Thoughts on paying college athletes...

[McPeachy]

I have a few thoughts on this soon to be very messy situation.

First, does it start with football, and make it's way to all college sports? I think so. Too much inequality if not. I can just see the scumbag attorney's hovering around waiting to sue. Title IX or not.

Also - when college athletes start to get paid, and essentially become the "minor leagues" to the NFL / NBA / etc., will they lose their appeal? Who here really gives a shit about the minor leagues? Who here watches minor league games on TV? If they are paid, and not the big leagues...not sure they have the same level of interest.

Thoughts?

 

[TheRealUW]

Also - when college athletes start to get paid, and essentially become the "minor leagues" to the NFL / NBA / etc., will they lose their appeal? Who here really gives a shit about the minor leagues? Who here watches minor league games on TV? If they are paid, and not the big leagues...not sure they have the same level of interest.

I don't see the level of interest in college sports changing much regardless of whether the players are paid or not. Think of the reverse situation. Would your interest level increase in minor league baseball games if the players were unpaid? My hunch is that the answer to that question would be 'No' for most people.

College sports, namely football and men's basketball, are strongly entrenched in the American cultural fabric. It would take a major bombshell, such as finding out a majority of results are fixed (hypothetical only), to have any major impact on the overall appeal of college football or basketball.

 

[McPeachy]

I don't see the level of interest in college sports changing much regardless of whether the players are paid or not. Think of the reverse situation. Would your interest level increase in minor league baseball games if the players were unpaid? My hunch is that the answer to that question would be 'No' for most people.

College sports, namely football and men's basketball, are strongly entrenched in the American cultural fabric. It would take a major bombshell, such as finding out a majority of results are fixed (hypothetical only), to have any major impact on the overall appeal of college football or basketball.

I certainly see your point...and I don't think initially things change much. But I could see them spiraling out of control - with ticket prices, commercialization, etc., following suit. I have no interest in minor league sports - paid or not paid - and I think that most feel the same way.

 

[Hayduke]

Paying athletes that are hurting financially could keep them in college for another year or so, foregoing the draft. That could be an upside for college athletics and may increase interest in the major power conferences.

However, as we all know, programs without the budget to pay their athletes, even on a minimum scale, would not be able to compete against those that can. This will widen the gap between the haves have nots...says Mr. Obvious... :lol:

 

[WestWYOPoke]

One thing I think we could see is some smaller programs, knowing they can't compete with the big football schools, throwing their money at other sports. Maybe Northern Iowa won't want to pay its football players because it's too expensive, but they decide to pay wrestlers, thus attracting better wrestlers and making them a Top 10 team. Other schools might focus on basketball, baseball, volleyball, etc. We could see some programs that, while not necessarily giving up on football, decide to go "All-In" on other programs.

 

[J-Rod]

It's coming...just a matter of time.

Every December I find it interesting how despite the $$$ empire that is the FBS, particularly the P5, is dominating the media and football world....the fans of FCS playoff teams don't seem to give a shit. They're still having the time of their lives. College football is about to change drastically, but for schools like Wyoming...I don't think this change will be the end of the world. Once the P5 totally break off, the remaining schools can fuck the bowl system and start its own playoff or format. In terms of enjoyment, it comes down to the fan....if you're hell bent on Wyoming becoming Alabama, these upcoming years will humble you. But Wyoming's chances for success and maintaining a regional game are pretty good once all the dust has settled.

The non-P5 will still have that amateur athletics feel to it. It will still be "college football"....the P5, like McPeachy said, will be borderline minor league football. How quickly do the Atlanta Falcons claim Alabama? It will get messy. So...if you look at it that way, there is nothing to worry about with these developments. Consider Wyoming lucky in some way....."college football" will still exist in Laramie. Sure, the chance to knock off the big dogs will be gone, but if that doesn't float your boat....all is well.

So if you still hold onto some hope that Wyoming will be a Top 15 program nationally, yeah these coming years will knock your reality on its backside. This train isn't stopping. But if that's not a big deal to you and you've resigned to the idea that was a huge long shot all along, it'll all be good.

