Hoops

Ben Simmons, One & Done and the right to speak out

Yes all div1 basketball and football must be full ride, other sports can have a percentage on the team that also can get full ride, but it's not compulsory, all other spirts are optional.
But even full ride their are huge variations in what they get, depending on the college and the budget allowed.
Those that manage to land one of the top 20 colleges usually get big budgets and big perks to match.

Very Old....all D1 basketball scholarships are full ride, it's legislated. However you're correct that not all sports are full ride. From memory there's like half a dozen where it's mandatory

He can have an opinion. But he's got himself involved in a doco about how crap the NCAA is because he didn't get paid there, after making a choice to play there in order to give himself the best chance to win a big pro contract...seems like he's only doing it for publicity to me.

not all D1 athletes are on "full ride" scholarships, and I'm not certain that all D1 or D2 colleges offer them. Certainly even the largest scholarships at D2 and below are often very small amounts.

It would be good to see that some of the NCAA profits were diverted to give at least guteed 4 years academic scholarhips to injured athleetes, financial medical costs compensation to them as well.

A contribution to a superannuation fund in the athletes' name is hard to argue against INHO

Because it's impossible to rehab and have opinions at the same time, obviously.

He's in the NBA now. Probably should focus on getting his injury right so he can get on the court.

I think Simmons' point is not that he wants to make money so much, but that he wants to play in the NBA, and anything in between that is a waste of time.

Not a bad summary there ME.

@Insider, I knew about that but had not factored it in and that is a valid point.

@KET I wouldn't advocate anything but a fair or reasonable amount either way, so it depends on what a school will offer and what it can afford.

What I wouldn't like to see is an NCAA player paid some outrageous amount that makes a mockery out of the whole system.

The equality rule may be that hurdle needed to stop it regardless...

If we're discussing the type of allowance that makes life liveable for student athletes where sport is their work why should women or athletes in a shitty school receive less?

Not quite accurate I feel @DJ Rod.

A student athlete on scholarship (be it basketball or whatever), if on a full ride as they call it will generally receive the following fully funded:

Accommodation
Food
Education
Books/texts
Tutoring
Transportation
Uniform/clothing
Shoes
Training/weights/physio/medical
etc...

Now, an academic scholarship may also include similar, I am not sure, however the above is a list of most of what a student athlete will get for their hard work and, as you put it, for being marketed.

It isn't a bad trade off, is it...?

Only a few stand out players will ever really get marketed to the point where the college or the NCAA make millions from them and those guys will have a huge opportunity to make their own millions one day I am sure.

Then there are those thousands who do to D1 or D2, NAIA etc... colleges on full rides that also benefit from the scholarship, but will obviously not be NBA superstars and of course won't be abused by the NCAA or any other college body to make them rich either.

So, my point is that while an allowance is currently being paid, it is controlled and does offer all student athletes going to a college that provides it, the chance to be compensated financially to a point.

Yes, the amount can be altered and I am sure this will change in time, however my concern for a player payment is that it would change everything and some players would be enticed for the wrong reasons.

It should still be about the student first, athlete second, so this is my concern regarding the payment idea, over that of an allowance.

and I will also add the coaches and staff are getting paid multi million dollar contracts.

The Ed O'Bannon case is just the beginning.

While the NCAA is raking in Billions in dollars, yes, Billions, it is very hard to argue that the players that are being marketed and sold should be paid nothing.

The argument that the players get scholarships and that should be enough is futile because the scholarships are paid by donations to the program by former students.

Student athletes are THE ONLY student body that is not allowed to earn a living whilst studying; medical students, journalism students, the arts, etc can all be working at the university or earning money on the outside while they get their degree.

The players have a VERY good case if/when they choose to take a stand and a $3k stipend is not going to cut it!

@KET, don't presume I am not an advocate for change, far from it!

I agree it is very much about what and how any change is implemented, that is why I am presenting a counter argument to the idea of outright paying student athletes, compared with an allowance that is fair and acceptable.

It is two different things, that is why I am against payments and I don't mind the allowance idea.

Yes, I am well and truly aware of the disparity between rich and not so rich colleges, also I am very aware of what a student athlete does for their scholarship, maybe even more so than you are...?

Well, I mean we can call it an increase of "allowance" or "everyone is paid the same" but that's what I personally advocate for. But something certainly has to change, the players are getting screwed.

If players were allowed to be paid, I think it would open up Pandora's Box

That's the argument everyone uses for any change - ever. That and "oh it will be a slippery slope".

