Changes you would make to each Sport

[JLG_GT]

No, it's not. They're in college to learn, not be paid to play sports.

In fact, this is an issue Cuban brought up a week or so back about players only going to college to play one-and-done. That they should be in college to learn as well in the event their NBA career falls short.

I would agree with you to an extent that not all players are going pro, in fact most of them wont. So yes they are there to learn.

But look at all these corrupt agents and AAU coaches targeting these kids and a lot of them playing ball (or any sport) will be their meal tickets. Not to mention providing for their families. If colleges were adapting programs (which they can use funds from the actual sports) that helped these kids understand finances and making the right decisions then ok. But they dont. Where does the money go? Then they get mad and suspend Dez Bryant for a whole season, costing him millions in the draft, because he had dinner with Deion Sanders. Thats just one example.

Look how much Major Football Universities make from home games! Its astronomical.

If they compensated them something, they cant even get free bagels at hotels when they are on the road, then it would eliminate some of these so called agents who in turn scamming alot of these kids.

Take any other full scholarship non athlete. Can they work? Yes. Can they start their own business? Yes. In theory they can make millions of dollars while being on full scholarship and wont give a dime to the NCAA. Yet the NCAA makes millions on the "likeness" of athletes and gives them nothing.

Doesnt seem right to me. Jay Bilas has some really good columns on this subject and I think there is a union forming at Northwestern for this very reason.

EA Sports and NCAA football lost their license to have "likeness" of actual players in their video games. So now for the first time there will be no "real" college players in the video game.

How would you feel if you were a star in a college and a heisman trophy winner. And that college/NCAA made 100% profit from selling your Jersey at your home games that thousands of fans are wearing. Youd be ok with it? And then you blow your knee out, game over.

Edit:
I dont mean to come off condescending towards you its the subject. Its a good debateable topic!

I looked up an interesting stat. The average football player just on the Texas football team (even the punter) was worth over $500,000! And they didnt get anything not only that they have to watch what they do with every penny. Then they could get kicked off the team. They cant even legally get a free drink at a bar.

 

[Danoff]

Formula 1 - The FIA would not dictate how the car is built. It ruins the whole concept of having a constructor's cup.
American Football - 2 point tries after every TD, no automatic point after
Basketball - 13 foot basket
Baseball - I would have the game stop at the top of the first inning. Nobody wants to see a baseball game.

 

[McLaren]

I would agree with you to an extent that not all players are going pro, in fact most of them wont. So yes they are there to learn.

But look at all these corrupt agents and AAU coaches targeting these kids and a lot of them playing ball (or any sport) will be their meal tickets. Not to mention providing for their families. If colleges were adapting programs (which they can use funds from the actual sports) that helped these kids understand finances and making the right decisions then ok. But they dont. Where does the money go? Then they get mad and suspend Dez Bryant for a whole season, costing him millions in the draft, because he had dinner with Deion Sanders. Thats just one example.

Look how much Major Football Universities make from home games! Its astronomical.

If they compensated them something, they cant even get free bagels at hotels when they are on the road, then it would eliminate some of these so called agents who in turn scamming alot of these kids.

Take any other full scholarship non athlete. Can they work? Yes. Can they start their own business? Yes. In theory they can make millions of dollars while being on full scholarship and wont give a dime to the NCAA. Yet the NCAA makes millions on the "likeness" of athletes and gives them nothing.

Because they work for their money under their own time & effort.

They are still college students at the end of the day & a college student is not a job in the US. The NCAA is not going to pay these players & why should they? The NBA doesn't pay their athletes' salaries, the teams do. And you think these universities are going to start dishing out salaries to their players without incurring those costs back onto the university's other students? How does that become fair?

These kids are there to learn, whether it's through brains or brawn. If they feel like they're being ripped off for not being given money to play basketball in college whether by the team, NCCA, or endorsements, quit the team. These kids riding on full scholarships should be thankful enough because it's a free ride through 4 years of school. Absolutely ridiculous to think they should also be paid on top of that because they're good at sports. If they're that good, a pro team will draft them first round.

Doesnt seem right to me. Jay Bilas has some really good columns on this subject and I think there is a union forming at Northwestern for this very reason.

