Yeah, it's ironic that it's the opposite of what a lot of people want right now, which is more of having the super stars (billionaires) take the burden of the expense. Sorry, don't want this to go political, so I didn't mention names or parties, just a general thought. Please respect that and don't mention names and derail this.
The bolded gave me a great idea for how to solve the unbalance between Alabama, Clemson, tOSU, and everyone else. Make the scholarship stick with the player for at least 4 years. So if you have an early entry into the draft, like a true junior, then you don't get to fill that scholarship - it has to sit empty. So if you're 'bama and lose 5 underclassmen to the draft, next year you only have 80 scholarship athletes.
Honestly can't tell if you are serious or going for humor with this one but if serious this is a horrible idea. School shouldn't be punished for recruiting a player that ends up being good enough to go pro early.
Seriously???? The students are already paying for their own tuition, room and board, etc. and now you want them to chip in the fund the athletes? That would be terrible.There has been and will be numerous legislative initiatives announced this year, all subject to and pending the Supreme Court antitrust decision coming down in late June. Senator Cory Booker’s revenue sharing legislation is interesting. Under his plan Minnesota would be required to share certain percentage of revenue - approximately 40M in FY 2019 - with revenue sport athletes. This may, of course, have some impact on the athletic department‘s ability to fund non-revenue programs. Sure, there is fat on the budget but I’m fairly certain a 40M hit would torpedo certain interested parties. Would the legislature approve student fees or general fund revenue to cover the cost?
Athlete Revenue Sharing Could Force Major College Budget Shifts
As members of Congress weigh NIL legislation, they are also considering revenue sharing. We break down the potential impact of this concept.www.sportico.com
Why not? It would make 'bama et al to have to think twice before taking on all that talent. Or they'd have empty scholarships and so some of those players would trickle down to the rest of us.
There is of course the obvious flaw in that underclassmen declaring for the draft come from all over the place. Yes schools like Alabama and Ohio State might have more of them but they don't have all of them.
So once every few years we'd lose a player early and have to burn the final year of their scholarship, it wouldn't harm us nearly as bad as it would 'bama.
You could maybe pull something like what you are talking about off in basketball to try and combat the 1 and done issue where teams are bringing in "student" athletes that could care less about the student part of the equation as they know they are going to be gone in a couple of months and off to the NBA.
collegefootballnews.com
I'm opposed to the idea because it wouldn't work. You wouldn't just be taking scholarships from Alabama you would also be taking them from 60+ other teams as well, every year.
How many recruits do you think Alabama signs after the draft? I haven't looked but I'm guessing their class is pretty much set in stone by signing day. So then when they get 8 players drafted they have to "cut" 8 schollies? Or, do they have to say, "Well, I think we'll have 7 guys go pro, so I better not sign those 7 guys I want. And then if my guys don't get drafted and I've got schollies to fill I'll poach from other teams and then it will be their problem."
Or you could just move signing day to the day after you have to declare for the draft. Probably a much cleaner way than what you suggested. But thanks for trying your hardest to find a problem with my idea.
What posts has he/she made in this thread?
Thanks for the attempt at flattery but it was nowhere near my hardest. I came up with it as I was reading your post. Unfortunately, I don't care enough about the idea to try my hardest to find problems with it.
