- Joined
- Nov 26, 2011
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction Score
- 22
This from the Courant today -- "One year of tuition at UConn for an in-state resident — Drummond is from Middletown — is roughly $21,000, and it is not known how the Drummonds are paying it, but under the rules they are getting no aid from UConn. Drummond, who is considered a top NBA prospect, has insurance in case of injury, and presumably a bank loan could easily be secured, given his huge potential income. He could be in the NBA as early as next year."
This got me thinking --
You read a lot of articles about whether or not NCAA players should get paid, given they do bring in revenue to the campus. Wouldn't a bank loan be an elegant, consumption-smoothing, free-market approach to this problem? If you are a good player, you get a larger bank loan. You're still on the hook for the money, so no one's paying you. If you're not a good player, you don't qualify for a loan. There's no issue with deciding which player or which sport should be paid more. Certainly you can't argue that all NCAA athletes should be paid the same (someone playing lax will never bring in the revenues that the basketball team does).
Players complain that they aren't getting their fair share, but this could solve the problem. You could argue that, well, a loan isn't the same as getting paid, and since the players are bringing in revenues they should be getting paid. However, you could also argue that without the NCAA and its framework, some of these players would never be "discovered" -- and thus their entry into professional basketball would have not ever happened.
Thoughts?
This got me thinking --
You read a lot of articles about whether or not NCAA players should get paid, given they do bring in revenue to the campus. Wouldn't a bank loan be an elegant, consumption-smoothing, free-market approach to this problem? If you are a good player, you get a larger bank loan. You're still on the hook for the money, so no one's paying you. If you're not a good player, you don't qualify for a loan. There's no issue with deciding which player or which sport should be paid more. Certainly you can't argue that all NCAA athletes should be paid the same (someone playing lax will never bring in the revenues that the basketball team does).
Players complain that they aren't getting their fair share, but this could solve the problem. You could argue that, well, a loan isn't the same as getting paid, and since the players are bringing in revenues they should be getting paid. However, you could also argue that without the NCAA and its framework, some of these players would never be "discovered" -- and thus their entry into professional basketball would have not ever happened.
Thoughts?
