The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I think ultimately they did, but they had to "make two wrongs" to make a right.

TCU should've never been ranked as high as they were and especially should've never been ranked over Baylor, since they lost head to head.  If games are supposed to be decided on the field and Baylor beat them, you're over-thinking it to have TCU ahead.

But now, from TCU's perspective, they dropped 2 spots after beating a team by 50.  So, I get why they'd feel screwed.

The fact that they don't have a conference championship game is their problem and needs to be fixed.

FSU needed to be in the top 4, at any cost, whether they're a top 4 team or not.  Otherwise, the whole thing is a sham.  I don't care where they're ranked in the 4, so long as they're in.

So, I think they got it right.  OSU probably sucks since the Big 10 blows, but it's a major conference and they had a strong showing.

The real solution is to move to 8 teams.

I don't feel they got it right. I think TCU should have been in the mix. I do not buy into this head to head thing with Baylor. Granted they did win head to head but that game was in October and the score was close in a shootout 61-58. I keep hearing the talking heads saying the goal is to find the best 4 teams right now. Well, if TCU was one of the best 4 last week, how does beating a team by roughly 50 make you lose that ranking? If you want to say Baylor was there over TCU all along, OK. That is an argument you could strongly make. The argument that took them out is not a valid one, at least for me.

I just don't think TCU has a case.  They lost head-to-head against another team with the same record.  And they don't have a conference championship under their belt.

Their case should be a strong one. They were there one week, beat a team by 50, and then got dropped. They do have a championship, just not a game. Alabama lost to a three loss team. Again, it is a silly argument if you ask me (unless the argument is TCU should not have been there but they were). They lost in October. That loss has no effect on where they were when they were dropped from the #3 slot. Being in the mix and losing your position by beating a team by 50 just shows the incompetence of this system.

Agreed.  I think the real mistake was bumping TCU up a few weeks ago.  So, they had to do something dumb to correct it.  Ultimately, they got to the right teams in, but had to flub and backtrack to get it there.

Big 12 Conference was arrogant enough to think they don't need to add 2 more teams and a conference championship game. Well, they got smacked with reality yesterday.

They better get in line with the SEC, ACC, Big10, Pac12 if you want to be in the conversation with them at the end of the day.  The other 3 schools won their divisions, went to a conference championship game and won that game. Baylor and TCU didn't...nuff said!

There is a rumor that the Big 12 now wants to add Cincy and Memphis to get to 12 and to have a conference championship game. That's good...but no sympathy for this year. They waited too long and it cost them big-time!

The thing is, the teams in the Big 12 overall are better than the ACC and the Big10. I agree not having a championship game cost them but they are definitely a stronger conference than a couple who have championship games.

Yep! They need to add 2 more teams. Split them up into divisions. Have a conference championship game. And PROVE it.

Otherwise its a mickey mouse conference that is looked down upon and treated as 2nd class because they don't run their conference like every other major conference. Hell even the Mountain West has a conference championship game!

I think the playoffs should be more concretely defined...

I think they should somehow whittle it down to 8 conferences, and then have the regular season be all about conference play.  Of course TV would hate this because things like UF/FSU would never happen.  Then each conference should determine a "conference champion" by mid-December.  The playoffs would then be a 8-team playoff of the 8 conference champions.

I can't really enjoy college football because of the arbitrary ranking system.  Any sport where the fate of the championship is determined by guys sitting in a room and voting on something seems completely random and potentially biased.  I would like it to be more concrete and indisputable.

There is a gaping problem with that plan Brian, there are not 8 conferences strong enough to have a team in contention for a national title. Sure there may be the squeaker that gets into consideration every couple years but outside the top 5 conferences you are really struggling to find top tier teams capable of being in a championship conversation.

