[Goose]

I wouldn't describe a young athlete voluntarily engaging in the sport he/she enjoys as "labor" but I understand that perspective.    Without the statistics in front of me I would guess the majority of students participating in college sports willingly do it for no financial compensation at all.

Obviously this is true, because they are in fact doing so right now. However, the legal basis for this arrangement has always been questionable. Few cared about that fact when there wasn't much money to be made. Now, with "big money" flowing to the conferences, more people care. There will have to be a "new" arrangement. What that will be is at present unclear. I fear that the congress will just hope the courts can cobble together something that will kind of work. At best this would involve some really questionable legal "decisions". More probably, it will result in serious damage to amateur athletics in general.

The world is headed in the direction you favor so eventually your viewpoint will prevail.  My viewpoint on the topic has gone the way of the dinosaurs.

I believe lots of the fans that follow college athletics do so because the participants are viewed as "regular" people who like to play a certain sport. We believe we can relate to them and that they are in some way laudable because they play for love of the game, not for money. While it is undoubtedly true nearly all of us have no idea what "kind of people" these athletes are, we support them as a positive good by the nature of what they are doing. It may not be true, but we think it is. They represent our University as we wish it was, even though in our saner moments we realize there is a lot of hyperbole there.
If and when athletes start getting paid any substantial money to compete, that is over, and college athletics will be over soon after that. Professional sports is already starting to suffer from an "identity" deficit. Fans are having trouble relating to players who are clearly motivated almost totally by money, have  little or no team loyalty, and who in many cases aren't particularly appealing individuals. The fans still watch sports, but they are not emotionally invested like they once were. They also are looking for other things to occupy their time. College sports will have the same problem, but the athletes aren't as good and the vast majority of them don't have the skills to play at a high level. What does Southern Utah State vs. Flagstaff have to offer the fan from Miami? Bad football from places you never heard of played by people you really don't care about?
I think that there are enough people who realize this is the case that possibly some legislation can be put together that will allow an actual amateur status to exist. While such an approach may not be "the wave of the future", I think there is enough attraction to the model that the desire to preserve it is substantial. That won't happen if all involved let nature take it's course, but hopefully a reasonable model can be created that will preserve what we like about amateur athletics.

[Goose]

I wouldn't describe a young athlete voluntarily engaging in the sport he/she enjoys as "labor" but I understand that perspective.    Without the statistics in front of me I would guess the majority of students participating in college sports willingly do it for no financial compensation at all.

Obviously this is true, because they are in fact doing so right now. However, the legal basis for this arrangement has always been questionable. Few cared about that fact when there wasn't much money to be made. Now, with "big money" flowing to the conferences, more people care. There will have to be a "new" arrangement. What that will be is at present unclear. I fear that the congress will just hope the courts can cobble together something that will kind of work. At best this would involve some really questionable legal "decisions". More probably, it will result in serious damage to amateur athletics in general.

The world is headed in the direction you favor so eventually your viewpoint will prevail.  My viewpoint on the topic has gone the way of the dinosaurs.

I believe lots of the fans that follow college athletics do so because the participants are viewed as "regular" people who like to play a certain sport. We believe we can relate to them and that they are in some way laudable because they play for love of the game, not for money. While it is undoubtedly true nearly all of us have no idea what "kind of people" these athletes are, we support them as a positive good by the nature of what they are doing. It may not be true, but we think it is. They represent our University as we wish it was, even though in our saner moments we realize there is a lot of hyperbole there.
If and when athletes start getting paid any substantial money to compete, that is over, and college athletics will be over soon after that. Professional sports is already starting to suffer from an "identity" deficit. Fans are having trouble relating to players who are clearly motivated almost totally by money, have  little or no team loyalty, and who in many cases aren't particularly appealing individuals. The fans still watch sports, but they are not emotionally invested like they once were. They also are looking for other things to occupy their time. College sports will have the same problem, but the athletes aren't as good and the vast majority of them don't have the skills to play at a high level. What does Southern Utah State vs. Flagstaff have to offer the fan from Miami? Bad football from places you never heard of played by people you really don't care about?
I think that there are enough people who realize this is the case that possibly some legislation can be put together that will allow an actual amateur status to exist. While such an approach may not be "the wave of the future", I think there is enough attraction to the model that the desire to preserve it is substantial. That won't happen if all involved let nature take it's course, but hopefully a reasonable model can be created that will preserve what we like about amateur athletics.

[OutsiderFan]

The irony of this whole situation is that the NCAA was originally created specifically to address injuries and deaths in College Football. College Football is by far and away the biggest revenue producer of all college sports. Yet, the NCAA somehow doesn't have any control over the top division in College Football's post-season. How the hell did this happen?

I honestly have no clue how this situation gets resolved. But what I do know is any time this dynamic is created, it will not be pretty. Someone - like college coaches in particular - will have to give up a lot of what they have so athletes who are the labor that creates the entertainment can get a larger piece of the revenue pie. The NCAA and member schools will have to figure out among other things:

- What piece of the revenue pie goes to the athletes, from NCAA post-season revenue and individual school revenue
- A mechanism for deciding if/how different sport athletes get compensated by level (perhaps based on revenue generated) 
- A bonus structure for post-season participation
- How to get athletes organized to approve of whatever the plan is

I personally don't think college athletes want to get paid more by schools based on their ability, like a major league athletes does. They would be totally fine being compensated like Graduate Assistants are; get a monthly stipend that everyone else gets and maybe insurance coverage everyone else gets. Any individual compensation over and beyond this can be based on NIL compensation. 

Speaking of that, the really interesting question would be if the NCAA came up with an agreeable compensation structure, would athletes agree to give up personal NIL revenue if it all goes into one pot for things like video games and jersey sales. Like, if we give you a bit more guaranteed compensation and benefits, can we reign in the NIL stuff a bit? I think most athletes would say yes because they are OK supporting a baseline level of compensation for as many athletes as possible.

Of course, the big problem not solved by any of this is recruiting and the artificial controls placed on it that leads to what we call cheating.

[OutsiderFan]

The irony of this whole situation is that the NCAA was originally created specifically to address injuries and deaths in College Football. College Football is by far and away the biggest revenue producer of all college sports. Yet, the NCAA somehow doesn't have any control over the top division in College Football's post-season. How the hell did this happen?

I honestly have no clue how this situation gets resolved. But what I do know is any time this dynamic is created, it will not be pretty. Someone - like college coaches in particular - will have to give up a lot of what they have so athletes who are the labor that creates the entertainment can get a larger piece of the revenue pie. The NCAA and member schools will have to figure out among other things:

- What piece of the revenue pie goes to the athletes, from NCAA post-season revenue and individual school revenue
- A mechanism for deciding if/how different sport athletes get compensated by level (perhaps based on revenue generated) 
- A bonus structure for post-season participation
- How to get athletes organized to approve of whatever the plan is

I personally don't think college athletes want to get paid more by schools based on their ability, like a major league athletes does. They would be totally fine being compensated like Graduate Assistants are; get a monthly stipend that everyone else gets and maybe insurance coverage everyone else gets. Any individual compensation over and beyond this can be based on NIL compensation. 

