM ^
Yes, because Stephen Ross did not donate millions upon millions of dollars to the University recenty. Plenty of "normal" grads bring a lot of return for the university. However, yes, we don't bring in Engineering, Business, LSA, Pre-Medical degress, etc. for the same reason we hand out scholarships to football or basketball players. The skills and experience they bring to the University is quite different. As you say, there definitely deserves to be a more equitable distribution of the money their play brings in. However, as to the previous poster's point, football players at Holfstra, Montana, and Delaware, etc. bring in significantly less money into their universities. Plenty of schools or their independent athletic programs do not rake in nearly as much money as Michigan and the programs are still handing out significant scholarships. Although I generally agree with your overall point, I think a bigger focus of the criticism should be on how these academic institutions and fan-bases treat the players. If the idea is going to be a free education, the focus should be placed on this being an academic experience and not as an athletic experience. Often, this is where the process fails as players are steered into remedial courses or professors craft special class requirements around the athletes schedules. And to be fair, many athletes don't really look upon their time at the school as an academic experience but rather an extension of their previous success. Nonetheless, if the point is the compensation comes through academics, the NCAA and universities should put their money where their mouths are (obviously not going to happen). Clearly there is a difference between an engineering student on scholarship versus a football player on scholarship; he/she is encouraged to excel academically in order to bring greater returns for the unversity, whether scholarly or through tangible reinvestments (of returns in the professional field: financially or prestige-wise), whereas the foobtall player/athlete is encouraged to succeed earlier to bring more immediate returns to the University. The criticism should be the University (and all others) are acting in its own interest at the cost to athletes: an engineering degree is more stable long-term than an athlete's general interest degree without any focus on a career path. However, similar things could be said about the general LSA student population. In sum, you're both correct, but far more complex picture.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:10 AM ^
It is not an easy topic and surely one that fans and the schools cannot be one-sided on based on the well articulated post you just wrote!....its tough, i feel that outright paying the players opens up a pandora's box of future problems with certain schools ($EC) that would pay their plays nearly as much as pro's...so i don't agree with that idea as a quick fix, but i definitely agree that the players should have an increased living stipend, how much and how to work it out correctly so it is as fair as possible is a whole other topic and one that will have some gray area
September 27th, 2013 at 8:17 AM ^
This was too long and I didn't read (and this is long so its okay if you don't)...but you can't fight the argument that S-As don't bring in money and profile for the university. You also can't fight that they are "normal" students.
You CAN fight whether you think they should get paid...no good answer there, but the way that you started your novel, completely off base.
I was just in another thread where they were joking about Will Campbell jumping on the hood of a car. A "normal" kid doesn't make national news for being a college student and doing something dumb.
Also, without athletics...Michigan is not an attractive University for the a lot of the people involved with the University (student, faculty, staff, etc.) It's a FACT that football alone brings universities money, students, etc. So maybe Michigan isn't an institution for Mr. Ross to invest in if it doesn't have athletics. Or maybe it is, but how many Michigan's are there? Michigan...Northwestern....Stanford...Vanderbilt...I mean it's only a handful. There are FAR more universities that wouldn't be recognized at all without athletics.
Why do you think there is such a rush for these shit teams to add D1 football? It's not to be competitive and they lose a SHIT ton of money every year. But it helps the profile of the University. It helps them attract students, it helps them secure donors, it helps with publicity.
Don't limit the impact of Boise St. football or Gonzaga/VCU basketball...Look at what happened to FGCU after ONE March Maddness run. The science department didn't do that for the University, 15 guys and a few coaches with an orange ball did.
September 27th, 2013 at 9:07 AM ^
with your argument, Mr. Yost...yes sports team do add to a universitie's profile, but schools like UM, Standord, Vandy and NW would all be doing just fine with their massive endowments without sports and would not skip a beat...UM is a public research facility thats main goals are to promote academics and build future leaders in all it's fields....athletics do play a big role to alums and students alike, we all enjoy tailgaiting and sports to bring us together as a community...but to suggest that these schools somewhat need sports is just not true, we need these schools to produce new medicines and better ways and means of living a good life
September 27th, 2013 at 9:38 AM ^
well said.
Many schools don't need big time cfb or bball. The one's that do to keep afloat are probably not that great of schools to begin with.
someone mentioned Baylor and RGIII doing so much for that school.
well guess what Baylor is a fine academic school that has done just fine its entire history. Just like John Hopkins, Ric, Wash U St louis, Tulane, Fordham..etc..etc None of these schools have revenue sports to speak of. There are 100s more.