8 conferences? A million reasons why that won't happen.They hardly have enough teams to have 5 solid conferences. 8.. No way! Where are these other 3 conferences coming from? You cant use the Mountain West, Conference USA, or the AAC....those schools just don't belong with the big boys. Football isn't basketball. Basketball takes a small budget to run a program you are talking like 3 coaches and 10 or 12 guys on a team. You can have a 90 team tournament and it would be fine. Running a football program is like running a small country. With the medical insurance, the huge coaching staff, the travel arrangements, the number of players on a roster, the number of hotel rooms you need to book for travel, the marching band travel costs. Most football programs operate in the red every year and lose money. There are schools in the Power 5 conferences that can hardly keep up with their conference mates financially. To now add 3 more conferences who would be operating a football program on 1/8th or 1/10th of the cost of schools in the ACC, Big 10...etc and having the likes of a  North Texas or a Florida Atlantic win their conference and in the final 8 playoff  along side an Alabama, Oregon, Florida St, Oklahoma..etc would be embarrassing on every level.  

The CFP is designed to favor conference champions.  Big 12 thought this would not be an issue for them, but got smacked in the face with TCU and Baylor in the first CFP season.  Since neither TCU nor Baylor won the Big 12 outright, OSU jumped them.

The most hilarious part of it all was the Big 12's hopscotching in an attempt to game the system.  By conference rule, Baylor should have been the Big 12 champion, since they had the same conference record as TCU but had the head-to-head win.  However, TCU was ranked higher than Baylor, and was a more likely candidate to be selected for the CFP.

So in an effort to get their highest-ranked team into the playoff, a week before the end of the regular season the Big 12 announced (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11964184/big-12-present-tcu-baylor-co-champions) that they would be ignoring Baylor's head-to-head win and declaring TCU and Baylor "co-champions"...

...but only if either team was ranked in the top 4.

That's right: the Big 12 publicly stated that they would be ignoring their existing rules for determining a conference champion if and only if ignoring those rules increased the odds of putting a team in the playoff.

It's shameless, man.

You HAVE to include these teams, otherwise its like saying "you random schools will never be good enough to compete in college football.  May as well fold up your programs now."

They can fill out the bottom of a 10-12 team conference, and if they compete within the conference then they deserve the recognition.  If not, then so be it... get better next year.  You don't think you can round up 80-90 college football teams?  Of course you can.  You can't just make conferences like the SEC, full of all great teams every year, because today's good teams might suck in 5 years, and vice-versa.

I'm not sure how it is written in the bylaws but this is not the first shared championship since the Big 12 dropped to 10 teams so there is precedence. I don't care to research any further but just want to point out that co-champions may already be accounted for because it has already happened.

They don't HAVE to do anything...lol. And guess what they aren't! You can round up 80-90 football teams but they aren't equal or close to being equal. Football isn't basketball. A football program needs a huge budget and small schools, private schools, don't have that money. Ohio St, Oregon, Oklahoma St, Alabama, Michigan.....they can print money. Unlimited funds to run a football program. The list of schools like that is so small. You can run a football program without the "need" to be in the playoff or playing the SEC in bowl games. You just have to be playing other like-sized schools on similar budgets. Does that mean no shot at a National Title....YES! That doesn't mean its the end of the world.

Oh, and UAB did fold up their program the other day. It happens! http://www.elpasoinc.com/news/wire/us/article_cf4fe06e-7cb6-11e4-94a6-e3b4b280c641.html



Are you advocating the SEC (and other conferences) throw out some schools and replace them with bad schools? LMFAO!!! Yeah that's gonna happen.

Nope, not at all, I'm advocating that they add teams to the SEC like UCF and FAU.  And ACC and Big East and other conferences.  Add in 3 teams each to SEC East and West and make it 10 teams each.  You can find them.  Then give teams like FAU to compete against Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia every year.  Sure they may get beat up but maybe over time they start beating some teams and maybe over time the program grows.  And maybe 20 years from now, FAU wins the SEC East and plays in a playoff game.

I don't think its unreasonable.

When it comes to bowl selection, the first tiebreaker is supposed to be head-to-head record.  You can still see that on the tiebreaker page here (http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=1546006) (which has not been updated to reflect their current sham).

In this case, the article I linked earlier specifically states that the official first tiebreaker (head-to-head) will NOT be used unless both teams finish out of the top 4.  It's straight-up corruption.