Speaking of that, the really interesting question would be if the NCAA came up with an agreeable compensation structure, would athletes agree to give up personal NIL revenue if it all goes into one pot for things like video games and jersey sales. Like, if we give you a bit more guaranteed compensation and benefits, can we reign in the NIL stuff a bit? I think most athletes would say yes because they are OK supporting a baseline level of compensation for as many athletes as possible.

Of course, the big problem not solved by any of this is recruiting and the artificial controls placed on it that leads to what we call cheating.

[teejers1]

I wouldn't describe a young athlete voluntarily engaging in the sport he/she enjoys as "labor" but I understand that perspective.    Without the statistics in front of me I would guess the majority of students participating in college sports willingly do it for no financial compensation at all.

Obviously this is true, because they are in fact doing so right now. However, the legal basis for this arrangement has always been questionable. Few cared about that fact when there wasn't much money to be made. Now, with "big money" flowing to the conferences, more people care. There will have to be a "new" arrangement. What that will be is at present unclear. I fear that the congress will just hope the courts can cobble together something that will kind of work. At best this would involve some really questionable legal "decisions". More probably, it will result in serious damage to amateur athletics in general.

The world is headed in the direction you favor so eventually your viewpoint will prevail.  My viewpoint on the topic has gone the way of the dinosaurs.

I believe lots of the fans that follow college athletics do so because the participants are viewed as "regular" people who like to play a certain sport. We believe we can relate to them and that they are in some way laudable because they play for love of the game, not for money. While it is undoubtedly true nearly all of us have no idea what "kind of people" these athletes are, we support them as a positive good by the nature of what they are doing. It may not be true, but we think it is. They represent our University as we wish it was, even though in our saner moments we realize there is a lot of hyperbole there.
If and when athletes start getting paid any substantial money to compete, that is over, and college athletics will be over soon after that. Professional sports is already starting to suffer from an "identity" deficit. Fans are having trouble relating to players who are clearly motivated almost totally by money, have  little or no team loyalty, and who in many cases aren't particularly appealing individuals. The fans still watch sports, but they are not emotionally invested like they once were. They also are looking for other things to occupy their time. College sports will have the same problem, but the athletes aren't as good and the vast majority of them don't have the skills to play at a high level. What does Southern Utah State vs. Flagstaff have to offer the fan from Miami? Bad football from places you never heard of played by people you really don't care about?
I think that there are enough people who realize this is the case that possibly some legislation can be put together that will allow an actual amateur status to exist. While such an approach may not be "the wave of the future", I think there is enough attraction to the model that the desire to preserve it is substantial. That won't happen if all involved let nature take it's course, but hopefully a reasonable model can be created that will preserve what we like about amateur athletics.

Again . . . 

1.  All the momentum is in favor of OF's view, so that will prevail;

2.  I've never understood the "great offense" taken that college sports generates so much money that doesn't go to the players.  For those motivated solely by money or those offended by the notion of playing for your school (and receiving tuition, room and board, etc.), go play pro ball;

3.  In NFL, there is no D-League, so that is what needs to be addressed first and foremost, if you have any interest in preserving the notion of amateur athletics;

4.  If the real offense is that TV $$ ==> coaches making absurd amounts of money while the players get table scraps (which I think is a legit complaint), then impose pay caps on coaches and have surplus $$ go to university general funds and not athletic departments (or allocate $$ in some other way that is less offensive).  Are you really offended by the notion that college football athletes at LSU labor and sweat and the $$ generated from that help LSU build a science lab, or fund scholarships directed at certain groups of recipients?  Maybe you are . . . or maybe you think that generation of such non-sports benefits would further burnish the reputation/nobility of college sports athletes.  If you start with the proposition that NCAA sports is a regulated construct, then you can make whatever rules are deemed fair and appropriate.   And unless you're willing to just open things up to the notion of "pay the athletes whatever the market bears," then you're going to have some artificial restraints/constructs in this trade.  So again, I don't see what the hang-up is there by arguing for certain allocations of $$ generated.

5.  If the OF/Kavanaugh, free-market approach prevails, then I suspect there will be major unintended consequences, including a LOT more kids from underprivileged areas NOT attending college on scholarship.  The HAVES will further stratify from the HAVE NOTS, and you will have a small subset of schools paying athletes top dollar and the vast majority of schools not able to follow that model ==> fewer scholarship sports ==> fewer scholarship athletes, including from underrepresented communities.

6.  What I find most interesting about this debate is the dynamic of the advocates.  On the one side, you've got the hard right, principled free-marketeers (imo, a minority stake in those supporting paying the athletes), PLUS a much larger group of folks who want to pay the exploited athletes on fairness grounds.  This larger group, imo, tends to be the group that more generally, on broader issues, supports taking from "THE HAVES" and giving to "THE HAVE NOTS."  But on this particular issue, I believe their definition of "HAVES" versus "HAVE NOTS" is off the mark.  Certainly, a very small subset of college-athletes will be rewarded handsomely for playing ball in college at factory schools, but a much larger group of kids from that profile will get shut out (or close to it).  More broadly, "THE HAVES" (the real ones) - the universities willing to discard any notion of college student athlete and sell their soul in pursuit of sports $$ - will get richer, at the expense of "THE HAVE NOTS," those schools actually trying to promote the ideal that inspired college athletic competition in the first instance.  Is that really "spreading the wealth?"  (And this from someone who supports the notion of a wealth tax).

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) Trevor Lawrence play for the South Carolina Sabercats? (Same holds for Zion Williamson playing for the Durham Dawgs, though that's hoops).  If the $$ is generated by name on front of jersey and not the back, then what is the issue with having the universities keep the lion's share of the $$ generated?

[teejers1]

I wouldn't describe a young athlete voluntarily engaging in the sport he/she enjoys as "labor" but I understand that perspective.    Without the statistics in front of me I would guess the majority of students participating in college sports willingly do it for no financial compensation at all.

Obviously this is true, because they are in fact doing so right now. However, the legal basis for this arrangement has always been questionable. Few cared about that fact when there wasn't much money to be made. Now, with "big money" flowing to the conferences, more people care. There will have to be a "new" arrangement. What that will be is at present unclear. I fear that the congress will just hope the courts can cobble together something that will kind of work. At best this would involve some really questionable legal "decisions". More probably, it will result in serious damage to amateur athletics in general.

The world is headed in the direction you favor so eventually your viewpoint will prevail.  My viewpoint on the topic has gone the way of the dinosaurs.

