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

But let's put that aside for a second. Your last paragraph (about letting CFB players collect income for their signatures, for advertisements, for their likeness, etc.) is all that I'm pushing for. I didn't expect you to be accepting of it. Am I understanding you correctly?
.

sure, I'm for it.  I really don't think many kids are gonna make a bunch of money.  There will be a few and it will be unfair to their teammates and other athletes on campus.
So, the star QB is making some good coin.  Is he allowed to share it with the O-line and WRs?

The importance of a major is powerful. So much that Bachelor's degree holders in some majors can earn more than those with a graduate degree. We found that the highest-paid majors were among the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, and the lowest earning majors were with early childhood education and human services and community organization. The full report includes a more detailed analysis of the popularity of majors and educational and labor market outcomes by major.

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/#full-report

The sad thing is that somebody(s) got paid to do this study. Seriously. That's STUPID.

There are ways to do this that are very fair and maintain a "spirit" of amateurism, like allowing players to be paid, but have that money put in trust and allow universities to operate on behalf of students and help manage their bank accounts.  But colleges have been motivated by greed and racism instead of doing right by their players.  I love college football, but it is sickening to think how many people have been used and discarded, their money taken, under the guise of amateurism.

the biggest problem i see is that when it comes (and it is coming, i can't see anyway this doesn't end up with some type of payment system) i think we're going to go full bore open payment/no scholarship. the pendulum will swing fully to the other side, as is tradition in the overtly reactionary society we live in now. which will be disastrous, imo. especially if we're doing it under the guise of fair play and increased parity.

i'm afraid it will unlevel the field even more (i know, har har, that funny coming from a bama fan).

second, imo it will hurt, not help, most players. i mean the vast majority. even for bama, most players aren't going to have the name recognition to make a decent living while in school if they have to pay for tuition, room/board, food, clothing, tutors, etc. the big names, (tua, hurts, jeudy, etc.) will be fine. better than fine. even the middle ground players will get some endorsements, but i doubt it'll be that much. maybe a few hundred to do a commercial or 2. another hundred to do an auto session. but i have serious doubt's they can make enough to cover their expenses without the benefits of their scholarship. and then there's the lower end players who won't even get a shot at endorsements most time. and that's at bama, arguably the most crazed fanbase out there. and don't make the mistake thinking the bama alumni don't have the means to support players. we might not have the  biggest endowment or the most wealthy fanbase, but we've got our fair share of heavy hitters with more than enough means to pay those guys (and have in the past, lol)

that's why i like the choice model. i haven't hashed it out fully, so i'm sure it has some flaws i haven't thought of, maybe even major ones (probably). but so far, it's the best suggestion with a decent middle ground.

fwiw, i think there is already a provision to allow schools to help take care of emergency situations regarding families. there is a process they have to follow, but i know there is a way for coaches/boosters to help players and their families now, if they file the proper paper work. we had an issue a couple years back with an assistant giving a kid a couple hundred under this rule, but there was some kind of problem with the paperwork (timeliness or something, i'll see if i can find it).

That's great! I had no idea. A first web search came up empty. Any idea of a good buzzword (some kind of lawyery NCAA jargon) to help find it?

That's great! I had no idea. A first web search came up empty. Any idea of a good buzzword (some kind of lawyery NCAA jargon) to help find it?

did a quick google and best i can find is the ncaa special assistance fund. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tem/genrel/auto_pdf/ncaa-spec-asst-qual.pdf
the only thing that gives me pause is i thought the situation i referred to above involved the family being in need, not really the student. but i could be mis-remembering. but the link above doesn't specify family needs (doesn't completely rule it out either, but it reads like it's not really included unless the student athlete is directly effected.)

How about if all the schools get rid of fluff majors? You know, the ones that only those professors care about? I mean, if you can't gain employment with a certain degree, why offer it?

i'm not sure doing away with them is the right call. maybe being more realistic and limiting the numbers enrolled. look at the ones mentioned above (early childhood education and human services and community organization), they're all necessary for a healthy society, and do provide an opportunity for gainful employment, just not for as many as are enrolled. same for history, writing (non-journalists) and art degrees (my wife is artist, self employed, does ok).
i can't think of many degrees that don't have a potential for gainful employment, though some (many?) are limited opportunities.
as a society, we need to be honest with ourselves, and stop telling ourselves everyone should go to college. no, they shouldn't. but we'd also be doing ourselves a disservice to completely remove those majors. we need to start limiting our student populations overall, and specifically within those specialized, but not in demand, fields.