(03-19-2013 11:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:14 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  It's the "I'll take my ball and go home in you don't do what I want" card. :rollseyes:

If I am the SEC or any other conference I think what I do right now is tell the NFL and NBA that any league that doesn't allow the signing or drafting of high school seniors will be denied scouting privileges, will be given no access to film, and no access to players.

Right now intercollegiate baseball and hockey are healthy despite top players going pro without going the college route. Even intercollegiate soccer is growing despite top athletes opting pro over college.

The only fly in the ointment is basketball where you are limited to signing with a foreign team or one of the sundry nickle and dime American pro leagues and the NFL where you have to be a junior.

The NFL and to a lesser degree the NBA are forcing kids to opt for college whether they desire to go to college or not. If they want to commercially exploit their likeness, they can go the pro route in every sport except football.

I think it was interesting Deloss Dodds said that he thought if anyone ever challenged the baseball rules, they would win. I believe you either have to go out of high school or wait until you are a junior in college. But in baseball the careers can be longer and the $ difference isn't as much for that level of player. So no one's challenged it yet.

There is a finagle that some kids use. If you are drafted high but not quite as high as you wanted or thought you should be a good "advisor" (ie. your future agent) may tell you to forget signing with a Division I school and sign with a juco. That keeps you draftable after your first year and second year of college. That way if you are drafted after your freshman or sophmore season you have the leverage of staying with your school or signing with a Division I school. Then if you are drafted as a junior in Division I you have that leverage of whether or not you will return.

Beauty of the system is you don't have to declare for the draft. You can potentially be drafted five times before you sign.

I worked with a lady who had a kid projected to be drafted in rounds 2 to 5 depending on who you asked. Their advisor told them that if the money wasn't right a 2 or he went in the 3rd that he needed to go juco and maybe consider it a 4 but maybe at 4 and certainly at 5 to sign Division I.

(03-19-2013 11:41 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see no problem with letting amateur athletes capitalize on the fact that they are the faces of the program. Their university capitalizes on that fact while they're in school. The athletes themselves should be able to use that fact to make some money. Advertising is a good way to do that, without impacting additional expenditure on their university...

Then that'll cross the line to being a professional instead of a collegiate athlete. If the athletes don't care about getting a free education then they can go to the NBA D-league or the CFL/WFL...etc and be a professional there and then see if they get drafted into the NBA or NFL.

That's part of the definition that I've always disagreed with. The players wouldn't be getting paid to play, which is the true definition of a professional. If you get paid for doing something, you are a professional in that field...

IMO the current definition is restrictive, as is the fact that these kids aren't allowed to make any money from a job off the field. Since they're football players, they're supposedly getting preferential treatment. That may or may not be the case. It depends on the person doing the hiring...

These kids would merely be making money off the fact that they are recognizable. That their recognition comes from being a player doesn't make them professional athletes. They would be professional advertisers. But they aren't getting paid to play. If we give them stipends, as people are proposing, they would be getting paid to play. That would make them professionals under the truest definition of the word...

I see no sense in restrictive policies that serve no purpose other than to keep these kids servants to their school. The athletes are left without any way to make some income, which would improve the quality of their college experience. Most of the kids that become college sports stars come from low income homes, and don't have the kind of family support that many college students enjoy...

(03-19-2013 11:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:14 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  It's the "I'll take my ball and go home in you don't do what I want" card. :rollseyes:

If I am the SEC or any other conference I think what I do right now is tell the NFL and NBA that any league that doesn't allow the signing or drafting of high school seniors will be denied scouting privileges, will be given no access to film, and no access to players.

Right now intercollegiate baseball and hockey are healthy despite top players going pro without going the college route. Even intercollegiate soccer is growing despite top athletes opting pro over college.

The only fly in the ointment is basketball where you are limited to signing with a foreign team or one of the sundry nickle and dime American pro leagues and the NFL where you have to be a junior.

The NFL and to a lesser degree the NBA are forcing kids to opt for college whether they desire to go to college or not. If they want to commercially exploit their likeness, they can go the pro route in every sport except football.

I think it was interesting Deloss Dodds said that he thought if anyone ever challenged the baseball rules, they would win. I believe you either have to go out of high school or wait until you are a junior in college. But in baseball the careers can be longer and the $ difference isn't as much for that level of player. So no one's challenged it yet.

