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

Saw this on Mgoblog, citing a Dennis Dodd article. Figured it deserves its own thread. Given the controversy/tensions and timing, I wouldn't be surprised if we turn this one into multiple pages. 

They gonna lose. Folks inside NCAA thinks it's about to take it on the chin in the latest anti-trust lawsuit that's been filed against them, and this is the big one—the one that seeks injunctive relief. IE: rules out the window.

One Power Five commissioner has already told CBS Sports of the Alston trial: "I think we're going to lose." …
"They're after a total free market," Bevilacqua said of the plaintiffs. "There's a lot of good models out there with pro sports. Half the revenue goes to labor. If you're talking about Power Five, college sports is about the size of the NBA, $8 billion a year. The NBA is paying their players $4 billion out of the $8 billion. These [college] guys are paid a scholarship. At some point, you make a deal and say, 'I can't give you 50 percent but, you know, I'll give you 10 or 15 percent.' That's $1 billion dollars." …
"[The NCAA is] playing the long game and hanging their hat on amateurism," Bevilacqua said. "Each time Nick Saban gets $10 million a year and an athlete gets [only] a scholarship, it further undercuts their argument.
"They're going to get routed. They're going to lose. If I was them, I would have cut a deal [with the plaintiffs] a long time ago."

Dennis Dodd speculates this will lead to a seismic round of realignment as various schools opt out of paying players. Hopefully one of them is Rutgers.

I hope Nebraska is one of them too. I have zero interest in following college football based on an unleashed SEC model (Now with 100% more bribery!) where everybody just competes to buy the best players. 

This is a break that I have been expecting for some time now, as the sport constitutes to devour itself. As such, I'd be just fine with the Southeastern schools and select others going off to do their own thing, and have NU be part of a recommittment to something approximating collegiate amateur values. A beefed-up FCS or whatnot. I follow more D2 football than SEC already anyway.  

yup, the P5s with TV money can afford to pay for football and basketball, but what about the other sports?

If Nebraska is forced to pay players it might shrink the sports offered to men's football and basketball, then Women's basketball, volleyball and a couple others to balance out the football numbers.  Football rosters might shrink.  What about walk-ons, do they get paid?

and what about D2 and all the other colleges out there with little to no money?  Don't those players deserve at least a share?

The main problem is that the players are getting screwed. Too many of them aren't receiving real educations (How's that "Swahili class" at UNC, guys?). And even if they maximize their education, that token payment is often inferior to the revenue they help their schools accumulate.

I'll admit that many of these players don't get screwed:

• The nameless football and basketball players who sit the bench don't have a market value. Not screwed.
• Almost 100% of the non-revenue athletes also have no market value (those teams bring in less revenue than expenditure for a reason). They, also, are Not screwed.
• The all stars who stay healthy and go pro ... can end up with a market value that overwhelms the market value they had in college. Negligibly screwed.
• But the role players who are too small or slow to go Pro but are nevertheless *excellent* at this game we love and fuel our teams ... For many of *them*, this is the most market value they'll EVER be worth. Why do we "Correct that value to zero" so we can take it from them? So that Dave Brandon can hire 30 MBAs to give PPTs about "brand management." Puhlease. These are the ones it's all about. These guys are EPICALLY SCREWED.

And CFB is *nothing* without role players like that. For Michigan, this would be guys like Bryan Mone, Martavious Odoms, Vincent Smith, Tru Wilson, Ben Mason, Sean McKeon, Lawrence Marshall, maybe even Brandon Watson.

It's also a fake argument that these P5 A.D.'s would fold if they had to pay players. Please keep in mind that my preference is to let outsiders (not the university AD) pay the players. But I've seen many studies that argue we could keep these bloated coaching salaries and STILL pay the players if only we shrunk the administrative end of each AD (hiring all of these MBAs who give PPTs about brand management) to their respective levels back in 2002. Free up that money (by eliminating those jobs) and it alone is sufficient to pay the players.

But again, I think a far superior option is to NOT give them a salary but to merely say:

"Oh! Someone wants to give you money? That's super cool. Take it. It's definitely yours. Just be sure to document it for tax purposes. (...) So we're done here, right?"

The main problem is that the players are getting screwed. Too many of them aren't receiving real educations (How's that "Swahili class" at UNC, guys?). And even if they maximize their education, that token payment is often inferior to the revenue they help their schools accumulate.

imo, if they aren't receiving a real education, that's on the player as much or more than anything else. you're getting a free ride, with ridiculous amounts of help in the form of tutors and study help that's not really available to normal students. if you aren't taking advantage of that, and instead taking basket weaving, that's on you.

but i do agree that some players are missing out on the maximum marketability.  which is where this comes in...

I don't think the schools even need to pay the players. Just give them permission to pursue their own market value. If someone wants to pay to put their name and face in a video game? Let them. If someone wants to put them in a commercial? Let them. If someone wants to hand them dollars? Let them.

i like this. i think i'd even be fine with allowing the kids to make a choice. remain an amateur, continue getting same current benefits free. or take their 'talents' to market, but pay for all the extra benefits.
imo, it's best compromise. give kids ability to market themselves and make a killing while in school, if that market is there. but also doesn't defraud the other students of benefits they aren't capable of getting. it's not perfect, but best idea i've seen.

It could be a lot simpler. Once they are open to the free market, have some fraction like half of their market take (video games/commercials/BagmanBenjamins) go to tuition/fees until those are 100% accounted for. After which point, they can keep their income at a "100% - taxes" rate.

This way, no one needs to "guess right" as an 18yo or risk getting stuck with a bill and being worse off.