I believe lots of the fans that follow college athletics do so because the participants are viewed as "regular" people who like to play a certain sport. We believe we can relate to them and that they are in some way laudable because they play for love of the game, not for money. While it is undoubtedly true nearly all of us have no idea what "kind of people" these athletes are, we support them as a positive good by the nature of what they are doing. It may not be true, but we think it is. They represent our University as we wish it was, even though in our saner moments we realize there is a lot of hyperbole there.
If and when athletes start getting paid any substantial money to compete, that is over, and college athletics will be over soon after that. Professional sports is already starting to suffer from an "identity" deficit. Fans are having trouble relating to players who are clearly motivated almost totally by money, have  little or no team loyalty, and who in many cases aren't particularly appealing individuals. The fans still watch sports, but they are not emotionally invested like they once were. They also are looking for other things to occupy their time. College sports will have the same problem, but the athletes aren't as good and the vast majority of them don't have the skills to play at a high level. What does Southern Utah State vs. Flagstaff have to offer the fan from Miami? Bad football from places you never heard of played by people you really don't care about?
I think that there are enough people who realize this is the case that possibly some legislation can be put together that will allow an actual amateur status to exist. While such an approach may not be "the wave of the future", I think there is enough attraction to the model that the desire to preserve it is substantial. That won't happen if all involved let nature take it's course, but hopefully a reasonable model can be created that will preserve what we like about amateur athletics.

Again . . . 

1.  All the momentum is in favor of OF's view, so that will prevail;

2.  I've never understood the "great offense" taken that college sports generates so much money that doesn't go to the players.  For those motivated solely by money or those offended by the notion of playing for your school (and receiving tuition, room and board, etc.), go play pro ball;

3.  In NFL, there is no D-League, so that is what needs to be addressed first and foremost, if you have any interest in preserving the notion of amateur athletics;

4.  If the real offense is that TV $$ ==> coaches making absurd amounts of money while the players get table scraps (which I think is a legit complaint), then impose pay caps on coaches and have surplus $$ go to university general funds and not athletic departments (or allocate $$ in some other way that is less offensive).  Are you really offended by the notion that college football athletes at LSU labor and sweat and the $$ generated from that help LSU build a science lab, or fund scholarships directed at certain groups of recipients?  Maybe you are . . . or maybe you think that generation of such non-sports benefits would further burnish the reputation/nobility of college sports athletes.  If you start with the proposition that NCAA sports is a regulated construct, then you can make whatever rules are deemed fair and appropriate.   And unless you're willing to just open things up to the notion of "pay the athletes whatever the market bears," then you're going to have some artificial restraints/constructs in this trade.  So again, I don't see what the hang-up is there by arguing for certain allocations of $$ generated.

5.  If the OF/Kavanaugh, free-market approach prevails, then I suspect there will be major unintended consequences, including a LOT more kids from underprivileged areas NOT attending college on scholarship.  The HAVES will further stratify from the HAVE NOTS, and you will have a small subset of schools paying athletes top dollar and the vast majority of schools not able to follow that model ==> fewer scholarship sports ==> fewer scholarship athletes, including from underrepresented communities.

6.  What I find most interesting about this debate is the dynamic of the advocates.  On the one side, you've got the hard right, principled free-marketeers (imo, a minority stake in those supporting paying the athletes), PLUS a much larger group of folks who want to pay the exploited athletes on fairness grounds.  This larger group, imo, tends to be the group that more generally, on broader issues, supports taking from "THE HAVES" and giving to "THE HAVE NOTS."  But on this particular issue, I believe their definition of "HAVES" versus "HAVE NOTS" is off the mark.  Certainly, a very small subset of college-athletes will be rewarded handsomely for playing ball in college at factory schools, but a much larger group of kids from that profile will get shut out (or close to it).  More broadly, "THE HAVES" (the real ones) - the universities willing to discard any notion of college student athlete and sell their soul in pursuit of sports $$ - will get richer, at the expense of "THE HAVE NOTS," those schools actually trying to promote the ideal that inspired college athletic competition in the first instance.  Is that really "spreading the wealth?"  (And this from someone who supports the notion of a wealth tax).

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) Trevor Lawrence play for the South Carolina Sabercats? (Same holds for Zion Williamson playing for the Durham Dawgs, though that's hoops).  If the $$ is generated by name on front of jersey and not the back, then what is the issue with having the universities keep the lion's share of the $$ generated?

[Softball Fan]

I personally don't think college athletes want to get paid more by schools based on their ability, like a major league athletes does. 

If true, that would be beneficial in moving toward a system of paid athletes.  However it is difficult to believe Heismann Trophy candidates would be down with getting paid the same as guys on the practice squad.

This is what I believe, in part, leads to the downfall of paid sports workers.  In an era where everyone is a victim, there are always going to be a group of athletes who feel they are being treated unfairly.  

Will football players in general be happy getting paid the same as athletes on the badminton/fencing/rowing teams?  Or do the "lesser" sports have to endure the indignity of not being paid for their labor. 

Or do women's sports get paid less than football players? Well, that's never going to happen.

I don't see how paying college athletes will ever get fully resolved. I'd rather go back to sports clubs with no athletic scholarships or paid workers. It would be a lower lever of skill but as a fan I would adjust to that as long as everyone was on a level playing field.

[Softball Fan]

I personally don't think college athletes want to get paid more by schools based on their ability, like a major league athletes does. 

If true, that would be beneficial in moving toward a system of paid athletes.  However it is difficult to believe Heismann Trophy candidates would be down with getting paid the same as guys on the practice squad.

This is what I believe, in part, leads to the downfall of paid sports workers.  In an era where everyone is a victim, there are always going to be a group of athletes who feel they are being treated unfairly.  

Will football players in general be happy getting paid the same as athletes on the badminton/fencing/rowing teams?  Or do the "lesser" sports have to endure the indignity of not being paid for their labor. 

Or do women's sports get paid less than football players? Well, that's never going to happen.

I don't see how paying college athletes will ever get fully resolved. I'd rather go back to sports clubs with no athletic scholarships or paid workers. It would be a lower lever of skill but as a fan I would adjust to that as long as everyone was on a level playing field.

[dabigv13]

I think a lot of my thinking on this topic is captured in the posts by Goose, teejers, and paloalto.

Tactically speaking, the NCAA should have seen the writing on the wall and given in to some sort of stipend or image rights arrangement.

Compensating college athletes will not substantially grow the total amount of money in college sports, I don't think at least. Perhaps donors will open up their pocket books to pay players instead of buying another yacht but I'm skeptical this will be more than a minimal amount of the total money in the pot compared to that from tickets and TV. Also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those type of donations mean less donations to university or AD general funds. The pot may even shrink if fans become disenchanted with college sports.

So if you dramatically increase the number of people who are taking from that pot, someone is going to have to give up their current share. Highly paid college FB coaches won't be the ones with the most to lose, that's for sure.

Seems to me that many smaller schools will give up football, and many schools of all sizes will give up lots of other sports. With Title IX, that probably means a lot of schools will end up with college football, college basketball, and then however many women's sports needed to equal the scholarships.

So the winners in this new arrangement will be the very best football and basketball players. The losers will be the more average football and basketball players, and most every other college athlete and the staff involved, as well as more indirectly the fans of all the programs that will cease to exist.

Maybe it will be better for HS athletes to be less motivated about a scholarship, in order to focus more on their academics. But I suspect like Teejers that ultimately this arrangement is one that will benefit and entrench the current Haves more than the Have-nots.

An NFL D-League is definitely the answer, but there are no incentives for it to come about, so it won't happen. NFL sure is happy to have a development program that costs them nothing. An NFL D-league would also create a lot more future litigants over head trauma.

