NCAA Football '11-'12

[MadImmortalMan]

Well, they've yet to catch the boosters at Auburn for the can't-lose casino either.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Here you go kat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr6oEvOY1Mk

[katmai]

Thanks MBM.

The new qb who beat out Montana's kid.

Biggest question is OL and if they can protect him and open holes for back to back 1,000 rusher in Chris Polk.

[sbr]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6566975

Power brokers discuss paying NCAA athletes

One day after Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said his conference members had discussed the concept of paying student-athletes more than the scholarship money awarded now, several other power brokers in college football weighed in on the topic.

Conference USA commissioner Britton Banowsky said "something has to give on this issue."

"Universities justify spending tens of millions of dollars on coaches' compensation, with a seemingly insatiable appetite for more growth. At the same time, a small fraction of that amount is spent on all scholarships for all student-athletes," Banowsky said. "Unless the student-athletes in the revenue-producing sports get more of the pie, the model will eventually break down. It seems it is only a matter of time."

SEC commissioner Mike Slive said the issue is one that needs to be revisited.

"I have long thought that we should revisit the current limitations on athletic scholarships by expanding to the full cost of attendance," he said. "This is a student-welfare issue that deserves full consideration at both the conference and national level. I look forward to that discussion."

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, ACC commissioner John Swofford and Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said the concept should be further explored. And spokesmen for NCAA president Mark Emmert and SEC commissioner Mike Slive said they are also in favor of a review that could lead to athletes receiving a "full cost of attendance."

Said Beebe: "This is a topic that BCS commissioners discussed at recent meetings and one that we agreed to review with our respective member institutions at spring conference meetings, which I intend to do at the upcoming annual Big 12 meetings."

Said Swofford: "I think it's something that deserves our full consideration and discussion. It would be consistent with a number of other scholarships that are on our campuses across the country."

Said Scott: "I fully support studying the impact of increasing the grant in aid package for student-athletes. We have not had any discussion on earmarking funds for this purpose."

MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher said the issue merits study. But he added, "The first question to answer is -- is this the right thing to do? That is a worthwhile debate. As an association the NCAA strives to differentiate intercollegiate athletics from professional sports and it is important that we continue to maintain the collegiate model."

A spokesman for Emmert said Thursday that Emmert "continues to be interested in discussing options about how to meet student-athletes' needs without paying them salaries."

Emmert has said that closing the gap between monetary awards to merit scholars and student-athletes is worth exploring. On the table could be $2,000 to $5,000 per year per athlete for expenses such as transportation and clothing.

The NCAA spokesman cautioned that while colleges and universities decide on financial-aid levels for student-athletes, for any one conference to implement the "full cost of attendance" plan would require legislative approval from the full NCAA Division I membership.

Swofford added that there are both financial and legal considerations.

"Could it be limited to only revenue-producing sports?" Swofford said. "I'm not sure we would want to do it. And from a legal standpoint, how does it mesh with Title IX? I think we're a ways away from getting there. But it's a student-athlete welfare issue. It's a way to enhance the student-athlete experience and put a dent in some of the financial strains that some athletes have."

Some conferences may be more able to provide the extra funds than others. A spokesman for Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson said Thursday that he did not believe its conference members had discussed the possibility of getting athletes more money.

Joe Schad covers college football for ESPN.

The headline is a bit misleading :shocking:, they are mostly talking about increasing what is covered by a scholarship not necessarily paying the players in cash. 

While it is great to see the people who actually matter address the subject I don't think anything will change anytime soon, mostly because of Title IX issues.

[MadImmortalMan]

I see no reason not to pay them. They are the ones bringing it in. Title 9 could just be revamped so that you can make the female sports allowed to pay their athletes the same percentage of the revenue their sports bring in as they pay the men. lol

[dps]

I see no reason not to pay them. They are the ones bringing it in. Title 9 could just be revamped so that you can make the female sports allowed to pay their athletes the same percentage of the revenue their sports bring in as they pay the men. lol

The vast majority of college athletes, male or female, don't bring in nickel to their schools.

[grumbler]

I see no reason not to pay them. They are the ones bringing it in. Title 9 could just be revamped so that you can make the female sports allowed to pay their athletes the same percentage of the revenue their sports bring in as they pay the men. lol

It would be pretty funny to see even some of the "name" college football teams forced to charge their players to play, too, since the programs lose money. The "haves" would be able to afford all the quality talent.   