EA Sports and NCAA football lost their license to have "likeness" of actual players in their video games. So now for the first time there will be no "real" college players in the video game.

How would you feel if you were a star in a college and a heisman trophy winner. And that college/NCAA made 100% profit from selling your Jersey at your home games that thousands of fans are wearing. Youd be ok with it? And then you blow your knee out, game over.

I'd be fine with it because the point of college is not to be paid to play sports. The point of playing sports in college is the same as getting a 4.0GPA in your field. You put in those years of work to get better & be recognized as a viable asset to someone else, whether it's Richard Branson or Paul Allen.

 

[JLG_GT]

Because they work for their money under their own time & effort.

Do you know how hard it is to find time to do school work and practice and maintain a high level of performance, while traveling all over the country? That sounds like time and effort. So you dont think they should be allowed to have off season jobs? How can they make money while being on scholarship?

All the other students, including academic full scholarship, have a chance to make money while in school. How come an athlete doesnt get to?

Its against the rules the NCAA made. So just quit? Alot of kids only have sports to be able to afford an education and get into school.

If they dont play, they lose their scholarships.

 

[Joel]

Not only do you have a game that allows players "check" each other, but a player position who will typically do it; Enforcers. Fighting is going to happen.

Enforcers are somewhat of a dying breed, the best teams tend not to have them anymore. There's still usually a guy who can fight on most teams but the days of the 6'5" 240lb plug are coming to a close. One subtle NHL rule change is that every new player in the league needs to wear a visor, which is a big deal because it was part of the unwritten rules that if you were a fighter you wouldn't wear one (not a fair fight if one guy has half of his face covered). With the changing of that rule it's been harder for new players to step into the league and make a reputation as fighters.

When I look at international, European, NCAA, and minor hockey in North America, I see most of the players grow up and develop their skills in a game where fighting is an instant ejection from the game, but suddenly they get to Canadian Major Junior (CHL) or the pro leagues and it's open season. Even the CHL is starting to ramp up punishments for multiple fights in a year, I see it slowly but surely being taken out of hockey.

IMO the existence of enforcers is something that is only because fighting is condoned in hockey. Teams wouldn't employ guys whose sole purpose is to fight if it weren't condoned, when teams go to the Olympics or other international competition, NCAA teams, European teams, etc etc they don't take fighters because it's irrelevant to the game. I don't think fighting is something that is inherent to the game, it's become ingrained to the culture of the sport in North America but to me that's only because it's condoned at the pro level. I guess I just find it hard to believe that NFL linemen can keep it under control but hockey players get too worked up and need to fight.

I think the game would be better off without it, from a player safety and a sanctity of the game standpoint. It's pretty hard for me to explain to people that two guys have a choreographed fistfight at center ice and that's just the way it is.

 

[Johnny1996]

Referees. Namely, the blatantly bad calls they sometimes make. Fellow MLB fans should remember the Pirates going deep into extra innings a few years ago and losing the game because of a hugely bad call by the home plate umpire.

 

[McLaren]

Do you know how hard it is to find time to do school work and practice and maintain a high level of performance, while traveling all over the country? That sounds like time and effort.

That's a requirement to stay in school. You do not deserve to be paid over another student just because you play a sport.

So you dont think they should be allowed to have off season jobs? How can they make money while being on scholarship?

LOL, I never said that. You said in theory, they could make millions because they can work & start their own business. Read the key words I wrote there. Under their own time & effort, not the school or NCAA's time. When they are not in class or playing, they are able to work like any other student to make extra money.

All the other students, including academic full scholarship, have a chance to make money while in school. How come an athlete doesnt get to?

Go back & read. Don't twist my words.

Its against the rules the NCAA made. So just quit? Alot of kids only have sports to be able to afford an education and get into school.

If they dont play, they lose their scholarships.

If the way they make money is not in relation to their jersey or the NCAA, I bet it's more than legal. I'm sure the NCAA is fine with a Heismann trophy winner working a regular job as long as he does not use his fame to generate more income.

Having sports as the only way to afford an education is a blessing, not an excuse to be paid beyond that.

 

[JLG_GT]

I am reading your words please show me where you said, Athletes should be able to have jobs?

