The NCAA took one small, initial step Thursday toward a future in which schools would be able to directly pay their athletes.
The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors assigned the Division I Council to begin evaluating and fleshing out the details of a proposal introduced last month by NCAA president Charlie Baker.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
They have to do this. Otherwise zero chance congress grants them an antitrust exemption.
At the same time they're investigating FSU for paying their players, even as you know the SEC and B1G are doing it.
Hypocrisy abounds.
Paying the players directly, however, is a step in the right direction.
Are they asking for a Title IX exemption as part of this. Otherwise female athletes are going to be driving around in Ferrari's when they get equal money to spending on Football and Basketball.
They almost have to. Football is it's own thing.
NFL grinning from on top it's pile of money
Well I hope they pull the band aid off quickly. Pay players 7 figures directly to play college sports. Pay them more than every State employee, pay them more than tenured professors. See how well that plays in "middle america/reality". Don't hate the playa, you say? OK fine. let's see
It took them 12 months to get to pay for play after telling us for years that NIL would never lead to it as a reason why we should do that
Remember when the disengenuous, non factual, emotional argument and lies were "these kids can't afford food/movie tickets", "they are slaves" "schools are profiting off their jersey numbers for millions" etc? remember that outcry? all because coaches- same skills (bellichick/Saban) as a linebacker and easily replaceable (Frank Beamer) got paid a lot of money? Remember that dishonest argument? Well it took 5 seconds to "whats a little autograph money" to the shit show that will be 7 figure payments directly to college athletes. Scores of people that work for a living will stop attending these games. Fans will openly boo and criticize these players like never before. Agents will be openly involved, eventually a players union that will demand things like no back to back travel weeks and load management etc. Soon. And look all of that is fine- it will just kill the sport in terms of its bread and butter- regional, loyal, grass roots popularity. TV ratings will drop, attendance- already dropping- will drop more, etc. College football is not the NFL- and that's what makes it so popular. Now you are taking that away. Mark my words
I freely admit that I resemble that remark. I don't mind making annual donations to Tech to support student athletes who are getting an education in return for playing a game. But I am not donating to a NIL to pay players for play. I have little to no interest in professional football masked as College.
If Virginia Tech is paying Kyrone Drones 1.2 million to play QB, why on earth would anyone that works for a living or even doesn't work donate their money to VT football? Why on earth would anyone- beyond filthy rich looking for a tax break and independently wealthy- do that? why?
Just my opinion - I think that having a great football team was a quintessential part of my college experience. I recognize that the money given by boosters and donors 10-20 years ago made my college career more enjoyable. I feel inclined to 'pay it forward', and support athletics so other current and future students can have a similar experience.
Also, selfishly, I want VT to win because it makes me happy. So if I can throw a little bit of money that way, and it could help bring me happiness, then I'm fine with it.
I recognize that most people don't feel this way though.
In the new world, they don't need your money. They have plenty of money, by definition
They're still all asking for money.
Um, we have politicians that raise hundreds of millions of dollars primarily from small dollar donors just to blow it on failed campaigns, private jets, countless campaign staff and...checks notes...legal defense funds. I don't think it's out of the question that a business (Virginia Tech) that has entire departments devoted to fund raising couldn't manage to maybe find some way to supplement their current budgets with raised funds just because it means paying players?
If players are multi million dollar employees, they don't need your money, right?
And if they are multi million dollar employees, then why even provide them with a scholarship when they have plenty of money to pay for it themselves?
Why even pretend like they are there to go to school if they are getting paid? Why make them go to school if they are an employee and not a student?
Where do you think the money is going to come from?
They can figure that out, but I'm very much steering away from a desire to ever give again.
And if fans and alumni giving dries up the well and causes a financial crunch, so be it. I'm tired of helping to prop up an entire industry and getting jack shit in return for it other than an insistence they need more to compete
I agree with you, but the current model still depends on a lot of donor contributions.
I do see a conflict in that model, though. I'm a donor currently, but I see less incentive to give money when it's a professional sport. They may just charge more for tickets.
Because European football, Canadian football, XFL, Arena football, American Flag Football (women's), all of which are not the NFL, are also so popular...
That's exactly my point. College football is popular because its regional, not professional, and the fans have some connection. Pay the players millions, and you have another XFL. Watch.
ok...
Two thoughts:
Thanks for the clarification, it was not clear to me with the vagueness.
The reasons stated for college football popularity are not changed when the players get paid. So, I'm not sure how paying players turns the league away from having regionality and fan connection into a failed upstart league built on gimmicks exemplified by "He Hate Me" jerseys.
