darth_vedder wrote:For example, if a player wants to make money off an autograph, fine. If EA relaunches College Football for PS and XBox, and college players get a cut/royalty, I have no problem with that. If you buy a player's jersey replica, I have no problem with them getting a piece of that either. I think those things would more than enough compensate the players (in addition to what they already are getting).
I'm going to start with this first, because the most indefensible part of this issue is not so much that colleges don't pay players (though I do think that's indefensible too), but it's the fact that they don't allow them to even earn money from third parties that have nothing to do with the colleges is the absolute worst. Now, I understand that you'll have to put some regulations on this for pure competitive balance issues (i.e., you don't want rich boosters to "buy" an autograph for thousands of dollars). But it's outrageous that the players can't endorse at all, ranging from Nike to the local car dealership.
My step 1 solution just seems so damn obvious: any player should be allowed to apply for what I'll call "sponsorship" status. In exchange, the player no longer gets a scholarship. That sounds perfectly fair to me: if you're able to generate the money to pay for your education, then I don't see why the taxpayers should be footing your bill. The sponsorship players can spend their money on their tuition, or they can blow it on hookers and blow for all I care, and they can go into debt for their tuition like the grand majority of other students.
darth_vedder wrote:re: Paying players... I have mixed feeling. I don't think they should have a flat out salary, and firmly believe that what they get is money in the form of tuition, housing, meals, tutors, personal trainers, stipends and access to exclusive gyms / facilities. That stuff cost a boat load, so are you in favor of giving them those things + a salary?
I think salaried players just opens a pandora's box and college ball is we know it will be dead. Also, is everyone equally paid? Does the walk on OL make as much as the star WR? If you pay them a salary, do you take those other things they get away and make them pay for it? So like pay them 100k, but then make them pay for housing, food, tuition, private tutors, personal trainers, etc...?
Here's the deal: if the colleges weren't generating millions upon millions of dollars in TV revenue, I might have more sympathy for this model. Hell, this model still exists in most non I-A schools that have no way to generate that kind of revenue, and I don't have a problem with that. But as long as that revenue is coming in, the players--the people who are the most responsible for the product--should have a significant say in how that money gets distributed. In what matter that money is distributed, that can be reasonably negotiated between what they players and the schools want.
darth_vedder wrote:I have heard Dabo speak on this and ask similar questions. I don't think he's necessarily wrong, and if you listened to interviews about the subject with him, he's for alternatives, but against flat out paying players a salary.
I don't know what Dabo said, but any coach that gets paid millions of dollars by the colleges should STFU about any opposition to paying players.
I now refuse to use that euphemism that you put in scare quotes.