If players were paid, are you as big of fan?

[NUinID]

I said no, but it really depends on how much the payment is going to be. If paying players means giving them 300-400 dollar stipend a month for some spending money, I don't have a problem with that, but if we are talking more into the 20 to 30 thousands of dollars, then yes I have a problem with that.

 

[sd'sker]

it is such a vague question. we would need to know what it did to the game first. would it make the game more or less competitive? would it cause the big 5 to become autonomous from the ncaa? how would that look? in some ways, it may make me more interested. but there are too many variables and possible unintended consequences to really know how to answer such a broad question.

but i doubt it would affect my fandom, looking at what is being proposed.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I agree with this tweet.

Samuel McKewon ‏@swmckewonOWH 2h
There IS disparity between current CFB powers and mid-level teams. But if you pay the kids, the disparity...you don't even wanna know.

If we start paying players, the disparity between the haves and have nots will get much bigger. There will be some programs completely dropped. Many will go even more so into the red. (all but only a few are already in the red).

So, you will have a situation where a program like Iowa State will now have to start paying their players the same stipend that someone like Nebraska or Alabama or Texas is paying. Those three schools will have the money to do that AND keep building fancy new facilities and hiring top coaches. Some place like ISU may not be able to.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s, top programs like Nebraska, OU, Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, USC...etc. were able to draw in the top talent because they committed huge resources to the programs and very few games were on TV. When there was a game, it had these types of teams in it.

NOW.....the playing field is much more level with TV contracts showing almost all games no matter who you play for and programs like ISU has scrounged enough money together to at least appear to be competitive.

Throw in the top programs being able to pay players AND do everything else and all of a sudden you go back to a top heavy league.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

The Big Ten schools are expected to add 15-20 million a year from the new tv deal, PAC and SEC just signed their agreements, the power 5 can afford stipends of some sort, the conferences want to pay the full cost of attendance already which is roughly $2,500 an athlete.

 

[strigori]

I agree with this tweet.

Samuel McKewon ‏@swmckewonOWH 2h
There IS disparity between current CFB powers and mid-level teams. But if you pay the kids, the disparity...you don't even wanna know.

If we start paying players, the disparity between the haves and have nots will get much bigger. There will be some programs completely dropped. Many will go even more so into the red. (all but only a few are already in the red).

So, you will have a situation where a program like Iowa State will now have to start paying their players the same stipend that someone like Nebraska or Alabama or Texas is paying. Those three schools will have the money to do that AND keep building fancy new facilities and hiring top coaches. Some place like ISU may not be able to.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s, top programs like Nebraska, OU, Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, USC...etc. were able to draw in the top talent because they committed huge resources to the programs and very few games were on TV. When there was a game, it had these types of teams in it.

NOW.....the playing field is much more level with TV contracts showing almost all games no matter who you play for and programs like ISU has scrounged enough money together to at least appear to be competitive.

Throw in the top programs being able to pay players AND do everything else and all of a sudden you go back to a top heavy league.

The 'stipend' will have no effect on the power 5. All that money would come from TV contracts. ISU gets a pretty penny from TV contracts and an extra couple grand per athlete won't make any real difference.

The problem is if it is allowed to go past that. If schools are allowed to pay whatever they like, then Texas or Alabama's boosters will simply buy all the best players and all semblance of competitive balance is gone. There never has been, and never will be, real balance between the Power 5 and the rest of the conferences, the current NCAA rules are largely written by the little guys trying to play on an even field, and it is not even close. So we can leave that argument in the dirt.

I have no issue at all with the stipend, I'm in favor of that, but the core of the O'Bannon trial of paying college players in similar fashions as pro-players is the poison I am against. If that is the end result, college athletics as we know it is over. And we will be a worse country because of it.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I agree with this tweet.

Samuel McKewon ‏@swmckewonOWH 2h
There IS disparity between current CFB powers and mid-level teams. But if you pay the kids, the disparity...you don't even wanna know.

If we start paying players, the disparity between the haves and have nots will get much bigger. There will be some programs completely dropped. Many will go even more so into the red. (all but only a few are already in the red).

So, you will have a situation where a program like Iowa State will now have to start paying their players the same stipend that someone like Nebraska or Alabama or Texas is paying. Those three schools will have the money to do that AND keep building fancy new facilities and hiring top coaches. Some place like ISU may not be able to.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s, top programs like Nebraska, OU, Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, USC...etc. were able to draw in the top talent because they committed huge resources to the programs and very few games were on TV. When there was a game, it had these types of teams in it.

NOW.....the playing field is much more level with TV contracts showing almost all games no matter who you play for and programs like ISU has scrounged enough money together to at least appear to be competitive.

