[winflop]

I don't know that it will be the end of college football writ large, but I suspect it will be the end of college football for some schools, including, IMHO, Stanford.  I have a hard time believing that fans in most SEC or BigTen schools would care if athletes were paid or not (hell, they are paid in many schools, if not always above the table).  But in some places the administration wouldn't stand for paying college athletes and would just as soon drop the program as drop amateurism, with only muted disagreement from some fans.

I think the problem is that college football has all the trappings of a professional league, with outsized television contracts, coaches that are hired and fired for outrageous sums and outrageous expectations, facilities that rival many pro franchises, a schedule that places more emphasis on maximizing eyeballs and return on investment than athlete welfare, academics that are de-emphasized at most schools, and a constant push towards more.  With the one thing that distinguishes college from professional football being solely that the players aren't paid.  For me, I would want to see college football move away from an "all-but" professional model, with the University Presidents and AD's making athlete welfare the first and most important concern, above revenue, fan convenience, eyeballs, and, if it comes to it, winning, etc.  Otherwise, it is hard to argue against the players being paid.

BC

Actually, college football & men's basketball will be the two sports that survive in some form.  The casualties will be all the other sports because schools simply won't be able to afford the additional cost of those athletes.  Despite all the TV revenues from FB & MBB, most athletic departments are still not profitable.  Teams in so-called "olympic sports" cost just as much if not more than MBB.  Those are the one that will fold.

It's Econ 101 - the more something costs, the less of it there will be.

[winflop]

I don't know that it will be the end of college football writ large, but I suspect it will be the end of college football for some schools, including, IMHO, Stanford.  I have a hard time believing that fans in most SEC or BigTen schools would care if athletes were paid or not (hell, they are paid in many schools, if not always above the table).  But in some places the administration wouldn't stand for paying college athletes and would just as soon drop the program as drop amateurism, with only muted disagreement from some fans.

I think the problem is that college football has all the trappings of a professional league, with outsized television contracts, coaches that are hired and fired for outrageous sums and outrageous expectations, facilities that rival many pro franchises, a schedule that places more emphasis on maximizing eyeballs and return on investment than athlete welfare, academics that are de-emphasized at most schools, and a constant push towards more.  With the one thing that distinguishes college from professional football being solely that the players aren't paid.  For me, I would want to see college football move away from an "all-but" professional model, with the University Presidents and AD's making athlete welfare the first and most important concern, above revenue, fan convenience, eyeballs, and, if it comes to it, winning, etc.  Otherwise, it is hard to argue against the players being paid.

BC

Actually, college football & men's basketball will be the two sports that survive in some form.  The casualties will be all the other sports because schools simply won't be able to afford the additional cost of those athletes.  Despite all the TV revenues from FB & MBB, most athletic departments are still not profitable.  Teams in so-called "olympic sports" cost just as much if not more than MBB.  Those are the one that will fold.

It's Econ 101 - the more something costs, the less of it there will be.