More, from the annals of the fairly compensated

This is what chomping at the bit sounds like.

The idea that college stars won’t see a significant change in fortune if allowed to receive money for their names is a fantasy.  A romantic one.

91 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness, The NCAA

91 responses to “More, from the annals of the fairly compensated

  1. Debby Balcer

    Athletes should have this chance because for some due to injury college is all they get. I bet the money would have helped Trinton Sturdivant. I do not how they become less of a student if they are paid.

    Like

  2. Derek

    Playing college sports is a bad deal. They should explore all the other options available that are available to them.

    Zion Williamson lost so much money playing that season for Duke on national TV. So much…..

    I’m sure Coach K and Grant Hill and the rest are sorry they didn’t make Duke a more attractive place to display his skills.

    I hope he recovers.

    Like

    • Easy to be generous with other people’s money…

      Like

      • Derek

        That was effortless irony.

        Zion could have stayed his ass home or gone to Europe or sued the nba for early entry. He was not forced to go to Duke. He went to Duke presumably because of the value it gave him, not all of which must be a tangible cash exchange.

        The problem with saying these kids have market value is that they actually don’t. No one is starting a pro league as an alternative to college. No one on the planet is offering these kids a better deal than they are getting right now. That’s just a fact. You can say that it could be better. It probably could. But that is spending someone else’s money ain’t it?

        Would any investor say:

        I can start a league, pay kids out of high school and beat the colleges?

        Fuck no. No way any investor or group of investors could offer a better deal than the colleges. If these schools are awash with cash, isn’t that a return on investment a century and half in the making? What’s more American than that?

        Like I said yesterday, if you want them to have a larger share I have no objection, but the starting QBs gets the same as the women’s soccer goalie. If the QBs ain’t happy with that, then fucking quit.

        Liked by 1 person

        • The problem with saying these kids have market value is that they actually don’t.

          I just quoted the head of Under Armour literally saying they do.

          Like

          • Derek

            Let me be clearer.

            Before they hit the field in college they, on average, have little to no value. Some certainly achieve some potential value, but its a value that largely doesn’t exist:

            1) at the time of signing the LOI
            2) that is very independent of the school’s value to the player.

            My point is that at the time of the LOI signing, relative to the investment colleges are already committed to making, these kids are worthless without the stage the college is providing.

            Think about it this way:

            You are Under Amour. Do you sign Fields before or after he picks his college? If you risk signing him before he picks and he goes to JUCO do you still pay him? Or would you have assumed he’s going to a big stage and contracted around issues of stupidity or eligibility?

            But my main point is that IF these kids were worth more than colleges were investing in them, the market would fill that gap. But everyone knows that nobody is paying to watch Justin Fields play football for the Birmingham “fill in the blanks.”

            Like

            • Oh, FFS. Have you not been paying attention to the FBI/Shoe rep prosecutions? Who do you think got paid?

              Like

            • Another easy example refuting your argument: LSU was promoting Ben Simmons to its season ticket holders before he enrolled on campus.

              You really believe none of these kids have value, more power to you. But reality says otherwise.

              Like

              • Derek

                Your issue it seems to me that you want to change the rules for everyone to suit very unique examples. I don’t think its a good idea to make rules to suit isolated circumstances that put the vast majority at peril.

                If Ben Simmons thought his future would have been better invested in taking the year off and then signing up for the draft, he could have done that. I’m guessing he thinks he made a lot of profit, albeit intangible, by playing at LSU.

                Ben Simmons is making his money. I assure you, he is just fine. He is no reason to sow chaos in the system. A chaos you have decided against addressing at all, repeatedly.

                Like

                • Your issue it seems to me that you want to change the rules for everyone to suit very unique examples.

                  No, I want to change the rules so that student-athletes are treated the same way their fellow students are. The exact opposite of your premise, in other words.

                  Like

                  • Derek

                    What fellow student is standing on a stage built by the university?

                    A budding rapper living in Myers Hall can sign with a label.

                    A budding rapper who says to the University: “you sign a contract with CBS for three hours of airtime and let me do my thing on it!”

                    UGA: “what do we get?”

                    Rapper: “Nothing….its MY talent man!”

                    UGA: “fuck off.”

                    So I’d say we’re in a state of complete parity between the students and the players in terms of what each can make off the school as a stage for his/her talent.