[dabigv13]

I think a lot of my thinking on this topic is captured in the posts by Goose, teejers, and paloalto.

Tactically speaking, the NCAA should have seen the writing on the wall and given in to some sort of stipend or image rights arrangement.

Compensating college athletes will not substantially grow the total amount of money in college sports, I don't think at least. Perhaps donors will open up their pocket books to pay players instead of buying another yacht but I'm skeptical this will be more than a minimal amount of the total money in the pot compared to that from tickets and TV. Also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those type of donations mean less donations to university or AD general funds. The pot may even shrink if fans become disenchanted with college sports.

So if you dramatically increase the number of people who are taking from that pot, someone is going to have to give up their current share. Highly paid college FB coaches won't be the ones with the most to lose, that's for sure.

Seems to me that many smaller schools will give up football, and many schools of all sizes will give up lots of other sports. With Title IX, that probably means a lot of schools will end up with college football, college basketball, and then however many women's sports needed to equal the scholarships.

So the winners in this new arrangement will be the very best football and basketball players. The losers will be the more average football and basketball players, and most every other college athlete and the staff involved, as well as more indirectly the fans of all the programs that will cease to exist.

Maybe it will be better for HS athletes to be less motivated about a scholarship, in order to focus more on their academics. But I suspect like Teejers that ultimately this arrangement is one that will benefit and entrench the current Haves more than the Have-nots.

An NFL D-League is definitely the answer, but there are no incentives for it to come about, so it won't happen. NFL sure is happy to have a development program that costs them nothing. An NFL D-league would also create a lot more future litigants over head trauma.

[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.

[Goose]

Teejers1, while I agree with a lot of what you say, I think the taxonomy of the groups on this subject you present is a bit too simplistic. First of all, the true "free traders" would be perfectly happy with the athletes demanding to be paid and would also be perfectly happy with the Universities forming an NCAA that would collude to forbid it. Anti-trust legislation was (at least originally) considered a "progressive" idea. The second group (where I find myself) consists of people who realize the system as it exists does in fact, and always has violated existing law. Baseball has an anti-trust exemption for a reason. College athletics doesn't, and it can't therefore legally engage in the anti-competitive collusion that it now does. There is a third group that  is convinced that the present system is "unfair" to the athletes and therefore must be "corrected". This last group is probably the currently largest group. It may be true that this group will prevail, but if they do they need to invent a new structure that is agreeable to all the stakeholders, fair, legal, and will work. I suspect they will fail in that attempt, thereby rending their size moot.
The existence of a football D league is a probable outcome of this situation eventually. However, the point the SCOTUS has made is that the current regulation of college sports by the NCAA is illegal, period. Even if an agreement could be reached between the "athletes" (whoever that group is defined to be) and the NCAA, it would still be illegal. That issue has to be addressed, and a D league doesn't do so. It has always been assumed that the major pro sports leagues like the NFL and NBA were probably in violation of anti-trust laws but that they were given a pass because they were the "golden goose" for too many people. It is probably impossible for college sports to go the same route because there are too many diverse groups involved.
If some A&M alumnus decides to pay Johnny to play at A&M instead of in the D league, without an organization like the NCAA, who is to prevent it? Even if A&M made a rule they wouldn't allow it, other schools may not make that rule. Then what? The Universities can't get together to decide what is OK, because that is colluding against the athletes. Any solution that preserves college athletics is going to require legislation, period. Whether at the end of the day college athletes will get paid is another question. Right now, the third group being the largest would say yes. However, it isn't easy to imagine a solution that includes that provision without generating an unsolvable set of knock-on problems.

[Goose]

Teejers1, while I agree with a lot of what you say, I think the taxonomy of the groups on this subject you present is a bit too simplistic. First of all, the true "free traders" would be perfectly happy with the athletes demanding to be paid and would also be perfectly happy with the Universities forming an NCAA that would collude to forbid it. Anti-trust legislation was (at least originally) considered a "progressive" idea. The second group (where I find myself) consists of people who realize the system as it exists does in fact, and always has violated existing law. Baseball has an anti-trust exemption for a reason. College athletics doesn't, and it can't therefore legally engage in the anti-competitive collusion that it now does. There is a third group that  is convinced that the present system is "unfair" to the athletes and therefore must be "corrected". This last group is probably the currently largest group. It may be true that this group will prevail, but if they do they need to invent a new structure that is agreeable to all the stakeholders, fair, legal, and will work. I suspect they will fail in that attempt, thereby rending their size moot.
The existence of a football D league is a probable outcome of this situation eventually. However, the point the SCOTUS has made is that the current regulation of college sports by the NCAA is illegal, period. Even if an agreement could be reached between the "athletes" (whoever that group is defined to be) and the NCAA, it would still be illegal. That issue has to be addressed, and a D league doesn't do so. It has always been assumed that the major pro sports leagues like the NFL and NBA were probably in violation of anti-trust laws but that they were given a pass because they were the "golden goose" for too many people. It is probably impossible for college sports to go the same route because there are too many diverse groups involved.
If some A&M alumnus decides to pay Johnny to play at A&M instead of in the D league, without an organization like the NCAA, who is to prevent it? Even if A&M made a rule they wouldn't allow it, other schools may not make that rule. Then what? The Universities can't get together to decide what is OK, because that is colluding against the athletes. Any solution that preserves college athletics is going to require legislation, period. Whether at the end of the day college athletes will get paid is another question. Right now, the third group being the largest would say yes. However, it isn't easy to imagine a solution that includes that provision without generating an unsolvable set of knock-on problems.

[Mick]

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. 

And room and board.  And admittance to a university in which, absent athletic ability, one is unlikely to be admitted.  I'm with you.

[Mick]

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. 

And room and board.  And admittance to a university in which, absent athletic ability, one is unlikely to be admitted.  I'm with you.

[teejers1]

The existence of a football D league is a probable outcome of this situation eventually. 

I agree pretty much with everything you say, except the above.

Why would you think that an NFL D-League is a probable outcome, particularly if you think federal legislation is NOT going to happen?

Seems to me that the NFL, unless its hand is forced by some federal legislation.  And maybe that legislation is just sanctioning a structure whereby colleges can continue on with current approach such that there is some market for paying kids a something to train in NFL D-League with hopes of making The Big Club.  Regardless, without some push, the NFL will just continue to ride the college football gravy train and let those universities/boosters/sponsors pay that "labor" while they are playing in college.

[teejers1]

The existence of a football D league is a probable outcome of this situation eventually. 

I agree pretty much with everything you say, except the above.

Why would you think that an NFL D-League is a probable outcome, particularly if you think federal legislation is NOT going to happen?

Seems to me that the NFL, unless its hand is forced by some federal legislation.  And maybe that legislation is just sanctioning a structure whereby colleges can continue on with current approach such that there is some market for paying kids a something to train in NFL D-League with hopes of making The Big Club.  Regardless, without some push, the NFL will just continue to ride the college football gravy train and let those universities/boosters/sponsors pay that "labor" while they are playing in college.

[Farm93]

The existence of a football D league is a probable outcome of this situation eventually. 

I agree pretty much with everything you say, except the above.