It has a tendency to be just fear and after the change occurs it feels as if the change had been there from the beginning.

and the whole amateur feel of college ball would change

That depends what the changes are - players can still receive $$$ without turning into commercialised machines themselves.

Remember the NCAA is already heavily commercialised...it's just that the actual players have a tendency of being poor.

while the richer colleges would just dominate even more

They already do anyway, the top colleges have the inherent advantage of better programs, more potential to develop and build reputations that will lure the top of the class who aim for the NBA (like Kentucky, Duke etc.)

However, again, it depends what the actual changes are.

Think about every other student at university who spends time studying and in their spare time they work to make money. Some of the top students will have scholarships because the colleges want to attract the best and brightest - these students most likely still study and work.

The college bballers (and other sports) don't have time to work because the basketball is their work. People assume "they'll make all their money when they turn professional"....but most don't turn into professional basketballers! If we only had those playing who turn into paid bballers, college basketball would become significantly smaller.

Looking at the scholarships and allowances they already get - they aren't exactly "living it up".

Given the amount of $$$ that is made from these players, I think there is serious discussion for the type of reform that allows an increased guaranteed allowance of $x for every player of a particular division - so all Div 1 players are played the same, all Div 2 players are paid the same etc.

If it's $5k now, make it $15k or whatever is a more liveable range.

That way, there are no salary cap issues, there are no additional advantage to the powerhouse colleges over smaller ones and there are no commercialisation of players through different salaries or endorsement deals.

That one has been thrown around before @KET. While I like John Oliver and it is very entertaining, it also presents a slightly different issue, one that the allowance in some small way may have been born out of.

@Spot Up, I will agree that an allowance can help, but it still needs to be controlled because the rich universities already get the majority of the best talent.

Allowing the richest universities to also pay their student athletes isn't the best scenario I feel.

May as well split the D1 into D1 Elite and the rest of D1 if they give up to paying student athletes. It also may lead to even less of a priority in the education side of things, resulting in similar situations to Ben's but worse...

John Oliver did a good piece on the NCAA:

There is an argument about the amount of money being made by others off NCAA basketball, and that the players should rightfully have access to some of that money. I would have thought a larger allowance than $3-5k per year could be afforded at some of the bigger colleges where the best players end up.

However, if players are wanting a pro-career, they do not have to go to the NCAA, they have other choices. Going to college for one year may be the easiest choice to make, but it's not the only option. Simmons agreeing to be a part of this documentary is pretty average behaviour in my opinion. He used the NCAA to further his pro-career. Either accept it for what it is, or go another way. Don't play one year then have a whinge about it.

Should college athletes get paid, no!

Firstly, another nice read LC, great stuff being done out there.

On your question though, there is already a disparity within the collegiate sporting landscape in many eyes between those that have huge amounts of endowments and those who work on shoe string budgets.

The NCAA has recently been forced into allowing players to be given an allowance (stipend) that amounts to between $3,000 - $5,000 in some places.

While this allowance is provided by many universities, partially to compensate for things like off campus living expenses, it does provide student athletes with some cash.

If players were allowed to be paid, I think it would open up Pandora's Box and the whole amateur feel of college ball would change, while the richer colleges would just dominate even more and it would not be the best thing for the sport or the student athletes.

Just my opinion, but seeing the changes being coerced through the power of the bigger universities, who knows what is in store down the track...

Michael Cedar gets it.

Cedar had a career-high 31 points on Friday night as the Crocs scored a runaway 94-66 victory against the Melbourne Tigers at the Townsville Entertainment and Convention Centre (AKA the Swamp).

Cedar made 12-of-19 shots from the field at 63.2% accuracy, including 6-of-11 three-pointers (55%). He also added five rebounds, three assists and one steal while only committing a single turnover in almost 30 minutes of court time.

Ubaka is runner up for 18/3/6 on the road in Perth and Schensch got a mention for 23 and 7. Penney (24 points) and Ervin (31 points) got mentions too. Then our favourite part!

Others who were in the running for Player of the Week included Julian Khazzouh (Sydney), Mark Worthington (Gold Coast), Ira Clark (Gold Coast), Oscar Forman (Wollongong), Corey Williams (Melbourne), Cameron Tragradh (Melbourne) and Matt Knight (Perth).

I think Ubaka might've been a strong chance if the Taipans hadn't wavered so badly in the second half (third quarter?) - winning in Perth is major news.