It's totally unreasonable and its borderline delusional (and I love ya Brian but I am sorry it is). Conferences aren't put together strictly for sports. More goes into than that. And to ask a conference to add schools that  have no business in a conference with schools of a different size and athletic department budget than them and its totally insane!

Why would the SEC split up, give up their millions/billions in TV money to help out small schools they don't care about who aren't on their level academically or on the sports end of things? The SEC is running a business not a charity. Why split the pie more ways? What's in it for the schools already in the SEC?

P.S...the Big East doesn't exist anymore for football

what they should do is pay these players as employees of the school, which is what they are.

^^^And you will ultimately see more schools than UAB drop their football programs. These are not employees of the school, they are students (or at least should be).

Good.  Then maybe there will be a football equivalent of AAA or NBDL and we can drop this charade of "student athlete."

NCAA football and basketball exist almost exclusively to extort young athletes who have no viable alternative path to going pro.

That will never happen either. Check that, it will never happen until the time comes where the Power 5 conference split from the NCAA and cut their own deals with video game companies, TV companies, and when Nike/Under Armour/Reebok can just flat out sign college kids to long-term deals. When those schools in the Power 5 tell the NCAA to eff off and go straight into business for themselves, that's when kids get paid.  That day will probably never happen but if it does that's when players get paid. Until then its a pipe dream

What the F does this have to do with college football playoff system?

They are students who play a game as an extracurricular activity.  They aren't employees.  They are "supposed to be" there to get an education, and football is "supposed to be" secondary. 

Now, we all know that isn't reality, but that is what it is "supposed to be."

Players are getting paid right now, in the form of free education.  The same education that "normal" people pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain.  That is their payment, and given the "supposed to be" reason for them to be there, I think its fair.  Considering that about 2% of college football players make a living playing football professionally, the education is more than enough compensation.

Supposed to, according to who? 

The high level players are not there for an education (at least not a college education).  They're there for a football education and a place to show off their skills to get drafted.  And the school has them there because they bring in LOTS of money.

They are absolutely employees.  You're pretending otherwise, or referring back to an era where the value of these players isn't millions of dollars.  And the fact that the players don't have other options is some bullshit.  If the NCAA was "my way or the highway" but THERE WAS A HIGHWAY, I'd have less of a problem with it.  But players realistically have no choice but to stay in school and make free money.  The NFL gets a free hype machine where their prospects can grow up.  The whole thing is a big sham and everyone is getting rich off it but the players, who can't get money for their own autograph.  The whole thing is a joke.

Yes, I guess I'm referring to an antiquated model, where football wasn't a billion dollar business, and it was secondary to the education.  Considering the small amount of "high level players" that use football to be their career, you'd think that the majority of players who actually want to get smart and have a career not called football should be there to learn?  You can't single some out and you can't neglect the value of the classes.  Otherwise, fuck it and stop using students to play.  Stop the sham of sending them to joke ass classes.  Why send players to Basket Weaving 101 and pretend they're there to learn anything?  Why not just forget the entire college thing and call it a football league and hire players and pay them?

The thing that seperates college football from pro football (NFL, CFL, AFL, any league) is that the players are made up of the STUDENT body.  Note the word "STUDENT" derived from "STUDY" which is associated with learning.

Otherwise, college football is just another pro league and you can sign any old player you want.  Where's the differentiation?

I don't advocate a player not being able to make their own money but that is a world apart than saying schools should pay these athletes. There is a huge difference in someone taking advantage of their marketability and saying that these kids are employees. They are student-athletes not employees.

That's the problem, though.

The NCAA rules have to be super strict or the athletes will get paid.  Boosters will start to pay $20,000 for an autograph.  Once you pull off the cap, though, you won't be able to get the toothpaste back in the tube. 

The whole thing is dumb.   Do you guys realize that Jameis Winston most likely didn't steal crab-legs?  He was given them by the employee at Publix.  But he has to say he stole them, because the penalty for being given them is far worse.  It's all upside-down.

They are not student athletes.  That's bullshit.  The vast majority of people playing sports are -- but Jameis Winston is not.  He's playing specifically to showcase his skills for the NFL and to make FSU a ton of cash.  Pretending that Winston is doing the same thing as some swimmer at FAU is just not being honest about what's going on.