All a matter of perspective.

 

[VisorHair]

It's a slippery slope and there's an incredibly thin red line on making it work. This will turn the modern student-athlete into a monster. The humility of a SA going somewhere for education and such will go bye bye. The highest bidder will win the majority of the time. Like mentioned above, the recruiting will be equivalent to upper class and lower class, no middle class, per-say.

IMO, the best way to combat this is to up the monthly stipends to a reasonable amount, calculated to cost of living, etc (which is currently being talked about), and allow the athletes to sell their personal gear/autographs/etc for money. Let the star athletes thrive off their talent (which is what happens in the real world after college). If your autograph isn't worth shit, then you're SOL.

Going through with a full fledged "pay us!" scheme scares me to death. Has to potential to spiral out of control very quickly and college athletics as we know it will disappear. The teaching aspect needs to be saved and used better, not sure this will help these guys. Current scheme makes them work towards goal. Turning it into a job with pay may remove that lesson, tough to tell.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

IMO, the best way to combat this is to up the monthly stipends to a reasonable amount, calculated to cost of living, etc (which is currently being talked about), and allow the athletes to sell their personal gear/autographs/etc for money. Let the star athletes thrive off their talent (which is what happens in the real world after college). If your autograph isn't worth shit, then you're SOL.

OK. So Alabama just says to the best players in the country that "if you come here, we will guarantee you $250,000 per year to be paid by our booster club in exchange for 1000 signed jerseys." Is there really any difference of "paying" versus "not paying" players at this point?

 

[VisorHair]

IMO, the best way to combat this is to up the monthly stipends to a reasonable amount, calculated to cost of living, etc (which is currently being talked about), and allow the athletes to sell their personal gear/autographs/etc for money. Let the star athletes thrive off their talent (which is what happens in the real world after college). If your autograph isn't worth shit, then you're SOL.

OK. So Alabama just says to the best players in the country that "if you come here, we will guarantee you $250,000 per year to be paid by our booster club in exchange for 1000 signed jerseys." Is there really any difference of "paying" versus "not paying" players at this point?

Great point. However, is it that simple? A booster club can't do that.. It'd have to be an external entity such as Upper Deck or whomever. How many players per team would benefit, 5? 10? Can't see it being worthwhile for a company to want to engage with more than the start players. Obviously, "team signed" memorabilia is different. But, nonetheless, there's a ceiling to all of this.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

IMO, the best way to combat this is to up the monthly stipends to a reasonable amount, calculated to cost of living, etc (which is currently being talked about), and allow the athletes to sell their personal gear/autographs/etc for money. Let the star athletes thrive off their talent (which is what happens in the real world after college). If your autograph isn't worth shit, then you're SOL.

OK. So Alabama just says to the best players in the country that "if you come here, we will guarantee you $250,000 per year to be paid by our booster club in exchange for 1000 signed jerseys." Is there really any difference of "paying" versus "not paying" players at this point?

Great point. However, is it that simple? A booster club can't do that.. It'd have to be an external entity such as Upper Deck or whomever. How many players per team would benefit, 5? 10? Can't see it being worthwhile for a company to want to engage with more than the start players. Obviously, "team signed" memorabilia is different. But, nonetheless, there's a ceiling to all of this.

Ok. Well rich guy that happens to be a big fan of Alabama (aka a Booster) enters into an agreement with Collectibles, Inc. to buy 5 Player autographed jerseys for $100,000. The agreement states that Collectibles, Inc. shall receive 5% of the profits and that the Player shall receive the remaining 95% contingent upon player signing with Alabama. Collectibles Inc. proposes deal to Player prior to choosing a college. Player receives his $95,000 upon enrolling at Alabama and signing the 5 jerseys. [ In this instance the company is not driving the market rather the boosters would be. The company only cares about making money and could care less if that money comes from a more or less false market driven by the desire to help a booster's team get the best players.]

