re: Unless you’ve been a college athlete under the NCAA you wouldn’t understand...

What do you think LSU’s new locker room and UGA’s new LED lights are about? They’re used to increase the value of their offer to recruits over other schools. They’re absolutely compensated under the current allowable measures of the market. You have a limited view and understanding of what a market is.

quote:

---

What do you think LSU’s new locker room and UGA’s new LED lights are about? They’re used to increase the value of their offer to recruits over other schools. They’re absolutely compensated under the current allowable measures of the market. You have a limited view and understanding of what a market is.

---

Ok, next time you go into a job interview tell them that you'll take half of what you'd get on the market if only they'll put LED lights and a hot tub in your cubicle, then come back and tell me that's compensation on par with money.

of course it's market, but it's not a free market.

If you're going to open Pandora's box, throw the players a bone on top of their scholarship. Player likeness is professional sports. We're talking about millions, agents, marketing. It's not an easy problem to solve. I'm usually on the "scholarship is your pay" wagon, but the schools and networks are making millions off of play on the field. I still say college football would make money regardless of who is playing. But it wouldn't be this lucrative.

That's friggin BS!!!!

quote:

---

If you think college basketball and football are still amateur sport in any way other than by legal definition, you are fooling yourself. They are billion dollar industries.

---

They are billion dollar industries in their current form.

In the NFL, salary caps, rules, roster size, etc. are collectively bargained between the owners and the NFLPA. While the two sides are usually negotiating against each other, they do have one common goal: “protecting the shield”. Both sides know that the entire system hinges on putting a quality product on the field that will keep the fans interested. NFL players are working, educated adults and they have a future to worry about.

Contrast this with college football. Players have a maximum of 4 years eligibility. They are 18-22 years old, with little incentive to protect the long-term interests of the league. There are roughly 1,700 active players on NFL rosters, compared to 11,000 scholarship football players in FBS alone.

I think the concern most have with the “pay to play” idea is that it could cause irreparable harm to college athletics in the long term. As things stand now, only about 20% of FBS schools’ athletic departments are self-sustaining. What if lower tier schools start shutting down their football programs because they can’t compete? What if schools start ending various sports that don’t generate revenue as more money is diverted to football and basketball? What is the impact to those athletes who could potentially lose scholarship opportunities? Do they have a voice? Should they? What about Title IX?

These questions all really boil down to things that should be collectively bargained, but it gets really difficult when you have almost 500,000 student athletes affected, all in their late teens or early 20’s, and none of whom will be affected 3-4 years from now.

One last point re: free markets. There’s nothing stopping anyone from building a lower tier football league that can pay the 4- and 5-star players (that’s really who we are talking about). See my last post referencing the XFL. The fact that nobody has created an alternative league doesn’t mean that there’s not a free market. What it does mean (depending on how you look at it) is either a) that there is a huge opportunity out there for someone to capitalize on the NCAA’s failure, or b) that the market is actually fairly balanced and there’s not a ton of opportunity out there anyway.

quote:

---

Hell, a lineman won't get a dime. You think a right tackle wants to block for a QB that just filled his wallet with autograph money? Will RB#3 be willing to give 100% on the field when RB#1 just got bank to shoot a commercial for Gatorade?

---

^THIS in spades.

If you're going to pay players, it needs to be a flat rate across the board. Who will govern this with unbias ? Will players who aren't stars and aren't asked to shoot commercials etc, eventually unionize to get a piece of the pie ? Bad idea all the way around. You will have marketing agencies trying to sign guys in high school. This reeks.

Poor ting

All I read in this post is a Alabama player who actually got caught being paid

quote:

---

Or take a job at the mill

---

So the liberals want to create s system whereby a few can be compensated more, creating an even bigger divide between the haves and the have nots. Imagine that? All college football needs is a bunch of "Antonio Browns", running around trying to sell themselves to the highest bidder.
If I am company looking for someone to provide sponsorship, I am going to direct that person to where I want them to play (the university of my choice). If they play for Bama, and I own a sausage factory in Baton Rouge, guess what, now thru the transfer portal, Tua now wears purple and gold.
Why even bother with recruiting at that point? Just openly say if you are 5* player, you get $100,000 per game, etc.
This is a deal breaker for college athletics. No one will be playing for a university, they will be playing for themselves. That very premise is why the NFL, filled with primadonnas and wage inequality, is on the downfall. Viewership is lower all the time. People don't want to see that.
In reality, what I see is the fact that we have our priorities all on the wrong lane.