(10-22-2014 08:27 PM)msu65 Wrote:  That was when college sports were still amateur sports and Colgate, Yale and Princeton were nationally relevant teams and the Ivy league was a power conference. Ed Marinaro.

If the Ivy league was a "power" conference then Ed Marinaro would have won the Heisman.

Time for Congress to step in and state that any school that pays athletes will lose all Pell Grants and all government research funds. Make it that anyone receiving such payment at a public school any school that plays a public school or any school that travels across state lines to play is not eligible for a scholarship and must pay their own way. That the money is taxable. The tail is wagging the dog and it is time to amputate.

(10-22-2014 07:30 PM)SNF6 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  It's not the beginning of the end. They're simply paying players more now, and more of it is above board, and more schools are doing it. Hell, it hasn't been a level playing field for 60+ years or so.

And this makes it level? Really?

Of course not. I'm saying it has NEVER been a level playing field, so this is no different.

Apparently, they are also clarifying on Twitter that the $10K includes $5K for the stipend for full cost of scholarships, and the other $5K is compensation for using personal images, but that those getting the second $5K will be no more than 50 out of their 600 total athletes, making the total much less than what was first reported.

(10-22-2014 11:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:30 PM)SNF6 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  It's not the beginning of the end. They're simply paying players more now, and more of it is above board, and more schools are doing it. Hell, it hasn't been a level playing field for 60+ years or so.

And this makes it level? Really?

Of course not. I'm saying it has NEVER been a level playing field, so this is no different.

Apparently, they are also clarifying on Twitter that the $10K includes $5K for the stipend for full cost of scholarships, and the other $5K is compensation for using personal images, but that those getting the second $5K will be no more than 50 out of their 600 total athletes, making the total much less than what was first reported.

It seems like that are asking for it. I mean how will the schools decide who gets the compensation for personal images and who doesn't?

(10-22-2014 06:48 PM)SNF6 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 06:36 PM)cmt Wrote:  I agree. In less than 20 years, this whole college athletics thing will crumble due to greed. The rich keep getting richer, but only until the poor (who made the rich rich) have had enough. Then all hell will break loose. History repeats itself.

What is the singing bonus of the next great Texas QB?

I am SOOOOOOOOOO glad that I played for my school, my team, my town.

This is all complete BS. It was an honor to play for my school, and get a free education. VERY thankful. GTG!

You don't hear about many singing QBs. Heck, you don't hardly ever see athletes on The Voice or American Idol.

(10-22-2014 11:55 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:30 PM)SNF6 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  It's not the beginning of the end. They're simply paying players more now, and more of it is above board, and more schools are doing it. Hell, it hasn't been a level playing field for 60+ years or so.

And this makes it level? Really?

Of course not. I'm saying it has NEVER been a level playing field, so this is no different.

Apparently, they are also clarifying on Twitter that the $10K includes $5K for the stipend for full cost of scholarships, and the other $5K is compensation for using personal images, but that those getting the second $5K will be no more than 50 out of their 600 total athletes, making the total much less than what was first reported.

It seems like that are asking for it. I mean how will the schools decide who gets the compensation for personal images and who doesn't?

if they use your image, you get compensated. If they don't, you don't.

(10-23-2014 08:13 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:55 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:30 PM)SNF6 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  It's not the beginning of the end. They're simply paying players more now, and more of it is above board, and more schools are doing it. Hell, it hasn't been a level playing field for 60+ years or so.

And this makes it level? Really?

Of course not. I'm saying it has NEVER been a level playing field, so this is no different.

Apparently, they are also clarifying on Twitter that the $10K includes $5K for the stipend for full cost of scholarships, and the other $5K is compensation for using personal images, but that those getting the second $5K will be no more than 50 out of their 600 total athletes, making the total much less than what was first reported.

It seems like that are asking for it. I mean how will the schools decide who gets the compensation for personal images and who doesn't?

if they use your image, you get compensated. If they don't, you don't.

Exactly. It won't be very many folks. It's for ads, programs, merchandise, etc. Usually only the superstars, maybe one or 2 guys in basketball, and maybe half a dozen max in football. I don't see how the Texas AD even comes up with 50 out of 600, lol, assuming that's what was meant.

And the $5K is a number set by the judge, and it is deferred compensation that the athlete cannot access until after he leaves school. So, the $10K a year is misleading, for now.

raise the basketball donation needed for tickets about $200 a piece and its funded.

(10-22-2014 06:16 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 06:01 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  It won't stop here. $10k will become $15k and so on as the big boys keep raising the price of poker until only 12-20 schools are paying the top level of compensation.

Then it will devolve into not all athletes getting the same payment and throw in signing bonuses on top of that.

It's just professional athletics at that point with no limits or controls.

Watch and see. In less than 10 years it'll happen.

I think public interest and support will decline right along with that. It will kill the golden goose.