They cant have a job at all while they are in school under athletic scholarship. Summer, Spring, Fall, or Winter. Nothing. Not allowed to make a dime while in school. This is a NCAA rule!

And do you think thats fair? Im asking you, thats my problem. After generating billions of dollars for their school?

If the NCAA is saying they cant work then they should compensate them. Compensate doesnt mean give them millions. How about paying for a kids family to come see him play? How about letting them eat out at restaurant, on the University, at away games? How about give them some spending money?

So they dont have to find ways to do it illegally (according to the almighty NCAA.)

Like I said in a previous post. An average player at Texas Football is worth $500,000 (including the punter) the price of a scholarship is $40,000. You dont see a problem with that?

 

[McLaren]

I am reading your words please show me where you said, Athletes should be able to have jobs?

They cant have a job at all while they are in school under athletic scholarship. Summer, Spring, Fall, or Winter. Nothing. Not allowed to make a dime while in school. This is a NCAA rule!

And do you think thats fair? Im asking you, thats my problem. After generating billions of dollars for their school?

If the NCAA is saying they cant work then they should compensate them. Compensate doesnt mean give them millions. How about paying for a kids family to come see him play? How about letting them eat out at restaurant, on the University, at away games? How about give them some spending money?

So they dont have to find ways to do it illegally (according to the almighty NCAA.)

Like I said in a previous post. An average player at Texas Football is worth $500,000 (including the punter) the price of a scholarship is $40,000. You dont see a problem with that?

Clearly, you're not reading the rules.

It is your responsibility to understand the rules and regulations regarding NCAA Compliance. If you have any questions regarding your usability of Career Athletes, please contact your institution’s complianceoffice.

NCAA Bylaw 12.3.1 (General Rule) states that an individual shall be ineligible for participation in an intercollegiate sport if he or she ever has agreed (orally or in writing) to be represented by an agent for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation in that sport. Further, an agency contract not specifically limited in writing to a sport or particular sports shall be deemed applicable to all sports, and the individual shall be ineligible to participate in any sport.

Student-Athlete Employment (NCAA Bylaw 15.2.6), effective August 1, 2003, states that earnings from a student-athlete's on or off-campus employment that occurs at any time is exempt and is not counted indetermining a student-athlete's full grant-in-aid or in the institution's financial aid limitations, provided:
1) The student-athlete's compensation does not include any remuneration for value or utility that the student-athlete may have for the employer because of the publicity, reputation, fame or personal following that he or she has obtained because of athletics ability;
2) The student-athlete is compensated only for work actually performed; and
3) The student-athlete is compensated at a rate commensurate with the going rate in that locality for similar services.

Endorsement of Products (NCAA Manual 2007 12.4.2.3-Athletics Equipment Sales), states a student-athlete may not be employed to sell equipment related to the student-athlete's sport if his or her name,picture or athletics reputation is used to advertise or promote the product, the job or the employer. If the student-athlete's name, picture or athletics reputation is not used for advertising or promotion, the student-athlete may be employed in a legitimate sales position, provided he or she is reimbursed at an hourly rate or set salary in the same manner as any non-athlete salesperson

They can work like any other student as long as they do not use their fame to generate extra income.

 

[JLG_GT]

How dare you throw that book of corruption and contrary rules at me!

This wasnt my only argument. They are making the rules, no other student has to live by these by laws why would an athlete? There is no players union for them to go to. This isnt the American way.

Yet before Jay Bilas pointed out to the NCAA (on their website) that he searched collegiate players names and their jerseys show up. And when he called them out about it and made it public what happened? They changed it and took it down...why? Cause they know they are wrong thats why. And why did they give Penn St scholarships back? Cause they were wrong thats why. My gripe wasnt just the job situation and if you take that book literal then I already know you havent been around a D1 program. (In defense of your point I was going under the clearing house that I had to agree to in 2001 so thereare some differences)

They can work at McDonalds but they cant make money off of their own signature? Look up Johnny Manziel. If thats fair to you than you have the right to feel that way. I dont. I have a problem with the whole NCAA jurisdiction and punishment system.

Under those rules a player wouldnt be able to start his own business, a normal student can.

So you are in favor of the NCAA and I am not.

Agree to disagree...

