[Goose]

I'm old school.  I think a full scholarship, medical benefits, and training facilities is a good deal.  I understand my opinion will be shunned on a sports message board. 

Not shunned from here . . . embraced.

And I'm all for allowing kids to pursue professional sports aspirations as soon as they can; and further favor them getting as much $$ from the owners as they can.  But no one is forcing these kids to go to college.

The fly in the ointment, of course, is no NFL D-league.  Get that done and you go a loooooong way to resolving this "injustice."

P.S.  Stanford will only be benefitted if it decides to stay in the "pay the athletes game."  I tend to think it will not do that; thus, Stanford will drop from the ranks of Big Time Sports Participants.  Not the end of the world, by any means, though I'll miss rooting for Stanford football and hoops (and women's hoops) when competing against The Big Boys and Girls.

This could get interesting. While many people cast this problem as a byproduct of the "big money" available to the Universities and their "umbrella" organization the NCAA, legally that is not the issue as I read it. Even if there was no TV money, it would appear to me that the NCAA cannot restrict the student-athlete from being compensated for use of their image etc. It wouldn't matter if there were no TV money, etc. It seems these decisions go directly against the concept of being "an amateur". If the TV money was 0.01 % of what it is now, what changes? Is it then OK to say the athletes can't get paid? What am I missing?

[Goose]

I'm old school.  I think a full scholarship, medical benefits, and training facilities is a good deal.  I understand my opinion will be shunned on a sports message board. 

Not shunned from here . . . embraced.

And I'm all for allowing kids to pursue professional sports aspirations as soon as they can; and further favor them getting as much $$ from the owners as they can.  But no one is forcing these kids to go to college.

The fly in the ointment, of course, is no NFL D-league.  Get that done and you go a loooooong way to resolving this "injustice."

P.S.  Stanford will only be benefitted if it decides to stay in the "pay the athletes game."  I tend to think it will not do that; thus, Stanford will drop from the ranks of Big Time Sports Participants.  Not the end of the world, by any means, though I'll miss rooting for Stanford football and hoops (and women's hoops) when competing against The Big Boys and Girls.

This could get interesting. While many people cast this problem as a byproduct of the "big money" available to the Universities and their "umbrella" organization the NCAA, legally that is not the issue as I read it. Even if there was no TV money, it would appear to me that the NCAA cannot restrict the student-athlete from being compensated for use of their image etc. It wouldn't matter if there were no TV money, etc. It seems these decisions go directly against the concept of being "an amateur". If the TV money was 0.01 % of what it is now, what changes? Is it then OK to say the athletes can't get paid? What am I missing?