I'd be curious when Dodds said that. I know about 10 years ago now Maurice Clarett challenged the NFL rules, and basically the ruling was since it was collectively bargained, those draft rules were ok. So assuming the MLB rules were collectively bargained, I don't think Dodds is right.

(03-19-2013 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:41 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see no problem with letting amateur athletes capitalize on the fact that they are the faces of the program. Their university capitalizes on that fact while they're in school. The athletes themselves should be able to use that fact to make some money. Advertising is a good way to do that, without impacting additional expenditure on their university...

Then that'll cross the line to being a professional instead of a collegiate athlete. If the athletes don't care about getting a free education then they can go to the NBA D-league or the CFL/WFL...etc and be a professional there and then see if they get drafted into the NBA or NFL.

That's part of the definition that I've always disagreed with. The players wouldn't be getting paid to play, which is the true definition of a professional. If you get paid for doing something, you are a professional in that field...

IMO the current definition is restrictive, as is the fact that these kids aren't allowed to make any money from a job off the field. Since they're football players, they're supposedly getting preferential treatment. That may or may not be the case. It depends on the person doing the hiring...

These kids would merely be making money off the fact that they are recognizable. That their recognition comes from being a player doesn't make them professional athletes. They would be professional advertisers. But they aren't getting paid to play. If we give them stipends, as people are proposing, they would be getting paid to play. That would make them professionals under the truest definition of the word...

I see no sense in restrictive policies that serve no purpose other than to keep these kids servants to their school. The athletes are left without any way to make some income, which would improve the quality of their college experience. Most of the kids that become college sports stars come from low income homes, and don't have the kind of family support that many college students enjoy...

They are famous for playing football but the income from that fame isn't football income? I suppose Hanes pays Jordan because of his brilliant acting in Space Jam rather than his historic NBA career.

Of course the net result is this. Joe Booster of Joe Booster Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep contacts Buddy Guard, a 5 star offensive lineman and tells him if you sign with Bama he can get a $5,000 a month ad contract that includes the use of a car. Meanwhile Don Alumni of Don Alumni Lexus of Austin calls and offers $5,500 a month and use of a car if he signs with the Horns.

(03-19-2013 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:41 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see no problem with letting amateur athletes capitalize on the fact that they are the faces of the program. Their university capitalizes on that fact while they're in school. The athletes themselves should be able to use that fact to make some money. Advertising is a good way to do that, without impacting additional expenditure on their university...

Then that'll cross the line to being a professional instead of a collegiate athlete. If the athletes don't care about getting a free education then they can go to the NBA D-league or the CFL/WFL...etc and be a professional there and then see if they get drafted into the NBA or NFL.

That's part of the definition that I've always disagreed with. The players wouldn't be getting paid to play, which is the true definition of a professional. If you get paid for doing something, you are a professional in that field...

IMO the current definition is restrictive, as is the fact that these kids aren't allowed to make any money from a job off the field. Since they're football players, they're supposedly getting preferential treatment. That may or may not be the case. It depends on the person doing the hiring...

These kids would merely be making money off the fact that they are recognizable. That their recognition comes from being a player doesn't make them professional athletes. They would be professional advertisers. But they aren't getting paid to play. If we give them stipends, as people are proposing, they would be getting paid to play. That would make them professionals under the truest definition of the word...

I see no sense in restrictive policies that serve no purpose other than to keep these kids servants to their school. The athletes are left without any way to make some income, which would improve the quality of their college experience. Most of the kids that become college sports stars come from low income homes, and don't have the kind of family support that many college students enjoy...

They are famous for playing football but the income from that fame isn't football income? I suppose Hanes pays Jordan because of his brilliant acting in Space Jam rather than his historic NBA career.

Of course the net result is this. Joe Booster of Joe Booster Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep contacts Buddy Guard, a 5 star offensive lineman and tells him if you sign with Bama he can get a $5,000 a month ad contract that includes the use of a car. Meanwhile Don Alumni of Don Alumni Lexus of Austin calls and offers $5,500 a month and use of a car if he signs with the Horns.

That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Haynes didn't pay Michael Jordan to play basketball. They paid him for his face. IMO it doesn't matter why...