Is the field hockey player a student athlete or employee? If the football player is an "employee" then all athletes are employees right? I mean only 8 people might show up to watch the Field Hockey team play, but employees nontheless. If they are an employee and not a student athlete pay them the same or else they can sue for gender discrimination and unfair wages if its not on par with other "employees" who are athletes at the school. Can't cherry pick which ones are employees and which ones are student athletes.

Just sayin Dave. If all athletes are employees they ALL gotta get health benefits, the right to unionize, paid time off, would fall under FMLA coverage, Workers Comp, a 401K plan, vacation time, and all of the other perks and benefits a secretary in Admissions at the school or a professor get as "employees."

Can't open that can of worms!!

why can't you open that can of worms .. sure you can! ..

It is what it is .. these "student athletes" have mandatory activities they must participate in during mandatory time periods .. to refuse to do so, will directly result in the loss of "pay"  ..

i agree with brian that scholarships should be considered pay .. they should just get the benefits that come from being employed by the school otherwise. By every definition in the book these students are employees. They should have the same rights and benefits as other employees.

cause then most of these colleges and universities will say the hell with athletics and cut the sports programs. Having to pay that kind of money to "athletes" will be a financial loser. Schools like to make profits. That would bankrupt some and put others operating in the red and they will get rid of entire athletic departments. Not worth it financially.

I'm not saying that they have to pay them.  But you can't have these super stringent restrictions, then, either.

The problem isn't the school, the players or their lack of compensation.  The problem is boosters!

Why don't the New York Giants, or the Timberwolves, or the St. Louis Blues have Boosters?  Why do "Boosters" only exist in college sports?  Because college sports are largely a product of public (and some private) universities which use public funding.  They don't have a multi-billionaire owner like pro franchises. 

The restrictions are to prevent "boosters" from paying people selectly.  I say - who cares?  Why not?  Let Jameis Winston get free crab legs at Publix!  (Publix has essentially admitted that they were given to him, and that employee should be fired, if he hasn't already.)  Crab legs don't give anyone an advantage.  But at some point you have to have regulations where private people could act as a money laundering operation to "pay" select students a salary.

And Mike's point is valid.  Its not just football.  Basketball to a lesser degree, but EVERY college sports must be treated the same from college football to women's cross country running.  The entire problem is selectivity.

I'm perfectly fine with the scholarship being counted as compensation.

The problem is that for a field hockey or softball player, the scholarship is indeed adequate compensation for the service they are performing for the school.  For the football or basketball players, a scholarship is wildly inadequate compensation.

So if you set the baseline compensation as [value of scholarship] and then say that other revenue-generating sports programs will receive extra compensation based on that revenue, you can "pay" all players relative to the money they are bringing in.

employees have the right to unionize, they have the right to collectively bargain, they have the right to sick and vacation time, they have the right for FMLA and to be paid a minimum wage.

College football isn't a volunteer event for these big schools .. it's a paid position where new employees are recruited, given background checks, given a work schedule and where they have performance penalties when they don't follow these rules.

if your argument is "it would destroy college football" .. my response is "so what" .. college football has no right to exist on the backs of exploited teenagers.

I'd be more than happy with eliminating athletic scholarships altogether  .. the phrase student athlete is a joke .. they're students .. period

OK. Oh and make sure the students know they gotta pay taxes on their "salary" now since they are now employees. Uncle Sam will  be taking a chunk of that money they are getting.  Once those college kids see how much they get paid, and then how much is taken out by taxes and union dues and paying a portion for their health insurance most likely, PLUS pay for their schooling cause ya know the scholarship is now gone they are paid employees, maybe they get an employee discount on classes but they still gotta pay housing, books, food, classes (the days of freebies is over they are on the payroll now)....then see what they take home after all of those expenses. I bet a lot (at least the smart ones) will say that scholarship deal ain't so bad after all.