Why would you think that an NFL D-League is a probable outcome, particularly if you think federal legislation is NOT going to happen?

Seems to me that the NFL, unless its hand is forced by some federal legislation.  And maybe that legislation is just sanctioning a structure whereby colleges can continue on with current approach such that there is some market for paying kids a something to train in NFL D-League with hopes of making The Big Club.  Regardless, without some push, the NFL will just continue to ride the college football gravy train and let those universities/boosters/sponsors pay that "labor" while they are playing in college.

I agree with you.  The NFL already has a D-league.   It is called the SEC.  Many SEC schools have less in their university endowment than Forbes says their football programs are worth.    I am confident those schools will do a lot to keep their most precious asset viable.

Imagine a D-League with teams Birmingham, Pensacola or Shreveport.   Does anyone really believe those teams would get more in ticket revenue, tv revenue and financial gifts than Bama, Florida or LSU could command?   The State teams, ..err universities, literally represent the people in those states in so many ways.  Therefore those institutions can pull dollars out of the citizens (tickets, tv, gifts, tax dollars, subsidized loans) that small D-league teams would struggle to match. 

All the NFL needs is for some subset of the current D1 schools to allow football to overwhelm whatever value might be possible from seriously continuing their academic pursuits.   We already have that potential in the SEC and to some degree in the ACC and Big12.

I can certainly imagine that places with very significant academic assets and research revenue like Stanford and Northwestern will opt out, but that's quite different than saying every FBS school or their fans will refuse to play the new SCOTUS mandated game.  Oddly, some of the fans in some regions of the USA may take great pride in knowing their State U can outlast states/schools unwilling or unable to pony up.

[Farm93]

The existence of a football D league is a probable outcome of this situation eventually. 

I agree pretty much with everything you say, except the above.

Why would you think that an NFL D-League is a probable outcome, particularly if you think federal legislation is NOT going to happen?

Seems to me that the NFL, unless its hand is forced by some federal legislation.  And maybe that legislation is just sanctioning a structure whereby colleges can continue on with current approach such that there is some market for paying kids a something to train in NFL D-League with hopes of making The Big Club.  Regardless, without some push, the NFL will just continue to ride the college football gravy train and let those universities/boosters/sponsors pay that "labor" while they are playing in college.

I agree with you.  The NFL already has a D-league.   It is called the SEC.  Many SEC schools have less in their university endowment than Forbes says their football programs are worth.    I am confident those schools will do a lot to keep their most precious asset viable.

Imagine a D-League with teams Birmingham, Pensacola or Shreveport.   Does anyone really believe those teams would get more in ticket revenue, tv revenue and financial gifts than Bama, Florida or LSU could command?   The State teams, ..err universities, literally represent the people in those states in so many ways.  Therefore those institutions can pull dollars out of the citizens (tickets, tv, gifts, tax dollars, subsidized loans) that small D-league teams would struggle to match. 

All the NFL needs is for some subset of the current D1 schools to allow football to overwhelm whatever value might be possible from seriously continuing their academic pursuits.   We already have that potential in the SEC and to some degree in the ACC and Big12.

I can certainly imagine that places with very significant academic assets and research revenue like Stanford and Northwestern will opt out, but that's quite different than saying every FBS school or their fans will refuse to play the new SCOTUS mandated game.  Oddly, some of the fans in some regions of the USA may take great pride in knowing their State U can outlast states/schools unwilling or unable to pony up.

[Goose]

The existence of a football D league is a probable outcome of this situation eventually. 

I agree pretty much with everything you say, except the above.

Why would you think that an NFL D-League is a probable outcome, particularly if you think federal legislation is NOT going to happen?

Seems to me that the NFL, unless its hand is forced by some federal legislation.  And maybe that legislation is just sanctioning a structure whereby colleges can continue on with current approach such that there is some market for paying kids a something to train in NFL D-League with hopes of making The Big Club.  Regardless, without some push, the NFL will just continue to ride the college football gravy train and let those universities/boosters/sponsors pay that "labor" while they are playing in college.

I agree with you.  The NFL already has a D-league.   It is called the SEC.  Many SEC schools have less in their university endowment than Forbes says their football programs are worth.    I am confident those schools will do a lot to keep their most precious asset viable.

Imagine a D-League with teams Birmingham, Pensacola or Shreveport.   Does anyone really believe those teams would get more in ticket revenue, tv revenue and financial gifts than Bama, Florida or LSU could command?   The State teams, ..err universities, literally represent the people in those states in so many ways.  Therefore those institutions can pull dollars out of the citizens (tickets, tv, gifts, tax dollars, subsidized loans) that small D-league teams would struggle to match. 

All the NFL needs is for some subset of the current D1 schools to allow football to overwhelm whatever value might be possible from seriously continuing their academic pursuits.   We already have that potential in the SEC and to some degree in the ACC and Big12.

I can certainly imagine that places with very significant academic assets and research revenue like Stanford and Northwestern will opt out, but that's quite different than saying every FBS school or their fans will refuse to play the new SCOTUS mandated game.  Oddly, some of the fans in some regions of the USA may take great pride in knowing their State U can outlast states/schools unwilling or unable to pony up.

My belief that in the absence of legislation the NFL will adopt a D league is based on the assertion that some form of chaos will ensue while the colleges try to figure out what they can do and how they can do it. If the chaos is relatively slow motion the NFL may attempt to wait to see what happens, but if any real uncertainty about the future ensues the NFL will chose to act. If college football is going to shrink to the SEC alone, I don't think the NFL is going to like that. Too limited a footprint to attract enough players. We all know how big businesses hate uncertainty. The NFL may also fear some kind of legal contagion spreading to them from the NCAA issues. The may believe a D league will help allow them to continue to be an illegal monopoly with everybody winking at it. They can say they aren't contributing to the chaos. Naturally, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL doesn't go this way, but I think it more probable than not. It would also give them an opportunity to locate relocation/expansion sites relatively cheaply.

[Goose]

The existence of a football D league is a probable outcome of this situation eventually. 

I agree pretty much with everything you say, except the above.

Why would you think that an NFL D-League is a probable outcome, particularly if you think federal legislation is NOT going to happen?

Seems to me that the NFL, unless its hand is forced by some federal legislation.  And maybe that legislation is just sanctioning a structure whereby colleges can continue on with current approach such that there is some market for paying kids a something to train in NFL D-League with hopes of making The Big Club.  Regardless, without some push, the NFL will just continue to ride the college football gravy train and let those universities/boosters/sponsors pay that "labor" while they are playing in college.

I agree with you.  The NFL already has a D-league.   It is called the SEC.  Many SEC schools have less in their university endowment than Forbes says their football programs are worth.    I am confident those schools will do a lot to keep their most precious asset viable.

Imagine a D-League with teams Birmingham, Pensacola or Shreveport.   Does anyone really believe those teams would get more in ticket revenue, tv revenue and financial gifts than Bama, Florida or LSU could command?   The State teams, ..err universities, literally represent the people in those states in so many ways.  Therefore those institutions can pull dollars out of the citizens (tickets, tv, gifts, tax dollars, subsidized loans) that small D-league teams would struggle to match. 