Edit
And you are twisting my words around cause I never said the players should be PAID (salary/wage) to play. Reimbursement and compensation.

 

[McLaren]

How dare you throw that book of corruption and contrary rules at me!

This wasnt my only argument. They are making the rules, no other student has to live by these by laws why would an athlete? There is no players union for them to go to. This isnt the American way.

Those are the rules in the book, they say players can work jobs & make money as long as they do not use basketball to sell products. You said there is a rule that doesn't allow this.

They can work at McDonalds but they cant make money off of their own signature? Look up Johnny Manziel. If thats fair to you than you have the right to feel that way. I dont. I have a problem with the whole NCAA jurisdiction and punishment system.

Because he's using his college career to make money. What is it you don't understand, you do NOT go to college to be paid or reimbursed for playing sports. You are a college student at the end of the day, you are there to learn your future profession, not get paid to do it in the mean time.

Why should Manziel be allowed to make money off his signature?

Under those rules a player wouldnt be able to start his own business, a normal student can.

Under your logic, a player should be allowed to make money because he plays a sport, but a normal student can't because he doesn't.

Those rules state nothing about business ownership, either. It says as long as the player does not use his fame, he can work.

Edit
And you are twisting my words around cause I never said the players should be PAID (salary/wage) to play. Reimbursement and compensation.

That's the same thing. You want them to be paid for playing basketball because it makes the NCAA millions & they don't see a penny of it.

 

[JLG_GT]

Ok. I could go all day on this. Reimbursment meaning send a kids family to watch him play. Things of that nature. The kids are tempted by cons everyday to make some extra money and this and that. Have you been in college hell I made hundreds of mistakes and if someone offered me $1000s I cant say I wouldnt take it.

Its good for the kids too cause if you think illegal things dont go on at every school then you are being naive.

I can admit I was wrong on the Job thing, no problem. That was the least of my argument.

Honestly everything you are saying is correct because those are the rules. Thats what I have a problem with. A rocket scientist at Princeton can make more than any basketball player can, so why is that fair to a general studies student - its not. You know what the difference is the rocket scientist doesnt have a committee making rules with no opposite side collaborating on a "collective bargaining agreement." The rocket scientist can sign autographs and take pictures with people for money and they dont take his scholarship away.

The difference is a 100,000 people dont show up to watch him make rockets. And he isnt generating any money for the school (so nobody cares), yet these kids are generating (and in some cases individual players) and they are under a microscope and every single mistake can cost them millions. Or even future jobs not in basketball (or any sport.)

They get nothing other than the .01% chance to play professional sports.

So was it quite obvious Manziel was selling autographs? Why didnt the NCAA hammer him like they did Dez for lying about eating lunch with Deion?

Cause the NCAA wouldnt have made nearly as much money if he was suspended and you know it.

Get off the jobs its bigger than that. They cant get certain things that are ridiculously prohibited can you NOT see that? You think all their rules are legit and fair.

 

[Famine]

Based on the above, I'd ban basketball.

 

[JLG_GT]

Based on the above, I'd ban basketball.

Proves alot. Sorry meaning it proves that the NCAA made it that way. That people are saying what you said. Actually kids are skipping college now because of this and playing hoops in Europe and the NBADL.

 

[Famine]

Not really, I'm just bored of reading about basketball.

Actually, if I were to make a rule change in basketball, it'd be to actually enforce the travelling rule even if they score.


I'd also change cycling to make drug use mandatory.

 

[JLG_GT]

Great rule "change".

Only if you read it had absolutely nothing about basketball.

Thought it already was mandatory in cycling.

Those arent changes?

All you had to say was you were sick of me talking, dont beat around the bush. I can handle it.

 

[McLaren]

Ok. I could go all day on this. Reimbursment meaning send a kids family to watch him play. Things of that nature. The kids are tempted by cons everyday to make some extra money and this and that. Have you been in college hell I made hundreds of mistakes and if someone offered me $1000s I cant say I wouldnt take it.

Why should the league pay for kids' families to watch them play, either? The NBA doesn't do that, the players do.

Cons? You mean agents? Sorry, but if you took a $1,000, that's your fault. The league rules state you can not have agents, either. Again, you're a college student, not a professional athlete.