September 27th, 2013 at 9:52 AM ^
Chicago's a good case study: (1) you can compare the periods before and after athletics were de-emphasized, and (2) there's a useful comparison with Northwestern, a similar school that chose the other path.
It's not at all clear to me that it's hurt the school, financially or otherwise. For every Pat Ryan that loves him some football, there's a Crown or a Prtizker that couldn't care less.
They've even found ways to fund a full athletic program. Non-scholarship, of course, but pretty much everything's available to students that want to play.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^
were not brought into the B1G fold due to football/sports prowess...academic/research criteria were the determining factors. I'm not foolish enough to think east coast coverage and recruiting of talent was overlooked, but this whole 'give players what they deserve' conversation is getting ridiculous. IF ATHLETES FEEL AS THOUGH UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THEM STOP PLAYING SPORTS
~former college athlete.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
What sport did you play? How good of a player were you? And where did you play? This will help me in determining how valid your opinion is.
Thanks.
Even if you played at a major program, but were a cross-country runner or something or even if you played a revenue sport but rode the bench for 4-5 years, of course you feel like you weren't taken advantage of -- YOU WEREN'T.
Manziel, to use an example, is plastered all over every single sports media outlet and media outlets that aren't sporting related. He's one of the biggest superstars in American sports. Of course he's going to feel like his cut of the pie should be bigger.
Schools making direct payments to the players is never going to work. If you allow players to make money on the free market -- whether it's through an endorsement deal or signing autographs or whatever -- you solve most of the problems. The chance is there for everyone. If the market deems you to be worth more than what your scholarship is, then fine get your cut. Most everyone else will be left unchanged. You get rid of the Cam Newton, Reggie Bush problems. The players who think they're worth more get compensated and the players who aren't still have their scholarships. If you don't like it at that point, you have no one to blame but yourself. It's capitalism and it works.
As far as the whole "they're 'student-athletes' and we don't want them concentrating on this sort of stuff, focus on your studies" argument, cut me a break. I just listened to Teddy Bridgewater do an interview on the Dan Patrick show -- if he has time for that in the middle of the season and school year, there's time to pretend to sip some Gatorade or whatever in the offseason.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
If you allow players to make money on the free market -- whether it's through an endorsement deal or signing autographs or whatever -- you solve most of the problems.
That's not how the capitalism I was part of worked. We weren't free to profit on the side from our relationship with our employer--we were required to refuse (and report) any offers of non-nominal gifts from customers or business partners, we couldn't endorse products if the endorsement even implicitly involved our corporate position or relationship. Get paid to write an article in a journal with your corporate title on there? Money goes to the company. Get offered a speaking fee for a lecture? Same.
If we wanted to make money on the free market, we had to first sever our corporate ties and be on the free market. But the moment a player does that, he isn't worth squat.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^
So players are employees? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of your point? If you want to apply an employer-employee relationship with athletes, you're opening up a bigger pandoras box. You wanna give them workers comp now too?
Ya you had a fiduciary duty to act in the corporations best interests, do you want to apply that same duty to athletes? If you were producing stuff in a corporate journal and constantly bringing in recognition to the corporation, you would either get a bump up in pay from the company or ask for one. If refused, you could go get paid elsewhere. Players don't have that opportunity. Shit if the coach who recruits the player up and leaves, they can't play elsewhere without wasting a year of their lives, how is that fair?
Your company had these rules in place because they didn't want competition -- they don't want their bottom line hurt. If you make that analgous to college athletic departments, is that what you really want them to be about? Isn't that what your type bemoans -- the entitlement, the money, the lack of care for the institution that the athletics are supposed to serve?
September 27th, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^
The player/employee equivalence is implied in the position that players should be paid their market-clearing value. I'm pointing out that even if you grant that equivalence, which would seem to mean giving up the entire argument from the start, you still don't get players free to profit from their relationship with the school by accepting endorsements and booster payouts.
A lot of your argument is a straw man. I'm not arguing that playes aren't wronged in any way by the current system--of course players should have more freedom to move when their situation materially changes, like a coaching change (although I note that that's apparently a minority position around here, given the reaction to Carr when he told his players to take some time to think it through but if they really wanted to move he'd sign their papers). And they are already free to go play professionally in the CFL, if they want.
September 27th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
Do you pay starters the same as nonstarters? Stars the same as role-players? What about benchwarmers? Do they even get paid? Do players renegotiate their deals each season, based on prior performance? How does it all work under your plan? (I don't mean this combatively - I'm really interested in the answers.)
