Pay them!!

It really depends on the school. If a Florida kid goes to FSU or UF they are earning a whopping 15k a year between tuition, food, housing, etc.

So these kids could either work a nice cushy minimum wage job at McDonalds. Get to spend tons of time studying for their major so they can end up with great grades and get a good job after graduating.

OR they can build up their CTE for 4 years and have much less time to dedicate to their studies

How many of these kids would even be accepted at FSU or UF if they weren’t football players? I’d wager few, even at those two schools.

Edit: replaced ‘most’ with ‘few’. Hence all my old rejection letters.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
It's funny to read the comments from a fan base that's consistently blaming everything on the boogeyman, excuse me the "bag man" and then turn around and want to see universities paying players.

Once you get past about 10 to 15 programs, most others struggle to keep their entire athletic department, let alone just the football team, in the black. In essence, you're going to make the same schools you all complain about constantly even more enriched and powerful because they're the only ones that could afford to pay 85 players outright.
 
Advertisement
As a tax payer I do not want to be funding gator and noles. Now Miami as a private U should be allowed to perk their players ;)
 
It's funny to read the comments from a fan base that's consistently blaming everything on the boogeyman, excuse me the "bag man" and then turn around and want to see universities paying players.

Once you get past about 10 to 15 programs, most others struggle to keep their entire athletic department, let alone just the football team, in the black. In essence, you're going to make the same schools you all complain about constantly even more enriched and powerful because they're the only ones that could afford to pay 85 players outright.
If football players are able to use their likeness, we win. Miami is one of the biggest markets in America.
 
Lol they do huh? Try visiting LA or NY sometime and ask your wanna be actress that's your server at dinner about that. I would bet about 3% at best probably get paid well.
Wanna be actresses? I wouldn’t put a Div 1 college athlete on the same level as a Wanna be actress. And no one would watch a team full of kacy rodgers, aj highsmiths or robert knowles.
 
Advertisement
Can I ask why? I don't know the poster you're referring to, so nothing against him. But I see coaches and ex-players giving their opinions on this all of the time, and I always wonder why anyone cares what they think.

They're good at football. Let them talk about football. This isn't about football, this is about markets. Let's hear from a labor economist, or someone who has experience privatizing government-dominated industries.

Not to say we shouldn't hear the players' perspective on this, but their views on how/why this would/wouldn't work on a marco level are not very relevant.

I have a degree in Finance and a PhD in economics, and I’m telling you right now that paying players is next to impossible without destroying the college football system. The college football system and all the money it generates is dependent on a certain level of parity. It doesn’t need to be absolute parity, but parity is necessary. Without it, attendance and viewership will decline dramatically, which will result in significantly less revenues. That would quickly devolve into a vicious downward spiral and all that money everybody thinks these kids should be paid would dry up. We are already seeing the impacts of less than ideal parity. Attendance is down significantly across all of college football and ratings have taken a hit as a result of Bama/Clemson fatigue. Don’t believe parity is important? Look at the NFL. They have salary caps for a reason. Same with pretty much every other professional sport.

If not done correctly, with the proper controls, paying players would turn into a Wild Wild West of buying recruits at a level far above anything anybody has seen before. That would result in a very small number of teams being able to compete at the highest level. Any fans of teams outside that small group are simply going to tune out and take their money elsewhere. Unfortunately, it would be impossible to implement with the necessary checks and balances. The only way to do it would be to implement salary caps and a draft, but drafting players at the college level just doesn’t make sense.

Beyond that, people greatly overestimate the value these players generate. Somebody already said it in this thread, but fans don’t tune in to watch the names on the back of the jersey, they tune in to watch the name or logo on the front of it. The school brands are driving the overwhelming majority of the money in the system. You could take the top 500 recruits every year and put them in a minor league, and that minor league would make no money at all while college football would continue to rake in the cash at pretty much the same levels we currently see today.

Additionally, people greatly undervalue the compensation these kids already receive. Their entire benefits package is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per year when you add it all up. These schools aren’t profiting off football. Almost every single school spends as much on athletics as it earns, and where does that spending go? Largely, it gets reinvested for the benefit of the athletes in the form of better housing, better facilities, better food, better coaching, etc.

Finally, the NCAA and the schools are not exploiting these kids. For most of these kids, they are giving them opportunities they would not get if not for football. Many of these kids could not get into these D1 schools academically. If anyone is exploiting these kids, it’s the NFL that is using the NCAA as a free farm system. The NFL simply could not survive without college football. As such, it should be the NFL that steps up to find a way to set aside value for these kids without destroying parity.
 
Wanna be actresses? I wouldn’t put a Div 1 college athlete on the same level as a Wanna be actress. And no one would watch a team full of kacy rodgers, aj highsmiths or robert knowles.
Did you clarify, or did you say entertainers get paid VERY well? Didn't think so
 
why should the football players be forced to pay for rich kids to play tennis and lacrosse because they can't fill up a stadium or get enough revenue through TV endorsements to fund there own sport? that's not how the rest of America works Microsoft doesn't have to share it's profits with the less fortunate software companies to help them stay in business...........guarantee if the tables turn the lacrosse and tennis families would have a major issues with their rich kids profits being given to the inner city kids.


let's keep it real.