                    BTW: Fromm can quit the team and ask ESPN to come broadcast him throwing some sweet spirals over at Clarke Central High School’s field. I wish him luck on that enormous financial endeavor.

                    Like

                  • Derek

                    What’s the first rule of dodges? Brevity or inanity, man? Could be both I suppose.

                    What student makes third-party money for the privilege of publicly representing the university?

                    Like

                    • So, this is your bright line? A student publicly representing a university loses control of his/her NLI? And, I take it, that’s an in for a penny, in for a pound proposition? In other words, once you don a school’s uniform, you belong to the school — that’s your argument?

                      Jesus, maybe the people making plantation arguments aren’t crazy.

                      Like

                    • By the way, while we’re on the subject of dodges, I notice that you neatly ignored my point about the shoe bag men paying recruits.

                      Like

            • Tony Barnfart

              Derek has a point. I’ve been dealing with valuation experts a lot lately on personal vs. business goodwill. Not to say one can’t also argue that the value is what any one party is willing to pay (whether bagman or legal). If Athens Ford wants to do a Jake Fromm commercial, should UGA get a cut ? The goodwill of the business (uga) arguably plays a big part in creating value in the relationship between the car dealer and Fromm. There are a lot of businesses (particularly in tech) out there that harvest and have employees sign away their intellectual property rights and proprietary inventions to the company they work for. Yes, they’re getting compensated but so are athletes with scholarships.

              Anyway, I’m kind of rambling. I’ve sort of lost sight of the issue (at least in your opinion) as I haven’t jumped into one of these discussions in a couple months.

              Like

              • Got Cowdog

                Of course UGA should get a cut from in your scenario. If Fromm had signed with Alabama and Warner Robins Ford wants to put Jake on a billboard? Alabama gets a cut. It will eventually trickle into high school, booster clubs being what they are, I think.
                TBH I don’t think it will make a bit of difference in our appetite for the sport.

                Like

              • Not to say one can’t also argue that the value is what any one party is willing to pay…

                Mighty big of you there. 😉

                Did UGA get a piece of Richt’s Ford commercials? If not, what makes Fromm different?

                Liked by 1 person

                • Derek

                  Aren’t those sponsorships made through the athletic department?

                  Seems like the public info on those contracts always say: your salary is X and your endorsements are valued at Y for a total contract value of Z.

                  Not sure CMR could have independently endorsed Trojan Condoms or Jack Daniels or Budweiser on his own. I know. Tyranny.

                  Hell, a student could be a Trojan condom spokesperson!!

                  Where are the coach’s pitchforks?!?!?!

                  No justice, no peace!!!

                  Like

                  • Still digging, I see.

                    What difference does this make? Richt still got paid for his commercial endorsement, even if some of it was based on goodwill as UGA’s head coach — and Fromm can’t.

                    That you still keep whirling around with these irrelevant side issues instead of just saying “I don’t like paying players” and stopping is the definition of digging.

                    Like

                    • Derek

                      Actually I don’t have any problem paying players. So long as they all get the same thing. Football players and equestrian alike. No problem at all. I just prefer to call it a “stipend” rather than a salary because it’s not actually a salary, which is performance based rather than signifying participation and status as a student athlete.

                      Like

                    • Why would Nike pay Zion and a backup Duke softball player the same amount for their endorsement? More relevant, why should it?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Derek

                      I’m not for student athletes contracting for product endorsements.

                      I don’t have an issue with the programs sharing their windfall with the people that do the daily grind. The more the better in my view. Just chop it up equally and call it a stipend.

                      Like

                    • Fair enough. You could have said that from the beginning and saved us both a lot of typing. 😉

                      Like

                    • He’s not smart, but he’s persistent.

                      Like

                • Got Cowdog

                  I don’t know if they did or did not. Let me clarify: If Jake’s wearing a team shirt, he’s representing the brand. The brand deserves a piece unless it waives it’s right to do so in the negotiation. OTOH Barnfart’s kind of right. If Jake does a “Jake from State Fromm” billboard for Ted’s E-Z Pay insurance with just a head shot? Maybe the brand doesn’t get one. It will all be in the details of the negotiation, which will lead to representation, which I think scares the NCAA and member institutions as much as anything with the way coaches and agents are screwing them silly.
                  To answer your question, He shouldn’t be any different.