These aren't professionals they aren't going to get paid millions for playing 11 football games or 30 basketball games...lol After taxes and all the new expenses thrown in their lap they might be in a worse situation than they are now. Oh, and since they are employees and not on scholarship if they suck on the field or stink as a player after 1 year...you are fired! Out of a job and not on the team anymore. At least now they have some protection that the school won't revoke their scholarship and if they suck as a player at least they get that free education for 4 years. As an employee that right goes away....you don't perform you get fired.

again .. totally fine with all that .. sounds like we agree .. lets do it !

College football is ABSOLUTELY a volunteer activity.  If you don't want to follow the requirements for said activity, you are free to quit.  It is EXTRACURRICULAR - this means over and above your CURRICULUM of LEARNING.

Just because some VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of students who participate in said voluntary activities choose to prioritize that and forego the learning portion in hopes of parlaying that into a career long term doesn't change the focus of why they are in COLLEGE to begin with.

As employees, there is no requirement for having to have students of a particular age or value.  There's currently academic requirements for eligibility.  Those go away if you start calling them employees.

If players become employees, there is no difference between college football and arena league.  None.

a student at eastern montana state plays football as a volunteer .. and could be using a scholarship to get his education .. a student at FSU is lining  up for the nfl draft.

It will never happen, that's the point! Never in a million years. Schools would just cut football and most if not all of their Athletic department and sports in general. Schools can't afford to do that and why would any athlete want a system like that. It's not in their best interest.

College don't exist to play sports, it's a small aspect of what colleges do. When that small aspect starts to lose money instead of make money...that aspect goes away. It's unrealistic to pay college players which is why it hasn't happened and never will happen.

LOL, a lawyer would take that to court and chew that argument up and spit it out and make the football player at Eastern Montana a lot of money.  Gotta be fair across the board can't cherry pick which schools "prepare you" for the NFL.

You have to be kidding me. 

Now not only do we pick and choose sports, specific athletes within the "chosen-awesome" sports, but we pick and chooses which schools get the benefit?

Your argument just self-destructed.

My argument is that college sports is a for-profit industry ran by the privileged conferences and set up to benefit coaches and athletic directors.  Who exploit teenagers in order to make tons of money. These same teenagers are then prohibited by a shady cartel from monetizing their own success in any manner to preserve the monopoly these schools have on their names and likenesses. All the while being treated as well as mine workers were treated in the late 1900s at camp stores.

self destruct that

I don't see it as exploitation. The kids get a free education and an audition to perform on the biggest stage in this country. The schools owe them nothing in my opinion. I have no issue with adding meal plans and better living facilities for athletes but compensation should never be an option. They are getting a free education because they can play a sport. That should be where it ends.

Agree with MikeO that paying players opens up a can of worms (which players? which sports? which schools? how much?) that is best left hermetically sealed and buried in a time capsule, to be dug up and reconsidered maybe 20-30 years in the future.

One possible compromise... Allow players to make a limited amount of "extra money" by signing autographs or doing commercial endorsements. Set a reasonable cap of, say, $2,000-$3,000 per month that they can earn doing these endorsements, and set restrictions like:

* Only allowing these activities to be done at times that would not conflict with classes or organized team activities.
* Don't allow the student athlete to endorse any product or sponsor that would reflect negatively on the college or the NCAA. In other words, no casinos or other gambling endorsements, no alcohol or firearms, etc..., and have the college pre-approve sponsors before the student can perform the endorsement.
* The student athlete must maintain an acceptable grade point average, class attendance record and not get into any legal trouble.

I'm just surprised that all of these free-market people don't support the free market.  Jameis Winston is making FSU MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars.  He could go to another school and make them MILLIONS AND MILLIONS instead.  Yet, they give him an education he doesn't need and a meal plan.  Give me a friggin' break.

It's exactly like Fau says -- it like those 1800s style companies that have you work and you only get paid in company credits.

Colleges are hiding behind "student athlete" because they are getting filthy rich on the backs of teenagers.  If that means that colleges can't run sports programs, so be it -- it doesn't justify free labor where you can't sell your own signature or get paid to take a picture or have a friend buy you lunch.  The whole thing is a farce, perpetrated by the people getting rich off it.

It would be easier to buy the "they are just volunteers earning an education!" angle if the two major pro football and basketball leagues did not effectively require prospective employees to submit themselves to the NCAA system.  If you want to play in the NFL or NBA, playing anywhere except the NCAA does immeasurable harm to your prospects as a professional.

