“There is going to be a day of reckoning.”

Okay, first of all, this is a dumb comment.

“If anybody thinks we can hold on to this model, which has probably never worked as intended, they’re dreaming.”  [Emphasis added.]

Dude, you’re dreaming.  The schools and the NCAA are fighting tooth and nail to preserve the status quo precisely because it is working as intended.  At least for them, and for them, that’s all that counts.

That being said, this, if representative, should be an unsettling narrative.

The public increasingly agrees. A 2017 Seton Hall Sports Poll found 60 percent of people think a scholarship is sufficient compensation for college athletes, down from 71 percent in 2013. Forty percent believe athletes are exploited by not sharing in the revenue they generate, the highest number in the poll’s 10 years.

The NCAA may ignore a lot of things, but when it comes to cash flow, that’s one eagle-eyed bunch.  I imagine there’s concern over losing the narrative in the court of public perception, but the problem comes in devising a feel-good strategy to overcome that.  The NCAA doesn’t do proactive well.


Filed under The NCAA

13 responses to ““There is going to be a day of reckoning.”

  1. Chopdawg

    Nah…don’t trust Seton Hall’s poll. They lost by 16 to Wofford. What does Wofford’s poll say?


  2. psyopdawg

    I don’t pretend to be knowledgeable on the subject and if I’m way off base please correct me. But paying student athletes for play is absurd. A chance to play the game you love while earning a free college education is priceless. On the other hand, if the institution is earning revenue off an individual player then compensation should be considered. It may even motivate individual players to work harder which is better for the individual and the institution. I don’t have the answer to how or how much that is but that just makes sense.


  3. psyopdawg

    Most specifically, an individual’s likeness or name.


  4. Listening to national ESPN talk radio last night. The hostess was calling out the NCAA exploitation of athletes and saying they should be compensated appropriately. Was also talking about how Tom Izzo was out of line by going ape S$%^t on one of his players. This was an ESPN talk show host, so you know there is some traction here.


    • Exploitation is a bit much for me to digest, purchasing a red jersey with # 34 on the back plus the name Walker including some letter or the university name on said jersey….Now you’ve got me in the players corner on the compensation issue for use of likeness…the kicker (don’t recall school) who gave up his scholarship do to his likeness on u tube and profitting from the video instruction, i thought was a bad look for the ncaa and said institution…



    Put me in the 60%


  6. Junkyardawg41

    “That being said, this, if representative, should be an unsettling narrative.”
    A few things… the article (and I assume the poll) is 2 years old. My guess is if the same poll was done today, the numbers would be worse for the NCAA.

    I always question polls that don’t provide their raw data and/or any demographics information — so I don’t know what the poll bias is.

    I actually think this is the more interesting questions that are unanswered in the poll… why has perception changed? and Do you feel more strongly about your opinion today than you did 5 years ago? I wonder if this is becoming a more polarizing issue than it was 5 years ago.


  7. TimberRidgeDawg

    I’m good with letting them get paid. I just can’t come up with a model that works and allows any semblance of the game as it exists today to exist.

    What’s the eventual end game and structure?

    The NFL has a salary cap and collective bargaining to keep a somewhat level competitive playing field with smaller rosters and a very uneven salary structure between their stars and the back end of the roster. Pay for performance ultimately with roster cuts for non performers.

    If you’re getting paid to play in college, then can you be cut as a non performer even though you are in good academic standing? Roster management works that way today.

    Is every paid player on a 1 Year contract and annually becomes a free agent if current transfer rules go away?

    What can of worms does this open up with non Revenue sports and Title IX? College football subsidizes the non revenue sports. Paying the football players, while justified, will lessen the ability to support the remainder of the program. Do you pay the athletes who are truly just happy to be on at least a partial scholarship to pay for school?

    Ultimately it has to be regulated to some degree under a common framework. I think it would require the big power schools to break football away from current NCAA regulation and operate as a separate entity in a fashion somewhat similar to a professional league. This would allow recognition their unique value and separate them from the rest of the sports remaining under NCAA control. Excess revenue from football could still be passed back into the University and maybe they could still operate under non profit status.

    Regardless, the NCAA is in no way equipped to manage the inevitable changes that are going to occur.


    • Junkyardawg41

      Other questions I ponder in addition to those you brought up. If a player is paid… which means it is a job… 1. Why must player need to go to class? 2. If that is part of the contract, how many classes and what type must a player take? 3. If it is a job, why can’t a player spend 10-15 years in college — why are they only limited to 4 years of “job”?


  8. 69Dawg

    Everybody blames the NCAA rightly for the basketball crap but the 3 year football rule is a collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA. If you really want to throw a bomb at that start by suing the NFL and NFLPA for colluding to basically stop 18-20 year olds from playing pro ball. They are using the NLRB to help the NFL to keep it’s free minor leagues and NFLPA get to keep the players happy that fresh legs are not flooding the market.


    • Gaskilldawg

      What do you mean, “start by suing the NFL….(?)” Maurice Clarett already did it……..and lost. The NFL rule requiring a player be three years removed from high school to be eligible does no5 violate any laws.


    • Gaskilldawg

      Oh, and according to the Clarett court the three year eligibility rule was not in the NFLPA collective bargaining agreement. It is in the NFL Constitution