At that point, why watch the minor league pro team Longhorns when there's the majors like the Cowboys to watch?

because we all need something to fill a Saturday night with.

(10-22-2014 08:55 PM)hsvtiger Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:27 PM)msu65 Wrote:  Anybody old enough to remember the Saturday afternoon televised football report relaying the scores of the day. That was when college sports were still amateur sports and Colgate, Yale and Princeton were nationally relevant teams and the Ivy league was a power conference. Ed Marinaro.

The Prudential College Scoreboard!
College games were ONLY played on Saturdays.
There was normally only ONE game on TV - always on ABC with Keith Jackson doing the play-by-play.

In those days, the chances of schools such as ours (other than SMU which was in the SWC at the time) ever playing in a bowl game or on TV were slim to none. Furthermore, there was no limit on scholarships, enabling schools such as Alabama to sign players just to keep them off opposing rosters.

(10-23-2014 08:30 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:55 PM)hsvtiger Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:27 PM)msu65 Wrote:  Anybody old enough to remember the Saturday afternoon televised football report relaying the scores of the day. That was when college sports were still amateur sports and Colgate, Yale and Princeton were nationally relevant teams and the Ivy league was a power conference. Ed Marinaro.

The Prudential College Scoreboard!
College games were ONLY played on Saturdays.
There was normally only ONE game on TV - always on ABC with Keith Jackson doing the play-by-play.

In those days, the chances of schools such as ours (other than SMU which was in the SWC at the time) ever playing in a bowl game or on TV were slim to none. Furthermore, there was no limit on scholarships, enabling schools such as Alabama to sign players just to keep them off opposing rosters.

very true. In 1975 there were 11 bowl games with no slotting. USC who finished 5th in the PAC-8 went to the Liberty Bowl and the 2-4 place teams all stayed at home.

I wonder how many of the so called P5 schools that aren't Texas/Oklahoma or aren't in the $ec will be able to afford this type pay out. Gonna be interesting to see how all this plays out. Maybe they just ought to bring Texas/Oklahoma and the entire $ec (minus Vandy) into the NFL and stop all this bullsh!t.

(10-22-2014 07:19 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 04:44 PM)hsvtiger Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 03:39 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  News like this makes it easier to undestand why it doesn't appear that North Carolina is in "crisis mode" because of the alleged widespread academic fraud that they are accused of.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-s...14478.html

Why does this make it easier to understand?
(Just trying to understand your point.)

In addition, how is his UNC issue not classified as a total lack of institutional control and not result in SEVERE penalties???

Because the NCAA is about to have no say in what UNC does, perhaps.

The NCAA will not have near the influence on how the P5 conferences run their sports programs once the P5 changes take effect.

This UNC story has been floating around for quite some time now, with no real public outcry. My guess is that UNC is laying low waiting for the rules & enforcement to change. For all we know, what UNC has been doing for quite some time now may end up being perfectly legal under the new P5 rules.

NCAA says universities can't pay players, P5 rules will allow institutions to pay players. NCAA says student athletes have the same academic rules as the general student body, P5 will allow their conferences to frame their own academic policies related to student athletes. That's the main reason for the change. The P5 conferences want the freedome to structure their programs the way they see fit. Texas won't need to get Bowling Green's vote if it wants to pay its players. UNC won't need Rice's vote to have their athletes attend "paper" classes.

(10-23-2014 08:21 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 08:13 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:55 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:30 PM)SNF6 Wrote:  And this makes it level? Really?

Of course not. I'm saying it has NEVER been a level playing field, so this is no different.

Apparently, they are also clarifying on Twitter that the $10K includes $5K for the stipend for full cost of scholarships, and the other $5K is compensation for using personal images, but that those getting the second $5K will be no more than 50 out of their 600 total athletes, making the total much less than what was first reported.

It seems like that are asking for it. I mean how will the schools decide who gets the compensation for personal images and who doesn't?

if they use your image, you get compensated. If they don't, you don't.

Exactly. It won't be very many folks. It's for ads, programs, merchandise, etc. Usually only the superstars, maybe one or 2 guys in basketball, and maybe half a dozen max in football. I don't see how the Texas AD even comes up with 50 out of 600, lol, assuming that's what was meant.

And the $5K is a number set by the judge, and it is deferred compensation that the athlete cannot access until after he leaves school. So, the $10K a year is misleading, for now.

I see. That's not very many. I was thinking a lot more male FB and BB athletes would be compensated, but rarely, if ever, any females.

I just see all these women athletes, who have grown in numbers, getting very restless; especially if they never have the opportunity to get compensated, because their programs aren't given the same opportunities to grow and be compensated.

O well. No big deal. But title ix and all that jazz is going to get stickier it seems.

(10-22-2014 05:03 PM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  An extra 3.5 mil a year in Athlete Salary? We could swing that!

Yes, it is very much possible.

TX feeling the heat from the $EC..