(03-29-2018 09:04 PM)panama Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 01:41 PM)Herd-in-ATL Wrote:  I really don't know why the P-5 is opening up this can of worms. They already have a monopoly when it comes to the ability to earn money over the non P-5 conferences. So now they want to get into a biding war with themselves?

They are not the ones opening the can

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

The part I was actually referring to was the part in the article where it alluded that "schools could start paying players whatever they wanted". I was questioning the logic of not having an agreed upon salary cap within the P-5 conferences, so to speak. Can you imagine the pressure and behind the scenes corruption, when say South Carolina offers a kid $200,000 to come play football and here comes Alabama offering a million.

(03-31-2018 07:32 AM)panama Wrote:  

(03-30-2018 09:24 AM)blazr Wrote:  I think everyone is missing a key point (an earlier poster excepted). Right now, the P5 programs can take as many walkons as they like but can only put 85 on scholly. This means those potential walkons are likely to go to a school that does offer them a full ride. But if they can pay those walkons? In the 70’s Bear Bryant signed players that would never see the field for him just to keep them from other schools. This will spur a similar situation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Careful...

Sign them to what? Non scholly scholly?. Of its not a scholarship with benefits what is it you are signing them to?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Any additional money is separate from a scholarship (else it would be included in the full ride already). If they try to defend only paying extra $$ to those on scholarship, expect another lawsuit to follow (players on NFL practice squads still get paid). Once they can pay players regardless of scholly status they can use that to retain guys who just want to be part of that program with the promise that they could earn a scholly. My point is that they have leveraged the rules before to harm other programs - P5 and G5...it didn’t matter to Bear as long as those layers didn’t go help another school - I don’t think it’s a stretch to think they’ll do it again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-29-2018 02:52 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 12:26 PM)monarx Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/fe55d954-06...efend.html

If schools can start paying players whatever they want, the schools with P5 money will obviously be able to pay much, much more. I don't see how a CUSA (or MW, AAC or A10) school can compete in a money war against those with P5 patches on their jerseys.

The one and ONLY way to slow down the p-5 efforts to totally monopolize college sports is for ALL others to refuse playing them in ANY sport. Let them try to fill in their schedules without us. They wouldnt be able to bring in body bag games for sure wins plus no return games allowing 7-8 home games per year like they have now. Also, they would beat up on each other reducing or hurting won-loss records, etc. Let them have their own March Madness, would need to invite every team thus half or more would have losing records.

Except for the fact that the majority of G5 teams aren't going to be able to afford to give up those games and won't be able to make up the revenue.. which is why it won't happen. Same as it didn't happen as long as the G5 has been frozen out of the championship race.

(03-29-2018 01:56 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Maybe I'm looking at this in a narrow view but to me fans watch college sports because of the connection to the school/team and not a player or 15 players or 85 players.

Yes we watch and buy things and pay a lot of money for tickets because of the actions of the players on the field or court . But I believe if you take every "star" out of FB and BB today. The same people would still be buying tickets and shirts and caps and anything else.

If it ever gets to where player A gets 10k and player Y only gets 1k....team will be a thing of the past. Then what if player A doesn't live up to his hype..can you lower the amount. Hell ask for a refund? I don't even seeing the P5 schools wanting something to be up to each conference. You are setting up a arms race that will create divisions in each of those conference between members. Then start to eat into millions and millions to the bottom line. Hell not all P5 schools are raking in a extra 50 million over cost. Most are close to being like us because even if they make 25 million more...there are already spending it

College sports is about the connection to the team/school and not the players

Good post.

(03-31-2018 12:35 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 07:32 AM)panama Wrote:  

(03-30-2018 09:24 AM)blazr Wrote:  I think everyone is missing a key point (an earlier poster excepted). Right now, the P5 programs can take as many walkons as they like but can only put 85 on scholly. This means those potential walkons are likely to go to a school that does offer them a full ride. But if they can pay those walkons? In the 70’s Bear Bryant signed players that would never see the field for him just to keep them from other schools. This will spur a similar situation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Careful...

Sign them to what? Non scholly scholly?. Of its not a scholarship with benefits what is it you are signing them to?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Any additional money is separate from a scholarship (else it would be included in the full ride already). If they try to defend only paying extra $$ to those on scholarship, expect another lawsuit to follow (players on NFL practice squads still get paid). Once they can pay players regardless of scholly status they can use that to retain guys who just want to be part of that program with the promise that they could earn a scholly. My point is that they have leveraged the rules before to harm other programs - P5 and G5...it didn’t matter to Bear as long as those layers didn’t go help another school - I don’t think it’s a stretch to think they’ll do it again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So now you're paying students to play football. Sounds like employment. There is a whole host of alphabet soup agencies who forms for you to fill not the least of which is the IRS who also would like to schedule a meeting for you to explain your continuing tax exempt amateur status.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(04-01-2018 09:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 12:35 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 07:32 AM)panama Wrote:  

(03-30-2018 09:24 AM)blazr Wrote:  I think everyone is missing a key point (an earlier poster excepted). Right now, the P5 programs can take as many walkons as they like but can only put 85 on scholly. This means those potential walkons are likely to go to a school that does offer them a full ride. But if they can pay those walkons? In the 70’s Bear Bryant signed players that would never see the field for him just to keep them from other schools. This will spur a similar situation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Careful...

