Ah, the collusion argument, er I mean amateurism argument. Is that you, Mark Emmert?
To me the fundamental question is why do college sports exist in the first place? Call me naive (and I fully will admit to it), but I still believe that college sports should first and foremost be a supplement to the overall educational experience. As soon as you are able to benefit financially purely by playing the sport, that concept goes out the window.
In my perfect (read: naive) world, if a kid wants to go pro in whatever sport, and the teams of that sport think he/she is ready, by all means, go ahead. But if you're receiving a scholarship for a given school to play a sport there, the implicit (and should be explicit) goal should be to supplement your education. It's already true for a vast majority of student athletes, not sure why there's an arbitrary distinction (the whole revenue sport argument is an entirely separate one, imo). Create minor leagues for those that want to fully focus on the sport and pay them to be in those leagues.
in the case of LaMelo, his dad did not once mention (at least in what's quoted) the educational side of the equation. If he feels that his son does not need further education and is confident enough that he will be a successful pro athlete - go for it. And make all the $$ you can in the process. But a subsidized college education should not be a part of that process.