Throw in the top programs being able to pay players AND do everything else and all of a sudden you go back to a top heavy league.

The 'stipend' will have no effect on the power 5. All that money would come from TV contracts. ISU gets a pretty penny from TV contracts and an extra couple grand per athlete won't make any real difference.

The problem is if it is allowed to go past that. If schools are allowed to pay whatever they like, then Texas or Alabama's boosters will simply buy all the best players and all semblance of competitive balance is gone. There never has been, and never will be, real balance between the Power 5 and the rest of the conferences, the current NCAA rules are largely written by the little guys trying to play on an even field, and it is not even close. So we can leave that argument in the dirt.

I have no issue at all with the stipend, I'm in favor of that, but the core of the O'Bannon trial of paying college players in similar fashions as pro-players is the poison I am against. If that is the end result, college athletics as we know it is over. And we will be a worse country because of it.

You are correct. The money will come from TV contracts. Right now, ISU is building nice new facilities to compete with programs like Nebraska using that TV money. If they now have to use that to pay players.....where is the new money coming from?

 

[Hunter94]

I put "yes" only because it's possible. I think the more appropriate statement would be that my attitude towards being a fan would change. I probably would have more of an opinion of...."Hey...we are paying you to be here and play football. Perform at your highest level or be gone and we will find someone else." I don't have that attitude towards college players now.

The suggested money for college football players to earn is a mere pittance to what NFL players get. Hypothetically speaking, if a Husker player is getting a few extra grand per month from the school to play here, that wouldn't have much impact on my views of their performance. Compare that to the NFL guy making millions of dollars a year, but, keeps dropping passes. I may be in the minority, but, the two are very different IMHO.

I certainly agree with others who say this won't fix the under-the-table dealing we already have going on. If everybody is getting paid, but, you can get paid a little extra to go to a different place, then the different university still looks more appealing if finances are a big concern.

Overall, paying the players a few extra thousand dollars wouldn't affect my interest in the team or the way I critique them. Unless they're making tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, they're still amateur athletes going to college in my view.

way more than just a student.....student athletes get paid, students don't......now you have created a new privileged class of student.

 

[strigori]

I agree with this tweet.

Samuel McKewon ‏@swmckewonOWH 2h
There IS disparity between current CFB powers and mid-level teams. But if you pay the kids, the disparity...you don't even wanna know.

If we start paying players, the disparity between the haves and have nots will get much bigger. There will be some programs completely dropped. Many will go even more so into the red. (all but only a few are already in the red).

So, you will have a situation where a program like Iowa State will now have to start paying their players the same stipend that someone like Nebraska or Alabama or Texas is paying. Those three schools will have the money to do that AND keep building fancy new facilities and hiring top coaches. Some place like ISU may not be able to.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s, top programs like Nebraska, OU, Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, USC...etc. were able to draw in the top talent because they committed huge resources to the programs and very few games were on TV. When there was a game, it had these types of teams in it.

NOW.....the playing field is much more level with TV contracts showing almost all games no matter who you play for and programs like ISU has scrounged enough money together to at least appear to be competitive.

Throw in the top programs being able to pay players AND do everything else and all of a sudden you go back to a top heavy league.

The 'stipend' will have no effect on the power 5. All that money would come from TV contracts. ISU gets a pretty penny from TV contracts and an extra couple grand per athlete won't make any real difference.

The problem is if it is allowed to go past that. If schools are allowed to pay whatever they like, then Texas or Alabama's boosters will simply buy all the best players and all semblance of competitive balance is gone. There never has been, and never will be, real balance between the Power 5 and the rest of the conferences, the current NCAA rules are largely written by the little guys trying to play on an even field, and it is not even close. So we can leave that argument in the dirt.

I have no issue at all with the stipend, I'm in favor of that, but the core of the O'Bannon trial of paying college players in similar fashions as pro-players is the poison I am against. If that is the end result, college athletics as we know it is over. And we will be a worse country because of it.

You are correct. The money will come from TV contracts. Right now, ISU is building nice new facilities to compete with programs like Nebraska using that TV money. If they now have to use that to pay players.....where is the new money coming from?

I think the payout only amounts to something like $2 million or less, I would have to track down where I read the estimates. Remember we are only talking a couple grand per athlete.

 

[Mavric]

I agree with this tweet.

Samuel McKewon ‏@swmckewonOWH 2h
There IS disparity between current CFB powers and mid-level teams. But if you pay the kids, the disparity...you don't even wanna know.

