There's always a fight to keep costs down, and since it's a long off-season, thought there might be others besides me that would find this interesting....
Article was a front page link on USA Today for an anti-trust lawsuit to challenge what players can receive in men's football, basketball, and women's basketball.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...e-athletes-pay-purdue-big-ten-ncaa/100553590/
It's my opinion that the NCAA will continue to struggle with the model they have because at the high end of the spectrum, the market price of the the best athletes is significantly higher than what the schools are allowed to offer. For 95% of athletes, choice of a scholarship offer is going to be a reasonable exchange of their work and talent. At the elite level, though, the model breaks down.
I find it ironic that the article claims that donors think athletes get too many benefits. Who do they think is funding all that money that gets thrown at collegiate sports?
Article was a front page link on USA Today for an anti-trust lawsuit to challenge what players can receive in men's football, basketball, and women's basketball.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...e-athletes-pay-purdue-big-ten-ncaa/100553590/
It's my opinion that the NCAA will continue to struggle with the model they have because at the high end of the spectrum, the market price of the the best athletes is significantly higher than what the schools are allowed to offer. For 95% of athletes, choice of a scholarship offer is going to be a reasonable exchange of their work and talent. At the elite level, though, the model breaks down.
I find it ironic that the article claims that donors think athletes get too many benefits. Who do they think is funding all that money that gets thrown at collegiate sports?