I dunno, I don’t think it’s that complicated. If you’re a star in a sport generating hundreds of millions for your university, you can expect to get a cut of that. If you’re playing a sport with no TV deal or any significant gate revenues, that can only exist when other sports are funding it, getting a free ride to play it doesn’t sound like a bad deal. Maybe I’m overestimating college athletes but I feel like they know the reality better than anyone.
Yea and use / rent / monetize the infrastructure already there without n the teams and talent
But have it have nothing to do wIth having to go to class.
With the money
They could pay for the on their own.
1 Like
You mean like how the state of Michigan went bonkers when Grand Valley State won the championship?
2 Likes
Why would they want to “take on” the NFL? Both leagues have a good thing going right now and are making great money. What incentive would they have to do that?
Yes, a long time coming. The NCAA could make the money back fairly quickly by paying Goodell to negotiate their TV rights. In the end, that’s what this is about, money. It certainly isn’t about what’s best for anyone besides the NCAA.
They can then chase money and everybody gets paid.
I guess it wouldn’t have to go head to head with nfl as it could be a younger league 18 and up
The ncaa problem imo is treating the student athletes like the throw away product and exploit them for all their worth which is going to keep catching up to them rather than be stuck in some draconian thing
Especially when the money for the players at risk is so great … back in the day when nfl plsyers weren’t making as much
Trading education worth $50-$100k is worth it
But if you’re skills are worth $10mil
You can pay your own way
Imo it just seems like that creates a real imbalance in the system where players start to gain leverage iMO
One could pay their own way after first vet minimum contract.
They are treating them like a continuation of high school athletes. The old model was that you were an amateur in college the same way you were an amateur in high school. Only when you “turned pro” did you start getting paid to play sports. I think that old model is crumbling and the NCAA will be forced to recognize college athletes as something inbetween high school amateurs but not quite professional athletes.
1 Like
Agree and add
When the money at stake dwarfs what it costs to get education
Something seems off. Why not just pay your own way ?
Also in beginning college was amateur and more popular than pro game. Most players weren’t trying to go pro.
So college wasn’t exactly the pro minor league.
And in the pro league the money wasn’t as big as it is now
So trading it for education made a little more sense.
So, anyone wonder what this is going to do on the “haves” and “have nots” that play together?
1 Like
Not much. The gulf is already insurmountable, this won’t change that.
If you are talking about teammates getting completely different compensation packages I don’t think that will be the reality in the short term. I think as this moves forward the “sweetening” of the scholarship offers will be done across the board and not per individual. The NCAA will probably even put out some kind of guidance that states something to the effect.
EDIT: I totally misread the post I was responding to, which is asking about haves and have nots on one team’s roster. I was talking about the haves and have nots of college football programs broadly. But I still think it’s fascinating to see how it shakes out, so I’m leaving my post below…
I dunno, in the short term at least, seems like an opening for the “have nots” to buy themselves a shot at competing. SMU did it, right???
In all seriousness, we’re talking about fundamental, structural changes to the nature of college sports, and it’s impossible to say how it will all ultimately shake out. Look at it this way: Right now, many of the best athletes in college football are playing as backups for big-name programs like Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State. Why? Because it’s their shot to a first-round draft selection, so they’re willing to wait their turn.
Well, what if a bunch of those guys are offered $50k in cash to go play for a Northern Illinois or something? How many players are going to stick around waiting patiently at a place like Alabama if they could make cash money right now elsewhere? How many tiny schools in Texas can put together a few million bucks from donors to throw at some great players to try to make a run? Or conversely, how much is a place like Alabama going to budget to keep all the top prospects in the country in house?
In some ways, I think some smaller schools will become more competitive as a result of this than they’d ever be playing under the old rules. Hell, the whole notion of building an established system and recruiting pipeline becomes a lot less relevant when it’s possible to just throw some money around to get the guys you want.
Ok after reading this thread it is clear to me that there is some misunderstandings on what the ruling from the Supreme Court actual says.
It does not allow college players to be paid by the universities. This is clearly stated in the decision It does remove the restrictions that the NCAA had placed on the universities for how much and what type of educational expenses the universities can offer the students. i.e. School A could offer a full ride (meaning tuition, course cost, books, room and food is covered by the school) and a new laptop every year and free tutors to help the athlete pass his courses. School B could come along and offer the same thing and then offer a set of noise cancelling headphones (high quality of course). School C says that they will offer all of that and then also offer free graduate school. So then the student makes his choice based on that information. In addition this is only in affect at the NCAA level, divisions or individual universities may still choice to impose the same rules or new ones(which they probable will).
Another thing that was explained to me a long time ago by another poster is the misunderstanding of how many student athletes get full rides. When most non football or non basketball students are offered scholarships it rarely covers more then tuition and courses. Most of the other athletes are still required to pay for food, books and their room. Even though the NCAA still requires them to follow the same guidelines as the student athletes that are on the Basketball or Football teams.
1 Like
This is technically true but I think most of us are just assuming that it’s basically inevitable. It doesn’t have to be direct payments coming from schools to athletes. All you need is a group of donors putting together a pot of cash and paying the players for whatever they feel paying them for (serving in some “job” outside the football program, licensing their name and image, whatever).
You realize this is already happening correct? What you are talking about is NIL which is a seperate issue that is in the process of being changed, which will result in donors paying players in plain view. As opposed to paying then in not as quite plain view like they do now.
Too many people here are confusing this ruling with NIL which are two very different issues.
1 Like
I do understand that NIL is a separate issue, and that there’s plenty of BS that already goes on. (Although the NCAA, on paper at least, does prohibit donors from hiring athletes to fake jobs or handing them cash, and has come down harshly on programs that get caught red-handed doing it. See SMU and Michigan with the Fab Five.)
What this ruling does, and particularly the Kavanaugh concurrence, is establish that the NCAA has no exemption from anti-trust laws. Which is the opening that will ultimately lead to college players getting compensated–likely in all sorts of ways we can’t even predict right now, as I also noted in the thread.
I always thought it was revealing of what’s really been hidden in plain sight
When the Reggie Bush stuff came up
And not a former Heisman was critical
Which made me think
It was the norm more than acception for the rest of those Heismsn guys.
I think to a degree some of us might be overthinking this ruling. However I know for a fact that if someone is keeping a narrow view of this ruling to just this particular case and not the language and reasoning that was used…they are underthinking it.