I happened upon a Real Sports story this weekend about paying players. It was pretty clear that the story was designed to say "These guys should be paid". They went as so far to calculate how much the players would be paid using an NBA/NFL style revenue sharing system. It was something like $300k a player at Auburn and $1.2 million at Duke for those national championship teams. They showed sob stories of Ed O'Bannon selling cars and another guy working at a bank who worked an average job and never saw any of the "millions" he made his college. It looked really sad for them. These schools were sleeping on piles of money while these guys didn't get the mansions they deserved. They even went as far to point out that NCAA administrators and workers at the school get paid too! They pointed out "The only ones not getting paid are the players!". If this was the first introduction you had to the NCAA/BCS structure then you would be ready to protest outside your local college for the players. However, outside of the valid complain of Ed O'Bannon that his likeness is being used in a video game years after he is no longer receiving benefits the whole thing was a joke.

1) Schools matter. Players don't. Every player is replaceable. We have seen this in basketball already. No one missed Kevin Garnett. The game saw no decrease in popularitiy. No one missed Kobe Bryant. Derrick Rose left after a year. Oh well. Someone else took his spot. Bucky Chris is rooting for whoever wears the Wisconsin uniform. Hawkeye Vince is rooting for whoever wears the Hawkeye uniform. The teams and colleges matter here. This is partly true in the NBA/NFL but players stay long enough that they start to matter a little more. That's another discussion all together, but that's why very few people change teams they root for when players are traded. Even the most popular player on the team leaving doesn't change fanhood.
2) Football makes money. Basketball makes a little money. Colleges don't make money. There is this inconvenient law that requires women's sports to be offered at schools. No one watches them outside of women's basketball. They are worthless. Yet, they cost millions of dollars a year to run. Most men's sports are the same way. However, athletic departments in general funnel money to them for facilities upgrades that they will NEVER see a return of investment on outside of swimming and diving and golf and tennis national titles. If you cut 50% or more of the revenue they make, as Real Sports seemed to think was easy, you lose virtually all sports. Basically, you'd have a men's basketball and football team, and enough womens sports to stay compliant.
3) It would fracture every conference. Northwestern and Vanderbilt couldn't compete in the revenue sports and would have no competition in the non-revenue sports as other schools would drop out to pay for football. Basketball only schools in the Big East would be forced to go elsewhere because they couldn't compete. Rutgers would become a better basketball school than St. Johns and Providence because they would pay more.
4) Agents would become incredibly powerful which wouldn't be good.
5) Non-guaranteed scholarships would mean that more athletes are flushed out of the system if not producing. When one of your football players isn't good enough to play much he's costing you a scholarship now. If that same player was costing you $300k a year you better believe that they would be released.

So basically, outside of the possible increase in stipend and spending money, which really solves absolutely nothing, it will never happen and it should never happen. It's currently a good deal for everyone involved. Obviously, there is about 1% of the system that would get a whole lot more but it would simply be taking it away from the other 99%. I don't feel sorry for any of these kids. Most of them that are the true superstars make millions at the next level, and those who weren't good enough were provided expense free living for four to five years, expanded options for college, expanded help to remain in good standing, access to important and powerful alumni networks, and a college degree. To those who didn't take advantage of that and do something worthwhile they still saw a benefit. It's like if I gave you a $50,000 lottery ticket. If you threw it away it doesn't mean you got a benefit for it. It just means you wasted your chance.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I agree with you premise. However kids are constantly being flushed out of the system now. Especially in the SEC who do know wrong but get dropped for someone better. Calipari released I believe four players from scholarship when he got the Kentucky job. Whenever you hear about a new football coach cleaning house and installing discipline, that is typically code word for freeing up scholarships. It just sounds nicer when you say you are installing discipline in your program.

_________________

That's true, but it would be 10 times worse if they paid players.

If I was allowed to change things in the NCAA that would be one of my first changes. I would require that all scholarship offers be for four years. However, you can have an "inactive list" of 10 scholarships that you can have them not suit up or for those who leave the program.