When you look at the graduation rates of major college FB/BB programs, it is impossible to claim with a straight face that these students are being compensated with an education.  Tell me, which football player has the option to say, "sorry coach, I can't practice today, I really need to study for finals?"  They are not student athletes; they are athletes who happen to play for a school.

The system is set up for short-term exploitation of the value of young athletes (who are frequently from low-income backgrounds).  To claim otherwise is almost absurd.

I agree with all of that. And tying endorsement money to their grade point average would be a brilliant idea.  You want to get paid on the side, have a 3.0 or better. Don't have a 3.0, well then your scholarship prohibits you from earning money. Not sure that is legal but I like the concept

If he doesn't need the education don't go to FSU. It's not a god given right to play in the NFL! He can wait 3 years removed from High School and still enter the NFL Draft. He doesn't need to go to college.

College aren't hiding anything. The scholarship letter is in normal sized font and not fine print. Each player signs it knowing the rules and its is clear as day. States all the rules and what is and what isn't allowed. Nobody is putting a gun to the kids head forcing them to sign it

And if he doesn't play for a college, then he loses millions of dollars in contract value when he goes to the NFL.  Some choice.

If you want to say "no one is forcing them to sign it," then don't complain when the students unionize and/or sue to break apart this exploitative system.

I'm all for these guys making their own money but having the schools pay a salary is going to blow up college sports as we know it. There is no way to pay every football player anything substantial much less when you consider adding in other sports. This proposal would force some more schools to drop football and many schools to drop other sports. If your goal is to drop extracurricular activities for athletes competing in things such as soccer, baseball, track and field, and yes even some football teams so that the Jameis Winstons of the world can "get paid" I really think your priorities are wrong.

Where does it stop? Medical doctors have to go to medical school don't they? They have required rounds to make during their student tenures. Why are we not paying med students? What about students working on projects in research labs? Let's get them a salary also? Hell there is plenty to go around, until the realization comes that there isn't.

OK.  Granted.  And I'm not even necessarily saying that schools SHOULD pay.  But them not being allowed to earn compensation is nuts.

But the bigger response to: "...is going to blow up college sports as we know it" is "So what?  Who cares?"  You don't do things that are wrong and exploitative to help prop up an industry.  College sports will exist if they're financially viable to exist.  If the market can't afford for them to pay players, they won't. 

Do you realize that if you see Jameis Winston in a bar that you can't buy him a drink?  What...the...fuck?  His coach can't take him to lunch.  He doesn't get to sell HIS OWN LIKENESS to video games, but the NCAA gets to do it and make money.

I agree with all your statements here but these comments are a far cry from outright paying players as employees.  You're speaking towards overly stringent NCAA regulations regarding players and I agree that this is a problem.  But, at the same time I understand their purpose... they are to prevent schools from paying players through disguising salaries as "taking him to lunch" 40 times a day for 4 years.

 And I disagree with your "Jameis Winston is making FSU millions of dollars" perspective.  He is one player on a 90-man team, which makes millions of dollars.  If Jameis Winston evaporated tomorrow, FSU football still makes millions of dollars.

Why would paying football and basketball players "force" schools to drop other sports?

This (http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/7/31/4574556/oregon-football-building-new) is the football training complex for the University of Oregon.  (Please note the sixty-four 55" televisions in the lobby.)  But if we pay the players, the next thing that has to go is the non-revenue-generating sports?

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--xeKPpMFq--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ykdkqhstdm1ptubyuct2.jpg)

In 39 of 50 states, the highest-paid public employee is a football or basketball coach.  (In 5 of the 11 remaining states, the highest-paid public employee is a college president.)  But if we pay the players, the next thing that has to go is the non-revenue-generating sports?

I fundamentally reject your basic premise that the choice is between paying the players and offering the other sports.

Those students are allowed to get jobs and make money off of their skills!  In fact, as long as you are not an athlete, ANY OTHER STUDENT can take any job that they are not prohibited by law from performing, at any salary the employer chooses, and no one has a damn thing to say about it.  This is the entire reason we're having this discussion!