I think this is a thorny issue - and i liked a suggestion by John U. Bacon (on some interview with some ___-wing magazine) that football just set up a minor league so the system evolves like baseball/hockey. You want to get paid? Go play in a meaningful NFL Developmental League where your focus can be 100% football and you can get paid for your efforts. You want to represent a school and all the perqs that come with that (like a free education and the networking benefits)? Great.
September 27th, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^
I've stated repeatedly I don't think players should get paid from the school's but notions of amatuerism should get lifted. If Pepsi wants to pay Tebow, let them.
September 27th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
I'm not sure I see the practical distinction. Nike, not Oregon, will pay Oregon players. Aon, not Northwestern, will pay NW players. OSU players can all get no-show jobs and perqs from Victoria's Secret. Money that would have gone from those firms and their executives to the schools will now go to the players; the net effect is the same as the schools paying them directly.
September 27th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^
Why would they get no-show jobs? Think of it as signing an endorsement deal -- model in an Express catalog or something. Or shit, even if they got a no-show job, who cares? It's not like we don't have alums and boosters to offer the same to our players. And it's not going to go to each player -- ideally, if the firm is smart, they're paying the players that are worth it. Back up long snapper isn't getting a 500K paycheck.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:01 PM ^
I'm just not clear why you're opposed to schools paying players, but in favor of this. Maybe I'm being obtuse but I don't see the difference. Is it that the schools would be required to give everyone the same paycheck (that's sort of implied by the last two sentences)? I'm not sure that's necessarily the case--you could let the schools pay whatever they thought a particular player is worth.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:05 PM ^
Where is the school going to get the money from? Not to mention you run into federal laws and regulations. I just think this a neater more equitable system. You solve the problem of the 1% or so who actually are more valuable than their scholarships indicate their worth -- no more Reggie Bush bringing down sanctions on CURRENT USC players -- and very little else changes in my mind.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^
This makes sense-you get around Title IX if the money goes through the school's corporate benefactor instead of the school itself.
It's a plan. D1 athletics will lose me if it goes this route, but it's a plan.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:44 PM ^
I mean not necessairly. It doesn't have to be the school's corporate benefactor. I don't know that Pepsi and Michigan have any special relationship. If Denard or Tebow or Young or whoever was deemed popular enough that paying them would be a good marketing move by Pepsi, I don't see who it hurts.
Why didn't D1 athletics lose you when it started monetizing itself? Do you still watch the TOSTITOS Fiesta Bowl. I just don't get the logical inconsistencies.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:55 PM ^
Unlike you I'm pretty sure the endorsement field will be dominated by booster-types like Knight and Wexner and Ryan, and not arms-length transactions.
D1 athletics has been losing me steadily. When it becomes clear that the national championship is being played between Nike and Colonial Bancorp I suspect I will lose my allegiance altogether.
There's still my D3 allegiances and that's where I'd probably turn. I'm not so vain as to imagine I'd be missed.
September 29th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
"You solve the problem of the 1% or so who actually are more valuable than their scholarships indicate their worth.."
That option is already there. Manziel, or anyone else who thinks that endorsements are worth more than their scholarship, can drop the scholarship and take the endorsement money tomorrow.
What you can't have is players getting bought by boosters through "endorsement deals" and then playing NCAA football. That would destroy the game.
The players have to choose, just like players in any market: do they want to take endorsement money, or do they want to play NCAA sports?
September 27th, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^
Thanks for the quick response. There's been a ton of verbiage on the blog on this topic, so I haven't (and won't) read it all. There's just too much, and a bunch of it is shrill. (Not yours.) A few quick follow-up questions:
What if a company that gets no fair return on their investment (say a certain glass company in OH) wants to pay TPeezy? Or T. Boone Pickens wants to pay some kid $1M to pay at OK State?
Is it just the fair market value for endorsements? Or can individuals sponsor players at their favored university? Also, can they use Michigan gear while advertising? Can they use their affiliation with Michigan in any other way?
September 27th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^
"What if a company that gets no fair return on their investment (say a certain glass company in OH) wants to pay TPeezy? Or T. Boone Pickens wants to pay some kid $1M to pay at OK State?"
If I'm understanding what you're asking, I'm guessing they're going to have to decide whether or not to continue that relationship. Maybe there's a procedural safeguard into that contract that if the company doesn't realize X% of net return from this, contract is void. Not really sure how these contracts work.
