Something is better than nothing.

Not too much happening in the world of college football – which, admittedly, can be a good thing – but here are a few nuggets to check out:

  • Noble speech, but who’s to say that every kid listens?
  • You read stuff like this and you wonder why Charlie Weis can’t understand why people think he’s an asshole.
  • Maybe I’m missing something, but wouldn’t an early signing date for football just move all of the bad recruiting behavior by coaches to an earlier point in time?
  • Headcount vs. Equivalency:  keep the scholarship numbers in mind when you hear folks advocating paying college players.  How can you pay some players without paying them all?  And if you have to pay all, where is the money coming from?


Filed under Charlie Weis Is A Big Fat..., College Football, Crime and Punishment, It's Just Bidness, Recruiting

2 responses to “Something is better than nothing.

  1. 81Dog

    Notre Dame is going to win 9-12 games this year? In what? Basketball?

    It’ll never happen, but Charlie sounds like he’d be the perfect coach for South Carolina. Every August, he’s a national championship contender. Every December, he’s left with another train wreck of a season. However, the train wrecks never discourage or deter him from predicting glory again in the summer for NEXT year.


  2. Sam

    I am one who strongly supports a minimum stipend for football players, but recognizes this cannot be an across the board payment system for all scholarship athletes. Some will not like, or agree, with this opinion, but in this day of $75 fill-ups at the gas pumps, we need to address this issue or we are headed for more disciplinary problems.

    These are some thoughts promoting treating CFB like a university job. Football players at major colleges bring in huge revenues to schools that benefit more than just those in the athletic department. Due to the time required to produce this product, players have no time available for part-time jobs like other students who may not have family money to cover normal expenses (gas money, entertainment/date money, clothing allowance, etc.) If they had time to work at the library, a restaurant, or an admin job at the university, they would have spending money. In this way, they have less opportunity than other students to earn extra income. I say treat the time they spend practicing, working in the weight room, attending meetings. etc., like a job at the school and pay them $100 a week for the 1000+ hours they work for the school’s benefit on an annual basis. It only amounts to about $5 per hour at that rate, and is easily rationalized.

    The problem is, as you have noted, there isn’t enough money to pay for all scholarship athletes in “minor” sports programs this way. Since most of these scholarships exist almost solely due to the revenue producing sports, I say the scholarship athletes on those teams have already gotten their benefit. That may seem harsh to some, and will not play well for those who believe in a welfare-type system, but it is the economic reality of the situation. If your sport spins off excess cash (probably only football and basketball at UGA), those players may be entitled to some of the proceeds. If not, your scholly does not qualify for spending money. Just like in the real world, the profitable companies are able to pay bonuses and higher salaries, and still able to “donate” money to help fund those who are needy……in this case, non-revenue sports like softball, equestrian teams, golf, etc. It is just a different level of scholarship. This scholly that allows spending money could be a “full scholarship”, and others could be 3/4, 1/2, or 1/4 scholarships. It is self funded, and available to both men and women’s sports that qualify by bringing in income above expenses.

    In this PC crazy world, my idea is unlikely to ever get implemented, but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t. We could reduce some of the problems with cheating if we were fair to these guys. They are truly working for the university, but not getting paid beyond the room and board costs. The small schools would also be a huge obstacle to this since many of them already operate in the red, and they would never vote for anything that would increase the gap between them and the big schools. Just another reason why the divisional lines should remain be distinct between large and small schools, and they should not compete against one another, nor be governed by the same rules. UGA and Oklahoma had it right when they tried to break away from the NCAA. The different groups within the NCAA simply have conflicting needs that should be addressed and a “one size fits all” approach ends up not satisfying anyone.