NCAA Bylaw 12.3.1 (General Rule) states that an individual shall be ineligible for participation in an intercollegiate sport if he or she ever has agreed (orally or in writing)to be represented by an agent for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation in that sport. Further, an agency contract not specifically limited in writing to a sport or particular sports shall be deemed applicable to all sports, and the individual shall be ineligible to participate in any sport

Its good for the kids too cause if you think illegal things dont go on at every school then you are being naive.

Where did I state anything illegal wasn't going on? I'm responding to your posts stating rules that are incorrect.

I can admit I was wrong on the Job thing, no problem. That was the least of my argument.

Honestly everything you are saying is correct because those are the rules. Thats what I have a problem with. A rocket scientist at Princeton can make more than any basketball player can, so why is that fair to a general studies student - its not. You know what the difference is the rocket scientist doesnt have a committee making rules with no opposite side collaborating on a "collective bargaining agreement." The rocket scientist can sign autographs and take pictures with people for money and they dont take his scholarship away.

Can you prove a student studying rocket science is currently being paid to do that whilst in college?

The difference is a 100,000 people dont show up to watch him make rockets. And he isnt generating any money for the school (so nobody cares), yet these kids are generating (and in some cases individual players) and they are under a microscope and every single mistake can cost them millions. Or even future jobs not in basketball (or any sport.)

They get nothing other than the .01% chance to play professional sports.

No, the difference is the rocket scientist student isn't automatically enrolled into a business like the NCAA to sell his talents. The NCAA owns all the rights to college basketball presentation & that's an agreement every player signs when they join the team. Every time a player steps onto the court to play, he's going to be bringing attention to himself, his team, the school, & the league. A rocket scientist is not guaranteed that when he begins his studying. If a rocket scientist can begin generating revenue through his talents, it's likely through a business that has zero affiliation with the school like the NCAA.

So was it quite obvious Manziel was selling autographs? Why didnt the NCAA hammer him like they did Dez for lying about eating lunch with Deion?

Because Manziel was found by the NCAA to not be selling his autographs for money. In the evidence, Manziel signed his autograph without any monetary profit.

Bryant was hammered because he lied. He was asked if he visited Sanders, asked if he worked out with him, & asked if he had contacted agents. He lied about the first 2 & admitted it.

In a prepared statement, the school released the following comment from Bryant: "I made a mistake by not being entirely truthful when meeting with the NCAA. I sincerely regret my mistake and apologize to my teammates, coaches, OSU fans and the NCAA."

You think all their rules are legit and fair.

Quit twisting words you twit. I never said I agree with the rules or said they're legit. I just don't believe college athletes deserve to be given any money for their contribution to the league; they're not professional athletes.

How would you know what rules are legit & fair anyway, when you don't even know what the rules are in the first place, as evident twice now.

 

[Pagey279]

The main change I would bring to football is to provide every referee with a microphone. Like rugby basically.

Any player heard abusing the referees will be heavily reprimanded with a fine and a match ban. If the referee himself hears it, any abuse at all, straight red card.

For me the most disgusting thing about modern day football is the complete lack of respect and decency shown by the players. If an official makes a decision they aren't happy with they will verbally abuse him with an obscene amount of swear words, gang up on him, ridicule him. Even managers do it. And they are allowed to do it.

Compare that to rugby. If a player abuses the ref he either gets a warning or goes straight to the sin bin. They may not like the refs decision, but they respect it. Why can't football be like that?

 

[Shaun]

To make my own contribution, which is sure to go over the head of most*, is that hitting the post in Aussie Rules should be play on, not an automatic out of bounds/behind (depending on which post). I want to see it so that if the ball clips the post and goes in, then goal scored. If it hits square on and comes back in the field of play, then play on. Pretty much like every other game that involves putting a ball/puck between posts.

Totally agree, should be three outcomes from hitting any of the posts.

Play on when bounces back into play after hitting any post.
Give relevant score after the ball hits either goal or behind post and then travels through the goal or behind.
Throw it in after the ball hits the behind post and goes out of bounds.

Good point. I'd also allow tackling below the knee in Aussie Rules. I appreciate that the game has a lot of rules that prevent dangerous tackles (through the back, or above shoulder) but without damaging the brutal nature of the game, but the below-knee rule always confused me.

