[Farm93]

College sports is going to be unrecognizable to what it is today within a couple years. The pace of change relative to what has been until now, is going to be breathtaking.

If by breathtaking, you mean "a lot fewer schools and teams competing," then I agree.

If by breathtaking, you mean players will be paid (beyond the comp they already get), then I hope you are wrong.  That would be death knell for Stanford in upper echelon of sports competition.

At this point I am hoping for changes that benefit the players across the entire NCAA rather than keep the status quo just to keep Stanford strong.  
The current system exploits a lot of student-athletes in so many ways that changes need to happen.
If changes (like USOC changes in 90s) gives athletes a bit of control and power, then I can live with that even if Stanford then becomes less of a D1/NCAA power.

I love that word "exploitation" - it sounds so insidious and is meant to be a mic drop.  

The truth is that NCAA benefits far more student athletes than it exploits, and it's not even close.  Again, identify what bothers you and address THAT.  I'll bet what bothers you is that (a) the athletes don't make any $$ (beyond room, board, tuition, and quite possibly tutoring), while coaches and NCAA fat cats make millions.  Okay, impose caps on salary for coaching and NCAA positions.  And then roll over the $$ to the universities as a whole.  Would that address your concerns?

And if you're so concerned about the athletes getting paid, then advocate for an NFL D-League and have those whose singular goal is to get paid for their football services to go there.

P.S.  None of the above undermines giving players extended health care benefits, so long as it is across-the-board.

Oddly I wasn't really referring only to the money.   I was also referring to schools that have had athletes come out and talk about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, racism, etc.   But let's focus on the money.

The power in this relationship has always been with the universities, and many universities have used the value of some athletes to then give funds and benefits to other students, coaches and administrators.   The schools are making use of a resource (FBS athletes) and deriving benefits (revenue) that have not been shared with those resource generators.  They are exploiting a resource. 

The power imbalance in the relationship might have noble goals or charitable intent.   It might give tremendous benefit to others, but it is still using a resource for the benefit of others.

An athlete bill of rights might also allow players to try to tap into their true value in our economy and give them a bit more power in a relationship that is skewed toward the universities and coaches.   They might get nothing or ruin their sport in the process, but at least the Bill of Rights type deal would give them power and a chance for revenue. 

I sense those in DC believe the power imbalance in the Power 5 has taken too much out of the relationship at this point, and that it will adventageous for politicians to join the battle against this group. 

That's probably a net bad non-revenue sports and non-revenue sport student-athletes, but, almost by definition, those students and their sports have benefited from the exploitation of the revenue generating student-athletes for decades.

[Farm93]

College sports is going to be unrecognizable to what it is today within a couple years. The pace of change relative to what has been until now, is going to be breathtaking.

If by breathtaking, you mean "a lot fewer schools and teams competing," then I agree.

If by breathtaking, you mean players will be paid (beyond the comp they already get), then I hope you are wrong.  That would be death knell for Stanford in upper echelon of sports competition.

At this point I am hoping for changes that benefit the players across the entire NCAA rather than keep the status quo just to keep Stanford strong.  
The current system exploits a lot of student-athletes in so many ways that changes need to happen.
If changes (like USOC changes in 90s) gives athletes a bit of control and power, then I can live with that even if Stanford then becomes less of a D1/NCAA power.

I love that word "exploitation" - it sounds so insidious and is meant to be a mic drop.  

The truth is that NCAA benefits far more student athletes than it exploits, and it's not even close.  Again, identify what bothers you and address THAT.  I'll bet what bothers you is that (a) the athletes don't make any $$ (beyond room, board, tuition, and quite possibly tutoring), while coaches and NCAA fat cats make millions.  Okay, impose caps on salary for coaching and NCAA positions.  And then roll over the $$ to the universities as a whole.  Would that address your concerns?

And if you're so concerned about the athletes getting paid, then advocate for an NFL D-League and have those whose singular goal is to get paid for their football services to go there.

P.S.  None of the above undermines giving players extended health care benefits, so long as it is across-the-board.

Oddly I wasn't really referring only to the money.   I was also referring to schools that have had athletes come out and talk about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, racism, etc.   But let's focus on the money.

The power in this relationship has always been with the universities, and many universities have used the value of some athletes to then give funds and benefits to other students, coaches and administrators.   The schools are making use of a resource (FBS athletes) and deriving benefits (revenue) that have not been shared with those resource generators.  They are exploiting a resource. 

The power imbalance in the relationship might have noble goals or charitable intent.   It might give tremendous benefit to others, but it is still using a resource for the benefit of others.

An athlete bill of rights might also allow players to try to tap into their true value in our economy and give them a bit more power in a relationship that is skewed toward the universities and coaches.   They might get nothing or ruin their sport in the process, but at least the Bill of Rights type deal would give them power and a chance for revenue. 

I sense those in DC believe the power imbalance in the Power 5 has taken too much out of the relationship at this point, and that it will adventageous for politicians to join the battle against this group. 

That's probably a net bad non-revenue sports and non-revenue sport student-athletes, but, almost by definition, those students and their sports have benefited from the exploitation of the revenue generating student-athletes for decades.