I hate it when Doyel makes me agree with him

I don't think it's an argument for or against.

It's a set of questions that need to be answered, that most people aren't prepared to answer after they finish complaining that players should be paid. Anyone can say players make a lot of money for the school and should be paid; most have no idea what the logistics should be.

If paying them all the same is your solution, I get that. The stars will still get the under-the-table stuff from boosters anyway.

 

Every Title IX problem, and funding problem, would be solved if they adopted the following rule:
Every College Student, whether athlete, scholar, etc., is eligible to market themselves, while a full-time student, to the tune of x dollars per year.
The college would be treating all athletes of all genders the same, hence no Title IX problems. The athletes would have the same rights to market themselves as everyone else, and none of it would come from anyone's student fees, tax dollars, etc.

 

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

No more than Tim Tebow made off the merchandising and the publicity by becoming a first-round draft pick.

If he goes to a Division III school in Utah, nobody hears of him.

It's a circular relationship. School and CBS and merchandising folks made money off him from 2006-2009.

He'll make money because of that exposure for the rest of his life.

Seems pretty fair to me.

 

Yes, the BILLIONS of dollars the networks pay to televise NCAA football and basketball because they know they can turn around and sell advertising for EVEN MORE BILLIONS is clearly a fair trade off for the athletes who are told "there are future earnings in it for you if you do well!"

I understand that people think it would be a logistical nightmare to pay athletes, but that's not a reason to continue blindly supporting a system that is so clearly outdated and corrupt, simply because you enjoy watching minor league football and basketball under the guise of amateurism.

 

Oh, it would get ratings no matter what. Fans would fill the stands at Alabama and Tennessee and Penn State and Nebraska and Michigan and several other top programs, even if they were just coming off an SMU-style death penalty. There is no added value having Peyton Manning as the UT quarterback over having Erik Ainge as the UT quarterback.

My point is, no players are marketing icons upon themselves. It's the association with the university that provides the juice. Oh, and the small matter of universities being centers of education and not centers for enriching jocks.

 

That's the way I saw it.

If there are two good teams, they're bound to have great players. Do you think -- and this is not rhetorical -- that Alabama vs. Florida will get lower ratings than Tide/Razorbacks because the Gators have no one with Mallett's star power?

 

This. But, unfortunately, the NCAA acts a very cheap minor league for professional sports leagues, so they have no desire to change anything.

 

Here's the bottom line: nobody is making college athletes be college athletes. If you think you're getting a raw deal, don't play.

The no jobs requirement is legitimate beef, but there are ways around that. At the college I went to, one bar hired a bunch of football players to be bouncers from April to August. So let's not pretend they get no opportunities to make money.

As for the money they bring to the university? I don't buy it. Tim Tebow was one of the most famous college football players ever. Florida fans LOVED the guy.

Did attendance drop when Tebow's eligibility expire?

 

Does this include D2 and D3 schools?

 

The practice of agents paying players is really just an informal economy means of the NFL and NBA subsidizing college football and basketball. Why not make that practice legal? Kind of a premature IRA for rookies. Your subsidy would be subtracted from your first contract. For players who aren't going to get a first contract (the vast majority), there could be some agreed-upon modest sum. The NFL and NBA have the dough.

 

Conversely, the highest-rated game of the week was Boise State-Oregon State. Yet 99 percent of the country couldn't name one player on either team.

College fans pay attention to the team, not the player, for the most part. As has been said, Florida, Alabama, and others sold out home games long before Tim Tebow and Mark Ingram, and they'll sell them out long after theiy're gone.

Their actual economic impact is minimal.