All the NFL needs is for some subset of the current D1 schools to allow football to overwhelm whatever value might be possible from seriously continuing their academic pursuits.   We already have that potential in the SEC and to some degree in the ACC and Big12.

I can certainly imagine that places with very significant academic assets and research revenue like Stanford and Northwestern will opt out, but that's quite different than saying every FBS school or their fans will refuse to play the new SCOTUS mandated game.  Oddly, some of the fans in some regions of the USA may take great pride in knowing their State U can outlast states/schools unwilling or unable to pony up.

My belief that in the absence of legislation the NFL will adopt a D league is based on the assertion that some form of chaos will ensue while the colleges try to figure out what they can do and how they can do it. If the chaos is relatively slow motion the NFL may attempt to wait to see what happens, but if any real uncertainty about the future ensues the NFL will chose to act. If college football is going to shrink to the SEC alone, I don't think the NFL is going to like that. Too limited a footprint to attract enough players. We all know how big businesses hate uncertainty. The NFL may also fear some kind of legal contagion spreading to them from the NCAA issues. The may believe a D league will help allow them to continue to be an illegal monopoly with everybody winking at it. They can say they aren't contributing to the chaos. Naturally, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL doesn't go this way, but I think it more probable than not. It would also give them an opportunity to locate relocation/expansion sites relatively cheaply.

[Snorlax94]

My belief that in the absence of legislation the NFL will adopt a D league is based on the assertion that some form of chaos will ensue while the colleges try to figure out what they can do and how they can do it. If the chaos is relatively slow motion the NFL may attempt to wait to see what happens, but if any real uncertainty about the future ensues the NFL will chose to act. If college football is going to shrink to the SEC alone, I don't think the NFL is going to like that. Too limited a footprint to attract enough players. We all know how big businesses hate uncertainty. The NFL may also fear some kind of legal contagion spreading to them from the NCAA issues. The may believe a D league will help allow them to continue to be an illegal monopoly with everybody winking at it. They can say they aren't contributing to the chaos. Naturally, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL doesn't go this way, but I think it more probable than not. It would also give them an opportunity to locate relocation/expansion sites relatively cheaply.

This assumes an NFL farm league has to look like the D-league, or even like minor league baseball with additional teams in other towns. The lowest risk -- and immediately most lucrative -- way for the NFL to create a quasi D-league would be for them to expand the pre-season to a 10 game pre-season with special rosters of pre-season players, where pre-season league players could come straight from high school. You could even have a pre-season league playoff bracket. 

It would mean screwing the NCAA and ending their longstanding, mutually-profitable collusion, but I think SCOTUS has forced the issue. One way or another, there must now be a direct-to-paid salary path for high school seniors.

[Snorlax94]

My belief that in the absence of legislation the NFL will adopt a D league is based on the assertion that some form of chaos will ensue while the colleges try to figure out what they can do and how they can do it. If the chaos is relatively slow motion the NFL may attempt to wait to see what happens, but if any real uncertainty about the future ensues the NFL will chose to act. If college football is going to shrink to the SEC alone, I don't think the NFL is going to like that. Too limited a footprint to attract enough players. We all know how big businesses hate uncertainty. The NFL may also fear some kind of legal contagion spreading to them from the NCAA issues. The may believe a D league will help allow them to continue to be an illegal monopoly with everybody winking at it. They can say they aren't contributing to the chaos. Naturally, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL doesn't go this way, but I think it more probable than not. It would also give them an opportunity to locate relocation/expansion sites relatively cheaply.

This assumes an NFL farm league has to look like the D-league, or even like minor league baseball with additional teams in other towns. The lowest risk -- and immediately most lucrative -- way for the NFL to create a quasi D-league would be for them to expand the pre-season to a 10 game pre-season with special rosters of pre-season players, where pre-season league players could come straight from high school. You could even have a pre-season league playoff bracket. 

It would mean screwing the NCAA and ending their longstanding, mutually-profitable collusion, but I think SCOTUS has forced the issue. One way or another, there must now be a direct-to-paid salary path for high school seniors.

[Goose]

My belief that in the absence of legislation the NFL will adopt a D league is based on the assertion that some form of chaos will ensue while the colleges try to figure out what they can do and how they can do it. If the chaos is relatively slow motion the NFL may attempt to wait to see what happens, but if any real uncertainty about the future ensues the NFL will chose to act. If college football is going to shrink to the SEC alone, I don't think the NFL is going to like that. Too limited a footprint to attract enough players. We all know how big businesses hate uncertainty. The NFL may also fear some kind of legal contagion spreading to them from the NCAA issues. The may believe a D league will help allow them to continue to be an illegal monopoly with everybody winking at it. They can say they aren't contributing to the chaos. Naturally, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL doesn't go this way, but I think it more probable than not. It would also give them an opportunity to locate relocation/expansion sites relatively cheaply.

This assumes an NFL farm league has to look like the D-league, or even like minor league baseball with additional teams in other towns. The lowest risk -- and immediately most lucrative -- way for the NFL to create a quasi D-league would be for them to expand the pre-season to a 10 game pre-season with special rosters of pre-season players, where pre-season league players could come straight from high school. You could even have a pre-season league playoff bracket.

I don't think you really mean "expand the pre-season to 10 games". The existing player base wouldn't sit still for that. It also would in effect be an 8 game season, which is not the 12 games a year they get now from NCAA football. However, the idea of each team having a "farm club" co-located and have them play a spring/summer season could work. They could play a full 12 game season. Naturally, during the "off season" these players would need to train and be coached. Right now, the colleges do that, and that would be off the table.

It would mean screwing the NCAA and ending their longstanding, mutually-profitable collusion, but I think SCOTUS has forced the issue. One way or another, there must now be a direct-to-paid salary path for high school seniors.

I am not sure the NCAA would really be totally "screwed". It would be similar to how college baseball is now. There is still a draft of college graduates. The difference would be that without legislation there wouldn't be the ability to stop players from quitting college early to go to the NFL. MLB can do that because they have an anti-trust exemption. However, even without legislation the approach is probably workable. However, that doesn't address the furball that will arise with college player compensation issues. That is what will screw the NCAA, the conferences, and amateur sports in general.

[Goose]

My belief that in the absence of legislation the NFL will adopt a D league is based on the assertion that some form of chaos will ensue while the colleges try to figure out what they can do and how they can do it. If the chaos is relatively slow motion the NFL may attempt to wait to see what happens, but if any real uncertainty about the future ensues the NFL will chose to act. If college football is going to shrink to the SEC alone, I don't think the NFL is going to like that. Too limited a footprint to attract enough players. We all know how big businesses hate uncertainty. The NFL may also fear some kind of legal contagion spreading to them from the NCAA issues. The may believe a D league will help allow them to continue to be an illegal monopoly with everybody winking at it. They can say they aren't contributing to the chaos. Naturally, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL doesn't go this way, but I think it more probable than not. It would also give them an opportunity to locate relocation/expansion sites relatively cheaply.

