[Snorlax94]

Other points in this debate:

* what to do with Title IX,

* do the athletes, individually, really generate the $$, or is the $$ generated by the fact that fans gravitate toward colleges and universities?  (That's one of the reasons I'd love to see an NFL D-league - let's see how many people would pay to see (a) Johnny Manziel play for the College Station Cougars, or (b) Zion Williamson play for the Durham Dawgs).  If it's the latter, as I believe, then what is the issue with having the universities keep the lion's share of the $$ generated?

I believe true amateur college sports with "$$ generated by the fact that fans gravitate toward colleges and universities" could work. My proof is the Army-Navy game. People don't watch it to see the best athletes (i.e., people who should be getting paid in the NFL but can't due to the monopolistic restrictions). People watch Army-Navy because it's Army-Navy. It's great kids from each academy representing their school. And I think people would tune in to a true Stanford-Notre Dame or a  Stanford-USC game, played by student athletes who receive only an athletic scholarship to represent their school. 

There's still time and someone could come up with a solution. I think one of the parties that could fix this is Congress. If they made pro and NCAA monopolies conditional on the availability of direct-from-high school D-leagues and minor league farm systems, then I think college football without obvious exploitation, where smaller schools and leagues could survive and be remotely competitive, could maybe survive with smaller budgets, less inequity, and a limited form of compensation.

Otherwise, I am kind of sad because it feels to me like the beginning of the end of college football. It'll continue -- but if this thing isn't managed correctly, we could see more and more college unable to compete financially and drop out. People were already tuning out because some schools and conferences have way more money, and people tune out when it feels like programs are just buying their victories, when it feels like the little guy doesn't even have a realistic chance due to financial disparities.

I could see Stanford ending its football program within a decade. And if people see an end coming, athletic departments from smaller schools could come out of the pandemic figuring, let's cancel those plans for a new stadium. I could see college football in 15 years being reduced to just a few mega schools where the communities want to pour all their money into "college sports", with the rest of the nation largely tuning out.

[Snorlax94]

Other points in this debate:

* what to do with Title IX,

* do the athletes, individually, really generate the $$, or is the $$ generated by the fact that fans gravitate toward colleges and universities?  (That's one of the reasons I'd love to see an NFL D-league - let's see how many people would pay to see (a) Johnny Manziel play for the College Station Cougars, or (b) Zion Williamson play for the Durham Dawgs).  If it's the latter, as I believe, then what is the issue with having the universities keep the lion's share of the $$ generated?

I believe true amateur college sports with "$$ generated by the fact that fans gravitate toward colleges and universities" could work. My proof is the Army-Navy game. People don't watch it to see the best athletes (i.e., people who should be getting paid in the NFL but can't due to the monopolistic restrictions). People watch Army-Navy because it's Army-Navy. It's great kids from each academy representing their school. And I think people would tune in to a true Stanford-Notre Dame or a  Stanford-USC game, played by student athletes who receive only an athletic scholarship to represent their school. 

There's still time and someone could come up with a solution. I think one of the parties that could fix this is Congress. If they made pro and NCAA monopolies conditional on the availability of direct-from-high school D-leagues and minor league farm systems, then I think college football without obvious exploitation, where smaller schools and leagues could survive and be remotely competitive, could maybe survive with smaller budgets, less inequity, and a limited form of compensation.

Otherwise, I am kind of sad because it feels to me like the beginning of the end of college football. It'll continue -- but if this thing isn't managed correctly, we could see more and more college unable to compete financially and drop out. People were already tuning out because some schools and conferences have way more money, and people tune out when it feels like programs are just buying their victories, when it feels like the little guy doesn't even have a realistic chance due to financial disparities.

I could see Stanford ending its football program within a decade. And if people see an end coming, athletic departments from smaller schools could come out of the pandemic figuring, let's cancel those plans for a new stadium. I could see college football in 15 years being reduced to just a few mega schools where the communities want to pour all their money into "college sports", with the rest of the nation largely tuning out.