Under rated post
 
Advertisement
My view being there and done it from mid level middle class student.regular students have more time on they're schedule to work part time to earn money to for entertainment,getting food etc.where as a student -athletes you don't have that time to do it.I'd say give student -athletes a debit card with around $300.00 a month on it .what they don't use each month let it roll over adding up until they graduate.as they graduate give the unspent amount to them.
 
I have a degree in Finance and a PhD in economics, and I’m telling you right now that paying players is next to impossible without destroying the college football system. The college football system and all the money it generates is dependent on a certain level of parity. It doesn’t need to be absolute parity, but parity is necessary. Without it, attendance and viewership will decline dramatically, which will result in significantly less revenues. That would quickly devolve into a vicious downward spiral and all that money everybody thinks these kids should be paid would dry up. We are already seeing the impacts of less than ideal parity. Attendance is down significantly across all of college football and ratings have taken a hit as a result of Bama/Clemson fatigue. Don’t believe parity is important? Look at the NFL. They have salary caps for a reason. Same with pretty much every other professional sport.

If not done correctly, with the proper controls, paying players would turn into a Wild Wild West of buying recruits at a level far above anything anybody has seen before. That would result in a very small number of teams being able to compete at the highest level. Any fans of teams outside that small group are simply going to tune out and take their money elsewhere. Unfortunately, it would be impossible to implement with the necessary checks and balances. The only way to do it would be to implement salary caps and a draft, but drafting players at the college level just doesn’t make sense.

Beyond that, people greatly overestimate the value these players generate. Somebody already said it in this thread, but fans don’t tune in to watch the names on the back of the jersey, they tune in to watch the name or logo on the front of it. The school brands are driving the overwhelming majority of the money in the system. You could take the top 500 recruits every year and put them in a minor league, and that minor league would make no money at all while college football would continue to rake in the cash at pretty much the same levels we currently see today.

Additionally, people greatly undervalue the compensation these kids already receive. Their entire benefits package is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per year when you add it all up. These schools aren’t profiting off football. Almost every single school spends as much on athletics as it earns, and where does that spending go? Largely, it gets reinvested for the benefit of the athletes in the form of better housing, better facilities, better food, better coaching, etc.

Finally, the NCAA and the schools are not exploiting these kids. For most of these kids, they are giving them opportunities they would not get if not for football. Many of these kids could not get into these D1 schools academically. If anyone is exploiting these kids, it’s the NFL that is using the NCAA as a free farm system. The NFL simply could not survive without college football. As such, it should be the NFL that steps up to find a way to set aside value for these kids without destroying parity.

You make a lot of good points, but I think your argument is fundamentally flawed - there is no, and there has never been, parity in college football. Hundreds/thousands of schools play college football, and only 10-20 have a realistic chance of winning a title. The revenue that those top 10-20 programs earn are relatively similar, so it's unlikely that 1-2 of them will separate themselves- at least not any more than has already happened. Lastly, there is a lot of in-game randomness in football (bad bounces, bad calls, injuries, etc.). Throw in unbalanced scheduling, and it's hard to imagine there will be less parity than there is now - which, again, is extremely low.

Said differently, there is a minimum possible level of parity, due to the factors described above. We're at that minimum, and so by definition can't go any lower.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Finally, the NCAA and the schools are not exploiting these kids. For most of these kids, they are giving them opportunities they would not get if not for football. Many of these kids could not get into these D1 schools academically. If anyone is exploiting these kids, it’s the NFL that is using the NCAA as a free farm system. The NFL simply could not survive without college football. As such, it should be the NFL that steps up to find a way to set aside value for these kids without destroying parity.
Making billions off of someone and not giving them a percentage is exploiting.
 
You make a lot of good points, but I think your argument is fundamentally flawed - there is no, and there has never been, parity in college football. Hundreds/thousands of schools play college football, and only 10-20 have a realistic chance of winning a title. The revenue that those top 10-20 programs earn are relatively similar, so it's unlikely that 1-2 of them will separate themselves- at least not any more than has already happened. Lastly, there is a lot of in-game randomness in football (bad bounces, bad calls, injuries, etc.). Throw in unbalanced scheduling, and it's hard to imagine there will be less parity than there is now - which, again, is extremely low.

Said differently, there is a minimum possible level of parity, due to the factors described above. We're at that minimum, and so by definition can't go any lower.

That’s incorrect. In a big way. Right now, there isn’t enough parity but that’s because the NCAA is allowing programs like Bama and Clemson to do whatever they want. A crack down on that would restore parity to a sustainable level. There isn’t as much parity today as there could be, but it could get a lot worse.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top