Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

So my question is, does this matter?

It's always been a low-parity sport, and it seems the majority of fans don't care that much for parity. Your new money programs like Boise and Oregon get pilloried on the regular. I suppose the big downside is you might have a more direct Oregon. Is that bad?

The main hope is the market sorts it out. People get tired of paying third-string receivers. Life would be weird for a bit, but it's weird with $9 million coaches, $2 million assistants and slides and waterfalls in palatial new buildings. (That slide is the best piece of marketing in the sport, BTW)

Yup.  It might not matter.  It might not make any difference at all to the competitive value of the sport.  And the end result is some transfer of wealth, either great or small, from a rich booster, to a college kid.  Completely legal and above board.  If that's all that comes of it, then I'd call that a net positive.

But I think it's the unintended consequences, and especially the unknowable ones, that worry folks.  At least that's what I worry about.

I'm really glad we talk about a lot of other things on this board away from football. Because that last thing is not going to be around much longer to talk about. It's been on its way down anyway, for a number of reasons, including health concerns.

This will be the nail in the coffin for the game as we know it.

unless the large majority of the NCAA's institutions band together and shut this down

simply ban the CA schools from competition

the TV networks would void contracts

no more money

I think the schools are coming around to the idea as well.  They don't want to pay the players directly and get their hands dirty with liability, tax implications, etc. (and more importantly, give up any of that multi billion dollar pie).  So allowing the athletes to profit from their own likeness is the simplest, easiest, "cleanest" way to do it, at least from their hands-off perspective.

And if a majority of the big schools want it, then it'll happen.  If the NCAA fights it, the member institutions will simply revoke that power and place it somewhere else.  The member institutions get to make the decisions, not the NCAA administration.

And if a majority of the big schools want it, then it'll happen.  If the NCAA fights it, the member institutions will simply revoke that power and place it somewhere else.  The member institutions get to make the decisions, not the NCAA administration.

Probably, so Texas, OU, USC, Michigan, Bama, OSU and ND get to keep playing football. Maybe the next tier too (schools like mine and such). The NCAA will no longer exist.

I think the schools will want to protect the multi billion dollar pie

it's a slippery slope that slides to the unknown

guys holding big money don't like the unknown because they aren't assured the money won't go away

you know, like the end of the sport

I would guess the networks are also worried about the unknown and how it will affect their revenue

I just don't think a state like Texas can take a chance that all of the schools in California will receive the ability to pay players, while they cannot.  At that point the Big Money Donors at EVERY Texas school, not just UT, shift from fighting pay-for-play, to allowing it in whatever the most limited form possible.  Which is effectively what trading on your own likeness is.   So those BMD's that previously had the legislators in their pockets fighting alongside the NCAA for the purity of "amateurism" will now take those pocketed politicians and turn them loose on "Fair Pay for Play" or whatever you want to call it.

Texas isn't going to let UCLA and USC and Berkelery and Stanford and Fresno State and all of the others gain an enormous recruiting advantage, it's just not going to happen.

Like badge said, the horse is out of the barn on this one.

That's part of the point, programs with big donors will start "donating" to car dealerships (etc.) to promise to pay recruits 

Kansas won't have much of that to offer.

It would make the rich richer.  Of course, the rich already dominate the 5 star players anyway, and most of the 4s.  

The reason to go to Alabama is not as much to make a few bucks selling cars, but to spend three years and then play on Sunday for millions.

I'm looking at the 247 2019 recruiting rankings.  Only a very few got a 5 star who is ranked below 15.  They are concentrated in the top ten, Ohio State is at 14th but because they only signed 17, 3 five stars.  The top two teams got 8 five stars.

Below about 30th, teams get between 0 and 4 four star rated players.  Below 50th, there are almost no 4 stars.

Will this new thing change any of that very much?  Maybe at an Oklahoma State or Oregon, a Big Donor can "buy" more players, but they will be competing with Bama and OSU and UGA et al.

I know some players may choose Bama over LSU because they got a better offer, but will they choose Ole Miss over Bama?

Yeah, I think these are the right questions to ask.  How many high-impact recruits would be affected, and would it really make much difference to the overall balance?  

I'm inclined to say it won't matter much.  But on the flipside, would Auburn have won the national championship a few years back, without buying off Cam Newton and his handlers?  Where would Cam have gone if there were no competing offers, or if all competing offers were roughly the same?