Free education is apparently no longer good enough for scholarship athletes

How do you personally see this playing out for college football?

In my simple mind, it just seems that the highest bidding schools will get all the good players.

Too hard to truly know. I think the NCAA meets later this month to discuss ways for kids to get more money. Can they stop this movement with more money going towards the athletes?

I have no idea how the NCAA would try to regulate the California model.

I just imagine in-home visits in the future where coaches discuss how much money the school can provide to the recruit. Schools lining up boosters with businesses that would commit to pay the kid once they get on campus. School A promises 50,000 a year while another promises 75,000.

I thought the rule allows players to make money off of their likeness, for things like endorsements, not a salary provided by the school or a booster. This new rule will only benefit the elite players, I don’t see anyone paying a backup QB or starting right guard any money in the future.

I have no idea how this will work out. If it’s a truly market system, the top players in the top sports will make a lot of money. Schools who can market them best will get those top players. That means Alabama, Texas, Ohio St…the usual suspects. I don’t see track stars, golfers, swimmers, or softball players getting anything more than they do now.

I also foresee more individualism & less team-orientation in the money sports. There’s a lot of it now, but when PT also means better endorsements, well, I see problems.

The impetus for this move is not that the athletes’ efforts have changed. It’s that now coaches are so grossly overpaid & schools make such huge amounts of revenue. Back when head coaches made $100k/yr & AC’s made $50k, a scholarship matched up rather well—especially when players could still work summer jobs.

If I were king, I’d give each athlete in the money sports a full scholarship plus some reasonable amount of spending money each month. Same amount for the QB, left guard, and scout team linebacker. For the non-revenue sports, I’d probably give full scholarships or something close to it. Schools in the P5 could afford that. Coaches & AD’s would still get nice salaries, but they wouldn’t get the amounts they make today.

But I am not king, so I’ll wait & see if the college game changes enough in my lifetime that I lose all interest in it. Or see if it makes no real difference at all.

Student Athletes can still work summer jobs, but they have to be approved by the NCAA.

And when will women sue for equal treatment?

I have a 15 year old great niece who is an elite basketball prospect. I want her in on the cash.

Title IX

Not really. They’re expected to be on campus, working out all summer as well as taking classes. The old summer job is a thing of the past.

1 Like

If the money is not coming directly from the school, and it would not be, Title IX does not apply.

Amateur athletics are dying. Have been for years. Let’s having the good sense and decency to sign the death certificate and move on. The genie is out of the bottle and won’t be put back in. Paying players is going to happen. Might as well join in and participate.

1 Like

Winning programs have their athletes likeness portrayed more than losing programs, so winning programs would likely continue to get better while losing programs would get worse; the winning attracting the best, at least for those top athletes who are likely to be paid endorsements. So, not much different from now, with Alabama, Clemson, and the other winning programs continuing to clean up when it comes to 5-star recruits.

Not true. I graduated recently and several of my colleagues were football players. One of the starting linebackers did a summer internship before his senior year. This was in 2015. The starting running back was working at Taco Bell until the coaches found out.

I’m saying boosters who owned businesses coming together and having the ability to tell coaches they’ll promise a recruit he can promote their businesses for a certain amount of money. Basically the school with the highest bid gets the kid.

I don’t pretend to know the answer here, but what a trash title to that article. Implying that amateur athletes are spoiled brats who don’t appreciate their free education. Maybe it should’ve been titled:
“Free education no longer enough for student athletes as they now generate hundreds of millions of dollars for their institutions.”

To imply this is a generational thing is such a shallow, easy out. The mega-tv deals are what’s driving this. Not ungrateful kids. If these tv deals existed in the ‘60s, this reckoning would’ve happened decades ago.

1 Like

Walked by this on the way to the Red/White game on saturday and thought, “hmm, I wonder what access to that whenever you want is worth in hard dollars?”

I’m against the CA law or anything similar to it. Incredibly ripe with unintended consequences. Should the NCAA and the school get together and set aside a slice of the pie to significantly increase athletes stipend? Absolutely…

But, the “student” part of student-athlete has been lost. On average, a full scholarship to a D1 school is worth upwards of $65k a year, taxable equivalent is over a $100k. And that’s just tuition, room & board. Doesn’t include all the other perks, the swag, the access to incredible facilities, academic and nutritional support, etc.

The lifetime earnings potential of a college degree vs not having one is millions of dollars over a lifetime. So, lets stop pretending that STUDENT/athletes are being taken advantage of.

I’m not sure it ever existed. Student-athlete is a term that was made up by NCAA lawyers in the 1950s to avoid paying workman’s comp to a widow whose husband was killed playing football for Fort Lewis A&M in Colorado. When it worked, the NCAA told its administrators to begin referring to athletes as student-athletes in case of any future legal challenges.

They are students that also play athletics…it’s a pretty apt descriptor, regardless of it’s origins.

Already happening, no?

Isn’t that why Adidas officials are in prison and KU is under the microscope?

I agree with Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander. This will change nothing. There isn’t a level playing field now. Nobody on Elon has an offer to play at Duke and that won’t change now.

1 Like

Some but now it would be all.

I believe there will scenarios no one has imagined of players getting money for endorsements. If the ncaa monitors this, maybe it works.

Or jerseys sold in school stores and on line have names on the back, that can be monitored.

I would like to see the systems they will use in this before I say it can’t work.