If we start paying players, the disparity between the haves and have nots will get much bigger. There will be some programs completely dropped. Many will go even more so into the red. (all but only a few are already in the red).

So, you will have a situation where a program like Iowa State will now have to start paying their players the same stipend that someone like Nebraska or Alabama or Texas is paying. Those three schools will have the money to do that AND keep building fancy new facilities and hiring top coaches. Some place like ISU may not be able to.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s, top programs like Nebraska, OU, Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, USC...etc. were able to draw in the top talent because they committed huge resources to the programs and very few games were on TV. When there was a game, it had these types of teams in it.

NOW.....the playing field is much more level with TV contracts showing almost all games no matter who you play for and programs like ISU has scrounged enough money together to at least appear to be competitive.

Throw in the top programs being able to pay players AND do everything else and all of a sudden you go back to a top heavy league.

The 'stipend' will have no effect on the power 5. All that money would come from TV contracts. ISU gets a pretty penny from TV contracts and an extra couple grand per athlete won't make any real difference.

The problem is if it is allowed to go past that. If schools are allowed to pay whatever they like, then Texas or Alabama's boosters will simply buy all the best players and all semblance of competitive balance is gone. There never has been, and never will be, real balance between the Power 5 and the rest of the conferences, the current NCAA rules are largely written by the little guys trying to play on an even field, and it is not even close. So we can leave that argument in the dirt.

I have no issue at all with the stipend, I'm in favor of that, but the core of the O'Bannon trial of paying college players in similar fashions as pro-players is the poison I am against. If that is the end result, college athletics as we know it is over. And we will be a worse country because of it.

You are correct. The money will come from TV contracts. Right now, ISU is building nice new facilities to compete with programs like Nebraska using that TV money. If they now have to use that to pay players.....where is the new money coming from?

I think the payout only amounts to something like $2 million or less, I would have to track down where I read the estimates. Remember we are only talking a couple grand per athlete.

About $1M per year for UNL.

 

[simplekin]

I know this isn't the question, but I'm saying it anyway. A 60000$ education is payment enough. My student loan payments are a b!^@h. Exploited? f'ing please! You don't see big cooperations paying off business degrees. Athletes on any campus are treated like royalty and eat better than a math/science major that might actually make the world a better place to live in. Stipend restructuring? Ya, sure. That's OK. Does the math/science major make as much for the University as a football player? Of course not, but their impact on society sure as hell does.

 

[LukeinNE]

I hate saying "it depends" but...it depends on the nature of the payment.

If paying players means elevating them to some sort of minor league pro status, letting them collect royalties on their likenesses, etc, I'm not interested. The appeal of college football is that it's an amateur's game, played for the love of the sport and school pride (at least there's enough of that to appeal..).

However, I think we should take into consideration that NCAA regulations (not to mention the sheer amount of time being a scholarship athlete demands) unfairly limits the ability of an athlete to capitalize on other earning opportunities. I can tell you as a recent UNL grad....covering tuition, books and room/board still leaves thousands in fees, transportation, etc uncovered. So I don't feel like a small monthly stipend, or some limited compensation for their participation in the sports program would be out of line...so long as it merely serves to make athletes whole relative to their non-athlete peers who can more freely attain part time employment.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I think the payout only amounts to something like $2 million or less, I would have to track down where I read the estimates. Remember we are only talking a couple grand per athlete.

About $1M per year for UNL.

You honestly think the players are going to be happy with a couple thousand per year? Really???

 

[jjamuss]

if players are paid, no doubt there are going to be tax issues... would the NCAA impose rules if players default on paying taxes on their income? Then another issue comes up, if the players are getting paid, shouldn't they be partially responsible for paying for their education? Then, travel... don't pro "paid" players have to pay to travel with their teams for away games... this is a bad idea, no matter what way it is sliced. Either you play for the love of the sport and school...otherwise all universities should just join the NFL and say screw the NCAA.

 

[Hunter94]

if players are paid, no doubt there are going to be tax issues... would the NCAA impose rules if players default on paying taxes on their income? Then another issue comes up, if the players are getting paid, shouldn't they be partially responsible for paying for their education? Then, travel... don't pro "paid" players have to pay to travel with their teams for away games... this is a bad idea, no matter what way it is sliced. Either you play for the love of the sport and school...otherwise all universities should just join the NFL and say screw the NCAA.

i can see it now, Bo has to discipline a couple seniors for tax evasion!

 

[Hooked on Huskers]

Ole Miss coach offers Stringfellow $1000 under the table.

uhh ...... like $1000 times 100. I predict $tringfellow will be equal to Cam Newton and Reggie Bush news, probably next year or two.