In my opinion only, I strongly believe the NFL lite aspect of this will turn off a bunch- a significant amount of college football fans. I certainly could be wrong, but I feel strongly that- true or not- donors identify with kids that go to their school and play for that pride vs. millions.
At this point I advocate for a separate league for semi pro players to pursue their careers in football. Have Virginia Tech, a public land grant research university, field a varsity team from their student body to represent the university. I'm even fine with the university offering a scholarship to those players in exchange for their representation. Have them play other regional universities with similar makeups. I could get behind that idea.
Now that is thinking outside the box
I agree with that opinion in principle, but I don't think it will affect the game long-term. I also think that the majority of turned-off college football fans that will be older (the younger generation doesn't seem to care as much). So, yes, schools that principally rely on old money donors will hurt more than young money donors. And as is always true with fanhood, money will be spent because they are fans. And just like people pay a month's worth of rent to see a Bad Bunny or a T. Swift concert because they are fans, college football fans will pay higher prices (as the market bears) to see their collegiate team.
The thing that rubs me lies in your last sentence - their collegiate team. If we are paying players, essentially becoming a professional league, what ties does that have to a public institution of higher learning? I don't know how to feel about that. I like VT football because the players are student athletes that represent VT. If we're just paying them to play, what ties do they have to the university that I'm a fan of? I guess I'm just a grumpy old man, but I don't watch the NFL or really any professional sports for that exact reason. We will see how it all plays out I guess, and change is inevitable, but I feel we're going down a road that I'm not sure I want to follow.
Feel how you want to feel. Nobody is stopping you from your feelings.
I have no issues or qualms. I like the fact that players that represent my university will be paid their fair market value. Others will not.
And that's fine.
Fair market value... please give us money every year .... lol
if people pay, then they pay. If they don't, then they don't. Whatever floats your boat.
There will be a time when the NIL goes and league becomes structured. Of course, fixing pay like they do in the NFL is also not fair market value. It is in fact a trust to prevent fair market value.
If the NFL isn't fair market value, the players can and should simply refuse to play. Like Cousin Eddie in xmas vacation- he was holding out for his true market value- a management position- and hadn't worked in years. NFL players are free do that, and some like LaVeon Bell thought they had more fair value than they really had. Shock. Players have held out for more money for decades. That seems like fair market to me? If the team wants to pay you, they do, if not - sit your ass on the couch and demand a trade. I don't know how you could have it any more free that that?
Do you agree or disagree there is a cap on what a team can spend on players and how many players a team can sign? That is, by definition, not an open market and thus not fair market value.
Le'veon Bell had a franchise tag placed on him that dictated he had no choice but to accept that payment and could not seek a contract by another team. That, is in fact, the furthest from a fair market value agreement. And to suggest that a market that results in a player sitting out a year and demanding a trade is the most free market is, by it's very definition, NOT free.
The freest market would be any owner can pay any player any amount it wants and to any terms that it wants, and further sign as many players on its team that it wants. Further, any individual could become an owner and start up their own team. If Elon Musk wants to build the Las Vegas X and pay each player a salary of $100M annually, including having 200 total players with the best 20 QBs, and each player agreed to such payment, then that would be the freest market.
He didn't inhale
I thought you're not supposed to inhale cigars....
that is not a cigar
Well cigar paper at least
If the cigar is wrapped in paper, you shouldn't be smoking it.
In addition, the cap is defined by the revenue the teams make as a whole. So teams that bring in more oney can't pay more. And player are guaranteed a percentage of the revenue.
The freest market doesn't work for organized competitive sports.
yes, of course. It would yield an uncompetitive balance. And frankly, undesirable to watch.
When the market is exclusive and small, it's not really a free market.
I have no issues or qualms with paying players either. I just don't feel that my university needs to be involved in professional sports.
Why can't college football be both hyper-regional and professional?
Oh you mean the NFL? yeah that seems to work. I don't think we need two of them though. Could be wrong
So, what happens to walk-ons? Especially in sports with limited scholarships and a quite a few starting individuals that are walk-ons
paid minimum wage?
I want to poopoo this right off the bat, it's great for the kids of course but it's just another way that this isn't the sport I grew up watching. I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel some alienation similar to that expressed by several above. And I don't have the money to just pour into the warchest whenever they say they need more.
But I'm a VT fan, and my opinion of these developments will be inextricably tied to how VT does in this new landscape.
My gut says not well. But I've been wrong before. We just managed to keep the majority of the core of our most successful team in 4 years, and from what I understand, that was down to NIL. So who knows.