personally, i think the current deal student-athletes needs tinkering, not a wholesale overhaul.
unionization is the wrong concept for student-athlets. unionization provides bargaining power for individuals lacking any rights or protection at all. it doesn't fit the circumstances provided these kids, who voluntarily accept scholarships at schools of higher learning to promote the athletic/academic endeavors of the schools.
student-athletes don't have to attend school to get to their dreamjobs, but they go to learn the game under the best coaches. while being afforded access to valuable educations non-scholarship students pay hand over fist for, they additionally get valuable coaching, an invaluable stage to display their talents and establish their values, access to an invaluable alumni network, etc.
I think student-athletes get what they pay for when they go to college to play sports. so my issue isn't with respect to a lach of additional compensation, but with the lack of insurance in place by the school for the kids from year to year with respect to money left on the table to be there; and also the lack of any attempt to measure each particular athlete's "worth" so as to insure against injury.
imho, there are 2 ways to solve the problem. the first is to professionalize the student-athletes, or at least some of them, by permitting pro teams to draft the kids while they remain in school. that way, the kids who are under contract are both compensated by a team and also protected by the pro league's CBA.
the second way is to require a system of insurance each school would have to contribute to cover the money each kid leaves on the table to not make an immediate jump to the pros. my issue is with the potential for injury, and the lack of financial support the school's give to kids who risk injury every game.
so what is it, a debate between assumption of risk versus duty to warn? Wouldn't the fact these guys have been wearing helmets in some capacity since the game's inception indicate knowledge on the part of the player that head injury is possible? sounds like an issue slated for an asbestos/mesothelioma track.
Recent Comments
personally, i think the current deal student-athletes needs tinkering, not a wholesale overhaul.
unionization is the wrong concept for student-athlets. unionization provides bargaining power for individuals lacking any rights or protection at all. it doesn't fit the circumstances provided these kids, who voluntarily accept scholarships at schools of higher learning to promote the athletic/academic endeavors of the schools.
student-athletes don't have to attend school to get to their dreamjobs, but they go to learn the game under the best coaches. while being afforded access to valuable educations non-scholarship students pay hand over fist for, they additionally get valuable coaching, an invaluable stage to display their talents and establish their values, access to an invaluable alumni network, etc.
I think student-athletes get what they pay for when they go to college to play sports. so my issue isn't with respect to a lach of additional compensation, but with the lack of insurance in place by the school for the kids from year to year with respect to money left on the table to be there; and also the lack of any attempt to measure each particular athlete's "worth" so as to insure against injury.
imho, there are 2 ways to solve the problem. the first is to professionalize the student-athletes, or at least some of them, by permitting pro teams to draft the kids while they remain in school. that way, the kids who are under contract are both compensated by a team and also protected by the pro league's CBA.
the second way is to require a system of insurance each school would have to contribute to cover the money each kid leaves on the table to not make an immediate jump to the pros. my issue is with the potential for injury, and the lack of financial support the school's give to kids who risk injury every game.
I love that John Beilein makes your grilled cheese joke seem so plausible.
so what is it, a debate between assumption of risk versus duty to warn? Wouldn't the fact these guys have been wearing helmets in some capacity since the game's inception indicate knowledge on the part of the player that head injury is possible? sounds like an issue slated for an asbestos/mesothelioma track.