That would really stop the questionable recruits that the SEC and some other schools take on because if you lose 15 players over a four year period that's 5 less players you have on the roster.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

The only reason I sided with O'Bannon was the use of his likeness and name to make money. I feel the same way when I see a jersey at the bookstore with a player's name and number on the back. At that point it goes beyond selling the school to selling a particular person. In such an instance, the person deserves compensation.

If a pay for play system developed, I think you would simply get a new division in the NCAA. 75% of the teams would opt to stay in the existing division and probably still get the same atheletes to attend as they view it as a good deal to get free school for their work. The other 25% would compete on an elite level that would eventually look more like college sponsored minor leagues than college athletics.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I agree with that. He should either get royalties or that shouldn't be allowed.
The new division would not be financially viable though unless those schools cut all other men's sports and most of the women's sports.

Not to mention that the very concept of a college sponsored minor league system is flawed. Why wouldn't I just care more about the best pay leagues instead of some sort of hybrid that removes the good elements of college athletics while not really adding any value to my viewing experience?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I agree that college players shouldn't be paid, if there was a can't miss high school player, all the top schools would keep upping their price to pay him. One school could say we will pay 500,000 and then another school comes in and says it will pay 1 million. Wouldn't it be weird to hear during a college game, that player is earning his money or that contract.

Good Dolphin, they don't put the name on the back, just the number to get around it, should the players get some money for that, well Teddy Greenstein thought, what stops a booster coming in and buying 500 jerseys of 1 player. On the video game, like Ed O'Bannon and Sam Keller who wanted to against EA Sports, I wonder if these guys were doing better in life, would they care. They probably still make a college basketball game, never hear about it much, but College Football game is the big seller. The problem with the jerseys and video games, I like getting the schools jersey and look forward to the College Football game and would hate to see something change, they get around it by not putting names on the jersey or game.

I hate to say it, both football and basketball are dirty, but when you bring in good players and win, that also brings in the big time money. There was report in the local Lafayette Paper relating to Painter and because Purdue kept him, a restraunt owner was talking, that know people will still come in to watch Purdue basketball and allows him to his employees. From a fan's point, you get a winning team, but I don't need to know how you got there.

I will close with this, in college sports, everybody makes money off a player except the player.

Selected ninth by the New Jersey Nets of the NBA in the first round , he signed a three-year, $3.9 million contract. However, he became homesick.



That is sad

I won't get into the Title 9 reasons why some of these athletic departments don't have the money to pay athletes, but I shall then work on the method to which they determine this "shortfall" by expensing these scholarships.

"IF" the NCAA had a sense of real responsibility some program would exist in which the NCAA, not the school, but the NCAA would provide the players from those sports that do create the revenue an academic scholarship for "LIFE" at either the school they attended or a school in their home state (residency).

This needs to be acknowledged that kids get kicked out of programs by coaches and lose scholarships, or students are not given direction towards an education, but actually towards the easiest class schedule possible while they are playing, so they can concentrate on playing. The NCAA needs to provide a 'Written Policy" to address this. Many schools allow those players who remained in good graces to come back, but it is never a granted right. it should be.

I even think the player should get an addtional 2 year FULL RIDE "Housing, Food, Academics" after playing career is done to make it all right, of which at that time they can get a job, which would not void the scholarship.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

That's a good idea bigfan. I just think it's hard for them to do anything only for the revenue sports. It's bad PR and probably would be challenged in a court of law.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

It's not that it would be PR for the offer, the bad PR comes when the school and/or the NCAA needs to acknowledge the revenue producing sports, which they have already said are Mens basketball and football, require the "student athlete" to commit more time and energy to the sport.

This would need to come from the athletes themselves.

That almost boycott to start March Madness would have been incredible! Imagine Day1 of the Tourney and every team just sat down! wow....

Another issue...I forgot....a scholarship is a 4 year deal! Not 1!

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”