As for offering kids advertising contracts to sign with certain schools, that's a recruiting violation. Any hint of under the table deals of this kind would be a recruiting violation as well. Once they get on campus and become the face of the program, that's another matter...

Of course, the fact that they are recruiting violations won't stop the big programs from doing such things. They do them now. How many kids signed with Miami, Tennessee, or another big school because they were given girls willing to have sex with them, along with a bit of cash under the table?

IMO if the NCAA makes schools give these kids stipends, they will cease to be amateurs. They'll be getting paid to play college ball. So I see little difference between the 2 options, except that one puts a big burden on the schools, further separating the haves from the have nots...

(03-19-2013 12:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:41 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see no problem with letting amateur athletes capitalize on the fact that they are the faces of the program. Their university capitalizes on that fact while they're in school. The athletes themselves should be able to use that fact to make some money. Advertising is a good way to do that, without impacting additional expenditure on their university...

Then that'll cross the line to being a professional instead of a collegiate athlete. If the athletes don't care about getting a free education then they can go to the NBA D-league or the CFL/WFL...etc and be a professional there and then see if they get drafted into the NBA or NFL.

That's part of the definition that I've always disagreed with. The players wouldn't be getting paid to play, which is the true definition of a professional. If you get paid for doing something, you are a professional in that field...

IMO the current definition is restrictive, as is the fact that these kids aren't allowed to make any money from a job off the field. Since they're football players, they're supposedly getting preferential treatment. That may or may not be the case. It depends on the person doing the hiring...

These kids would merely be making money off the fact that they are recognizable. That their recognition comes from being a player doesn't make them professional athletes. They would be professional advertisers. But they aren't getting paid to play. If we give them stipends, as people are proposing, they would be getting paid to play. That would make them professionals under the truest definition of the word...

I see no sense in restrictive policies that serve no purpose other than to keep these kids servants to their school. The athletes are left without any way to make some income, which would improve the quality of their college experience. Most of the kids that become college sports stars come from low income homes, and don't have the kind of family support that many college students enjoy...

They are famous for playing football but the income from that fame isn't football income? I suppose Hanes pays Jordan because of his brilliant acting in Space Jam rather than his historic NBA career.

Of course the net result is this. Joe Booster of Joe Booster Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep contacts Buddy Guard, a 5 star offensive lineman and tells him if you sign with Bama he can get a $5,000 a month ad contract that includes the use of a car. Meanwhile Don Alumni of Don Alumni Lexus of Austin calls and offers $5,500 a month and use of a car if he signs with the Horns.

That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Haynes didn't pay Michael Jordan to play basketball. They paid him for his face. IMO it doesn't matter why...

As for offering kids advertising contracts to sign with certain schools, that's a recruiting violation. Any hint of under the table deals of this kind would be a recruiting violation as well. Once they get on campus and become the face of the program, that's another matter...

Of course, the fact that they are recruiting violations won't stop the big programs from doing such things. They do them now. How many kids signed with Miami, Tennessee, or another big school because they were given girls willing to have sex with them, along with a bit of cash under the table?

IMO if the NCAA makes schools give these kids stipends, they will cease to be amateurs. They'll be getting paid to play college ball. So I see little difference between the 2 options, except that one puts a big burden on the schools, further separating the haves from the have nots...

What you are talking about is a CandyLand idea.

You can make money by advertising products but you will sign with schools not knowing what the "local advertising market" is like.

Doesn't even have to be the owners calling the kids. All it takes is for Saban to call the kid and say "People in Alabama love offensive linemen, all five starters are making $5000 a month.

Doesn't even take that! Kid visits with other linemen and they tell them what they are making.

It's an idea that doesn't translate into reality.

(03-19-2013 12:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:41 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Then that'll cross the line to being a professional instead of a collegiate athlete. If the athletes don't care about getting a free education then they can go to the NBA D-league or the CFL/WFL...etc and be a professional there and then see if they get drafted into the NBA or NFL.

That's part of the definition that I've always disagreed with. The players wouldn't be getting paid to play, which is the true definition of a professional. If you get paid for doing something, you are a professional in that field...

IMO the current definition is restrictive, as is the fact that these kids aren't allowed to make any money from a job off the field. Since they're football players, they're supposedly getting preferential treatment. That may or may not be the case. It depends on the person doing the hiring...

