(10-04-2019 09:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 08:14 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:34 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why not just pay the players in a way that maintains the current competitive balance? Right now, everyone gets "0". Pick a percentage of revenue and have the players split it evenly. This third party mess is just a bad idea. If you want to avoid the employee relationship, maybe the money can be run through the NCAA.

What balance? The fiction that anyone outside the elite is going to beat out Alabama football or Duke basketball for a recruit those schools want?

The only monetary compensation players at Bama receive is a scholarship---same as Georgia State or Clemson. Thats balanced. There is plenty that is unequal in college football---but the two things that largely keep college football somewhat competitive is equal compensation rules and the scholarship limit---both of which are undermined by the the rule some think is so great. If your whining and crying about "balance" now---just wait till pay-for-play gets rolling with boosters calling the shots.

Moreover this isn't only about football and men's basketball, where the concern is about making a bad situation worse. In other sports where there is significantly more parity, the impact on competitive balance of eliminating compensation restrictions would be far more pronounced. That's not something to just brush off. It matters to the kids who play those sports, to the fans who support them, and to the schools that have had success in them.

To me the biggest problem in this is that it destroys those other sports. Not by changes in the competitive balance, but by football and basketball soaking up all the money and sports, played by students who might actually get in the university if they weren't an athlete, get totally dropped.