Larry Scott says something very interesting about the NCAA

[Dark Bohner]

I think they'd have to pay the starting QB the exact same amount as the #3 singles player on the women's tennis team. If the argument is that the kids are facing financial difficulties from not being able to buy a pizza or go to the movies, all students have those same issues. Once you start going down the road of "this player brings in more than that player does", you're in the realm of professional athletics. Might as well take away any pretense at that point. That's not a road I want to go down.

Rep. I couldn't agree more. I'm pretty sure those kids eat 10 times better than I did at school. I remember scraping by with ramen noodles and little juan burritos and getting really creative each month to make the rent. They have a a very stable situation with food to eat and a roof to sleep under while getting a top notch education.

 

[Deleted member 807]

I think they'd have to pay the starting QB the exact same amount as the #3 singles player on the women's tennis team. If the argument is that the kids are facing financial difficulties from not being able to buy a pizza or go to the movies, all students have those same issues. Once you start going down the road of "this player brings in more than that player does", you're in the realm of professional athletics. Might as well take away any pretense at that point. That's not a road I want to go down.

To take that one step farther, wouldn't the payment of the starting QB at U$C be the same as the 3rd women's singles tennis player at West Virginia or Louisiana-Monroe?

 

[ScottyBuff]

There will be "haves" and "have nots" in every division, regardless of the division.

If the BCS conferences split apart from the rest of college football there would still be different levels of support within the new BCS. Texas will always have more support and more money than Iowa State, even if both are in the same conference. Vanderbilt is a BCS team but it doesn't have nearly the support that Alabama or LSU do. Alabama & LSU = haves. Vanderbilt = have not.

The only difference between some of the current BCS conference schools and teams like Boise State, TCU, Tulsa, etc. is that when conferences were formed 50+ years ago, some schools were in, while others were not. Boise State and TCU weren't even playing div. 1-a ball back then. If you look at the current landscape of college football, Boise State, TCU, Utah - all have been much more competitive in the grand scheme of college football than teams like Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, etc.

What concerns me is that if the paying players scheme ever comes into being, Colorado is not going to be able to afford such a program under their current athletic department structure.

To be fair, TCU was playing big-boy football "back in the day". They were SWC members since 1923 and were a dominant program for several decades before fading away and being reincarnated by Franchione-Paterson in the 1990's.

I get your point about the transient nature of programs and nothing is ever permanent, the Florida State's, South Florida's, TCU's, and Boise State's will rise up and the SMU's, Tulane's, and TCU's will fall down over the years.

There should be NO concern going forward about CU's ability to "pay" to play with the big dogs in the NCAA. While we will still be a middle-of-the-pack revenue earner in the Pac-12 (at least until Folsom seats 75,000), we will be a top 25 revenue earner in the nation once again.

 

[Maxer]

Read this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/07/26/new.rules/index.html

And then read this: http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/07/28/the-college-connection/

College will not pay players directly. They MAY allow them to go out and get sponsors. Someday.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Read this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/07/26/new.rules/index.html

And then read this: http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/07/28/the-college-connection/

College will not pay players directly. They MAY allow them to go out and get sponsors. Someday.

That doesn't mean that the "BCS" schools won't push for a more "level playing field" in regards to the way they deal with the NCAA, their commitment to elite sports, and the access to BCS bowl games.

 

[Maxer]

That doesn't mean that the "BCS" schools won't push for a more "level playing field" in regards to the way they deal with the NCAA, their commitment to elite sports, and the access to BCS bowl games.

The BCS is not the victim of playing field tilted against them. If they they leave it will not be because of lack of access to BCS bowl games (you do know that the BCS is an organization invented by, formed by, and run by the "Big Six" conferences, right?)

The issue is more "is it feasible to have these amateurism rules in the world of the Big Six" - as they exist now? If they determine the answer is no, then they might form their own entity separate from the NCAA.

 

[ScottyBuff]

The BCS is not the victim of playing field tilted against them. If they they leave it will not be because of lack of access to BCS bowl games (you do know that the BCS is an organization invented by, formed by, and run by the "Big Six" conferences, right?)

The issue is more "is it feasible to have these amateurism rules in the world of the Big Six" - as they exist now? If they determine the answer is no, then they might form their own entity separate from the NCAA.

Never said the BCS was a "victim", just that the elite leagues don't want to share those big time bowl games if they don't have to. I know exactly what the BCS "is", and that is exactly why they would prefer to limit access to the "founders" rather than be forced to grant access to undefeated mid-major programs.

The stipend/amateurism rules are certainly another big component of why separation seems the way of the future. I would also wonder if the 85 scholarship limit isn't still rankling "BCS" coaches/administrators since it allows for the mid-majors to get athletes of comparable talent as "second choice" programs.

With kids leaving early from college, stricter enforcement and penalties, and the pressure to get "can't miss" kids; I would not be surprised if the "Big Six"/ new NCAA division didn't increase that scholarship limit immediately upon secession or creating of the division.

My point earlier is that the rest of the NCAA membership should be in support of this move, otherwise they risk losing relationships with those big time schools. It would be better for Colorado State, for example, if CU was in a paired down NCAA D-I FBS and they were in D-I FCS rather than CU being in an entirely different sanctioning body.

 

[somebody]

Read this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/07/26/new.rules/index.html

And then read this: http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/07/28/the-college-connection/

College will not pay players directly. They MAY allow them to go out and get sponsors. Someday.

I don't think you're going to see Phil Knight directly allowed to buy players in my lifetime. Correct me if I remember wrongly, but what I thought was advocated most loudly was "total cost" with about $3k per player per year. For 85 scholarship footballs players, that's $255,000. Who exactly can't afford that with our new revenue streams?

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

I don't think you're going to see Phil Knight directly allowed to buy players in my lifetime. Correct me if I remember wrongly, but what I thought was advocated most loudly was "total cost" with about $3k per player per year. For 85 scholarship footballs players, that's $255,000. Who exactly can't afford that with our new revenue streams?

Why does everyone think that this is going to be limited to football players?

 

[Maxer]

I don't think you're going to see Phil Knight directly allowed to buy players in my lifetime. Correct me if I remember wrongly, but what I thought was advocated most loudly was "total cost" with about $3k per player per year. For 85 scholarship footballs players, that's $255,000. Who exactly can't afford that with our new revenue streams?

I don't know where you got the number $3k, but that's about 10% of the actual number. At least at Cal, I believe the AD is required to assume the cost as something like $30k/scholarship for in-state students, and $50k or so for out of state ones.

 

[ScottyBuff]

I don't know where you got the number $3k, but that's about 10% of the actual number. At least at Cal, I believe the AD is required to assume the cost as something like $30k/scholarship for in-state students, and $50k or so for out of state ones.

I'm sure he just meant the "stipend" amount that was proposed. Schools already are paying the schollies, so the new money is all that needs to "found".