These kids would merely be making money off the fact that they are recognizable. That their recognition comes from being a player doesn't make them professional athletes. They would be professional advertisers. But they aren't getting paid to play. If we give them stipends, as people are proposing, they would be getting paid to play. That would make them professionals under the truest definition of the word...

I see no sense in restrictive policies that serve no purpose other than to keep these kids servants to their school. The athletes are left without any way to make some income, which would improve the quality of their college experience. Most of the kids that become college sports stars come from low income homes, and don't have the kind of family support that many college students enjoy...

They are famous for playing football but the income from that fame isn't football income? I suppose Hanes pays Jordan because of his brilliant acting in Space Jam rather than his historic NBA career.

Of course the net result is this. Joe Booster of Joe Booster Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep contacts Buddy Guard, a 5 star offensive lineman and tells him if you sign with Bama he can get a $5,000 a month ad contract that includes the use of a car. Meanwhile Don Alumni of Don Alumni Lexus of Austin calls and offers $5,500 a month and use of a car if he signs with the Horns.

That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Haynes didn't pay Michael Jordan to play basketball. They paid him for his face. IMO it doesn't matter why...

As for offering kids advertising contracts to sign with certain schools, that's a recruiting violation. Any hint of under the table deals of this kind would be a recruiting violation as well. Once they get on campus and become the face of the program, that's another matter...

Of course, the fact that they are recruiting violations won't stop the big programs from doing such things. They do them now. How many kids signed with Miami, Tennessee, or another big school because they were given girls willing to have sex with them, along with a bit of cash under the table?

IMO if the NCAA makes schools give these kids stipends, they will cease to be amateurs. They'll be getting paid to play college ball. So I see little difference between the 2 options, except that one puts a big burden on the schools, further separating the haves from the have nots...

What you are talking about is a CandyLand idea.

You can make money by advertising products but you will sign with schools not knowing what the "local advertising market" is like.

Doesn't even have to be the owners calling the kids. All it takes is for Saban to call the kid and say "People in Alabama love offensive linemen, all five starters are making $5000 a month.

Doesn't even take that! Kid visits with other linemen and they tell them what they are making.

It's an idea that doesn't translate into reality.

Neither do the vast majority of the lame brained idea you guys come up with. But there are plenty of programs that would be better able to compete with the Alabamas of the world, if advertisers in their area could use the local college players to advertise their products for them. Do you think Tulane might be able to get back into the upper echelon with such rules in place?

(03-19-2013 01:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  That's part of the definition that I've always disagreed with. The players wouldn't be getting paid to play, which is the true definition of a professional. If you get paid for doing something, you are a professional in that field...

IMO the current definition is restrictive, as is the fact that these kids aren't allowed to make any money from a job off the field. Since they're football players, they're supposedly getting preferential treatment. That may or may not be the case. It depends on the person doing the hiring...

These kids would merely be making money off the fact that they are recognizable. That their recognition comes from being a player doesn't make them professional athletes. They would be professional advertisers. But they aren't getting paid to play. If we give them stipends, as people are proposing, they would be getting paid to play. That would make them professionals under the truest definition of the word...

I see no sense in restrictive policies that serve no purpose other than to keep these kids servants to their school. The athletes are left without any way to make some income, which would improve the quality of their college experience. Most of the kids that become college sports stars come from low income homes, and don't have the kind of family support that many college students enjoy...

They are famous for playing football but the income from that fame isn't football income? I suppose Hanes pays Jordan because of his brilliant acting in Space Jam rather than his historic NBA career.

Of course the net result is this. Joe Booster of Joe Booster Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep contacts Buddy Guard, a 5 star offensive lineman and tells him if you sign with Bama he can get a $5,000 a month ad contract that includes the use of a car. Meanwhile Don Alumni of Don Alumni Lexus of Austin calls and offers $5,500 a month and use of a car if he signs with the Horns.

That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Haynes didn't pay Michael Jordan to play basketball. They paid him for his face. IMO it doesn't matter why...

As for offering kids advertising contracts to sign with certain schools, that's a recruiting violation. Any hint of under the table deals of this kind would be a recruiting violation as well. Once they get on campus and become the face of the program, that's another matter...