Sign them to what? Non scholly scholly?. Of its not a scholarship with benefits what is it you are signing them to?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Any additional money is separate from a scholarship (else it would be included in the full ride already). If they try to defend only paying extra $$ to those on scholarship, expect another lawsuit to follow (players on NFL practice squads still get paid). Once they can pay players regardless of scholly status they can use that to retain guys who just want to be part of that program with the promise that they could earn a scholly. My point is that they have leveraged the rules before to harm other programs - P5 and G5...it didn’t matter to Bear as long as those layers didn’t go help another school - I don’t think it’s a stretch to think they’ll do it again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So now you're paying students to play football. Sounds like employment. There is a whole host of alphabet soup agencies who forms for you to fill not the least of which is the IRS who also would like to schedule a meeting for you to explain your continuing tax exempt amateur status.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Which is why this is not being driven by the P5. They dont want it....at all. This is being driven by class action suits on behalf of the players. They want to be paid. The schools do not want an emplyee-employer relationship. The Olympic "amateur" model is the middle ground compromise....and it will be a huge mess because the olympics are very different from college athletics.

(04-01-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Which is why this is not being driven by the P5. They dont want it....at all. This is being driven by class action suits on behalf of the players. They want to be paid. The schools do not want an emplyee-employer relationship. The Olympic "amateur" model is the middle ground compromise....and it will be a huge mess because the olympics are very different from college athletics.

Precisely. It’s not being pushed by the P5, but they will be more capable of meeting the new reality and using it to their advantage. Because it’s driven by the courts that is where the “equitable” principle will come from (after all, it’s the core principle of the lawsuit itself) - every player who suits up, even just for practice and whether they have a scholly or not, will have to have access to the same financial consideration. Unless programs want to limit themselves to only scholarship arhletes, but we know that’s not going to happen. P5 programs will be able to reimburse as many walkons as they wish, all with the promise of earning a scholly, which are players that otherwise might go to a smaller program.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(04-01-2018 12:57 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Which is why this is not being driven by the P5. They dont want it....at all. This is being driven by class action suits on behalf of the players. They want to be paid. The schools do not want an emplyee-employer relationship. The Olympic "amateur" model is the middle ground compromise....and it will be a huge mess because the olympics are very different from college athletics.

Precisely. It’s not being pushed by the P5, but they will be more capable of meeting the new reality and using it to their advantage. Because it’s driven by the courts that is where the “equitable” principle will come from (after all, it’s the core principle of the lawsuit itself) - every player who suits up, even just for practice and whether they have a scholly or not, will have to have access to the same financial consideration. Unless programs want to limit themselves to only scholarship arhletes, but we know that’s not going to happen. P5 programs will be able to reimburse as many walkons as they wish, all with the promise of earning a scholly, which are players that otherwise might go to a smaller program.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think we are confusing players being allowed to market their name and image with schools being forced to pay players. Schools offering benefits as part of the scholarship is not the same as an employer/employee relationship. Schools are not going to cross into that netherworld. It’s a bridge to far for universities. What will result out of this eventually even as a worst case will be something resembling what we have today with more cash and benefits tied to a scholarship and with the top players being able to earn money for their image and name on the open market outside of the school.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(04-01-2018 01:31 PM)panama Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 12:57 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Which is why this is not being driven by the P5. They dont want it....at all. This is being driven by class action suits on behalf of the players. They want to be paid. The schools do not want an emplyee-employer relationship. The Olympic "amateur" model is the middle ground compromise....and it will be a huge mess because the olympics are very different from college athletics.

Precisely. It’s not being pushed by the P5, but they will be more capable of meeting the new reality and using it to their advantage. Because it’s driven by the courts that is where the “equitable” principle will come from (after all, it’s the core principle of the lawsuit itself) - every player who suits up, even just for practice and whether they have a scholly or not, will have to have access to the same financial consideration. Unless programs want to limit themselves to only scholarship arhletes, but we know that’s not going to happen. P5 programs will be able to reimburse as many walkons as they wish, all with the promise of earning a scholly, which are players that otherwise might go to a smaller program.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think we are confusing players being allowed to market their name and image with schools being forced to pay players. Schools offering benefits as part of the scholarship is not the same as an employer/employee relationship. Schools are not going to cross into that netherworld. It’s a bridge to far for universities. What will result out of this eventually even as a worst case will be something resembling what we have today with more cash and benefits tied to a scholarship and with the top players being able to earn money for their image and name on the open market outside of the school.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope. No confusion. A complete and total free market where players are paid and go to the highest bidder is precisely what the law suit is requesting. The defendents (NCAA and conferences) want to the current amateur model to remain. A middle ground is the olympic model---but its by no means the guaranteed outcome.

Below is pretty good article explaining why the NCAA has an uphill battle in this case and why its fairly likely the current NCAA amateur model might be headed for change.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/ncaa-los...rust-case/

Are we really going to let some whacko judge like Claudia Wilken determine the future of college sports. I hope and think we won't. Eventually this will get to the Supreme Court and they will put a stop to the craziness.