Study: D-I football, men's hoops players worth at least six figures per year

Anti-Trust Laws apply whether you hve a "choice" to play or not. See the Flood case among others. Just because you have a choice to use or not use does not mean anti-trust does not apply.

 

You've got a horrible definition of small. Most MAC schools are in the teens and a couple are over 20,000. They are small schools in terms of sports. I know, I went to one. Yes the BCS has some small schools in its conferences but the average enrollment is close to 30,000 if you want to add them up. They are on average 150-160 percent bigger than the "small schools" like Boise State, Ohio, Central Michigan, Tulsa ... etc.

 

I just used the schools that you used in the previous post, that was all. And the star players aren't going to forgo the BCS schools for a MAC school anyways.

 

Right. I was the first to make that point. If paid no athlete with an opportunity for one of 20-25 who can pay is going to choose to go to none paying schools. Like I said before they will stockpile talent. Doesn't matter if they already have three at a top prospects position, they will want the money and will be confident they can start.

So 20-25 schools will get every top player instead of the 50-60 they are spread around currently. Sure the top programs get more than others but they don't get them all.

 

Looking at my post now, I might not have been clear. Yeah, star athletes aren't going to Ball State instead of USC. But that doesn't mean they're all going to go to the top 20-25 schools. There's 60+ schools in the BCS, plus the other D-I mid-majors.

You get quarterbacks who transfer after a year or two if they don't end up starting, sometimes to D-IAA schools. Athletes are going to go where they can get playing time. The Fab Fives and the mid-2000s Florida teams in basketball are rare.

Oh, and the Old Ball Coach agrees with me:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6967006/steve-spurrier-south-carolina-gamecocks-backs-player-value-report

""Of course, I think it's true," he said. "I mean, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, athletes got full scholarships. Television income was what, maybe $50,000? And now everybody's getting 14, 15 million bucks and they're still getting a scholarship."

 

Universities do not need to pay the athletes. The athletes need to be able to make money off their names. It's insane that they cannot get endorsements, sell their autographs or a variety of different things that wouldn't cost the University a dime.

 

But they get to take a boatload of courses designed for "non-majors" and free dorm food. I believe UM is still making $$$ off the Fab Five jersets but those guys get zip.

 

This I agree with.

 

This is what I've said on here many times. Let them earn whatever they can outside of school.

Cam Newton would get a million dollars in endorsements. Jimmer can make money giving speeches about his religion. The offensive linemen would get free hamburgers at the local stand. The women's swim team can put out a calendar. The school still offers equal opportunity with the same scholarship system. That gets around Title IX.

If coaches are allowed to get money from sneaker companies and speeches, why aren't the players? If you want amateur athletics, then keep them strictly amateur. Once money is involved, it's a professional business.

 

Who said anybody wanted "amateur athletics?"

I can see amateur athletics any time I want. The guys playing pickup ball down at the schoolyard.