Of course, the fact that they are recruiting violations won't stop the big programs from doing such things. They do them now. How many kids signed with Miami, Tennessee, or another big school because they were given girls willing to have sex with them, along with a bit of cash under the table?

IMO if the NCAA makes schools give these kids stipends, they will cease to be amateurs. They'll be getting paid to play college ball. So I see little difference between the 2 options, except that one puts a big burden on the schools, further separating the haves from the have nots...

What you are talking about is a CandyLand idea.

You can make money by advertising products but you will sign with schools not knowing what the "local advertising market" is like.

Doesn't even have to be the owners calling the kids. All it takes is for Saban to call the kid and say "People in Alabama love offensive linemen, all five starters are making $5000 a month.

Doesn't even take that! Kid visits with other linemen and they tell them what they are making.

It's an idea that doesn't translate into reality.

Neither do the vast majority of the lame brained idea you guys come up with. But there are plenty of programs that would be better able to compete with the Alabamas of the world, if advertisers in their area could use the local college players to advertise their products for them. Do you think Tulane might be able to get back into the upper echelon with such rules in place?

So what you are saying is Tulane could be competitive if they paid players under the sham claim that they were actually famous enough to warrant an ad deal.

Maybe all of them have it backwards. We the fans should get some of the money.
If we did not watch to games or go to the games, then there would be no large TV deals.

They aren't bluffing. With Title IX this becomes the ultimate in catch 22s. If they start paying the guys, they have to pay the girls. Except in a few places, women's sports are non revenue and are subsidized by the revenue sports. If you add that amount of cost to the model the whole thing collapses.

While I understand the principal of paying the athletes, they are already being paid with a free education, free medical care, and free room and board. this is worth somewhere from 30K - 60K per year depending on the school.

The quickest, easiest path to remedy this is to make players wear a different number every week. Take the names off the back and then there is nothing to sell.

I root for doomsday scenarios. I hope it all collapses. I would be absolutely giddy. Let all 350-whatever D1 schools all drop back to D-III no athletic scholarships.

(03-19-2013 01:51 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  I root for doomsday scenarios. I hope it all collapses. I would be absolutely giddy. Let all 350-whatever D1 schools all drop back to D-III no athletic scholarships.

Why would you want something that would effectively kill UAB athletics?

What are you motives behind cheering this on?

(03-19-2013 12:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:14 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  It's the "I'll take my ball and go home in you don't do what I want" card. :rollseyes:

If I am the SEC or any other conference I think what I do right now is tell the NFL and NBA that any league that doesn't allow the signing or drafting of high school seniors will be denied scouting privileges, will be given no access to film, and no access to players.

Right now intercollegiate baseball and hockey are healthy despite top players going pro without going the college route. Even intercollegiate soccer is growing despite top athletes opting pro over college.

The only fly in the ointment is basketball where you are limited to signing with a foreign team or one of the sundry nickle and dime American pro leagues and the NFL where you have to be a junior.

The NFL and to a lesser degree the NBA are forcing kids to opt for college whether they desire to go to college or not. If they want to commercially exploit their likeness, they can go the pro route in every sport except football.

I think it was interesting Deloss Dodds said that he thought if anyone ever challenged the baseball rules, they would win. I believe you either have to go out of high school or wait until you are a junior in college. But in baseball the careers can be longer and the $ difference isn't as much for that level of player. So no one's challenged it yet.

I'd be curious when Dodds said that. I know about 10 years ago now Maurice Clarett challenged the NFL rules, and basically the ruling was since it was collectively bargained, those draft rules were ok. So assuming the MLB rules were collectively bargained, I don't think Dodds is right.

Last summer while Neinas was still commissioner.

(03-19-2013 12:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:41 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 11:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I see no problem with letting amateur athletes capitalize on the fact that they are the faces of the program. Their university capitalizes on that fact while they're in school. The athletes themselves should be able to use that fact to make some money. Advertising is a good way to do that, without impacting additional expenditure on their university...

Then that'll cross the line to being a professional instead of a collegiate athlete. If the athletes don't care about getting a free education then they can go to the NBA D-league or the CFL/WFL...etc and be a professional there and then see if they get drafted into the NBA or NFL.