If the NCAA didn't prohibit players from making their own money, this wouldn't be a problem.  Jameis Winston could make more than enough in endorsements to make a salary from the school unnecessary.

Widely misinterpreted. I could buy Jameis a drink, I just couldn't do it because he is a famous football star. As for your coach scenario, it is tricky but depending on the situation. It can be allowed or could be a violation. There just isn't enough of a specific scenario laid out to refute it or support it.

Sure they are going to make cuts to the one program they have making the money for the institution while continuing to support non-revenue sports. That just makes perfect sense financially and I can't argue against it. You win.

Believe it or not, it's possible to run the football program without a multi-million dollar practice facility rivaling that of many pro teams.  And you don't have to make your head coach the highest paid public employee in the state.

It's like you're arguing for the priorities of a professional sports team and not an academic institution.  They don't have any shareholders to report to.

^^^ I agree completely but there are drawbacks. The biggest, your team falls behind in the recruiting of the top tier talents that have put you in the national spotlight which causes all that revenue money you think is there to disappear.

If you begin paying any athletes with school funds directly you are going to have to pay all athletes and the system falls apart. It is that simple. I'm all for letting them get compensated but using the school funds is the biggest mistake anyone has considered on this topic.

Every institution would be paying their players, so I don't see how that would be an advantage for one school over another.  In fact, rather the opposite:  if I can go to Oregon and use their multi-million dollar practice facility, or I can go to Oregon State and get paid twice as much, seems like the problem resolves itself.

And as I already said: the scholarship should be included in the compensation package.  The lacrosse team probably isn't going to merit much compensation beyond the value of their scholarship.  The men's basketball team probably will.

I don't see the issue.

What?  Why would you have to pay all athletes?

^^^ You don't see the legal ramifications involved? Non-revenue sports also have mandatory practices. They attend the same institutions. Why would any court in the land rule that one person gets paid and another does not. We could even keep the discussion to just football. Why wouldn't a backup be looking for pay from the school? What if he steps in because of injury. Does the starter lose his pay? Does the backup gain that money?

I just don't see how a court would allow for the differentiation of paying only some athletes compensation. I've seen the word employee used several times (you were one I think) do you know any company that only pays some employees?

Of course you have to pay all athletes!  You can't pick and choose...  everything you discuss must happen across the board.  Otherwise the system has potential to become even more corrupt than before. 

Just because football makes more money doesn't mean the swim team doesn't have a similar schedule requirement.  What makes the swim team less valuable?  What makes the backup center on the football team less valuable than a starting LB? 

You guys are talking like "we're only going to pay the stars!" - where do you draw the line between "stars" and "Schmoes?"  Who makes those decisions?   You don't see how that could easily become corrupt?

For the third time: scholarships can be part of the compensation package.  This shouldn't be a foreign concept, since it's the go-to retort any time someone talks about compensating athletes in college.

Furthermore, based on the talk so far in this thread, one would surmise that the concept of partial-ride scholarships is a glaringly obvious lawsuit waiting to happen.  Some "student athletes" already get compensated more than others in the current system.

I believe you would have to pay all athletes, in all sports, because of Title IX.  Just as you have to have an equal number of sports teams for women, I believe you would also have to pay the women's volleyball players if you are going to pay the men's football team players.

Women's volleyball players don't get the same practice facilities or travel accommodations as the football team.  They also don't get the same number of scholarships.

That being said, Title IX does appear to indicate that a system that paid players would have to split those funds relative to the gender proportion of athletes.  So if a university had 70% male athletes and 30% female, the starting money pool would have to be 70/30 and subdivided from there.

In practice, I think this would mean the women's basketball teams would be getting paid handsomely.  I'm OK with it.

As is, some players get a full scholarships for tuition.
Others get that + meals and books.
Others get just a partial.
Others get nothing.

Just like at a business.

Some people get paid huge salaries + bonuses + a company car.
Others just get salary + benefits.
Others get salary.
Others get part-time at a lower rate.
Sometimes people are interns.

As long as he isn't buying me a drink...because it's probably ruffied....you know, the whole rape thing.