That's why the proposal that has the most legs is the Olympic model. Schools themselves would be capped at Scholarship + Cost of Living as now, but athletes would be able to sell their likeness. Does a local car dealership want a tennis player to show up and sign autographs? Big Burger Palace want to pay the swimmers to show up and eat 1lb burgers every Friday? Costs to schools wouldn't increase, recruiting imbalance wouldn't be any different than now.

---

I wrote this, you should read it:
https://www.slowtwitch.com/...n_Swimming_6700.html

Quote:

I, for one, am glad she wanted that. It meant I got to see her swim in my home pool a few years ago.

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Costs to schools wouldn't increase

-------
But if they wanted to and/or have their bag man be the "money guy" they simply could. So yeah they could make a "cap" that the school pays, and then it would simply be the same thing that happens now....the booster/money guy/fall guy represents the school instead of the school giving it directly to the player.

Because here's what isnt changing whether we pay players or not...the pressure to win. That's going to be here no matter what.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I'm not following - I don't see a problem. Legalizes what the big $$ schools and sports are doing, and lets other athletes maintain the ability to participate in the greatest team experience (imho) available.

---

I wrote this, you should read it:
https://www.slowtwitch.com/...n_Swimming_6700.html

I was responding to the comment that costs wouldn't go up. They could if they wanted to. IE even if they "cap" it "officially", they'll do what they are doing now....have an middle guy.


Wasn't saying that was wrong, was more responding to this could increase costs if a school sees value in X athlete, and it all be "legal" now.

As I said earlier essentially it takes the dirty recruiting that goes on now and makes it legal.

ETA:

But yes they will have a "cap" on the amount of money schools are allowed to give. Teams like Texas that has their on TV network and is making boat loads of money compared to 95% of the other programs wouldn't be able to just openly give out money. They'd simply suggest to Mr. Big Booster be the one that "supports" their star RB.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

That must be very few xc skiing coaches earning that much. How many xc programs are there? Has the number declined like most non-revenue sports? Many coaches earning pretty small salaries, not all are earning $5 mil a year like the big sports.
Even most football programs lose money.

Of course most NCAA sports lose money. They are using a lot of money on traveling, lodging, facilities, staff, coaches and more.
Do you think rowing coaches are earning well outside of NCAA?
What about track coaches?
I totally understand why people involved with NCAA wants everything to stay the same. I would also if I was in their position.
But plympic sports in the USA have a lot of money, of course mostly within the ncaa system.

By the way, all other countries have sports without a similar system.

------

And this is actually why I think USA men's triathlon will always struggle in ITU with having a true medal contender. (No disrespect to the current athletes or developing athletes.....How many top 5 WTS results have we had in 10 years? I'd be shocked if it was more than 5.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I was a D1 athlete so privy to the inside workings.
the schools lets the athletes do whatever they wanted. The athletic department was actually pretty strict, but the teachers could care less. if they didnt let an athlete do something, word would get out they weren't "cool" and it would damage their rep and potentially not get them rehired or lose tenure. They had something to lose.

We practiced way more than the maximum hours. I was not even on the "weight lifting roll sheet" so none of that even got recorded. They did, however, make sure we went to study hall. That was actually athlete social hour. Athletes from all sports, in one room, flush with endorphins...it was like speed dating. I don't think i studied at all haha

The drug testing though was intense! I got a random one, was hydrated, so my pee didn't hit the required salinity. They made me stay and eat pretzels and ride a stationary bike for 2 hours until I peed the required ratio. I was then flagged and had to do one every week. Excuse me for drinking lots of water haha

They all got throwbacks too. Just in ways the NCAA could not track or they turned a blind eye too.
It was a wild little world.

In addition to the obvious financial benefits of turning pro, there is also the college training issue. This came up for Janet Evans years ago when she was at Stanford 89-91. New NCAA rules restricted student athletes to train 20 hrs/week (maybe it was 22) in their respective sports, so she quit to train at the levels she wanted to. I think she ended up training with Mark Schubert at USC after that.

Really, the window to be the best in the world is short in terms of the lifetime opportunity to go to school. Few truly have the legit opportunity and the tools to occupy the top step. Seems like Ledecky is just doing the full Carpe Diem and embracing the challenge...amazing athlete....