Quote:Its such a tricky issue. 

 

Having the NCAA paying players opens up all sorts of issues.  Do all athletes get paid or just football players?  If just football players would what that do as far as Title 9?  Most athletic departments barely break even.  So would schools without much resources be forced to pay or would only money making sports?  How do we define a money making sport?  Will the NCAA of armies of accountants going over the books of each sport for each school to determine which players deserve money and which ones dont?  Or will we just leave it up to the school to decide which athletes they pay and which ones they wont?  And again how does Title 9 come into play? 

 

Lets say we dont go that route but instead let college athletes make money on the side. Of course the end result would be an open bidding war on all players and recruits.  Would the NCAA try to enact some sort of rule saying where they can make money and where they cant?  And how would they enforce that any beter than they are now?  I've heard Jay Bilas argue that you can regulate against athletes getting paid 500k for mowing some guys lawn.  But you couldnt regulate against a guy like T Boone Pickens from putting every single freshman recruiting class on a billboard promoting T Boone Oil and Gas and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars each.  Advertising dollars generate big bucks so thats a legitimate business venture.  If you let these athletes make money on the side, I dont think you would be able to regulate it.  Maybe by itself there is nothing wrong with that but I think what it would do is further expand the gap between the haves and have nots.  Which again, may not necessarily be a bad thing.  I think youd have the potential for a school loaded with money, like Oregon, telling some kid theyll get him a sweet job working at Nike paying him 500k a year in advertisements if he would transfer to their school.  It would be open season on transfers. 

 

 

Interesting post.  My take is very simple. The distribution of talent is probably already as lopsided as a college roster can allow. There are only so many starting roles in college football, and in order for a player to make any money, they have to play.  A team can "pay" a guy 500k to be on their team, but that just means another player leaves for another team where a roster spot is open.  Plus, all the "corrupt" teams will have to compete against all the other "corrupt" teams in a bidding war, just like they do now.  It seems like the same result, just the teams (or their sneaky affiliates) are "paying" more money to the players, which is exactly what I thought they were trying to avoid.

---