"Is it just the fair market value for endorsements? Or can individuals sponsor players at their favored university? Also, can they use Michigan gear while advertising? Can they use their affiliation with Michigan in any other way?"
I'd be fine limiting to FMV for endorsements. I think it'd be a little bit easier/less shady to police these sorts of relationships. I would say no to the Michigan gear front/affiliation. I usually don't see pro-players use their affiliations and I'm assuming this is because they'd be violating their liscencing agreements with other entities. Though if say Addidas wanted to do a seperate spot for a certain player and Michigan got a cut and didn't mind, I see no reason why not.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^
I'm not sure i agree with you, but thanks for considering the issues and for the thoughtful responses.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^
College football would not miss one single beat, and that minor league would be the equivalent, on TV, to the Arena league--meaning no one would watch. Another point that reinforces mine that college football success has NOTHING to do with individual players, and everything to do with those things that are unuique about it--the colleges themselves, their traditions, their names, their rivalries. Johnny Manziel, the best possible example of a star colege player, IMO did not bring a single new fan to their stadium at A&M. They were sold out before him and will sell out after him. And even if you disagree with my last statement, the number of players that I can be wrong about numbers less than 10. All the rest bring nothing extra in money to the universities.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^
Just a thought on individual players.
September 29th, 2013 at 12:22 PM ^
What sport did you play? How good of a player were you? And where did you play? This will help me in determining how valid your opinion is.
Thanks.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:10 PM ^
...but you don't agree with my argument because you didn't GET my argument.
Schools like Michigan and the ones you mentioned are of course fine. Look at the Ivy's, they seem to be doing fine without a Michigan level football program.
You've pointed out exceptions. But what is UCF without football? It's a commuter school in Orlando. But does their enrollment grow? Are people attracted to the school? Is anyone outside of the state invested?
Now it's a school on the verge of bursting into the mainstream. Jordan's kids went there. They beat S. Carolina this weekend or upset L'ville and they'll be taken more seriously in athletics.
They don't call athletics "the front porch of the University" for no reason. It's the first thing people see, period.
I'm currently an athletics adminstrator at a school where our UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT wants to add lacrosse to boost enrollment since we don't have football. She feels like it'll help us reach into the NE United States and get that demographic (rich kids who give once they graduate).
Financially, it would be suicide for us to add Men's Lacrosse, that's basically adding D2 level football. But you can see why she wants to be attractive to those types of kids, you can see why she feels it would help the profile of the entire University.
October 1st, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^
is stating is that athletics essentially help out with the school's profile, which I am not arguing since it obviously does to a lot of people for multiple reasons...but if a school needs to depend on a sports team to increase the need for more students then they are already doing something terribly wrong...UCF is a terrible academic school, they bounce in and out of accredidation with their law school and they are basically a big community college...but many other schools who are constantly big time players in bball and fball hardly get any money back into their endowment from athletics...i am simply stating schools do not need sports, nor will they ever need them to survive, unless they are already doing something terribly wrong
September 27th, 2013 at 10:48 AM ^
As some of the above posters mentioned, there are plenty of schools that do fine without large athletic programs. However, you are right that having a successful football or basketball program (other athletic programs can qualify depending on area; see Hockey at North Dakota or BC or baseball in some southern programs etc.) does significantly boost camraderie and school spirit along with providing an identity which is something alums and prospective students love. I remember when I did a program in DC and we had a bunch of UC students (from Berkeley, Santa Cruz, etc.) students with us; I remember several of their students being incredibly envious of the Michigan having a football program and wishing they had chosen a school with a football program or a more successful one (Berkeley students because apparently its students and alums aren't into the program like Michigan students and alums are). This identity/camraderie does provide a unique interest that cannot be denied. I wasn't trying to argue the athletes shouldn't receive increased compensation for their services. As I noted, their input into the University brings more immediate returns than a general population student and the athletes' return on investment comes with significantly more risk or less stability. I just wanted to depict the complexity of this picture. For example, Michigan football players are worth on average $470,000, but is Joey Kerridge or a random walk-on worth the same as Devin Gardner or Taylor Lewan? We need some intelligent people to sit down and figure out, hopefully, the best system to compensate players. Sorry for length.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:23 PM ^
