Interesting, but who or what insurance market would cover these insurance contracts? And wouldn't insurance against diminished performance be prohibitively expensive for all but a few?

I also don't think the professors take into account the fact that the quicker the players sign their first contract, the quicker they can begin accruing time towards that second contract (which doesn't have the same rigid rookie cap in place). Assuming that the insurance would cover diminished performance or injury, it doesn't make up for the fact that a player leaving college after year 1 signs his next major contract in three years, as opposed to the player who stays 4 years. In essensce, the player would be taking the risk of an initial injury while at school, and then an additional three years of injury in the NBA before a significantly larger payday is available. Although, perhaps the professors would propose some type of insurance for that, too?

 Anonymous -- 5/08/2008 11:16 AM  

Sounds like ivory-tower-itis to me.

 Anonymous -- 5/08/2008 11:47 AM  

Ludicrous. Even assuming this far-fetched idea of this new insurance product was workable, the professors are saying that college players would give up actual money paid now, for potential money paid in the future. So, let's see, you can get $1 million a year for the next four years, or you can stay in school on the promise that if you don't get $1 million a year when you get out, we will make up the difference. Ridiculous.

If colleges want to compete for these players, it should pay the players. If they're not going to compete financially for their services, they can't complain when they go somewhere where they will be paid.

 Anonymous -- 5/08/2008 11:50 AM  

Well, the professors did get the NCAA = cartel part right. Other than that, well, sorry about Love...I guess.

 Anonymous -- 5/08/2008 11:59 AM  

i need luis cassiano urgently
, i lost his e mail, can somebody contact me with him? my e mail ivanstipic7@net.hr, ivan ,croatia

 Anonymous -- 5/08/2008 2:36 PM  

I might try to write more on this, but wouldn't an overhaul to the current prohibition on agents/endorsements be just as effective? Arguably, the prestige and fame of playing the sport at the highest level is another factor on top of the millions of dollars in potential earnings. It's all connected, but wouldn't allowing endorsements cut into both the economic and prestige factors involved with professional sports?

Granted, this would never happen in the current view on college athletics. And arguably, if we want to change how college sports operate as far as treating student-athletes who expect to play professionally, it shouldn't happen at all.

 Satchmo -- 5/08/2008 5:54 PM  

OK gang. Article ripe for comment.
http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/SPORTS/214406287/1056/rss02&rssfeed=rss02

 Mark -- 5/09/2008 9:47 AM  

very good blog! congs!

 bookanalyzer -- 5/09/2008 10:14 AM  

Only problem with this is going to be two words:

TITLE IX .

Because as soon as this comes up, either (a) one of the other sports (i.e. golf, tennis, volleyball, gymnastics, crew, etc.) or (b) some crazy feminist types from the Women's Sports Foundation will come along and demand equality under Title IX.

Another good reason to modify or outright repeal Title IX--no, make sports EXEMPT from Title IX, since no college sports get federal funding!

 Anonymous -- 5/10/2008 1:47 AM  

I'm (♀), VietNam

I like this blog is so cool

Anyway, It's nice to see your blog

God Bless you

Thanks for sharing. Again

 YA76OO -- 5/11/2008 8:09 AM  

Are there any instances of US high school players jumping to European leagues immediately after high school then returning to the US NBA in order to meet the NBA requirements of being one year removed from high school and at least the age of 19? Would the immediate payday in Europe for one year be diminished by the hype created by US media in NCAA ball?

 Anonymous -- 5/12/2008 11:19 PM  

Post a Comment