Pay them. Let them work for the highest bidder. Free agency at the end of each semester, maybe more often.-And get rid of these ridiculous recruiting rules. That way all cheating would be eliminated.-Since they are paid athletes, there is no need to have them qualify for admission or enroll in classes or any of that nonsense. And no limits on eligibility. They play until they leave for the NFL or get cut.-Sure, most alums would no longer attend games, meaning that the studio audience would maybe be smaller, but TV could replace that money.And, ESPN/DIS and Fox could engineer as many playoffs as the traffic will bear.-Everybody would be happy, especially the SEC.
That’s because you went to school in a one-room log cabin school house, and had to walk ten miles, uphill, each way.In defense of high school soccer programs ( for example ), I have proven to several school boards that the cost of outfitting an entire soccer team ( girls and/or boys ) is equivalent to outfitting one football player.
I am in total agreement about broadcasting high school games other than highlights on the local news. My point to school boards ( and your observations are correct ) was in the start up costs on football vrs. soccer. However, depending of the Athletic Director and the school board, even amortizing the equipment costs over a period of several years, the expense of running a football program is enormous compared to soccer, basketball or even baseball.In regards to ticket sales, I have seen in various area of the U.S., high schools charge a modest admission fee to non-students for basketball and football games and in two instances – because they were such a big draw – baseball and soccer.
Until relatively recently, I lived in Florida, and while Gov. Scott is certainly not on my list of good governors, in this case I agreed with what he was trying to achieve in this case. I was a product of parochial and private schools where a portion the tuition paid by the parents went towards sports programs – to a certain extent. My biggest argument against plans like Scott’s is that the impoverished counties and cities suffer while the more affluent communities reap the benefits because they can pay for them. This is to my mind, iniquitous but symptomatic of today’s thinking.BTW I was just kidding you about the one room school house. You’re old ( not much older than me, I might add ) but not that old !
This issue shouldn’t be dismissed or ridiculed. High school players certainly shouldn’t be paid but Division 1 athletes based on crowd numbers should, at least, be given stipends even as would a student on work study.
braindead Premium Member over 10 years ago
Pay them. Let them work for the highest bidder. Free agency at the end of each semester, maybe more often.-And get rid of these ridiculous recruiting rules. That way all cheating would be eliminated.-Since they are paid athletes, there is no need to have them qualify for admission or enroll in classes or any of that nonsense. And no limits on eligibility. They play until they leave for the NFL or get cut.-Sure, most alums would no longer attend games, meaning that the studio audience would maybe be smaller, but TV could replace that money.And, ESPN/DIS and Fox could engineer as many playoffs as the traffic will bear.-Everybody would be happy, especially the SEC.
Linguist over 10 years ago
That’s because you went to school in a one-room log cabin school house, and had to walk ten miles, uphill, each way.In defense of high school soccer programs ( for example ), I have proven to several school boards that the cost of outfitting an entire soccer team ( girls and/or boys ) is equivalent to outfitting one football player.
Linguist over 10 years ago
I am in total agreement about broadcasting high school games other than highlights on the local news. My point to school boards ( and your observations are correct ) was in the start up costs on football vrs. soccer. However, depending of the Athletic Director and the school board, even amortizing the equipment costs over a period of several years, the expense of running a football program is enormous compared to soccer, basketball or even baseball.In regards to ticket sales, I have seen in various area of the U.S., high schools charge a modest admission fee to non-students for basketball and football games and in two instances – because they were such a big draw – baseball and soccer.
Linguist over 10 years ago
Until relatively recently, I lived in Florida, and while Gov. Scott is certainly not on my list of good governors, in this case I agreed with what he was trying to achieve in this case. I was a product of parochial and private schools where a portion the tuition paid by the parents went towards sports programs – to a certain extent. My biggest argument against plans like Scott’s is that the impoverished counties and cities suffer while the more affluent communities reap the benefits because they can pay for them. This is to my mind, iniquitous but symptomatic of today’s thinking.BTW I was just kidding you about the one room school house. You’re old ( not much older than me, I might add ) but not that old !
Dr Lou Premium Member over 10 years ago
This issue shouldn’t be dismissed or ridiculed. High school players certainly shouldn’t be paid but Division 1 athletes based on crowd numbers should, at least, be given stipends even as would a student on work study.