Once again...we are at the same exact point of is this really a difference between "paying" and "not paying" a player. My answer is a resounding no. So if we open that can of worms, might as well just have the universities directly pay the players. Personally, I am against paying players at the collegiate level and strongly favor a minor league for football that is completely outside of the college setting (ala baseball).

 

[VisorHair]

IMO, the best way to combat this is to up the monthly stipends to a reasonable amount, calculated to cost of living, etc (which is currently being talked about), and allow the athletes to sell their personal gear/autographs/etc for money. Let the star athletes thrive off their talent (which is what happens in the real world after college). If your autograph isn't worth shit, then you're SOL.

OK. So Alabama just says to the best players in the country that "if you come here, we will guarantee you $250,000 per year to be paid by our booster club in exchange for 1000 signed jerseys." Is there really any difference of "paying" versus "not paying" players at this point?

Great point. However, is it that simple? A booster club can't do that.. It'd have to be an external entity such as Upper Deck or whomever. How many players per team would benefit, 5? 10? Can't see it being worthwhile for a company to want to engage with more than the start players. Obviously, "team signed" memorabilia is different. But, nonetheless, there's a ceiling to all of this.

Ok. Well rich guy that happens to be a big fan of Alabama (aka a Booster) enters into an agreement with Collectibles, Inc. to buy 5 Player autographed jerseys for $100,000. The agreement states that Collectibles, Inc. shall receive 5% of the profits and that the Player shall receive the remaining 95% contingent upon player signing with Alabama. Collectibles Inc. proposes deal to Player prior to choosing a college. Player receives his $95,000 upon enrolling at Alabama and signing the 5 jerseys. [ In this instance the company is not driving the market rather the boosters would be. The company only cares about making money and could care less if that money comes from a more or less false market driven by the desire to help a booster's team get the best players.]

Once again...we are at the same exact point of is this really a difference between "paying" and "not paying" a player. My answer is a resounding no. So if we open that can of worms, might as well just have the universities directly pay the players. Personally, I am against paying players at the collegiate level and strongly favor a minor league for football that is completely outside of the college setting (ala baseball).

I would hope there'd be some rule stating you can't pre-sign. But that's besides the point. I agree with you

 

[WestWYOPoke]

IMO, the best way to combat this is to up the monthly stipends to a reasonable amount, calculated to cost of living, etc (which is currently being talked about), and allow the athletes to sell their personal gear/autographs/etc for money. Let the star athletes thrive off their talent (which is what happens in the real world after college). If your autograph isn't worth shit, then you're SOL.

OK. So Alabama just says to the best players in the country that "if you come here, we will guarantee you $250,000 per year to be paid by our booster club in exchange for 1000 signed jerseys." Is there really any difference of "paying" versus "not paying" players at this point?

Great point. However, is it that simple? A booster club can't do that.. It'd have to be an external entity such as Upper Deck or whomever. How many players per team would benefit, 5? 10? Can't see it being worthwhile for a company to want to engage with more than the start players. Obviously, "team signed" memorabilia is different. But, nonetheless, there's a ceiling to all of this.

Ok. Well rich guy that happens to be a big fan of Alabama (aka a Booster) enters into an agreement with Collectibles, Inc. to buy 5 Player autographed jerseys for $100,000. The agreement states that Collectibles, Inc. shall receive 5% of the profits and that the Player shall receive the remaining 95% contingent upon player signing with Alabama. Collectibles Inc. proposes deal to Player prior to choosing a college. Player receives his $95,000 upon enrolling at Alabama and signing the 5 jerseys. [ In this instance the company is not driving the market rather the boosters would be. The company only cares about making money and could care less if that money comes from a more or less false market driven by the desire to help a booster's team get the best players.]

Once again...we are at the same exact point of is this really a difference between "paying" and "not paying" a player. My answer is a resounding no. So if we open that can of worms, might as well just have the universities directly pay the players. Personally, I am against paying players at the collegiate level and strongly favor a minor league for football that is completely outside of the college setting (ala baseball).

And this would be different from the ways things are now.....how? At least this way it's legal so teams trying to be honest can at least try to compete.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

And this would be different from the ways things are now.....how? At least this way it's legal so teams trying to be honest can at least try to compete.