                  Like

            • 79Dawg

              They have little to know value, as things currently stand, because they have no other real avenue to “get to the pros” except by going through the college “gate.” Your assertion above that investors would not invest in a league of 18-22 year olds playing football is probably correct in the current environment, but if they were able to hang on for long enough to build a credible pipeline to the pros, eventually the 5-stars would flock to that league and colleges would essentially be out of the big-time athletics business.
              No doubt the hurdles to making that happen are high, given the entrenched interests, but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it out of hand – if nothing changes in the next 5 years, the CCAA could become exactly this “alternate’ proving ground where players are compensated.

              Like

              • Again, if these kids have no value, then what’s the big deal here? Dropping amateurism won’t change anything, right?

                Like

                • Derek

                  Fake professionalism has been beaten to death nearly as much as your insistence that all will be fine.

                  Just because there isn’t an actual market doesn’t mean people won’t buy. Nike would not have given Albert Means’ coach 100k in 1997. An Alabama alum did tho.

                  Like

        • The problem with saying these kids have market value is that they actually don’t.

          If they have no value, then why the restrictions and rules?

          If they wouldn’t be able to monetize their own image and name anyway, why the rules?

          Your argument is so terrible and so wrong, it cannot survive even the most cursory challenge.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Derek

        Btw: a sports wear ceo wanting to expand his market beyond the universities and coaches isn’t exactly a self-less observation.

        They know they could play the kids less for their rights than they can the schools. Why buy Georgia when you can just buy Swift? Or why not both? If that’s your business you’d want to get to these kids as early as possible right?

        Like

  3. chopdawg

    “Athletes driving incredible value for institutions”? Examples, please?

    Like

  4. W Cobb Dawg

    I wonder what espn or other sites/shows would pay for exclusivity when players announce their college choice? Some of these players sign autographs that instantly become worth hundreds or thousands. There’s a whole industry already in place that would gladly hand over money to these players.

    Like

    • When you’ve got thousands of folks shelling out money for recruiting services, the idea that these kids are a completely blank slate until they don a school’s jersey is pretty silly.

      Like

      • Argondawg

        Why not just remove the restrictions and let them turn pro whenever they decie to. After any year they can elect to go pro. Then they have the freedom to pursue compensation for their work. If they want to be amateurs then be amateurs if they are good enough to earn money at the next level let them be one and done or two and done. If they are going to hire agents and negotiate deals then you create a finanicail hieracrchy not just between sports but between team mates. What about those linemen that are blowing holes in the defense for the tailbacks, QBs and receivers to get paid at the college level? Y’all dont think this murders the comraderie of amatuerism with financial envy and jealousy in the locker room? Really? I am fine with them getting paid but I am not willing to blow up the sport to get there. They wanna go pro three games into their freshman year. Go ahead.

        Like

        • Why not just remove the restrictions and let them turn pro whenever they decie to.

          Because the NFL and NBA both have CBAs that don’t allow them to do that.

          Y’all dont think this murders the comraderie of amatuerism with financial envy and jealousy in the locker room?

          I have no idea what the “camaraderie of amateurism” is. Did Oklahoma’s offensive linemen have a problem with Murray last year after he got that huge bonus from the A’s?

          Like

          • Argondawg

            That contract from the A’s didn’t come from those lineman sacrificing their bodies for him and the team. He wasnt profiting from their labor.

            Like

            • How would a shoe contract with Nike be any different in that regard?

              Like

              • Argondawg

                The shoe contract would be based on his star power on the football field? He doesnt get there on his own. How many Offensive linemen or tight ends are going to get paid? Pretty much none. Even if they got compensated it would be very little. There are no good answers to this. Just more questions. Maybe it doesnt do much harm or maybe it kills a sport we all love. We just don’t know what is on the other side. Once that genie is out of the bottle it is going to be rough to put it back in. I want players to be compensated I just don’t see how you can maintain that and amateurism at the same time and I haven’t seen a truly workable proposal that might not just kill things. We have the NCAA at odds with state legislatures. I don’t put much faith in either

                Like

                • Why should he be restricted because his teammates aren’t as commercially attractive?

                  If jealousy is this huge deal, how do pros handle being paid differently? For that matter, why don’t we make every player on a college roster see the field on an equal basis with everyone else on the team? Do we care if Stetson Bennett is jealous that Fromm plays more?

                  Look, I’m sympathetic if you simply don’t want players getting paid. But skip the pseudo-economic justification.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • Tony Barnfart

                    If pay is exclusively 3rd party NLI based in college, yes, the O-Line will get screwed. Because at least in the NFL they are some of the highest paid by the organization.