This assumes an NFL farm league has to look like the D-league, or even like minor league baseball with additional teams in other towns. The lowest risk -- and immediately most lucrative -- way for the NFL to create a quasi D-league would be for them to expand the pre-season to a 10 game pre-season with special rosters of pre-season players, where pre-season league players could come straight from high school. You could even have a pre-season league playoff bracket.

I don't think you really mean "expand the pre-season to 10 games". The existing player base wouldn't sit still for that. It also would in effect be an 8 game season, which is not the 12 games a year they get now from NCAA football. However, the idea of each team having a "farm club" co-located and have them play a spring/summer season could work. They could play a full 12 game season. Naturally, during the "off season" these players would need to train and be coached. Right now, the colleges do that, and that would be off the table.

It would mean screwing the NCAA and ending their longstanding, mutually-profitable collusion, but I think SCOTUS has forced the issue. One way or another, there must now be a direct-to-paid salary path for high school seniors.

I am not sure the NCAA would really be totally "screwed". It would be similar to how college baseball is now. There is still a draft of college graduates. The difference would be that without legislation there wouldn't be the ability to stop players from quitting college early to go to the NFL. MLB can do that because they have an anti-trust exemption. However, even without legislation the approach is probably workable. However, that doesn't address the furball that will arise with college player compensation issues. That is what will screw the NCAA, the conferences, and amateur sports in general.

[teejers1]

I can certainly imagine that places with very significant academic assets and research revenue like Stanford and Northwestern will opt out, but that's quite different than saying every FBS school or their fans will refuse to play the new SCOTUS mandated game.  Oddly, some of the fans in some regions of the USA may take great pride in knowing their State U can outlast states/schools unwilling or unable to pony up.

When this all shakes out several years down the road (but maybe fewer than 10), it will be most interesting to see what schools are "in" and which ones opt out.  Think most of agree Stanford will opt out.  I suspect Northwestern does, too, though football in the midwest is a big deal.  Vandy?  Notre Dame?  (Think most of suspect they will stay "in" - and they will then firmly assume the mantle of "best real college competing at top echelon of sports").  In the Pac 12, I'd say SC and Oregon are "in" for sure.  The rest . . . no clue.

[teejers1]

I can certainly imagine that places with very significant academic assets and research revenue like Stanford and Northwestern will opt out, but that's quite different than saying every FBS school or their fans will refuse to play the new SCOTUS mandated game.  Oddly, some of the fans in some regions of the USA may take great pride in knowing their State U can outlast states/schools unwilling or unable to pony up.

When this all shakes out several years down the road (but maybe fewer than 10), it will be most interesting to see what schools are "in" and which ones opt out.  Think most of agree Stanford will opt out.  I suspect Northwestern does, too, though football in the midwest is a big deal.  Vandy?  Notre Dame?  (Think most of suspect they will stay "in" - and they will then firmly assume the mantle of "best real college competing at top echelon of sports").  In the Pac 12, I'd say SC and Oregon are "in" for sure.  The rest . . . no clue.

[Goose]

I can certainly imagine that places with very significant academic assets and research revenue like Stanford and Northwestern will opt out, but that's quite different than saying every FBS school or their fans will refuse to play the new SCOTUS mandated game.  Oddly, some of the fans in some regions of the USA may take great pride in knowing their State U can outlast states/schools unwilling or unable to pony up.

When this all shakes out several years down the road (but maybe fewer than 10), it will be most interesting to see what schools are "in" and which ones opt out.  Think most of agree Stanford will opt out.  I suspect Northwestern does, too, though football in the midwest is a big deal.  Vandy?  Notre Dame?  (Think most of suspect they will stay "in" - and they will then firmly assume the mantle of "best real college competing at top echelon of sports").  In the Pac 12, I'd say SC and Oregon are "in" for sure.  The rest . . . no clue.

I think making any guess about what will unfold is probably pointless. Too many variables. Football has become less and less popular at the college level in many parts of the country. There is also lots of pressure on state governments to spend wisely. Faculties are also questioning the place of athletics at the universities. I would not be surprised to see many "public" schools that nobody now expects to drop sports will do exactly that. If somehow a less frenetic student-athlete version of college sports can emerge, they will continue. I think that is what college faculty wants and also what the majority of the public will support. It will take legislation to make that legally possible.

[Goose]

I can certainly imagine that places with very significant academic assets and research revenue like Stanford and Northwestern will opt out, but that's quite different than saying every FBS school or their fans will refuse to play the new SCOTUS mandated game.  Oddly, some of the fans in some regions of the USA may take great pride in knowing their State U can outlast states/schools unwilling or unable to pony up.

When this all shakes out several years down the road (but maybe fewer than 10), it will be most interesting to see what schools are "in" and which ones opt out.  Think most of agree Stanford will opt out.  I suspect Northwestern does, too, though football in the midwest is a big deal.  Vandy?  Notre Dame?  (Think most of suspect they will stay "in" - and they will then firmly assume the mantle of "best real college competing at top echelon of sports").  In the Pac 12, I'd say SC and Oregon are "in" for sure.  The rest . . . no clue.

I think making any guess about what will unfold is probably pointless. Too many variables. Football has become less and less popular at the college level in many parts of the country. There is also lots of pressure on state governments to spend wisely. Faculties are also questioning the place of athletics at the universities. I would not be surprised to see many "public" schools that nobody now expects to drop sports will do exactly that. If somehow a less frenetic student-athlete version of college sports can emerge, they will continue. I think that is what college faculty wants and also what the majority of the public will support. It will take legislation to make that legally possible.

[Softball Fan]

I agree it's pointless to speculate on what the future holds, but that's one of the reasons for the existence of message boards.

The only way I foresee a system of paid college sports workers existing is if all the stake holders agree there will be one set compensation package across the board for all athletes.  I suspect that won't hold up to legal challenges.

In the opposite direction if no restrictions are put on the upper limit of compensation for college athletes that will signal the beginning of the end for college sports.

[Softball Fan]

I agree it's pointless to speculate on what the future holds, but that's one of the reasons for the existence of message boards.

The only way I foresee a system of paid college sports workers existing is if all the stake holders agree there will be one set compensation package across the board for all athletes.  I suspect that won't hold up to legal challenges.

In the opposite direction if no restrictions are put on the upper limit of compensation for college athletes that will signal the beginning of the end for college sports.

[Goose]

I agree it's pointless to speculate on what the future holds, but that's one of the reasons for the existence of message boards.

And I agree that is exactly what we do on this board, so all is well!

The only way I foresee a system of paid college sports workers existing is if all the stake holders agree there will be one set compensation package across the board for all athletes.  I suspect that won't hold up to legal challenges.

I agree, and that is why I think that legislation is required to make this have any chance of happening. Further, I am pretty sure that one set compensation for all athletes isn't going to fly either. Football brings in the bucks most places. How can field hockey players expect the same reward as those who risk their health to "earn" the money? NOTE: (This isn't my position, but I am sure it will be the position of many others. My position is that they are amateurs and get no conpensation for playing other the "joy" of it. If they get an NFL contract or a cute spouse out of the deal, good on them but that isn't university provided.)

In the opposite direction if no restrictions are put on the upper limit of compensation for college athletes that will signal the beginning of the end for college sports.

