@JayHawkFanToo I think the point is that there is room for rule changes. Changes that would benefit some more than others and that could free schools from the ridiculous waste of time worrying about whether a kid’s mentor or guardian’s romantic relationship with a kid’s mother stemmed from long enough before he held a bb in his little hands to allow the purchase of a plane ticket for a family vacation when the kid grew up, or a lunch, or a suit, or a computer, or even some food or a car.

Constantly saying, “You know the rules so don’t go to college if you don’t like it” is a response that totally ignores whether the system could be improved by considering imaginative ideas and getting eveyone together to try to make it work for all parties, and to try to reduce the influence of hidden transactions.

Saying it works for 99% only means that you are ignoring the information coming out from numerous people saying that virtually everyone they knew playing college bb had accepted some type of impermissible benefits.

Back in the '90sI knew a guy who played at Marymount in Salina after that school went coed (1970s?)and when they rather quickly became a powerful team. Even he said he was slipped cash by boosters and businesses after a win or he had a good game. And he was not even a leading scorer.

The 99% you cite may include hundreds in the big sports who just aren’t getting caught. And if that is the case, cheating and lying are rife. So, open it up to more options to kids to be like anyone else and earn some money, and then, as the Commission recommends, hit the cheaters hard.

@Woodrow But if the coach talks to the right people and a team which wants to hedge its bets says the guy is draft-worthy, certain in the 2nd round, and the kid declares, he should pay a penalty of forfeiting his college prospects because he listened to the right people and still got screwed? That makes no sense.

@Kcmatt7 After some deliberation on how these issues got so heated here, something I read in recently came to mind that makes our discussion kind of ironic:

One thing about the Commission that was criticized from its inception is that it was not charged with figuring out anything regarding the amateurism rules, or compensation to players. The image/likeness litigation is still being considered by courts, so the NCAA tied the Commission’s hands on these issues.

So, we probably should not get too excited about the potential changes regarding $ we have been discussing because the NCAA won’t be doing anything for years if ever.

@Woodrow And if the coach is wrong?

What if we converted scholarships to loans that get written off if a kid stays, say, 3 years? Kids going pro early get to pay them back through earnings.

And then athletes could have the extra special modern college normal experience of leaving school with crushing debt.

Ok, this needs refinement…

@dylans I guess I missed that level playing field…

But, honestly, you might find kids more willing to stay at home or nearby, where they already have a name. Zion might have gone to Clemson or SC if a local business had given him an incentive. Instead, he is at that symbol of ordinary recruiting, Duke.

@BeddieKU23 I think of the regular old USC here in Columbia as being in a perpetual sort of Downstate.

More seriously, I think it is an adjunct of the USC system but they don’t use city names here as they do for, say, University of California at (wherever).

Upstate is just a reference they use here for the northern part of the state. Like New York Uptown.

People keep responding to the idea of schools paying players but most of us are talking about endorsement or other outside contractual earnings, not paying players. None of the fears raised about Title 9, reduced staff salaries, or eliminated sports, applies to simply not controlling kids’ ability to earn something from outside sources.

Frankly, every time we saw Devonte’s face on an ad for KU games against OU (with Trae’s cute little mug, too), or for our tourney games, I thought it was pretty weird that they get to use him in ads and he gets nothing. No one else has to sign away those image and name rights. Why couldn’t kids sell T-shirts with “MVP Battle for Bahamas” on them? or “BIFM”?

@Woodrow How on earth is a 17 or 18 year old kid supposed to know who the right person to listen to is? Alleged “experts” miss on draft picks all the time. Why make a player’s decision to trust someone who “misses” in a prediction so absolutely determinative of a kid’s prospects? It is as if people deserve to be punished for not controlling what people around them are advising them. And obviously punishes the wrong people.

A better idea, in my view: If you declare but return because you are undrafted, you lose eligibilty for that calendar year and have to sit out until January. Coaches would have an incentive to keep a kid who could contribute, or get a potentially draftable recruit, and kids could still be a part of and benefit from their college experience. But while there would still be a consequence from declaring unwisely, enough to cause second thoughts by the player and any school considering him, it eliminates the stark harshness of losing all eligibility.

@Gunman By some twisted logic, the antitrust laws involving concerted labor practices that create a bar to entry do not apply when the workforce already in the industry has agreed to the barriers under a collective bargaining agreement.

That is the technical reason. The real reason is that the owners give more money in the CBA to the players to extract the agreement to disallow the youngsters. And that is crap. Or, as @drgnslayr says, corruption.