Paying college athletes gaining momentum

by **Mitch McConnell** » Thu May 19, 2011 2:36 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6566975

by **leopold** » Thu May 19, 2011 3:40 pm

BB better be careful. There are a number of schools in his conference that are barely paying the bills as it is. This could end up costing schools additional millions every year, and it could drive schools like Tulane, Memphis, and UAB to drop football altogether. And I hate to say this, but our own program is less than a money-maker - we aren't that well off ourselves.

People have talked about Super Conferences and the FBS shedding numbers and going to a 64 team model. It could very well be paying student athletes is what separates those who can compete and those who can't.

by **Water Pony** » Thu May 19, 2011 4:01 pm

Slippery slope gang. Title IX? Non-revenue sports? Non-BCS schools? Needs Based? Non-athletic Scholarships?

by **Pony_Law** » Thu May 19, 2011 10:16 pm

It's a trendy idea to talk about but it will never happen. Universityies are not running minor league sports leagues.

by **NickSMU17** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:38 am

Seems like a way of getting Non-Aqs out of the equation....Pretty good idea if you want to cut them out...

Could actually play in our favor as we would be willing to pay...

by **GiddyUp** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:42 am

Slippery slope - most schools are already losing money in sports. The NCAA should foot the bill with all the ad revenue, ticket sales, etc. - only pay for mens fball and bball.

by **Water Pony** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:51 am

GiddyUp wrote:Slippery slope - most schools are already losing money in sports. The NCAA should foot the bill with all the ad revenue, ticket sales, etc. - only pay for mens fball and bball.

Leaving aside that BCS schools don't share FB and BB revenue with NCAA, the idea that you create a separate class of athletes (FB/BB) is wrong on many levels. If you pursue compensation to "student-athletes", the university model for sports will splinter. Be afraid of what they or we wish. Controlling it after the fact or putting it back in the bottle will be impossible.

by **stc9** » Fri May 20, 2011 8:11 am

In theory this seems like a really good idea. Implementing this will have to be across the board. Imagine the lawsuits if a men's BB player gets these funds, but a woman hoops player doesn't. We are right back in Federal court before the ink drys.

One of the real problems I have with this concept is football/basketball factory schools will have the funds on hand to endow the new scholarship levels. It will take other schools longer to get to that level. So the Whorns and Bamas of the world will garner another advantage in recruiting, while the rest of us have to scramble to fundraise. It could take years to get the scholarship endowments to the same level.

Our decision: Do we wait until we raise the funds or we will have to cut back on teams (both mens and womens due to Title IX) to start on the same playing field. Imagine if we don't have a mens swim team anymore because we needed to use those funds to grant the increase in scholarship levels across the entire Atheltic Department. We probably won't stop at one program, it will probably have to be two or more programs. As a mid major, what will our Athletic Department look like?

by **abezontar** » Fri May 20, 2011 8:29 am

aren't we already at the minimum number of sports to remain at the D1A level? I don't think we can drop any more.

by **Water Pony** » Fri May 20, 2011 9:12 am

abezontar wrote:aren't we already at the minimum number of sports to remain at the D1A level? I don't think we can drop any more.

I might add that we don't have to drop sports, just continue to deemphasize non-revenue sports at the altar of the BCS gods of FB and BB.

by **Samurai Stang** » Fri May 20, 2011 9:45 am

Water Pony wrote:
abezontar wrote:aren't we already at the minimum number of sports to remain at the D1A level? I don't think we can drop any more.

I might add that we don't have to drop sports, just continue to deemphasize non-revenue sports at the altar of the BCS gods of FB and BB.

Your proposal is acceptable.

by **GiddyUp** » Fri May 20, 2011 9:52 am

Sorry - these non rev sports can hardly survive as is and live off March Madness revenues now.

by **RednBlue11** » Fri May 20, 2011 1:21 pm

I think the mistake that many make in arguing that most schools run in the red and therefore should not add expenses is that, well, NCAA athletic programs are not on their own.

the billions the NCAA makes off of TV contracts and advertising mostly goes to funding itself and not back to many universities directly...I believe that's where the money to pay athletes would come from potentially.

but let's be real, basically if paying athletes would go through I think the boosters would end up handling it...maybe the NCAA would put a cap on a slush-fund amount for athletes or school, or make it per capita of athletes on campus.

in any event, $200 a week for any college student goes pretty far, especially if they have housing, books, and transpiration settled. That's plenty for misc. expenses, groceries, and going out a couple nights a week.

by **RednBlue11** » Fri May 20, 2011 1:25 pm

stc9 wrote:In theory this seems like a really good idea. Implementing this will have to be across the board. Imagine the lawsuits if a men's BB player gets these funds, but a woman hoops player doesn't. We are right back in Federal court before the ink drys.

One of the real problems I have with this concept is football/basketball factory schools will have the funds on hand to endow the new scholarship levels. It will take other schools longer to get to that level. So the Whorns and Bamas of the world will garner another advantage in recruiting, while the rest of us have to scramble to fundraise. It could take years to get the scholarship endowments to the same level.

Our decision: Do we wait until we raise the funds or we will have to cut back on teams (both mens and womens due to Title IX) to start on the same playing field. Imagine if we don't have a mens swim team anymore because we needed to use those funds to grant the increase in scholarship levels across the entire Atheltic Department. We probably won't stop at one program, it will probably have to be two or more programs. As a mid major, what will our Athletic Department look like?

SMU has a hell of a good fundraiser in Turner, I see it as only advantageous to us as we are held back by our affiliation not our ability to raise large amounts of money quickly.

by **Water Pony** » Fri May 20, 2011 2:01 pm

For those old enough to remember the "Missle Gap" in the 50's and 60's, State Schools will claim they must spend more to compete, i.e. better athletic budgets, pay our disadvantaged athletes, greater compensaton fo FB and BB coaches ($1-2+m/yr.), build bigger facilities, etc. The arms build-up helps the large BCS schools. I don't care about the wealth of some alum$, private schools (with the few exceptions of USC and ND) cannot consistently compete.