                    Like

            • Got Cowdog

              Anyone at your organization make more money than you?

              Like

          • Argondawg

            Maybe the problem is as much with the CBAs of the NFL and NBA as it is the NCAA.

            Like

            • That’s a different ball of wax and I don’t disagree to some extent. But that doesn’t change the fact that the NCAA is exploiting the situation for its benefit. And, unlike the NBA and NFL, what the NCAA does violates antitrust law.

              Like

              • Senator, do you believe the reason the NCAA is fighting all of these attacks on it so hard is to get an antitrust exemption? That seems to be the only reasonable argument for the NCAA’s actions. Bluster, delay, litigate, appeal, settle … lather, rinse & repeat until the deal gets done or the SCOTUS rules once and for all. I think it’s going to be a cold day in hell before they get an exemption because they are going to have to trade a lot for the exemption, and it will need to be politically viable for the Congress and the President to go along.

                Like

                • I think the NCAA is fighting because it doesn’t want to share and because it doesn’t want the public to become comfortable with the concept of sharing. Antitrust exemption is a last resort, I suspect because the schools and the NCAA will be loathe to deal with the trade off Congress will likely demand for the protection.

                  One more thing about that exemption — don’t expect it’ll stop with the players. I can’t wait to hear Dabo complain about that.

                  Like

                  • “[T]he NCAA is fighting because it doesn’t want to share and because it doesn’t want the public to become comfortable with the concept of sharing.”

                    Every story about the NCAA makes it a bigger loser in the court of public opinion. I just really don’t see why they don’t get their collective heads out of their backsides to get something done on NLI. It’s not like they or the schools will have to share anything on that front. I do understand why they will fight anything that looks like pure pay-for-play all the way to the SCOTUS.

                    Like

            • Those CBAs were created under US labor law between certified unions and their employers. Sure, they are artificial barriers to entry into those labor markets, but that’s the breaks.

              As the Senator notes, that doesn’t give the NCAA and its member institutions the ability to set up a labor cartel to take advantage of it.

              Like

  5. The former GPOOE weighs in … shut, up, Tim.

    Like

    • Derek

      Preach Timmy.

      Like

      • Derek, I see nothing wrong with the Olympic model allowing student-athletes to earn money off their name, likeness & image. It doesn’t cost the university any more than the FCOA scholarship does right now. It allows those who have earning power the ability to earn money or other perks off their NLI. At the top, it may even reduce the influence of the bagmen who run all over the Southeast.

        If something doesn’t change, Jeffrey Kessler is going to burn the whole thing to the ground. If you’re worried that Alabama is going to get the best players in this scenario, wait until you see what happens when potential student-athletes have the ability to negotiate any deal they want with the university of their choice and the University of Alabama can be open about what it pays to student-athletes.

        Like

        • Derek

          I just don’t expect them to be legitimate in most cases.

          I see programs buying kids via private industry.

          Saban calls a business owner and says: give such and such kid $X. We need him.

          Booster says: yes sir!

          That’s not a product endorsement.

          If I knew that each one of these transactions were arms length commercial transactions I’d change my mind on a dime. I just don’t see how you let Fromm sign with Nike and not let Arik Gilbert sign with some local car dealership in exchange for his LOI to UGA.

          You can’t even say: we’ll let UGA share the proceeds of all #3 jerseys with Gurley while he’s a student. He’s why they are buying them.

          It makes sense on the surface but boosters would buy truck loads from 1-99 in order to show their players get the most $ so sign with us.

          That no one sees this is amazing to me.

          Liked by 1 person

          • “Saban calls a business owner and says: give such and such kid $X. We need him.
            Booster says: yes sir!”

            That’s happening now under the table with plausible deniability. If the business owner wants to give $X to a player to go work out rather than push a broom and all of the taxes are paid, why does that make any difference?

            “If I knew that each one of these transactions were arms length commercial transactions I’d change my mind on a dime. I just don’t see how you let Fromm sign with Nike and not let Arik Gilbert sign with some local car dealership in exchange for his LOI to UGA.”

            For one, it is an arms length transaction in both of those cases assuming there’s no university money being laundered through the dealership

            I do believe the NCAA should have the authority to require the student-athlete and the school to disclose any compensation received on NLI and the failure to do so would be dealt with severely.

