While I've always been against paying athletes, I found this article made an interesting point.
link
What caught my eye was this:
"If there were no artificial limits on spending, star talent would invariably become very expensive, which would discourage schools from stockpiling coveted recruits. Instead, the best athletes would be distributed more evenly throughout the various schools and conferences."
Just looking at hoops, could UNC and dook stockpile talent like they do today? If top talent went for $1M+ a year could dook and UNC afford at $10-20M roster?
I think the one factor they fail to incorporate is that all you need is a couple of billion dollar alumni that are willing to part with significant cash to pay for players. For example, how much money would T-Boone give to OKst to directly fund their rosters.
I think it would change the balance more based on who has the biggest spending alumni, not on what the athletic department was willing to fund which similarly would create schools that spend like the Yanks and Sox in baseball. Of course spending the most has not related to consistent championships.
One final consideration, given there are quite a few accounts of NBA players spending all their money, what's going to happen when you put $1M in the pocket of an 18 year old on a college campus?
link
What caught my eye was this:
"If there were no artificial limits on spending, star talent would invariably become very expensive, which would discourage schools from stockpiling coveted recruits. Instead, the best athletes would be distributed more evenly throughout the various schools and conferences."
Just looking at hoops, could UNC and dook stockpile talent like they do today? If top talent went for $1M+ a year could dook and UNC afford at $10-20M roster?
I think the one factor they fail to incorporate is that all you need is a couple of billion dollar alumni that are willing to part with significant cash to pay for players. For example, how much money would T-Boone give to OKst to directly fund their rosters.
I think it would change the balance more based on who has the biggest spending alumni, not on what the athletic department was willing to fund which similarly would create schools that spend like the Yanks and Sox in baseball. Of course spending the most has not related to consistent championships.
One final consideration, given there are quite a few accounts of NBA players spending all their money, what's going to happen when you put $1M in the pocket of an 18 year old on a college campus?