D1 would have to be split in half, and then I would think as a money proposition it would have to shrink further, say to ~30-40 teams.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:15 AM ^
Do you think the seats would be filled if these kids didnt wear the winged helmet. Can anyone honestly believe these kids deserve more? They make a choice to do this. These kids arent bullied into this. Its like joining the army, you have a choice. Im not sold on anything. Im also glad that the EA sports lawsuit will result in these kids getting a whopping 150 bucks a piece while they get to watch the layers swim in the dough. Good life lesson learned by those who are entitled.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^
These players arent who makes the school millions. The platform the school provides gives the players a chance themselves to make millions. The winged helmet and the maize n blue is a brand. Just because they slap a 16 on a jersey doesnt mean that the player is making them millions. Lets slap a 16 on a semi pro jersey and see how that goes. The NCAA and the BIG are at a serious advanteage here. The lawsuits will only make money for the lawyers and will not change anything. The shcools will shut it down before they pay for play. These kids gotta learn the world isnt fair and I cant wait until they do. Let me ask everyone a question. If I wen tto Grand Rapids communiy and got a degree and applied for a job at the same place as a Michigan grad and both get hired for the same position do I deserve the same salary as the Uof M grad? No I dont. The world isnt fair. I would realize that I have to earn it and work harder.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^
You are most certainly correct about the attorneys loving these lawsuits. Will make a nice chunk of change on payment of attorneys' fees. Someone in an earlier post linked an SI article in which the lead attorney mentioned how they were going to try and ensure payment is dispersed to all eligible parties. I do hope that will happen.
September 26th, 2013 at 11:06 PM ^
people paying off students loans suck at football.
It's ridiculous to say that there is nothing wrong with players only getting compensated ~10% of their value in a form of compensation that they can't directly use, and don't even necessarily want.
Most players would gladly pay their way through school if they were paid what they deserve.
September 27th, 2013 at 12:17 AM ^
Are the non-revenue generating sports' athletes going to get paid their net value to the university too (ie they would have to pay to play)? If you are going to pay revenue generating sports' athletes, and still keep your other sports you will have non-athletes paying into a general university fund that will also be used to pay athletes (which I guess already sort of happens at the majority of colleges where the athletics department loses money).
September 27th, 2013 at 2:46 AM ^
September 26th, 2013 at 11:23 PM ^
September 26th, 2013 at 11:34 PM ^
Out of state tuition and fees plus books, food, room and board is about $55,000. When you then add in training table/nutrition, athletic facilities/trainers, academic tutoring and advising, complimentary tickets, road per diem meal allowances, and bowl swag, I am guessing that cost comes close to $100,000.
September 26th, 2013 at 11:38 PM ^
Well, "tickertape," how much money are those "people who are paying off student loans" bringing in to their respective universities every year?
The bottom line is that players should be allowed to take money on the free market. It's really an easy "tweak." All they have to do is burn 95% of "NCAA regulations" and fire 95%of the "enforcement" and "compliance" staffs.
September 27th, 2013 at 12:55 AM ^
I went through Michigan with a full ride for academics and also worked 10 to 20 hours a week for General Motors. A fair number of folks in college get some or all of their college paid for with scholarships and cash a paycheck beyond that. A fair number of engineering grad students are in the same boat, tuition waiver and some kind of grant or hook up with a company that results in a stipend. I see no reason that a football player shouldn't be able to do the same. Just because a small percentage of them will go on to become wealthly in the pros is no reason to deny them money. By that logic we should go stick it harder to the Business School types since they might end up with Stephen J Ross kinds of money.
In terms of wealth on hand, I had a significantly better deal in that I went to class and cashed a check for my work. A football player goes to class, has 20 hours of official practice with the coaching staff, more voluntary practice or film study with their teammates, which is supposed to average out to around 44.8 hours per week, and they don't even get a stipend for walking around money. Heck if they chose to stay in school rather than go pro early, their wallets take a hit because they have to buy injury insurance with their own money like Lewan did.
There are a lot of services FBS programs could offer their students beside just handing them the cash (and half a million per head doesn't seem defensible) such as a living stipdent, program provided insurance for career ending injuries, a free grad degree as well as 4 years of undergrad, a trust fund of some sort, etc. Right now though players do get screwed considering the revenue stream they bring in.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:47 AM ^
Actually they do get a stipend for living expenses. Very few choose to take out injury insurance and none of them are forced to do so. Players like Lewan have every oportunity to go pro after 3 years but he chose to come back and pay for the insurance policy. No big bad NCAA or NFL forced him to do that. If you want to remove age/years since HS requirements from NBA and NFL drafts, that would be one fair approach. A professional minor league system would also be a fair option.