PonyFans.com

Pretty interesting. Sorry if it's been posted already.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/colleg ... he+Wire%29

Where there is smoke, there is fire!

I understand and acknowledge that different operating models exist for the so-called, Power 5 vs. the remaining Division 1 schools. However, their concern about the student-athletes comes across as both self-serving and disingenuous starting with the $2-4+m incomes for just the head football coaches.

Although the FB and BB players can justifiably claim they generate revenue, that is not the same as saying their is a "positive operating margin." Given the broader number of Men and Women athletes in all sports, the value of a free or partially free education is not insignificant. Stipends, large or small, will be a 'crossing of the Rubicon.' Watch the HC salaries jump even more.

Remember, athletic departments need to accommodate and compete for both capital and on-going operating funds.

We can improve how we govern the sports, but I would be careful before granting 65 schools the power to spend themselves and their educational mission down the river.

When you think about pro leagues having to put in salary caps, luxury taxes, and their difficulties negotiating CBA's in order for some teams to remain viable, and apply that to a university setting, one can really see a pandoras box of unintended negative consequences opening up.

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Water Pony wrote:Where there is smoke, there is fire!

I understand and acknowledge that different operating models exist for the so-called, Power 5 vs. the remaining Division 1 schools. However, there concern about the student-athletes comes across as both self-serving and disingenuous starting with the $2-4+m incomes for just the head football coaches.

Although the FB and BB players can justifiably claim they generate revenue, that is not the same as saying their is a "positive operating margin." Given the broader number of Men and Women athletes in all sports, the value of a free or partially free education is not insignificant. Stipends, large or small, will be a 'crossing of the Rubicon.' Watch the HC salaries jump even more.

Remember, athletic departments need to accommodate and compete for both capital and on-going operating funds.

We can improve how we govern the sports, but I would be careful before granting 65 schools the power to spend themselves and their educational mission down the river.

I don't think anyone will grant them anything. They are going to form this by themselves,

I just cannot understand the media's rush toward semi-pro leagues. It baffles me why they don't think college football was fine as it was. Shame. Even if SMU were P5, I think I would want to resist paying the student-athletes.

I have no problem giving student athletes stipends. Regular students on scholarships can work to earn money but the athletes can't. Some of those athletes come from dirt poor backgrounds where their parents can't send them money even to eat on the weekends etc. Also, they media is not doing this but it is the conference commissioners bringing this up. It is all about the Big 5 wanting to keep all the money for themselves.

Colleges have too long been the de facto minor leagues for the NBA and the NFL. Those leagues ought to follow MLB and hockey models of having minor leagues for kids who truly have only an interest in football and little in academics. Yeah, some hockey players come out of college hockey programs, but that is the exception rather than the rule. And even then, they played junior hockey. Thus if an 18 year old 5 star player wants to go play college football for an education, he can do so, or he can go to a minor league and get paid. This is where the NCAA, NBA and NFL need to refocus. Will 90,000 still go to Tennessee games against Alabama, absolutely. But with minor league options, the players won't be as likely to have their hands out and have options to get paid.

@DavidWoods007: Exclusive: NCAA boss tells @markalesia 'fundamental change' coming. http://t.co/dEhIVPrm0g

Today's Dallas News continues to report Big XII Commissioners POV.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edito ... t-must.ece

We are done.

Not looking good.

SMU 86 wrote:I have no problem giving student athletes stipends. Regular students on scholarships can work to earn money but the athletes can't. Some of those athletes come from dirt poor backgrounds where their parents can't send them money even to eat on the weekends etc. Also, they media is not doing this but it is the conference commissioners bringing this up. It is all about the Big 5 wanting to keep all the money for themselves.

Agree on a stipend. There were some guys who literally didn't have money to go see a movie or take a girl out to dinner, etc. Most players have a few dollars in their pocket but some of them have next to nothing.

"We are done" ?? have you people even read the article? It says that it'll be the top 150 D-I schools, we are obviously in that group.

AusTxPony wrote:I just cannot understand the media's rush toward semi-pro leagues. It baffles me why they don't think college football was fine as it was. Shame. Even if SMU were P5, I think I would want to resist paying the student-athletes.

Where are all the College Presidents and BODs who complain about this?

I think there is a wide gulf between the Presidents of even the biggest schools and the ADs/Coaches/Conference Commissioners right now. I don't think the Presidents are going to go for semi-pro mercenaries. They aren't on the same page. There will be changes but academic requirements and cost restraints will still be required before the Presidents ever sign off.