Things most college fans say they want:
- An end to college athlete free agency, which mostly comes down to limits on transferring.
- A cap on player compensation, which relates to Want #1 but deserves its own listing.
- No more 23 year old freshmen who’ve been earning a living at their sport for a few years but see more financial opportunity in the college game.
- No more 7th year super-super-super seniors
Things every college fan knows they want:
- Their team to win
In an ideal world, any proposed “fix” for college sports would make these two lists compatible. However, what happens if those two things come into conflict?
Fact: rules help some more than others. We have a phrase for that: “It depends on who’s ox is being gored.”
That quick preamble brings us to this question:
Would you accept a fix for college sports that delivers those first 3 wants (limits on transfers, compensation,
and eligibility) but plausibly hurts UNC’s chances to field elite teams, especially basketball teams?
That’s what the current debates and arguments about regulating college sports come down to. Almost everyone agrees what they want removed from the college scene. The problem arises when people look at the proposals and note, “Hey, doing it that way helps those schools more than it helps us,” or worse, “Hey, doing it that way hurts us more than some other schools.”
Example: let’s pretend a Congressional bill capped basketball roster compensation to $10 million and only allowed one transfer. UNC clearly has donors willing to spend more money than most others on basketball, and both that and it’s tradition make UNC a highly desirable transfer destination. Would those rules help or hurt UNC’s ability to remain an elite basketball programs?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. My general sense of things: let’s be careful what we wish for.