            I get your arguments … i was there at one time. Then I saw the NCAA throw the book at AJ Green for his honesty when they had no business even asking him the question once he proved he wasn’t at the agent party in Miami.

            I don’t want Kessler to destroy the entire system, and I believe this is the way to prevent it. The NCAA is going to lose the fight … the question is whether the outcome is going to be a negotiated end to hostilities or unconditional surrender.

            Like

          • mp

            What amazes about my evolution on player comp over the last 20 years is that I was someone who used to get righteously indignant at boosters, but now I note how little I care about it now. I’m not going to funnel my $ to recruits (be it through gift cards, $100 handshakes, or Eric Dickerson’s new car), but I understand the passion of those who do. Honestly, it just doesn’t affect me.EXCEPT for the fact that the NCAA sets the rules. If the rules weren’t there, I don’t have the faintest idea why would anyone would care. So, Derek, if there were no rule, why would you care if some booster gave a kid $10k to sign with UGA or Bama or whomever (assuming they paid tax on it, of course!)? Is there still some moral objection?

            Liked by 1 person

            • 79Dawg

              Its not “morality” that makes me think kids shouldn’t get paid more. It’s the fact that once you blow the top off what kids can be paid, it’s a complete race to the bottom. Although it doesn’t sound like it bothers you, I am pretty disgusted at the waste (yes, waste!) that the recruiting race has become over the past 20 years – flying around in helicopters, DJ booths in the locker rooms, the naked Magill Society cash grab, etc. – a complete race to the bottom! Blowing the lid off player comp will only accelerate the descent.
              My opinion is that I think its disgusting that the University spends so much time, attention, money, etc. on semi-pro athletics, when what it should be doing is educating young people. Maybe that is the heart of the matter – the professionalization of football and basketball has caused all these colleges to stray so far from their missions, the presidents are now basically GMS of football and basketball teams, and oh yeah just happen to be weighed down by a supposed institution of higher learning…

              Like

  6. Husky Jeans

    I still just have no idea how it would all work. I tend to agree that a college athlete should be able to make money on his name and that it’s absurd to penalize a kid for taking $50 for his autograph. But what door does that open? It would seem to allow huge money to be funneled to a player under the guise of “payment for autographs” or whatever. How is that regulated? Or is it just a free for all open market? I’m not against paying college athletes for their name/likeness, I’ve just never heard it articulated how it would work, or how it would practically impact college athletics. I’ll hang up and listen.

    Like

    • What is there to know about how it would work? As long as the student-athlete pays the taxes that are due, why should anyone else care about it? As long as it doesn’t interfere with the student-athletes academic or athletic commitments, why should the NCAA and its member institutions care?

      Kyler Murray had signed a baseball contract worth millions and could still play college football. Why is that any different from another collegiate athlete having the ability to earn money but by signing autographs or the use of a car by appearing in a commercial?

      Sure, there will be unintended consequences of anything that changes … the bottom line is that it should change.

      Like

    • How does it work for you or me? If somebody wants to pay you and you want to accept it, then you strike a deal.

      What I expect will happen is that schools will decide what they can afford and players will decide what they can accept. And the sun will come up in the east the next day.

      Like

  7. Jared S.

    I LOVE the idea of students being able to cash in on their own name and likeness while in college. Period. It’s really the most rational and fair thing, in principal.

    In principal. The greatest argument against the idea I’ve heard to date has to do with what effect the change would have in PRACTICE.

    And this argument is really the presumption that in PRACTICE it would make it easier for boosters to funnel illegal payments to students. Simply letting students get paid at market prices for their names and likeness is one thing, but creating (additional) nefarious channels to provide them with illegal monies is another.

    But that’s one reason why the NCAA’s stance on this is so infuriating. Because they seem happy to wink-wink-nod-nod at the whole booster-paying-players system and the way it’s worked for decades, but then act all high and mighty when players want to have rights to their own names and likeness, saying it would somehow ruin the amateurism of it all.

    Bleah.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Exactly.

      As long as it’s under the table, the NCAA can pretend everything is holy. Once it’s legal for some third parties to pay college athletes and the system doesn’t fall apart, everyone will see the emperor has no clothes.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. spur21

    Some opinions expressed here are wrong.

    If Swift wants to sell his autograph the school loses nothing.

    Jealousy of teammates – straw man argument.

    Are the guys on the OL jealous because Swift will be a 1st round pick and make millions while they get next to nothing or even less than nothing – I think not.