I think that isn't the beginning of the end. It is the end. Universities will drop sports as if they were radioactive. Nobody can justify such an arrangement as an adjunct to a college. It is a fully professional sports "job".

[Goose]

I agree it's pointless to speculate on what the future holds, but that's one of the reasons for the existence of message boards.

And I agree that is exactly what we do on this board, so all is well!

The only way I foresee a system of paid college sports workers existing is if all the stake holders agree there will be one set compensation package across the board for all athletes.  I suspect that won't hold up to legal challenges.

I agree, and that is why I think that legislation is required to make this have any chance of happening. Further, I am pretty sure that one set compensation for all athletes isn't going to fly either. Football brings in the bucks most places. How can field hockey players expect the same reward as those who risk their health to "earn" the money? NOTE: (This isn't my position, but I am sure it will be the position of many others. My position is that they are amateurs and get no conpensation for playing other the "joy" of it. If they get an NFL contract or a cute spouse out of the deal, good on them but that isn't university provided.)

In the opposite direction if no restrictions are put on the upper limit of compensation for college athletes that will signal the beginning of the end for college sports.

I think that isn't the beginning of the end. It is the end. Universities will drop sports as if they were radioactive. Nobody can justify such an arrangement as an adjunct to a college. It is a fully professional sports "job".

[BobK]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/25/m...nt=curated

[BobK]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/25/m...nt=curated

[Mick]

I can certainly imagine that places with very significant academic assets and research revenue like Stanford and Northwestern will opt out, but that's quite different than saying every FBS school or their fans will refuse to play the new SCOTUS mandated game.  Oddly, some of the fans in some regions of the USA may take great pride in knowing their State U can outlast states/schools unwilling or unable to pony up.

When this all shakes out several years down the road (but maybe fewer than 10), it will be most interesting to see what schools are "in" and which ones opt out.  Think most of agree Stanford will opt out.  I suspect Northwestern does, too, though football in the midwest is a big deal.  Vandy?  Notre Dame?  (Think most of suspect they will stay "in" - and they will then firmly assume the mantle of "best real college competing at top echelon of sports").  In the Pac 12, I'd say SC and Oregon are "in" for sure.  The rest . . . no clue.

I suspect Washington, Colorado, Utah, AZ, ASU also are "in."

Separately...I don't see the NFL establishing a minor league outside of Universities.  The unholy agreement between the NCAA and the NFL seems to be working well.  The NCAA has pretend students that are actually professional football players.  At some schools, 1% of the football players will play in the NFL, the rest will fail to use their degrees.  The NFL doesn't have to actually pay for a minor league football team, unlike the NFL.  This is key, because SEC attendance and attendance at other large land grant schools, plus their media deals deliver an inordinate amount of revenue.  A true minor league would have minimal attendance, something like the NBA's G League, which averages 1/7th of an average NBA game's attendance, and would be of limited value for media purposes.  Acceptable for the small rosters of a basketball team, but insufficient for the brobdingnagian roster of a football team.

[Mick]

I can certainly imagine that places with very significant academic assets and research revenue like Stanford and Northwestern will opt out, but that's quite different than saying every FBS school or their fans will refuse to play the new SCOTUS mandated game.  Oddly, some of the fans in some regions of the USA may take great pride in knowing their State U can outlast states/schools unwilling or unable to pony up.

When this all shakes out several years down the road (but maybe fewer than 10), it will be most interesting to see what schools are "in" and which ones opt out.  Think most of agree Stanford will opt out.  I suspect Northwestern does, too, though football in the midwest is a big deal.  Vandy?  Notre Dame?  (Think most of suspect they will stay "in" - and they will then firmly assume the mantle of "best real college competing at top echelon of sports").  In the Pac 12, I'd say SC and Oregon are "in" for sure.  The rest . . . no clue.

I suspect Washington, Colorado, Utah, AZ, ASU also are "in."

Separately...I don't see the NFL establishing a minor league outside of Universities.  The unholy agreement between the NCAA and the NFL seems to be working well.  The NCAA has pretend students that are actually professional football players.  At some schools, 1% of the football players will play in the NFL, the rest will fail to use their degrees.  The NFL doesn't have to actually pay for a minor league football team, unlike the NFL.  This is key, because SEC attendance and attendance at other large land grant schools, plus their media deals deliver an inordinate amount of revenue.  A true minor league would have minimal attendance, something like the NBA's G League, which averages 1/7th of an average NBA game's attendance, and would be of limited value for media purposes.  Acceptable for the small rosters of a basketball team, but insufficient for the brobdingnagian roster of a football team.

[82lsju]

Separately...I don't see the NFL establishing a minor league outside of Universities.  The unholy agreement between the NCAA and the NFL seems to be working well.  The NCAA has pretend students that are actually professional football players.  At some schools, 1% of the football players will play in the NFL, the rest will fail to use their degrees.  The NFL doesn't have to actually pay for a minor league football team, unlike the NFL.  This is key, because SEC attendance and attendance at other large land grant schools, plus their media deals deliver an inordinate amount of revenue.  A true minor league would have minimal attendance, something like the NBA's G League, which averages 1/7th of an average NBA game's attendance, and would be of limited value for media purposes.  Acceptable for the small rosters of a basketball team, but insufficient for the of immense proportions roster of a football team.

I would agree, the rookie pipeline is I think to big for an NFL "minor league", given it looks to be +/-263 players a year (and more if you include practice squad players)

Overall, 246 rookies in 2020 were named to Week 1 rosters — about 17 less than average.

https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/analy...1-rosters/

if you had NFL minor league teams with 53 players and 20% of them went to the NFL each year you would need ~25 teams.  I would guess that most players on these teams who joined out of high school would need to be on the minor league teams for at least 2 years to physically develop enough to compete in the NFL

Even if half of the rookie pipeline was still from college players you would still need ~12 NFL minor league teams...

[82lsju]

Separately...I don't see the NFL establishing a minor league outside of Universities.  The unholy agreement between the NCAA and the NFL seems to be working well.  The NCAA has pretend students that are actually professional football players.  At some schools, 1% of the football players will play in the NFL, the rest will fail to use their degrees.  The NFL doesn't have to actually pay for a minor league football team, unlike the NFL.  This is key, because SEC attendance and attendance at other large land grant schools, plus their media deals deliver an inordinate amount of revenue.  A true minor league would have minimal attendance, something like the NBA's G League, which averages 1/7th of an average NBA game's attendance, and would be of limited value for media purposes.  Acceptable for the small rosters of a basketball team, but insufficient for the of immense proportions roster of a football team.

I would agree, the rookie pipeline is I think to big for an NFL "minor league", given it looks to be +/-263 players a year (and more if you include practice squad players)

Overall, 246 rookies in 2020 were named to Week 1 rosters — about 17 less than average.

https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/analy...1-rosters/

if you had NFL minor league teams with 53 players and 20% of them went to the NFL each year you would need ~25 teams.  I would guess that most players on these teams who joined out of high school would need to be on the minor league teams for at least 2 years to physically develop enough to compete in the NFL

Even if half of the rookie pipeline was still from college players you would still need ~12 NFL minor league teams...