I would say it is different than how things are now. NCAA rules and threats of sanctions have at least established compliance departments at every D1 school that are for the most part somewhat effective in ensuring players are not receiving payments.

You are apparently for paying student athletes (above cost of attendance and living) and I am not. I see the argument on both sides. But believing that Wyoming will be better able to better compete in the era of paying players is completely unrealistic.

Many people miss the very likely possibility of student fees at various universities being increased to pay their fellow student athletes should such payments ever come about. If I were a paying student, I would be furious that I have to directly pay my fellow co-students to attend the same univeristy as me (and this coming from a huge football fan which many students are not).

I also am a believer in an adult's right to make a living (meaning those that are 18 and up). Therefore, I support a football minor league where players may forego college and seek immediate payment for their services. It becomes an adult choice: a) do I go to college for free and play football; or b) do I join the minor league and get paid but risk never panning out and being left without an education.

 

[BeaverPoke]

If we are paying athletes to play look at it this way.

"Insert name here" decides to come to the University of Wyoming. He is getting paid to play football. He is a state employee just as Bohl is. This can then become an issue of how much the state governments want to pay out each year.
If we get some people in Cheyenne that want us to be a powerhouse, we all of a sudden are the New York Yankees in terms of payroll.
Oil and gas and rainy day funds.
Wyo could have kids transferring from Alabama and Texas to be Pokes.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

If we are paying athletes to play look at it this way.

"Insert name here" decides to come to the University of Wyoming. He is getting paid to play football. He is a state employee just as Bohl is. This can then become an issue of how much the state governments want to pay out each year.
If we get some people in Cheyenne that want us to be a powerhouse, we all of a sudden are the New York Yankees in terms of payroll.
Oil and gas and rainy day funds.
Wyo could have kids transferring from Alabama and Texas to be Pokes.

Yes, let's spend taxpayer money so we can pay hired labor from Texas and Alabama to be Poke football players for a few years. Do you know what state we live in and the liklihood of the legislature making such a budget appropriation? Hell, I am a huge football fan but would propbably vote against that if I were in the legislature. I just got out of a two hour long meeting on a $150,000 appropriation that goes directly to current Wyoming residents/companies and the amount of argument on this relatively small appropriation probably could have went all day had they let it.

 

[VisorHair]

And this would be different from the ways things are now.....how? At least this way it's legal so teams trying to be honest can at least try to compete.

I would say it is different than how things are now. NCAA rules and threats of sanctions have at least established compliance departments at every D1 school that are for the most part somewhat effective in ensuring players are not receiving payments.

You are apparently for paying student athletes (above cost of attendance and living) and I am not. I see the argument on both sides. But believing that Wyoming will be better able to better compete in the era of paying players is completely unrealistic.

Many people miss the very likely possibility of student fees at various universities being increased to pay their fellow student athletes should such payments ever come about. If I were a paying student, I would be furious that I have to directly pay my fellow co-students to attend the same univeristy as me (and this coming from a huge football fan which many students are not).

I also am a believer in an adult's right to make a living (meaning those that are 18 and up). Therefore, I support a football minor league where players may forego college and seek immediate payment for their services. It becomes an adult choice: a) do I go to college for free and play football; or b) do I join the minor league and get paid but risk never panning out and being left without an education.

This is a potential issue, however, I can't imagine a Chancellor or Pres. biting for that. Majority won't raise fees for however many cents just for extra funding for athletics as it is. The President's are really going to be thrown into a position with all of this where you better hope he enjoys athletics and understands it or you're gonna be SOL.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

And this would be different from the ways things are now.....how? At least this way it's legal so teams trying to be honest can at least try to compete.

I would say it is different than how things are now. NCAA rules and threats of sanctions have at least established compliance departments at every D1 school that are for the most part somewhat effective in ensuring players are not receiving payments.

You are apparently for paying student athletes (above cost of attendance and living) and I am not. I see the argument on both sides. But believing that Wyoming will be better able to better compete in the era of paying players is completely unrealistic.