That's part of the definition that I've always disagreed with. The players wouldn't be getting paid to play, which is the true definition of a professional. If you get paid for doing something, you are a professional in that field...

IMO the current definition is restrictive, as is the fact that these kids aren't allowed to make any money from a job off the field. Since they're football players, they're supposedly getting preferential treatment. That may or may not be the case. It depends on the person doing the hiring...

These kids would merely be making money off the fact that they are recognizable. That their recognition comes from being a player doesn't make them professional athletes. They would be professional advertisers. But they aren't getting paid to play. If we give them stipends, as people are proposing, they would be getting paid to play. That would make them professionals under the truest definition of the word...

I see no sense in restrictive policies that serve no purpose other than to keep these kids servants to their school. The athletes are left without any way to make some income, which would improve the quality of their college experience. Most of the kids that become college sports stars come from low income homes, and don't have the kind of family support that many college students enjoy...

They are famous for playing football but the income from that fame isn't football income? I suppose Hanes pays Jordan because of his brilliant acting in Space Jam rather than his historic NBA career.

Of course the net result is this. Joe Booster of Joe Booster Chrysler-Plymouth-Jeep contacts Buddy Guard, a 5 star offensive lineman and tells him if you sign with Bama he can get a $5,000 a month ad contract that includes the use of a car. Meanwhile Don Alumni of Don Alumni Lexus of Austin calls and offers $5,500 a month and use of a car if he signs with the Horns.

That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Haynes didn't pay Michael Jordan to play basketball. They paid him for his face. IMO it doesn't matter why...

As for offering kids advertising contracts to sign with certain schools, that's a recruiting violation. Any hint of under the table deals of this kind would be a recruiting violation as well. Once they get on campus and become the face of the program, that's another matter...

Of course, the fact that they are recruiting violations won't stop the big programs from doing such things. They do them now. How many kids signed with Miami, Tennessee, or another big school because they were given girls willing to have sex with them, along with a bit of cash under the table?

IMO if the NCAA makes schools give these kids stipends, they will cease to be amateurs. They'll be getting paid to play college ball. So I see little difference between the 2 options, except that one puts a big burden on the schools, further separating the haves from the have nots...

They pay some students on academic scholarships stipends. What they are talking about is something less than the "full cost to attend." Some academic scholarships pay more than 2,000 even without requiring any teaching. Room, board & books is not all there is to the cost.

This is not a bluff at all. The faculty senates would revolt if they paid the players. Faculty senates don't hold all the power, but they have enough power to force an issue if they are 100% united. Especially if the admins agree with them in principle (which they do).

The first B1G schools to drop down would be Northwestern, Purdue, Illinois, and Minnesota. With Mitch Daniels at the helm, Purdue might even do it unilaterally. Other academics-first schools such as the service academies, Vandy, Duke, most of the C-7, and UC would follow (UC would be among the first to drop because our faculty is unionized, giving them far more power than at other schools).

The rest would be publicy shamed if they didn't follow suit, particularly the B1G, PAC, and ACC schools that claim to be academics-first.

(03-19-2013 02:07 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 01:51 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  I root for doomsday scenarios. I hope it all collapses. I would be absolutely giddy. Let all 350-whatever D1 schools all drop back to D-III no athletic scholarships.

Why would you want something that would effectively kill UAB athletics?
What are you motives behind cheering this on?

I think he's bitter about UAT. What he doesn't realize is that this wouldn't kill Crimson Tide football. What would happen is that the major football institutions (Alabama, Texas, Michigan, etc...) would just shut down NCAA football (along with several NCAA women's sports) and license their name and colors to a minor league professional football program. Those players would not be student athletes, but they would play for the "Alabama Crimson Tide" or the "Michigan Wolverines" as independent professionals not associated with the university. They may or may not go to school there, and the league would have to decide eligibility rules (within 6 years of High School Graduation or leaving the military probably).

You could see something similar happen with Men's Basketball (no Duke Minor League Pro Football, but certainly Duke Minor League Pro Basketball).

The bigger leagues like the Big Ten will abandon big time athletics approximately when...

This would be the death of the ACC.

No effect on SEC schools, since they are football first.

If, with BTN in hand, you can make the same "profit" by downsizing football and reducing the ridiculous expenses that can go with it... Let the SEC go pro, with everyone else playing literally at a different level.