I have left this small-time stuff behind me. I feel like the blogging version of Carlos Beltran, going from a small-market franchise to the Big Apple in less than six months. When I last blogged I was an unemployed schmuck fresh out of college, albeit with a job awaiting me, but jobless nonetheless. On present day I am a sports editor/writer for the Christian County Headliner in Ozark, Mo. and most recently have signed on with the boys over at Kings of Kauffman of the Fansided blogging network.
However, I could not have done it without the use of BC on KC and more specifically, without the abominable Kyle Davies occupying a Royals roster spot. My defiling of him and the Royals landed me the gig with Kings of Kauffman. I will still be blogging about the Royals obviously, it will just be in a more organized and repetitive fashion with a much larger audience to listen to my rants. And since I am a multi-sports writer/blogger I will continue to use BC on KC as a format to discuss the Chiefs and most things involving the Missouri Tigers.
Which brings me to the purpose of this blog—other than announcing my promotion to the big leagues.
I'll be referring to the college athletes in this piece in the first person (lots of your, you's, etc.)
There has been a lot of attention garnered by the national media about pay for play in college athletics, college football in particular. My stance on this issue has always been, you're getting paid by getting a FREE EDUCATION that the majority of your peers aren't receiving. You've earned a free education with your athletic prowess, just as someone else earns his or her scholarship with their academic prowess. And many of the athletes in the two money-making sports that are fueling this debate, football and basketball, would not have even gotten into the universities in which they are attending for FREE.
**I won't expand on the last point, but would LOVE to have that discussion with anyone who disagrees.**
Now before you get all fussy on me, I get it athletes, you make tons of money for the universities in which you play for, that is if you're in the BCS conferences—sorry San Jose State athlete, you don't bring anything to the table, shed a few tenths off your forty and you'll be in this discussion—thus you deserve some sort of monetary compensation for you service.
It's a tough debate, however, me being a compromising and understanding young man, and a bit of an academic myself, I see no reason why we can't come to an agreement on this issue. Thus, I have come up with a magical formula that should dissolve this dispute once in for all. What if I were to tell you university presidents, network affiliates, and athletes that I could make you all richer with this scenario, is that something you might be interested in?
That's what I thought, so here's the whole shebang. Athletes will receive monetary compensation, contracts in a sense, if they are a scholarship player on the roster. They will receive pay grades based on how valuable they are to their team, this will be decided upon by the university in which they play for. Thus, the university will in a sense be a professional organization. Here's the kicker, (you'll like this, suits) since they will be paying players they are a professional organization, thus the player will have contracts which allow them to be viewed as employees that can be released, traded, and also not allowed to quit or transfer without forfeiting their contracts.
Think of all of this as if it is Major League Baseball. However, with no draft in a free market, players are paid based off of performance. The best part of this whole scenario though, is that since the players are now employed by the university—athletic directors and head coaches now become general managers in a sense and can trade and acquire players from other universities. See, in baseball if your team is struggling and is not in contention to make the playoffs, you traditionally trade your most valuable assets that can help a team in contention and in return receive prospects that will help build your organization down the road. The same scenario would apply in my version of college football.
Their would be a trade deadline just as their is in professional baseball and it would similarly take place around the halfway point of the season. We will place it temporarily at Nov. 1.
For instance, last season in the Big 12, Missouri's struggling run defense could have traded for Baylor's Phil Taylor before its meeting with Nebraska on Oct. 30. With the injury to defensive tackle, Dominique Hamilton, this move would have immediately impacted Missouri and given them a boost and much better chance to knock off Nebraska, thus a better shot to win the Big 12 North and get to a BCS bowl. However, just like in MLB, the deal would require Missouri to give up a couple promising prospects. In the college football trading arena it would be promising freshmen who have 3-4 years ahead of them.
Taylor would have fetched a heavy price, seeing as though he is a first round draft pick and one of the best nose tackles in the country. Just for fun, lets say Missouri made the deal and acquired Taylor for freshmen WR Marcus Lucas, DE Kony Ealy, and CB Tristen Holt. All were four-star recruits, according to rivals.com and are three recruits that Baylor would not have otherwise gotten. They are three valuable pieces that would help Baylor in building a program for the next three seasons and they only had to give up a player who had 6 games left in his college career.
The deal would be completely worth it for Missouri if: Taylor comes in and plugs holes that were as wide as the Mississippi River against Nebraska—preventing Roy Helu Jr. from three long TD runs—and Missouri wins the game and moves to 8-0 on the season and 4-0 in conference, essentially clinching the Big 12 North with a two-game lead and tiebreaker over Nebraska. Missouri loses three prized recruits that they spent countless hours persuading to come to the university, however, if Taylor helps them win a Big 12 championship and play for a national championship, then it was completely worth it. Just as it was for the Brewers to acquire C.C. Sabathia at the deadline two seasons ago.
You could apply this scenario to any contending team in conferences all over the country. For instance, the game is already dirty in the SEC, why not throw in deadline trades that bolster Alabama's roster before the Iron Bowl? Can you imagine how much better the SEC season would have been if Bama or Florida traded for Jake Locker midway through the season? Oh yeah, I forgot to throw in that inter-conference trading would be allowed.
Some of you might be wondering, "What about the players? That wouldn't be fair for them to have to switch schools midway through the semester and travel across the country! They're just kids!" Hate to break it to you, but they're now paid athletes. They're paid employees of the NCAA and they have no say—unless they have a no-trade clause in their contract, but those can be worked around. It's part of the business of the new and improved college football world. Besides, what would Locker or Taylor care? They're now getting PAID to go play for a WINNER. Locker would have been able to leave behind his cement-shoed offensive line and no play-makers to go play behind SEC hog-mollies, hand off to Mark Ingram, and throw to Julio Jones with a real shot to play for a national championship. And Taylor would be able to leave behind his cellar-dwelling Bears in the south for the first-placed Tigers in the north and would get a chance to beat-up the Oklahoma Sooners, but this time in a winning effort.
It's an utterly spectacular plan that would generate even more interest in the NCAA, because people would no longer wonder if their team was paying its players, because everyone would be doing it....legally. ESPN and other networks could use players—paid employees of the NCAA—to promote games and they would have analysts breakdown potential trade rumors and deadline deals that need to be made. The interest in the game would skyrocket even higher than it already is and no one would feel guilty about it, because the players are "getting theirs." There would have to be an agreed on salary cap, however, and it would be equal for all 120 FBCS programs. Small programs wouldn't be able to afford it, but they can't say that they don't have an equal opportunity to compete and it certainly gives them leverage if they could offer recruits a guaranteed salary.
The BCS would dissolve and the NCAA would implement the playoff system that all fans have been dying to see. The playoffs would be setup like March Madness, but have it's own illustrious nickname (The Holiday Classic, anyone?) that would make the Mike Tiricos and other schmucks of the world to yearn for a simpler time when it was good ol' Notre Dame vs. Michigan for all the marbles, while 10 other equally good teams watched on television. I would suggest 16 teams, but would allow the NCAA and its detractors to argue over the best setup. This would be much better than arguing which is better between the BCS/Bowl system vs. playoff system, no?
Some of you reading this are probably thinking how ridiculous it is to expect a player to move halfway through a semester to go play at another university—potentially thousands of miles away—and leave his teammates, friends and the coaches and program he chose to play at, without any say. Just for added revenue and more money for universities and large media corporations. And you're probably the same people who think that these mistreated athletes deserve to get paid in the first place. Well, here you go. I've just painted a professional reality mixed into the college game. Still think college athletes should be paid?