    Like

    • Derek

      What would you have paid him for his autograph during recruiting?

      What would you have paid for his autograph on the condition it was replicated on a LOI to UGA.

      What would you pay for his autograph in the condition he doesn’t sit out the Notre Dame game?

      See the problem?

      You seem to think we live in a world comprised of honorable people. I think honorable people are the rare exception.

      Like

    • MGW

      I understand it’s beside the point, but you underestimate our OL’s NFL potential. I’d wager at least four of the guys on our OL roster will make more money from their first NFL contract than Swift will. And that’s a conservative estimate.

      Like

    • Tony Barnfart

      Straw man nothing. If, DURING college, the only avenue of monetary value is that value to a third party (not football operations) then you’re absolutely going to have amateur Olineman and pro level paid skill players. No thanks.

      When the organization itself pays the players (NFL), the left tackle at least makes enough money he’s not screaming FUBAR about Tom Brady’s razor commercial he never got. That doesn’t happen in a legit NLI only model in college.

      Do you really think Cade Mays shouldn’t be compensated since he may not be wanted by the local car dealer ? GTFOH.

      Like

      • spur21

        You so missed the point Tony.

        Like

        • Tony Barnfart

          Hardly. I disagree with your point… which also happens to be based on a very false premise (the lineman value analogy). If you want to make Kings out of those with pure marketing ability (not football ability, like the NFL), I simply agree to disagree that nothing bad will come from that.

          I want zero part of a world where jake fromm makes 50k per year and cade mays gets the existing stipend. I want zero part of a world where don leeburn just pays cade mays to go to Georgia. I’m probably OK with the university itself just giving them all 50k per year. None of this (including coaching salaries) was ever intended to be a blood-spilling capitalistic enterprise. Not everything has to be.

          Like

  9. MGW

    Standing in the way of letting kids have endorsements is going to be what ends up forcing them to have to pay salaries. Let them have endorsements, and you get to step back and say, “look, take the education and come on our team or not, but we ain’t paying salaries.”

    People wouldn’t care so much, translated POLITICIANS wouldn’t care so much, about the universities not directly paying athletes beyond an education and small COA if they just let the kids make a little scratch off their names while their name is worth something. Like any other student on scholarship for any non-athletic reason is allowed to do.

    Just allowing the kids to have endorsements DOES NOT make the league which gives them the forum to become famous in the first place suddenly become “professional.”

    Like

    • I think this is exactly why California is doing what it’s doing. They are potentially throwing the NCAA a life line by nudging the NCAA to do the right thing.

      The fact that Mark Emmert and Donald Remy would rather blather on about the sanctity of amateurism than to deal with the problem is going to lead the NCAA to a place it doesn’t want to go.

      Like

  10. whb209

    Dear Senator,
    You made many very important replies to the argument concerning paying players or players receiving something of monetary value. But the statement,
    “Jesus, maybe the people making plantation arguments aren’t crazy.”, really destroyed your intelligent arguments. Calling anyone you disagree with a racist without personally knowing with whom you are making the statement and without explaining to the rest of us that you know the guy and he is truly a racist is the easy, immoral way to try to win a disagreement. In the fifteen or so years I have enjoyed your writing. Going all the way back to the Athens Banner Harold (whatever). I have never read anything you have posted that even sounder like that. I am sorry, but I am disappointed that you would type that. I truly hope I misunderstood your statement.

    Like

    • Sorry, man, you missed my point. I wasn’t name calling there. Nobody’s a racist. Derek was making a rhetorical point that translated into indentured servitude, hence the crack.

      For the record, I think the plantation analogy is strained.

      Like

  11. whb209

    I misunderstood and I am really glad I misunderstood.
    My bad….

    Like

  12. So are they worth what they currently get plus whatever they can make on the side? Better question- will the universities still give them what they currently get? No matter the answer, the only other option a HS football player has is to play another sport that lets them skip college. The NCAA and universities still have the upper hand when it comes to cfb.

    I could see a lot of schools pulling scholarships and any kind of funding. Hell, many are already losing money because of how much they’ve spent on everything that goes into a program. You even have major universities like LSU where their own campus infrastructure is failing.

    What I see happening is it becoming pay to play and an open transfer portal. Good luck with that. I don’t see a legitimate solution where both sides are happy and cfb doesn’t suffer.

    Like