[Ed Anger]

More tattoos for Pryor!

[sbr]

I see no reason not to pay them. They are the ones bringing it in. Title 9 could just be revamped so that you can make the female sports allowed to pay their athletes the same percentage of the revenue their sports bring in as they pay the men. lol

It would be pretty funny to see even some of the "name" college football teams forced to charge their players to play, too, since the programs lose money. The "haves" would be able to afford all the quality talent.   

Yep.  The athletic departments at Oregon State and Washington State are so poor right now that they could never afford to pay extra to even the top few players on the football team, much less deal with the Title IX implications of having to pay extra for an equivalent number of women athletes.  The schools would probably have to cut every men's sport except basketball and football (though OSU might trade baseball for basketball :p) in order to afford it.

That said something does need to be done.  These kids are producing billions and billions of dollars of revenue for the schools, coaches, networks, athletic apparel companies and everyone else with a hand in the college sports pie but a lot of them can't afford to go to a movie during the week or go home to visit mom for Xmas without violating NCAA rules.  Not sure what the answer is.  I am glad that the important people are looking at it though.

[Valmy]

Sad news for the Big 12 tonight: Oklahoma Linebacker Austin Box has died from an Oxycodone overdose.

[grumbler]

That said something does need to be done.  These kids are producing billions and billions of dollars of revenue for the schools, coaches, networks, athletic apparel companies and everyone else with a hand in the college sports pie but a lot of them can't afford to go to a movie during the week or go home to visit mom for Xmas without violating NCAA rules.  Not sure what the answer is.  I am glad that the important people are looking at it though.

I agree that something needs to be done, but I admit that anyone that argues that a given player or group of players produces "billions and billions of dollars" makes me suspicious.  One could as easily argue that players split over a trillion dollars worth of educational value, on top of getting to travel and have a chance to play for millions in the pros.

The argument that the players are getting screwed can be countered very simply, really: the fact is that competition for these unpaid positions in extremely intense.  If the situation were so very unfair, this would be untrue.

I think that the salvation of college football probably requires two elements:  the existence of a football equivalent of baseball's minor leagues, so players who have o interest in education (like the entire Oklahoma squad) can still have an entree into pro football without having to pretend to be students; and student-athletes need to receive some kind of compensation for the time they spend practicing and working out.

There is too much money in college football, and that money is ruining the sport.

[CountDeMoney]

Meanwhile, in unrelated news: Ohio State remains fucked.

lulz SUCK ON THAT ED YOU SWEATER VEST MONKEY

[Ed Anger]

So jealous.

[Berkut]

That said something does need to be done. 

I keep hearing people say this, but I never see any actual reason for why it is so obviously true.

Why does "something need to be done"? Is there some kind of crisis out there for student athletes - are they choosing not to play college sports because of the incredible burden having a free ride to school places on them? What is so horrible today compared to the way it has been for decades such that we need to adjust the system?

These kids are producing billions and billions of dollars of revenue for the schools, coaches, networks, athletic apparel companies and everyone else with a hand in the college sports pie

Well, no, not really. The athletic programs are producing that money - the "kids" are a part of it sure, but mostly the money comes from advertisers. And the kids are hardly uncompensated. In fact, they are very, very, VERY well compensated. You know how you can tell?

Because there are a hell of a lot more kids who would kill for an athletic scholarship than there are athletic scholarships available, even at the apparently terrible bad and exploitative terms under which the poor kids have to somehow survive today, what with the free education, room and board, etc., etc.

but a lot of them can't afford to go to a movie during the week

That is simply not true. I knew plenty of athletes while I was in school, and almost universally they had more discretionary income than most other students.

or go home to visit mom for Xmas without violating NCAA rules.  Not sure what the answer is.  I am glad that the important people are looking at it though.

I knew lots of students who could not afford to go home at various times. Should we do something about them as well? What about going home for Thanksgiving? If we paid them enough for XMas, would we then need to make sure they could get home for Thanksgiving as well?

What about Halloween? Mothers day?

I am so tired of hearing about how athletes have such a raw deal, and how universities really should funnel more money to them, and by direct implication AWAY from other students, or non-revenue producing athletes.

[Grey Fox]

The NCAA should probably start by not freaking out everytime a none-school person gives a Student athlete money.