To put it simply it's a trip. No matter if you use a leg,arm,body or whatever any contact below the knee is a trip.
It also has the side bonus of preventing some serious knee injuries that are already way to common in Aussie Rules.

 

[daan]

Compare that to rugby. If a player abuses the ref he either gets a warning or goes straight to the sin bin. They may not like the refs decision, but they respect it. Why can't football be like that?

Most rugby players seem to have had an education, whereas footballers seem to play at the expense of their education.

Take snooker. Players will call fouls against themselves that only they saw. A footballer will kick a ball out for a throw in, which we all saw, and then claim some other bloke did it.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Most rugby players seem to have had an education, whereas footballers seem to play at the expense of their education.

Take snooker. Players will call fouls against themselves that only they saw. A footballer will kick a ball out for a throw in, which we all saw, and then claim some other bloke did it.

That's not really try of Welsh Rugby at amateur or professional level (with notable exceptions), and yet you still see better behaviour towards the ref because the rules allow it.

 

[Barra333]

The main change I would bring to football is to provide every referee with a microphone. Like rugby basically.

Any player heard abusing the referees will be heavily reprimanded with a fine and a match ban. If the referee himself hears it, any abuse at all, straight red card.

For me the most disgusting thing about modern day football is the complete lack of respect and decency shown by the players. If an official makes a decision they aren't happy with they will verbally abuse him with an obscene amount of swear words, gang up on him, ridicule him. Even managers do it. And they are allowed to do it.

Compare that to rugby. If a player abuses the ref he either gets a warning or goes straight to the sin bin. They may not like the refs decision, but they respect it. Why can't football be like that?

That sort of things really starts at the junior level - I remember playing rubgy when I was 12-13, and any time someone opened their mouth in anything but the politest tones (sir), a penalty was given, while the same strictness is not seen in football at any level.

 

[XPOWER180]

I acctually like how soccer is paced

*Football*

The only sport I would change is Football. (not the American type that uses HANDS, not the FOOT but proper football where they use their feet! ). In particular it would be the wages. All professional footballers no matter what level they are at would be on a basic working mans wage. But for each goal they scored they would get a bonus in line with their league, so for example in the Premiership it would be £100,000 a goal. Suddenly you will see tougher players, none of this pretending to be injured girly nonsense and instead of pathetic scores like 1-0, the scores would be far higher. Any money that is left from transfer fees goes into that clubs local community, something that could make everyone feel proud.

 

[Barra333]

OK, the incentive scheme works great for the strikers, but what about defenders/goalkeepers?

 

[Akmuq]

OK, the incentive scheme works great for the strikers, but what about defenders/goalkeepers?

Considering he described 1-0 as 'pathetic', I doubt he cares about defenders and keepers.

 

[Earth]

So for the last 420 minutes of his play in the world cup perhaps the game's best player Lionel Messi goes scoreless?

Thats like Peyton Manning playing 4 games without throwing a single touchdown.

At what point do you realize its too difficult to score?

 

[Roger the Horse]

I would change baseball so as to make it exactly like rounders.

 

[Akmuq]

At what point do you realize that Messi isn't on top form? Just because he didn't score, doesn't mean it's too difficult.

171 goals in 64 matches is 2.67 a game. That's a mighty fine average for what are huge games that nobody wants to concede in.

 

[Ross]

It's supposed to be difficult to score in the World Cup anyway. Plus, less goals in a game usually show 2 balanced teams. Take the Germany v Argentina match that's just happened for example: there was 1 goal in 120 minutes but it was a great game to watch because both teams were pretty much equal and it took a very good piece of skill to break the deadlock. Now let's take the semi final between Germany and Brazil. Germany were 5-0 up within 30 minutes and the game was practically over. The other 60 minutes were so boring because you knew what team were going to win.

So my point here is that more goals don't necessarily mean more excitement.

 

[Earth]

So what exactly is considered more exciting in soccer? Scoring goals or the threat of a goal being scored? It has to be the latter if a 0-0 game for 110 minutes is considered exciting. In most sports 0-0 is equated with incompetence on the part of both teams, not great play.