Many people miss the very likely possibility of student fees at various universities being increased to pay their fellow student athletes should such payments ever come about. If I were a paying student, I would be furious that I have to directly pay my fellow co-students to attend the same univeristy as me (and this coming from a huge football fan which many students are not).

I also am a believer in an adult's right to make a living (meaning those that are 18 and up). Therefore, I support a football minor league where players may forego college and seek immediate payment for their services. It becomes an adult choice: a) do I go to college for free and play football; or b) do I join the minor league and get paid but risk never panning out and being left without an education.

Actually I am against schools paying athletes any more than they already are making in the form of a full-ride scholarship; they make plenty as it is. This was more me playing devil's advocate, if you will. However, while I don't want schools to pay students any more, I think a remedy would be allowing student's to be paid for autographs. This way it is not the school paying, and a player will only receive what he is worth.

I understand how the above mentions receiving thousands of dollars for one autograph, to counteract that, my thought was having autographs run through a company or organizer. JoeShmoe company wants Athletes A, B, and C to come sign autographs at a show. JoeShmoe charges an entrance fee to each autograph seeker at the door and then keep X% for itself and distributes the remaining $ to athletes A, B, and C. This is how it works in the pros, utilize it here as well.

Yes, there is still the option for Donor Rich Pants to throw a load of money at a recruit in order to get him to come to Alabama, Texas, etc. but like I said, that happens now anyway. At least this way, the athletes that are more honest will have more reason to turn down this illegal money because they can follow the rules and get some through the process I just laid out.

 

[BJC]

With the fanbase at Alabama/Auburn...anyone lowering the pay would be voted out or...worse

 

[VisorHair]

And this would be different from the ways things are now.....how? At least this way it's legal so teams trying to be honest can at least try to compete.

I would say it is different than how things are now. NCAA rules and threats of sanctions have at least established compliance departments at every D1 school that are for the most part somewhat effective in ensuring players are not receiving payments.

You are apparently for paying student athletes (above cost of attendance and living) and I am not. I see the argument on both sides. But believing that Wyoming will be better able to better compete in the era of paying players is completely unrealistic.

Many people miss the very likely possibility of student fees at various universities being increased to pay their fellow student athletes should such payments ever come about. If I were a paying student, I would be furious that I have to directly pay my fellow co-students to attend the same univeristy as me (and this coming from a huge football fan which many students are not).

I also am a believer in an adult's right to make a living (meaning those that are 18 and up). Therefore, I support a football minor league where players may forego college and seek immediate payment for their services. It becomes an adult choice: a) do I go to college for free and play football; or b) do I join the minor league and get paid but risk never panning out and being left without an education.

Actually I am against schools paying athletes any more than they already are making in the form of a full-ride scholarship; they make plenty as it is. This was more me playing devil's advocate, if you will. However, while I don't want schools to pay students any more, I think a remedy would be allowing student's to be paid for autographs. This way it is not the school paying, and a player will only receive what he is worth.

I understand how the above mentions receiving thousands of dollars for one autograph, to counteract that, my thought was having autographs run through a company or organizer. JoeShmoe company wants Athletes A, B, and C to come sign autographs at a show. JoeShmoe charges an entrance fee to each autograph seeker at the door and then keep X% for itself and distributes the remaining $ to athletes A, B, and C. This is how it works in the pros, utilize it here as well.

Yes, there is still the option for Donor Rich Pants to throw a load of money at a recruit in order to get him to come to Alabama, Texas, etc. but like I said, that happens now anyway. At least this way, the athletes that are more honest will have more reason to turn down this illegal money because they can follow the rules and get some through the process I just laid out.

Spot on WestWyo

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Who knows where this can of worms will end up. It is a very long road from where we are to where it ultimately will be. When recruiting becomes contract negotiations, CFB is over, IMO.

Unions and lawyers are licking their chops. There is lots of money to be made for them in this deal. The end will not be based on logical reason but will end with whatever lines the pockets of unions and lawyers.

It will be interesting.