[CTcard]

My assumption is the schools that have the most booster and fan support will continue getting the best players and nothing will materially change in terms of who the top programs are. Coaches will be paid less, and the facility arms race will be replaced by an endorsement one. IOW, nothing really changes other than college athletes earning money for their market value, like every other person in the country can. The horror.

At least as far as the concerns I hold go, you are making arguments of kind for situations where the concern is of degree.

For most situations it does seem likely that the qualitative result is that the currently most advantaged programs will become even more advantaged. Thus while it would seem not to change who is on top, it would seem to increase the divide. That does not seem healthy to me.

I would also guess that getting paid significant booster-endorsement cash would tend to decrease one's incentives to do things like actually attend classes. Again that isn't a qualitative change from the current situation, it just makes things worse. On the other hand, I don't know that would be how the incentives would pan out and the vast majority of NCAA athletes won't be getting much of anything anyway so I am not very worked up on this one.

I also see no reason that coaches, or any other people that are deemed unworthy, will be getting paid less. The sources of money are different, and I don't see how the incentives that funnel money to coaches or bowl trustees etc. would change via this law/rule change.

[CTcard]

My assumption is the schools that have the most booster and fan support will continue getting the best players and nothing will materially change in terms of who the top programs are. Coaches will be paid less, and the facility arms race will be replaced by an endorsement one. IOW, nothing really changes other than college athletes earning money for their market value, like every other person in the country can. The horror.

At least as far as the concerns I hold go, you are making arguments of kind for situations where the concern is of degree.

For most situations it does seem likely that the qualitative result is that the currently most advantaged programs will become even more advantaged. Thus while it would seem not to change who is on top, it would seem to increase the divide. That does not seem healthy to me.

I would also guess that getting paid significant booster-endorsement cash would tend to decrease one's incentives to do things like actually attend classes. Again that isn't a qualitative change from the current situation, it just makes things worse. On the other hand, I don't know that would be how the incentives would pan out and the vast majority of NCAA athletes won't be getting much of anything anyway so I am not very worked up on this one.

I also see no reason that coaches, or any other people that are deemed unworthy, will be getting paid less. The sources of money are different, and I don't see how the incentives that funnel money to coaches or bowl trustees etc. would change via this law/rule change.