(04-17-2014 11:02 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  Stipends are already in the plans for the SBC if they pass. Not an issue.

Full cost is really a terrible idea and could wreck NCAA football. A system that hands players checks of varying amounts depending on the location of the university is going to create an uneven, inequitable environment and for that reason it is probably not going to pass.

Any payment system has to be standard across a particular division.

Employee status will be overturned.

Curious about this "full cost" issue for the unionized athletes. I kinda get what you are saying in that an athlete will recieve more money at northern school (pick any MAC) vs a southern (GS) just because of the relative costs in those areas. But doesn't the student then have to pay the funds right back for the services (lodging, food, tuition, fees, etc...) keeping only the stipend part that will be standardized (or at least have a set limit) across the division?

I really don't get how this will work. Not only does the student now have to deal with budgeting his/her money, they could also have to pay taxes on this "income". I don't see how this will ever work. Articles I've read, even those in support of of unionization, have a hard time trying to make it work and basically say they would have to simply be semi-pro and have a loose association with a college. Also, I don't see how you can just 'pay' the football team. If a union was formed of student athletes, wouldn't that include all student athletes? The baseball, women's basketball, volleyball, lacrosse, swimming, track...... You would have to split the funds across them all. How do you determine the amount? Gross/Net profits from athletics? Will we simply just have boosters buy players (something the current NCAA frowns upon).

It's a can of worms that has been released and people leap before looking. just crazy